For decades, military officers, government officials, bankers, law enforcement agents, newscasters, scholars, and other credible witnesses have corroborated the alternative media

This post is intended to be viewer-friendly; it consists entirely of quote banners and short video clips; the clips, on average, are under 5 minutes, and none are as long as 15.

America Is an Oligarchy

BBC News, April 17, 2014:

(The BBC post is here and the Princeton study here.)

There are many ways to subvert the “will of the people,” but electronic voting has made it easier than ever. Programmer Clinton Eugene Curtis testifies before the Ohio state legislature:

Even former President Jimmy Carter says the U.S. is now an oligarchy:

The Federal Reserve

Secret creation of Federal Reserve by private bankers in 1910

The Fed is the handmaiden of private banking interests:

It’s not just the Fed; the central banking hierarchy is international in scope:

War Is a Racket 

(It is well worth reading Maj. General Butler’s book War Is a Racket, freely available online.)

The sinking of the Lusitania, primary event that led the U.S. into World War I

For a vetting of the Lusitania incident, see this author’s post.

Pearl Harbor

An attack that was provoked:

The attack was foreknown in Washington:

Gen. Walter C. Short, U.S. Army commander at Pearl Harbor, testifies:

Admiral Husband Kimmel, Pacific Fleet commander at Pearl Harbor, testifies:

For a vetting of the Pearl Harbor tragedy, see this author’s post.

The 1964 “Tonkin Gulf Incident” that served as a pretext for escalating the Vietnam War: 

 Israel‘s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty

Captain Boston’s full declaration may be read here and my post on the Liberty is here. 

Reagan bombs Libya in 1986 based on a Mossad deception:

9/11: NOT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT TOLD US.

Dr. Bob Bowman:

Could the hijackers have hit their targets as claimed? Let’s turn to Pilots for 9//11 Truth:

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret.):

A longer interview with General Stubblebine may be viewed here.

Pentagon eyewitness April Gallup:

Ted Gunderson of the FBI:

A list (with elaboration and quotations) of 220 senior military, intelligence, law enforcement, and government officials who question the 9/11 Commission Report can be found here.

The Middle East wars: pre-planned

General Wesley Clarke, former supreme commander of NATO:

In an interview four years before the invasion of Iraq, Scott Ritter, chief UN weapons inspector in that nation, affirmed Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction:

The oligarchy is global; watch the prime ministers of Australia and Canada in 2003 giving identical speeches on the need for war on Iraq:

Israeli/Zionist/AIPAC Influence on U.S. Government 

Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Congresswoman representing Georgia for six terms:

Jim Trafficant, U.S. Congressman for Ohio for 17 years until he was imprisoned on trumped-up charges:

The Shah of Iran in 1976; the interview said to have resulted in his downfall:

Most terrorist attacks are false flags staged by intelligence services

Former CIA case officer Robert David Steele:

The full Steele interview may be found here.

Former Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul discusses report that the U.S. created ISIS in order to destabilize the Syrian government. (At 13 minutes, this is one of our longest clips, but I consider it worth hearing for its many insights into U.S. policy in the Middle East):

Why we don’t hear more about these matters: media control 

Fox reporters for The Investigators describe how they lost their jobs for trying to tell the truth about Monsanto:

Former CNN reporter Amber Lyon on censorship in the corporate media:

CIA Director William Colby reluctantly admits that his agency influences the news media during the 1975 Senate Intelligence hearing (the Church Committee):

Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s largest newspapers, reveals how the CIA still controls foreign journalists:

Even President George W. Bush conceded that government-produced videos are aired on TV as “news”:

Former CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson on how corporate interests manipulate information, including the Internet and Wikipedia:

The goal is World Government:

Aaron Russo was a Hollywood producer-director (Trading Places, The Rose), six of whose projects received Oscar nominations. Russo ran for governor of Nevada in 1998, finishing second in the Republican primary. Before his death in 2007, he gave an interview detailing his relationship with Nick Rockefeller, from whom he learned many details about the “New World Order”: the plan to chip people, the CFR, foreknowledge of 9/11, the fake war on terror, and much more.

The full Russo interview is here.

In case you’re wondering what the Council on Foreign Relations is, it’s the bridge by which the U.S. oligarchy supplies cabinet-level personnel to Washington. Since its founding in 1921, the CFR has produced 19 Secretaries of State, 21 Treasury Secretaries, 23 Defense Secretaries, and 16 CIA Directors. It is the subject of my 1988 book The Shadows of Power.

The New World Order is Luciferian  

Dutch banker Ronald Bernard, for years an elite currency manipulator, has confirmed from his own experience that a small oligarchy runs the world; and that megabanks are immersed in wars, terrorism, and the activities of intelligence services. Perhaps most importantly, he reveals that those at the top are Luciferians. His full interview can be viewed here, but I recommend starting with this encapsulation:

This post has necessarily used bits of information that are disjointed and that do not cohesively provide the complete picture.  For an organized, comprehensive overview of the international oligarchy, its history and its plan for a satanic world government, I recommend reading my book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior.

(Note: For vaccine whistle-blowers, see my recent post Vaccination Visuals. )

Yes, Virginia, there really were hijackers on the 9/11 planes—but not the ones we were told

This post is not intended to be taken dogmatically; I do not insist that its conclusions are correct; they are just presented for consideration.

In this post, though they have already been much discussed and debated within alternative media, I’ll address three major components of the 9/11 controversy: (1) what brought down the Twin Towers; (2) what initially struck the Towers; and (3) what happened to the original planes and passengers.

However, there is a valid complaint often voiced in the Truth Movement, which runs like this: “I really don’t care how 9/11 was done and I’m tired of all the infighting about this. What really matters is, we know the government’s story is bogus, so we need to focus on identifying the criminals and bringing them to justice.”

I consider this a very legitimate grievance. But I don’t think we can separate “who” from “how.” When a prosecutor presents his case in a courtroom, he doesn’t name a crime’s perpetrator without describing how the crime was carried out. Nor does he present the jury with the crime’s details and methodology without identifying the suspect(s).

So let’s tackle both how and who, and we’ll start with “who,” because doing so clarifies a lot of “how.”

The Who

What’s wrong with the following math equations?

3 + 3 = 68
98 – 7 = 2
58 X 7 = 35

What’s wrong, of course, are the 8s. Take away the 8s and each equation reads correctly.

I believe that, when it comes to resolving the mystery of how 9/11 was executed, the Truth Movement suffers from a major “8” (in addition to any individual doses of cognitive dissonance that have been deliberately sprinkled in). I believe that “8” is:

9/11 was an inside job.

I believe a far more correct rendering is:

9/11 was an outside job, done by Israeli operatives, but with consent and cooperation at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

To understand this, it may be helpful to compare Israel’s vicious 1967 attack on the USS Liberty. It is well understood that President Lyndon B. Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara fully cooperated, by twice recalling U.S. fighters that the Sixth Fleet had sent to rescue the Liberty, and later by ordering a cover-up. However, at the physical operational level, the attack was carried out by Israelis, not by Americans in an “inside job.”

OK, but what’s the evidence that Israel was behind 9/11? By far the best summary I’ve seen is the WikiSpooks post 9-11/Israel Did It. (Incidentally, as many of my regular readers know, I’m half-Jewish on my father’s side, so knee-jerk charges against me of “anti-Semitism” can be stuffed in the appropriate place.)

A sampling of highlights:

• The five notorious “dancing Israelis” who filmed the Twin Towers’ destruction, after which they celebrated, high-fiving each other and even photographing themselves flicking a lighter against the backdrop of the smoking ruins. They were arrested after driving off in a van whose license number was reported by a neighbor. Later it was revealed that at least two of them were agents of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service.

• Michael Chertoff was put in charge of the Justice Department’s investigation of 9/11, despite his mother having been a Mossad agent, and Chertoff himself reportedly holding dual citizenship in Israel. Chertoff released hundreds of arrested Israelis back to Israel, including the notorious “dancing Israelis.”

• Quoting Wikispooks: “The company that ran airport security at all three airports where the alleged hijackings originated was Huntsleigh USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of ICTS International and owned by Ezra Harel and Menachem Atzmon —both Israeli Jews.”

• ”Lucky Larry” Silverstein, who became the new owner of the World Trade Center less than two months before the attacks, and earned an insurance payout of nearly $5 billion on his $124 million investment (after missing the disaster due to a fortuitous doctor’s appointment on the morning of 9/11) was such good friends with Benjamin Netanyahu that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported in November 2001: “Every Sunday afternoon, New York time, Netanyahu would call Silverstein. It made no difference what the subject was or where Netanyahu was, he would always call.”¹

• Supported by funds from Israel’s government, Zim Israel Navigational was the world’s ninth largest shipping firm. It had its American headquarters in the World Trade Center—until about two weeks before 9/11. Zim then moved its offices and employees to a new building, claiming rent was cheaper there.

• The 9/11 Commission’s executive director was Philip Zelikow, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen. Why should anyone with sworn loyalty to a foreign nation be entrusted with such a position?

• On 9/11, the chairman of George W. Bush’s Defense Policy Board was Richard Perle, whom the National Security Agency had caught spying on the U.S. for Israel in 1970.

• On 9/11, employees of the Israeli instant messaging company Odigo received messages two hours before the attack, warning them not to be in the World Trade Center.

• Ptech, a software firm linked to Israeli intelligence, had provided vital software being used by the FAA, FBI, and U.S. armed forces on 9/11.

• On 9/11, seated in row 9 of Flight 11 (directly behind “Mohammed Atta”) was Danny Lewin, a former captain in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force), and who served in the Sayeret Matkal, which specializes in counter-terrorism, hostage rescue, and assassination. Lewin could bench-press 315 pounds and “was trained to kill terrorists with a pen or a credit card, or just his bare hands.”² In 2000, he had himself photographed in front of panels resembling the Twin Towers, wearing a Swatch Watch whose model name was “Hijacker.” The hour, minute and second hands were all on the “11” and the date was set to the 11th, even though the picture was taken on the 10th.

The odds against all four time indicators being on “11” are more than 20,000 to 1. Times the odds of the watch model being named “Hijacker”: unfathomable.

That’s just a small sampling of the evidence that Israel did 9/11. When police detectives try to solve a murder, among the first questions asked is: Who benefitted from the crime? In 9/11’s case, Middle Eastern Muslims did not benefit—the U.S. has been making war on them for 16 years. America did not benefit—we’re suffering the casualties and trillions in costs from the wars, as well as degradation of our liberties in the name of security. The only beneficiary was Israel—her enemies have been neutralized one by one, courtesy America, in fulfillment of the Greater Israel plan, with Iran reputedly next on the hit list.

That’s the main who; let’s talk about the how.

(1) How were the Twin Towers destroyed?

Within alternative media are three major schools of thought about this. One is nano-thermite, largely advocated by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Another is Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs), whose foremost advocate is Dr. Judy Wood. The third is nuclear devices, which I and a few others support. Let me be clear: I have friends in all three camps, and differing opinions on this matter don’t impede our friendships.

I’ve laid out why I believe the Twin Towers’ collapse was a nuclear event in an extensive blog post. To minimize redundancy, I’ll shrink this to a “top ten” list:

TOP TEN REASONS THE WTC COLLAPSE WAS A NUCLEAR EVENT

1. Thyroid cancer occurs at above-average frequency in 9/11 first responders more than any other type of cancer (see full post for citations). This is a signature of nuclear bombs; they emit iodine-131, which collects in the thyroid, often causing cancer. (This is why some people keep potassium iodide tablets on hand—to protect their thyroid glands in case of a nuclear attack.)

2. World Trade Center dust samples examined by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) found Uranium, Strontium, Barium, Thorium, and other products of nuclear fission, in high concentrations and correlations that only an atomic blast could explain. Although the Survey avoided calling attention to the significance, William Tahil vetted it in his pioneering 2006 book Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Centre. (The phrase “ground zero,” incidentally, had only been applied to nuclear detonation sites prior to 9/11.)

3. There was molten steel underneath the rubble of the World Trade Center, whose fires kept burning for over three months. Extraordinary heat is yet another signature of a nuclear bomb.

(Note: I’m aware that molten steel was seen at a corner of the South Tower before its collapse; I don’t doubt that pre-planted explosives were in the Towers, probably including the incendiary thermite, but I don’t believe these explosives were what destroyed the WTC. To clarify, each Tower had six basement levels, and the thesis of my full post—which I had excellent assistance with—is that each Tower was destroyed by a suitcase nuke positioned at the lowest point in either building: the services pits beneath elevator 50. This was the only elevator that ran the full length of either Tower, and the only elevator whose service pits were carved into the bedrock beneath the World Trade Center. This location would make the ideal “launching pad” for a nuke, as the bedrock would contain the sideways and downward force of a nuclear explosion, which would follow the path of least resistance up through the shaft. See the full post for diagrams.)

4. The Towers did not simply “fall,” they exploded, throwing chunks of steel weighing multiple tons hundreds of feet. Check, for example, this piece that embedded itself in the American Express Building across the street:

No exotic weapons are needed to explain this. A nuclear bomb is the most powerful explosive known.

5. The Towers’ inner contents were vaporized: no furniture, filing cabinets (except one), computers, or toilets survived. All turned into dust. Even the buildings’ concrete became dust, instead of falling as chunks of debris. The vaporization, of course, included the people inside (whole bodies that were found belonged to people who jumped before the Towers disintegrated). Not only is a nuclear bomb the most powerful explosive known, its blast—unlike conventional explosives—endures for several seconds, enabling it to inflict considerably more damage.

6. At the times of the two Tower “collapses,” seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, recorded enormous off-the-chart spikes consistent with huge explosions.

This shot of the South Tower exploding caught a huge singular upward burst of energy.

7. A nuclear blast explains the damage to the rest of the World Trade Center. Buildings 5 and 7 suffered enormous fires, and building 6 was cratered out. These phenomena could not have begun before the Towers’ destruction; otherwise, videos of the burning Towers would have shown additional smoke plumes, and cameras would have panned to the blazes.

Nuclear blasts originating at the lowest levels of the Twin Towers may provide the answer. Underground the World Trade Center was interconnected by pipes, not only for sewage, but a 3-foot-wide storm water drainage system.

Any building’s place at greatest risk for flooding is its lowest point. For the Twin Towers, this would have been Elevator 50’s service pits. From here flood water would be pumped through pipes to the 36-inch storm drain. Thus atomic blasts here would not only follow the path of least resistance through Elevator 50’s shaft, but through the 36-inch storm water drain, traveling through the underground pipes and shooting up through buildings 5, 6 and 7, igniting them. Falling debris could not have caused the raging internal fires seen in the smaller buildings; edifices outside the World Trade Center (American Express Building, Winter Garden Atrium) were heavily impacted by debris, but they did not catch fire. THEY WERE NOT CONNECTED TO THE WTC’S UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

Please see my full post for elaboration and documentation of the above point.

8. On 9/11, New Yorkers fled two terrifying dust clouds that engulfed the area surrounding the WTC. Anyone who watches videos of nuclear bombs detonating will see that they create sprawling ground-level clouds. Although building demolitions also routinely make dust clouds, the 9/11 ones seemed to have had a life of their own.

(A noteworthy observation in this film is that as people flee the cloud behind them, smoke is flowing up from the sewer drains in front of them. Since the World Trade Center’s underground pipes ultimately emptied into New York City’s sewer, this is further evidence of the secondary effects of an underground nuke. Continuous flow of nuclear smoke from the sewers might account for the “toasted cars” later noticed along the side streets.)

9. CIA asset Susan Lindauer (second cousin to Andrew Card, George W. Bush’s Chief of Staff) has stated that U.S. intelligence received advance warnings of the 9/11 attacks (her whistle-blowing eventually led to her being sent to a federal prison). According to Lindauer, the advance warning the CIA received included the destruction of the World Trade Center by a “mini-nuke.”³

10. In his 1995 book Fighting Terrorism, Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu predicted:

Such groups nullify the need to have air power or intercontinental missiles as delivery systems for an Islamic nuclear payload. They will be the delivery system. In the worst of such scenarios, the consequences could be not a car bomb but a nuclear bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center.⁴ [emphasis his]

Two days after 9/11, NBC’s Tom Brokaw interviewed Netanyahu, who said:

Even though Netanyahu revised “nuclear” to “conventional,” one must ask how he knew the bomb’s specific yield. In fact, how did Bibi know it was a bomb at all? Supposedly plane crashes had brought the Towers down.

A common objection to the nuclear hypothesis: “Where are the post-9/11 Geiger counter readings showing lots of radiation in New York City?” The answer: not all nuclear bombs discharge large amounts of radiation. Most use a combination of nuclear fission and fusion; if the fission is high, fallout (radiation) will be high; but if fission is low compared to fusion, fallout will be low. During the Cold War, the United States began developing tactical nuclear weapons, also known as “battlefield nukes.” Obviously, in a battlefield situation, a low-radiation weapon is desired; otherwise it could harm one’s own army.

What types of nuclear warheads does Israel stockpile? Although this is an ironclad state secret, it should be obvious that Israel would emphasize “battlefield” nukes. In war with its neighbors, it wouldn’t want radiation blowback to Tel Aviv. A modern suitcase nuke is small enough to carry in a backpack.

(2) What struck the Towers?

When I first heard of the “no planes” theory (no planes hit the Twin Towers) my reaction was something like: “Of all the stupid %@!&*! There must have been a million people in New York City who saw that plane hit the South Tower in real time. Anyone who believes in ‘no planes’ is embracing cognitive dissonance that is designed to discredit the whole 9/11 Movement!”

However, as I examined facts, my position began evolving. For one thing, there was little evidence of Flight 93 at the Shanksville crash site:

Unlike other airliner crash sites, which are littered with wreckage and bodes, the ground swallowed up Flight 93. Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said: “This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise.”⁵

Likewise, at the Pentagon, there was stunning lack of evidence for a plane:

Pentagon witness April Gallup:

Supposedly Flight 77 pulled out of a dive (a maneuver impossible for a commercial jetliner) and flew perfectly level to the ground (not even scuffing it) and smashed into the Pentagon’s first floor, its aluminum fuselage ramming through three of the reinforced concrete rings:

Major General Albert Stubblebine:

Given the doubts about planes crashing at Shanksville and the Pentagon, might the 9/11 perpetrators have used the same modus operandi at the Twin Towers? Was it possible that no real planes hit them?

There are, in fact, two substantial reasons why Flights 11 and 175 could not have been what struck the World Trace Center.

First, the object that hit the South Tower was traveling 590 miles per hour,⁶ whereas a Boeing 767’s maximum operating speed at ground level is about 420 mph.⁷ Now, it is absolutely true that at high altitude, a 767 can cruise above 500 mph (due to the thinner atmosphere) and that if it suddenly dove, it could maintain such velocity. The problem: when a Boeing reaches ground altitude, it becomes uncontrollable at these speeds. Pilots for 9/11 Truth explains it in this 6-minute video:

See also the detailed affidavit by veteran pilot John Lear, son of Bill Lear, inventor of the Lear Jet.

9/11’s success required perfect execution. Both objects hitting the Twin Towers scored bull’s-eyes. But let’s say whoever was piloting Flight 175 slightly veered, and only clipped the South Tower with his left wing. What would have happened? The plane would have crashed elsewhere in New York City; but more importantly, the Tower could not have been destroyed. Regardless of what demolition theory one ascribes to—nano-thermite, directed energy, or nukes—the 9/11 perpetrators would not have dared collapse the Tower on the pretext that a wing grazed it. The plan required perfection; misses couldn’t be tolerated. But no pilots, however good, could guarantee bull’s-eyes at the given speeds.

Second is the impossible physics displayed in news footage of Flight 175 vanishing into the South Tower, its fragile aluminum wings and tail slicing through the 14-inch-thick steel columns “like a hot knife through butter.” For those new to 9/11 Truth, there are innumerable posts and videos about this; I’ll embed a slo-mo clip here:

We’re watching an impossibility. A jetliner’s aluminum wings and tail would have broken off on hitting the Tower’s steel columns. Here’s footage of a real airliner crash; the wings are sliced off by wooden telephone poles:

Jetliner noses are so fragile they’ve been crushed by bird impacts. Here’s a screen shot from the May 7, 2015 Telegraph:

Many more examples of bird-damaged airliner noses can be found online. Regardless of speed, such noses could have not have performed as “battering rams” on 9/11; they would have crumpled upon impacting the steel columns.

Many believe all the images of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower were clever CGIs (computer-generated images) created after the fact. However, Richard Hall has produced a compelling video refuting that. He made a computerized scale model of New York City; he then took the 26 highest-quality videos of 175 hitting the Tower. In all 26 videos, filmed from many angles, the object followed the precise same trajectory. This indicates a real object hit the Tower. I won’t embed his 35-minute video, but click here if you wish to view.

What, then, struck the Towers? We are pretty much reduced to two options. Hall concludes it was a missile shrouded in a plane’s image.

1. The Missile Hypothesis

A cruise missile would resolve all the problems a plane presents: speed, accuracy and penetration. A missile can be guided with precision to a target; is not disturbed by the “G-forces” that stress a winged plane; and a missile’s nose is hardened for penetration.

Many will rightly object that the plane footage was corroborated by countless New Yorkers who witnessed a plane strike the South Tower. However, there’s an explanation far more credible than it may at first sound: holographic cloaking. The Air Force developed such technology years ago, and fortunately people made screen shots of the web page before it was taken down. It demonstrates that the Air Force was capable of creating a 3-dimensional image of a plane, in broad daylight, so realistic that it could deceive enemy antiaircraft gunners.

Quoting the Air Force’s own description:

The holographic projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.

Capabilities:

Precision projection of 3-D visual images into a selected area

Supports PSYOP and strategic deception management

Provides deception and cloaking against optical sensors

But could the American military have been persuaded to launch missiles against American targets? While it’s possible, given the darkness of the “military-industrial complex,” the Israeli military would have had no hesitation. Remember their attack on the USS Liberty.

But would Israel have had such technology? The declassified 1987 Defense Department paper Critical Technology Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations noted that the Israeli firm El-Op was, back then, already developing holographic technology with “stealth applications.”

How could Israel have launched cruise missiles against us? Israel began replacing her 1970s-era submarine fleet with new Dolphin-class submarines, capable of firing cruise missiles, in 1999.⁸ In 2000, the U.S. Navy observed these subs test-firing missiles in the Indian Ocean.⁹

The plane-shaped damage on the sides of the burning towers would likely be from charges planted by the notorious Israeli art students before 9/11; the missile could have set these off.

2. The Drone Hypothesis

Last summer, during his book tour, I had the pleasure of meeting Chris Bollyn, one of the best 9/11 researchers. After Chris completed his PowerPoint presentation, he took audience questions, and I asked his opinion of the “no planes” theory. Chris said that on images of Flight 175’s underside, there appears to be a “pod” or missile; its nose lights up when it meets the building. (This is much discussed in the 9/11 movement. Such a missile could not have been attached to Flight 175 without being noticed by Logan Airport maintenance crews.)

Above: the “pod”

Chris asked: if it was only a hologram, why would they bother including a missile’s image? His conclusion: missile-carrying drones struck the Towers.

The drone hypothesis is consistent with Operation Northwoods, a 1962 Pentagon plan to stage a “false flag” in order to justify invading Cuba. It involved swapping drones mid-air for a passenger planes. If, in fact, 9/11 was an updated version of Operation Northwoods, it might explain why Flights 11 and 175 came so close to each other (“nearly colliding”) over Stewart Air Force Base.

This path-crossing might have marked the ideal time to launch drones, which could have followed the planes tightly to avoid radar detection.

Drones could also resolve the (relatively minor) aircraft debris photographed near the Pentagon and World Trade Center after 9/11.

However, the drone hypothesis presents its own problems. Wouldn’t a 767-sized drone run into the same issue of high-speed controllability as a 767 passenger plane? And could a drone’s wings and tail slice through 14-inch steel any more easily than a jetliner’s?

Perhaps the answer to Chris’s question—If it was only a hologram, why would they bother including an image of a missile?—is that the missile was real, but the plane was the image cloaking it.

I’m open to both possibilities—missiles or drones. I’ll note that drones somewhat reduce Israel’s degree of involvement, since an Israeli sub could launch cruise missiles, but not drones.

Incidentally, the Northeast Air Defense Sector did receive a report from the FAA’s Boston Center, saying Flight 11 had not hit the North Tower but was still airborne and heading south. You can hear it, as recorded live, in the documentary Intercepted by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (I’ve embedded the relevant 1-minute clip):

Although some believe this message was an error, or even a phantom call to distract fighters from Flight 77 (then approaching Washington), it confirms there was official belief on 9/11 that Flight 11 was not what hit the Towers.

(3) What happened to the original planes and passengers?

Not only were the alleged 9/11 hijackers incompetent pilots, but several later turned up alive.
As a result, we in the Truth Movement has been running some scenarios like this:
THEREFORE there were no hijackers on the planes at all;
THEREFORE the planes were electronically hijacked;
THEREFORE the calls from the planes were faked, probably by passengers and crew who were hired as crisis actors;
THEREFORE the planes probably landed at military bases; the crisis actors were paid handsomely and given new identities;
OR the calls were not actually from the passengers themselves, but CIA agents digitally posing as passengers, using voice print technology, etc.

However, although I have spent much time seriously exploring these possibilities, and still entertain some questions regarding Flight 11, I now believe these are mostly rabbit holes. I started looking at 9/11 from the viewpoint: “If this was an Israeli operation, how would they execute it?” Here’s my conclusion.

I believe there were hijackers on 9/11. But they weren’t Arabs. They were elite Israeli elite special ops, most probably Danny Lewin’s unit Sayeret Matkal, using Arab IDs (except for Lewin). Not even Mossad would be entrusted with an operation of such military caliber. Darker men who could pass for Arabs would have been selected for the mission.

Unlike Hani Hanjour and the rest of the Arab patsies, who couldn’t control little Cessnas at 65 nauts at flight-training schools, these special ops would have had months of training on Boeing 757s and 767s, plenty of which were in El Al’s (Israel’s) fleet:

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/El-Al-Israel-Airlines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al

They would have practiced cockpit invasion countless times, probably using a Boeing in an Israeli hangar, using real people play-acting as the “American pilots and crews” who would have to be overwhelmed. “Good work; that took nine seconds; let’s see if we can get it down to eight.”

How would Israeli commandos invade the cockpit so quickly? Mary Ellen Moore, co-producer of the movie I scripted, ShadowRing, was a career flight attendant. She tells me tells me cockpit doors were standardly locked by 2001 to guard against hijacking. The attendants did keep a cockpit key in a secret location in case of emergency. I recently asked Mary Ellen if the key-lock set was unique for each Boeing cockpit, or was it universal? She wasn’t sure, so she asked a pilot friend, who told her that, up until 9/11, it was universal.

I think, then, we can answer how the hijackers breached the cockpits. They had keys, or copies of keys, provided by El-Al. As we have said, everything on 9/11 had to go like clockwork and be virtually guaranteed. They certainly weren’t going to struggle trying to kick in a locked cockpit door, or (as some in mainstream media suggested) holding a box-cutter to a flight attendant’s throat, saying something like, “Open the door or the broad here gets it!” What if the pilots said “No!”? Furthermore, in hijacking situations, all pilots were trained to immediately type in a 4-digit code that alerted air traffic control. None of the pilots on any of the airliners did that. I don’t think they had time.

We know through the calls from AA 11 that two hijackers had been in Row 2 of First Class. (Having people seated up front was presumably standard on all these operations.) They probably waited until the flight attendants were distracted (or more likely, they created a distraction; Danny Lewin back in Row 9: “Oh, Miss, I feel sick!”) Once inside the cockpit, they would have killed the pilots instantly. (Remember, Lewin reportedly “was trained to kill terrorists with a pen or a credit card, or just his bare hands”) and this presumably held true for the rest of the Sayeret Matkal. There is no evidence that there were struggles in the cockpits of Flights 11, 175 or 77. The hijackers would not have tried to “cut their throats with box-cutters,” which would have splattered the controls with blood. The pilots would have been killed (or rendered unconscious) instantly with the best device Sayeret Matkal had, such as an Epipen-style injector.

The hijackers would have removed the dead pilots from their seats, and taken control of the planes, fully familiar with Boeings from hundreds of hours of practice with El-Al jets. One hijacker would likely have been designated the expert pilot, with one or two others capable of backing him up.

I don’t think the passenger calls were faked. I think they wanted those calls made to establish the narrative that hijackings were under way. Here’s an amazing sentence from the September 21, 2001 London Telegraph: “Accounts from the other doomed planes indicate that the hijackers encouraged people to call their families and tell them what was happening.”¹⁰ Say what? What evil hijackers would encourage people to call their families?

This would also explain why the hijackers weren’t patrolling the aisles. They wanted passengers feeling safe enough to start picking up those air phones and calling in order to establish the “Muslim hijacking” narrative.

I want to add something here about cell phones. Some calls came from cell phones instead of air phones, and we have been told this was not possible in the existing 2001 technology.

However, my flight attendant friend Mary Ellen Moore reports that in late 1998, she and a pilot were flying, as passengers, at high altitude over Nebraska. The pilot opened his ATT Flip Phone and called his wife. After chatting for a while, he handed the phone to Mary Ellen, who also spoke with his wife, until a flight attendant came past and scolded them.

Mary Ellen tells me that things are different today; her smart phone shuts off at altitudes of a couple thousand feet. But she believes we are underrating the connectivity of cell phones years ago, which was rarely tested, since their use was forbidden on passengers flights.

I’ll quote The New York Times, which is of course a mainstream source, but this was less than two weeks after 9/11, before there was any Truth Movement to rebut:

According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.

”The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight,” said Marvin Sirbu, professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. ”An excess of caution prevents us from doing so, of course, because we are so worried about the safety of air travel.”¹¹ [emphasis added]

In any event, while many 9/11 cell phone calls undoubtedly didn’t connect, it appears from the record that some did. These, along with the air phone calls, gave the hijackers sufficient “narrative.”

This narrative had been progressively established in the days leading up to 9/11:

In Germany, Mohammed Atta had been a shy architectural student; according to his family, he was timid around girls and hated to fly. But a very different Atta appeared in America. U.S. journalist Daniel Hopsicker, in his book Welcome to Terrorland, cited testimony that “Atta,” in Florida, was a party animal who loved to drink, snort cocaine, and listen to rock ‘n’ roll. According to eyewitnesses, on the Friday before 9/11, Atta and two other alleged hijackers went to Shukum’s Oyster Bar in Hollywood, Florida, where they drank heavily, played video games and cursed. They argued with the manager over their bill, which Atta paid with a $100 bill, saying, “Of course I can pay the bill. I’m an airline pilot.”¹²

On Sept. 14, 2001, CBS News reported:

Three men spewed anti-American sentiments in a bar and talked of impending bloodshed the night before the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, a Daytona Beach strip club manager interviewed by the FBI said Thursday.

“They were talking about what a bad place America is. They said ‘Wait ‘til tomorrow. America is going to see bloodshed,’” said John Kap, manager of the Pink Pony and Red Eyed Jack’s Sports Bar. . . .

In Daytona Beach, Kap said he told FBI investigators the men in his bar spent $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks, paying with credit cards. Kap said he gave the FBI credit card receipts, photocopied driver’s licenses, a business card left by one man and a copy of the Quran—the sacred book of Islam—that was left at the bar.¹³

We were consistently told that Atta and his fellow hijackers were Islamic fundamentalists, motivated to die for their faith. Yet their lifestyle completely contradicted this thesis. What devout Muslim brings his Koran to a strip club? What operatives on a secret mission call attention to themselves by loudly arguing over bills and leaving behind their business cards? These facts do not fit the official story—they do, however, fit someone planting a trail of misleading evidence.

That trail went right up to the morning up 9/11; a car attributed to the hijackers was found at Boston’s Logan Airport. Inside: a Koran and a flight training manual. What were investigators to conclude from these clues?

“A Koran. Hmmm . . . These guys must have been Muslims!”

“A flight training manual . . . Aha! Flight training school!”

“Now, a Koran with a flight training manual . . . Eureka! These were Muslims at a flight training school!”

Like the unburned hijacker passport later found outside the World Trade Center, Atta’s luggage all too conveniently didn’t make it onto Flight 11. If was from this luggage that the FBI so quickly learned the “identities” of the 19 hijackers. (Of course, 9/11 Truthers have always asked why Atta would bother bringing luggage for a trip on which he planned to commit suicide.)

But I think we’re ending the play at Act One if we stop there, and insist no hijackers ever boarded the aircraft, and that no hijackings occurred. Israeli operatives would have boarded using the same fake/stolen Arab IDs found in Atta’s luggage. Carrying out the hijacking itself, prompting numerous calls from flight attendants and passengers, would have been the culmination that all these planted clues led up to.

A Disservice

I think some of us in the Truth Movement have done a disservice to the passengers and crews on these flights by turning victims of the Israelis into perpetrators. (It’s kind of like saying the sailors on the USS Liberty conspired in the attack on themselves.) The “Inside Job” paradigm has led some to say the 9/11 passengers faked the phone calls—or even that the people never existed.

Shortly after 9/11, at the Winchester, Mass., church I was attending, during the post-service coffee I struck up a conversation with a lady who turned out to be a flight attendant. She told me how she’d lost one of her best friends on one of the 9/11 flights.

On Flight 175 was Garnet “Ace” Baily, a professional hockey scout. “Ace” had played for the Boston Bruins; I can still remember him coming off the bench in Game 1 of the 1972 Stanley Cup Finals, scoring a goal to break a 5-5 tie and win it for Boston. “Ace” Bailey attempted four phone calls to his wife from Flight 175. No one has seen him since 9/11. Yes, “Ace” was a real person. And I think any serious researcher will acknowledge that the same holds true for the other passengers and crew members.

This segues to the next aberration: that the crews and passengers were real, but served as crisis actors, collaborating with intelligence services to make fake phone calls describing a non-existent hijacking. It is sometimes presumed that such were handsomely paid, assigned new identities, and moved to exotic locations to live out the rest of their days.

But this doesn’t withstand scrutiny either. No one gets a million bucks and a new identity just for making a 30-second phone call to their home—and most on those planes didn’t make calls at all.

Furthermore, what if some had remorse after seeing images of the Twin Towers collapse and said: “Screw their money! I didn’t know I was part of this!”? Could 9/11’s architects risk some supposedly-dead flight attendant being “resurrected,” returning to their home town and family, and being interviewed by the local newspaper? The whole plot would have collapsed. No, everyone on 9/11 had to die—except the hijackers.

So where did the passengers and planes go?

If Israeli special ops flew the Boeings, but didn’t crash them into the buildings, where did they take them? I don’t think it was “American military bases.” Not for an Israeli operation. That would open a Pandora’s Box: how to dispose of the bodies and planes, and the risk of witnesses.

There was only one place to take them: out into the Atlantic for a rendezvous with an Israeli ship, very probably that missile-firing sub. That’s where the planes were headed anyway, if we presume they flew past their targets, be it the WTC or Pentagon—the nearby Atlantic.

Some may ask, “But why weren’t they tracked out there by the FAA and NORAD?” My answer would be: if they went to military bases, why didn’t the FAA and NORAD track them there? Both agencies experienced much confusion on 9/11 due to all the ongoing drills, to say nothing of the Israeli-linked software running their computers. And as we’ve seen, the FAA did still track Flight 11 south after it allegedly struck the World Trade Center.

The passengers and crews had to be immediately silenced after the “crashes.” This would almost certainly be the time when they died. How? Not with bullets or explosives, not on an airborne jet. Only one solution would have killed the passengers while keeping the Israeli hijackers alive: a lethal gas.

We know that on both Flight 11¹⁴ and Flight 93, the hijackers claimed to have a bomb which they displayed (on Flight 93, Todd Beamer told his wife the “bomb” was strapped to a hijacker’s waist belt.¹⁵) In a call to his father, Peter Hanson on Flight 175 also reported of the hijackers: “They said they have a bomb.”¹⁶ So it appears that a standard plan was being followed. However, I don’t believe these were really bombs (which would not have served the hijackers’ interests), nor do I believe they were merely props. I suggest they were gas canisters awaiting use.

I propose this scenario: once the “crash” occurs (World Trade Center, Pentagon), the hijacker carrying the “bomb” (gas canister) goes to the cockpit and opens the door. He activates the canister like a grenade, hurls it into the cabin, then enters the cockpit, locking the door behind him. Who knows what this gas might have been; it must have been fast-acting. Cyanide gas, for example, can render victims unconscious within seconds before killing them, and in a pressurized cabin, the gas would quickly impact everyone.

Meantime, the hijackers would have been sealed safe inside the cockpits, wearing their oxygen masks conveniently provided by United and American. My guess is they made water landings near the surfaced sub (or perhaps some other Israeli vessel). They would have rehearsed such landings in their El-Al practice jet(s). The sub would pick them up with a small craft, after the hijackers popped open a cockpit window, and departed wearing their life preservers—again, nicely provided by United and American. In the meantime, each airliner would sink to the bottom of the ocean: perfect mass tombs—for just like the Maine, the Lusitania, and (the intended fate of) the Liberty, the sea bottom is the ideal place to conceal a false-flag crime.

Dick Cheney served as commander-in-chief that day (Bush having been consigned to do something his own speed—reading the book The Pet Goat at an elementary school). In a role paralleling Lyndon Baines Johnson during Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty, Cheney may have created a “safe space” for the Israeli rendezvous so that no U.S. fighter jets would intrude and observe. Air Force veteran Field McConnell, who appears a lot on alt media shows, says 11, 175 and 77 were all destroyed in an ocean sector called Whiskey 386, a military training zone 60 miles off the Virginia coast, but he says that 93 had to be destroyed over land.¹⁷ Although McConnell and I have differing outlooks on 9/11, we are very close on this particular.

Here’s a clip from the 1965 James Bond movie Thunderball, which was about the theft of two nuclear bombs. The theft occurs by hijacking a plane; the crew are killed with a gas. The hijacker then lands the plane in the ocean; he makes a rendezvous with a ship; the plane itself sinks in the ocean. Of course, I put little stock in Hollywood, but it’s interesting that the clip embodies several elements similar to what I’ve just described:

Lest anyone suggest it, this article was not “inspired” by Thunderball. But art often mimics reality. Strangely, Thunderball was the only Bond film to get remade, in 1983, as Never Say Never Again, with Sean Connery summoned out of his long “Bond retirement.” In the new version, Spectre’s nuclear scheme was called “Allah’s Tears,” a name befitting what the Middle East has experienced. The remake appeared 18 years after the original and 18 years before 9/11.

What happened to Flight 93?

Flight 93 departed Newark more than 40 minutes late. I suspect that most analysts are correct in conjecturing that its intended target was the White House. A dual attack on the Twin Towers, followed by a dual attack on the Pentagon and White House, would have been ideal combinations to ramp up Americans for war.

Flight 93 was evidently shot down, not merely plunged by the pilots into the smoking Shanksville crater. There was a widely scattered debris field; one engine was found more than 600 yards from the infamous hole.¹⁸

I’ve clipped some of this collected original news footage indicating Flight 93 was shot down:

Cheney acknowledges giving the order:

However, if Flight 93 was downed, I do not believe it was for the reason commonly given (save the White House). I now believe, based on the collective phone calls, that there really was a “let’s roll” attempt to recover the cockpit, but with one difference: they were not retaking it from Muslim terrorists, but from Israeli special ops. Indications are that the passengers overwhelmed the terrorist guarding the cockpit and had begun breaching it. Remember, the flight attendants had a key of their own.

(Note: one reason I believe the 9/11 planes were physically—not electronically— hijacked, is Flight 93’s behavior. When the passengers revolted, the plane began left-right, up-down motions to knock them off their feet. This sounds much more like a live pilot at the controls than a remote system.)

Let’s conjecture what possible scenario might have unfolded had 93 not been destroyed: the cockpit is retaken; the hijackers are subdued. One of the passengers, Donald Greene, was a licensed pilot. Let’s say Greene and the flight attendants, with coaching from air traffic controllers, were able to make a rough but successful landing.

Now what happens? The hijackers are arrested. Michael Chertoff may have succeeded in sending the “dancing Israelis” home, but no way could he have released the hijackers themselves. And once it was proven they were Israelis, not Muslims, 9/11’s entire outcome would have changed. There would have been no long succession of U.S. wars against Middle Eastern nations. Israel’s status with the U.S., including its billions of dollars in annual assistance from American taxpayers, would have been completely jeopardized.

Once it became apparent that 93 was at risk for a successful passenger revolt, Cheney ordered it shot down—not to protect the White House, but to ensure 9/11’s success. He may even shot it down after consulting Netanyahu, who would have told him to obliterate the plane. After all, the loss of four special ops was a small price to pay compared to the all the gains Israel would reap from 9/11. Undoubtedly, the Sayeret Matkal members who partook in 9/11 had been forewarned that, if something went wrong that day, their lives might be at risk.

The infamous Shanksville “hole” may have been from the discarded missile or drone that had been intended to attack the White House, the real plane wreckage being widely scattered.

The F-16 pilot(s) who shot down 93 would have been told to keep silent in the interest of national security. And Cheney would have known that, if the shoot-down ever became publicly exposed, he had the best of excuses: “Alas, it was a hard choice, but I did it for America.”

I would never call 9/11 a “simple” operation. But on a relative scale, I believe it was simpler than we thought—especially when we understand it was, essentially, not an American “inside job” but an Israeli “outside job”: (1) two Israeli suitcase nukes in the basements of the Twin Towers; (2) explosives planted by the “Israeli art students” at the level of the “airplane strikes”; (3) either drones or missiles hitting all targets; the latter launched from one or perhaps even two Israeli Dolphin-class submarines; (4) real hijackings, executed by elite Israeli special forces, who successfully sunk the planes at sea, with one exception—the botched-up Flight 93, which had to be shot down. Had the operatives on 93 played their cards right, they would have stayed in their seats and done nothing, for the damage to the World Trade Center and Pentagon was already enough to send America down the path of endless wars for Israel.

Always remember: It was not “dancing FBI agents” or “dancing Navy Seals” or “dancing flight attendants” who were caught high-fiving each other, photographing themselves, and celebrating as thousands of Americans died in agony at the World Trade Center.

NOTES

1. Sara Leibovich-Dar, “Up in Smoke,” Haaretz, November 21, 2001, http://www.haaretz.com/up-in-smoke-1.75334.
2. Paul Sperry, “Lewin: Flight 11’s Unsung Hero?” WorldNetDaily, http://www.wnd.com/2002/03/13281/
3. “CIA asset Susan Lindauer: Entire US Intelligence Community Knew 9/11 Imminent,” Shadow Citizen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHYGgYEN2GQ&feature=youtu.be, 29-minute mark.
4. Benjamin Netanyahu, Fighting Terrorism (New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1995), p. 125.
5. “Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on 9/11: The Mysterious Plane Crash Site without a Plane,” 911Blogger, http://911blogger.com/news/2013-02-19/shanksville-pennsylvania-911-mysterious-plane-crash-site-without-plane.
6. “United Airlines Flight 175,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175.
7. John Lear, “Ghostplane,” http://ghostplane.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-lears-no-plane-affadavit-no-boeing.html.
8. “Israel Submarine Capabilities,” NTI, July 30, 2015, http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/israel-submarine-capabilities/.
9. Ibid.
10. Philip Delves Broughton, “Last words from Flight 11: ‘I can see water and buildings. Oh my God!’” The Telegraph, Sept 21, 2001, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1341236/Last-words-from-Flight-11-I-can-see-water-and-buildings.-Oh-my-God.html.
11. Simon Romero, “After the Attacks: Communications; New Perspective on the Issue of Cell Phone Use in Planes,” New York Times, September 14, 2001, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/us/after-attacks-communications-new-perspective-issue-cell-phone-use-planes.html.
12. “When Our World Changed Forever,” Guardian, September 16, 2001, www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/16/news.september11.
13. “Focus on Florida,” CBS News, September 14, 2001, www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/14/national/311268.html.
14. Gail Sheehy, “Stewardess ID’d Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show,” The New York Observer, February 16, 2004, https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/M.A.Sweeney.html.
15. Charles Lane, Don Phillips and David Snyder, “A Sky Filled With Chaos, Uncertainty and True Heroism,” The Washington Post, September 17, 2001, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/17/a-sky-filled-with-chaos-uncertainty-and-true-heroism/7ccdab74-aee8-47a1-9e4e-9e7d90f519b5/?utm_term=.d5fe60dc9a5c.
16. Philip Sherwell, “9/11: Voices from the Doomed Planes,” The Telegraph, September 10, 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/september-11-attacks/8754395/911-Voices-from-the-doomed-planes.html.
17. “Abel Danger’s Field McConnell on 9/11 & the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot,” The Richie Allen Show, March 3, 2017, starting about 41:50 mark, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2-1PDlDC_E.
18. “Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on 9/11: The Mysterious Plane Crash Site without a Plane,” 911Blogger, http://911blogger.com/news/2013-02-19/shanksville-pennsylvania-911-mysterious-plane-crash-site-without-plane.

