“As we awaken more of the sleeping masses we gain more strength. People who have been living comfortable lives up to this point are getting jolted from their complacency. There will be a major shift. The shift in energy has been happening for some time now and is really kicking into high gear. Release all fear and you are unstoppable.” - Ann Capotosto
Two former CIA officials have admitted to creating a fake video in which intelligence officers dressed up as Osama Bin Laden and his cronies in an effort to defame the terrorist leader throughout the middle east.
The details are outlined in a Washington Post article by investigative reporter and former Army Intelligence case officer Jeff Stein.
Stein’s sources told him that during planning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the CIA’s Iraq Operations Group considered creating a fake video of Saddam Hussein engaged in sexual acts with a teenage boy, then flooding Iraq with copies of the tape.
That idea, along with faking Iraqi news bulletins, never came to fruition according to the former CIA officials, because agreement on the projects could not be reached between the Iraq Group and CIA’s Office of Technical Services.
However, the two sources reveal that the agency did previously concoct at least one fake Bin Laden video:
The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us darker-skinned employees,” he said.
The former officials told Stein that the project was taken over by the military after it ground to a halt:
The reality, the former officials said, was that the agency really didn’t have enough money and expertise to carry out the projects.
“The military took them over,” said one. “They had assets in psy-war down at Ft. Bragg,” at the army’s special warfare center.
This latest revelation bolsters evidence that the intelligence agencies, and perhaps more significantly, the military have been engaged in creating fake Bin Laden videos in the past.
the American states were united at war with Great Britain and had just declared their Independance. But what did it mean? What does it mean now? - Independence. This nation acted like one of England’s colonies for hundreds of years and in that time had grown to become one of Great Britain’s most productive resources. Then the French American War began and England came to defend the “colonists” incurring great debts and finally winning the war. Britain decided that it needed to keep troops here even though it did not have sufficient forts and that it could not afford to build such forts; therefore they decided to compel the people here to quarter the British troops in their homes with room and board; for protection of such troops they confiscated the peoples guns; the King also created a sales tax. The rights of the colonists became so abused that it became necessary to stand against Great Britain’s abuse over, “the last straw” — though most of the sales taxes were dropped, on a few key imported items like tea and shugar they went from from 3% to 6%. In response, rather than paying the increased tax, some of the colonists had a party (the Boston Tea Party) and threw a load of tea into the harbor; while others formed the Declaration of Independence and went to war.
When the War was over they formed a new foundational document, The Articles of Confederation, that document recognized this nation as a nation made up of independent sovereign United States, and gave the name “The United States of America” to the new government. Many of the people of this new nation felt that it was wrong to leave England. Sure there were rights violations but those were livable and their future was a certainty as an English Colony. Now that they were on their own nothing at all was sure.
Over the next ten years conditions in this country continually got worse. The individual States gave little regard to any other State and paid nearly no attention at all to the central government. After ten years of independence from Great Britain conditions were far worse than they had ever been under Great Britain’s rule and protection. Many wanted government officials to go back to Great Britain and beg the King to take us back, and they almost did.
“To form a more perfect Union”
That movement was considered too severe to take without first attempting to resolve the problems of this new nation by the sitting of what later became known as the Constitutional Convention. Each of the Sovereign States gave authority to (deputized) a few men to form a college to review and reform the present form of government and to eliminate the errors made in thier first attempt at the Articles of Confederation. In other words those few men were collectively entrusted with the peoples’ sovereign authority to reform the government. The Deputies created a Trust Indenture. Though some people say the Indenture had no title, because there was no Title written in bold letters at its head, its title, “The Constitution for the United States of America”, was given in its Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”It containes VII Articles, concluding with the signatures of the twelve States’ Deputies present at the convention. Once agreed to on, September 17th, 1787 and signed by the Deputies, the Trust was formed. This Indenture, (Constitution) with the intent and authority of the sovereign people, created a “Constitutional Republic” form of government in trust. Though the Deputies were empowered to reform the government to more perfectly align it with the will of the people, the States had not fully expected that their sovereignty and control over the land would be removed, wherefore the Deputies resolved to take the Trust back to the individual States for their respective ratification. The States conditionally refused ratification until limits were placed upon the new government that would secure man’s God given inherent rights.
Remember, under the Articles of Confederation, these individual States were recognized as individually Sovereign States, which was the problem with the Articles of Confederation, there was no accountability or control over the individual States. Without accountability whoever was in power simply ignored the central government and moved forward literally however they saw fit (in violation of individual rights, or not). In essence, they were each absolutely powerful kingdoms. It was obvious that if something wasn’t done to unite the Union of States as, “United States” they would be destroyed from within or without. So when offered the Trust Indenture, the individual sovereign States’ leaders could see that they would no longer be sovereign if they accepted the Trust, and they would be destroyed if they didn’t accept it.
Not much of a choice, but the war with England ended only a little over ten years earlier and they didn’t want to go back, so they demanded that if they were to give up their sovereignty, the people’s rights must be preserved from the central government. Thus they conditionally refused the Trust until the insisted on “Bill of Rights” were added. Therefore, the Trust document was first created to create a Trust known as the “United States”. The Trust created a government controlled by the Trust. Government officials were set up within the Trust as Trustees with specific defined responsibilities and functions. The People were set up as the beneficiaries of the Trust and when any government official takes office he/she is required to swear an oath of allegiance [make a contract with the people to uphold the Constitution]. Remember, at this point the government has already been created in trust, by the signed Constitution.