Since publishing “9/11 Simplified,” I’ve received emails from six pilots, none of whom accept the official 9/11 story. Two were scheduled to fly in Boeings on the morning of 9/11.

Another is a UK-born pilot with about 20 years of flight experience. He is still actively flying as a captain on Airbus A300s, and spent many years training airline pilots. He has provided me with so many technological insights into aviation and 9/11 that I felt I should publish excerpts from our exchanges. For enhancement, I have added a few graphics and embedded some of the video clips he referred me to. For clarity, my comments are in bold and his in normal font. Of course, what we originally said has been rearranged into a more orderly sequence.

To keep his identity confidential, I’ll call him “Pilot A.” Some of his remarks bear on 9/11 in general, and some are specific to my article “9/11 Simplified,” so it will be helpful to readers if they are familiar with that post, which I may eventually republish in a revised edition.

Pilot A greeted me saying:
Great shows about “9-11 simplified” and I agree with most of your analysis so far, so please keep up the good work.

He knew from personal experience that the U.S. government’s theory of how the Twin Towers collapsed is bogus.

I know, like many others do, that heavy fuel like diesel and jet fuel cannot melt steel. Even Oxy-Acetylene or Oxy-Propane cutting torches require large amounts of high pressure oxygen injected into the fuel stream to melt steel, and it takes some time to get thick steel up to a softening/melting state. I went to tech college in the 90s to qualify as a welder and gas cutting was one of the disciplines. I’ve spend countless hours cutting and fabricating steel. I had an experience with an old 600 gallon diesel tank which I was cutting the top off to convert into a storage box. In the bottom below the drain plug level was some remaining fuel and sludge, but as I got about 3/4 of the way through cutting the lid off, the molten metal ignited the fuel in the bottom. The dirty fire that poured out the top burned for about 30 minutes, but the wafer thin (3 mm) steel didn’t even glow.

Pilot A agreed with my article’s 10-point proposal that small nuclear weapons had destroyed the Towers, and also agreed with the thesis that pre-planted thermite had indeed been used at the level of the “airplane strikes.” Most of us in the 9/11 community have seen the famous footage of molten steel dripping from a corner of the South Tower:

However, Pilot A had an insight about this I had not thought of:

Now I do think they used thermite as it was probably part of the structural weakening component, but could also have been part of the show to try and prove that “Look, jet fuel does melt steel!”

In my article I had discussed various evidences against jetliners striking the Towers, such as the uncontrollable speeds, and the impossible physics of an aluminum tail and wings and flying through 14-inch steel columns without breaking off. I had concluded that cloaked missiles, or possibly drones, were better explanations. I ask Pilot A what the likelihood was of commercial jetliners hitting the Towers:

Well, I have a couple of extra variables to your main idea for you to play with so here goes:

If you’re going to plan a dastardly event like a “New Pearl Harbour” to achieve all the things like more war, military spending, contracts for the corporate criminals, police state etc., then you want as much shock and horror as possible which includes, noise, fire, smoke and destruction on steroids. The planners would need this area of the operation a guaranteed certainty, no chance of foul-ups anywhere, total control, no variables, flawless. You wouldn’t use actual commercial jetliners piloted by humans to achieve this, too much to go wrong. E.g., the pilots could “chicken-out,” miss the towers, partially hit the towers, passengers could over-run the cockpit, the jet fuel might not ignite so no fire and explosion (more on that later), the damage to the building might be too little, pathetically small even, rogue military pilot ignoring orders to buzz off somewhere else might actually shoot the planes down . . . and on and on it goes.

What’s better than planes flying into buildings? The illusion of planes flying into buildings. Especially if it’s a high explosive/incendiary guided missile with some sort of holographic projection device strapped to its back. Better still let’s have 3 or 4 of them for damage consistency to really make a statement. These can be controlled by a central source, have a known and guaranteed outcome because the military has umpteen thousand examples of the destructive power of missiles, and they can be sent to a specific target with pin point accuracy and timing – perfect.

Passenger planes are very difficult to fly accurately with only external visual reference. With no electronic guidance or without heads-up display technology it’s too risky to try and fly into a specific point by line of sight. Not all pilots have the same level of skill or experience, and this sort of thing you only get to practice for real once!! Simulators have their limits as well for this sort of practice. I can almost see the pilots that have probably tried this in the simulators and predict the outcomes. An educated guess would be overcompensation to try and maintain an accurate flight path at high speed. The air that planes fly through isn’t always constant. There are pools and eddies like a river with rocks, changing currents and speeds. All these require constant adjustment which is easily achieved on approach at 140 knots, with all the control surfaces moving at their full potential and the aircraft slow enough to keep inertia to a minimum. But completely impossible for a novice pilot with only some light aircraft flight experience.

I don’t know how you could do a last-minute modification to a flight path to achieve this accuracy at the speed they were supposedly traveling. Once you get above 200 knots all the moving surfaces (Ailerons, Elevators, Rudder) are in high speed mode and become either artificially loaded or movement restricted to prevent excessive loading and structural damage. If you were slightly off course, you couldn’t make any large corrections to the trajectory at the last minute; everything is done gently. Plus eye-balling your way around a city you’ve never flown over before (if you believe the Muslim hijacker theory) is near impossible, even for a local city dweller! The city layout is different when looking down on it and the view from the flight deck is very limited, unlike a Cessna which has great views. And traveling at hundreds of knots makes this all the more idiotic to achieve.

So if the planes missed the towers, or partially struck the towers, or the jet fuel failed to ignite, then the Hollywood-style fireball scene is a flop. Jet fuel, which is basically paraffin, needs certain requirements to burn. Unlike the petrol gas (95/98) stuff that you put in your Chevy, Avtur (Aviation Turbine Fuel) won’t ignite if you pour some on the ground and throw a match or lighter into it. I know, I’ve tried it. It usually requires heat (compression chamber) and/or pressure (injector nozzle) to combust. The likelihood, though, is that it would probably ignite because the engines were hot, but not guaranteed especially if the engines sheared off on the outside of the building. Yet more variables.

But the main problems I have with the plane crashes shown on TV is the lack of fuselage crumpling effect, therefore showing no deceleration at all and the complete melting of the entire machine into the buildings with no debris shattering off on the outside and dropping to the street. The wing’s strength is primarily in the vertical axis, they’re built for lifting so they would shear off at the root upon contact with anything solid. That large leading edge surface area and leverage against the wing root would rip them completely off. Try walking through a doorway with your arms stretched out and feel the force on your shoulders as your arms try to go through the wall. Now the fuel tanks might rupture and some of the fuel might go into the building, but no way the entire plane would.

Also aeroplanes are a semi-monocoque construction like an egg (monocoque) with a frame inside it. But the skin is pulled over the frame under a lot of tension to maintain aerofoil shape and increase strength. But when this highly strung aluminium skin is ruptured; it springs off as the tension is released. In fact it almost explodes off if a large enough area is damaged. Watch the wing and tail of this ATR as it clips a bridge in Taiwan shortly before crashing:

Notice how little damage was done to the bridge, but aeroplane bits flew everywhere. Essentially, and most people don’t want to hear this, but aeroplanes are hollow tubes of flying tin foil. They look big and solid from the outside but they’re hollow, light and flimsy in reality. They’re only designed to fly people and cargo around in relatively gentle conditions, but ramming solid objects, even water, will obliterate them. Aeroplanes literally shatter. They certainly won’t cut through concrete or steel – UTTER NONSENSE! No matter what the speed is. Every crash has similar evidence, but not on 9-11; they were super special flying machines on that day!! I bet even Boeing and Airbus engineers have scratched many a head and nut since then!

Then there is the preposterous speeds they appeared to fly before hitting the towers, but the real nail in this coffin is “Pinocchio’s Nose,” the clip where one of the aircraft appears to fly right through the building with its nose intact. That did it for me . . . CGI and/or holographic projection the whole show. The nose is fibreglass, always fibreglass so the radar can work. It couldn’t punch through glass and remain intact let alone concrete and steel.

(Here is a 7-minute video that elaborates about the intact nose exiting from the South Tower)

In one email, Pilot A had mentioned that “the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot system that is apparently fitted to Fly-By-Wire [computer-regulated] aircraft couldn’t be used either because the B757 and B767 [the planes used on 9/11] were conventional aircraft like the A300. FBW only came in with the A320, 330, B777 and later machines.”

However, I wanted to pursue the possibility of remote-controlling the planes further with Pilot A, because that theory has long been very popular in the 9/11 Truth community. I pointed out to him that Joe Vialls had proposed this in October 2001, just a month after the tragedy. I also mentioned that Hollywood had dropped hints about it. For example, an electronic hijacking of a plane with the intention of remoting it into the World Trade Center was predicted in the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, which aired March 4, 2001:

Parts of Pilot A’s reply may contain more technical details than some people want to absorb (in which case they may of course skip ahead), but I believe he resolves this important question.

Ok, I just read the article by Vialls, but it’s only about 60% accurate when talking about aircraft systems with some very important points left out, either deliberately or through lack of knowledge. We’ve both heard about remote jacking a plane using Home Run or Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot etc., and theoretically it’s possible in a fly-by-wire (FBW) machine, but physically impossible in a conventional aeroplane unless some engineer out there wants to explain to me how to overpower my muscles. Here goes:

Conventional aeroplanes like the B757, B767, A300, etc. have a control yoke and pedals operating cables running the entire length and width of the aeroplane to the parallel actuators (hydraulic rams) which are directly connected to the moving surfaces like the elevators, rudder and ailerons. So when the pilot places a physical input into the control column, he is moving that cable along the various pulleys all the way to a lever/switch on the hydraulic rams, which in turn move the flight control surface, e.g. aileron. There are no computers in this basic operation, which is what made the old-generation aircraft so dependable in basic flight handling.

In a FBW system [on the other hand] there are no cables. The pilot has a joystick and when he moves it, it sends an electronic signal to a computer (or series of computers) which in turn decides how much to move the aeroplane by sending a signal to the hydraulic rams that operate the elevators, etc. Essentially the computer makes a series of logic calculations and has the final word in whether to allow the pilot to manoeuvre the aeroplane in such a way!!! Yes, an early form of Artificial Intelligence, whereby the box decides how to fly the aeroplane. Same goes for the rudder pedals and thrust lever setup. So this could theoretically be hacked, but it wouldn’t come through the transponder system [as Joe Vialls had proposed in 2001] because that is easily switched off; it would more likely come to the Flight Management System (FMS) which has inputs from the many sources, but a main component is the GPS system. The GPS is essential in modern jets for Navigation, updating the aircraft’s position relative to the Earth, etc. The GPS antennae are hard-wired into the FMS and other systems like clocks, Inertial Navigation System (INS) and so on. I think this is the route that hackers would take, so who controls the GPS satellite data could theoretically control the aeroplane. The pilots could be locked out of the control loop of the aeroplane.

As far as data is available, there was only one B757 that was converted to FBW and it was a Boeing test subject and not released into production. It was essentially a Boeing plaything to see how to redesign their machines for the B777 onwards. Boeing have always been behind Airbus in technology, which is why the A300B4 (70s design) was the first semi-glass cockpit to enter production. Boeing copied it and put their own glass tech into their 757 and 767 later, but they were all conventional control machines. Then Airbus created the A320, the first FBW machine, and Boeing copied it with their B777. To back this up, our A300s were fresh off the Airbus factory floor in 2005, and they were not converted to FBW because the redesign and approval costs would be enormous. “Don’t fix what isn’t broken.” Redesigning an aeroplane is a major expense and Airbus would not do this to the A300, neither would Boeing for further productions of B757, 767 etc. It’s cheaper to design a whole new beasty with more advanced tech in other areas too and get a complete new approval.

I hope this clears it up, but I’m 99% sure that the planes on 9-11 were conventional aeroplanes, making it impossible to hack them from a remote source.

However, as Joseph P. Farrell would say, the “hi-octane speculation” of tech outside of our grasp like tractor beams, George Lucas Star Wars stuff, but I think Occam’s razor still prevails here until new evidence emerges maybe in the future to throw all this into a tailspin again!

That episode of The Lone Gunmen could be another predictive programming event. Who controls Hollywood? Could this plan have been in the works many years earlier, and they were already planting the official narrative into people’s minds, so that they could accept the lies as truth later on?

I have also heard it said in the Truth Movement that the jet aircraft could have been drawn to homing devices that were planted in the Twin Towers. Or controlled by some sort of GPS system. After all, haven’t pilotless military planes been auto-landed? I asked Pilot A his opinion. Some of his remarks were again technical, but in such details we find the answers.

I’ve also heard about this mysterious homing device theory, but I haven’t seen any proof this technology exists for aeroplanes, or how it could control an aeroplane to a point in space with pinpoint accuracy. If it did then all our heavy, expensive VHF and UHF receiver equipment would be obsolete and so would all the airport’s transmitter equipment. So I’ve racked my brains trying to find a solution to this homing device problem, and so far I’ve found nothing that makes this possible. Typical Jet airliners have nothing that will integrate into the standard FMS and Automation package. It’s actually pretty crude, but functions well for what it’s supposed to do.

GPS for aviation isn’t accurate enough horizontally, let alone vertically. In fact without GBAS (Ground Based Augmentation Systems), GPS is no better than any other non-precision approach. GPS approaches still cannot achieve a level of accuracy to enable an autoland, you must have ILS (Instrument Landing System) for that. GPS accuracy in an aeroplane on approach is pretty consistent down to 0.1 nautical miles either side of track, because the system is enhanced with Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), part of GBAS. Autoland is only achieved through the ILS and this system homes in on a large ground-based antenna array (localiser) by measuring frequency differential in azimuth (horizontal) and vertical guidance (glideslope) again a transmitter sending out two lobes of differing frequency. So unless the “Art students” in the World Trade Center installed a large number of complex antenna array, then this is not possible. Also after installation, and periodically, an ILS system has to be calibrated and this is done with another aeroplane loaded up with electronic equipment, which then flies multiple approaches to tweak the transmitter frequencies. Here’s a link to a description of this system. http://instrument.landingsystem.com/

Even if they could install an ILS transmitter array, an approaching aeroplane flying at several hundred miles an hour just cannot react quickly enough in the fluid dynamics of the environment. Another one of the reasons we have to slow down before intercepting the ILS. Because the ILS is conical in shape and narrows down to a point at the runway, any instability in the approach through over-controlling at high speed will just result in the magnitude of the oscillations increasing. That’s complex speak for a sort of “porpoising” effect like a dolphin swimming through water, but the movements of the body increase, chasing the instability until the aircraft literally flies off the approach path. The autopilot system just can’t do it at these alleged speeds. Missiles can achieve a much higher level of accuracy because they are very manoeuvrable; aeroplanes with huge inertia are not. This is why strike missiles are small, plus they have a completely different hardware and software setup inside. The bigger they are, the more sluggish they become. Some strike missiles have cameras in the nose to home in on a target. Some are heat-seeking or need laser guidance from a ground source. Commercial aeroplanes have no camera integrated into the automation system, heat seeking or laser guidance technology. For perspective, the ILS and autoland system which works well still requires a touchdown zone on a runway of +/- 500 feet. That’s as good as it gets, and that’s at a typical approach speed of 140 knots. Missiles are also less subjective to high ‘g’ loading during manoeuvring. If you subjected an aeroplane to these levels of ‘g’ loading, the wings would rip off.

This above paragraph is in any case a moot point because conventional aeroplanes [B757, B767] cannot be hacked.

I thanked Pilot A for his input and added a thought of my own: “Here’s how I look at it. If I’m a passenger on a commercial flight, would I feel more comfortable with (A) two live pilots at the controls, or (B) a plane that’s being flown remotely? I think any passenger would want (A). And that goes for a hijacking too. An intelligence service would be much happier with elite special forces running the show than trying to coordinate the whole operation by remote.” The thesis of my article “9/11 Simplified,” of course, is that the 9/11 aircraft were physically hijacked by Israeli Special Ops pretending to be Muslims (these Special Ops would have been completely familiar with Boeings, loaned to them by El Al with unlimited training assistance). Pilot A:

As a passenger on an airliner you would want real humans at the controls and not a drone style aeroplane like Delta has been trying to push for quite some time now. Fortunately the FAA keeps blocking it, but I heard that the artificial intelligence designers want this in the future. So I guess once people get used to driverless trains and cars, then planes will be next. As each generation becomes more “dumbed down” and ignorant with so many entertainment distractions, they won’t care what’s driving the bus at the front. Most probably won’t even know when it happens anyway.

I next asked Pilot A about the “missile pod” that is so clearly visible on the underside of “Flight 175.”

It definitely (1) is visible on all footage taken from an angle that could catch it; (2) is three-dimensional; and (3) lights up just before striking the South Tower. I regard it as the “smoking gun” which proves that whatever hit the Tower was not Flight 175. Would the 9/11 perpetrators actually try attaching a missile-sized object to Flight 175 at Logan Airport, and then hope that it luckily wouldn’t be noticed by, e.g., the flight maintenance crew or baggage handlers? I asked Pilot A for his thoughts. The following remarks are pulled from more than one email:

I think this is pretty key and keeps us on track. I remember seeing/hearing a bystander in an apartment saying that what he saw was not a commercial airliner. Also the lack of jet noise etc. The screaming noise at those alleged high speeds and low levels, not just from the engines but also from the skin friction, would be obvious and I think many more people would have taken pics. If they were real aeroplanes, then why the missile-looking tube underneath the aircraft? That shouldn’t be there, is completely foreign, serves no logical airline or commercial purpose, and in fact could be downright dangerous due to its proximity to critical components underneath. If I turned up to my aircraft and someone had stuck a funny looking tube thing on the outside of the aircraft, I would refuse to accept it until I’d seen the engineering and installation documentation, Boeing approval, purpose, etc. . . .and even then I still have the right to refuse to take it. Captain’s decision is final and I’ve seen guys refuse to dispatch in aircraft with a lot less wrong with them than that!

I recall in all the books I’ve read about military operations, some fictional by ex-special forces writers, but the overwhelming theme is that when planning any operation, the simpler it is, the better the chance of success. You do however want to cause panic and confusion surrounding the op to keep people distracted and running around in panic. BY WAY OF DECEPTION THOU SHALT WAGE THY WAR! The USS Liberty was a mess up because the ship didn’t sink. If it had, then history would have been re-written. 9-11 HAD to succeed in WTC destruction, so a simple op: Hijack some commercial aeroplanes, make it look like they flew into the buildings using cloaking tech but really destroy them with missiles and mini-nukes, destroy evidence of financial crime, huge insurance claim, bank robbery and terrorise Americans into demanding years of wars against a Muslim foe – mission successful. What you’ve pieced together has the modus operandi of Israel, her special forces along with CIA help as well to complete this.

Yes, the missile-sized object on flight 175 is very important, and part of the pre-flight process is a crew member (either First Officer or Captain) will always do a “walk around” prior to flight. This is standard aviation policy from light aircraft to heavy jet with no exceptions. So not only would ground personnel see this strange object but the flight crew WOULD definitely know about it. Its position on the starboard side, underneath is especially troublesome because as I said before it is highly unlikely it would ever get approval from any governing body to stick a huge object in that location. Among some of the systems in that location are things like the refuel control panel, the air conditioning packs, especially the inlets, the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) deployment area and the undercarriage doors! Your video [about cruise missile noise] is interesting and here’s a link to a B757 doing a high speed fly-by. Listen to the noise difference which is quite pronounced. High By-Pass turbofan engines make a distinct noise signature, totally different to Low By-Pass turbofans like business jets and completely different to “Pure Jet” engines in fighters or cruise missiles. Plenty more examples of low level, high speed fly-bys on YouTube.

I next asked Pilot A for his opinion about the limited airplane debris found around the World Trade Center. This is a huge issue, because for many who are skeptics of 9/11 Truth, the debris is the “smoking gun” that corroborates the government’s official story. Here is a video segment that shows such debris (much of which seems rather vague) and ridicules the idea that it was planted:

I told Pilot A that, on the one hand, it does seems a stretch that airplane debris would be dumped off. Yet there was a lot of pre-planting of small-scale evidence, such as Korans and Mohammed Atta’s luggage (which miraculously didn’t make it onto Flight 11, but had all the “Muslim hijackers” names in it), as well as small-scale evidence after the fact, such as the infamous unburned hijacker passport, and the red headbands at the Shanksville hole. Could the same have been done for some aircraft parts? The “dancing Israelis” worked for Urban Moving Systems. A moving company has large trucks, dollies, and strong workers, which is just what you’d need to plant some heavy items. There was also, of course, the live police report on 9/11 of a truck on King Street which featured a mural of a plane hitting a building—the drivers fled the police on foot, and the truck exploded:

Pilot A sent me a 30-minute video from Pilots from 9/11 Truth that shows just how little 9/11 aircraft debris there actually was in total, and how none of the found parts were linked to the aircraft by their serial numbers, which easily could have been done. He commented:

As for the plane parts, I watched what you sent me and more. Interesting that CNN showed a landing gear part that still had rope attached to it!

I think that’s obvious that there was some degree of evidence planting going on even before the attack. So why would you plant evidence if aircraft actually flew into buildings nearby? If this was a real event then I’m sure the government, mainstream media and all the other agencies would have provided this info. But like the Pentagon debacle with all the confiscated video, it has the definite flair of: just trust us and believe what we say, no questions please!!

My gut feeling is there are too many things wrong with some of the debris to say it is genuine. The piece in the alley wouldn’t naturally have rope around it unless it was put there. And if it was a part of the wing flap assembly or undercarriage, then how did it get so far from the crash site!

That YouTube link I sent you has more weird evidence anomalies in it with the Pentagon, etc. None of it fits neatly if it were a genuine event. Looks like bad stagecraft to me and I agree with what the narrator says, there should be overwhelming evidence of paperwork trails linking these parts to the real owners. All parts have serial numbers and they can be traced to the source aircraft. Why wasn’t this info plastered all over the News to quell the unbelievers’ distrust in the lie? The reason is because they don’t have any genuine parts from the planes used. The mangled plane parts on the day were dumped and had a different history and the organisers couldn’t start dumping too much real plane debris after the event. I think something went wrong on the day, and it’s been damage control through the media ever since. I don’t think they imagined there would be so many people not believing the official lie, and Building 7, the Pentagon and Shanksville are all smoking guns of one sort or another.

I asked Pilot A for his opinion of the most famous piece of debris, the engine found on Murray Street. Some people have said it was too small for a 767.

I wouldn’t say the engine is too small because it looks about the right size for the internal core part. I think people are comparing the size to what you see from the outside, but once you strip away the cowlings, shrouds and other stuff, the internal core is quite small. This clip indicates it is the wrong engine for the B767. However, Pratt and Whitney’s own website says that these engines were fitted to B767.

Nonetheless, I asked, isn’t the engine too big and heavy for someone to have dropped off?

Firstly, when the engine weight of 8000 Lbs is mentioned, this is generally a complete engine including Big Fan at the front, the multiple compressor stages and turbines complete with blades, various pumps, pipes and so much more like the pics I’ve attached for you or the video in the link. It is quite a large mass of hardware, but what we see in that Murray Street image is only a small portion of the engine, the rear or hot section where the turbines are. There is no big fan, compressor stages or ancillary components, so I think its weight looks closer to about a tonne. If that was a solid lump (which it isn’t) of titanium alloy, then based upon its size relative to the Murray Street sign I would put in the ball-park of between 750-1500kg, which a small 4 wheel box-van with a few big guys could roll off the back of in a few seconds after maneuvering the truck into position.

I asked Pilot A where in the world Israelis, or their confederates, could have obtained airline parts.

As for obtaining plane parts, well that is easy. When aircraft are retired they are either scrapped or sometimes sold and then flown to both civilian and military airfields to be used for experimentation, training or tourist attractions. When I was growing up, before 9-11, there was an old B747 at a place called _____ where I used to fly to occasionally, and they used an old 747 to test various explosive devices in the cargo hold to see if containing bags in different materials would limit damage, and eventually it was blown up and the parts removed for recycling etc. This is just one example, so it would be easy to procure parts from an old Boeing for a future event. What I want to see is the maintenance logs showing the paper trail for these parts littered around the WTC, because all parts, even landing gear, have a paper trail. You just can’t buy a tyre from Dunlop or an engine from Pratt and Whitney and stick it on an aircraft without serial numbers matching the logbooks. All parts have a replace date/condition either time or use-based. Engines and their ancillary parts are cycle or hours-based. Landing gear is time, amount of landings, condition-based and all subjected to routine and mandatory maintenance cycles e.g. C or D checks. When an aircraft is too worn out to be commercially viable any longer for an airline, it is sold for either salvageable parts, scrap or to someone who wants to restore it or for a plaything. There’s loads of places they can end up in once sold for non-commercial use, and the parts cannot re-enter the system without a paper trail, they are scrap, unless you are a third world country where anything goes!

In summary to the aircraft debris, was this debris collected and analysed by a professional aviation body like the NTSB Air Crash Investigators, whose job it is to piece together the debris and track its origins, etc.? I don’t recall ever seeing a report on these recovered parts including serial numbers and maintenance logbook evidence.

I now draw excerpts pertaining to my post, “9/11 Simplified,” in which I proposed that Israeli special ops—well-trained on Boeings used by El Al—hijacked the planes and brought them over the neighboring Atlantic, an idea Pilot A is on board with.

In the post, I suggested that the most likely way for the hijackers to kill the passengers would have been to throw a canister of lethal gas into the cabin; the hijackers would have kept themselves safe by staying sealed in the cockpit with oxygen masks on. Initially, Pilot A thought this plausible, but then had his doubts:

I agree that the passengers were killed early on [but] . . . I just took your idea about a gas canister and thought about it from a pilot’s perspective. Why would I use a poison gas canister when the air in the cabin circulates back into the cockpit too? I risk potentially poisoning myself and fellow hijackers!

Pilot A came up with a much safer, more efficient way that the hijackers would have killed the passengers and flight attendants: depressurizing the cabin.

By switching off the AC packs and opening the outflow valves. Once the cabin altitude hits 12-14,000 feet the masks deploy and the passengers have an average of 15 mins oxygen. The flight crew [in the cockpit] have hours of oxygen at their disposal. This is what I think they did to MH370 during the initial phase, because Kuala Lumpur radar said that the B777 climbed above 40,000 for a brief time, which is highly unusual. This would asphyxiate the passengers quite quickly if the cabin was depressurized, but still allow the crew to survive. The flight attendants have a few portable O2 cylinders in the cabin, but they don’t last very long if you’re scared and hyperventilating as you watch passengers fall into unconsciousness and die. And above 40,000 feet you almost need pressurised air forced into your lungs as air on demand is not enough to get over the pressure differential.

(Pilot A spent several paragraphs explaining exactly how pressurization works in an aircraft, which I omit here for brevity.) Continuing:

Now as I’ve said, this air conditioning and pressurisation is automatic, but it can be manually controlled for various scenarios like automatic system failure, fire, ditching and so on. The pressure regulators can be manually operated, allowing the pilots to open and close the outflow valves to set the cabin altitude to the desired level, or open them completely and switching off the Packs to stop all pressurised air from entering the cabin. With the outflow valves open the cabin will depressurise very quickly and soon reaches the ambient outside pressure, which if it was 38,000 would only give a person about a minute at best before unconsciousness sets in and then death. Anyway, the other thing is as the pressure drops dramatically, so does the temperature (-40+ eventually) so this is another incredibly uncomfortable situation unless you are prepared for it.

We next discussed the necessity of terminating all passenger phone calls once the Towers were struck. If this didn’t happen, the official narrative would never hold up. Call termination had more than one requirement. First, the hijackers would have to know with certainty when the Towers had been successfully hit.

They either had to be able to see the missiles hit the towers or someone was warning them. My guess is they were listening to someone on the ground (um, dancing Israelis perhaps?) who had a VHF transmitter. iCom is a company that sells hand held transceivers and there’s no difficulty in buying one of these from a local aviation supplies shop. The Boeing had 2-3 VHF radios and 1-2 HF radios installed so they could listen to 2 VHF frequencies at the same time. VHF is line of sight but the range is pretty good to an aeroplane. Once the signal is sent, the hijackers then kill the on board phones and set about doing the same to the passengers, as they’ve served their purpose now [making the phone calls that established the Muslim-hijacking narrative].

I asked Pilot A if these VHF signals would risk interception, although it occurred to me that this might not have mattered anyway, since they could have used coded phrases (like Pussy Galore’s “Flying Circus” pilots in Goldfinger saying “the baby is asleep.”)

For the interception of VHF calls from the ground station to the airborne station then, yes, these could be intercepted, but there were at that time about 760 channels to use, and many are not used or monitored as far as I know. Some that are used within the network are out of range; e.g. Chicago could use the same approach frequency as Boston, but due to limited range there would be no interference from the two. The hijackers would use code as you rightly suggest, a foreign language or combination which would sound like nonsense to a stray listener anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airband.

The next task for the hijackers would have been call termination—for both cell phones and airphones. From Flights 11 and 175, no cell phone calls were made, only airphone calls. But even if someone tried to use a cell phone, it wouldn’t have mattered, because New York City’s cell phones went out of service during the attacks, and once over the Atlantic, or sufficiently elevated, the planes would have been out of range of any cell phone towers. As to the airphones, Pilot A told me that “The problem is that airphones are not standard aircraft equipment like engines and wings, but are an optional extra and falls under the category of ‘Customer Oriented Change’ (COC).” As he is an Airbus pilot, he wasn’t sure about their configuration in Boeings, but later noted:

I’ve just spoken to a colleague of mine who flew the B747 classic then 400 series and they had airphones fitted which ran through the SATCOM [Satellite Communications] system. He said you could disconnect the entire SATCOM system by pulling the circuit breakers in the cockpit, so this is pretty good confirmation that the whole satellite communication system could be disabled quite easily. . . . Another colleague of mine says you can disable the airphones and/or the SATCOM through the control panel which is a CDU (alpha-numeric keypad like the FMS) on the centre pedestal in the cockpit. . . . But the simplest and quickest method is just locate and pull the circuit breaker(s) – job done.

Mini-update, 8-31-17. The same day I published this post, I heard from a former U.S. airline pilot, who I guess I’d better call “Pilot B.” He sent me a PDF of the pages relevant to airphone termination in a 2006 Boeing manual for 757s/767s:

This confirms that the hijackers, from the cockpit, could have instantly terminated all passenger airphone calls (creating the illusion that the calls had stopped due to the “crashes”).   

Next: the final destination of the planes. In “9/11 Simplified,” I had proposed either (1) a water-landing rendezvous with an Israeli ship in the calm Sargasso Sea, from which no debris ever escapes (the hijackers breaking out of the cockpit wearing their airline-provided life jackets, the planes then sinking with the dead passengers entombed inside); or (2) (Mary Ellen Moore’s brainstorm) refueling in the Azores at the CIA-utilized Lajes Air Base. (From the U.S. East coast, the distance to the Azores is the same as the distance to Los Angeles, which would explain why the hijackers insisted on only utilizing well-fueled flights bound for California.) From the Azores they would have traveled across sub-Saharan Africa at night, across to Saudi Arabia, and up to Israel, the absolute safest place to dispose of the planes and passenger bodies. (It is necessary to read the post for these details to have credibility).

Pilot A shared his thoughts on water landings, which I was already beginning to abandon, since it is impractical to practice water landings with jets—there is no way to get them airborne again.

It is a bit of a stretch for me to believe they would attempt a ditching as it’s a highly risky manoeuvre unless the sea is flat and calm, or a river in Sully’s case [the 2009 Hudson River landing of US Airways Flight 1549] and the preferred outcome is not guaranteed. The B757 being a narrow body, tougher and narrower engines would be better suited than the B767 (wide-body) for attempting this. The engine intake cross-section is a lot narrower on the B757, so less drag on impact. As you said, this whole 9-11 theatre had to be a flawless plan to pull it off successfully. So in the ditching part, any structural damage and breakup of the fuselage would leak evidence all over the ocean surface and again the official narrative would die instantly. Our A300 manual recommends max flap and obviously undercarriage up (along with a whole list of other actions) to achieve the lowest speed at impact. A flapless landing is a harrowing experience as the landing speeds can be 40-50 knots higher than normal. Another thing is that the ditching manoeuvre can only be practised in a simulator with the outcome being theoretical, as damage feedback is generally limited. As far as I’m aware there is a shortage of information on completely successful water landings where the fuselage is intact. The Hudson River event hadn’t happened in 2001, and up to then most ditchings resulted in a controlled crash causing hull damage of varying degrees.

Another thing is the uncontrollable variable of being seen ditching several aircraft by shipping vessels in the area. I don’t think they would risk this scenario, as you can’t control who sees you. I know some of the remote ocean flights we make are loaded with fishing ships, container ships, sailing vessels, etc. So I agree that the best option is to blend these aeroplanes into ordinary flight paths and take them well away from the scene of the crime to be disposed of later.

Pilot A very much liked our idea of refueling in the Azores (which, by the way, is where Bush and Blair met to announce the Iraq War). My post had proposed that the 9/11 planes could have blended in with all the flights that were being rerouted back to Europe that day (no flights to America were permitted after the morning attacks). Requesting to land in to the Azores for a refueling would not have aroused suspicion, and Lajes Air Base is officially a diversion airport for jetliners in distress.

Mary Ellen has made some solid points which I agree with. Yes, the B757s & B767s were heavily loaded with fuel and could easily make it to the Azores. Like you said, the fact that they chose aeroplanes with heavy fuel loads is an interesting consistency. If the plan was to ditch in the Sargasso Sea, then you wouldn’t want all the extra fuel and weight as it causes the approach speed to be higher and puts more stress on the fuselage during impact. The fact that the official narrative said that the hijackers wanted more fuel to help burn the buildings appears to be a classic misdirection strategy. We know who controls the media.

These planes could have blended in, giving the excuse that they had been re-routed due to the World Trade Centre atrocities. Flight re-routing can be done easily in flight by the pilots, or by someone contacting the ATC [Air Traffic Control] unit that manages that airspace etc. On the day this all happened, everyone I know was glued to the TV watching the subversive hypnotic technique of repeating the imagery of aeroplanes slamming into the buildings. As far as people were concerned. the planes were destroyed. Interestingly, the media never published the aircraft registrations e.g. N334AA and this was only released some time later. American registrations are difficult to memorise because unlike other countries (UK:G-HART) there are several numbers sometimes sandwiched between letters, so it’s not immediately obvious to assign an acronym or mnemonic to help you remember it. However there is the likelihood of being photographed by a plane spotter, so the better option would be where spotters are not allowed.

[I will omit the text here, but Pilot A then discussed the unlikelihood of the hijackers refueling at the one of the Azores’ commercial airports, which would have required using an AA or United account, a credit card, or a huge amount of cash to pay for the fuel.]

That leaves a military/CIA/Israeli friendly base with minimum personnel. They’d have to make sure the dead passengers weren’t visible to anyone not in the know. As they didn’t have that many passengers, it would be easy to move them to the back [note: per the calls from 11, 77, and 175, all passengers had already been forced to the back] out of the way and close the curtains in the compartments, pull the blinds down, etc. Nonessential personnel would probably be glued to the TV screens as well, so not paying any attention to an abnormal refueling event. When we refuel there is only one man who does it, and if we make an unscheduled diversion to somewhere that has no A300 trained personnel, then I oversee the refueling by setting up the refuel panel for proper distribution. The hijackers could do the same so no one in fact need board the aircraft. The article in your blog about the CIA rendition flights passing through Lajes is interesting; so it was a clandestine-friendly base with no journalists or spotters, etc. I think you and Mary Ellen are right and Lajes is the most likely candidate for this op. I don’t know of any other base in that area.

I asked Pilot A what sort of difficulties the hijackers might have encountered by landing in the Azores while pretending to be other flights. Wouldn’t they have needed to state their points of origin and destination?

Ok, if the aircraft were coming into an airport and they were on a flight plan in the ATC system, then the pilots just announce their presence prior to entering the controlled airspace of that airport. Usually starts at the FIR (Flight Information Region) boundary. It would include call-sign (“American 66”), position, level, squawk and maybe ETA to a waypoint depending upon the airspace type. They wouldn’t have to give their point of origin or destination, because that is already in the system and ATC are not going to bother checking this, if it’s all been done through the correct channels.

I think this [the refueling operation] is easily done as I knew nothing about Lajes being used for super secret-squirrel rendition flights. This airport had probably been used for all sorts of clandestine ops, by all sorts of different groups for many years prior to 9-11. If this all had the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Netanyahu, CIA seal of approval, then 3 passenger airliners coming in for fuel on that chaotic day wouldn’t have looked strange and could easily be arranged with only minimum personnel on the ground there. Probably even rendezvoused with a CIA jet going back to NY to take passengers’ personal belongings and scatter them around the twin towers debris! [I believe this probably occurred slightly later, after the planes made it into Israeli hangars, and the corpses were stripped.] Passenger airliners do fly into military airports, although not that common, it does happen from time to time. So if Lajes is listed as an ETOPS diversion airfield, then there would be absolutely nothing unusual at all about these planes going there. American and United planes are everywhere in the world, there’s thousands of them and they all look the same too. Admittedly the news was plastering their names over the TV, but I don’t think that would have been a problem. It’s bound to be a secure enough airfield to prevent a curious stray from wandering over for a chat while the re-fueling is in progress.

They could have used any number of bogus cover stories for a curious person or landing log entry e.g., B767 chartered by govt./military to fly deported people to another country. Where’s Ian Fleming when you need a cover story for an op? Deporting people might help convince any half-witted curious person why the aircraft blinds are down. Or the aircraft is on a temporary cargo charter for a special UN mission to Africa. I did one of those once. Strange lot those UN creeps!!

We see American registered aeroplanes all over the place with nonexistent or strange markings on them in some odd places, and no one has any idea what they’re up to, or can find out. In the UK they have what is called purple airspace which is activated when the Royal family fly, but some of that airspace (which is flexible) sometimes goes over military airports and you can bet that the special spooks like MI6 or SAS use it to sneak in and out for some of their ops. They wouldn’t even have to ask Prince Phil’s permission because they know it’s an automatic yes, no matter how evil the plan is! When purple airspace is active, you can’t go in it or you get a visit from a military jet and an escort to the nearest base for a word! Probably get a cup of Tea before the beating though!

I think the aeroplanes were refuelled on the US Govt’s dollar, no questions asked. The order would have come from someone at the top of the US Govt., not necessarily Cheney himself but one of his underlings who probably wasn’t in the know anyway. The compartmentalisation for this part of the getaway plan is easy for me to understand how it works.

To close, here are some comments Pilot A made about himself and the Truth community.

My mission I think, until God tells me otherwise, is to keep chiselling away at people with little bits and pieces of info so they can go look for themselves. I’m now getting First Officers coming to me with stuff I didn’t know or hadn’t considered on so many other topics too. Exciting times, James, this truth-hunting!

I am very grateful to Pilot A, who along with many other professionals from various walks of life, prove that challenging the official 9/11 narrative is not the stuff of “tin-foil kooks.”

I don’t normally use my blog to discuss a personal grievance, but this is a matter that has implications for everyone interested in truth. There is an epidemic of political censorship going on, especially since Hillary Clinton’s defeat ignited backlash against so-called “fake news.” YouTubers, for example, have been increasingly demonetized or flat-out expelled.

Many in alternative media suspected that, once Amazon eliminated retail competitors, it would exploit its monopoly on books and start progressively suppressing “politically incorrect” material. We have already seen this with Amazon recently banning certain books by authors like Texe Marrs and Jim Fetzer. Since 2013, Amazon has sold my book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, an A-Z primer on the “New World Order,” in both paperback and Kindle formats. As I write this, it has over 100 Amazon reviews, 71 percent “five star” and 16 percent “four star.”

On October 16, anonymous Amazon staff notified me that Kindle had suspended sales of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior.  It was simply signed, “Amazon.com.” No name; not even a department. Kind of like Trump getting a letter from an overseas government official, signed “Argentina.”

This was not the first sign of trouble, however. On June 30 of this year I published a post entitled 9/11 Simplified. It made some unique observations supporting the theory that the Twin Towers were imploded by small nuclear weapons; it also proposed that the 9/11 planes were hijacked by real hijackers—not the incapable Arabs named by the government and media, but elite Israeli special ops, well-trained on Boeings.

After the article was published, an outstanding book it had referenced, William Tahil’s Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Centre (2006), was suddenly scrubbed from the Internet, after being online for years.

That same day, Amazon reset the price of the paperback edition of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior above $19, after selling it for years at attractive discounts, typically in the range of about $16. Amazon, of course, uses algorithms to adjust product prices, and while Lonely Warrior’s price would vary here and there, it had not sold close to its cover price. Yet that’s where it sits as I publish this, right at cover price: $19.95. Below are cropped screen shots of two orders I placed for the book, for radio show hosts whose programs I was scheduled to appear on—an order in July (with a price that had long been typical), and one last week:

What caused the price to skyrocket by more than four dollars? There had been no recent dramatic change in sales volume to trigger a jolt from a computerized algorithm.

I don’t get any extra money, incidentally, from the higher sales price; my royalty is fixed. All the change accomplished was to make the book more difficult to buy. At the same time, I noticed Amazon had raised the prices of my other books, Tornado in a Junkyard and The Case against Darwin, to full cover price, after selling them at steep discounts for many years (although I don’t know on what date that change occurred).

However, there was one price that couldn’t be touched—that of the Kindle version of Truth Is a Lonely Warrior. Kindle prices are set in stone, by the authors/publishers. So, to make Truth Is a Lonely Warrior more inaccessible on Kindle, another strategy would have to be devised.

After four years in publication, someone at Amazon suddenly discovered three “quality” issues reported by “readers.” The anonymous notice I received said:

We’re writing to let you know that readers have reported some problems in your book. These errors significantly impact the readability of your book. We have temporarily removed it from sale so that more readers don’t experience the same problems:

Here is the totality of those “quality issues”:

(1) ONE typographical error. Here is a screen shot of the typo. There is a space missing between “The” and “1950s.”

Truth Is a Lonely Warrior is 341 pages long (in the paperbound edition). Someone had gone through it with a fine-tooth comb, finally came up with this one typo, and declared that it made the book unfit to be sold.

Have you ever heard of Amazon suspending a book for a single typo? Me neither. In fact, I’ve seen many books with multiple typos. (Fifty Shades of Grey is still notorious for its mistakes, but Kindle didn’t take it down.)

(2) I was informed that there was “illegible text” on two images. I checked and found this referred to two old maps I had reproduced. As with most maps, there is some large print along with some fine print. What the unnamed person was calling “illegible” was basically just fine print. Here is a partial screen shot of one of the maps:

Granted, that fine print’s a little fuzzy, but does anyone care? The map was only intended to show readers the larger items. Bear in mind, Amazon sells tens of thousands of books with maps that have some fine print. Is it considered a “quality issue” that merits suspension? Obviously not, or all those books would be in the penalty box along with mine. By the way, Kindle devices usually come with apps that enable users to magnify images.

As I considered how to fix the situation, I thought: What can I do? I can’t change the original map. Perhaps I could crop the map and enlarge what was left. But I decided against such a solution, since a person at Amazon could always say “not good enough” and keep extending the book’s suspension indefinitely.

So I threw the problem back at the quality team at Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP). How did they want the maps fixed? What would they accept? After four days, I received an email reply informing me that the maps no longer had to be fixed (a tacit admission that they couldn’t be), but that I still had to correct the other issues. Which brings us to the final one:

(3) A few external hyperlinks no longer work, especially in the end-notes. Of course this happens, because some content on the Internet disappears after a while, which is beyond my control. In other words, I link to an article in an online newspaper, but after years, the newspaper takes down that article. This is routine and expected on the Internet.

Truth Is a Lonely Warrior included a disclaimer expressly warning readers that this could occur. Here is a screen shot from the Kindle book:

How many books does Kindle continue to sell having expired hyperlinks?

I emailed the KDP staff the following question:

“What does Kindle plan to do with the books of authors who die? Will their books be permanently suspended because they are not alive to update older hyperlinks?”

Unsurprisingly, they didn’t answer this question. Nor did they dare to, because no author would want to do business with Kindle under such conditions.

The reason I put hyperlinks in my end-notes was so that readers could easily check my statements against the original sources. This was an effort to maintain high quality. If I was lazy, I could have left the end-notes as plain text—no active hyperlinks. Had I known Kindle would punish me four years later because a few hyperlinks expired, I would never have hyperlinked the text. But this would have made the book lower quality—the very thing KDP has accused me of, despite the book receiving 5 or 4 stars in 87 percent of its Amazon reviews.

There is a double standard at work here; that is, Amazon is applying extreme standards to my book that, as anyone can see, it does not apply to countless others. This is “book burning,” 21st century style.

No reader had ever complained to me, or in an Amazon review, about any of the alleged issues. Had Kindle been sincerely concerned about its readers, sales, and author relations, here is how they would have handled the matter. They would have sent me an email to this effect:

Dear Sir:

We have detected a few issues in your book we would like you to fix, which are listed herein. Please have these corrected within 21 days; otherwise we will be required to suspend sales until they are addressed.

But I received no such advance notice. Instead the book was killed without warning. Yet someone at Kindle surely knew the suspension was forthcoming, because they obviously spent a very long time combing through the book looking for something to complain about.

On 10-25, after nine days, Truth Is a Lonely Warrior became available for purchase again in the Kindle edition, even though I had not yet re-uploaded the book with the demanded changes. Possibly someone decided the suspension was not worth the negative publicity it was incurring, or was tired of exchanging emails with me.

However, the sell page now contains a warning to buyers of “quality issues”:

This is very misleading language. What it refers to (as noted above) are: one typo, some fine print on two maps (which Kindle staff have now admitted is not an issue), and some expired external hyperlinks. There is no problem navigating inside the book, and never was.

I want to stress that, in writing this post, I am definitely not leveling accusations at everyone who works for Amazon or Kindle Direct Publishing. Some KDP staff sent me apologetic emails, and seemed bewildered by the whole travesty, which was likely the work of one or two individuals, perhaps after receiving instructions from someone to kill the book. (It is also conceivable that trolls, impersonating sincere customers, lodged complaints with Amazon; but this would still not justify Kindle imposing extraordinary standards on my book that it does not require of others.)

I am working with my book designer on a revised Kindle version, which I will upload in hopes of getting the “quality” warning removed.

In the meantime, some of my readers may wish to purchase Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, to send a message that using contrived pretexts, in order to suppress “politically incorrect” books, will backfire. But of course, don’t buy it unless you truly want a copy!

Update. November 8, 2017. Although I received no notification, Amazon has removed the quality warning from the sell page after I re-uploaded a new version of the book that met 100 percent of the demanded changes. Hopefully this ends the siege.

On November 18, 2017, I became a baptized, chrismated member of the Orthodox Church.

First, disclaimers. My opinions and words are my own; I am not a spokesman for the Orthodox Church.

Second, this post is not intended to invalidate anyone’s experience in non-Orthodox churches. I attended non-Orthodox churches for more than 30 years, and had very meaningful encounters with God in them. God is sovereign and extends His mercies wherever He wills. As the Apostle Peter said: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.” (Acts 10:34-35)

A quick backgrounder: I grew up in an agnostic home, then spent 10 years (1972-82) in a New Age-style cult before coming to Christ.

For brevity, the following comments on Christianity’s history will necessarily require some generalization and oversimplification.

In America, we basically think Christians have two choices: Catholic or Protestant. I’ve never been a Catholic, but many traditional Catholics whom I know acknowledge the severe issues their church is experiencing, especially since Vatican II in the early 1960s—most notoriously, perhaps, pedophilia, gay scandals, and even reported satanism. A friend of mine has a 90-year-old mother who describes herself as having long been “ex-Catholic.” On the day of her confirmation, she said, the priest had “hand trouble.” You can use your imagination as to what that meant.

In fairness to Catholics, I believe their church has been the victim of infiltration, not inherent evil. As just one example, Bella Dodd, a former high-ranking official in the U.S. Communist Party, stated more than 60 years ago:

In the late 1920s and 1930s, directives were sent from Moscow to all Communist Party organizations. In order to destroy the Roman Catholic Church from within, party members were to be planted in seminaries and within diocesan organizations. . . . In the 1930s, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within. The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops. Right now the Communist infiltrators are in the highest places in the Church where they are working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism. You will not recognize the Catholic Church.¹

I’d guess my friend’s 90-year-old mother very possibly ran into one of those infiltrators.

On the other side of the West’s Christian aisle, there are also two basic divisions within the Protestant church: Modernism and Fundamentalism. In America, this rift erupted during the early 20th century. Modernism (also tagged “Higher Criticism”) denied all the faith’s fundamentals: the authority of the Bible, the reality of miracles (including the Virgin Birth and Resurrection), the Second Coming, and—in cases—even the historical existence of Jesus Christ. It was funded and carefully guided by the Rockefellers and their agencies. I have written an extensive post on it.

The Fundamentalists, on the other hand, asserted their belief in the Bible and in the historicity of Christ. It was churches of this type which I attended for more than 30 years. Unfortunately, the Fundamentalist churches and seminaries were themselves largely hijacked and controlled by the Rothschild/Zionist interests, especially through publication and mass distribution of the Scofield Reference Bible. I have also written an extensive post on this movement’s history. One church I attended became so Zionized that, on one occasion, it celebrated the feast of Purim, passing out noise-makers to the congregation and instructing us to mimic being members of a synagogue.

After over 30 years a Christian, I examined the available options—a degraded Vatican, unbelieving Modernism, and Zionized Fundamentalism—and discovered to my joy the “elephant in the room”; the form of Christianity the West has long forgotten: Eastern Orthodoxy.

Here is a little more history, which (again necessarily) will be informal and oversimplified for brevity.

For the first 1,000 years after the Resurrection, there was essentially one Christian Church. Nobody asked your denomination. There were some disagreements and schisms, but major doctrinal issues and heresies were resolved by Ecumenical Councils, of which seven were convened over the centuries. These were attended by the Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, as well as bishops from throughout most, or much, of Christendom. The Patriarch of Rome was traditionally accorded the highest seat of honor, as “the first among equals.” His position could be compared to the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: foremost in rank, but not an exclusive decision-maker holding the right to nullify the votes of the others.

However, in 1054, the church split. This came after the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) declared himself to hold authority over the entire church, and also sought to change the ancient Nicene Creed (the “Filioque controversy,” which I will not elaborate on here).

(seen on the Internet)

Christianity became broadly divided in two: the Eastern (Orthodox) Church, centered in Constantinople, and the Western (Catholic) Church, centered in Rome. From thereon, Europe’s only exposure to Christianity was through the Vatican; the Eastern Church was virtually forgotten about in the West.

After about another 500 years came the Catholic-Protestant split. However legitimate Martin Luther’s grievances may have been, there is no denying that, for the long haul, the ultimate outcome was to splinter Western Christianity into hundreds of pieces. Denominations kept spinning off from one another over doctrinal disagreements. Henry VIII even started the Church of England because the Pope wouldn’t grant him a divorce. The process of continuous fragmentation had to be pleasing to Satan, for whom “divide and conquer” has long been a signature strategy. Today, after so many churches have been founded upon the divergent opinions of men, Christianity is increasingly unrecognizable from its original form.

That “original form,” however, remains visible in Eastern Orthodoxy, which has not given over to corruption, nor Modernism, nor Zionism.

My first “heads up” on Orthodoxy came from a YouTuber whom I normally follow for his geopolitical insights: Brother Nathanael, a Jewish convert to the Russian Orthodox Church.

But it wasn’t until I was invited to be a guest on Global Storyline by Dean Arnold that I ran head-on into Orthodoxy. I like to get to know a host before I go on a podcast, and I happened to select an interview Dean did with Jay Dyer. Both men are converts to Orthodoxy, from Catholic and Protestant backgrounds. I learned quite a bit about Orthodoxy and its place within Christianity. What perhaps impacted me most was learning that Orthodoxy continues to hold true to the original practices of the early Church. And who knew better how to run a church than the first Christians, who were taught by the Apostles, or by direct disciples of the Apostles?

Subsequently I had private discussions with Dean on Orthodoxy, and read his post Dean’s List of 21 Reasons to be an Orthodox Christian (which I recommend, as it greatly overlaps with my own reasons for conversion).

I began attending a Greek Orthodox Church and absorbing Orthodox materials.

I believe one of the major errors Protestants committed in breaking with Catholicism was this: seeing Catholic policies they despised, they settled on a path of sola scriptura (scripture alone). After all, didn’t Jesus condemn the Pharisees, saying, “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8)?

Two points on this. First, in context, Jesus was condemning the traditions of the Pharisees. These traditions, some of which the Hebrews had adopted during their exile to Babylon, were also known as the “oral law.” Eventually they were written down as the Talmud, a blasphemous book that says, among many other things, that Jesus is boiling in excrement in hell, that his mother Mary was a whore, and that gentiles are utterly inferior beings (for a detailed analysis of the Talmud, I recommend Michael Hoffman’s Judaism’s Strange Gods.)

However, Protestants err if they look at Jesus’s condemnation of the Pharisees’ traditions, and then reason that they should therefore discard the traditions of Christianity itself.

Second. I would never doubt the seniority of Scripture over tradition. However, not everything on how to administer the Church was laid out in the Bible. Paul told the Thessalonians: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thess 2:15)

Let’s take an example: confession of sins. James 5:16 instructs us to “Confess your faults one to another.” Yet in over 30 years in evangelical churches, I never once attended a church where this occurred as a matter of practice.

Here’s the problem. Let’s say you’re a Christian married man, and you decide to confess before your Bible study that you’ve been flirting with your secretary at work. But perhaps there’s an immature Christian at this Bible study who’s a gossip. And this gossip goes to your wife and blabs the whole story. Now your confession has not healed your guilt; instead it has brought misery into your life and your wife’s.

The early church recognized this dilemma, and made confession (which it regards as a vital sacrament) an act done before a priest sworn to confidentiality. This practice continues to this day in both Catholic and Orthodox churches. (Of course, this does not mean that anyone but God has the power to forgive sins.)

However, since under “sola scriptura”—scripture only—Protestant churches cannot detect a Biblical basis for this practice, confession has simply been, for all practical purposes, abandoned. “After all, confessing sins to a priest is just a tradition.”

But me, I want to confess my sins. For one thing, one is far less likely to commit a sin if he/she knows it will later be confessed.

By divorcing themselves from tradition, Protestants amputated 1,500 years of church history and the wisdom that went with it. During my years in evangelical churches, I met many people who had read the Left Behind series and countless other contemporary Christian books, but only encountered a handful of people familiar with the works of the early Church Fathers. Small wonder, then, that there are such diverse types of worship services.

A review of the oldest church writings, such as the epistles of St. Ignatius (bishop of Antioch) and The Didache, make it clear that the original church services were—contrary to modern Protestant doctrine—liturgical and sacramental, and regarded the consecrated bread and wine of Holy Communion as literally (not symbolically) the body and blood of Christ. Church administration was also clearly laid out, e.g., the ordaining of bishops and priests.

Who knew better how to worship? The original church, as taught by the Apostles, or denominational spinoffs of spinoffs, 1,500 to 2,000 years later?

So what happened to the Eastern Orthodox Church after its split with Rome? Again, a highly condensed account.

The Eastern Church continued to grow, most significantly with the conversion of all Russia to Christianity under Vladimir the Great in 988 AD.

Constantinople (now Istanbul) remained the heart of Orthodoxy until 1453, when it was conquered by the Ottoman Turks. From this time forward, Russia became, for practical purposes, Orthodoxy’s center. Moscow was even called “the Third Rome.”

This disposition came to a crashing halt with the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. During the early years of the revolution, Lenin and Trotsky oversaw the destruction of over 60,000 churches² and murder of over 300,000 priests.³ Although this period—the worst slaughter of Christians in history—is often acknowledged by conservative Western scholars, few emphasize that these were Orthodox Christians.

As many of my blog’s readers know, I often analyze geopolitical events from a spiritual perspective. When it comes to the Bolshevik Revolution, I believe it fair to say the Devil knew who his worst enemy was. (In saying this, I do not mean to in any way downplay the persecution of non-Orthodox Christians through the centuries.)

I believe it is probably not coincidental that while Bolsheviks were massacring the Russian Orthodox Church, simultaneously the Greek Orthodox Church was severely persecuted during the Greco-Turkish War of 1919 to 1922. The war originated after the Paris Peace Conference, in its usual meddlesome way, tried to chop up the defeated Ottoman Empire, awarding parts of it to Greece. Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered during the Greek Genocide, and about 1,500,000 Orthodox Christians were expelled from Turkey. This might be an appropriate time to also mention that the victims of the Ukrainian genocide (Holodomor) and Armenian genocide were also Orthodox Christians (Armenians being Oriental Orthodox). And fast-forwarding to today, are not the spectacular resurgence of Orthodoxy in Russia, along with the long-standing presence of Orthodoxy in Syria, factors in the Zionist West’s hostile foreign policy toward these two nations?

An Orthodox Christian revival is sweeping Russia, where more than 25,000 new churches have opened since the Soviet Union collapsed.

If there was a silver lining in the horrific genocides of Orthodox Christians, it may have been the movement of Orthodoxy into America via immigration. Thanks to that diaspora, I was able to discover Orthodoxy myself.

So what else drew me to Orthodoxy?

• Liturgical services, which some Protestants view as boringly redundant, have a very positive flip side. The services maintain the stability of authentic worship; they do not stray into the personal preferences of a pastor or elder board. The sermon is only a small part of an Orthodox service; by contrast, many evangelical churches center on the sermon; as a result, one may often see the pastor’s personality and opinions more than Christ.

• I was also delighted to discover that the Orthodox Church uses the much-neglected Septuagint version of the Old Testament. The Septuagint is what Jesus and the Apostles quoted. But most churches today abandon it for the Masoretic text, which was compiled by rabbinic scholars around 1,000 years after Christ. This is why, in so many modern Bibles, when Jesus and the Apostles quote a verse from the Old Testament, and you flip to that verse, the wording is different. My view: If the Septuagint was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.

• I look forward to partaking in the vital sacrament of communion in the way that was taught from antiquity.

• Another appeal of Orthodoxy is the disciplined lifestyle that accompanies it: not only recurring times of fasting, but the continuous pursuit of godliness—what Christ called “the narrow gate.” In listening to Brother Nathanael, I realized how certain Western doctrines have watered down what the first Christians called “the Way” (Acts 9:2). Calvin emphasized predestination, Luther emphasized “saved by faith alone,” and today we often hear “Once saved, always saved.”

Don’t misunderstand me. One can certainly find Scripture verses to support these precepts. The problem is that overly focusing on any one of them can tempt some into spiritual laziness. i.e.:

“My fate is predestined, so it doesn’t matter how I live.”
“I’m saved by faith alone, so it doesn’t matter how I live.”
“Once saved, always saved, so it doesn’t matter how I live.”

The devil knows better. If our behavior was irrelevant to the fate of our souls as Christians, Satan wouldn’t bother trying to tempt us. As James said:

Likewise faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. Yes, someone will say, “You have faith; and I have works.” Show me your faith by your works, and by my works, I will show you my faith. You believe that God is one! You do well! The demons also believe, and they shudder. (James 2:17-19) (EOB)

• And finally, I rejoice to have come home to the historic Christian Church. Those who follow my work know that I have largely evolved into a traditionalist, even viewing monarchy, as a form of government, with guarded approval. Although it is OK to rebel against authority when that authority is Luciferian, in the vast majority of cases, a spirit of rebellion—whether adolescent, political, or theological—is not consistent with God’s nature, and has brought the world myriad troubles.

I am not alone in this transition. Increasing numbers of Western Christians have discovered Orthodoxy, including Hank Hanegraff, long celebrated as “the Bible Answer Man.” (This podcast interview with Hank may be helpful.)

While readers are free to contact me about this post, I request that I not be sent general questions about Orthodoxy, such as “Don’t the Orthodox worship icons?” and “Don’t the Orthodox believe they’re saved by works instead of God’s grace?” (No, No.) The best place to find answers to FAQs like these is in an introductory book on Orthodoxy, such as Introducing the Orthodox Church by Anthony Coniaris, or Welcome to the Orthodox Church by Frederica Mathewes-Green. I also suggest the video series Discovering Orthodox Christianity.

Thanks for reading, and may God bless.

November 29, 2017 update. I discussed my journey into Orthodoxy in an interview with Dean Arnold on Global Storyline. The podcast is long, but may interest some who would like greater elaboration of this post’s details.

NOTES
1. “The Church of Darkness: Vatican II Church; Communists Secretly Infiltrated Roman Catholic Church,” April 9, 2015, http://romancatholicfaith.weebly.com/blog/-the-church-of-darkness-vatican-ii-church.
2 Juri Lina, Under the Sign of the Scorpion (2002: Referent Publishing), 237.
3. Ibid., 106.

Being in the midst of a serious and slow-moving post, as well as a stalled book, I decided to take a comedy break. Many who follow my blog, but not my Twitter account, don’t know that I regularly meme on Twitter, so I thought I’d organize a collection for the blog, subdivided by topic. Where a picture was originally captioned by the Tweet text, I’ve added that text as a caption here.

Memes are a modern variation on the political cartoon.  I hope my fellow “Red Pillers,” who live outside the Matrix, will get a few laughs from these.

The Deep State

At the head of the Deep State—meaning the oligarchy that runs most of the world from behind the scenes—researchers have long found the Rothschild banking dynasty, perhaps best personified today by Jacob Rothschild and his cousin Evelyn.

Evelyn even likes to invest in the weather.

The Rothschilds have always had proxies in America. Here’s J. P. Morgan having a George Carlin moment:

John D. Rockefeller enjoying a George Carlin moment:

David Rockefeller—who passed away last year—finally gets his:

U.S. Foreign Policy Memes

Here’s the “All American Wars are Fought to Spread Democracy and Defend our Freedoms” starter pack:

To make a case for yet another Middle East war (Syria),  the government decides it must go all out:

I think someone else originated this concept:

“KNOCK-KNOCK!”  “Who’s there?”  “FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY! I’M FREEDOM AND HE’S DEMOCRACY!”

How to become a Zionist Neocon President in 4 easy steps:

“No—DON’T round up the usual suspects! Arrest THIS scoundrel! Don’t you know what America’s eventually going to do to the Middle East?”

9/11: Where it really began for alternative media!

“Your mission—should you choose to accept it, Jim—is to help Mossad destroy the World Trade Center and blame it on Muslim patsies.”

Three myths to beware of:

And yes, Israel did it, with a little help from their friends.

Guess whose passport they really found outside the World Trade Center:

“You did it, Netanyahu, I know you did. You did 9/11”

Those words that we in the Truth Movement all long to hear from friends and family:

The 2016 Election: An Epic Meme War!

We must start with one person:

1958: “Hillary, you didn’t really steal the other children’s lunch money and then kill the tattle-tale, did you?”

Phyllis Dietrichson of Double Indemnity—still less dishonest, less treacherous, less greedy, and less deadly than Hillary.

No, the needle on the meter isn’t stuck. She just doesn’t stop lying.

Returns from Rio de Janeiro after shattering the Olympic record for lying.

As the 2016 campaign proceeded, my memes left no doubt about who I opposed:

This was captioned: “Only time I ever agreed with Biff”:

Hillary texting:

Breaking news as Hillary disclosed her prospective cabinet:

You might recall the night Hillary revealed our nuclear launch time during the debates.

But if I could be accused of favoritism during the campaign, what could we say of the mainstream media?

“‘Biased’? What do you mean we’re ‘biased’?”

“All right, move along! Please, please, disperse! Nothing to see here!”

 
“Hm. I wonder what ‘the mark of the Beast’ will turn out to be.”

 But then came the Election results!

“Hillary’s run for the White House? Missed it by that much.”

 
“Well, Huma. At least we still won the psychopath vote.”

Mainstream media then launched its “fake news” tirade.

But the public wasn’t buying.
 

When “fake news,” “Not My President” marches, recounts, and threats to electors didn’t work, then came “Russian Hacking,” which quickly became “Blame Russia for everything.”

Trump Memes

I guardedly supported Donald Trump, and voted for him, as he said many of the right sound bites during the campaign. However, his aggressive Neocon foreign policy, such as the indefensible cruise missile attack on Syria, extension of the Afghanistan war, arms deal for Saudi Arabia potentially worth $350 billion, and recent recognition of Jerusalem as exclusively the capital of Israel, demonstrate that he is carrying out the Rothschild plan for Greater Israel.  This is perhaps why he was allowed to win—because only Trump could secure the support of patriots and military men to drag a worn-out America into yet more unnecessary warfare in the Middle East. Once Iran is neutralized, I believe the Rothschilds will have no further use for Trump (they detest his “deplorables”) and a pretext will likely be found for impeachment (perhaps even with his prearranged consent). ***WARNING***: TRUMP SUPPORTERS WILL NOT LIKE THESE MEMES.

“You didn’t SERIOUSLY think I was going to let a true independent win your election, did you? Oh, Donald, park my Rolls Royce, will you? That’s a good chap.”

Even CNN did a brief but instant 180 when Trump bombed Syria:

Many believe the real power in the White House is Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner of Chabad Lubavitch:

It’s not encouraging that the Kushners made the largest real estate deal in history to acquire 666 5th Avenue, home to Lucent Technologies, developers of the RFID chip that some think could become “the mark of the Beast.”

(Just sayin’)

Zionists controlling global policy is nothing new.

Figures as diverse as Israeli nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu and Libya’s Qaddafi have fingered Israel for the Kennedy assassination.

Not funny, but needs posting:

ISRAEL. All this brings us to the Rothschild proxy state, its grip on U.S. foreign policy and aid, and its oppression of the Palestinians.

“All right, men, fan out. That 5-year-old Palestinian girl must be here somewhere.”

Recently the case of Ahed Tamimi has gone viral:

How does Israel get away with it?

Pavlov’s Dog: Was conditioned so that, every time he was shown evidence of Zionist crimes, he barked “antisemitism!”

Christian Zionism

Of course, support for Israel has always required the phenomenon of Christian Zionism, which I have written an extensive post on.

Taking a bit of license, this meme depicts the 1904 events leading to publication of the Scofield Reference Bible:

Here’s the Christian Zionist “I Love Israel Even Though They Spit on Christians, Genocide Palestinians, Attacked the USS Liberty and Did 9/11” Starter Pack:

Of course, here on American soil we’re beset by FALSE FLAGS.

False flags are nothing new, as demonstrated by the event that brought us into World War I.

I gave a 15-minute talk at the 2015 LibertyFest, summarizing the false flags that have misled America into wars. Often, however, they are orchestrated for domestic purposes such as gun control.

“And the Oscar for the best crisis actor in a false flag PSYOP goes to  . . .”

Domestic false flags are leading us toward an ORWELLIAN POLICE STATE ruled by SURVEILLANCE and CENSORSHIP, which we are already tasting. 

 
“These aren’t the gun-owning, home-schooling, 9/11 Truth, anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, anti-Zionist Tweeters we’re looking for. OK, move along.”

I made this meme, but someone else came up with the concept:

Letting old TV shows speak to the issues

“Look! Up in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Heck—I can’t tell with all those chemtrails!”

 
“No, Beaver, you may NOT be excused from tomorrow’s class on satanic pedophilic transgenderism.”

 
“Admit it, Mrs. Clinton. It was YOU who pulled the trigger on Vince Foster!”

“All right, Untouchables, let’s go to work. And just remember—there is no such thing as Jewish gangsters, only Italian gangsters.”

 
SKIPPER—“We won’t be here long. The NSA can find anyone anywhere, right, professor?” PROFESSOR—“Unless your name is Osama Bin Laden.”

“Highway Patrol here! I just caught those ‘dancing Israelis.’ They won’t be dancing when I get done with them!” 

Dr. Richard Kimble—pursued relentlessly by the police lieutenant who discovered he wasn’t forcing kids to take vaccinations.

A Few Random Memes

“Mr. Wales, could I interest you in signing this petition for gun control?”

“Did I ever tell you how I fought in the Great Meme War?”
“Yeah, Grandpa, 200 times.”

Still being in the midst of a more challenging post, I decided to take this short break.

12 Angry Men was a classic, well-acted 1957 film about a jury deciding the verdict in a murder trial. Because some of my readers won’t have seen it, I’ll leave a link at the bottom to a site where it can be watched for free, and I’ll avoid writing “spoilers.”

This film, which still holds up after 60 years, features many themes that resonate —for me, at least—with relevance to today’s Truth Movement. These include:

• Not caving in to peer pressure, even if it means standing alone. I don’t think I know a Truther who doesn’t identify with this challenge.

• Reaching a verdict based solely on objective evidence, not prejudicial thinking. How many battles have we fought on this basis, not only with others, but with ourselves? Often these prejudices are ones implanted by the mainstream media.

• Having the courage to change one’s mind and admit having been wrong. This is  difficult to do, but it’s vital to navigating a path of truth.

• Using critical thinking to establish facts, and going where the evidence leads, instead of simply relying on authorities. In 12 Angry Men, the jury works out many truths about the case, rather than depending on the authority of the judicial system’s paid attorneys­—and they do a better job. Likewise, even though we disagree among ourselves on some details, we in 9/11 Truth have labored toward analytically establishing the facts of September 11, 2001, instead of blindly accepting the government’s explanation.

• Caring about others. In the film, one character, played by Jack Warden, is willing to vote either way, just so long as he can make a baseball game he has tickets for. The game is more important to him than the fate of the accused, whose life is hanging in the balance. He reminds me of people we encounter today, who are far more concerned with sports scores than with the growing surveillance state, or the victims and trillion-dollar expense of the contrived wars we are waging in the Middle East.

• Upholding the Constitution. 12 Angry Men specifically cites Constitutional principles. Today, few people seem to know, or care, about their own rapidly eroding Constitutional rights.

• Validating the jury system itself. While I can’t prove it, I suspect that certain inordinately high-profile jury cases, such as the Casey Anthony trial, might have been tampered with in order to outrage the public into concluding that “the jury system doesn’t work” and “we should leave verdicts in the hands of judges (after all, they’re legal experts) instead of laymen.” THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THE DEEP STATE WANTS: POLITICALLY APPOINTED JUDGES, BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, HAVING AUTHORITY TO INCARCERATE ANYONE UPON WHIM OF THE STATE. The jury approach not only ensures that both sides of a case are heard, but that a verdict is decided by individuals with no ulterior motives. This system may not be perfect, but it sure beats whatever’s in second place.

Trivia notes: According to the Internet Movie Database, screenwriter Reginald Rose became inspired to script this film after he himself was a member of a jury that battled for eight hours to reach a verdict.

Of course, not everyone will enjoy 12 Angry Men; younger viewers may consider it too old or talky. Perhaps some of the film’s depictions of prejudice are slightly overdrawn, subtly hinting of political correctness. (Twenty years later, however, Rose wrote the script for one of the most politically incorrect films to fly under Hollywood’s radar screen: The Wild Geese. No one would ever guess the same man wrote both films, since The Wild Geese—on the surface—was a violent action/adventure flick. But the action concealed some geopolitical undercurrents, including a scheming Rothschild-like international banker, who betrays the men attempting to rescue an African leader based on Moise Tshombe, ill-fated Christian president of the breakaway state of Katanga.)

I would love to embed 12 Angry Men right here, but to avoid any copyright issue, I refer my readers to the version which you can click-and-play at archive.org. The sound and image quality are good.

Note: By the “Truth Movement,” I refer to those proactive people who do not reflexively accept what is reported by mainstream media, more than 90 percent of which is owned today by just six corporations. “Truthers” seek to “live outside the Matrix” and logically determine the realities that so often hide behind headlines. To achieve this, they have established their own presence as “alternative media,” using platforms such as blogs, independent radio, YouTube channels, Twitter accounts, etc. The Truth Movement has long existed (I myself began writing for alt media in 1985), but it experienced explosive growth after the government’s official explanation for 9/11 (as well as for the Middle East wars which followed) began to unravel. Truthers don’t always agree with each other, and make mistakes, but most of their errors are honest ones—which are bound to occur in the course of investigations—rather than deliberate lies prompted by corporate salaries or political agendas. Although the Truth Movement has been infiltrated by intelligence services, and the word “Truther” carries negative connotations for some, I am using it here in its most ideal sense: a person seeking only the truth.

Sometimes I’m asked questions along these lines:

“I noticed you were on X’s podcast. How come X isn’t a Christian and, for that matter, doesn’t even express any kind of spirituality? How can X see all the evils of the New World Order and not get depressed, when X doesn’t even seem to have the hope that comes from a relationship with God?”

I know many Truthers, and while I would say that a majority are Christians (of various denominations), there are also some Muslims, some agnostics, some New Agers, and within the mix a few people who are outright hostile to Christianity.

When I was hippie (about 1970), there was a general awareness among hippies and socialists that a wealthy elite pretty much ran America. We called it “the Establishment” or “the Man,” but we were far behind on the learning curve. We had never heard of the Council on Foreign Relations or Bilderbergers, knew nothing of how the Federal Reserve operated, the role that Zionism played—or, for that matter, that the CIA was behind LSD and our own counter-culture movement.

(me in those days)

In our narrow understanding, only one thing motivated the Establishment: lust for money. We viewed geopolitics through the materialist Marxist lens: wealthy capitalists were exploiting the poor and working classes in order to increase their own riches. There is, of course, a substantial measure of truth to this. The New World Order’s oligarchs offer the perks of fiat-generated wealth as incentives for the human cogs who run their system, and today we correctly speak of the “one percent” and ever-widening gap between rich and poor.

But it never dawned on us hippies that ultimately there was a Luciferian component. And why would it? Most of us were God-rejecting agnostics. (Who ever heard of a God-fearing hippie or Marxist?) After all, wasn’t religion “the opiate of the masses”? If there was no God, there was obviously no Lucifer either. Fancying ourselves scientific, we had tossed God and Lucifer into the “myth” corral where Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy reside.

However, with the Internet’s acceleration of information, it has become progressively clearer that the “New World Order” (NWO) is not simply materialistic; it is Luciferian. We can see it in the ceremonies at Bohemian Grove in Northern California, where America’s elite have long gathered annually. The rituals there include dressing en masse in gothic, hooded robes and sacrificing a human being in effigy (or is it for real?) before a forty-foot tall concrete owl representing the Canaanite god Moloch. Alex Jones broke through the Grove’s tight security to videotape the bizarre nighttime ceremony. Bohemian Grove participants have included the Bushes, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, top Bechtel executives, and many other “notables.”

For those with time to watch it (40 minutes), this landmark interview with Dutch whistleblower Ronald Bernard, a former currency manipulator, mentions the lethal satanic rituals the global elite engage in (it is best watched in full-screen mode to read the subtitles; some may prefer a version with an English voice-over:

The Satanism of the global oligarchs has long been confirmed by researchers who have studied them, including intelligence officials such as William Guy Carr (Canadian Intelligence Service) and Ted Gunderson (FBI). Lucifer is the god of secret societies, from the elitist Skull and Bones, whose initiates lie naked in a coffin (an invitation to demonic forces) to the upper, illuminated echelons of Freemasonry (I stress “upper” because most low-level Masons are unaware of it). Once, during a routine business conversation, I encountered a ranking Freemason who boasted to me that he had carved images of Satan into the eyes of a statue of the Virgin Mary, in a Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. “Now those f___ing Catholics,” he said, “when they bow before Mary, they’ll be bowing before Satan.”

Today, Satanism is on parade, as evidenced, for example, by Madonna dressing as Baphomet for a Super Bowl halftime show, the controversial unveiling of the Baphomet statue in Detroit, and Lucifer even having his own show on Fox, where he’s been repackaged as a “good guy” helping the LAPD. In his new book Hell’s Mirror, Texe Marrs makes a compelling case that satanic architecture has been constructed around the globe in preparation for the Antichrist’s rule foretold in the Bible.

So even if a particular Truther believes in a purely material universe, it cannot be denied that The Powers That Be, at the higher levels, do not. They aren’t atheists. Atheist ideology is useful for persuading people that God is a myth (and that therefore the Ten Commandments may be freely disobeyed), but that’s all. Satan does not desire a culture that is ultimately atheistic, because he wants to be worshiped, not unlike Orwell’s “Big Brother.”

To a great extent, the New World Order’s Luciferian character validates Christianity. Christ is, in Biblical doctrine, Satan’s nemesis. And the NWO’s oligarchs obviously agree, because it is Christians whom they have preponderantly persecuted. The millions of Christians massacred by the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union was probably the worst genocide in history. Nagasaki was selected for destruction with the A-bomb because it was Japan’s center of Christianity. In 1945, hundreds of thousands of Christians in Dresden were turned to ashes on Ash Wednesday.

In America, of course, persecution has been far more restrained, but it is still primarily targeting Christianity, from the elimination of school prayer and Christmas nativity displays, to the replacement of Christmas trees with “holiday trees,” to Christian bakers who are fined and even threatened with jail for refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, to Hollywood openly mocking Christians.

Without question, other religions have faced persecution worldwide, but none so pointedly as Christianity.

In a significant parallel, Truth advocates—people who expose 9/11 and other schemes and agendas of the Zionist Powers That Be—are persecuted. Government whistleblowers such as Susan Lindauer and Scott Bennett have been jailed. Those who simply question aspects of the official Holocaust narrative, from British historian David Irving to 88-year-old Ursula Haverbeck, have been imprisoned. Increasingly, Truthers have had their Facebook accounts removed, and their YouTube channels demonetized or suspended. Last year, Amazon Kindle temporarily suspended my book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior on ludicrous pretexts.

Since the global elite are anti-Christian Luciferians, one would hope that Truthers and Christians would recognize each other as natural allies; that more Truthers would embrace Christianity, and more Christians would join the Truth Movement. After all, isn’t “the enemy of my enemy my friend?”

Jesus said “I tell you the truth” 78 times in the New Testament. On the other hand, He called Lucifer—the Deep State’s driving force—“the father of lies.” (John 8:44) I believe that Truthers are, to whatever degree they stand for truth, serving God. I once ran into a Christian couple I hadn’t seen in ten years. They said their daughter had given up on church. She was, however, pursuing a career in organic foods. I told them that God undoubtedly approves organic foods—He brought about the great Flood, at least in part, because His creation was being tampered with—and that their daughter was therefore doing something pleasing to God (even though it didn’t equate to salvation). They later reported she was happy to hear this.

Christianity and the Truth Movement should be closely allied. So why aren’t they? I think that, on both sides of the breach, the answer is multi-dimensional.

Truthers may reject Christianity for any number of reasons. They may have embraced, or been raised in, a different faith tradition. They may be stuck in the Darwinist “life was created by chance” paradigm taught in schools, in which case the interview I did (the most-watched discussion video in SGT Report history) may be helpful. I have even met Truthers caught up in the ancient New-Age deception (it dates to the Garden of Eden) that Lucifer is really “the good guy” and God’s the villain; but anyone who studies the Luciferians of the New World Order—their wars, financial manipulations, population control mania, etc.—should be able to recognize that “by their fruits you shall know them.” Good guys they are not.

However, I think the main reason many Truthers sidestep Christianity relates to how the faith is manifested in the West as a result of systematic degradation. Over the centuries, Christianity has spun off into literally hundreds of different denominations, creating no end of confusion as to “Who’s got it right?” This was one of several factors in my recently joining Eastern Orthodoxy. The corruption of the Vatican through infiltration, the modernism foisted on mainstream Protestant denominations, and the Christian Zionism that has seized many of the fundamentalist churches, all repel the seeker.

Years ago, I tried bringing a couple of “Truther” friends to a fundamentalist church I was then attending. However, the situation was hopeless, inasmuch as the sermons featured “in the Matrix” concepts:
• pushing Christian Zionism (idolizing the Rothschild proxy state of modern Israel);
• unquestioningly accepting the government’s explanation of 9/11;
• touting all U.S. wars as just and fought to “defend our freedoms”;
• repeating the “Why don’t the Muslims love us?” mantra. (I oppose the unrestrained influx of migrants that is destroying Europe and threatening America. However, killing hundreds of thousands of people, displacing millions, turning the Middle East into chaos, inducing birth defects with depleted uranium weapons, torturing prisoners, etc.; none of these induce affection.)

This church suffered from what I call “Bartonized faith” (after Christian Zionist David Barton). The Cross is melded with the American flag, “Amazing Grace” with “The Star-Spangled Banner,” and God with Uncle Sam.

Let me be extremely clear here that I believe patriotism is truly a virtue, and that every nation is sovereign and possesses a right to self-defense. However, in the churches I am referring to, Christianity is conflated and confused with a very misguided and misinformed brand of patriotism that blindly supports wars of aggression, reminiscent of the pastors from a century ago whom Smedley Butler described:

From a “Truther’s” viewpoint: if a preacher doesn’t discern the truth about the world around him (and in fact parrots Luciferian propaganda) why would one trust this preacher to light a path toward Eternal Life?

There are, of course, politically savvy pastors and theologians in the West—Texe Marrs, Matt Furse, Chuck Baldwin, Bishop Richard Williamson (Catholic) and Brother Nathanael (Orthodox) are notable examples. However, most clergymen (and this does not exclude Orthodoxy) primarily draw their comprehension of world events from mainstream media’s “Matrix,” and thus are not up-to-speed on issues that alternative media closely follow. They might pray for victims of false-flag shootings, geo-engineered weather disasters, vaccine-induced autoimmune illnesses, etc., but are not equipped to help their congregations understand, oppose, or avoid these phenomena.

In short, Christianity largely loses appeal when its ministers are caught up in the world’s lies.

What solutions have we? One is to reach clergy so they can at least deliver sermons that square with geopolitical realities. I think this requires informed parishioners sitting down with their priest or pastor, one-on-one, to call attention to these matters. But the situation is highly individual. Some clergy may listen; others might react like other blue-pilled residents of the Matrix: roll their eyes and scoff. This may especially hold true for those ordained by “Christian Zionist” seminaries, since their understanding of Scripture was interwoven with Zionist indoctrination.

Of course, anticipating political sermons from pastors may be unrealistic. Most churches operate as 501(c)(3) organizations, which causes some clergy to fear losing their church’s tax-exempt status if they speak too politically. Also, a political sermon is admittedly tricky business, inasmuch as everyone listening in the congregation is on various learning curves regarding political and historical truths, and one is bound to trigger misunderstandings and cognitive dissonance.

Insofar as I am concerned, it’s OK for pastors not to stray into geopolitics. Attending to parishioners’ spiritual well-being is a full-time job by itself. But if they do address politics, it is essential to know and speak the truth.

Actually, politics is hard to divorce from spirituality, because politics is a human arena of spiritual warfare. It constantly impinges itself on the lives of a congregation—be it through contrived wars, economic stress from the Fed’s debauching the dollar, diseases induced to advance population control, in-school political correctness that now even challenges the reality of gender, and much more. To preach in complete isolation from these matters is to place one’s head in the sands of irrelevance.

Centuries ago, this clerical challenge was easier. After Constantine legalized Christianity in the Fourth Century, the duality of “church and state” developed. Kings, emperors and czars, East and West, however imperfectly, became defenders of the faith. The clergy had a clearly defined role—attending to souls—while the state protected bodies. Clergymen did not have to busy themselves much with politics, which was left in the hands of the Christian monarch and his administration.

But the Rothschild-centered cabal rallied its Judeo-Masonic underlings to wage violent revolutions. They overthrew all monarchies they could not compromise and control, replacing them with communist dictatorships or “democracies.” The Rothschilds knew they had little if any hope of marrying into hereditary monarchies—but a democracy is easy to control; when you own the newspapers and other media, your candidate is all but assured 51 percent of the vote.

Today, the Constantines (defenders of the faith) are long gone. The Church is protected only by constitutions, which the Deep State are eroding as fast as possible. Therefore I think it behooves clergy to fill some of this void by becoming politically savvy—as Jesus said, be as “wise as serpents.” (Matthew 10:16)

But it may be incumbent on those of us in the Truth Movement to become the new Constantines. Though we don’t bear swords of steel, we bear swords of truth, as we battle the New World Order, for whom destruction of true Christianity—and our very souls—is the paramount end-game.

And for those Truthers who don’t recognize it yet, hasn’t the time come to perceive that the universe’s complexity wears God’s signature, that our antagonists are Lucifer and his followers, and that we are in the middle of a spiritual war—one that is played out not only in geopolitics, but in the personal inner struggles of our own daily lives? Over the past two thousand years, Lucifer has done everything he can to disfigure and misrepresent Christianity (see, e.g., my posts here and here). I believe we need to critically analyze and debunk those lies (in the same way we’ve investigated 9/11 and other historical lies), and see God for who He is: our creator, savior, our guidepost for living, and—after bodily death takes us—our ultimate hope.

“H” was born in Damascus, and legally immigrated to the United States from Syria more than 20 years ago, long before the current war began. She became a U.S. citizen and earned a doctor’s degree from an American university. She is completely fluent in both English and Arabic. She recently returned from a trip back to Syria, where she has many family members and friends who keep her apprised of the situation there. She is also one of the kindest and most devoted Christians I have ever met. I am keeping H’s name confidential, as I do not wish this interview to in any way jeopardize her family’s safety in Syria, or the status of her professional work in the U.S.

I originally anticipated that our discussion would be two-part; first I would give her a short primer on the back story of American politics. When we sat down, I told H that I have been a journalist since 1985. I began to explain that America is run by an oligarchy that conceals itself behind a façade of two-party democracy, that Presidential candidates have long been pre-selected, that Americans have been repeatedly deceived into wars, and that our press is controlled by the same establishment that controls the politicians. H was smiling, and I could swiftly tell that nothing I said was news to her. And so it was affirmed that what famed commentator “Syrian Girl” (whose Facebook and YouTube accounts have been censored) said is true: Syrians are well informed about the New World Order. Indeed, Syrians know more about the realities of American geopolitics than most Americans do. So, after about four minutes, I laughed, and told H that my “lecture” was over. I now asked her to tell me the truth about Syria. My questions are in normal font, her replies in bold. For this post, I have inserted some pictures and video that correlate with her comments.

____

JP: First of all, tell me about Bashar al-Assad. The American media and many politicians here portray him as an evil dictator who is oppressing the people of Syria, and who must be overthrown in one of our never-ending “regime changes.” How do the people of Syria themselves feel about Assad? Especially, I’d like you to tell my readers how Syria’s Christians regard him.

H: They love him. The Christians adore him. He respects all religions. Many Americans have the misconception that Syria is a Muslim state. It is not. It is a secular state, although the Christians are in the minority.

Every month, Bashar visits the nuns of Mar Thecla monastery, the ones who were kidnapped by ISIS, and he has also visited Seidnaya Monastery.

Bashar was not supposed to become President, you know. His brother was being groomed for that position. Bashar was trained to be an eye doctor, an ophthalmologist. But after his brother died, his father asked him to prepare to take the leadership.

Bashar brought great prosperity to Syria. Years ago, after the U.S. placed sanctions on us, we were forced to make our own goods. It was hard, but we became self-sufficient and began exporting many products. You know, Syria had no debt before the war. So we find it humorous when the American press calls us a “Third World country,” considering how much debt the U.S. has.

As to Assad, he is loved by Syrians. He used to go out unprotected among the people, no bodyguards. You know, he is an Alawite [Alawites are branch of Shiite Islam], and most of Syria’s Muslims are Sunnis, but they love him anyway. Of course, some of them would prefer to have a Sunni President, and there are people opposed to him. But there is not one president who is well liked by all his people; look at Obama, or Trump, no one has a 100 percent approval, but the majority of Syrians love Bashar. I personally know people who went to school with him, and they all vouch for his character.

JP: In the Syrian army, are the Christians comfortable fighting alongside Muslims?

H: Yes. They are fighting the same enemy. Many Christians have died in the Syrian army. I’m going to find you some pictures of Christian soldiers praying at church before going into battle.

JP: Now as to the so-called “rebels” whom the U.S. is backing, how many are actually Syrians?

H: 80 to 90 percent are foreigners—most don’t even speak Arabic [the native language of Syria]. They come from all over the world—Afghanis, Saudis, Libyans, Chechens, even from as far as Canada. They are trained in Turkey and Jordan.  

JP: I have been told that the U.S. is paying these mercenaries more than it pays our own soldiers.

H: I wouldn’t know about that, but they work for whoever pays them the most.

JP: It seems fair to say that the New World Order believes they can get anyone to work for them if they pay them enough money, whether it’s bankers, politicians, newscasters. or soldiers. Now in America we hear a lot of confusing terms to describe the “rebels”—ISIS, Daesh, Al Qaida, Al Nusra, the White Helmets. Can you elaborate?

H: ISIS is the same as Daesh; they are supported by Saudi Arabia. Jabhat al-Nusra get support from Qatar. They are both allies of the U.S., and the U.S. knows that, and keeps calling them “moderate rebels.” Jabhat al-Nusra, Al Qaida, the White Helmets, they are basically the same. Whatever their names, they are paid to make war in Syria.

JP: As I’m sure you know, the film The White Helmets was given an Oscar as “Best Documentary.” It’s a great example of how politicized Hollywood is. Of course, Hollywood is run by the same Establishment that controls the news media and the government.

H: Actually, I was not aware of, nor did I see that movie. In Syria, we call them “Evil Helmets” or even “Devil Helmets.” They make a lot of fake news. When the fighting started around Homs, hooded men came and forced my aunt and some of her neighbors out of bed; they were made to stand outside in their nightclothes. The militants videotaped them, and then it was aired on Al Jazeera saying “This is what Assad is doing to his people.” As you may know, Al Jazeera did a deal with Al Gore’s channel. It all reminds me of the movie Wag the Dog, where the government hires a Hollywood director to film a fake war, which they put on the news like it was really happening. It is easy to fabricate fake news nowadays.

JP: I want to recommend that my readers watch Wag the Dog if they haven’t done so. In fact, I will link to a clip from that film. Now, what would happen to Syria’s Christians if Assad was overthrown and these people were victorious?

H: You don’t want to know.

In Maaloula, four Christians, three men and a lady, had guns put to their heads by ISIS and were told to renounce Christ or they would be killed. They refused to renounce Christ. So they were all shot; the men were martyred, and the woman was left for dead, but she was still alive and lived to tell the story. But I want you to know all these groups not only kill Christians, but also kill Muslims who do not agree with their beliefs, whether they are Sunnis, Shiites, or members of other branches of Islam.

JP: To me, it is insanity that we have Trump supporters here in America, who are professing Christians, but who cheer his “Assad must go” policy, which is identical to the Neocon “Assad must go” policy of Obama, John McCain and Hillary Clinton. As you know, after he launched the 59 cruise missiles against Shayrat Air Base, I wrote an article called 14 Reasons Why the Syria Airstrikes Were a Really Bad Idea. As just one example, you cannot dismantle chemical weapons by bombing them; this would only release them into the atmosphere, harming people. This was positive proof that the Trump administration knew Assad had not dropped chemical weapons on his own people.

H: And what would Assad’s motive be, right after winning a huge military victory? [Allepo] Whenever the media starts talking about chemical weapons, it means one thing: the Syrian army has had a major success. Like the one we just had in Ghouta, which we desperately needed, because if Ghouta fell, Damascus could fall, and that would be the end of Syria. America wants to curtail the advancement of the Syrian army, so they create an excuse to bomb the army whom we desperately need to protect us.

Photo taken by Syrian Christian soldier after the liberation of Ghouta

JP: Yes. In fact, right after Trump bombed the air base, ISIS launched a new offensive hear Homs. So what Trump in effect did was to deliver a flank attack in support of ISIS, which is very ironic, since he largely came to power as an opponent of Islamic extremism. Of course, America has long been covertly backing ISIS with weapons and training. Tell me, what do Syrians think the U.S. government’s motives are?

H: In Syria we say: America is not America, America is Israel.

JP: There are former members of Congress, such as Cynthia McKinney and Jim Traficant, who have confirmed what you just said.

H: My mother is from Homs; that is where the militants had their very first victory. Do you know what flag they raised there when that happened?

JP: No, I don’t.

H: It was the Israeli flag. My friends and family members took pictures of it, then it was quickly taken down.

JP: Well, I guess that should come as no surprise. ISIS never attacks Israel, their wounded have been cared for in Israeli hospitals, and there was an Israeli colonel [Yusi Oulen Shahak], captured among ISIS forces. I recently read that the U.S. military has conducted a joint exercise with the Israelis, the largest ever. It included a mock attack on Syria, Lebanon and even Gaza.

H: I didn’t know that, but I do know the Americans now have about 20 bases in Syria. They got help from the Kurds.

JP: Twenty? Well, then they are really serious about extending the war. And they have no right to be there. You can imagine how Americans would react if a foreign country launched cruise missiles on us, and built bases on our soil. By the way, where did you get that information about the 20 bases?

H: From the Syrian news, as well as my contacts in Syria.

JP: How reliable do you consider the Syrian news media?

H: Well, I have to say that in any country, there will be a certain amount of bias in its news media. That’s why it’s always important to also have your own contacts through social media, friends and family on the ground, who can tell you what’s really going on.

JP: Next I want to ask you how Syrians feel about the Russians.

H: If it weren’t for Russia’s intervention, Syria would have fallen a long time ago. Russians are good people in the opinion of Syrians. They never betrayed us. You know, when I was growing up in Syria, we lived very close to their government offices. I used to see them at the swimming pool. I was very comfortable among them, they were nice people who minded their own business. 

Syrians trust Russia to keep its word, but they don’t trust the U.S. Everyone in Syria, and in the entire Middle East, knows that America can be your friend one day, then stab you in the back the next, because they betrayed Arabic countries so many times.

 JP: Well, we have plenty of examples of that—as I’m sure you know, at one time we were arming Saddam Hussein, and before him the Taliban.

H: Yes. By the way, there was a time when Syrians really liked and respected America. But that has changed over the last twenty years.

JP: Right now there is a huge Christian revival in Russia, and Putin of course is an Orthodox Christian. Recently I read that one reason he intervened in Syria was to protect the Orthodox Church, which has been in Syria for 2,000 years, and that he’d been encouraged to do so by Patriarch Kirill.

H: Well, I don’t know, that may be true. However, I also want to say that no nation sacrifices its soldiers unless it is in its own national interest. Russia has oil and natural gas interests in Syria, and it also gives them additional access to the sea, which they need. Of course, the West has its own plans for Syrian oil and gas, which would threaten Russia’s economy.

You must understand, the situation in Syria is very complex. We have the Golan Heights that Israel took from us and does not want to give back, so Syria is at odds with Israel. There are Sunnis in Syria who would like to replace Assad with a Sunni president; this would of course make Saudi Arabia happy, which is a Sunni country, and weaken Iran which is a Shiite country. There are many factors and reasons for this war, let’s call it a World War III happening through mercenaries in Syria, as well as in Iraq and Yemen. The same players are in those countries. So in a nutshell, it is a war between two major powers, America and Russia, with their allies, in our land.

In fact, this recent business with the murdered Russian double spy, and the expulsion of Russian diplomats, it may be no coincidence that this occurred at the same time as our success in Ghouta. Our information is that the Russians strictly warned the U.S. not to interfere by bombing our army, or there would be consequences.

JP: Well, we’ve all been wondering if the West was using the Skripal affair to start a World War! But in other words, they might really be trying to pressure Russia into backing down in Syria.

H: Yes, or to make some kind of deal about Syria.

JP: Next I want to ask you a question that may be difficult for you to talk about. One day a few weeks ago I saw you crying and wearing black. I asked what happened, and you said your area near Damascus had been heavily bombed by the Israelis.

H: Not only by the Israelis, but by Jibhet el Nousra also. They use an illegal type of bomb, I cannot remember what it is called. But there were many casualties, and none of this was reported in the American media. We [H and her immediate family] were lucky, because we were just over there, but not at the time it was bombed.

JP: I read that the Israelis try to justify these attacks by saying there are Iranians in Syria.

H: Oh, Jim, the Israelis do not justify! They do whatever they like. They know they can get away with anything.

JP: Well, let me ask this. Are there Iranians in Syria?

H: Yes. We have Iranian volunteers in the Syrian army. We have lost so many soldiers in this war, so we need the help.

JP: And Iranians, why would they fight for Syria?

H: Because they know that if Syria falls, Iran is next.

JP: Well, that is a reason that makes sense.

H: Of course, the Iranians also support Hezbollah in Lebanon. Did you know that only in America, Hezbollah is called terrorists? In Europe, nobody calls them that.

JP: How optimistic or pessimistic are Syrians about victory?

H: We hope for victory, and are encouraged by the successes of the Syrian army, but the people are getting worn out. Many are hungry and depressed; a lot of them have no money anymore, because they haven’t been able to work for years due to the war. In Syria, when someone says “Have a nice day,” it has a different meaning than in America. In Syria “Have a nice day” usually means, “I hope you come back alive and in one piece.” Because you know, you can come back alive, but still not be in one piece.

JP: Is there anything else you would like Americans to know?

H: The reason there is a “Syrian immigration crisis” is the war. Many people have been forced to leave because they have no choice. Leave us alone, and there will be no Syrian immigration problem.

I would also like to say that I love America, and am happy, grateful, and honored to be called an American. I simply disagree with its Middle East policies. I encourage people to look beyond the headlines, and think before forming an opinion. Governments all over the world create false pretexts for wars.

I challenge Americans and America’s leaders, and the world’s leaders, to compete in advancing humanity, instead of competing in creating weapons that destroy humanity. It is a dream of mine to see people working together instead of against each other, creating abundance, not fear and scarcity. When others are doing well, we all do well. As the Apostle John said, if you don’t love your brother whom you have seen, how can you love God whom you have not seen?

One day in the 1970s, my sister and I, both twenty-somethings, were visiting my father’s house. We flicked on the TV. For some reason, the local station departed from its standard routine and played something we’d never seen before: one of the dramas uniquely featured in the 1950s. There were a few of these “anthology series”: Playhouse 90, Studio One, General Electric Theater, Robert Montgomery Presents, Philco Television Playhouse and several others. They featured individual dramas with a new cast each week; they were not the formulaic series that had become rigorously standard by the 1960s, with every show employing the same cast in new scripts. (I won’t embed it here, but for an example of what these dramas could be like, I’ll recommend Playhouse 90’s The Comedian from 1957 on YouTube.)

I don’t recall which anthology series my sister and I encountered that day, or the name of the play. But I do know that for the next 60 minutes—or was it 90?—we sat spellbound, watching one of the best-written, best-acted dramas we’d ever seen. We were somewhat “literate” regarding drama, because my father was a salesman, and his company always gave him tickets to take customers to plays in Boston—which was Broadway’s “trial run” city for new shows. When Dad’s customers couldn’t make it, the family got to go, so we spent many a night viewing Broadway’s best at the Schubert, Wilbur, and Colonial theaters.

After the TV drama finished, my sister and I discussed it at length. Why was it, we asked, that television no longer featured high-quality entertainment like that? We didn’t quite realize it, but we had just stepped in and out of a personal Twilight Zone moment—a trip into the lost “Golden Age of Television.“

Of course, we had tasted the “Golden Age” in real time (my family succumbed to social pressures and bought its first television set in 1955 or 1956)—but my sister and I were then only ready mostly for the kiddie shows.

For decades, TV’s “Golden Age” was, and still is by many, remembered nostalgically. Though many of my younger readers won’t know them, some of the best-loved staples were I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, and Leave It to Beaver. What made that era so memorable? Sure, it was new and innovative at the time, and shows were often live instead of prerecorded (adding an appeal of unpredictability). Initially, audience laughter was almost always genuine instead of “canned.” But I credit a more profound reason for the attraction.

About 10 years ago, I was looking over the 1959 TV lineup. There were only three networks back then, hence just three competing choices. Yet my eyes got a little misty as I realized that if I were transported to 1959, I’d be more conflicted trying to decide “which show to watch” than with the literally hundreds of choices cable TV was offering. (This has recently changed somewhat, due to the increasing arrival of networks like MeTV, which air vintage shows, helping ensure senior citizens stay just as distracted as the younger denizens of “the Matrix.”)

I believe what made that era’s shows so appealing was essentially their morality. 1950s television permitted no cursing or sex scenes; any violence wasn’t graphic. Furthermore, most shows’ plots ended with a positive moral lesson. Honesty, respect for others, “doing the right thing,” self-control, and other virtues were upheld. Superman began every episode reminding children that Superman fought for “truth, justice, and the American way.”

On 50s TV, crime couldn’t pay. (Alfred Hitchcock had a uniquely clever way of circumventing this rule on his show; the criminals would often “get away with it,” but in his epilogue, Hitch would dryly remark that they were later caught and paid their debt to society.)

Although Leave It to Beaver became, in recent years, a favorite target for ridicule by jaded comedians, when I attended elementary school my classmates avidly watched it. Almost every story presented a right-or-wrong choice for Beaver (and/or his brother Wally). Temptation usually came from Wally’s friend Eddie Haskell, and sound advice from the brothers’ father, Ward Cleaver. In retrospect, Eddie and Ward seemed to loosely symbolize the counsel of Lucifer and God. I find it interesting that, in real life, actor Ken Osmond (Eddie) went on to become a Los Angeles policeman, and actor Hugh Beaumont (Ward) held a Master’s Degree in Theology and was licensed to preach by the Methodist Church.¹ The cast clearly included some righteous dudes.

So why did all this change? It certainly wasn’t because Americans demanded that cursing, sex and gore be added to their TV diet. As a journalist for three decades, and student of “the New World Order” for four, I’ve realized that 1950s television was a carefully set trap. To lure a mouse into the trap, you’ve got to insert some cheese.

In this case, the “cheese” was television’s façade as a positive tool that would teach your children integrity and uplifting life perspectives. And that’s just what it did (even though it occasionally pushed messages a bit to the left of America’s center). I believe the nostalgia Americans generally feel for the 1950s is based largely on the values society held, and that television was in fact reinforcing those values by presenting strong role models.

If you watch The Honeymooners, the show was hilarious, but Ralph would almost invariably learn a life lesson along the way, classically hugging his forgiving wife with the closing words, “Baby, you’re the greatest!”

Even with the conniving Sergeant Bilko (1955-59), the earlier episodes usually ended with a heartfelt message—such as Bilko expressing regrets at having cheated someone—whereas by the final season everything was strictly for laughs at the sergeant’s cunning and greed; the ratings dropped and the show was cancelled.

America society was prevailingly Christian then. To get television into those households required presenting it as a purveyor of Christian morals, however repugnant that may have been to studio heads’ true feelings.

The very first hit song ever introduced on TV was 1953’s “I Believe,”² all about faith in God. I don’t think a video clip of the original telecast exists, but here’s the song, which reached #2 on the charts:

Wink Martindale’s cover of “The Deck of Cards” hit No. 7 on the 1959 Billboard charts:

Church, God, and positive portrayals of ministers were standard in the 1950s. When my wife asked what I wanted for a gift last Christmas, I suggested a DVD collection of 17 Studio One (1948-58) dramas, which included the first-ever filming of Orwell’s 1984. While I can’t say I found all the episodes commendable, the godly references in some struck me. In “The Strike,” an army major in the Korean War gets very theological with the chaplain after learning a patrol he’s sent out must be sacrificed in an inevitable air strike. In another, “The Death and Life of Larry Benson,” a family has joyfully learned that their son was not killed in Korea as first reported. But when they reach the train station, they discover their “son” is actually a mentally troubled GI, a battlefield friend who had taken on their son’s identity. After initial shock and rejection, they accept him into their family, and the father, who had previously given up on God, heads with the others to church as the bells ring.

Last year, Turner Classic Movies played several “lost” TV performances of the highly talented, ill-fated James Dean. One feature I caught was “Harvest,” an episode of Robert Montgomery Presents. Dean played a farmboy; when his grandfather dies, the soundtrack plays the song version of The Lord’s Prayer. At the teleplay’s finish, when the family has gathered for Thanksgiving, overcoming distance, hardships, and distractions to do so, the father (Ed Begley) says the following prayer:

Lord, we thank Thee for this wonderful feast. On this day of Thanksgiving, we have much to be grateful for. We thank Thee for all the good things that have come our way this past year; we thank Thee that we may all be together here today. All our sons, and our son Joe’s wife, and our grandchildren; and Lord we thank Thee that our son Chuck has come home to stay [Chuck kisses his mother]. And Lord, don’t let me ever forget again what Grandpa always used to say: You got to set your hopes on tomorrow. Amen.

I’m certainly not suggesting that all “Golden Age” content was openly Christian; it wasn’t. But with words like these issuing from the neighbor’s TV screen, what Christian family wouldn’t rush out to buy a set of their own? And so they did.

I suspect the South’s Bible Belt was particularly distrustful of television, as it would be of anything that smelled of “Yankee.” It is my personal belief that this is why the series The Gray Ghost premiered in 1957, all about the true-life adventures of the daring Confederate cavalry officer John Mosby. What Southerner would pass up a chance to cheer for Mosby?

OK, so how did television go from model citizen to deadbeat?; from Bible and family values to today’s sex, gore, foul language, political correctness, ridicule of Christianity, and even satanic occultism? The answer: they pulled one of the oldest tricks—“boil the frog.” It’s said that if you want to boil a frog, you can’t just toss him in boiling water. Instead, you put him in lukewarm water, and gradually turn up the heat. That way, the frog never realizes he’s been boiled. This is what television did to Americans. (Hollywood theatrical films also boiled the frog, of course, but television required “kid-glove” handling, as the sets were in the midst of homes.)

No degradation could have been introduced in the mid-1950s, because half of America’s households still didn’t have a TV yet. I believe substantive change did not begin until 1963, when home ownership of televisions reached 91.3 percent,³ or near saturation. At this juncture, the fish was baited, and studio heads could start tweaking content. Television sets were expensive then, so no one was apt to throw theirs away over minute, progressive content alterations.

I personally remember TV’s different feel in the fall of ‘63. Leave It to Beaver and Dobie Gillis were suddenly gone; ABC stopped showing reruns of Father Knows Best. The Outer Limits premiered, introducing a new level of creepiness. My Favorite Martian made aliens (who many of us understand to be demonic) very human-friendly. Sure, it was mild stuff, but that’s how you boil the occult frog, starting with cuteness—as Bewitched did with witchcraft in 1964 and I Dream of Jeannie with magic in 1965.

To digress slightly, a change in America’s entire demeanor began in late 1963. A personal observation: in November 1963 I saw some classmates of mine in Lexington, Massachusetts, boys I’d known for years, nice kids, suddenly acting like cruel demons. How do I recall so clearly that the change occurred in November 1963? Because on October 31 (Halloween) we had trick-or-treated together, and they were fine. But when my mother rushed into the house on November 22, to tell me of President Kennedy’s assassination, I was so distressed by my classmates’ changes that I could barely absorb the news.

One could chalk it up to adolescence and onset of puberty, but there seemed to be a spiritual undercurrent. Certain events had primed that pump. On June 17, 1963, the Freemason-dominated Supreme Court had ruled that reading the Bible in public schools was suddenly “unconstitutional.” (Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, Potter Stewart and Chief Justice Earl Warren were all members of the Craft, ensuring a 5-4 majority of men who apparently held their oath to the Brotherhood above their oath to the Constitution.) Coupled with the Court’s previous decision banning school prayers, God had now been officially expelled from classrooms.

According to Father Malachi Martin, a ceremony enthroning Lucifer took place in the Vatican on June 29, 1963, concurrent with satanic rites in the United States.⁴ I assume these rites probably included the uppermost ranks of Freemasonry, which, as I have noted elsewhere, has historic ties to Lexington (today it’s home to the headquarters for the entire Northern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite). I think the town was impacted. The changes in my classmates was not an observation unique to me, because in 1964 or 1965, one of the national TV networks did a special news documentary on juvenile delinquency. Of all the American towns they could have chosen to exemplify juvenile delinquency, they picked Lexington, Mass. The network’s hidden cameras caught kids doing various perverse things like ripping open parking meters to steal the coins. And Lexington kids weren’t poor.

Kennedy’s assassination was itself, I believe, a reflection of the spiritual pivot of 1963, and on its heels came the Beatles and the Vietnam War. The Powers that Be wanted America converted from a Biblical culture to a Talmudic, Kabbalistic one; from a Leave It to Beaver society to a drugged-up, free-sex, no-God Woodstock society. They succeeded; it took only six years (1963-69). And television played its part, incrementally boiling Christian values out of the frog soup.

Today, news broadcasts are purveyors of a Matrixed “reality” which America’s concealed oligarchy want viewers to believe in.

But when TV began, newscasts were minimal. In 1957 in Boston, the only news at 11PM was a five-minute local report. I find it interesting that the Vietnam War escalated just as television ownership reached saturation point. Network news played the lead role in distorting the public’s view of the war, as shown in Accuracy in Media’s documentary Television’s Vietnam. Similarly, World War II began after radio reached a saturation point, and “The War on Terror” after Web-connected home computers hit saturation. Thus, over the past century, America’s three most important wars each coincided with distribution of a new propaganda medium.

Originally, TV entertainment took no sides politically. Then, in 1971, All in the Family introduced “political relevance,” as conservative Archie Bunker would argue with his liberal son-in-law. This show also “boiled the frog”: in initial episodes, when insults were traded, Archie seemed to give as good as he got; but eventually he transformed into a buffoon, with canned laughter cueing the audience to scorn his made-to-look-stupid conservatism:

The politically awake were portrayed as cranks.

Satanist Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, affirmed what I have been saying about television’s gradualism, and even noted that TVs were intended to replace family altars:

The birth of TV was a magical event foreshadowing its Satanic significance. The first commercial broadcast was aired on Walpurgisnacht, April 30th, 1939, at the New York World’s Fair. Since then, TV’s infiltration has been so gradual, so complete, that no one even noticed. People don’t need to go to church any more; they get their morality plays on television. What began modestly as rabbit ears on top of family TV sets are now satellite dishes and antennas pridefully dominating the skyline, replacing crosses on top of churches. The TV set, or Satanic family altar, has grown more elaborate since the early 50s, from the tiny, fuzzy screen to huge “entertainment centers” covering entire walls with several TV monitors. What started as an innocent respite from everyday life has become in itself a replacement for real life for millions, a major religion of the masses. . . . The clergy of the TV religion are those entertainers, newscasters in particular, who nightly spread the Word from their cathode-ray pulpit.⁵

What the Golden Age’s brief glow did prove, however, was that television, like any artistic platform, be it literature, theater, music, or the graphic arts, can be a force for integrity, faith, and society’s good. How I wish it could experience a renaissance.

NOTES

1. “Hugh Beaumont,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Beaumont.
2. “I Believe (Frankie Lane Song),” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Believe_(Frankie_Laine_song).
3. “Number of TV Households in America,” http://www.buffalohistory.org/Explore/Exhibits/virtual_exhibits/wheels_of_power/educ_materials/television_handout.pdf.
4. “Fr. Malachi Martin affirmed: Satanism has been practiced in the Vatican,” These Last Days News, August 10, 2015, http://www.tldm.org/news/martin.htm.
5. Anton LaVey, The Devil’s Notebook (1992), online edition, https://archive.org/stream/Everything_938/The-Devil-s-Notebook-Anton-LaVey_djvu.txt.

This is the fifth post I have written on 9/11. The most recent previous ones were:

• To 9/11 and Beyond, which examined evidence that the two explosions which ultimately decimated the Twin Towers were nuclear (a post I could not have written without technical advice from sources who preferred anonymity);
• 9/11 Simplified, which attempted to reconstruct the 9/11 events, regarding both the who and the how, and proposed a new take on the fate of the original passenger planes (that they were hijacked by Israeli special ops, and diverted over the Atlantic);
• Conversations with an Airline Pilot about 9/11, an exchange with a highly experienced, active Airbus captain (his identity shielded as “Pilot A”), who helped clarify many technical aspects of 9/11, including elimination of electronic hijackings on that day.

Because in these posts I had to keep revising and refining my own understanding of 9/11, I felt that I should finally sum them all in a short book. But I tabled that idea because there was still one major 9/11 riddle that seemed impervious to a firm solution: what actually struck the Twin Towers (and the Pentagon and Shanksville).

In “9/11 Simplified” and “Conversations with an Airline Pilot,” I reviewed the evidence that it could not have been the original jetliners, as the official narrative claims. Without belaboring details here, this included:

• The planes reaching speeds unattainable by jetliners in the thickened air of low altitude, speeds that could have caused structural damage during flight, with pieces of wings, tail or fuselage breaking off;
• The demonstrable uncontrollability of planes at such speeds and altitudes, in a scenario where bullseye hits had to be guaranteed if the Twin Towers were to be demolished afterwards;
• The government’s failure to match a single aircraft part, found in wreckage, to any of the original 9/11 planes, a task that would be easy by comparing serial numbers to logbook records;
• The impossible physics seen in footage of Flight 175 hitting the South (second) Tower, its aluminum frame slicing through massive 14-inch steel columns, whereas there are many examples of jetliners shattering upon hitting water, having their noses bashed in by bird collisions, etc.;
• The three-dimensional, missile-shaped object visible on the underside of “Flight 175,” which could not have been missed at Logan Airport by the maintenance crew or by the pilots during their mandatory preflight inspection of the aircraft.

So what did hit the targets on 9/11? In the earlier posts, we narrowed this down to two basic options: cloaked missile or drone.

The cloaked missile is a variation of the “no planes” paradigm, and though it is often ridiculed, had much going for it:

• Missiles can precisely hit targets at high speed; they would not have been subject to the strong “G-forces” facing the alleged jetliners;
• Unlike airliner noses, a missile’s nose is hardened for penetration;
• By the 1990s, for strategic purposes, the Air Force had developed holographic technology capable of simulating three-dimensional images of aircraft in broad daylight;
• Israel—suspect number one for 9/11—had commissioned its first cruise missile-firing submarines in 1999, and began test-firing missiles from them in 2000; it had also been working on stealth technology since the 1980s;
• A holographic image might explain the “impossible physics” of a plane gliding through steel, as well as other strange phenomena, such as Flight 175’s nose appearing to emerge from the other side of the South Tower, observable in footage from multiple angles.

However, a cloaked missile could not account for the airliner debris found in the World Trade Center vicinity (such as the famous engine remnant on Murray Street), even though this debris was limited in quantity, and has never been matched by serial numbers to flights 11 or 175. This meant the debris would have had to be planted, which seemed very improbable. However, given the obvious planting of other evidence (such as a Koran together with a flight manual in a car at Logan airport), and the fact that the “dancing Israelis” worked for Urban Moving Systems, which possessed the trucks and manpower to dump off some wreckage during 9/11’s smoke and confusion, this option seemed worth considering.

The alternative to the missile hypothesis was a drone, an idea with its own strong points:

• Drones are consistent with the prototype of Operation Northwoods, a real-life 1962 Pentagon plan to stage a “false flag” in order to justify invading Cuba. It called for swapping a drone, disguised as a jetliner, midair for a passenger plane. The passenger plane would be landed safely at a military base, while the drone would be exploded by remote control over Cuba after it sent a fake radio message that Cuban MiGs were attacking it.
• A drone could account for the aircraft wreckage;
• It would avoid any risks that holographic cloaking might fail; it wouldn’t just resemble a plane, it would be a plane.

However, the drone presented its own difficulties. How could a “substitute jetliner” overcome the risks posed by G-forces on a regular jetliner, at high speed and low altitude? How could it be controlled with such precision, and be immune to structural damage in flight? And how could a drone defy physics any more than other planes, sailing right through steel and concrete “like a hot knife through butter”?

After considerable discussion, Pilot A and I were both favoring the cloaked missile hypothesis over a drone, which seemed burdened with more problems.

Then, however, I sent Pilot A a picture I found on the Internet juxtaposing the gashes in the two Twin Towers. I asked him if he thought the nearly identical angles had significance.

Other observations, however, caught Pilot A’s attention. He replied:

Upon first glance the after-impact damage looks like the shape of an aircraft complete with a cutout of the wings all at an angle and looks convincing. I looked at a few more [pictures] and I’m starting to think that maybe it was an aeroplane as the damage pattern looks like I think it should, and not like a conventional military missile. I can see from the photos that some of the steel beams are bent inwards. Some of the weaker outer aluminum cladding is inwards and outwards, probably owing to the blast of the fireball. I do remain convinced it wasn’t suicidal hijackers that flew ordinary B767s into the WTC. But perhaps you should try and flush out some other possible scenarios, like maybe the planes were from a secret base somewhere, and had been specially kitted out to achieve high speeds and higher impact damage, etc.

Looking at the gash pictures myself, I couldn’t deny Pilot A’s conclusion. A missile could explain the holes in the middle of either photograph, but not the peripheral damage. Some of the steel bars do bend inward as if struck with tremendous force from outside. I realize that some in alternative media have suggested the gashes were cut-outs from planted charges. But to get the bars bending inward meant planting charges outside the building. True, the famed “Israeli art students” had occupied the North Tower’s 91st floor in the spring of 2000, and had even removed a window and erected a small balcony. But would they leave external charges in place for more than a year? And how could pre-planted explosives coordinate to create such a realistic impression? The weak, furthest tips of the wings, for example, have only dented the external aluminum cladding, as one would expect in a genuine collision.

Yet we still see improbable physics in these photos. In the North Tower gash, for example, part of the left wing has not merely damaged the external cladding; it has sliced right through and shredded 14-inch steel. Even at high speed, what fragile aluminum wing could accomplish that?

This looks like neither a cloaked missile nor an ordinary aircraft.

At that point, I gave up. Until now.

Unfortunately, we do not have adequate historical examples of what happens when airliners slam into buildings. One can see footage of a telephone pole slicing off a jetliner wing; yet there is also a case of a Boeing wing cutting through a brick building. Variations in speed, wing construction, and the impacted material make comparison to the World Trade Center challenging. Even the 1945 crash of a B-25 bomber into the Empire State Building does not help us much; in ways it contradicted the official 9/11 story (a wing was shorn off and landed in the street below; there was no collapse from “steel beams melting,” and the building was open for business just two days later). But in other ways it emulated 9/11 (an engine flew out the other side of the building, fuel set office workers on fire, and an elevator line was cut). The plane was traveling much slower than “Flight 175,” but the Empire State Building’s exterior was also quite distinct from that of the World Trade Center, which was a virtual steel wall.

After earnestly praying for the truth in the manner of an Orthodox Christian, conducting additional research, and consulting knowledgeable professionals, here is my conclusion. By the way, I’m aware that many divergent opinions exist regarding 9/11. I respect all people seeking the truth, including those who disagree with me. As always, what I present should be understood as a suggestion for consideration, not something I dogmatically insist on as fact. I remain open to further revising any views.

My New Take: Preliminaries

I’ll start by quoting an email I received last year, omitting the writer’s name:

I listened to you last night on “SGT Report” talk about 9/11 and I was very impressed with your research. But I want to tell you this, I am one of the few people, maybe the only one (who knows?) who watched the first plane hit the North Tower from West Broadway just above Houston Street. I was locking up a van I was driving at the time and heard the plane overhead—much louder than normal. I looked up and watched it fly over Washington Square Village and directly over my head. The plane seemed old, frankly. The plane then penetrated the top of the building. And I mean penetrated, the entire plane entered the building as if it was a hangar and did not explode until the rear fin was completely inside the building. I know what I saw. I’m just emailing you so that you don’t go down a blind alley in your research. The second plane I never saw. But the first plane was definitely a plane. And it tipped its wing slightly a few seconds before it hit as if it was being controlled. I wish you luck in your research and I think most of what you present is correct. But don’t fall for that holographic theory for the first plane. I saw that plane and watched it hit. But keep up the good work and I wish you luck.

OK, so this individual witnessed what he is convinced was a real plane, yet it did something no real plane should do—completely penetrate the Tower before exploding.

Actually, what he described is quite similar to the countless videos of the second plane—which vanishes into the South Tower, seemingly laughing at physics, followed by an enormous explosion. Here it is in slow motion:

Next let’s consider the Pentagon. Something appears to have penetrated the first three of the Pentagon’s five concrete rings. The holes look too circular to have likely been from pre-planted bombs, and are too large to represent a missile’s body; they’re closer to fuselage size, but an ordinary plane should have crumpled at the first concrete ring, which was heavily reinforced with steel and Kevlar.

Pentagon exit hole at the third interior ring

And let’s not forget Shanksville’s smoking hole, where (unlike innumerable other airplane crashes), no bodies were seen, and only tiny bits of debris:

Sitting in with the Bad Guys

I found the best way to start analyzing this was to put myself in the shoes of 9/11’s architects. Suppose you were a black op specialist, code-named Druid, an evil sort of James Bond, and you were assigned to plan a compartmentalized detail of 9/11 by your boss, Mr. E. I’ll write the conversation in English, though it was very probably in a foreign language:

Mr. E: We have a new job for you, the biggest ever. There can be no failures with this. On September 11, 2001, four passenger planes are going to be hijacked. Simultaneously. Boeing 757s and 767s. In any case, nothing smaller than a 757. We are going to need unmanned planes built that can be put in the air and take the place of the originals, which will be diverted.

Druid: Sounds like Operation Northwoods.

Mr. E: There’s a copy of Operation Northwoods in the folder in front of you, in case it’s helpful. But this, of course, has nothing to do with Cuba. Your replicas are to be crashed into major American landmarks in broad daylight, with lots of destruction on impact. The public will be told the “hijackers” were on a suicide mission.

Druid: What are the targets?

Mr. E: The two towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House.

Druid: (slightly stunned silence)

Mr. E: Is there some problem?

Druid: I don’t think so. But if I’m going to take on this job, I do have to know: Am I assassinating the President of the United States?

Mr. E: Certainly not. Both he and the Vice President will be safely diverted.

Druid: But NORAD. . .

Mr. E: You needn’t worry about interception by NORAD. Nor the restricted airspace over DC. That will be handled in another department. What we want from you is, planes going completely inside these buildings, then blown up. Obliterated, so they’ll be impossible to compare to the originals. Not even a big enough piece to look for a tail number on, do you understand?

Druid: . . . Well, I hate to have to tell you this, Mr. E. I think the White House is a pretty soft target, but these other ones you’re talking about—airliners aren’t likely to pierce them. They might fall apart, right on contact.

Mr. E: We’re fully aware of that, Druid. It’s YOUR specialty and it’s YOUR problem. Fix it. That’s what we’re paying you those big bucks for. We want planes into the buildings. Possibly at precise coordinates.

Druid: Why is that?

Mr. E: There may be certain objectives within these targets that will be desirable to destroy. Also, there may be explosives planted within these targets that your drones will need to aim for to maximize their impact. That is still being worked on. In the meantime, we want to hear from your team on the potential for the drones themselves creating explosions. And this detail is very important: we want fires, hot, very hot, for the World Trade Center.

Druid: If you could give me some idea of why, I think I could better address that.

Mr. E: They’re going to collapse the World Trade Center towers about an hour later.

Druid: Good god. How?

Mr. E: Something will happen in the basement. That’s as much as you need to know. But the public will be told it’s from your fires melting the steel. That’s why they have to be extremely hot.

Druid: And supposing the New York City Fire Department puts them out before your hour or whatever is up?

Mr. E: At 80 stories? Ludicrous. Other questions?

Druid: Well, I’ll need to know which airline or airlines, of course, so I can replicate their logos and markings.

Mr. E: You’ll get that information later. There will be more than one airline. You’ll need to have extra replicas on standby, at least two. If any of the original planes is cancelled or significantly delayed, well, another one will get hijacked from the same airport. But very probably from a different airline, because it will require the same time and destination.

Druid: So you’ll even have backup hijackers.

Mr. E: Failure is not an option.

Druid: I take it, then, that my budget has no ceiling.

Mr. E: Two trillion is going to go missing from the American DOD. Other questions?

Druid: You realize that, for what you’re asking of me, it would require perfect weather.

Mr. E: You will have it.

Druid: No wonder they call you the Prince.

Mr. E: Other questions.

Druid: What happens to the original planes?

Mr. E: That’s on a need to know basis, and you don’t need to know. They’ll never be seen again. Just be sure your substitutes aren’t either.

*****

So you sit down with your black op colleagues, and after explaining the situation, the conversation goes something like this.

Druid: OK. We all agree that we can’t guarantee these results using conventional planes. So I think a good place to start is: What CAN fly into buildings?

Black op #2: Cruise missiles. Or other missiles that take out hard targets.

Black op #3: They did it many times during the Gulf War.

Druid: Check. So let me ask this. What enables them to penetrate? What’s a missile got that a jetliner hasn’t got?

Black op #2: Let’s see . . . hard nose . . . exploding warhead . . .

Black op #3: High velocity. . . tiny wings, so minimal G-forces.

Druid: Anything else? . . . OK. So suppose we do this. We modify a plane into a missile. Almost everything you just said a Boeing doesn’t have—well, it’s going to have. We replace that wimpy fiberglass nose with the same components as a missile nose.

Black op #2: Nose job. Don’t remind me of my ex!

Druid: Then we replace the skin over it. SO, to the naked eye it’s still a regular nosecone. No one, not even techies from Boeing, would ever spot the difference. Behind the nose we pack explosives, same as a missile.

Black op #3: Better not be in proportion, or you’re gonna blow up the whole target.

Druid: No, just enough to do the job. And the nose will have to explode after penetration. We don’t want any pain-in-the-ass bystanders taking pictures of it. All right, gentlemen. Hardened nose, check, we’ll get the material through black budget; the entire thing will have to be built in in our own skunkworks. A job like this, well, obviously nothing can be contracted out. Now explosives are no problem; we’ve got a whole candy store to pick from. But this high heat. Any suggestions? They want something that’ll generate lots of fire, smoke and heat.

Black op #3: I’d use good-old fashioned napalm bombs. They want hot, napalm burns around . . . [works laptop] 5000 degrees. That’s twice the melting point of steel, if that’s what they’re thinking of. And it’ll keep on burning ‘til they’re ready for whatever they’re going to do. Plus, napalm is basically gelatinized kerosene, so they could always explain it away as jet fuel from the plane.

Black op #2: Those poor bastards inside.

Druid: I’ll forget I heard that. You know what would happen to you if it got back to Mr. E.

Black op #2: I’m sorry. It won’t happen again.

Let’s morph back out of our imaginary dialogue. When the 9/11 planes hit the buildings, they penetrated. Why didn’t the fuselage of “Flight 175” crumple, as it should have, when it smacked the South Tower? Because the fuselage was simply following the hard nose into the building—as my North Tower eyewitness said, “the entire plane entered the building as if it was a hangar.”

This would also account for the Pentagon’s round holes. The nose, just as hard as a missile’s, but same size and shape as a fuselage nose, penetrated that far. This might even explain “Pinocchio’s nose” at the World Trade Center—if it could traverse three of the Pentagon’s concrete rings, I suppose it might be able to penetrate the breadth of a Twin Tower. If you look at the footage of the nose emerging, the object casts a shadow in angles that could catch it:

The body of “Flight 175” hit off-center and appears to have missed the core columns in the middle of the Tower.

For those with time for a 1-hour video, there is an interesting recorded debate regarding the Pentagon between experts Barbara Honegger and Wayne Coste. Coste believes there was damage and debris consistent with some type of aircraft hitting the Pentagon, although he definitely agrees it could not have been Flight 77:

When I first heard about this debate, I, being a veteran 9/11 Truther, was somewhat irritated to hear of Coste’s position. However, listening objectively, I felt his points were reasonable, and that there’s little denying that something wider than a missile struck the Pentagon‘s first floor (note the broad damage at the extreme bottom of the photograph, taken before the building collapse):

By the way, Coste does not argue that the object dove, leveled off, and then flew parallel to the ground (which would have diminished its speed), but rather that it flew at a steady downward angle until it impacted the first floor.

A drone with a missile-hardened nose, packed with explosives, would also account for the Shanksville hole. The nose, traveling at around 570 mph (the official speed given), burrowed into the ground, just as the Pentagon drone burrowed through three concrete rings, and just as the World Trade Center drones penetrated the exterior frames. Why was so little aircraft wreckage seen at Shanksville? Because after the nose penetrated, the explosives behind it detonated in a massive fireball, obliterating the drone. There were also fireballs at the Pentagon and Twin Towers, of course.

Pentagon fireball

South Tower fireball

I believe one can safely conjecture that the explosives inside these drones were intended not only to damage the target, but to demolish the drones themselves, so much that they would become virtually impossible to identify. I think this is the true reason for the dearth of plane wreckage at all locations, rather than there being “no planes at all.” But the explosions could only occur after penetration of the target; the perpetrators could not allow, for example, a tell-tell fuselage to be left on the Pentagon lawn.

It is Jon Carlson who, rightly or wrongly, makes the case that napalm was used on 9/11, noting that, in addition to its 5000 degree heat (which might account for the people who jumped), napalm’s signature orange color matches that of the 9/11 impact explosions. It might also help explain the victims with burning flesh—napalm adheres. It is absolutely not my intention to insist napalm was used, or to suggest this was the only explosive or weapon used that day, but I think Carlson’s idea merits consideration.

Napalm explosions

Of course, this scenario still leaves some unresolved problems. How did they get the drones to achieve speeds impossible for jetliners at low altitude? I found the solution begins by looking into something I had not given due attention before. Besides the “pod” under Flight 175, footage reveals a diagonal pipe-like structure visible at the tail, as in this shot by Carmen Taylor:

In 2016 and 2017, I attended live PowerPoints by famed 9/11 blogger-lecturer Christopher Bollyn. He mentioned the possibility that what struck the Twin Towers were 767 refueling tankers. The idea didn’t register with me; I didn’t study it and stayed behind the learning curve.

First, let’s acknowledge that 767s have indeed been converted into these tankers. A perfect example is the Boeing KC-767. Here is a picture of one:

Next let’s recall the Twin Tower witnesses who reported seeing a military plane:

I am going to embed about 6 minutes of the YouTube video “9/11 False Flag Conspiracy,” which links 767 tankers, as well as flight termination pods, to Dov Zakheim, who was comptroller of the Pentagon on 9/11, the day after Donald Rumsfeld notoriously announced that the Defense Department was missing $2.3 trillion. Zakheim was also former CEO of System Planning Corporation’s (SPC) International Division.

Why would 9/11’s planners choose a military 767 tanker over a regular Boeing 767? First, the tanker is about the same size and thus could fill in as a “ringer.” Second, even if we discard the idea of napalm and other potential explosives, a tanker is normally filled with fuel instead of passengers, so it generates much more fire and destruction on impact. Third, military-grade 767s fly faster than their civilian counterparts: for example, according to Wikipedia, the KC-767 has a max cruising speed of 570 mph¹ versus 533 for a regular 767. Fourth, tankers are built tougher because they may face combat situations. If you look at Boeing’s description of the KC-46A Pegasus Tanker and scroll down to the plane’s graphic, it describes it as having “cockpit armor,” “EMP hardening,” “fuel tank ballistic protection,” and “hi resolution stereoscopic boom cameras.” The Pegasus, of course, was not in use on 9/11, but exemplifies the added robustness and technology that goes into these tankers.

I am not suggesting that a KC-767 was used on 9/11. Although more rugged than its civilian counterpart, it still could not likely have managed the speed and penetration seen in “Flight 175.” which, like all four 9/11 drones, would have been custom-modified for the crime, using a virtually unlimited budget. I do not believe it is possible to find the 9/11 drones by looking online at publicly discussed aircraft; they were unique implements for a one-of-a-kind crime, and their precise specs would only be known to their designers.

But let’s at least explore some possible explanations for enhanced speed, penetration, guidance, and the “pod,” and then who likely revamped these aircraft.

Speed

According to famed pilot John Lear, son of Lear Jet designer Bill Lear, the object that hit the South Tower was traveling 127 mph above a 767’s low-altitude design limits.² Lear describes many factors that would have made this speed unattainable.

Before writing this post, I exchanged several new emails with Pilot A, whom I had not communicated with since last year. He remarked:

I’ve been speaking to a colleague who has done some air testing on the A300 [Airbus’s competitor to the Boeing 767] and it turns out the aircraft can achieve speeds about 10-15% higher than the book figures, which have a built-in safety margin. So we might be able to explain how the Boeings flew so fast on the film.

In other words, jetliners can travel faster than their max book speed. The value in the manual helps ensure a pilot doesn’t play cowboy, but it’s like your car’s fuel gauge: “Empty” doesn’t literally mean empty. I asked Pilot A for further elaboration. He said:

I spoke to my colleague who recently was a crew member on an air test including a high speed component and tested the A300 up to 360 kts which is only 7.5% higher than the legal limit of 335 kts, but the observer/data recording person (3rd member in the jump seat) who was independent said that the A300 can easily get up to 400 kts (about 20% increase). At FL300, along with a high thrust setting they put the aircraft in no more than a 5 degree nose down attitude and quickly achieved this speed. On the B767, which has a limit of 360 kts, if it could be flown 20% faster then this would equate to 430 kts or close to 500 mph. This may help to explain the high speed, but the aircraft would still be difficult to control.

Few commercial pilots have ever pushed a Boeing 767 to its limits because it is impermissible to try. If, as Pilot A suggests, Boeing 767s can exceed their book limits by as much as 20 percent, and if, in fact, “Flight 175” was modeled on a tanker like the KC-767 (which can fly more than 30 mph faster than a civilian 767) we are starting to approach the speed range of whatever struck the South Tower.

Also, though the plane was essentially on a level course when it struck the Tower, it had descended from altitude before beginning its final approach. The momentum of residual gravity from the descent should have boosted speed without adding much strain on the engines. Pilot A commented in his last email to me: “The engines, regardless of type, do not have the thrust capability alone to push the B767 up to 550 mph, but with a descent it is possible.”

Speaking of engines, the perps may have wanted the drone refitted with a powerful one capable of maximum speed. Pilots for 9/11 Truth identified the engine remnant found on Murray Street as coming from a 747 (a “jumbo jet,” the largest craft produced by Boeing):

However, this may (or may not) be a moot point, since a 747 carries four of these engines to achieve its thrust, and the plane that struck the South Tower only had two.

Some have argued that aircraft engines could not tolerate the speeds at which “Flight 175” traveled without burning out. However, Pilot A believed this would not be a problem for the relatively brief approach to the South Tower:

The JT9 is a powerful engine like the General Electric CF6-80 C2 we have on our [Airbus] machines. They’re fitted with FADEC [Full Authority Digital Engine Control] which protects the engine from over-boost, pressure etc., and increases efficiency but when the FADEC fails or is switched off, then as pilots we have to be careful not to over-boost/cook the engines. With this in mind, though, you can get quite a lot of extra thrust from the engines when you’re not especially worried about its health and longevity! At maximum normal take-off thrust with the FADEC operating for instance ― which we rarely do as most take-offs are done on a reduced thrust setting called flex temp take-off ― is allowed for up to 5 minutes. This 5 minutes limit though which the engine manufacturer has stipulated can be exceeded in a single engine scenario and then it becomes 10 minutes! But I’ve read stories of guys sitting at max take-off thrust for over 20 minutes before significant damage starts to occur. So with the FADEC disabled or turned off (2 guarded switches on the overhead panel) it is possible to exceed the design thrust and temperature limits of the engine and get significant extra thrust, in other words get more bang for your buck. How much I don’t know, and am not about to find out with experimentation as I like being employed!

Hardening

In addition to modeling the nosecone after a missile’s nose (as suggested in the imaginary dialogue), and adding military armor (which would have maintained better fuselage integrity at high speed), could the drones’ designers have substituted other materials for aluminum in parts of the crafts? The best way to break steel is with something stronger than steel. Titanium is both stronger than steel and lighter than aluminum. Boeing engines are made primarily from titanium, which is one reason these engines survive crashes better than other components. Planes can in fact be constructed almost entirely from titanium, which is precisely what Lockheed did with the SR-71 it built for the Air Force.

It is not my intention to assert that the 9/11 drones were made from titanium— building a titanium 767 from scratch would present extreme challenges. Perhaps even more importantly, titanium is difficult to destroy. This would have made the drones hard to obliterate after penetration, and I’m not aware of evidence that significant titanium fragments were discovered at the 9/11 crash sites.

Nevertheless, in addition to a rigid nose, I think it worth considering if the architects utilized an alloy of titanium, Kevlar, or some other hardening substance as the leading edge of the wings and tails to ensure full penetration.

Guidance

Remote-controlled aircraft are nothing new. The United States and England had both successfully developed radio-controlled planes by the 1930s. Operation Northwoods, as we have already noted, called for using a remote-controlled drone to instigate war with Cuba in 1962. In “A Brief History of Drones,“ Kashyap Vyas writes: “Even though the U.S. was able to achieve a breakthrough in mass-manufacturing and supplying drones for the military, UAVs were often considered unreliable and expensive. This perspective however changed in 1982 when Israel forces used unmanned aircrafts to gain victory over Syrian Air Force with minimal losses.”³ Today, U.S. armed forces alone have over 11,000 unmanned drones,⁴ and from Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, drone operators strike targets with precision on the other side of the world.

So the thought of using unmanned drones on 9/11 is hardly the stuff of science fiction. As previously discussed with Pilot A, it would not be possible to remotely hijack a Boeing 757 or 767 because (unlike the newer fly-by-wire 777s), their basic flight operation was manual rather than computer-driven. However, if we are talking about a 757 or 767 which has been thoroughly prepped at a secret location, that is a different story. Its equipment could be fully integrated with remote control, flight path programming, and military-grade GPS, making it comparable to a cruise missile in its accuracy.

Laser guidance can direct a weapon into a precise target, which adds interest to this footage of a laser light on the South Tower just before being struck by “Flight 175” (lasers emit an infrared beam that is invisible to the naked eye, but which digital cameras can detect):

The “Pod”

What about the infamous pod seen underneath flight 175? It flashed right before impact, as seen in photography from multiple angles. There was also a flash just before Flight 11 hit the North (first) Tower, in the only known footage, the Naudet Brothers video:

Some have argued that the pod may have been a missile, perhaps intended to set off planted explosives in the Twin Towers and/or open a gash for the plane. This might be correct; however, there is only a slight fraction of a second between the flash and plane’s impact, and no exhaust fumes are visible behind the pod to suggest it was a launching missile.

I believe a better explanation is the one offered in the previously mentioned video “9/11 False Flag Conspiracy”: that the pod was probably a flight termination module from Dov Zakheim’s Systems Planning Corporation:

The U.S. Air Force has been sending up drones for decades for target practice. These drones often have the capacity to self-destruct; otherwise, if missed by the military, they might accidently crash in populated areas. The self-destructive capability of drones was acknowledged by the Pentagon in Operation Northwoods, written nearly 50 years before 9/11.

9/11’s architects would have wanted the drones to explode so that no remaining wreckage could be compared to the original hijacked aircraft. If indeed the pod on “Flight 175’s” undercarriage was a self-destruction system, it would make sense that it flashed right before entry. They wouldn’t want building impact to shear the pod off before it could ignite the drone’s explosives, nor could they allow the drone to be photographed exploding before it reached the Tower.

Where Were the Drones Prepared?

In answer to this question, my immediate thought was Area 51, where Lockheed Martin secretly developed the U-2 spy plane, the SR-71 Blackbird, and the F-117 Nighthawk “stealth fighter.” However, as dark as the “Military Industrial Complex” has become, I have doubts that it would develop something for use against their own command centers (the Pentagon and White House), especially given the number of American engineers who would have been involved in research and development—sworn to secrecy or not.

In 9/11 Simplified, I stated:

I believe that, when it comes to resolving the mystery of how 9/11 was executed, the Truth Movement suffers from a major [misnomer]:

9/11 was an inside job.

I believe a far more correct rendering is:

9/11 was an outside job, done by Israeli operatives, but with consent and cooperation at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

To understand this, it may be helpful to compare Israel’s vicious 1967 attack on the USS Liberty. It is well understood that President Lyndon B. Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara fully cooperated, by twice recalling U.S. fighters that the Sixth Fleet had sent to rescue the Liberty, and later by ordering a cover-up. However, at the physical operational level, the attack was carried out by Israelis, not by Americans in an “inside job.”

After the Twin Towers’ implosion, it was dancing Israelis who were spotted and arrested—not dancing Navy Seals, dancing Lockheed engineers, or dancing CIA agents. In the post, I made the case that both the nuclear demolition of the Twin Towers and the (yes, real) hijackings of the original airliners were carried out by Israeli operatives.

But what about drones? My first inclination was these would exceed Israeli capabilities to produce, or to launch within the United States, until I recently read, for the first time, Christopher Bollyn’s outstanding post “The Planes of 9-11.” I strongly recommend reading Chris’s entire article, but here are key excerpts, which I quote extensively with his permission:

A little-known and privately-held aircraft leasing company created by the Israeli military intelligence is connected to the Mossad-run airport security and passenger screening company at the center of the “false flag” terror network of 9-11. . . .

If the planes that were involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center were, in fact, not United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11, but remotely-controlled tankers painted to look like civilian aircraft, who could have produced such disguised planes and inserted them into the NORAD anti-terrorism exercise that was taking place in the airspace of the East Coast on the morning of 9/11?

Given the evidence of Israeli prior knowledge, the obvious questions arise: Did the Israelis have the means to carry off such a complex operation? And if they had the means, is there a link between their capability and the events of 9-11? The answer to both questions is yes.

The Israeli military and its intelligence agencies have long had the capability to convert and disguise large-body aircraft in the United States, and their companies that do this kind of work are connected to International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), the Israeli airport security company that is a prime suspect in the “false flag” terrorism. ICTS was a key defendant in the 9-11 litigation until Judge Hellerstein allowed them to be dismissed from the case in May 2011.

The Israeli military has spawned several aircraft leasing and maintenance companies in the United States since the late 1960s. There is, in fact, a network of Israeli-controlled aviation companies operating in the United States which were all started by Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), now known as Israel Aerospace Industries. Israel Aircraft Industries is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Israeli Defense Ministry, which produces and maintains planes and missiles.

One of the Israeli military’s aviation companies spawned in the United States is or was an aircraft leasing company named ATASCO, which began operating in the United States in the early 1970s. I began investigating ATASCO in August 2006. As a matter of fact, I spoke with Shalom Yoran, the Israeli chairman of this now defunct Israeli company, about six hours before three undercover police arrived at my house and, without cause or provocation, TASERed me and broke my elbow in front of my family on August 15, 2006. . . .

Shalom Yoran has an extremely suspicious and unusual profile for an Israeli immigrant to the United States. He was in the original Israeli air force of 1948 and is a founder and former head of Israel Aircraft Industries. Yoran was instrumental in building the IAI into an internationally recognized company and the largest industry in Israel. . . .

Before Yoran emigrated to the United States, which is very unusual for Israelis of his age and with his high-level military background, he had spent the previous ten years as senior vice president of IAI and as president of IAI’s parent company, Bedek. Israelis like Yoran don’t usually come to America as immigrants – they are sent there on a mission. . . .

Today, Bedek is the senior group of Israel Aerospace Industries and specializes in aircraft operation, conversion, maintenance, and overhaul. In 1975, when Yoran “left” Bedek and IAI at the unusually young retirement age of fifty, the corporation had 22,000 employees, of which 4,000 worked in the Bedek Division. In reality, Yoran didn’t leave Bedek and IAI at all; he was sent by the Israeli military to the United States to manage one of their most important operations – ATASCO. . . .

His 2003 biography on the website of Tel Aviv University (TAU) has a similar tale: “At the age of fifty, Shalom Yoran retired from the Israel Aircraft Industries. In 1978 he moved to the U.S. where he became chairman of ATASCO USA – a private aircraft trading and service company. ATASCO bought and leased airplanes to major airlines around the world. The company also had an aircraft maintenance and modification plant in Smyrna, Tennessee.

“Shalom Yoran continues to be chairman of ATASCO USA,” the 2003 TAU entry noted. How could an Israeli be appointed to be president or chairman of an “American” company, unless that company were actually an Israeli company disguised as an American company? And why would an Israeli company doing business in the United States want to disguise the fact that it is Israeli-owned in the first place?

THE ATASCO-BEDEK CONNECTION

ATASCO USA was, of course, created and owned by the Israeli military and connected to the Mossad, but this information is not easily found. There has only been one article that I have found that mentions what ATASCO has been doing for the past 36 years in the United States, since it was first created by the Israeli Defense Ministry in 1971. That article, entitled “Ugandan Plane Deal Believed Key to Israeli Spy Operation,” was published in the Washington Post of September 11, 1978.

This investigative article, which involved an international team of journalists that included an Israeli, focused on the “mysterious Israeli tycoon and the Mossad, Israeli’s intelligence service,” and how they had provided the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin with two Boeing 707 jetliners as part of an Israeli effort to spy on Libya. The “big winner” and tycoon in this Mossad spying operation was Shaul Nehemia Eisenberg (1921-1997), “the reclusive Israeli entrepreneur at its center.” [Chris Bollyn next block-quotes the 1978 Washington Post article, which I am distinguishing with quotation marks and italics:]

“The chief Eisenberg firm in these deals was Aircraft Trading and Services Inc., or Atasco. Headquartered in Asia House, Eisenberg’s luxury building in Tel Aviv, Atasco also has branches in the ‘Eisenberg Building’ in New York and in London.

Atasco was put together in 1971 by executives of Israeli Aircraft Industries, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Israeli Defense Ministry that makes planes and missiles.

Eisenberg got into Atasco as an equal partner with Israeli Aircraft for $500,000 in cash. After the 1973 Middle East War, Israeli Aircraft, staggered by scandals, sold its share in Atasco to Eisenberg, leaving him its sole owner. . . .

At its Israeli hangars, currently jammed with 707s bearing obscure markings, Atasco remodels the interiors to suit customers, and paints on their proud colors – Iran Air, Tarom of Romania, Uganda Airlines.

In May 1976, Atasco sold the 707 that was once Pan Am’s ‘Clipper Jupiter’ to a firm in Zurich, which dealt it on to Amin.

Intelligence sources say that the head of this Zurich firm is a 15-year veteran of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and the firm is an agency ‘laundry.’ It exists, these sources say, to pass on Mossad funds for deals in which the Israeli secret service is interested.”. . .

Gerald L. Gitner, an aviation executive with Pan Am, TWA, and a host of smaller airlines, was appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ATASCO USA, Inc. . . . Gitner reportedly stayed with ATASCO from October 1986 through December 1989. . . . Gitner later served on the board of directors of another Mossad-run company, ICTS, which was one of the key defendants in the 9/11 litigation. Along with a handful of senior Israeli Mossad veterans, Gitner was a director of ICTS from at least 1997 through 2005. Most significantly, he was a director of the Israeli parent company which was responsible for airline security and passenger screening at Boston’s Logan Airport on 9-11.

International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS) International, N.V. is the Mossad-run company that owns Huntleigh USA, the airline security company that oversaw the passenger screening operations at Boston’s Logan Airport on September 11, 2001. How would Gitner be a director or CEO of a Mossad-run company like ATASCO or ICTS if he were not working for the Mossad? . . .

IAI is “a world leader in aircraft conversion and modernization programs, unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), communication programs and defense electronics,” according to the company’s website. Shalom Yoran’s company, Bedek Aviation Group, reportedly converted its first Boeing 767 from a passenger to cargo jet in early 2000. The converted passenger jet was the first of eleven 767s to be converted for Airborne-Express, according to the Jerusalem Post of April 4, 2000. “Bedek is one of the world’s leaders in plane conversions,” the Israeli newspaper reported.

In early 2001, Bedek delivered a refurbished Boeing 707 refueling tanker for the Israeli air force, according to the Jerusalem Post of February 22, 2001. “The number of [Israeli] refueling tankers is classified,” the Post reported. “The first 707 air refueling tanker converted for the Air Force was delivered twenty years ago.” This Israeli report indicates that Bedek has been converting Boeing aircraft into tankers since the early 1980s.⁵

Conclusion

So there we have it. ISRAEL AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES (IAI)
• was heavily linked to Mossad and to the Israeli-owned firm that controlled security at the 9/11 airports;
• had facilities for large aircraft modification in the United States;
• built unmanned drones;
• purchased existing Boeings, then converted them into tankers and otherwise remodeled them.

9/11 wasn’t just the crime of the century, it was arguably the crime of the millennium. An extraordinary crime required extraordinary planning and spending. No conventional civilian Boeings would have been used for it. And I think, for many of us in the Truth Movement (myself included), we have tried to analyze the “plane strikes” based on the characteristics of ordinary planes. Since no ordinary planes could achieve the results of 9/11, some of us made the “either or” mistake, and discarded planes in favor of “no planes at all,” “holograms,” or “CGI added after the fact.”

I do believe that jetliners, modified in the types of ways this post has suggested, could resolve the observed phenomena, including the “impossible” penetration of the second tower (even the “nose out”), the entry gashes in both Towers, the holes in the Pentagon rings and Shanksville soil, and the presence of aircraft wreckage (but in scant amounts untraced to the original aircraft).

A drone, unlike the original jetliner, would also allow for the pod visible on the undersurface of “Flight 175.”

Drones also resolve a tricky Pentagon-related issue. Although the lawn in front of the impact location remained pristine, five light poles were knocked over. Defenders of the official story maintain that Flight 77, piloted by Hani Hanjour, did this. Truthers, especially advocates of the missile theory, have argued that the poles must have been toppled artificially to support the government’s narrative. They note that the poles should have shorn off a Boeing’s wings, or at least damaged them enough to leak fuel on the lawn (a Boeing’s wings carry fuel). High-velocity hardened wings, however, could probably have broken the poles (same as they partially broke steel at the Twin Towers), and perhaps the wings carried no fuel, as the drone was modified and on a short trip.

There remains the question of where these drones took off. Many commentators have noted the strange simultaneous convergence of Flights 11 and 175 over Stewart Airport, a former Air Force base that had become America’s first privatized airport in 2000. Some think this convergence represented the ideal time and place to launch drones. The drones could have been kept in secure hangars until the day of operation.

The drones that pursued Flights 77 and 93 may have originated from other bases. It is interesting that 77 changed course near Tri State Airport⁶ and 93 turned around near Cleveland’s Hopkins Airport.

As to other 9/11 controversies, such as the Towers’ demolition and fate of the original planes and passengers, including Flight 93, I refer my readers to the articles named at the top of this post.

I believe the case can now be made that, at virtually all operational levels, the execution of 9/11—hijackings, drone strikes, and demolition of the Twin Towers—can be credibly attributed to Israelis. This is not to deny that they may have received assistance from rogue elements of the U.S. military, especially if the E4B—the mysterious white “doomsday” plane seen above both the World Trade Center and Washington—was an accomplice and not just an observer.

Feel free to send any comments, observations, or criticisms to me via this website’s contact form.

NOTES

1. “Boeing KC-767,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767.
2. John Lear, “Ghostplane,” July 16, 2009, http://ghostplane.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-lears-no-plane-affadavit-no-boeing.html.
3. Kashyap Vyas, “A Brief History of Drones: The Remote Controlled Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs),” January 2, 2018, https://interestingengineering.com/a-brief-history-of-drones-the-remote-controlled-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-uavs.
4. Ibid.
5. Christopher Bollyn, “The Planes of 9-11,” http://www.bollyn.com/the-planes-of-9-11-2.
6. Rachel Adkins, “Officials Remember Flight 77 Flying over Ashland on 9/11,” The Daily Independent, Sep 9, 2016, http://www.dailyindependent.com/news/officials-remember-flight-flying-over-ashland-on/article_e43d2856-76d3-11e6-8333-2b43e4ffd383.html/.

Two days ago, a Tweet directed my attention to an online article called “The 9/11 Problem” by Adam Fitzgerald, dated July 6. It’s a sweeping assault on the 9/11 Truth community, bashing everyone from David Ray Griffin to Christopher Bollyn to Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

While it’s certainly correct to say that 9/11 Truth has been hampered by mistakes and infighting, if not some outright infiltration, Mr. Fitzgerald goes for broke, listing numerous well-known 9/11 Truthers and groups, denouncing them as (samples): “mentally unstable,” “rabid,” “nonsensical,” “clown car in a circus,” “the obvious fraud he is,” “jaw dropping absurdity,” “fanatical ideas,” “ridiculous fool,” “laughable” (used three times in one paragraph), “unimaginable tripe,” “full of the rankest, foul smelling human fecal excrement,” “at times borderlines on complete idiocy,” “unsound, idiotic ideas,” “liars and charlatans,” “a man with absolutely zero morals,” etc. Fitzgerald evidently believes that name-calling is an awesome tool for communicating one’s own 9/11 beliefs; I doubt that he’ll be writing a book anytime soon called Feel the Love: How to Win Friends and Influence People in the 9/11 Movement.

Early in his post, he paints me as one of his villains:

“James Perloff, an orthodox Christian, began making videos that were outlandishly comedic, suggesting anything from a full blown Jewish/Neocon/Catholic conspiracy to no planes ever being hijacked at all.”

Since Fitzgerald prides himself so strongly on ACCURACY (and on pointing out the faults of others in this regard), let’s examine the inaccuracies he managed to pack into this one sentence. My intention here is not to make a mountain out of a molehill, but to expose the mountain in the molehill.

First of all, I am an Orthodox Christian, but why did he feel it important to preface his sentence by designating my faith? More on that momentarily.

Next he says that I “began making videos.” Correction: I do not “make” videos. I’ve never tried. I’ve never had a YouTube channel or been hosted on other video platforms. I’m an author/blogger. It’s true that I wrote the script for Free Mind Films’ documentary ShadowRing (unrelated to 9/11), and podcast hosts have interviewed me on many topics; some of these have been audio only, some video.

But that’s different from “making videos.” I realize this may seem like a nuance, a mere point of semantics; but Fitzgerald’s language is misleading—and he himself asserts that we must be sticklers for accuracy if the cause of 9/11 Truth is to be upheld.

But let’s get to his main claims: that regarding 9/11, I advocate “a full blown Jewish/Neocon/Catholic conspiracy” and “no planes ever being hijacked at all.”

First, I have never, in any post, interview, or even in an email, remotely hinted that 9/11 had anything to do with Catholics (or the Vatican or Jesuits). I challenge Mr. Fitzgerald to produce a single video clip, or excerpt I’ve written, that supports his contention. Of course he can’t, and never will.

So where did he dredge up his bizarre accusation that I say 9/11 was a “Catholic” conspiracy? Straight from nowhere. Mr. Fitzgerald either deliberately lied or suffers from delusional memory. Yet he, as self-appointed Grand Inquisitor of all 9/11 Truthers, relentlessly condemns others for errors, lies, and distortions.

In addition to 9/11 being a “Catholic” conspiracy, he claims I say it was a “Jewish” conspiracy (kind of a weird combo). This is false. My 2013 book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior has a lengthy chapter on 9/11. Anyone who searches that chapter will find that the words “Jew,” “Jews” or “Jewish” do not appear in that chapter, not once.

Now it is true that I have tied 9/11 to Israel, especially its intelligence services. Here’s a Wikispooks post which supports that, and some may be interested in hearing the words of Dr. Alan Sabrosky, who was Director of Studies at the U.S. Army War College for more than five years:

Citing links between 9/11 and Mossad/Israel is not the same thing as saying “9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy.” The distinction is obvious. By the way, I’m half-Jewish myself; the Perloff family (originally Perlovsky) were Jews who immigrated to America from Russia in 1904.

Mr. Fitzgerald also accuses me of believing that 9/11 was partly a “neocon” conspiracy. To this one charge I’ll plead guilty. I’m sure most of my readers are already familiar with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and its paper Rebuilding America’s Defenses which, one year before 9/11, famously said “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” Many neocons, who had already advocated aggressive military interventionism in the Middle East, found their way into the Bush administration during the months preceding 9/11. But since I’m apparently a reckless conspiracy nut for simply noticing this, I’ll quote that tin-foil wacko Pat Buchanan, in a syndicated column he wrote:

In 1996, in a strategy paper crafted for Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser urged him to “focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power” as an “Israeli strategic objective.” Perle, Feith, Wurmser were all on Bush’s foreign policy team on 9-11. In 1998, eight members of Bush’s future team, including Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, wrote President Clinton urging upon him a strategy that “should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein.” On Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9-11, Wurmser called for U.S.-Israeli attacks “to broaden the [Middle East] conflict to strike fatally . . . the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran and Gaza . . . to establish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal.” “Crises can be opportunities,” added Wurmser. On Sept. 11, opportunity struck.

No, I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that after 9/11, America launched endless Middle East wars which, according to General Wesley Clark, were already foreseen in the Pentagon in 2001. No, I don’t believe in Saddam’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction” or Assad’s “chemical weapons attacks,” any more than I believe in the long-discredited “incubator babies” story. And I absolutely condemn the squandering of trillions of dollars and the needless taking of hundreds of thousands of lives. So, yes, I plead “guilty” to believing in, and opposing, a neocon conspiracy.

Lastly, Mr. Fitzgerald’s sentence asserts that I believe in “no planes ever being hijacked at all.” Ironically, last year (2017) I published two posts saying the exact opposite of what Fitzgerald claims I say: 9/11 Simplified and the follow-up Conversations with an Airline Pilot about 9/11. The subtitle of the first began with these words: “Yes, Virginia, there really were hijackers on the 9/11 planes”—so it’s pretty hard to miss. In these posts, I expressly disagreed with “no hijackers on board,” “electronic hijacking,” and “fake phone calls.” I said the same thing in my follow-up interviews. So Mr. Fitzgerald made his claim without even bothering to look or listen.

However, I did propose an alternative theory: that the hijackers may have been Israeli special ops posing as Arabs, something that has long been an MO of Israeli false-flag operations (King David Hotel bombing; Lavon Affair; attacking the USS Liberty in unmarked planes; La Belle Disco affair as described by former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky). And as I stated in the opening paragraph of “9/11 Simplified”:

“This post is not intended to be taken dogmatically; I do not insist that its conclusions are correct; they are just presented for consideration.”

Later in his article, Fitzgerald calls me a “complete, laughable no-plamer.” (Sic; I’m sure he’ll correct that typo; we all make them.) Evidently Mr. Fitzgerald (forgivably) did not read my post from last month, “What Struck the Twin Towers: Revising My Outlook.” It’s true that for some time I entertained the possibility that cloaked missiles hit the 9/11 targets (due to the difficulties of three jetliners being controlled with bullseye accuracy at low altitude and velocities greatly exceeding their design limits, the alleged pilots’ doubtful skills, questions about the ability of aluminum planes to penetrate steel structures, etc.). But in my last post I conceded that planes, most likely modified drones, had been employed. And I included this disclaimer:

“As always, what I present should be understood as a suggestion for consideration, not something I dogmatically insist on as fact. I remain open to further revising any views.”

I underscored this outlook in my short 2018 post “12 Angry Men” and the Truth Movement. One of that article’s main messages was the importance of being willing to change one’s views when pursuing truth.

Which brings me to a crucial point about 9/11 Truth, and truth in general.

In any search for truth, a person is going to make mistakes. In fact, if you don’t make mistakes, you’re probably not trying very hard.

Let’s take a famous example: Thomas Edison. (I am not comparing myself to that gentleman.) It’s classically often said that in his quest to develop the light bulb, he got it wrong about 1,000 times. Does that mean that each time Edison failed, he was a “clown,” “fraud,” “laughable,” etc.? Does it mean he was discrediting science whenever he got it wrong? Well, some scoffers might have said so before he succeeded. But no, it just means he was on the hard road of searching for the right answers.

Now some may object that Edison wasn’t dealing with a criminal investigation, so let’s take one: the Lindbergh kidnapping. A few years ago, the FBI released its files on that case. The FBI, as well as other law enforcement agencies, followed scores and scores of leads and theories that proved false. Does this mean the FBI agents and police were fools for chasing down false leads and theories? No. When one lead proved a dead end, they pushed on to the next. As with Edison, the hard road to truth, as it is so often, was paved with multiple mistakes.

Unfortunately, Mr. Fitzgerald seems to think that if anyone in the 9/11 Truth movement pursues an incorrect theory, or simply makes errors, this makes them a “fraud,” “charlatan,” “liar,” etc. He even says “we as a whole human community should convene and subject these obvious frauds and expel them into the dark shadows where they belong.” (Or as Stalin would have put it, “Ship them to the gulag.”) But as I have already demonstrated, Mr. Fitzgerald himself—in his description of me—committed several errors in the vast expanse of one sentence. Which brings me back to the opening phrase of his condemnation:

“James Perloff, an orthodox Christian . . .”

Is a person’s personal faith relevant to truth, especially when discussing non-religious matters? Most people wouldn’t think so, but evidently Fitzgerald does; otherwise there was no reason to bring it up. Did he perhaps hope that by denigrating me, he would also denigrate Orthodox Christianity? Two birds with one stone?

Mr. Fitzgerald would be surprised to know that many of us in alternative media are quite open to revising our views about 9/11; I have repeatedly done so, as can be proven by reading Truth Is a Lonely Warrior’s chapter on 9/11, and comparing how my perspective has since changed, or even within this blog, which was established in 2014.

By the way, I think that in his post, Mr. Fitzgerald makes some valid observations about 9/11 itself, including some issues I recently began investigating. But he’d get a lot more people on board his ship by speaking softly instead of swinging a big stick.

Published September 7, 2018, four days before the 17th anniversary.

JP: Chris, it’s really great to have an opportunity to discuss 9/11 with you. I think you’re the top 9/11 researcher out there. I say that with total sincerity—not because I happen to be interviewing you right now. You do hands-on investigation—by that I mean you’ve directly confronted many 9/11 suspects, you’ve been to places like Shanksville, for example, and interviewed the people out there. After reading your book Solving 9/11, I think there have been times in the past where I mentioned certain facts about 9/11, and I didn’t even realize they were things originally discovered by you.

CB: Thank you! I was working as a journalist at the time for American Free Press, a weekly newspaper based in Washington, D.C. I also happened to be passing through New York City in the early hours of 9/11, which was a most unusual coincidence. When the Pentagon was bombed I decided not to go to my office in Washington, but to head back to Chicago, which took me near the Shanksville site, a place I visited several times.

From the beginning, the 9/11 atrocity was a subject that contained the kind of elements I had been working with for years. It was a story that showed clear signs of a cover-up by the government and media, and there were indications of Israeli involvement in the form of the five “dancing Israeli” agents who were arrested in New Jersey that afternoon.

I was fortunate that my editor let me write freely about 9/11 without any restrictions and that my articles often appeared on the front page of a newspaper in the nation’s capital. I began by investigating those aspects of the event that were clearly being omitted by the controlled media, such as the eyewitness reports of explosions at the World Trade Center. The things that the media omits from a story are often the most important parts.

I wound up writing hundreds of articles about the subject and decided to publish them in chronological order in a book entitled Solving 9-11: The Original Articles, which was published in 2012. This book shows how my research developed over time from 9/11 up until the spring of 2012, when the book came out. I call it the Mother Lode because it contains the facts and information upon which my analysis contained in Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World is based. The two books are a set and complement each other.

JP: You’ve done more, I think, than anyone else to expose the Israeli role in 9/11. I didn’t catch on to the guys arrested in the white van being Israelis until 2003, I believe, when I read the book Stranger than Fiction. But you were already writing about the “Dancing Israelis” in October of 2001!

CB: Yes, I had heard on the radio at about noon on 9/11 that the FBI was looking for five Middle Eastern men who had been seen making a video of the attacks at the World Trade Center. The next day, it came out in an article by Paolo Lima in the Bergen Record (NJ) that these men were arrested later that afternoon and that they were Israelis. Furthermore, two of them were on a list of known foreign intelligence agents, which brought up the question of Israeli involvement in the crime itself. I mean if you have prior knowledge of something like 9/11, which these men apparently had, it indicates some degree of involvement in the crime itself.

I spoke with Paolo Lima by phone and this story, entitled “Israeli Terror Suspects Captured by FBI,” was the first article I wrote about 9/11, coming out in American Free Press in the issue dated September 18, 2001.

JP: I realize that a lot of Americans have a hard time accepting Israel’s role in 9/11. I think it would be much easier for them if they knew the context of Israel’s long history of false-flag operations against the West, almost invariably disguising themselves as Arabs, which 9/11 might be said to be the culmination of.

CB: Yes! This is the main reason that Zionist history is not taught in American universities. There is a long history of Zionist terrorism beginning in the 1930s. The Zionist terrorist gangs of Irgun and Lehi (The Stern Gang) were known to be behind the murders of British officers and the U.N. mediator to Palestine, the Count Folke Bernadotte in the 1940s. They even bombed British embassies and sent a team of assassins to London! In 1946 they bombed Jerusalem’s King David Hotel killing 93 people.

In the early 1950s a cell of Israeli terrorists put bombs in British and U.S. facilities in Egypt in a little-known operation called the Lavon Affair. In 1967, the Israeli military attacked a U.S. Navy vessel, USS Liberty, killing or wounding seventy percent of the crew—and the attack has been covered-up by the U.S. government and media ever since. Rather than prosecuting the guilty, the American sailors were warned by their own officers to never talk about what they had experienced when Israeli missiles and torpedoes tried to kill them on June 8, 1967. If you understand the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and how our government let Israel get away with cold-blooded murder on the high seas, you will be able to understand what really happened on 9/11.

Finally, in Rise and Kill First by Ronen Bergman, a new book about assassinations carried out by the state of Israel, he reveals that Israel ran a network of terrorist bombers in Lebanon from 1979 to 1983. This organization, set up by Rafael Eitan, the Israeli chief of staff under Menachem Begin, the terrorist who became prime minister, was called Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners and killed hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people.

Although Bergman’s book has been reviewed and discussed by the New York Times and other media outlets, none of them have addressed this revelation that Israel was behind many of the terror bombings that plagued Lebanon during this period. It should be noted that hundreds of American marines were killed in Beirut in 1983 by exactly the same method perfected by the Israelis—the car bomb.

You see, it’s not that the information is not available but rather it’s a matter of it not being discussed in the mainstream media, which defines reality for so many people.

JP: I saw you speak during your 2016 book tour, and it was so good I came back to see you on your 2017 tour. There’s something I want to say about that. Last time I saw you speak—it was in Watertown, Mass.—there were quite a few Muslims in attendance. Not only was their behavior very polite and correct, they were the best-dressed guys there, all in coats and ties. My Truther friends and I were all dressed casual. I bring this up because many Americans have a stereotyped image of Muslims. In saying this, I’m not denying the radicalized sects of Islam—for example, the ISIS Wahhabis that are terrorizing Syria, backed by the Israelis, Saudis, and—regrettably—the U.S. itself. But I believe American patriots need to transcend some of their stereotypes about Muslims.

CB: Well, we need to ask ourselves, where did these stereotypes about Muslims and Arabs come from? Primarily they come to us through Hollywood films and TV shows. Muslim Arab is the one ethnic group that Hollywood has vilified as evil terrorists for decades, without being called racist!

So, as Israel ran a secret terror-bombing network in Lebanon, friends of Israel in Hollywood were making films portraying the Arab Muslim as the terrorist. See how that worked to create the Arab-terrorist stereotype?

JP: Oh, yes, I remember it was already hot and heavy in the 1980s with movies like The Delta Force and Back to the Future. Muslims, of course, took the heat for 9/11, and we’ve been bombing their countries ever since. But there is so much that points to Israel besides the “Dancing Israelis.” The Zionist PNAC and its call for a “New Pearl Harbor” in 2000; Michael Chertoff being in charge of the 9/11 investigation even though his mother was Mossad; Zelikow running the 9/11 Commission even though he was a dual-citizen Israeli; the security at all the 9/11 airports being run by ICTS, which was Israeli-owned; Silverstein’s close friendship with Netanyahu; the FAA and NORAD using software on 9/11 provided by two Israeli-linked firms, Ptech and MITRE. I mean, the list goes on and on. When my Truther friends heard your presentation, as the evidence against Israel stacked up, we started looking at each other, and doing face palms as we sunk lower into our seats.

CB: That’s right. The evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11 is overwhelming. The bigger question is why? While 9/11 was a very complex crime with many aspects, the biggest reason for the false-flag deception was to drag the U.S. and its allies into an open-ended war in the Middle East. This is exactly what happened to us as a result of 9/11. As President Trump said, the U.S. has wasted $7 trillion in 17 years of war in the Middle East with no benefit to the American people.

When you understand that the War on Terror is an Israeli construct that was rolled out by Benjamin Netanyahu and Menachem Begin in the late 1970s to bring the U.S. military into the region to wage war against Israel’s enemies, the whole thing makes complete sense.

The difficulty is that many people who support Israel and Zionism know very little about the real history about the Zionist movement and the state it brought into being. As I said, the media and academia do little to make this history understandable, so we have a public that is ignorant and misinformed about Israel, the foreign state that receives the most support from the United States.

JP: There are some points in your book Solving 9/11 that I had not fully known before and blew me away. One was the war of attrition that Judge Hellerstein waged against the 96 families of 9/11 victims who wanted to litigate. Eventually, they were all forced to settle out of court. As you point out, what was there to hide if the government’s story was true? But what really “ground my gears” was that Hellerstein’s son worked as a lawyer in Israel, and one of his firm’s clients was tied to ICTS, which was running security at the 9/11 airports. Judge Hellerstein protected ICTS from litigation by dismissing it from the case. That was a clear-cut conflict of interest, and Hellerstein should have recused himself.

CB: Yes, of course. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein had a conflict-of-interest in that his son Joseph is a lawyer in Israel with a firm that represented the parent company of ICTS, the Israeli company that managed passenger screening at Boston’s Logan airport on 9/11.

Furthermore, Judge Hellerstein is a Zionist with a conflict-of-interest in that he was presiding over a case in which the state of Israel was involved as the key defendant. The result of this is that not a single wrongful death case from the 3,000 families affected by 9/11 ever got their day in court. While 9/11 is the worst terrorist crime in U.S. history, there has never been a trial, although the U.S. says it has Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11, in custody in Guantanamo, Cuba. If they have the person they claim is the mastermind, why don’t they put him on trial?

JP: I learned so much more from your book—how George H. W. Bush appointed an Israeli to be his administration’s cyber chief; how Ehud Omert—the mayor of Jerusalem and future prime minister—was secretly in New York City on the eve of 9/11. But let me not give away too much; I want people to buy and read Solving 9/11.

CB: Well, if a person really wants to understand the false-flag deception of 9/11 and how we have been deceived into perpetual war, the Solving 9-11 set of books is essential reading along with the much smaller book, The War on Terror: The Plot to Rule the Middle East (2017). Although it may be very difficult to accept, we are certainly much better off with the truth about 9/11 and the War on Terror than we are with the lies that have been used to take us to war.

JP: Chris, I should probably mention how this interview came about. I’m working on a book of my own about 9/11. This is not intended to compete with your or anyone else’s work, but there are still some unresolved questions about 9/11, and having been contacted through my website by pilots, 9/11 witnesses, and others with expertise to offer, I feel I can contribute toward moving the 9/11 discussion forward. There are some tough questions that are nagging me about 9/11, and my first intention was to ask you these questions privately—but then I thought, why not make our discussion public? It might motivate a few informed people to contact us with additional insights.

CB: That’s a good idea.

JP: What I mostly want to ask you about are the planes and the alleged hijackers. I don’t want to get into the much-vetted collapse of Building 7, or the destruction of the Twin Towers. Suffice it to say, if anyone believes the Towers collapsed simply because they were hit by planes, they need to produce another example of a building collapse where multi-ton chunks of steel were hurled laterally at 70 miles per hour, or where the entire contents of a building—concrete, furniture, toilets, etc.—were all vaporized into dust.

CB:  That’s right—and they fell at free fall velocity, in about 10 seconds. And prior to the collapse tons of molten iron poured off the 81st floor of the South Tower, another aspect of the demolition that has been ignored by the mainstream media. Evidently, various forms of thermite were used to destroy the towers including a form of nano-thermite, which has incredible explosive force and which apparently produced the billions of tiny spheres of iron found in the dust.

JP: Many of my readers know I have a different take on the method of the Towers’ final destruction, but we won’t belabor that here. Now regarding the planes. Once one realizes that the Twin Towers were intentionally demolished—regardless of which demolition theory one adheres to—it becomes apparent that the plane strikes, or what are called plane strikes, had to be guaranteed in advance. Because if a plane had veered and only clipped a Tower with its wing, there would have been no way to then justify demolishing the Tower. So those planes strikes had to be guaranteed. And indeed, all 3 planes—excluding 93, which didn’t get past Shanksville—scored bullseyes. This in turn means the planes were not being steered by hijackers, because no hijacker could make that guarantee—he could lose his nerve and chicken out, or he could just miss.

CB: That’s true, which means that the planes were most likely weaponized Boeing tankers flown by remote control—i.e. weaponized drones. This is what the video images indicate that show a pod on the underside of the plane from which a missile appears to have been fired a fraction of a second before impact. A white-hot warhead is seen coming out the far side of the tower. If the planes were weaponized into flying bombs they would have been prepared in every way to carry out their evil mission. I devoted the second chapter of Solving 9-11 to the planes.

JP: I believe I should mention, because some of our readers will advocate it, that there is a complete no-planes theory. I myself once seriously entertained that theory, because a cloaked missile is—more than an aircraft—capable of the speed, accuracy, and penetration witnessed on 9/11. However, Matt Nelson’s book 9/11 Debris documents the rather large amount of aircraft debris found in various places near the Trade Center—too much, I’m afraid, for someone like Urban Moving Systems to have planted. In addition to this, one of the airline pilots I work closely with on 9/11 examined the plane entry holes in the two Towers. There are some inward bending steel bars, indicating a strike from outside, as opposed to purely pre-planted explosives. And as one would expect, the weaker wingtips did not penetrate, whereas the engines did. Titanium is stronger than steel, and when you get a pair of 4-ton titanium engines going over 500 mph, they can break steel, or at least break the bolts holding the steel panels together. So—to my own reckoning, even though some will disagree—we are left with two basic options: either the Towers were struck by the original planes, or by drones, but in either case, they would have had to be under remote control in order to guarantee those hits.

CB: I agree that the aircraft were flown by remote control.

JP: Now in your PowerPoint presentation you mentioned—as you just have here—the possibility that 767 refueling tankers were swapped for the original planes. To tell the truth, Chris, this didn’t register with me until I started examining it. It depends on the model, but 767 military tankers are generally faster and more robust than passenger 767s; they carry fuel instead of passengers—so they would generate a much bigger impact with a lot more fire—and, of course they could be built with remote control, and the hole they would create would match the approximate dimensions of a regular 767.

CB: That’s right, and an Israeli company named Bedek, which is tied to the Israeli military, was based in Florida and was in the business of converting Boeing 767 tanker aircraft. Converting a 767 into a flying bomb would have been something they could have managed.

JP: A couple of additional factors that favor drones are: to my knowledge, not a single aircraft part found in the vicinity of the Trade Center has ever been matched by serial number to Flights 11 or 175—not even a piece of landing gear discovered years later that spokesmen said had a clear serial number on it. Also, the black boxes for 77 and 93 were recovered, but their serial numbers were not published, which, it turns out, is very unorthodox in crash investigations.

Another factor that favors drones is that infamous three-dimensional pod you mentioned that was underneath Flight 175. This pod would have been noticed by flight maintenance crews at Logan Airport. Also, it is mandatory for the captain or first officer to do a walk-around inspection of an aircraft before takeoff—and I have been told by pilots that under no circumstances would a pilot leave Logan with that big object underneath. Popular Mechanics has claimed it’s just a wing faring—but if so, why does it distinctly flash just before hitting the South Tower?

CB: The flash on the South Tower is clearly a white-hot hole seen in the video images, about the diameter of the plane’s fuselage, which would have allowed the plane’s body to enter the building without any resistance. A depleted uranium warhead would have made such a hole, and that is exactly what we see, burning white-hot coming out the far side with great momentum. No part of the aircraft would burn white-hot and have that kind of momentum having passed through the tower.

JP: Chris, I have to go back to your comment on Bedek. I’d like to mention for my readers your outstanding research on the Israeli companies that emerged from Bedek, Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and ATASCO. Right here in the United States, they were buying Boeings and modifying them—including modifying them into tankers, as well as constructing remote-control aircraft. For my readers who don’t know the story, could you relate what happened to you on the very day you spoke to Shalom Yoran, the chairman of ATASCO?

CB: Well, I was attacked by an undercover tactical unit of the Hoffman Estates Police Department on the day I spoke to Shalom Yoran, but that most unusual tactical unit had been prowling around my neighborhood for at least two days. I called 911 after I saw them pass the house on the second day. Although I was told to expect a uniformed policeman to respond to my call, this three man squad marched up my driveway and proceeded to tackle me and Taser me while I was pinned down. When I was pulled to my feet I saw that six or seven police cars were on the scene along with a fire truck and an ambulance. They had all been parked a couple blocks away and came to my house after the tactical unit had attacked me.

JP: If you can talk about it, how is Sweden treating you?

CB: Very fairly I would say. Things work pretty well in Sweden and corruption, like what I experienced with the police in my hometown, is very uncommon.

JP: There are also some objections to the drone theory. I’d like to ask you about these, Chris, not be a pain in the ass, but to see what your view of them is.

CB: That’s fine.

JP: The first objection is the difficulty of swapping drones for airliners mid-air without detection. I’ve listened to the air traffic controllers from Boston and New York describe their recollections of 9/11, and assuming they have not been told to suppress anything, it seems they had the planes pretty well tracked from Boston to the World Trade Center. Granted, 11 turned its identifying transponder off, leaving only a radar signal; 175 only turned off its transponder for a moment, then turned it back on with a different code. The controllers were clearing competing air traffic out of the way of these planes, and it’s hard to see a moment where drones could have been substituted, and the originals diverted, without being noticed. I know there’s been talk of drones being launched from Stewart Airport, where the paths of 11 and 175 crisscrossed, but I assume that to launch a couple of 767-sized drones from Stewart runways, you would need clearance from Stewart air traffic controllers, which would expand the conspiracy. Another possibility you’ve mentioned is drones leaving from defunct Canadian airfields. I think one possible explanation for the failure to notice swap-outs could be the dependence of the FAA on Israeli-based software. Also, I recently came across a video that says 11, 77, and 93 all turned off their transponders just when they entered zones where radar detection is known to be extremely poor. This would have been an ideal time to swap drones for planes. But whether or not they could really disguise these swaps undetected is a major question mark. Your thoughts?

CB: Well, the key thing to remember is that there were several wargames going on which involved false inputs on the radar screens, which confused the air traffic controllers a great deal. We don’t know how the aircraft were switched with the drones, but these wargames provided the opportunity and is what seems to have happened. The FAA also destroyed evidence in the form of air traffic control computer disks that were broken into pieces and thrown away.

JP: Well, I know that NORAD initially had these games interfering with their screens, the civilian FAA I don’t know. However, you’ve really ignited my interest about these FAA disks being destroyed. That would be a criminal act and it may mean that the air traffic controllers’ reconstruction of 9/11 has been revised. OK, I was going to ask you for a link to that story, but I believe I just found one. Is this what you’re referring to?

CB: Yes.

JP: The second objection to drones are the DNA samples at the World Trade Center. Now I realize the steel was sold off to China very rapidly; but it is also true that thousands of tiny human remains—usually no larger than a bone or finger—were recovered and subjected to DNA analysis, correlated with DNA samples supplied by families. In addition to identifying a large number of first responders and people who worked in the World Trade Center, they eventually identified a total of 79 people who had been on Flights 11 or 175. My source on that is the book 9/11 Debris, page 70. When confronted with this, I objected that the government has lied about other aspects of 9/11, like building 7 collapsing from office fires. But it was retorted to me that at least 6 different private DNA analysis firms had worked on the 9/11 remains. What are your thoughts on this, Chris? If correct, it supports the Towers being hit by the original planes, not substituted drones. My only alternative explanation is that if the planes were diverted and the passengers killed elsewhere, it would been easy to take DNA samples from the corpses and—not so easily—introduce them into the DNA analysis system as though they came from the Trade Center.

CB: Yes, the way the human remains were handled is another mystery. Many of them were sent to the mortuary at Dover AFB, which reportedly cremated the remains that could not be identified and simply threw them out. My understanding is that a few FBI agents managed this work at Dover AFB so the FBI was the agency who controlled the remains. That is what they did at Shanksville after they got the county coroner to turn over the crash site to them. The FBI’s record with the 9/11 investigation has been one of confiscation and destruction of evidence.

JP: Well, I think I should mention that Jesse Ventura interviewed a Ground Zero worker who said he was present when the FBI recovered black boxes—which, according to the official story, were never found at the World Trade Center. I’ll put a link for people who would like to see that interview. If true, it’s confirmation of what you just said about the FBI destroying evidence.

CB: Yes, the crucial evidence from the crime scenes was destroyed from the beginning. The FBI and the Department of Justice had responsibility for the criminal investigation and prosecution of the crimes, which did not happen under the leadership of Michael Chertoff, the assistant Attorney General responsible for the investigation and prosecution.

JP: I do want to mention that if people revert to a theory that the original planes were remote-controlled into the Towers, there are serious objections to this as well. Based on the conversations I’ve had with airline pilots—and despite what has been said in the Truth Movement—there is no known way to electronically hijack a 757 or 767 with the level of precision required on 9/11. Unlike the modern fly-by-wire 777s, when a pilot flies a 757 or 767, the basic flight system—elevators, ailerons, rudder—is hydraulic, with no computers involved. No computers means there’s nothing to hack into. Now it is absolutely true that the autopilot could be hacked. But the problem with that is, the autopilot runs on commercial-grade (not military-grade) GPS that is only accurate to about 1/10th of a mile; not precise enough to make those direct hits on the Trade Center and Pentagon. Recently we’ve been looking into some evidence that a higher grade of GPS may have been available to those planes, and I do know one Boeing pilot who has a compelling theory, which I think I should mention here. The autopilot runs on a flight plan selected by the pilots. The plans are embedded in a box in the cockpit called the Flight Management Control unit. He believes this FMC box, which according to his research was made in Israel, secretly contained flight plans to hit the 9/11 targets—so all the hijackers had to do, in essence, was to switch the autopilot from the flight plan for Los Angeles to the secret flight plan for the World Trade Center. But again, it depends on the questionably accuracy of the GPS. Do you have any current thoughts, pro or con, on the possibility of remotely hijacking the original planes? I realize some technology might have been used that is beyond our knowledge.

CB: No, I don’t. I did look into the AP news story that Flight 93 had landed at Cleveland’s airport on 9/11 due to a bomb scare, which had been confirmed by the airlines and reported in Ohio on 9/11.

JP: Oh, yes, that would be the “Cleveland mystery plane” that still has questions surrounding it. Well, finally, Chris, I want to ask you about the alleged Arab hijackers. I hope you’ll pardon my digressing for a minute here, but last year, I, with the help of flight professionals, proposed a theory for the fate of the original planes and passengers. Because something must have happened to them if the drone theory is correct. I looked at it from this perspective: If I were the Israelis, how would I plan it? I do believe the hijackings were real—I think trying to get the Truth Movement to blame the flight crews and passengers for making “fake phone calls” is an attempt to shift blame from Israelis back to the Americans who were truly victims. Anyway, our theory was that, leaving nothing to chance, the original planes were hijacked by Israel’s best special ops—the Sayeret Matkal, who boarded using Arab IDs. One of the reasons for our believing this is the amazing proficiency with which the hijackings were executed.

Take Flight 175. At 8:42 AM the pilots were still talking to flight control. Yet at 9:03, 175 already—supposedly—struck the South Tower. Invading the cockpit, killing the pilots, removing them from their seats, taking control of the plane, turning the transponder off and then on with a new code, turning the plane around, rapidly descending, then ramming it perfectly into the Tower—all in 21 minutes or less? That’s James Bond-like proficiency. It certainly doesn’t sound like the motley crew of amateurs Bin Laden is supposed to have put together, none of whom had ever even been in a Boeing cockpit before.

Our theory, in a nutshell, was that drones were swapped for planes, just as you have suggested. The Sayeret Matkal easily invaded the cockpits by using keys supplied by El-Al (the keys back then were universal for all Boeing cockpits), killed the pilots, then flew the Boeings—which they had plenty of experience on—over the Atlantic, which was right next to the 9/11 targets. They only hijacked planes bound for LA because they needed enough fuel for a getaway across the Atlantic. Our theory was that they killed the passengers by depressurizing the cabins, and landed at Lajes Air Base in the Azores for refueling. Lajes is closer to Boston than LA, it’s clandestinely used by the CIA, and it’s also a civilian airliner diversion airport for refueling. They could have blended in with all the other planes being forced to reroute back to Europe on 9/11. They would have then flown the planes over sub-Saharan Africa that night, and up to hangars in Israel, the one place no one would ever find them. Of course, proving all this in another matter! Have you ever encountered anything that might support such a scenario?

CB: No, I had not heard this scenario before. It seems to be mostly speculation. I don’t know what happened to the passengers, which is why we need a proper criminal investigation of 9/11—something which has not happened in 17 years!

JP: I just read an interesting post that looks at 9/11, not from Israel’s strategic perspective, but from Bin Laden’s strategic perspective. Most of his “muscle hijackers” were 5’5” to 5’7” tall and of slender build. Why would Bin Laden pick such small men? Why not big men who would be intimidating? And how did these little guys manage to cut the throats of Danny Lewin—a trained assassin, formerly in the Sayeret Matkal himself, who could bench-press 300 pounds—and the rather tall, virile pilots in the cockpit?

CB: The head of the FBI at the time, Robert Mueller, admitted a year later that the FBI had no evidence to identify the alleged hijackers of the planes. Furthermore, about six of the suspected hijackers were reported to be alive and well by the BBC after 9/11 and we know that six or seven of the alleged hijackers had been issued duplicate drivers licenses in Florida. What seems to have happened on 9/11 is that false identities were used to give the appearance that Arabs had hijacked the aircraft although not a single plane gave the signal of having been hijacked.

JP: And for a critical mission like 9/11, why would Bin Laden send men with zero pilot experience to flight schools, hoping they would make it as pilots for the Crime of the Century? If you were going to rob a bank, wouldn’t you hire an experienced driver for the getaway car? You wouldn’t send a man who didn’t know how to drive to driving school, hope that he got his license, and hope that he would then turn out to be a great getaway driver. Surely Bin Laden, with his wealth, connections, and years of fighting in Afghanistan, must have known some recruitable men with some flying experience.

CB: Good point.

JP: Chris, I recently read a piece by you entitled “Israel’s History of False Flag Operations against the U.S.A.” In that article’s timeline, for 2001 you wrote, “Israeli intelligence creates false histories for alleged hijackers.” Could you elaborate on that? When we read about the 19 Arab hijackers, are we often reading Mossad-fabricated backgrounds?

CB: Yes, it is a standard Israeli practice which can be read about in The Little Drummer Girl, a novel about such Israeli operations by John LeCarre. It involves using false IDs, like the duplicate licenses I referred to, to create a false trail in order to implicate someone in a crime. The fact that six of seven of these “hijackers” were found to be still alive after 9/11 indicates that something like this was going on in Florida, where Israeli “art students” lived in close proximity to the “hijackers”.

JP: An interesting case is Ziad Jarrah, the alleged hijacker pilot of Flight 93. Two of his first cousins were arrested in Lebanon as spies for Mossad. And there is strong evidence that he never boarded 93. Although the official story claims he was one of 4 hijackers to take over 93, the passenger phone calls consistently said there were only 3 hijackers. And in the cockpit transcript for 93, the other hijackers refer to the pilot as “Saeed” (Saeed al-Ghamdi).The only evidence that Jarrah boarded 93 at all is his passport being found at Shanksville, but amazingly, Israelis in an Urban Moving Systems truck were arrested a short distance from the Shanksville crash site, raising the question if they planted Jarrah’s passport. Prior to 9/11, Jarrah lived separately from the other Flight 93 hijackers. In his martyrdom video, he was laughing and couldn’t even keep a straight face. I want to give a shout-out to DJ Thermal Detonator of Truther TV, who recently published an article very critical of both me and you, but who called these points about Jarrah to my attention.

CB: As I said, even the FBI is unable to prove who the hijackers were. And if these hijackers were on the aircraft. why were their names not on the original passenger lists?

JP: Yes, there’s long been considerable controversy about those passenger manifests. I think I should also ask you about Atta, who was alleged to be the ringleader, and is an even stranger character than Jarrah. First you have him in Florida, snorting cocaine, boozing it up, hanging out with a pink-haired stripper, and doing other stuff that does not remotely fit the profile of an Islamic fundamentalist. But it’s his actions on 9/11 that are particularly suspect. His luggage supposedly contained the plans for 9/11 and the names of the hijackers. But why was it the only luggage not to make it onto Flight 11, all too conveniently giving the FBI the information they needed—everything except being tied up with a pretty pink ribbon on it? Why would Atta bother bringing luggage on a suicide mission? Why would he put the whole scheme in his luggage, and risk having the bag opened by security and the plan discovered and ruined? Why would he take a connecting flight from Portland, Maine that morning, which risked his missing Flight 11 due to a delay in Portland, and also meant that his bags would have to go through security twice?

To this day, the FBI says Atta was in row 8 of Flight 11—perhaps he purchased a ticket for that row? But since the flight attendants, Ong and Sweeney, took great care to identify the seats of the hijackers, and never identified any hijacker being in row 8, and since Atta’s family said he called them the day after 9/11, my best guess is that he never boarded the plane, but his role was just to plant a damning trail of evidence.

It’s as if Jarrah and Atta were working for Mossad, possibly setting up the other Arabs as patsies. Does this seem credible to you, and what does your research lead you to conclude about Atta?

CB: Yes, it seems to me that the whole thing was set up to give the appearance that the planes were hijacked by Arab Muslims, but that is simply part of the distraction because the explosive destruction of the Twin Towers was certainly not carried out by Arabs. For this reason I have not spent a lot of time discussing the Arab patsies of 9/11.

JP: In your book, you point out that Ptech was providing sensitive software used by the FAA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Navy and Air Force. On the surface, Ptech was a tiny Lebanese start-up with ties to a high-profile Saudi known to finance global terrorism. Why would U.S. government agencies trust such a dubious company for vital software? Yet when you dug beneath the surface, you found its software was being procured by a Zionist linked to Israel.

CB: Yes, Ptech of Quincy, Mass., had enterprise software running on all the essential government computers on 9/11. While the company appeared to be Arab-owned and operated, one of the key people in setting up the company was a Zionist lawyer who later worked for Guardium, an Israeli software company connected to Israeli military intelligence. This suggests that Ptech was a company with a false Arab front, with Israeli intel inside.

JP: Another amazing example you give in Solving 9/11 is Next Graphics, which was registered as “Palestinian” but was Israeli-owned. They even went to the trouble of putting Islamic graphics on display, even though the employees were Israelis.

CB: Yes, when Israeli companies put on an Arab front they are probably not up to anything good!

JP: I get the impression that the Israelis are experts at creating Arab fronts for all the dirty work they do, especially as regards 9/11. Which brings me to my last and ultimate question. There’s a 9/11 investigator named Ryan Dawson who makes an interesting point. Today, the United States supports Al Qaeda in Syria. Years ago, we supported them as the mujahedeen fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. So the question Dawson asks is, if they were working for us before 9/11, and were working for us after 9/11, is it that hard to believe they were working for us ON 9/11? And as you’ve pointed out, Osama Bin Laden’s older brother Salem was actually a partner of George W. Bush in Bush’s Arbusto Energy oil company. I have always wondered, Chris, if one kept pulling the string on Osama Bin Laden, is it conceivable that he actually was, all along, an agent of the West and Israelis, despite his many denunciations of them?

CB: Well, Osama bin Laden and the Afghan Arabs were trained in Pakistan in the early 1980s. The training and weapons were provided by Israeli military intelligence to the jihadis fighting with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar against Soviet forces in Afghanistan. The weapons were those that Israel had taken from the battlefields of Lebanon in 1982. The Israelis had a terrorist bombing network in Lebanon and simply took the terrorist trainers to Pakistan in 1983. At this time Israeli military intelligence was headed by Ehud Barak. Osama bin Laden’s first trainer was a Hebrew-speaking Egyptian named Ali Mohamed. The CIA and Saudi Arabia provided the funding to create this Israeli-trained band of jihadi terrorists in Pakistan. In 1994, these jihadis merged into Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

JP: Chris, the longer you talk, the more I know! Before we close, is there anything else you’d like to say?

CB: Thank you!

JP: I want to thank you for honoring me with your expertise, and for taking time from your busy schedule to field so many questions.

CB: You are welcome.

Christopher Bollyn’s Website is http://bollyn.com/. Here are his books which he mentioned in this interview:

Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World
Solving 9-11: The Original Articles
The War on Terror: The Plot to Rule the Middle East

JP: Cece, I’m so delighted to have a chance to interview you. I should probably start by letting my readers know how I found out about you. The local paper in my town (Burlington, Mass.) had reported that Verizon was planning to build seven new wireless transmitters on utility poles in our neighborhoods. I wrote a letter opposing it to the newspaper and to the town selectmen. Then an “awake” person in Burlington, who had read my letter, alerted me that you would be speaking at the Burlington Public Library on October 16 about the hazards of wireless microwave radiation and how people can protect themselves from it. I attended; you gave an outstanding, science-based talk, and I’m going to embed it at the end of this interview so people can watch for themselves.

CD: Thanks, Jim, it’s an honor to do this interview with you.

As you mention, another Burlington resident reached out to see if I could help educate about the risks of today’s wireless technology. She had been to a screening of the new film Generation Zapped earlier this year. It won Best Documentary at the D.C. Independent Film Festival and is a great way to learn about the health effects of wireless technology directly from leading world scientists, doctors, public health experts and patients.

There wasn’t time to schedule in a screening of Generation Zapped at the Burlington Public Library as their sponsored films are set months in advance. So, I agreed to give a talk at the library instead. It was a pleasure to meet you there after reading your letter to the Burlington Small Cell Committee.

JP: Please tell my readers a little about your background, and how you became an activist and educator on the hazards of wireless technologies.

CD: I used to help lead our local education foundation in Ashland, Massachusetts. We kept hearing about the 21st Century Classroom and all the technology that would be needed. Our town doesn’t have budget for that, so I helped run seven campaigns to bring this technology into our schools, and much of it was wireless. Following that, I went to work directly for our schools as our district grant coordinator. In that role I helped secure many grants that also brought wireless technology into our classrooms.

Then, at book group one night, a girlfriend who is an electrical engineer mentioned there could be something up with wireless technology and health. So, I asked our IT director about it, and he didn’t know anything but said he’d check it out. He came back and said the FCC says it’s fine.

However, by that point I’d already begun my own investigation and found, literally, thousands of peer-reviewed published studies from all over the world showing wireless technology is biologically hazardous.

I began sharing my findings with our school administrators and upon reading the legal fine print that comes with wireless devices, they started taking precautions. Little did we know at the time in 2014, Ashland became the first public school district in the U.S. to do so.

JP: You know, Cece, before doing this interview, I downloaded and watched Generation Zapped. And I have to say that, one of the things that really struck me about that film is the number of credentialed scientists, from around the world, who are speaking out about these issues. This really puts it out of the realm of what some might call “tin foil hat conspiracy theories.”

CD: Indeed, the industry would prefer that we keep this issue on the fringe using terms like “tin foil hat conspiracy” so the public won’t take it seriously. Once you hear there is harm from wireless though, you can find the credible science very easily. All you have to do is look. The BioInitiative Report is a compendium of the studies, and shows what the harm is. If you’re more of an audio/visual learner, Generation Zapped allows you to hear directly from some of the world’s leading researchers, doctors and public health experts.

JP: In fact, one of the things that impressed me during your live presentation was how professional it was. It was the sort of talk I would expect at a corporate executive briefing—and by that I don’t mean dull, I mean professional. You are in fact a tech writer by trade, are you not?

CD: Thank you, Jim. Yes, I earned a Master of Technical and Professional Writing from Northeastern University, as well as a Bachelor’s degree in Communication.

JP: When I was watching Generation Zapped, I asked myself why these scientists were willing to be so outspoken, and my own conclusion is this: the risk of harm from wireless radiation not only threatens humanity, these scientists know it threatens their own health and that of their families. And what’s that compared to perhaps a little ridicule from a few mercenary quarters of the media? No one wants to get sick, period. And that’s a consideration that overrides politics, theology, or anything else that might divide us. Microwave radiation doesn’t discriminate.

CD: Indeed, our scientists take a significant risk in speaking out about the harm from wireless radiation as the industry has been known to makes large donations to their research institutions, and then their research labs are closed down if they report negative findings. However, many scientists have courageously banded together and authored international appeals to protect the public. More than 240 experts from around the world have submitted the International EMF Scientists Appeal to the United Nations, World Health Organization, and all its member states calling for public protections.

JP: When people go online, and find reports that say wireless technology is harmless or “there is no evidence of harm,” they are normally looking at industry-sponsored studies, isn’t that correct? Not unlike the studies that the cigarette industry once funded saying there was no link between smoking and cancer.

CD: That is correct. Harvard put out a report called Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates. In it they indicate the wireless industry has commandeered the FCC and is using the big tobacco playbook to suppress evidence of wireless harm while promoting their toxic products.

JP: Actually, Cece, before we go any further, I’d like to define some of our terms: “microwave,” “electromagnetic field (EMF),” and “radiation,” because some people, myself included, feel challenged when trying to understand phenomena that are not visible to the naked eye. So, if you would, please define these terms on a lay level, and let us know if there is any distinction between the microwaves used by Wi-Fi and those used by microwave ovens.

CD: I was initially confused too. All of our digital technology sends data packets back and forth using invisible microwave radiation signals. These are also known as radiofrequency radiation (RF) signals or electromagnetic fields (EMFs). With a microwave oven, you have very high power for a short amount of time. With today’s wireless technology, you have lower power but it’s pulsing all the time unless you know to turn it off when not in use. Otherwise every device, router, access point and cell tower sits there pulsing radiation at you whether you need to communicate with it or not.

The science now shows that it is the nature of the signal that is harming us. Wireless antennas send a spiked, erratic pulse that is disrupting our own biological signals at billions of cycles per second. Over time, the cumulative effects add up, so it is best to reduce wireless exposures and choose hard-wired technology.

JP: Now in your talk you referred to the vast number of peer-reviewed scientific studies that have documented the health issues being caused by wireless technologies. Could you give us a sampling of some of these health problems, and identify some of the major studies that have shed light on them?

CD: In November 2018, the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s $30M study found clear evidence that wireless radiation causes tumors in the Schwann cells lining the hearts of male rats. They also found some evidence of brain tumors and DNA damage among other findings. Another large 2018 study at the Ramazzini Institute in Italy also reported similar cancer and DNA findings.

This is just the tip of the iceberg though. Other studies link wireless radiation to infertility, autism, Alzheimer’s, neurotoxicity, genotoxicity and more.

In the short-term, many adults and children experience symptoms that neither they nor their doctors have been educated to recognize as microwave sickness. This might include insomnia, headaches, nose/ear bleeds, dizziness, fainting, seizures, skin heating/rashes/tingling, nausea, anger, anxiety, depression, fatigue, cognitive impairment, suicidal ideation, addiction and more.

JP: And it’s my understanding that even some insurance companies are starting to recognize these risks and refusing to insure against illness induced by Wi-Fi?

CD: Yes, Lloyd’s of London, Swiss Re and others recognize wireless radiation as a leading risk and have put exclusions in their policies. The industry is not insured so they pass those liabilities onto the consumer in their fine print warnings, or onto our states and towns in the contracts they sign for equipment installations.

JP: You have put together a huge online information repository so that people can readily access facts about wireless dangers. Would you please give us that link?

CD: I’m happy to; folks are welcome to peruse my research repository as a launch point into their own investigations: https://sites.google.com/site/understandingemfs

JP: During your presentation, one of the things that jumped out at me—perhaps because I’m not a smartphone user—is that these devices don’t merely receive EMFs, they transmit EMFs. So it’s a two-edged sword—it’s not just the radiation people are absorbing from cell towers, it’s the devices that they carry on them. You mentioned that these phones usually have multiple transmitter antennae—can you identify some of these by function?

CD: That’s right, our devices are two-way transmitters. They are sending out signals to make a handshake with the nearest cell tower or router, and are receiving data from those outside antennas.

A cell phone has multiple antennas. There are separate ones for cell calls, data, Bluetooth, wi-fi, locator and by now a public hotspot antenna as the industry is using us as their network. Each independently pulses radiation all the time unless we know to turn them off when not in use. If we don’t, we risk harming ourselves by using and storing them on our bodies.

In Generation Zapped, we see a woman who developed several different cancer tumors in the footprint of where she carried the cell phone in her bra for years.

We also know our sperm counts as a nation are down 50%, and the science shows wireless radiation mutates the DNA of sperm, causes fewer sperm to be viable, and slows the motility of the sperm in just four hours.

The American Cancer Society reports colon and rectal cancers are doubling and quadrupling among our young adults.

JP: As a matter of fact, during my service as a registered nurse, I helped take care of a popular young man who died from a brain tumor, which originated right next to where he chronically held his cell phone on his job. And then, of course, the same thing happened to Senator Ted Kennedy, who came from our home state.

CD: Yes, and Senator John McCain too. He died of a brain tumor on the left side of his head. He was left-handed and that’s where he held the cell phone to his head. He’d already had other types of tumors removed from that side of his neck and throat too.

JP: Also, a certain small percentage of the public has developed personal sensitivity to EMFs, have they not? I think a medical analogy might be when an individual develops an allergic reaction to a particular antibiotic. Even though most people don’t get the same reaction, for that person it’s very real. And unfortunately, when people develop the symptoms of EMF sensitivity, they are often dismissed as imagining things and having a “psychological” problem.

CD: It’s like where we were with Lyme Disease a decade ago. Doctors haven’t been trained on electrical sensitivities, so some will infer that it’s all in the patient’s mind when in fact it is caused by environmental triggers of wireless radiation. Environmental health doctors, however, are aware and treating patients for this. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, in fact, put out a position statement to school superintendents indicating our schools should use hard-wired technology and not expose children to wireless radiation.

Another group, Physicians for Safe Technology, offers A Clinical Approach to Electrohypersensitivity including insurance codes: https://mdsafetech.org/problems/electro-sensitivity/a-clinical-approach-to-ehs/

JP: There seems to be an assumption amongst the public that if a product is on the market, it must be safe. In the case of wireless devices, I was shocked to learn from you that the industry did only one very limited safety test.

CD: There was no safety testing done. They used an untested theory that you must have heat from a device to have harm, and they simply put gel into a mannequin’s head to see how much heat it would take to raise the temperature of the gel. The FCC set the public radiation exposure limits based on that heat model, with no regard for the thousands of studies that show harm at the non-thermal level. They never tested their exposure limits to see if they cause biological harm.

JP: I think we’d be remiss if we didn’t mention Smart Meters. What can you tell us about these devices?

CD: These are digital devices replacing the mechanical analog devices we have at our homes and offices to measure consumption of electricity, gas, water and solar power. They have a wireless transmitter to capture usage data and send it off to the utility company, thereby eliminating the need to pay a meter-reader to walk the neighborhoods.

While only one reading a month is needed for billing, the “smart” meters actually pulse radiation all day and night with no informed consent by the consumer. That can be very dangerous if someone is sleeping right on the other side of the wall, or if the utility company installs a bank of these on a multi-unit dwelling.

The “smart” meters usually aren’t grounded either, so the radiation can hop onto the home’s electrical wiring and water pipes, in essence turning the home into a toxic radiation antenna.

Some utility companies offer an opt-out so you can retain the safer analog meters, but others don’t.

JP: You know, I get the impression that the word “smart” has been hit upon as a way to market wireless devices, similar to when, decades ago, Madison Avenue discovered they could sell products more easily by using the phrase “new and improved.” Naturally, everyone wants to be “smart.” But putting one’s health at risk is not smart at all.

CD: No, it’s not, but marketing influences are very strong, so it’s up to each of us to learn about this and make truly smart choices for ourselves and our loved ones.

JP: Now we have 5G being planned for, which is a radically different form of wireless, and yet—surprise, surprise—no safety testing has been done on it. Could you break down for us just what 5G is, and how they plan to implement it?

CD: 5G means fifth generation technology. Even though the NTP and Ramazzini studies determined in 2018 that wireless causes cancer and DNA damage, the industry and the FCC are pushing hard and fast to put in toxic infrastructure throughout our towns for 5G and the Internet of Things (IoT). 

They’ve maximized profits in the portion of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum that carries 4G and the earlier generations’ data signals (2G, 3G). What’s left of the spectrum is poor quality short millimeter waves that can’t carry signals very far. 

So their solution is to put up more infrastructure for shorter data hops to connect to. That means more cell towers at closer range, every 2 to 12 houses, inside our neighborhoods, right on poles in the public access right of way outside our bedrooms. This will severely harm our children, making it very difficult to be able to focus at school.

As happens to some when “smart” meters go in, many near these new 5G “small cell” installations may begin to experience headaches, insomnia, skin abnormalities, irregular heartbeats, nosebleeds, anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive impairment and more.

The 5G little waves can’t go through buildings very well, so 5G will also incorporate the signals from the many cell towers and antennas we currently have for the earlier generations of technology. All so they can put toxic radiation antennas in everything you own and connect it to your phone: your appliances, games, baby diapers, etc., to gather your data and sell it to product manufacturers.

The industry and FCC are pushing right now at the federal and state levels to take away home rule rights from our towns so they can force in this toxic infrastructure. 

They have already submitted applications for “small cell distributed antenna systems” in many of our communities, so it would behoove us to educate our towns quickly in hopes of establishing local by-laws to forbid any kind of wireless communication facility anywhere near our homes or schools. Your readers should feel free to share the pages from my research repository with their town leaders, who likely have no idea this is happening: For Municipal Leaders; 5G & IoT; Cell Towers. Once they learn, many begin to push back on industry as your town did in Burlington, Massachusetts.

JP: OK, next I’d like to talk about what people can do to protect themselves, their families and their communities. Let’s start on a personal level—what can folks do right in their homes to reduce wireless risks?

CD: I’d suggest folks get ahold of a wireless radiation detection meter; otherwise it’s easy to miss signals.

In my home, we use hard-wired computers, mice and keyboards. Our printer is hard-wired too with an Ethernet cable, and we simply turn off the antennas in each device once we’re hooked up with Ethernet.

We swapped out the DECT cordless phones for regular phones. We bought a TV that has an Ethernet jack, and hard-wired that too, then turned off the wireless signals in the settings.

We figured out how to hard-wire my daughter’s iPhone too with an adapter. She was very excited to have the faster speeds, and was especially happy to realize that by using hard-wiring, it isn’t eating into her data plan – which we make her pay for out of pocket if she goes over her monthly allocation of minutes.

JP: A friend of mine called my attention to a website called Antenna Search which enables people to locate cell towers and antennae that are in the proximity of any address. This could help people who, for example, are making decisions on buying a home. Any thoughts on this site?

CD: Yes, it is a good resource to know what is near you. That said, there is no guarantee the industry won’t put up a new one near you, especially if the town allows 5G antennas to be put up inside our neighborhoods. So, it’s best to educate yourself and your town administrators on the risks of wireless.

JP: When you gave your presentation, you had an Acoustimeter with you. Could you briefly explain what these are, and how they are useful?

CD: The Acoustimeter is a wireless radiation detection device that shows with green/yellow/red light indicators what your levels of exposure are. I use it to ensure my home is as safe as I can make it, and to teach others with.

JP: I have to admit, I had long resisted buying an Acoustimeter, partly because of the expense, and partly from resistance to having to learn how to use another tech device. But after your talk, I did purchase one. They can be on the expensive side—please tell us what Ashland has done to make these freely accessible.

CD: It took me three tries, but eventually, after I educated our Selectmen and our Library Trustees on wireless risks, I was awarded a $400 grant by our town to put an Acoustimeter on loan in our public library for our residents to borrow.

Our local cable station, WACA-TV, was kind to help me do a public service video to teach people how to use it to identify common exposures in our homes and suggestions for remediation.

JP: That is such a great idea. And what is the Ashland public school system doing to help safeguard its students?

CD: When our schools learned about the fine print warnings that come with each device and tell us not to use them on our bodies, we became the first in the nation to begin taking precautions.

We have a sign hanging in our classrooms with guidance to turn off the wi-fi when not in use, to turn off the devices when not in use, and to never use a device on one’s body. Our administrators are waiting for higher authorities, however, to tell them to turn off the wi-fi and choose hard-wired connections instead.

JP: It’s my understanding that the Massachusetts State Legislature now has as many as nine bills concerning wireless safety under consideration, and that you’ve played a role in generating some of them. Please tell us about some of these bills, and how they came about, because I think it would be an inspiration to some of my readers.

CD: When I realized our schools were not actually turning off the wireless and that the children are still exposed, I met with my State Senator Karen Spilka. I educated her and measured her cell phone and her district director’s laptop. Both devices went off the charts with radiation exposure.

Senator Spilka introduced a bill on my behalf to form a commission to get the right bright minds together at the state level to address wireless radiation and public health. Others around the state have done the same and we have bills to give people a choice for safer utility meters, provide safe technology in schools, raise the fine print and give the public the right to know wireless is hazardous at the point of sale, label wireless products with warnings, train our medical community, and protect the public from high voltage power lines (another form of toxic man-made radiation). Your readers can see the bills here, and perhaps share them with their own legislators to emulate.

Residents are working with their legislators on proactive bills in Michigan, Maryland and New Hampshire too, so others should be encouraged to follow suit.

JP: Cece, I’d like to mention a recent victory we had over a wireless threat in my own hometown, something you and I both contributed something to. It’s an example of how local action and networking can succeed.

As I mentioned at the top, our local paper had reported Verizon was planning to build seven new wireless transmitters in our neighborhoods. This seemed to be moving us in the direction of 5G. One was slated to go up just a couple of blocks from my home, right by a preschool. I wrote a letter opposing it to the newspaper and to the town selectmen. Then an “awake” person in Burlington, who had read my letter, alerted me that you would be speaking at the town library on the hazards of microwave radiation. I attended, and so did one of the town selectmen.

On the following Monday, the selectmen met to decide on the proposal; Verizon had their attorney there. The selectmen announced they had just received what amounted to an ultimatum from the FCC, basically ordering them to accept the transmitters.

I think at this point I should make reference to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which states:

 “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

Cece, the telecommunications industry is using this law as a gun to the head of local governments, forcing them to accept wireless installations regardless of any safety concerns, just so long as the installations conform to the standards of 1996. That was back when cell phones were “2G.” But as we know, wireless technology has vastly evolved since 1996, and thousands of new studies have documented the harm being done by wireless. Clearly, the safety standards of 1996 are an outdated dinosaur. Would you comment?

CD: I agree. In 2012 the U.S. Government Accountability Office instructed the FCC to “formally reassess the current RF energy exposure limit, including its effects on human health.” Although hundreds of expert testimonies were submitted, the FCC has failed to respond. 

We need to be calling and/or writing to our federal legislators to let them know that is not okay, and remind them it is their duty to protect public health over corporate profits.

Connecticut’s Senator Blumenthal recently asked the FCC to substantiate their claim that 5G is safe, and we should encourage each of our legislators to do the same: provide the studies they say indicate wireless radiation is safe.

JP: Getting back to what happened in my hometown, Verizon’s attorney spoke. Then the public was heard. The only citizens at the meeting who spoke against the proposal were myself and this one other “awake” person. After we commented, we shook our heads and looked down, as we were sure we had no chance against Verizon.

However, the selectmen informed the attorney that they would comply and accept the transmitters provided Verizon met certain conditions, such as annual recertification of the devices. The Verizon attorney then said he had no choice but to withdraw the proposal. Apparently he didn’t want a precedent set where Verizon could be regulated by a town.

Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point Verizon returns with the proposal, perhaps armed with some ruling that the town’s actions were illegal—but in the meantime we were rejoicing; we literally hugged the selectman who stymied Verizon. I think the selectman who attended your talk had gotten the word out. I hope I haven’t misrepresented anything, so I’m going to link to a local article about the meeting.

CD: That is a great example of how civic involvement is important. I suspect the Selectmen had already drafted their small cell policy before I spoke at the library since they had been meeting on this for the better part of a year, but perhaps they also benefited by learning from my talk what the biological risks are.

JP: Well, in any event, I think the make-break point here was that our local officials had become educated about wireless hazards. You found this to be vital in your own dealings with the Massachusetts legislature, did you not?

CD: I did. The industry has been so effective at promoting the benefits of technology and suppressing evidence of harm, that it is not reasonable to expect that anyone would know there are serious risks. So, it takes education to bring them up to speed before we can expect them to take action to protect their constituents.

When the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure learned about this issue, they assigned a research analyst to investigate. After reading the published science showing biological effects, they wrote their own bill in April to address wireless radiation.

JP: Looking at this more globally, I learned from your presentation that the European Parliament is taking these issues very seriously.

CD: Yes, the film Generation Zapped indicates this too. Several countries are way ahead of us on this issue. France has a national law banning wireless around small children, and in the upper grades, the default is that wireless is turned off except when needed. Cell phones are banned from schools.

The Mediterranean country of Cyprus has issued an EMF Declaration with a 16-point fact sheet to educate and protect the public.

JP: And you also mentioned that India has reduced the limits on EMFs astronomically below the levels allowable in the U.S.

CD: Yes, their limits used to be where ours still are in the U.S., and they have set new limits with a 90% reduction.

JP: Would you say that American citizens should be urging their representatives in Congress to revise the 1996 Telecommunications Act, so that it conforms to current scientific safety research?

CD: Definitely. There is a government website that makes it easy to contact your elected officials at all levels: local, state and federal. A simple phone call by many can make a difference as the offices log in how many calls they are getting on different issues and respond accordingly.

JP: Another encouraging thing I learned from your talk is that in 2018 the United States Conference of Mayors issued a statement strongly opposing the FCC’s allowing the telecommunications industry to intrude on the rights of local government.

CD: That’s true. The FCC and industry are trying to take away local home rule rights from our towns so they can force in toxic infrastructure for 5G. They are also looking to low-ball our towns with a cap on how much a municipality can charge the industry for rental space to put up the antennas. As municipalities catch on, they are fighting back as the Conference of Mayors did.

JP: Earlier you mentioned a Harvard study called “Captured Agency” that documented how the FCC is dominated by the telecommunications industry. As a medical professional, it reminds me of the CDC and FDA, some of whose top personnel have had “revolving door” relationships with Big Pharma corporations.

CD: Unfortunately, that is true. The Environmental Health Trust has documentation that shows the CDC and FDA have acted in less than honorable fashion with wireless radiation too.

JP: Before we wrap up, Cece, any last thoughts?

CD: We are fortunate to have quick ways today to come up to speed on this issue. Folks can now purchase Generation Zapped on-line, and the non-profit Wireless Education has half-hour on-line training courses that quickly distill the science, risks, what other countries are doing, and medically recommended best practices for safe technology use.

There is a Schools & Families Course, as well as a Corporate Induction Safety Course. Each provides a handy tip sheet at the end, and are ready to train entire schools and workforces for a small licensing fee to help cover overhead expenses.

I recommend folks get educated, then educate loved ones and colleagues before going to public servants for policy changes. If you go it alone, you may be easily dismissed. A group of well-informed citizens, however, can help bring important change.

JP: How can people best get in touch with you?

CD: Via email at c2douce@gmail.com.

JP: Cece, I want to thank you for a very informative interview, and for the time you generously gave me. It’s been a delight to speak with you.

CD: You’re very welcome, Jim; thank you for learning about the risks of wireless radiation and encouraging others to do the same. I realize this issue will be new to many of your readers, but I hope they won’t take too long before investigating and taking action. We are all at risk of serious harm from wireless radiation and the sooner we use our voices for change, the safer our world will be for our children and theirs.

Here is Cece Doucette’s October 2018 talk at the Burlington, Massachusetts Public Library, where I first made her acquaintance. It was recorded by BCAT, the local public television station. The talk was followed by an informative Q & A session, which was unfortunately not recorded:

With Notes on Its Academy Awards Snub in Favor of The Best Years of Our Lives; and the Film’s Striking Parallels to Another Inspiring Classic

This picture is in the public domain according to Wikimedia Commons.

Although the holiday season is behind us, I believe there are some remarks long overdue concerning the suppression of It’s a Wonderful Life, arguably America’s most beloved Christmas film of all time.

I first became aware of the movie nearly half a century ago when I was around 20. A local station happened to air it, in no connection with Christmas. It’s a Wonderful Life was, at that time, just another piece of forgotten cinema, not regarded as “a holiday classic.”

Yet even though I was a jaded agnostic youth, I found myself weeping uncontrollably as the life of Jimmy Stewart’s character fell apart. And I was a person who almost never cried at the movies. But there was something so endearing about George Bailey, it transcended the emotional barriers of all but the most hardened cynic.

When the movie was over, I knew I had experienced something special, several cuts above “standard Hollywood fare.” For me, the breaking point was when George began kicking and smashing things in full view of his children. It was a display of vulnerability that just wasn’t seen in Hollywood, where heroes were perennial tough guys with none of the everyday human “chinks in the armor” that the rest of us have.

Late in his life, Hollywood paid tribute to Stewart at a special dinner. I’ve been unable to find a video of that televised event, so please pardon me for going on memory here. Dustin Hoffman actually broke down and wept as he recalled Stewart’s performance in It’s a Wonderful life. But the remarks by actor Telly Savalas etched themselves most in my memory.

Savalas had largely grown up as a streetwise New Yorker (a background that would later serve him well when he took on his most famous role, that of Lieutenant Theo Kojak). According to Savalas, he and his buddies entered the theater showing It’s a Wonderful Life in their accustomed manner—sneaking in the side exit without paying. However, the film’s impact was so great, that when it finished they all sheepishly went to the ticket window and paid for their admission. It’s a Wonderful Life had a way of bringing out personal integrity, and personal integrity is something you just don’t mess with.

By the 1980s it seemed like everyone had discovered the film. During the Christmas season, it would air hundreds of times on local television stations. I took my father and sister to see it on the big screen at the famed Coolidge Corner Theatre in Brookline, Mass.

Then, disaster struck. After legal battles over controversial copyright issues, NBC acquired control of the film in 1994. Since then, NBC has twisted the screws tight. Not only is no one else permitted to televise the film, but NBC usually only screens it once a year—on Christmas Eve, riddled with so many commercials that people are discouraged from watching. As the film reaches its climax, ads are inserted with increasing frequency, disrupting the movie’s emotional flow. It got so bad that one year my son turned off NBC and inserted an old VHS tape we had of the movie.

Some will say that permitting only one annual screening makes the film “more special.” That’s kind of like saying you should only hug your children once a year because it makes hugs more special.

The unique restrictions on the film do not make sense from a business or marketing perspective. If you have a product that is in high demand—whether it is sneakers, a smartphone, or an energy drink—you produce more of them, to meet the demand and increase your profits. Because It’s a Wonderful Life is in high demand, NBC could easily increase its advertising revenues by showing it more often, or lease screening rights to other broadcasters. The movie is, in fact, ranked as the number one most inspiring film of all time by the American Film Institute.

I realize that we live in a multimedia world, and that people still have the option to buy a DVD or download. One could argue that is NBC’s marketing strategy. But to market a product, you need to make it visible.

This past Christmas Eve (2018), I was curious to know what was going on with It’s a Wonderful Life. I found it was not airing as usual on NBC. Instead, it had been back-doored onto a secondary channel, NBC10, which most people probably didn’t even know.

In short, It’s a Wonderful Life is being progressively flushed down an Orwellian memory hole until future generations will hardly even know of the film’s existence. Since no business model can logically explain NBC’s antipathy toward its own intellectual property, we must look elsewhere for an explanation. Anyone familiar with the realities of today’s Hollywood knows that ideological agendas, not box-office profits, are the true bottom line.

I suggest that It’s a Wonderful Life has been suppressed for the following reasons:
(1) It contains redeeming values despised by the Luciferian New World Order, such as love, self-sacrifice, traditional family, and the value of human life;
(2) it validates the existence of God, and within a generally Christian framework (heaven, angels, prayer, Christmas caroling); and
(3) the film’s arch-villain is a usurious bankster who oppresses and threatens to destroy the culture around him, just like today’s banksters are actually doing.

Small wonder then that NBC, a mainstream media organ and handmaiden to the oligarchs, is doing its best to send It’s a Wonderful Life into oblivion.

1946: Best Picture? Best Actor?

Another question arises: Why did It’s a Wonderful Life fail to earn the 1946 Best Picture Oscar? I believe the reasons were just as political back then as now.

“Best Picture” went to The Best Years of Our Lives, about the postwar problems of three GIs returning home. While it definitely had strong production values, and a very memorable performance by Harold Russell, a real-life GI who had lost both his hands in an accident during the war, the movie lacked the deep enduring spiritual power of It’s a Wonderful Life. I know the film has admirers to this day, and I don’t wish to “dis” it, but I’d like to point out some probable dynamics that influenced the Oscar choices.

As a writer, I’m aware that it’s often the subtexts, not the main plot, that are a movie’s real reason for existence. I used this tactic myself in the mid-1990s when I penned a screenplay that was optioned twice but never made into a film. The main plot was an action-mystery buddy movie, but one scene included a defense of Christianity, woven into the dialogue so subtly that it never looked like anything but a natural development in the plot. But in reality, that bit of dialogue was the screenplay’s object; everything else was written to accommodate it.

In the case of The Best Years of Our Lives, I believe the subtexts are the likeliest reason for the “Best Picture” Oscar, especially insertion of a little political scene with minimal relevance to the main plot. I, of course, own no rights to The Best Years of Our Lives; the scene was uploaded onto YouTube two years ago by someone else; I include it here solely for purposes of critical review; and for reader convenience, I am embedding it instead of redirecting people offsite to YouTube:

Let’s put this scene in context. In 1947—the same year that seven Oscars were awarded The Best Years of Our Lives—Charles Beard, former President of the American Historical Association, wrote in an editorial for the Saturday Evening Post:

The Rockefeller Foundation and Council on Foreign Relations . . . intend to prevent, if they can, a repetition of what they call “the debunking journalistic campaign following World War I.” Translated into precise English, this means that the Foundation and the Council do not want journalists or any other persons to examine too closely and criticize too freely the official propaganda and statements relative to “our basic aims and activities” during World War II. In short, they hope that the policies and measures of Franklin D. Roosevelt will escape in coming years the critical analysis, evaluation and exposition that befell the policies and measures of President Woodrow Wilson and the Entente Allies after World War I.¹

Postwar, World War I was thoroughly debunked: the truth about the Lusitania had been publicly known since Senator Robert La Follette’s 1917 speech; atrocity stories about German soldiers cutting the hands off of Belgian children had turned out to be fabrications; noble speeches about “national self-determination” went up in smoke as Britain seized nearly a million square miles of new territory; in a 21-volume report, the Graham Committee of Congress demonstrated that, while soldiers risked their lives for 30 dollars a month, some $6 billion was looted from American taxpayers by industrialists who never honored their contracts to deliver arms and supplies to the front.² And all the talk about “the war to end wars” and “making the world safe for democracy” collapsed as wars continued unabated, and the Bolsheviks murdered millions.

The Rockefeller Foundation and Council on Foreign Relations—which, in 1947, represented the highest echelons of oligarchical policy-making—wanted to ensure that World War II was not similarly debunked. This meant that all criticism of the war was to be ruthlessly suppressed; the scene from The Best Years of Our Lives was an early manifestation of that campaign.

The war critic at the drugstore is depicted in the vilest terms: to maximize his nastiness, he gets into a fight with a highly disabled veteran; to portray him as an elitist, he remarks, “Every soda jerk in this country’s got an idea he’s somebody”; he is also physically unattractive.

His explanation of his position is a comic-book version of actual revisionism. Here is what was already known by 1947:
• That Roosevelt and his inner circle had full foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, a fact that had been documented by the Army Pearl Harbor Board and Naval Court of Inquiry in 1944; in testimony before Congress’s Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack (1945-46); and thoroughly vetted in the book Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War (1947) by George Morgenstern of the Chicago Tribune. (This establishes who really thought hundreds of men going down in ships were “suckers.”)
• That Roosevelt had moved the Pacific Fleet from its normal safe berthing on the West coast to vulnerable Pearl Harbor against the strident protests of the Navy; a maneuver for which the President had never been held accountable.
• That the attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked after the Roosevelt administration enforced a relentless trade embargo against Japan, and that the specific trigger was an ultimatum to Japan secretly authored by Soviet mole Harry Dexter White, a fact that even mainstream media acknowledges.
• That there was (and is to this day) zero evidence that Germany ever had a plan to conquer the world; that it never would have fought France nor England had not the latter two declared war; that its strike on the Soviet Union was not a manifestation of “world conquest,” but was intended to eradicate communism, a fact verified by its being joined in that effort by the armies of Finland, Hungary, Romania, Croatia and Italy, along with 47,000 volunteers from neutral Spain, as well as thousands of volunteers from Belgium.
(I have discussed these details at great length in an interview with Tim Kelly on Our Interesting Times.)

Of course, by 1948, the United States shifted gears and admitted that Soviet communism was an enemy to be fought. Hollywood’s first major movie in this effort was The Iron Curtain (1948); ironically; its lead actor, Dana Andrews, had thrown that punch in The Best Years of Our Lives.

The basic message of the drugstore scene was: Even though we just fought a war that was supposedly all about freedom, you don’t have the freedom to question your government or its wars. Critical thinking, objective analysis, and the First Amendment are to be trampled underfoot, drowned out by the blare of patriotic music. If you dare question the war, here’s what will happen: You’ll be punched in the face, fly through the air, and your body will lie in fragments of shattered glass.

While I can’t prove it, I believe that not-so-subtle message was the foremost reason Best Years won “Best Picture” over Wonderful Life. True enough, the latter had its own patriotic moments, but nothing designed to suppress and humiliate the war’s critics.

Incidentally, there was a second irony at the 1947 Academy Awards ceremony that merits brief attention. Jimmy Stewart had given the performance of his career in It’s a Wonderful Life, and he did indeed get a “Best Actor” nomination. But the Oscar went instead to Fredric March for The Best Years of Our Lives, even though March’s performance was lackluster when compared to Stewart’s.

I think this Award came down to one element: In both movies Stewart and March play bankers—Stewart running the old Bailey Building and Loan, while March is a loan officer. In both cases, their chief antagonists are also bankers. For Stewart, of course, it’s the notorious Mr. Potter, whose monopolistic greed threatens the town’s entire future; he would have made a suitable participant at the 1910 Jekyll Island meeting. Fredric March’s antagonist is his boss, Mr. Milton (played by Ray Collins, who later became a fixture on Perry Mason as Lieutenant Tragg).

And what is Mr. Milton’s great evil? Simply that he does not want to give too many easy loans to veterans returning from the war, even though the loans are partially guaranteed by the government (taxpayers) under the GI Bill.  In one scene, March grants a loan to a very honorable ex-GI to buy a farm; subsequently Mr. Milton scolds March because the applicant had “no collateral.”

This bit of drama was a total non-starter. The truth is, government-guaranteed loans are a banker’s dream, and the bank had all the “collateral” it needed in the farm itself, because had the GI not made good on his mortgage payments, the bank would have simply seized the foreclosed property. Boiled down, Milton’s real sin is that HE ISN’T SUCKING THE LIFEBLOOD OUT OF ENOUGH GIs BY CHARGING THEM USURY. Now that is a “sin” that any bankster would gleefully like to see condemned on the silver screen!

March had a “big moment” scene in the film (viewable here) where he gets drunk at a company dinner and asks if the war could have been won had it been fought on the basis of having enough collateral. (Watch it yourself and see if you think it transcends James Stewart’s performance.) This “noble” speech, which must have been sweet music to Wall Street ears, very possibly won March his Oscar over Stewart. It may have even surprised March himself, who did not attend the 1947 Academy Awards ceremony.

It’s A Wonderful Life Had an Alter Ego

Before closing, I wish to note that it’s becoming increasingly clearer that the United States, with its debt of $22 trillion (officially), its increasingly Luciferian culture, and the recent disturbing display of sophisticated methods of population control, is heading toward destruction.

I see less and less hope for political solutions, given the oligarchy’s near-monolithic control over government, banking and major media. Now this may sound “defeatist,” and too much talk of defeat can become self-fulfilling. But even in World War II Germany, where “defeatism” was criminalized, there came a point—when the Luftwaffe was but a memory, and enemy tanks were rolling in from all directions—that, for every person, defeat finally had to be acknowledged.

I am certainly not suggesting we are at that point yet in America. Nor am I “defeatist.” I believe we should carry on the fight for truth to the very end, that this is God’s will. But I am increasingly convinced that final victory will only come through God’s intervention.

In that regard, I am a “victorist,” because I am 100 percent certain of God’s victory. On the Day of Judgement, the books will be opened and everyone’s life laid bare. The Luciferian oligarchs, unless they have repented, will face God’s fury, and no bribe will save them (as it does presently).

But as the political window of opportunity lowers, I often wonder if my articles’ focus should turn more from the political toward the spiritual.

If we are reaching a point where the death of our culture, like death itself, will become inevitable, what then should we do?

And why the heck am I bringing all this up in a post about It’s a Wonderful Life? Because that movie has a counterpart, which I believe is perhaps the best theatrical expression of “What then should we do?”

It is the 1951 filming of Charles Dickens’ classic A Christmas Carol.

The parallels between the two stories are compelling. Both take place, at least climactically, on Christmas Eve; in both, visiting supernatural beings allow a man to view his life through highly revealing lenses; and in both cases, the man’s destiny is dramatically changed by the experience.

The chief distinction between the two seems to be that George Bailey is made to understand how good his life has been; Ebenezer Scrooge, how bad. Of these two perspectives, it may be the latter which most people need to hear today.

I recently re-watched the 1951 version of A Christmas Carol and was struck by how adeptly Dickens wove the Christian message of salvation into his story. A man is compelled to view the sins of his life—very comparable to the books being opened on the Day of Judgement, except for the timing. He is also permitted to see the fate that awaits him if he does not change. Everything, including money and material possessions, comes into true perspective for him. He completely repents, becomes a new man (born again), and receives forgiveness from those he has harmed.

I’m convinced that we all need to be “Scrooged,” and probably on a recurring basis.

For me, there’s one other common denominator between the two films: they both make me cry, and that’s still something very few movies do. The 1951 version of A Christmas Carol (also titled Scrooge), has been praised for its faithfulness to Dickens, its accurate representation of Victorian England, and its quality acting. I’ll link to it, as I believe it explains, in an easy-to-understand way, part of God’s solution—for us personally—to the Luciferian agenda. It can be watched full-length on YouTube here.

NOTES
1. Charles Beard, “Who’s to Write the History of the War?” Saturday Evening Post (October 4, 1947), 172.
2. Ferdinand Lundberg, America’s Sixty Families (New York: Citadel Press, 1937), 189-201.

Hal Shurtleff

Hal’s remarks are in bold; mine in normal font.

JP: Hal, it’s great to do this interview with you; for one thing, it gives me a chance to get caught up with you. We go back quite a few years, don’t we?

HS: Yes. I recall literally bumping into you at the American Opinion Bookstore in Belmont, MA back in 1988. You were holding a stack of your Shadows of Powers.

JP: Oh, yes. I still have a bruise from that nasty bump—been meaning to talk to an attorney about that. But, oh, rats, the statute of limitations would have run out by now, wouldn’t it?

Anyway, one of my fondest memories is driving around New England with you, giving PowerPoint speeches about the New World Order, which you were instrumental in setting up. I mean you were instrumental in setting up the speeches, not the New World Order.

HS: I have fond memories of traveling the highways and byways of New England with you and hosting your excellent presentations, and also as an instructor at Camp Constitution’s annual family camps.

JP: Also, I remember you always had a great collection of Stalin jokes. The one about him going into a factory disguised as an ordinary worker, to learn what the proletariat really thought of him, still leaves me in stitches.

HS: The Stalin jokes are from a book by the late Petr Beckman called Hammer and Tickle. I have the book in PDF format and can provide your readers with a copy.

JP: Well, another thing I remember is that you were always collecting rare, out-of-print conservative books. You have those up for sale on Amazon, isn’t that correct?

HS: Yes, I have some rare and out-of-print books. Over the years, Camp Constitution supporters have donated thousands of books to our library and to sell on Amazon. In 2015, our mutual friend Sam Blumenfeld passed away and he willed us most of his library and papers. With it, we created the Samuel Blumenfeld Archives. It has a vast array of the writings, audio, and videos of Sam, a pioneer in the homeschool movement and one of the first to expose the plan to deliberately dumb down Americans.

JP: I have to say that, before the Internet, there was a great treasury of books that constituted a wealth of alternative views of news and history—if you knew how to access them. And unfortunately, most were never were put into digital format, so the only way to retrieve them today is through a resource like Camp Constitution’s Amazon page.

As to Sam, he was really amazing, an activist well into his eighties. Reminds me of the late Dr. Stan Monteith, who was still doing several radio shows a day in his mid-eighties, as well as G. Edward Griffin, who’s still going strong at 87! It confirms that one of the secrets to longevity is a meaningful purpose to your life.

And speaking of meaningful lives, why don’t you tell us a little about your background, and how you came to be involved with Camp Constitution.

HS: I was born, raised and still live in Boston. My Dad owned a drugstore in the Hyde Park section of Boston, and I started working in the store at the age of 8. I went to Boston government schools during the height of forced busing where I witnessed the heavy hand of the federal government, how the Left promotes racism, and how what we now call “fake news” operates. I joined the U.S Army after high school and served a two year duty in a combat arms unit in West Germany and then a tour of duty in the 101st Airborne. It was there that I learned that NATO was a fraud. In 1988, my former landlord loaned me a book by Gary Allen entitled Nixon: The Man Behind the Mask. It helped answer a lot of questions. I soon joined the John Birch Society and from 1990 to 2016, I served on the staff of the Society. In 2009, I co-founded Camp Constitution, and from 2016, I became its full-time director. I am married with five children. My wife Maura and I homeschooled our children.

JP: There’s quite a lot that to like in that resumé! I want to mention one thing here just to set aside some controversy. You and I both had a long association with the John Birch Society, which as you know, has been dissed by people on both sides—or should I say all sides?—of the political spectrum. Whatever its faults may have been, back in the 1980s, the JBS was virtually the only organized group that was “woke” about geopolitics. It was through the JBS that I learned about the CFR, the Fed, globalism, the conspiratorial Shadow Government, and so forth. They of course published my first book The Shadows of Power. I met many great and sincere patriots in the Society, and you were among them. I don’t know if you have anything you’d care to add to that.

HS: Jim, the John Birch Society was way ahead of its time. They were exposing the Deep State long before it became fashionable. I am of the opinion that if it hadn’t been for the efforts of the Society, we would have lost our liberty years ago.

JP: Well, I’d like to move on to the main attraction of today’s interview: Camp Constitution. Tell us about the camp.

HS: Camp Constitution was launched in 2009. We held our first family camp that summer. A few years later, we started a publishing arm, a radio show, a YouTube Channel, and more recently a speaker’s bureau. We have information and book tables at homeschool shows, Tea Party rallies, gun shows and floats in parades. Our website, as mentioned earlier, houses the Sam Blumenfeld Archives, and we also have downloads of important resources for numerous issues. The highlight of our year is our annual family camp. Our week-long family camp combines classes from some of the nation’s or even world’s top experts in their field with recreation, field trips to historic places, hiking, swimming, chess tournaments, just to mention a few. Some of this year’s instructors include Professor Willie Soon, Lord Christopher Monckton, John McManus, Debbie Bacigalupi, and Rev. Steve Craft. We have programs for those 5-11 which we started about five years ago.

JP: OK, and just so my readers don’t misunderstand, there are classes for campers up to—would it be age 18?

HS: Classes are for teenagers and adults. We are a family camp as well as unaccompanied minors.

JP: And, bearing in mind that there’s a whole array of fun recreational activities mixed in with the classes, give us some examples of what topics will be taught, or have been taught, at Camp Constitution. What will kids be learning?

HS: We have three classes in the AM and two in the PM. Some of the classes include U.S. Constitution 101, The Bill of Rights, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, America’s Godly Heritage, The Moral American, The Climate Change Hoax, The Principles of Leadership, Economics, Get Us Out of the United Nations.

A day at camp begins with a 6:30 AM optional “polar bear” swim or run. 7:00 AM wake up, 7:50 morning devotions and flag raising, 8:00 a good hearty breakfast. Three classes from 9:00-11:00 with break time in between. Lunch and then afternoon recreation which include swimming, boating, basketball, volleyball, wiffle-ball, martial arts, chess tournaments. Tuesday, we will have an optional hike up Mt. Greylock. Wednesday we take a field trip to the Springfield Arsenal Museum. Friday, we take out some of the campers to pass out copies of the U.S. Constitution to businesses owners in the area. Every evening we have campfire where we sing hymns, old-fashioned corny songs, skits, tell jokes. Friday night is closing ceremonies.  We have morning room inspections where we not only look for cleanliness but a Godly and Patriotic theme. The winning room gets free pizza on Friday night after campfire. It is a full week with lots of activities.

JP: Well, I have taught there myself, of course—three or was it four times?—doing classes on creation vs evolution, as well as on the New World Order. And one thing that was great was being among totally sane people—because, you know, we live in a culture that is progressively growing insane. Being at Camp Constitution was much like the experience I had at MassHope—the annual Massachusetts homeschooling convention. I’ve given classes there a couple of times too, and I know you had a booth there this year. Anyway, after being at MassHope, I told my wife it felt like being in heaven, because everyone, all the kids, were so well-behaved. And Camp Constitution is like that, an oasis in a sea of political correctness. My son attended almost ten years ago, and although he was initially hesitant about bunking with kids he didn’t know, he was made to feel totally welcome and really enjoyed himself.

HS:  One of the benefits of attending Camp Constitution is that we make life-time friendships. My children have become friends with a number of campers and stay in touch and visit each other throughout the year.

JP: There’s someone else I’d like to recommend as a guest speaker—Cece Doucette, who’s right here in Massachusetts and is almost undoubtedly the state’s top educator on wireless dangers. Wireless is contributing to cancer, DNA damage, attention deficits, and a host of other problems, and Cece backs up everything she says with scientific studies. You know how kids are into smartphones? The campers would really relate to what Cece has to say, and their parents would be very keen to know how to better protect their children. As an added bonus, Cece has been instrumental in getting several bills into the state legislature, and she knows first-hand how to work with state legislators—which of course can be helpful for any issue. I interviewed her recently on my website. Honestly, while I can’t speak for Cece, if she came to Camp Constitution, I am certain she’d be an instant smash hit and would give the curriculum a whole new dimension.

HS: One of our new instructors—James Morrison—a colleague of Lord Monckton, will be covering that subject to some extent. But I will check her out.

JP: Great. And while I recommend Camp Constitution unequivocally, there’s something else I think I should say, just so my readers have no misunderstanding. A great many of my readers are in the 9/11 Truth Movement, as am I. However, while I do believe individual families at Camp Constitution are undoubtedly skeptics of the government’s official explanation of 9/11, this is not a subject area that the camp curriculum gets into, correct?

HS: Not specifically. We have classes on the Deep State, exposing the New World Order, getting out of the United Nations, the global warming hoax, and I would say few camp attendees accept the official story of 9/11. I happened to be in the air when it happened and actually flew out of the same terminal at Boston’s Logan Airport as some of the hijackers.

JP: That is something I never knew! Everyone who’s old enough remembers where they were on 9/11, but not many say “I was in the air.” Well, let’s talk about this summer’s camp: when, where, and how do people sign up for it? Oh, and Scrooge McDuck wants me to ask his usual question: how much does it cost?

HS: The camp is in Pittsfield, Mass., and runs from Sunday afternoon July 28 and ends Saturday morning August 3. The camp is for entire families and/or unaccompanied minors and adults. The price for campers 13 and over and adults is $350. 12 and under $250. 3 and under free with parents. Folks can sign up online using this link:  https://campconstitution.registration.payscape.com/. The cost includes lodging, meals, material handouts, and field trip travel expenses. We do have a snack bar, a book table and sell camp T-shirts and camp group photos. We can pick people up and drop them off at airports, trains and bus stations if necessary. The closest major airport is Albany, NY (45 minutes), Amtrak stops in Pittsfield once a day. Car pool arrangements are also a possibility. Your readers are welcome to call or email me if they have any questions or concerns. 857-498-1309, campconstitution1@gmail.com. The camp website is https://campconstitution.net/

JP: Oh, and one of the things I remember about Camp Constitution was how first-rate the facilities and food were. That was when it was in New Hampshire. I see you’ve moved to a new location. How does it compare?

HS: Lakeside is a bit more rustic, but we love it. We are right on a lake—hence the name “Lakeside” with some beautiful scenery of the Berkshire Mountains. The camp has a nice wiffle ball field with a replica “Green Monstah.” The food is even better, it isn’t too far from I-90, and the folks who run the camp love us.

(A whole archive of photos from the camp can be found here.)

JP: Well, I want to strongly recommend Camp Constitution. It’s a great opportunity for kids to learn lessons that are missing from public schools, and for families to hang out and network with other folks who maintain traditional values, are “woke” and politically incorrect. These kinds of relationships are increasingly important for us to maintain in an era where we being marginalized by the mainstream media and the “system.”

And Possibly on a Ticket with Hillary?

Although he is ranked as the twelfth richest man in the world (with a net worth of over $60 billion), I didn’t pay much attention to Michael Bloomberg until this January. Guns rights activists in Virginia have denounced him for funding Democratic legislators there as well as Virginia’s controversial gun control laws, which resulted in the huge Virginia gun rights rally on January 20.

Then I noticed the name of Bloomberg—who didn’t launch his campaign until last November—starting to appear in election coverage more and more. On February 13, Trump called him “Mini Mike” in a Tweet (Bloomberg is 5 feet 7 inches tall). Since Bloomberg cannot do anything about his height, the mainstream media rushed to his defense over this insult. Inadvertently or not, Trump had given Bloomberg a publicity boost.

Bloomberg is behind in the polls, but his numbers are rising. Could he rise fast enough to secure the nomination? Historically, it’s occurred fairly often. In 1976, according to a Gallup poll taken just seven months before the Democratic National Convention, less than 4 percent of Democratic voters had favored Jimmy Carter for President. What happened? Carter was anointed by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had invited him to join their then-new Trilateral Commission. As Lawrence Shoup noted in his 1980 book The Carter Presidency and Beyond:

What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months.¹

The media blitz included adulatory pieces in the New York Times, and a Wall Street Journal editorial declaring that Carter was the best Democratic candidate. Before the nominating convention, his picture appeared on the cover of Time three times, and Newsweek twice. Time’s cover artists were even instructed to make him look as much as possible like John F. Kennedy.² The major TV networks inundated the public with his image.

The same process has happened with Republicans. Go back to 1940. Seven weeks before the GOP Convention, a poll showed only three percent of Republicans favored candidate Wendell Willkie, who, prior to that year, had been a registered Democrat. But, as if by magic, Willkie won the nomination. Ten-term Congressman Usher Burdick of North Dakota said of this:

We Republicans in the west want to know if Wall Street and the international bankers control our party and can select our candidate? I believe I am serving the best interests of the Republican Party by protesting and exposing the machinations and attempts of J.P. Morgan and the New York utility bankers in forcing Wendell Willkie on the Republican Party. . . .There is nothing to the Willkie boom for President except the artificial public opinion being created by newspapers, magazines, and the radio. The reason back of all this is money. Money is being spent by someone, and lots of it.³

If anyone can spend money today, it’s Michael Bloomberg. Recently, with a sense of déjà vu, I’ve noticed that he is getting mainstream media headlines every day. Here’s a screen shot of AOL’s lead news story on February 17:

The next day, February 18, here’s AOL’s lead news story:

(The “good news” was that Bloomberg would be appearing for the first time in the Democratic Party’s Presidential debates.)

On February 15, major news outlets noted that the Drudge Report claimed that Bloomberg was interested in having Hillary Clinton as his Vice Presidential candidate. Two days later, Business Insider reported: “Hillary Clinton ‘wants back in’ as Bloomberg campaign tries to quiet speculation she could be his VP.”

These announcements appear to have been pre-planned and well-coordinated. (Is it even conceivable that, behind closed doors, Hillary was promised a Vice Presidency as a consolation for 2016?) Some doubt the reports altogether, saying that Hillary would regard a Vice Presidency as a snub.

But whether the story materializes into reality or not, for Bloomberg, this hint of a move toward Clinton could sweep him to the top of the Democratic polls. Hillary’s many supporters, still stinging from 2016, might switch allegiance from other Democratic contenders to Bloomberg, just for a chance to see Hillary in the White House, a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Hillary’s participation in the Goldman Sachs groundbreaking ceremony quickly became tranformed into an iconic meme during the last Presidential election; that’s Bloomberg at the opposite end.

On February 17, the Bloomberg campaign began running an ad featuring former President Obama. Although it is older footage of Obama praising Bloomberg as mayor of New York City, the ad subliminally creates an impression that Obama is endorsing Bloomberg for President:

If Bloomberg secures the nomination, these tactics will become self-fulfilling, because Clinton and Obama will assuredly endorse the Party’s nominee.

And let’s face it. While Bloomberg himself lacks charisma, the Democratic Party’s other leading contenders don’t generate much excitement either. Bernie Sanders appears to be typecast as a perpetual runner-up. Joe Biden is the current poll leader, but could easily be discredited if the mainstream media catches up with alternative media and suddenly decides to showcase all those photos of “creepy Uncle Joe” fondling children.

A Bloomberg-Clinton ticket would not be without its handicaps. Both are from New York—America’s abortion capital—and tickets usually do better by representing diverse regions of the nation; this is a major reason why, for example, John F. Kennedy (Massachusetts) picked Lyndon Johnson (Texas) as his running mate. In fact, Drudge reported there may also be constitutional issues involved in a Bloomberg-Clinton matchup, which would force one of the two candidates to change their official residence (not a big deal for people who own multiple homes).

If nominated, Bloomberg, paired with Clinton or not, would easily win “blue” states like Massachusetts, but lose in red states like North Dakota. So it would be a matter of tipping the scales in important “swing” states like Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Could Bloomberg win in 2020? Aside from vote fraud, if the House of Rothschild is determined to have a Bloomberg victory, it would be easy to collapse the economy just before the election. The stock market has been steadily ballooning, which many Trump supporters have taken as proof of a healthy economy, whereas it is primarily the result of the Federal Reserve pumping billions of fiat dollars into the markets. All the Fed has to do is pull the plug, and the Wall Street orgy will be over. A market collapse would set Trump back on his heels going into the election. Bloomberg, in the meantime, could claim that he, like Trump, is a savvy “New York businessman,” and tout his personal wealth as proof that he knows how to fix the economy.

Now I have to preface my next remarks by pointing out that I am half-Jewish on my father’s side; I mention this because of the recklessness with which charges of “anti-Semitism” are getting made these days.

If victorious, Bloomberg would become America’s first overtly Jewish President. I say “overtly” because some have argued that a few Presidents were of partial Jewish descent. In any event, none were ever publicly perceived as Jewish. But a “President Bloomberg” would certainly represent a feather in the cap for the House of Rothschild, long the world’s leading power brokers, and who have historically been very tribal about their ethnicity.

The crucial question: Would the Rothschilds prefer Bloomberg over Trump? This requires elaboration.

After Mitt Romney was allowed to steal primaries from Ron Paul in 2012, and deny Paul the nomination bid he had earned at the GOP Convention, many conservative and libertarian activists gave up on Presidential elections. The cry was: ”The system is rigged!” And of course, it always had been. But then Donald Trump came along. He certainly had the right sound bites. I voted for Donald Trump. He made it appear that an “outsider” could win a Presidential election—so maybe they weren’t rigged after all? But contrary to what is believed by Trump’s “Deplorables” (people whose basic values I share and respect), Donald has in reality turned out to be “Israel First,” not “America First.” I strongly recommend Pastor Chuck Baldwin’s article summarizing Trump’s many broken promises.

Just like globalism and communism, Zionism has always been Rothschild-funded and a cornerstone of the New World Order agenda. Trump, the guy who Tweeted (before the election) that we should stay out of the Middle East and fix America, has turned out to be our most pro-Israel President ever, continuing and expanding the same neocon foreign policies of Bush, Obama, McCain, and yes, Hillary Clinton. And he was able to continue them far more effectively than Hillary could have, because war-exhausted Americans perceived him as new, patriotic, and an outsider to “the Swamp.”

Trump
• appointed pro-occupation hardliner David Friedman as his ambassador to Israel;
• attacked Syria with cruises missile—twice—over false reports of chemical weapons attacks;
• concluded an arms deal with Saudi Arabia—which supports ISIS—worth up to $350 billion;
• has extended and expanded the 19-year-old war in Afghanistan;
• dramatically increased drone strikes;
• recognized Jerusalem as solely the capital of Israel, not Palestine;
• moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a major step in the Rothschild-Luciferian scheme of “building the Third Temple”;
• completely exceeded his Presidential authority by proclaiming that Syria’s Golan Heights belong to Israel;
• recognized all Israeli settlements in the West Bank as no longer violating International Law;
• last December, in a strike against the BDS movement, issued an executive order equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism;
• ordered the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, nearly bringing on a World War.

On a personal level, his daughter Ivanka converted to Orthodox Judaism in order to marry Trump’s meddling son-in-law Jared Kushner. One doesn’t get much more Zionist than Donald Trump.

On the other hand, the Zionist Deep State might prefer a switch to Bloomberg, who is also (not surprisingly) very pro-Israel. In 2013, Bloomberg was chosen to receive Israel’s annual Genesis Prize. He has stated, ““I strongly oppose the BDS movement.” And: “As president, I will always have Israel’s back. I will never impose conditions on our military aid, including missile defense—no matter who is prime minister.” “And I will never walk away from our commitment to guarantee Israel’s security.”⁴

If the House of Rothschild decides that Bloomberg can satisfactorily continue Trump’s foreign policy objectives, it might favor him. After all, a Bloomberg Presidency, especially if paired with Hillary, could more swiftly advance the Deep State’s nightmarish domestic agenda for a Bolshevized America. A few weeks ago, Bloomberg appeared to be making gun control the centerpiece of his campaign (see, e.g., Poliitico’s December 2019 article “Bloomberg Unveils Sweeping Gun Control Plan”). Just recently he seems to be toning his rhetoric down, probably due to negative reactions from Second Amendment defenders. But there is no doubt that, if elected, Mike would be the biggest gun confiscator in American history. Even though Donald Trump has said “Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Bloomberg could seize guns without alienating his own base of supporters. During 2020, an upsurge in orchestrated gun violence could be used to further advance Bloomberg’s poll ratings. And a market crash could not only sweep Bloomberg into the Presidency, but give the Democrats strong control of both houses of Congress, meaning easy passage of harsh gun control legislation. In addition, a Bloomberg Presidency would mean a huge slide to the left, with a full-blown push toward more socialism, abortions, transgenderism, mandatory vaccination, “drag queen story hours,” etc.

Of course, Bernie Sanders is also Jewish and pro-socialist; however he has made remarks critical of Israel and supportive of the Palestinians, and is unfriendly toward Wall Street. And unlike Bloomberg and Hillary, Bernie lacks the cold-blooded temperament suited to ushering in a Trotskyite police state.

I know that with the potential for Hillary on the ticket, some people are already making jokes about Hillary later “suiciding” Bloomberg. That would never happen. Even Hillary knows where the line is drawn.

NOTES

1. “Jimmy Carter,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter.
2. Gary Allen, Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter (Seal Beach, Calif.: ‘76 Press, 1976), 139.
3. Congressional Record, June 19, 1940, Vol. 86, p. 8641.
4. “Views on Israel of U.S. Presidential Candidates 2020: Michael Bloomberg,” Jewish Virtual Library, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/views-on-israel-of-u-s-presidential-candidates-2020-michael-bloomberg.

(For those who might not know, “red-pilled” is a metaphor adapted from the 1999 film The Matrix. Taking the “red pill” means to awaken to reality; taking the “blue pill” means to continue living in illusion.)

Once again I depart from the book I’m writing on 9/11 due to a matter of greater urgency—the global response to COVID-19. Let me say at the outset that no one has all the answers on COVID-19, but we should have the will to look for them.

I have been a journalist for 35 years (starting in 1985 as a writer for The New American) and a registered nurse for 45 years (retired last year). Neither of these backgrounds qualifies me as an “expert” on COVID-19; however, it does give me some perspective, both on the geopolitical forces controlling world events, as well as common-sense training and experience in infection control. By the way, Bill Gates is not a medical professional, yet that hasn’t stopped him from advising the world on how to respond to COVID-19 in mainstream media.

On a personal level, I immediately knew the quarantining of perfectly healthy people did not accord with decades of infection control practices. In infectious diseases, you isolate the sick, not the healthy. To quarantine the healthy as “presumed sick” is the medical equivalent of violating the law of jurisprudence that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

However, since COVID-19 is said to be different, and as those who challenge the government/mainstream media response to COVID-19 have been targeted for censorship, this post will quote scholars and experts whose credentials are beyond dispute.

I apologize for the post’s length, but I wanted to aim for comprehensiveness. Perhaps the lockdown will give more people enough time to read it. I will update the post periodically. I have broken the COVID-19 crisis into four major sections:

(1) The Lockdown’s Human Impact (I wanted to address this first because it is the least hypothetical of the issues)
(2) The Methodology of Panic
(3) Theories about the Nature of COVID-19
(4) The Deep State’s End-Game

HUMAN IMPACT OF THE LOCKDOWN

The Economic and Health Impact

Even before the lockdown began, a survey showed that 49 percent of Americans were living paycheck to paycheck. As of May 7, 33 million Americans had filed for unemployment since mid-March. (Of course, these statistics, like many I cite, will continue to change.)

Let’s consider the implications. People without a job eventually lose their health insurance. Without an income, many will find it impossible to pay mortgages, real estate taxes or (alternatively) pay rent. The $1200 government stimulus checks will help little in this regard. In March 2020 the average monthly rent for a one-room bedroom apartment in Boston was $2,683, meaning the bailout would cover rent for about 2 weeks. Of course, it’s not just mortgages and rent, it’s utilities, groceries, and other necessities.

According to a recent study by The Ascent, 52 percent of Americans are maxed out on their credit cards, meaning they cannot even resort to credit to buy essentials. Breadlines have begun forming in America, which increasingly resembles the old Soviet Union. Meanwhile farmers who supply restaurants, schools and theme parks have been forced to throw away thousands of acres of rotting crops.

According to the American Psychological Association—before the lockdown—the number one cause of stress in America was money problems. Imagine how much the lockdown is amplifying that. And as the quarantine forces distressed people to stay together constantly, domestic abuse cases have spiked. The New York Times reported on April 6:

In Spain, the emergency number for domestic violence received 18 percent more calls in the first two weeks of lockdown than in the same period a month earlier. . . .

On Thursday, the French police reported a nationwide spike of about 30 percent in domestic violence.¹ 

Calls to suicide hotlines are spiking. With jobs demolished, crime can also be expected to soar.

The lockdown’s justification is to “protect our heath.” But if masses of people lose their health insurance and homes—becoming homeless—will the impact of that be less than COVID-19, a disease which lasts on average two weeks and that, for most people, resembles a mild to moderate case of the flu (we will amplify on this later)?

Sure, Uncle Sam can financially “come to the rescue.” But the U.S. government is—officially—over $23 trillion in debt. There is no treasure in the Treasury, no “reserves” to hand out. Anything the government gives the people it must take from the people—either by (1) raising taxes (obviously now impossible) or (2) its favored method: borrowing money from the Federal Reserve, which increases the nation’s debt burden and, by expanding the money supply, devalues the dollar, making prices rise.

As The Mises Institute’s editors write:

The shutdown of the American economy by government decree should end. The lasting and far-reaching harms caused by this authoritarian precedent far outweigh those caused by the COVID-19 virus. The American people—individuals, families, businesses—must decide for themselves how and when to reopen society and return to their daily lives.

Neither the Trump administration nor Congress has the legal authority to shut down American life absent at least baseline due process. As Judge Andrew Napolitano recently wrote, business closures, restrictions on assembly and movement, and quarantines are not constitutionally permissible under some magic “emergency” doctrine. At a minimum, the federal government must show potential imminent harm by specific infected individuals at some form of hearing or trial.

These due process requirements are not suspended.²

That brings us to the next human implication of the lockdown:

Destruction of Civil Liberties

Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Thanks to the “Controlavirus,” martial law has overtaken the planet, curtailing freedom, virtually empowering governments to the point of totalitarianism. Here in America, planks in the Bill of Rights are being shredded. While these prohibitions on rights may not be permanent, they nevertheless represent an unprecedented flirtation with dictatorship.

• Freedom of worship: Religious services are forbidden. Gatherings for worship, corporate prayer and religious studies have been curtailed, except for online substitutes such as livestreams and Zoom meetings. This appears to be the first time that Easter services have been globally cancelled since Constantine legalized Christianity in the fourth century AD.

On April 10, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear announced plans to record the license plate numbers of Easter churchgoers and force them into self-quarantine for 14 Days. Fortunately, a judge overturned the edict.

Less fortunate was Greenville, Mississippi, where police cars descended on King James Bible Baptist Church for scheduling a “drive-up church service.” See the video by Pastor Charles E. Hamilton, Jr.

• The right to peaceably assemble: A number of states have restricted gatherings to ten persons, and have “stay at home” requirements or advisories in effect for “non-essential travel.” In a worst-case scenario, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer issued orders forbidding anyone from even visiting a friend or family member unless they were a caregiver. Whitmer began taking a softer tone after a massive citizen protest erupted on April 15th.

• “The right to a speedy and public trial,” and trial by jury is encoded in the Bill of Rights. Jury trials across the nation have been cancelled or postponed—again, the suspensions are temporary, but how close are we to acclimating people to eliminating them altogether?

Here are examples of egregious rights violations across the nation:

• A Colorado man was arrested and handcuffed in front of his six-year-old daughter for playing softball with her, which allegedly violated “social distancing” requirements. Noteworthily, the police themselves were not wearing masks and violated social distancing in making the arrest.

• Residents of Cameron County, Texas, can face a $1,000 fine for not wearing “some form of covering over their nose and mouth.”

• In Sedgwick County, Kansas—emulating the old Soviet Union—citizens are encouraged to use online forms to “snitch” on neighbors who may be violating “stay-at-home” mandates or operating “non-essential businesses.”

• Indiana’s Howard County has ordered businesses to stop selling “non-essential” goods, including books. So book-burning is now part of the “medical martial law” paradigm.

•  On May 5, Shelley Luther was ordered to be jailed for seven days and fined $7,000 for reopening her Dallas hair salon in in defiance of lockdown restrictions. She was released from jail after the case received nationwide attention.

• Google is reporting people’s movements to the government to track whether “social distancing” and limits on social gatherings are obeyed. Meanwhile, the White House has held a teleconference with execs from Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter to “help battle coronavirus,” including “discussion about how to stop the spread of coronavirus conspiracy theories.”

Overseas, the situation is often worse.

• In Singapore, sitting or standing too near another person is punishable by prison terms of up to 6 months and fines of up to $7,000.

•  In Tunisia, remotely controlled “robocops” enforce lockdown rules and demand to see people’s travel permits.

• In Greece, Orthodox Bishop Seraphim Stergiulis was arrested for keeping his church open for worship.

• In Britain, police have set up online forms so people can “snitch” on neighbors who violate lockdown orders.

• Paris has banned outdoor exercise during daytime hours.

• The Danish Parliament has passed a draconian law authorizing the government to test, quarantine and vaccinate citizens without their consent.

Is the Lockdown Necessary? Experts Speak Out

Using quotes and video clips, let’s now give voice to some of the eminent medical scholars who oppose the lockdown. I know many of my readers have limited time, so I’ll only embed videos that are short.

First, the eminent German infectious disease specialist Sucharit Bhakdi comments on the outbreak—in which deaths from preexisting disease are being misattributed to COVID-19—and why the response—which he calls “absurd, grotesque, and dangerous”—will be far more destructive than the illness. He says: “All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide because of nothing but a spook.”

Professor Klaus Püschel, head of forensic medicine in Hamburg, explains about COVID-19:

This virus influences our lives in a completely excessive way. This is disproportionate to the danger posed by the virus. And the astronomical economic damage now being caused is not commensurate with the danger posed by the virus. I am convinced that the Corona mortality rate will not even show up as a peak in annual mortality. In Hamburg, for example, not a single person who was not previously ill had died of the virus: All those we have examined so far had cancer, a chronic lung disease, were heavy smokers or severely obese, suffered from diabetes or had a cardiovascular disease. The virus was the last straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak. Covid-19 is a fatal disease only in exceptional cases, but in most cases it is a predominantly harmless viral infection.³

Next, some common sense from Dr. Vernon Coleman, MD, from the UK. He notes how few people are dying (in total) from COVID-19 compared to the common flu. He also points out that the COVID-19 death rate has been highly inflated as tests are mostly conducted on the dying or seriously ill—whereas people with mild symptoms who stay at home aren’t tested.

Dr. Joel Kettner, former Manitoba Chief Provincial Public Health Officer:

I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this. I’m not talking about the pandemic, because I’ve seen 30 of them, one every year. It is called influenza. And other respiratory illness viruses, we don’t always know what they are. But I’ve never seen this reaction, and I’m trying to understand why.⁴ 

Update May 12. Dolores Cahill, molecular geneticist and PhD immunologist, has given a compelling one-hour interview; she thoroughly debunks the need for lockdowns and provides many informed insights into COVID-19.

Pulmonary physician Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg points out that coronaviruses have typically been part of the makeup of respiratory illness and predicts that in the end, someone will say of COVID-19: “The king is naked” (the emperor has no clothes).

Dr. David Katz, physician and founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center:

I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near-total meltdown of normal life—schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned—will be long-lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.⁵  

Lacking a transcript, I’m going to paraphrase verbal remarks from Professor Knut Wittkowski, for 20 years head of Rockefeller University’s Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design, and 35 years an epidemiologist. He says social distancing and lockdown are the worst ways to deal with an airborne respiratory virus. Yes, he says, keep the elderly and immunocompromised people safe, but there should be no isolation for the rest of the population. He says the lockdown prolongs the virus by preventing herd immunity, and may result in a new outbreak later on. As the interview lasts 41 minutes, I’m not embedding it, but it may be watched here.

Michael T. Osterholm, regents professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota:

Consider the effect of shutting down offices, schools, transportation systems, restaurants, hotels, stores, theaters, concert halls, sporting events and other venues indefinitely and leaving all of their workers unemployed and on the public dole. The likely result would be not just a depression but a complete economic breakdown, with countless permanently lost jobs, long before a vaccine is ready or natural immunity takes hold. . . .

[T]he best alternative will probably entail letting those at low risk for serious disease continue to work, keep business and manufacturing operating, and “run” society, while at the same time advising higher-risk individuals to protect themselves through physical distancing and ramping up our health-care capacity as aggressively as possible. With this battle plan, we could gradually build up immunity without destroying the financial structure on which our lives are based.⁶

Dr. Karin Mölling speaks out in an interview entitled “German Virologist of International Renown Warns Government Lockdowns Are a Horrible Mistake, Will Make Crisis Worse.”

Leading virologist Hendrik Streeck says there is no proof coronavirus can be spread while shopping.

A regularly updated summary about COVID-19, including comments from doctors who debunk the lockdown, can be found here.

And here’s a minute of some common sense from an ER nurse.

THE METHODOLOGY OF PANIC

Putting COVID-19 in Perspective

The graph below is based on statistics from the Worldometer website. It shows death by cause through March 25 of this year. Clearly, coronavirus’s impact, while significant, is still small relative to other causes, including other infectious diseases.

And here’s a graph of deaths from pathogens, from the Information is Beautiful website. It’s older (March 9); after receiving mainstream media criticism, it appears to have been pulled from the website without further updates. I still consider it relevant for perspective, for it shows COVID-19 only ranked 17th in the world for infectious disease deaths, though it has obviously climbed higher since then.

The CDC’s website maintains annual statistics for each flu season in the U.S.; typically tens of thousands die each year. According to the CDC, the 2017-18 flu season saw an estimated 45 million flu cases, resulting in 21 million doctor visits, 810,000 hospitalizations and 61,000 deaths. Where was the media panic? Where were the headlines saying “400 new flu cases reported in Kansas”? Why no lockdown?

Fake News Stories Intensify the Panic

Although an orchestrated campaign is underway to censor COVID-19 “fake news” in social media, it would be hard to outdo mainstream media in the “fake news” sweepstakes.

CBS was caught red-handed using Sky News footage of an overcrowded Italian hospital, claiming it was New York. If the pandemic is as bad as mainstream media claims, why resort to fakery to convince us?

In San Antonio, station KSAT reported an elderly woman as the first COVID-19 death in that city. A family member responded:

Los Angeles health officials have had to back off claims that a 17-year-old had died from coronavirus, allegedly the first U.S. juvenile to do so.

Like the media, government spokespersons have been hyping “coronavirus deaths.” Watch Candace Owens demolish Connecticut governor Ned Lamont for falsely proclaiming that an infant’s death was “linked” to COVID-19 (when it was actually the result of a home accident):

As Ann Coulter asks, “How do we flatten the curve on panic?”

But how is it possible to coordinate inflation of the panic by governments and media? Through the power of finance, most governments today are under oligarchical control, a topic I won’t belabor here, but which I have covered in my books Truth Is a Lonely Warrior and Thirteen Pieces of the Jigsaw. As just one example of how politicians are centrally managed, watch the prime ministers of Australia and Canada giving identical speeches in 2003 advocating the war in Iraq:

The main reason the oligarchy is generally unknown: it owns more than 90 percent of all major media through five corporations (thanks to mergers, this is down from about 50 corporations in 1983). These five corporations are: Time-Warner; Disney; NewsCorp; CBS/Viacom; and GE. This is not a theory; it can easily be proven. No matter what you are reading or watching, it is likely owned by one of these five. If you watch ABC News, ESPN or Lifetime, you’re watching Disney. If you watch Fox or read The Wall Street Journal or a book published by HarperCollins, that’s NewsCorp. If you watch CNN or read People or Sports Illustrated, that’s Time Warner. These lists could be extended to scores or hundreds for each corporation. Independent mainstream journalism is all but dead in America, and as one proof of that, here are numerous local news anchors—from different networks—reading identical remarks from their teleprompters:

This is why more and more people, when seeking information, look to independent journalists (such as Candace Owens)—journalists motivated by the search for truth instead of a corporate salary paid in exchange for promoting agendas.

A Disclaimer

Before proceeding further, I wish to stress: I’m not suggesting COVID-19 is not a serious disease. Though retired from nursing, I have front-line contacts who keep me abreast of the realities. One of these is “Doctor B,” an MD who has appeared twice on SGT Report. Doctor B (whose name is kept private to protect her practice) is a brilliant physician who is completely “red-pilled” politically. Though at one time a hardcore atheist/feminist, she is today a remarkably dynamic Christian. I’ve had the privilege of meeting her face-to-face.

I asked Doctor B what was happening at the large urban hospital where she works. She confirmed they have many COVID-19 patients. I asked if more people are dying from it than seasonal flu. She said they were. She said that while most get mild to moderate symptoms, a few people experience an extreme reaction where the virus invades the alveoli (the air sacs where oxygen exchange occurs); a hyper auto-immune reaction afflicts the lungs (this phenomenon, known as a “cytokine storm,” has been described elsewhere). This can eventually lead to fibrosis (hardening) of the lungs. She said it’s unclear why a few people react so severely while most do not.

Dr. B. also clarified an important point. I mentioned that a number of people have posted social media videos after walking by hospitals and their ERs, observing how quiet they seem. As a result, some have concluded that no COVID-19 crisis exists—that it’s a hoax.

She noted that these videos are well-intentioned, but misleading. Like the rest of us, hospitals are in “lockdown”—cancelling non-essential services, elective surgeries, and preventative care. Clinicians who are able to, work from home. Meanwhile, many people are terrified to visit an ER, fearing COVID-19. This produces an externally quiet appearance, but she told me that her hospital’s ICU is quite busy with COVID-19 patients.

Nevertheless, Doctor B harbors no doubt that the COVID-19 outbreak is part of the Deep State’s “New World Order” agenda.

Inflating COVID-19 Deaths: (1) Inaccurate Sampling Weight

In the section above called “Is the Lockdown Necessary? Experts Speak Out,” I embedded a video by Vernon Coleman, MD; he pointed out that dying or critically ill patients are routinely tested for COVID-19, whereas those who stay at home with mild symptoms usually aren’t. This gives test results of dying patients disproportionate weight in the testing profile, making the disease appear deadlier than it is.

Remarkably, the controversial Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, agrees. In a March 2020 article for the New England Journal of Medicine, which he co-wrote with H. Clifford Lane and Robert R. Redfield, Fauci stated:

Patients had a wide spectrum of disease severity. If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.⁷

If, as Dr. Fauci and his colleagues put it, “the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza,” why then the lockdown? Must America go into lockdown for every future severe flu, contrary to our practices throughout history?

And now a Stanford University study puts the COVID-19 death rate at just 0.12% to 0.2%.

Nobel Prize-winning scientist Michael Levitt adds his voice in a video uploaded on May 2, noting that COVID-19 death statistics were greatly overestimated in initial predictions, and that the lockdown is a “huge mistake.”

Here the White House Press Corps is caught on a hot mic, quoting stats that indicate COVID-19 is no worse than seasonal flu.

In the following three-minute news clip, two California physicians, Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, report that the COVID death rate has been grossly overstated and that the lockdown should definitely end. (A full presentation by the two doctors can be seen here.)

April 29 addendum: I want to point out that both the video immediately above, even though posted by ABC23 in Bakersfield, California, as well as the link to the longer interview, were banned by YouTube “for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines.” I managed to find substitute versions which I have re-linked. Here is a clip of Fox’s Tucker Carlson, rightly condemning YouTube for banning a science-based discussion by qualified doctors for no other reason than they presented facts contradicting the “official story.”  

Inflating COVID-19 Deaths: (2) Conflating it with other Diseases

Under the “Experts” section I also quoted Professor Klaus Püschel, who noted that everyone dying in Hamburg with COVID-19 already had a significant pre-existing disease. The percentage of deaths from COVID-19 varies widely from country to country. A German study puts it at 0.37%. Italy, by contrast, has reported death rates near 10 percent. However, the Italian government has stated that 99 percent dying there with coronavirus already had some other illness. Here Vittorio Sgarbi, a veteran member of the Italian Parliament, denounces the falsification of COVID-19 statistics, saying “it’s a way to terrorize Italians and impose a dictatorship”:

This raises an important point. Internationally, the odds of dying from coronavirus for people with no preexisting condition is less than 1 percent.  By “preexisting condition” we refer to cancer, chronic respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes. When a cancer victim dies and tests positive for COVID-19, the death is labeled “coronavirus” even if cancer was the prevailing cause of mortality. Dr. Deborah Birx, the Trump Administration’s Coronavirus Response Coordinator, has admitted this is the norm. It further distorts COVID-19’s reported death rate.

Here’s a one-minute news clip that shows Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, confirming that anyone who dies having COVID-19 is classified as a COVID death, even if they died from other causes.

And watch the testimony of this whistleblower doctor.

Because people who die of other causes, but happen to test positive for COVID-19, are counted as “COVID-19 deaths,” this means the headlines used to panic the public—“latest COVID death totals”—are based on markedly distorted statistics. Lack of an accurate accounting method makes it very difficult to ascertain the true number of U.S. deaths attributable to COVID and not to other more primary conditions. However, if we use the Italian analysis—which determined that 99 percent dying with “COVID” had preexisting diseases—then headlines proclaiming 50,000 American COVID deaths might translate, more realistically, to 500 dying from COVID alone. Admittedly this is speculation, since we have been denied honest data, but certainly it’s less speculative than the numbers in the “panic headlines.”  

Memes from the Web:

Inflating COVID-19 Deaths: (3) Death Certificates

In this 2-minute video, Dr. Scott Jensen of Minnesota discusses how the Department of Health encourages doctors to write “COVID-19” on death certificates, even when there is no evidence for it.

On her Fox News show The Ingraham Angle, Laura Ingraham demonstrated that the CDC encourages doctors to do the same on a national level. She quoted the CDC’s own instructions:

In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID cannot be made but is suspected or likely (e.g. the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.“

On the program, Ingraham interviewed Dr. Jensen about this, who expressed outrage, observing that the CDC’s own death certificate manual tells physicians to focus on “precision and specificity.” In the same interview, Dr. Jensen also revealed that if hospitals admit a patient with a COVID-19 diagnosis, they are reimbursed $13,000 by Medicare, and $39,000 if the COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator.

Here’s the full 5-minute interview:

For those who believe the CDC would never do such things, former CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson has revealed that the CDC grossly falsified statistics during the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic. CBS knew, but killed the story.

The National Vital Statistics System has chimed in, mandating that “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.”

Update May 2: In this 10-minute video from Project Veritas, New York funeral home directors confirm that many deaths certificates are being labeled “COVID-19” without testing even being done:

Pressure to classify deaths as COVID-19 is not limited to America. Dr. John Lee, retired professor of pathology, wrote in The Spectator of March 28, 2020:

If someone dies of a respiratory infection in the UK, the specific cause of the infection is not usually recorded, unless the illness is a rare “notifiable disease.” So the vast majority of respiratory deaths in the UK are recorded as bronchopneumonia, pneumonia, old age or a similar designation. We don’t really test for flu, or other seasonal infections. . . .

Now look at what has happened since the emergence of Covid-19. The list of notifiable diseases has been updated. This list—as well as containing smallpox (which has been extinct for many years) and conditions such as anthrax, brucellosis, plague and rabies (which most UK doctors will never see in their entire careers) has now been amended to include Covid-19. But not flu. That means every positive test for Covid-19 must be notified, in a way that it just would not be for flu or most other infections.⁸

Accuracy of Testing

There is controversy regarding the accuracy of COVID-19 tests. Articles here, here, and here call them into question. Dr. Rashid Buttar has stated that patients who have received the trivalent vaccine (a potent flu vaccine given to people over 65) are reading false-positive on COVID tests because the vaccine produces similar antibodies.⁹

Given the efforts to inflate the extent of the COVID-19 outbreak, my inclination would be to conjecture that COVID-19 tests might be designed to give false positives. However, I discussed the matter with Doctor B, the highly red-pilled MD I mentioned before, and she told me that while the initial test kits provided by the CDC indeed gave many false positives, testing is now far more accurate, and that her hospital has been able to verify the accuracy of testing through sophisticated methodologies.

Worsening the confusion: At Boston’s Pine Street Inn shelter, 146 homeless people tested positive for COVID-19, yet none (zero) exhibited any symptoms of the disease. One would, of course, expect the homeless to be more susceptible. What do these results mean? Are the homeless less vulnerable to the virus because they spend more time outdoors, absorbing the sunlight’s vitamin D? Is it related to their not carrying smartphones? Was it too early in the incubation period? Was the Pine Street Inn population exposed to a different strain of COVID-19? Or is there a problem with the testing procedure itself?

President John Magufuli of Tanzania, suspicious of the COVID-19 test kits his country was supplied with, reported on May 2nd that he had his security forces covertly submit specimens from a goat, sheep, and pawpaw fruit—and the results came back positive for COVID-19.

Because testing is highly technical, and I do not perceive that there is consensus yet, I prefer to leave this issue as “undecided” at this time.

THEORIES ABOUT THE NATURE OF COVID-19

Mainstream story of the Origin

Human coronaviruses were first noted by scientists in the 1960s; they are among the viruses causing the common cold. COVID-19 is a coronavirus variation, and many theories exist as to its origins and nature. The mainstream explanation is that it began with someone eating a bat or bat soup from a food market in Wuhan, China, though no proof exists of this; no one has ever been able to identify “patient zero”—the first infected human. This explanation reminded me of the African AIDS epidemic: it was originally conjectured that it began with a green monkey biting a human, ignoring that the World Health Organization (WHO) had been massively inoculating Africans with vaccines cultured in green monkey kidney cells.

Different theories about COVID-19 have appeared in alternative media; I will focus here on the two major ones.

Bioweapon Theory

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, who holds four degrees from MIT, including a PhD in biological engineering, discusses the high probability of COVID-19 being engineered, tracing back to Fort Detrick, historically the center of the U.S. biological weapons program, which has since evolved into the U.S. biological defense program. Ayyadurai says the COVID-19 crisis is almost undoubtedly a Deep State plan to, among other things, suppress dissent and advance the globalist agenda. This 8-minute clip is part of a much longer interview.

According to his biography at the Illinois College of Law, Professor Francis Boyle “drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.” In another 8-minute clip, Dr. Boyle cites several studies from around the world suggesting that COVID-19 was engineered:

Here is a paper on COVID-19 by nine scientists at the Kusuma School of Biological Sciences in New Delhi. They state: “We found 4 insertions in the spike glycoprotein (S) which are unique to the 2019-nCoV and are not present in other coronaviruses.” They call the characteristics “uncanny” and “unlikely to be fortuitous”—i.e., improbable to have been produced by chance mutation. Interestingly, the paper is now marked “withdrawn.”

Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnie, discoverer of the HIV virus, also says COVID-19 is man-made, noting that the Indian researchers “were forced to withdraw their findings as the pressure from the mainstream was too great.”

I’m aware that the British medical journal The Lancet has issued a brief statement condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” This statement has been sharply rebutted by bioweapons expert Meryl Nass, M.D.

Sean of SGT Report (who recently interviewed me on COVID-19) called my attention to Dr. Rashid Buttar, who I consider one of the most compelling COVID-19 analysts. YouTube has censored a number of Dr. Buttar’s videos, although you can still find them on his websites. He calls attention to the 2015 article “Engineered Bat Virus Stirs Debate over Risky Research” published in the journal Nature. It concerns a controversial viral experiment undertaken by a team of American and Chinese scientists, including Dr. Zhengli Shi from the Wuhan Level 4 lab, located very near the Wuhan food market blamed for the outbreak. Nature has now added a disclaimer which reads: “We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.” Dr. Buttar observes that the disclaimer does not discredit the article, which he suggests reading straightforwardly. It says, in part:

An experiment that created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus—one related to the virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome)—has triggered renewed debate over whether engineering lab variants of viruses with possible pandemic potential is worth the risks.

In an article published in Nature Medicine on 9 November, scientists investigated a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China. The researchers created a chimaeric virus, made up of a surface protein of SHC014 and the backbone of a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and to mimic human disease. The chimaera infected human airway cells—proving that the surface protein of SHC014 has the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them. . . .

But other virologists question whether the information gleaned from the experiment justifies the potential risk. Although the extent of any risk is difficult to assess, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that “grows remarkably well” in human cells. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,” he says. . . .

The argument is essentially a rerun of the debate over whether to allow lab research that increases the virulence, ease of spread or host range of dangerous pathogens—what is known as ‘gain-of-function’ research. In October 2014, the US government imposed a moratorium on federal funding of such research on the viruses that cause SARS, influenza and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome, a deadly disease caused by a virus that sporadically jumps from camels to people).

The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed while it was under review by the agency, says Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a co-author of the study. The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium, he says.¹⁰

Dr. Buttar notes that the man in charge of NIH when it approved the study was none other than Anthony Fauci—prompting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nephew of President John F. Kennedy, to post the following on social media:

While the University of North Carolina experiment seems a reasonable “likely suspect” for COVID-19’s beginnings, I’m not suggesting that it was perfected or finalized during that project. The passage of five years and additional noted changes in the virus suggest further work was performed—this could have happened anywhere: the Wuhan Level 4 bioweapons lab, the United States, or, as Gilad Atzmon has suggested, Israel. No one who has read Ronan Bergman’s 800-page Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations would doubt the sophistication of Israeli killing methods. Also noteworthy: on October 18, 2019, opening ceremonies for the Military World Games, with nearly 10,000 military personnel from 110 nations, took place in Wuhan, China—six weeks before the coronavirus outbreak officially began there.

April 30 update: Shedding further light on this, on April 29, Newsweek published an article entitled “Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with Millions of U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research.” It reads, in part:

But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.

Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release. . . .

Dr. Fauci did not respond to Newsweek‘s requests for comment.¹¹

For those who’d like an inside look at Dr. Fauci’s record of corruption and cronyism, I recommend this 13-minute video which includes comments from Dr. Judy Mikovits, who was persecuted by Fauci after she discovered that the virus causing Chronic Fatigue Syndrome came from contaminated blood and vaccines. (May 8—Well, that video is already deleted from YouTube, but here is another interview with her that runs a little longer at 25 minutes. Mikovits’s book Plague of Corruption is currently Amazon’s number one best-selling book.) 

Accidental Leak or Deliberate Dispersion?

If, in fact, COVID-19 is a bioweapon, was it accidentally leaked (as some have suggested, pointing out the proximity of the Wuhan bioweapons lab to the much-maligned seafood market)? Or was it released on purpose?

Several events point to the latter.

• Event 201. As Spiro Skouras reported:

In this report we take an inside look at Event 201, which took place in NYC on October 18 2019. Event 201 is a high-level pandemic exercise hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

This is extremely fascinating because this pandemic simulation exercise of coronavirus took place about 6 weeks before the first illness from the coronavirus was actually reported in Wuhan China!¹²

Event 201’s own website states: “Event 201 simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.”

Event 201 footage shows participants discussing censorship of alternative media opposition to government measures as “fake news”:

• In January 2020, Netflix released a three-episode documentary called Pandemic. Here’s the trailer:

• Before the outbreak, the Israeli firm MIGAL began working on a coronavirus vaccine. The Jerusalem Post reported:

Israeli scientists are on the cusp of developing the first vaccine against the novel coronavirus, according to Science and Technology Minister Ofir Akunis. If all goes as planned, the vaccine could be ready within a few weeks and available in 90 days, according to a release. (Akunis made his statement at the end of February.)

“Our basic concept was to develop the technology and not specifically a vaccine for this kind or that kind of virus,” said Dr. Chen Katz, MIGAL’s biotechnology group leader. . . . “Let’s call it pure luck,” he said. “We decided to choose coronavirus as a model for our system just as a proof of concept for our technology.”¹³

• Street demonstrations that had erupted around the world—in Hong Kong, France (the Yellow Vests), Chile, India, protests against 5G, etc., have been conveniently halted by COVID-19.

• For those who understand that the globalist New World Order is Luciferian, COVID-19 was timed so that it cancelled Easter services. Again, I believe this is the first time this has happened globally since Christianity was legalized in the 4th century A.D. In October 2019, the British hard rock band “The Darkness” released an album entitled Easter Is Cancelled, certainly an interesting bit of predictive programming.

• The stock market bubble, generated by years of pumping fiat cash into the markets, finally and inevitably collapsed. Unlike 2008, when bankers were blamed for the crash, COVID-19 became the scapegoat.

Collectively, there were too many “coincidences” and advance signals of the coming pandemic to dismiss as pure chance. If, then, COVID-19 is a bioweapon, it appears that it was strategically timed. And that means it could be strategically timed again, whenever desired.

The 5G Theory

Wuhan was China’s rollout city for 5G, and another major hypothesis circulating in alternative media is that 5G is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. YouTube has systematically censored videos making this assertion. Although at first glance this appears to validate the videos, there are responsible people in alt media who argue against, or at least question, the 5G role. For example, Derrick Broze, a major anti-5G activist, was recently interviewed on the Corbett Report. Broze does not see 5G as causing the COVID-19 crisis; he points out, for example, that he lived in Houston, an America rollout city for 5G, and no one started having COVID-19 when 5G began there. (I do question, though, if 5G might operate at varying intensities in different cities.)

Also, I received an email on April 5th from 5G Crisis, a leading anti-5G activism website which I subscribe to. While affirming EMFs are undeniably harmful, they asked subscribers to refrain from saying 5G is causing the pandemic—that there is no evidence-based science for this, and that the assertion is causing ridicule of 5G opponents, making their work harder.

Nevertheless, there are responsible scholars who see a correlation with 5G. Dr. Ronald Kostoff, PhD, of the Georgia Institute of Technology recently published a 1086-page paper on EMF dangers, The Largest Unethical Medical Experiment in Human History. Appendix 5—starting on page 648—is “Potential Impact of Wireless Radiation Exposure on the Opioid Crisis and the Coronavirus Pandemic.” He questions if EMFs contribute to the pandemic by weakening the immune system.

Dr. Magda Havas, PhD, has done a study showing that, in U.S. states with 5G, both the infection rate and death rate for COVID-19 are about double that of states without 5G. Others who see a 5G link with COVID-19 are Thomas Cowan, MD (short video here , long one here) and Dr. Robert O. Young (interview here). Cowan calls attention to the work of Arthur Firstenberg, who in his book The Invisible Rainbow points out that past pandemics—in 1889 (Russian Flu), 1918 (Spanish Flu), 1957 (Asian Flu), and 1968 (Hong Kong Flu) each corresponded with new electric/electromagnetic rollouts—electric power lines, radio, radar and satellites. He notes that these impacted the ionosphere, with negative ramifications for human health; our nervous systems are, after all, largely electrical systems. I have not had a chance to try vetting Firstenberg’s work, but it sounds like he at least deserves a hearing. If he’s right, then 5G’s introduction, like previous rollouts, might indeed play a significant role in the current pandemic.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that Shigeaki Hakusui, president of the Harmonix Corporation, wrote an article on wireless radiation which states: “At the millimeter wave frequency of 60GHz, the absorption is very high, with 98 percent of the transmitted energy absorbed by atmospheric oxygen.” Some in alt media have pointed out that 5G can operate at 60 gigahertz, up from a maximum of 2700 megahertz for 4G. To put this in perspective, 1 gigahertz is a thousand times stronger than 1 megahertz. Why were Wuhan residents photographed suddenly dropping dead during the COVID-19 outbreak? Were they unable to process oxygen due to sudden electromagnetic blasts from Wuhan’s 5G grid? I haven’t seen conclusive evidence for this, but it invites investigation.

During a Congressional hearing, representatives from the telecommunications industry admitted to Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal that no safety testing has ever been done on 5G:

This is rather shocking given the abundant evidence of physical harm from the less intense 4G and Wi-Fi, a matter I addressed in an interview with wireless educator Cece Doucette.

Other Theories about COVID-19

Additional explanations for COVID-19 have been advanced that I won’t elaborate on but will mention.

• It is generally acknowledged that viruses are not technically living things, and there is some debate as to what they actually constitute. In a 38-minute video, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, MD, articulates the view that what is being identified under microscopes as the COVID-19 virus is actually identical to exosomes—structures which eliminate toxins from cells. Such toxins, he says, could result from various sources, not excluding EMFs. Dr. Thomas Cowan and Dr. Robert O. Young, referenced in the preceding section on 5G, express an outlook on viruses very similar to Dr. Kaufman’s.

• Dr. Stephanie Seneff, PhD, a Senior Research Scientist at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, makes a case that the reason some people have such a lethal reaction to COVID-19 is exposure to the toxic Monsanto-produced pesticide glyphosate, both in their diet and by inhaling atmospheric glyphosate into their lungs (glyphosate is present in the biofuels increasingly used by vehicles to replace fossil fuels). Dr. Seneff is interviewed by Derrick Broze here and her paper may be found here.

• Finally, why are antibiotics helping COVID-19 victims, but not anti-virals? Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD, has written a paper proposing that the coronavirus acts as a “passenger virus” for a deadlier lung disease—tuberculosis. Bill Sardi summarizes Dr. Broxmeyer’s views here.

THE DEEP STATE’S END-GAME

Population Reduction

The oligarchs have an agenda of population reduction. Ted Turner has called for a 95 percent reduction in world population.¹⁴ Robert McNamara, former President of the World Bank, calling population growth “the gravest issue the world faces,” stated, “Either the current birthrate must come down more quickly, or the current death rates must go up.”¹⁵ Perhaps most telling for COVID-19 is Prince Philip’s remark: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”¹⁶ These quotes are just a tiny sampling of what’s out there.

In an 11-minute interview, former Russian intelligence officer Vladimir Kvachkov says the financial elite artificially manufactured the COVID-19 crisis to reduce world population (among other things). He recommends that instead of combatting the virus, our focus should be on combatting the human parasites behind the scheme.

Bill Gates

As Bill Gates seems to have emerged as the unofficial “director” of the planet’s response to COVID-19, we should know something about his background besides being Microsoft’s co-founder.

• His father was a director of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the U.S.

• Gates was friends with the notorious pedophile Jeffery Epstein, and according to the New York Times, met with him many times, even after Epstein was convicted of sex crimes.

• The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation bought half a million shares of Monsanto, infamous for spreading carcinogenic glyphosate across the planet, as well as replacing natural foods with GMOs. The Foundation is also heavily invested in 5G. Bill Gates has supported plans to cover the Earth with surveillance satellites, to dim the sun’s light by spraying millions of tons of dust into the stratosphere, and is investing in “lab-grown” meat. What’s not to love?

•  Gates has attended the Bilderberg Group, the shadowy power brokers who meet annually to privately set global public policy.

•  Microsoft recently hired occult “spirit-cooking” artist Marina Abramović to do a commercial, but was forced to pull it after it received over 25,000 “thumbs down.”

• With millions of people impoverished by the lockdown, some are wondering why Gates—whose net worth is over $100 billion—was inappropriately beaming and smiling during an interview when he was told how long the economic recovery would take.

• For those who’d like more on Gates’s background, including some of the mythology surrounding Microsoft’s beginnings, in 2016 James Corbett produced an informative one-hour documentary.

But most relevant to our COVID-19 discussion is Bill Gates’s role as a eugenicist. In a 2010 Ted Talk, he stated:

The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.

In his April 9 Instagram post, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nephew of President John F. Kennedy, enumerated many examples of the catastrophes caused by Gates-funded vaccines. I quote him just partially here:

Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems fueled by a messianic conviction that he is ordained to save the world with technology and a god-like willingness to experiment with the lives of lesser humans.

Promising to eradicate Polio with $1.2 billion, Gates took control of India‘s National Advisory Board and mandated 50 polio vaccines (up from 5) to every child before age 5. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating vaccine-strain polio epidemic that paralyzed 496,000 children, In 2017, the Indian Government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and evicted Gates and his cronies from the NAB. Polio paralysis rates dropped precipitously. . . .

In 2010, Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO promising to reduce population, in part, through new vaccines. In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a phony “tetanus” vaccine campaign.

Independent labs found the sterility formula in every vaccine tested.

After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade. . . .

Gates appears gleeful that the Covid-19 crisis will give him the opportunity to force his third-world vaccine programs on American children.¹⁷

Gates is now at the helm of the “vaccine response” to COVID-19. As we’ve noted, he helped fund the Event 201 simulation that took place 6 weeks before the Wuhan outbreak.

How do we know he’s not sincere? Personally, I’ve never seen Gates make any recommendations like building up one’s immune system, eating right, taking Vitamin C and D, getting fresh air, etc.—for him, the only answer to COVID-19 seems to be injection by syringe. Since Gates is supposed to be an entrepreneur, it’s also interesting that his solution to “overpopulation” is less people—rather than coming up with innovations, such as making more use of arable land, raising (healthy) crops, housing development, etc.

Deep State Goal #1: Global Vaccines

Now let’s examine the objectives behind the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bill Gates has stated: “It is fair to say things won’t go back to truly normal until we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world.” He also told The Daily Show that he is funding seven “factories” to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus.

Given the global track record of death, paralysis and sterility that Gates’s vaccines have caused (enumerated by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.) and his openly stated desire to reduce world population, would anyone trust a Bill Gates vaccine?

At a Pentagon briefing in 2005, it was explained that “religious fundamentalists” could have their behavior changed by injecting them with a vaccine. Although the “religious fundamentalists” referred to were Muslims, such technology could obviously be applied to any religion. This is direct evidence that vaccines have been proposed for purposes having nothing to do with health or immunity.

Let’s examine why we don’t need the coronavirus vaccine Gates clamors for.

(1) Regarding COVID-19, Dr. Stefano Montanari, the Italian nano-pathologist, says:

The major issue at stake is, or are, the vaccines. The regime that now encompasses the world will force the world to vaccinate–that is to vaccinate with and against a virus that does not give immunity, as this (the coronavirus) is the case.

If 50 years ago, at my exam of pharmacology, I had told my examining professor–who was one of the most knowledgeable pharmacologists of the time–something like that, I would have been thrown out of the door. For only an incompetent can imagine a vaccine against a virus that does not give immunity and has no chance of being effective. We are talking about a virus that mutates at very fast speed and we cannot possibly run after it (its mutations).

It’s a virus somehow similar to the cold virus, whose family it belongs to. You can’t vaccinate against the common cold because the common cold does not give immunity. In the course of a life, a person can have a cold 200 times, and at no time that cold will give immunity (against the next). It is a colossal fraud. We are close to 8 billion people forced to be vaccinated and it will be an unimaginably enormous business.¹⁸

To paraphrase: if—as the mainstream media claims—COVID-19 is just a naturally occurring mutation of the coronavirus, a vaccine won’t work. Why? Because the coronaviruses—a cause of the common cold—mutate into something new every year; this is why we never get immune to them, and why no one ever developed a vaccine for the common cold. If a COVID-19 vaccine is manufactured, the virus will presumably mutate into something else—meaning the vaccine will become worthless against new variants the following year, but you’d still have the vaccine’s toxins in your body.

(2) The vaccines being worked on are something entirely new—“RNA vaccines”; i.e., they would impact your genetic makeup. As Jon Rappoport of No More Fake News—one of the best bloggers on the COVID-19 crisis—says: “RNA vaccines and the technology they use are entirely experimental. . . . What in the world could possibly go wrong?” Bear in mind that thanks to the Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, the public cannot sue vaccine manufacturers for injury or death caused by a vaccination. The afflicted parties must go to “Vaccine Court,” and if able to prove their claim, are compensated by the Americans taxpayers. Thus vaccine manufacturers have little incentive to make their vaccines safe, since they produce them without risk of liability.

(3) Doctors are already having excellent success against COVID-19 with Hydroxychloroquine and zinc. So why move into uncharted territory with an RNA vaccine? Dr. Fauci has known that inexpensive Chloroquine is effective since 2005, when the Virology Journal—official publication of Fauci’s own National Institutes of Health—published an article, “Chloroquine is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread.” Rather than recommend a treatment already proven to work, Fauci continues to push for a vaccine whose outcome and side effects are unknown, and for draconian lockdown measures.

(4) Countries like China and South Korea have already “flattened the curve” on COVID-19 without a vaccine. Nations like Sweden and Taiwan are doing it without even imposing a lockdown. This, too, proves no vaccine is necessary.

However, if—as we have previously seen scientists conclude—COVID-19 is a bioweapon, then possibly whoever engineered it will also continue dispersing it around the world, creating the illusion that the pandemic is never-ending.

Here is a scenario I can see unfolding. Probably public demand will force a gradual return to economic activity. However, come next flu season, the coronavirus makes a comeback. 5G is turned on full-force, making people sick. The government proclaims, “We must return to lockdown.” The weary public says, “No! We cannot tolerate another lockdown!” Bill Gates announces: “No problem! The vaccine is ready.” The CDC says: “We have approved the vaccine. Anyone who takes it will be allowed to return to the workplace.” The public now eagerly lines up for their shots.

Unfortunately, CDC executives enjoy “revolving door” relationships with pharmaceutical companies after approving the drugs they are supposed to regulate. For example, Julie Geberding, director of the CDC from 2002 to 2009, now heads Merck’s vaccine division, where she has recently made millions in stock sales. Anyone who thinks the CDC wouldn’t collaborate with vaccine manufacturers should watch this old Sixty Minutes episode from an era when journalism was more forthright. It vets, in depth, how CDC executives colluded with drug manufacturers in 1976, creating a public frenzy over a minor swine flu risk while advocating a vaccine that proved deadly to many people.

Deep State Goal #2: Global ID

In order to travel, shop and work, you will require proof of vaccination. Dr. Fauci has already stated that “immunity certificates” may be issued.

Although most people envision this as a paper certificate, Bill Gates wants it to be digital. He has stated: “Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.” Screen shot:

How does one create a “digital” certificate? According to Rice University, this would amount to a “quantum-dot tattoo.”

Kevin McHugh, an assistant professor of bioengineering at Rice since this summer, and a team at his previous institution, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, report in a cover story in Science Translational Medicine on their development of quantum-dot tags that fluoresce with information after they’re injected as part of a vaccination.

The tags are incorporated in only some of the array of sugar-based microneedles on a patch. When the needles dissolve in about two minutes, they deliver the vaccine and leave the pattern of tags just under the skin, where they become something like a bar-code tattoo.

Instead of ink, this highly specific medical record consists of copper-based quantum dots embedded in biocompatible, micron-scale capsules. Their near-infrared dye is invisible, but the pattern they set can be read and interpreted by a customized smartphone. . . .

 “The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came to us and said, ‘Hey, we have a real problem—knowing who’s vaccinated,’” said McHugh, who was recruited to join Rice with funding from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. “They said, ‘We go on vaccination campaigns where people get into Hummers, drive to a rural village, set up a tent and start immunizing people, but they don’t always know who’s been immunized before and what vaccines are still needed.’”¹⁹

Add to this the ID2020 Alliance, which displays the Microsoft logo right on its home page. The Alliance seeks to make digital IDs a global phenomenon.

Deep State Goal #3: Cashless Society

We’ve obviously been heading into a cashless society for some time, with electronic transactions—credit cards and debit cards—increasingly replacing money. China—which many view as a prototype for a technocratic totalitarian world government—is virtually a cashless society now. Even street beggars there take digital handouts instead of cash.

The coronavirus crisis has pushed the drive for a cashless planet. The website Euromoney suggests this in its article “Cashless after Covid-19?” Money is considered “dirty.” After all, it could carry that invisible bogeyman, the COVID-19 virus. I spoke to a priest last week who serves as a chaplain on a U.S. military base. He told me they no longer accept cash because of COVID-19.

It’s not difficult to see where this could lead. If a digital tattoo could carry your vaccine information, a small upgrade would enable it to carry your financial information. Most of us, at some time, have known that unpleasant feeling of swiping a credit card that doesn’t work. What happens when our digital tattoo won’t let us buy food, gasoline, or a bus ticket, because we aren’t up to date on vaccines, or have in some other way become unacceptable to the government? This is truly the realm of 1984 and Brave New World, and I think it appropriate to now quote the Book of Revelation, 13:16-17:

And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark.

Is There any Encouragement?

Yes. The story doesn’t end with the Antichrist, it ends with the return of Christ, the Day of Judgement, and a new heaven and a new earth.

In the meantime, may God’s will be done on earth “as it is in heaven.”

And we see encouraging trends:
• I am hearing reports of both political and spiritual awakening.
• Protests against the lockdown are erupting worldwide. Many can be viewed in this 13-minute video.
• Six Romanian-American churches of Chicago have announced that they are re-opening in defiance of Governor J.B. Pritzker’s unconstitutional order. Their open letter lays out the safety guidelines they will follow, which exceed the CDC guidelines that allow Target, abortion clinics and liquor stores to stay open.
• Police officers are beginning to speak out. As just one example, in this video, a 10-year police officer, an Iraq War veteran, tells his fellow officers to stop enforcing illegal orders that violate the Constitution, pointing out that police officers are endangering even themselves by destroying public trust in law enforcement.
• Courageous medical doctors, such as Jeff Barke, Yvette Lozano, and Mohammad Iqbal Adil are also starting to speak out publicly against the lockdown.
• While I don’t encourage violence, there is much footage of 5G towers being burned down; people are aware of what’s coming.
• David Icke gave a viral interview about the New World Order on London Real which has had four million views and had to be banned on YouTube.
• Cartoonist Ben Garrison, who has two million Twitter followers, has produced a cartoon of Bill Gates presiding over a “COVID-1984” world with mandatory vaccines.
• Black comedian Terrence K. Williams, with over 800,000 Twitter followers, has produced a video Tweet where he says he’d rather shoot “fried chicken grease” up his arm than a Bill Gates vaccine.
• A “We the People” petition that calls for “Investigations into The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for Medical Malpractice & Crimes Against Humanity” has garnered more than half a million signatures.

In an age of instant information, truth can travel fast. Bill Gates is being savaged on social media like never before. And perhaps he, like fellow billionaire Mike Bloomberg, will learn: You can’t buy the people, and you can’t buy the truth.

NOTES

1. Amanda Taub, “A New Covid-19 Crisis: Domestic Abuse Rises Worldwide,” New York Times, April 6, 2020,  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/world/coronavirus-domestic-violence.html.
2. The Editors of the Mises Institute, “End the Shutdown,” Mises Institute, March 31, 2020, https://mises.org/wire/end-shutdown.
3. “Facts about COVID-19,” March 14, 2020 (with updates) https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/).
4. “Necessary Measures or Mass Panic,” Europost, April 23, 2020, https://europost.eu/en/a/view/necessary-measures-or-mass-panic-27724.
5. “Twelve Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic,” Global Research, March 24, 2020, https://www.globalresearch.ca/12-experts-questioning-coronavirus-panic/5707532.
6. “Twelve Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic,” Global Research, March 24, 2020, https://www.globalresearch.ca/12-experts-questioning-coronavirus–panic/5707532.
7. Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., H. Clifford Lane, M.D., and Robert R. Redfield, M.D., “Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted,” New England Journal of Medicine, March 26, 2020, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?fbclid=IwAR1WirrKstvdx49XuQ7dgCaSjkAARqtXChLkXWxMvNJpot4Ovsp7IuZam1I.
8. John Lee, “How Deadly Is the Coronavirus? It’s Still Far from Clear,” The Spectator, March 28, 2020, https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think.
9. Rashid Buttar, “Live Dr Buttar,” April 4, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbbYSaF48Sc.
10. Declan Butler, “Engineered Bat Virus Stirs Debate over Risky Research,”Nature, November 12, 2015, https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-riskyresearch-1.18787.
11. Fred Guterl, “Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with Millions of U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research,” Newsweek, April 29, 2020, https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741.
12. “Did Bill Gates and World Economic Forum Predict Coronavirus Outbreak? Will There be an Internet Blackout to Control Information?” Health Impact News, April 21, 2020, https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/did-bill-gates-world-economic-forum-predict-coronavirus-outbreak-will-there-be-an-internet-blackout-to-control-information/.
13. Maayan Jaffe-Hoffman, “Israeli Scientists: ‘In a Few Weeks, We Will Have Coronavirus Vaccine,’” Jerusalem Post, April 13, 2020, https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientists-in-three-weeks-we-will-have-coronavirus-vaccine-619101.
14. From Ted Turner interview in Audubon magazine, quoted in Fred Gielow, You Don’t Say (Freedom Books, 1999), 189.
15. Robert McNamara, speech given as President of World Bank, October 2, 1970, quoted in John Coleman, Diplomacy by Deception, (Carson City, Nev.: Bridger House, 1993), 117-18.
16. Reported byDeutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.
17. “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Exposes Bill Gates’ Vaccine Dictatorship Plan—Cites Gates ‘Twisted Messiah Complex,’” FRN, April 9, 2020, https://www.fort-russ.com/2020/04/robert-f-kennedy-jr-exposes-bill-gates-vaccine-dictatorship-plan-cites-gates-twisted-messiah-complex/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=faefb6fb115ce3127b24b287926fd17f699d0358-1587506293-0-AcKHta9fuD9DDtZLuVew8sCzDuTCrWpPwyNTZSp34PMQbGwbkhiZaz99N9tWKxn3haUN50uVslEkG0m-x2g5DuFeml6Q1TgcPC5rqJCKkNe2SvpSKk2z9arIEitz1zQxRXnnnrwR2QqQKpTP2Xt2JjkcvLOA74_d0So9NcCBrgNbCsJgQQ2ZnTdAWM6mWPDYzllj0c7V3CyQHaq9voynLp7FIDG2z-xl2apE3Dwu6NLh0cUkC66IiLvYNq7HlLlYpcg-kYfnId8tk0shiv96u7BkAnTcNo82KtGfIvQ9xHGDLTufpyVcXy4mfvrBAphTFr_AN8EM3HxeBnB00CTxHCsQvjpcKMRpU1ghmWg9aq7BWjZTFTZ45uo8xSm9OFVVP4JxeOLzQmRvBL94IQnoqZUcCA2kf4eG3NOELmBGyLH.
18. As quoted, Jimmie Moglia, “The Coronavirus and Galileo,” The Saker, April 1, 2020, https://thesaker.is/the-coronavirus-and-galileo/.
19. Mike Williams, “Quantum-dot Tattoos Hold Vaccination Record,” December 19, 2019, Rice Department of Bioengineering, https://bioengineering.rice.edu/news/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record.

As many of my readers know, In April 2020, I diverted from writing a major book on 9/11 to compose a long blog post on the COVID-19 crisis. September 11, 2001, remains a watershed event that redirected American foreign policy onto a deadly course of Middle East Wars that cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars, and domestically brought then-unprecedented intrusions on civil liberties in the name of security.

However, in 2020 the international response to COVID-19 was clearly superseding 9/11 in urgency. It was a systemic event threatening to bring down the world’s economies, and fast-track a global Orwellian police state, which we in alternative media had long warned about—complete with digital ID, cashless society, universal vaccination, and a surveillance state with strict limits on individuals’ ability to travel, work, and buy or sell. It was a cataclysmic shift of Biblical proportions.

Why publish a paperback? For weeks, as the COVID situation developed, I continued to update my blog post, placing the amendments in italics with dates. However, this system soon became unwieldy, and the sheer size of the post too intimidating to invite online reading. A point was reached where a book (which has turned out to be over 200 pages) was clearly needed.

In an era of draconian Internet censorship, a book also presents an opportunity to preserve, in hard copy, information that is increasingly at risk for being digitally flushed down what George Orwell called “memory holes” in his futuristic book 1984. In particular, I wanted to create a volume that would give readers access to data that has been systematically deleted by YouTube and made nearly impossible to find on major search engines, making the phrase “do your own research” less and less achievable.

I have striven to make the book something one can share with “blue-pilled” friends and family members. With nearly 300 endnotes, everything is sourced, quoting numerous scholars from around the world—virologists, epidemiologists, immunologists, pathologists, microbiologists, infectious disease specialists, including Nobel Prize winners, as well as front-line ER physicians and family practice MDs. Although, necessarily, I often refer to alternative media journalists, I also frequently draw on mainstream sources including the CDC.

To simplify reading, I have divided the book into five sections totaling 27 chapters—enough chapters to (hopefully) cover each topic relevant to COVID-19, while also keeping chapters short enough so that reading is not discouraged. Here is the table of contents:

PART ONE: THE LOCKDOWN
1. The Economic and Health Impact of the Lockdown
2. Destruction of Civil Liberties
3. Was the Lockdown Necessary? Experts Speak Out
4. The Social Distancing and Mask Controversies

PART TWO: THE METHODOLOGY OF PANIC
5. Putting COVID-19 in Perspective
6. Fake News Stories Intensify the Panic
7. An Important Disclaimer
8. Inflating COVID-19 Deaths: (1) Early in the Pandemic—Misleading Sampling Weights and Inaccurate Models
9. Inflating COVID-19 Deaths: (2) Conflating It with Other Diseases
10. Inflating COVID-19 Deaths: (3) Death Certificates
11. Inflating COVID-19 Deaths: (4) The Nursing Home Controversy
12. Accuracy of Testing

PART THREE: THEORIES ABOUT THE NATURE OF COVID-19
13. Mainstream Story of the Origin
14. The Bioweapon Theory
15. Accidental Leak or Deliberate Dispersion?
16. The 5G Theory
17. Other Theories about COVID-19

PART FOUR: THE DEEP STATE’S END-GAME
18. Population Reduction
19. Bill Gates
20. Deep State Goal #1: Global Vaccines
21. Eight Reasons Why We Don’t Need a COVID Vaccine
22. The Storm over Hydroxychloroquine
23. Deep State Goal #2: Global Digital ID
24. Deep State Goal #3: Cashless Society
25. Contact Tracing/Surveillance State

PART FIVE: WHAT MAY LIE AHEAD
26. Possible Scenarios
27. Hope and Encouragement

I have added an index to the book to make locating specific content easier.

Are there disadvantages to a paperback over a blog post? Sure. One cannot click-and-play a video in a paperback! However, in the book I have taken pains to provide written transcripts of video content, selecting excerpts with the greatest relevance and interest.

If you’ve already read the blog post, should you buy the book? I estimate, very roughly, that about 40 percent of the book’s content is new, and about 60 percent is redundant of the blog post, so this is really a reader decision. Bear in mind, it may be all new for someone you decide to share the book with.

COVID-19 and the Agendas to Come, Red-Pilled is currently available on Amazon. For those who wish to buy a copy, I suggest they do so promptly because, given the current state of censorship surrounding COVID, one never knows when things may change. I am already working with secondary sellers and backup printing services to ensure the book’s continued availability.

By the way, I realize (and understand why) some people prefer not to order from Amazon. As I publish this post, only they have it. Later I will have my own copies in stock. However, I usually just do bulk book orders, as processing too many individual orders becomes very time-consuming.  Power of Prophecy should have the book in stock for individual orders around September 6.

I knew that this day would probably come—many others have suffered from censorship—but somehow I hoped it wouldn’t. After all, COVID-19 and the Agendas to Come, Red-Pilled had sold over 3,500 copies for Amazon since publication on August 20.

I had not originally planned to produce a Kindle e-book version of the book. But demand was strong, and people overseas were having trouble getting the paperback due to COVID mail restrictions, so last week I spent four days working very hard with an e-book conversion company. We were just giving it the finishing touches on the evening of October 15, when I got the first unsigned email from Amazon. The message was vague, but indicated that Amazon was temporarily suspending my book over alleged confusion about whether or not I had the right to publish it in certain overseas territories.

This was false. I had already informed Amazon that I had full worldwide rights when I first published the book. Screenshot:

Nevertheless, I began following Amazon’s instructions—to resubmit the book while confirming territorial rights.

However, about two hours later, Amazon sent me a second unsigned email. This one indicated that Amazon was completely removing the book from sale—suddenly, it was no longer about rights; now it was about violating “content guidelines.”  Screenshot:
I asked Amazon to specify what content guidelines I had violated. Their answer wasn’t enlightening:

We’ve reviewed your book “COVID-19 and the Agendas to Come, Red-Pilled”, and found that it is in violation of our content guidelines and we will not be offering this title for sale on Amazon. We reserve the right to determine whether content provides a poor customer experience and remove that content from sale.

One oddity was that none of the emails were signed. I have five other books on Amazon, and in my past communication experiences, they would usually at least give a first name. But this time I was dealing with persons—or perhaps one person—who was cowering behind anonymity.

I’d like to say some things about the book itself. Two days after publication it ranked as high as #254 of all books on Amazon, and over the course of the last two months, it was often ranked as Amazon’s #1 best-seller in the category of “respiratory diseases.” Screenshot:

Along with over 3,500 Amazon sales, the book had received 50 customer ratings, 92% 5-star, 8% 4-star. No one gave it 1, 2 or 3 stars. So how can Amazon call it a “poor customer experience”? Aren’t their customers supposed to determine that?

I also want to say something about the book’s accuracy. It was written with scrupulous documentation. It has nearly 300 end-notes, and quotes scholars from around the world—virologists, epidemiologists, immunologists, pathologists, microbiologists, infectious disease specialists, including Nobel Prize winners, as well as front-line ER physicians and family practice MDs. There is virtually nothing I say in the book that isn’t documented.

Amazon, by the way, continues to carry other anti-lockdown books—I know of at least five. Why I was singled out is unclear. Amazon initially banned Alex Berenson’s Unreported Truths about COVID-19 and Lockdowns, then reversed its decision after protests were voiced, notably by Elon Musk. Amazon also banned Julio Gonzalez’s book Coronalessons, but reversed itself after intervention by Senator Marco Rubio, an associate of Gonzalez. Unfortunately, I am not a friend of Elon Musk or any U.S. senators. However, the First Amendment was not intended to apply only to the rich and the powerful.

So how am I responding to the censorship? I have contacted a law firm that specializes in First Amendment cases. I don’t know if they will take my case or not, but we’ve seen some success against the lockdowns through the courts—as in Pennsylvania and Michigan recently—and as corrupt as our legal system has become, I think this is still one of the best avenues available. I am also going to bring the facts of my case to the attention of the House Antitrust Subcommittee, which has recently had Amazon under scrutiny. Some of you may also wish to express your sentiments to Amazon; there can be strength in numbers. But I think it would be best if this came from people who have already read the book and therefore can speak with conviction about it.

Duly noted: Jeff Bezos has made billions from the lockdown. It is clear that Bezos—and Amazon itself—profit from the COVID restrictions on brick-and-mortar retail stores. Therefore, by censoring anti-lockdown books, they have a glaring conflict of interest. If you want to see the book restored, let Amazon know. You can email Jeff Bezos at jeff@amazon.com.

By the way, since I knew this day of censorship might come, I had a backup printing of my book made, totally separate from Amazon. Individual orders for COVID-19 and the Agendas to Come, Red-Pilled can be placed at https://www.texemarrs.com/, which features the book near the top of their home page (some people say they find it easier to place phone orders with them 800-234-9673 than online orders). As of November 2, the book is also stocked by American Free Press 1-888-699-6397 or at this sales link. I am working on developing additional non-Amazon sellers and distributors. I offer the book myself in bulk quantities at discount rates. https://jamesperloff.com/bulk-rates-for-covid-19-and-the-agendas-to-come-red-pilled/.

ALSO, SINCE AMAZON’S CENSORSHIP HAS MADE A KINDLE E-BOOK IMPOSSIBLE, I AM MAKING FREE PDF, MOBI AND EPUB VERSIONS OF THE BOOK AVAILABLE. Click here for details.

October 18 update: Please pardon me if I am slow in responding to emails, as I now have quite a bit of ordering and communications traffic coming in.

November 13 update: Although I have never been a FaceBook user, people report that FaceBook Messenger is blocking messages that mention my website. If you wish to share this article on FaceBook, you could use this shortened URL:https://tinyurl.com/yxjfntgz.

One last thing I’ll say as a word of encouragement: censorship often backfires. If you say to people “Don’t read this book,” their instinct is to go and read it.