As yet the Trust has nobody sitting in the offices of government, however, the States are not willing to support the Trust and authorize its officers to function with control over them unless the people’s rights and the State’s rights are secured. The Conventioneers went back to work to draft the requested, Bill of Rights, which were later provided as the First Ten Amendments to the, Constitution of the United States of America, a document that was created to bind officers in an Oath to uphold the Trust of the people and securing the peoples rights.
Then the Trust, the Constitution for the United States of America (still signed and unchanged from its original version as first presented to the states), along with the “Bill of Rights” as the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, were returned to the individual States and were ratified by each of those States and returned to the Constitutional Convention where the new government was made effective and put in operation on or after, December 15th, 1791, the “Effective date of the Constitution which was then rewritten with the Title, The Constitution of the United States of America, including the Bill of Rights.
Now let’s go back and again review the documents created in the process by name. (Names are about to become (more…)
Mike Chickey is a wonderful photographer who covers a lot
of the action here in LA. There wasn’t much foot traffic at the
Times but I got some flyers in the hands of Times people.
Did you know that both the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune
are owned by a crude Zionist named Sam Zell? Col. McCormick
must be spinning in his grave!
Never mind that he was literally crazy. As the New Yorker noted a year ago:
The F.B.I.’s point man on the Abu Zubaydah interrogation, Daniel Coleman, had read Zubaydah’s diaries and concluded that he “had a schizophrenic personality.”
Retired FBI agent Daniel Coleman, who led an examination of documents after Abu Zubaida’s capture in early 2002 and worked on the case, said the CIA’s harsh tactics cast doubt on the credibility of Abu Zubaida’s information.
“I don’t have confidence in anything he says, because once you go down that road, everything you say is tainted,” Coleman said, referring to the harsh measures. “He was talking before they did that to him, but they didn’t believe him. The problem is they didn’t realizehe didn’t know all that much.”
***
Abu Zubaida … was a “safehouse keeper” with mental problems who claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did.
***
Looking at other evidence, including a serious head injury that Abu Zubaida had suffered years earlier, Coleman and others at the FBI believed that he had severe mental problemsthat called his credibility into question. “They all knew he was crazy, and they knew he was always on the damn phone,” Coleman said, referring to al-Qaeda operatives. “You think they’re going to tell him anything?”
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Ron Suskind writes that Coleman advised a top FBI official at the time:
“This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality.”
Now, Jason Leopold reports that the government is backing away from all claims that Abu Zubaydah had any role in Al Qaeda or 9/11:
For the first time, the government officially admitted that Zubaydah did not have “any direct role in or advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” and was neither a “member” of al-Qaeda nor “formally” identified with the terrorist organization.
Those who have studied history know that nothing invigorates and empowers an authoritarian regime more than a spectacular act of violence, some sudden and senseless loss of life that allows the autocrat to stand on the smoking rubble and identify himself as the hero. It is at moments like this that the public—still in shock from the horror of the tragedy that has just unfolded before them—can be led into the most ruthless despotism: despotism that now bears the mantle of “security.”
Acts of terror and violence never benefit the average man or woman. They only ever benefit those in positions of power.
This is why Nero fiddled while Rome burned: it gave him a chance to throw the Christians to the lions and rebuild the capital of the Roman Empire in his own image.
This is why Hearst and the warmongers of the emerging American Empire were delighted by the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor: it gave them the excuse they needed in order to rouse the public into supporting the Spanish-American War.
This is why Israel attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967 during the Six Day War, strafing and torpedoing it relentlessly for hours in a vain attempt to send it to the bottom: the Israelis believed that the loss of the Liberty could be blamed on Egypt and draw the Americans into war.
This is why there are hundreds of documented examples of governments staging attacks in order to blame them on their political enemies. In every civilization, in every culture, in every historical period, authoritarians have known that spectacular acts of violence help to further consolidate their own power and control. And sadly, throughout history there have been all too many willing to allow attacks to occur, to pretend that attacks have occurred or even to attack their own population in order to further their political agenda.
To think that such staged provocations and false flag attacks no longer occur would be as unrealistic as believing that human nature itself has changed, that powerful people no longer seek to increase their power, that influence is never used for deceit or manipulation, that lies are no longer told to satisfy greed or slake the thirst for control. It is to believe that our society is immuned from those things that we have seen in every other society in every other era. In short, it is a dangerous delusion.
The people are once again learning the power of this delusion. They are learning the extent to which they have been lied to. They are once again studying their history.
The Russians are learning how the FSB was caught planting bombs in Moscow in the 1990s during a terror scare that swept Putin into power and stirred the public into supporting the Second Chechen War. They are learning how their autocratic ex-President came to power campaigning on the graves of those his old FSB cronies had killed.
The Israelis are learning how Mossad has been caught time and again posing as the very Muslim terrorists they claim to be opposing. They are learning how Israel uses the specter of terror to further extend their (more…)
The Internet is an effective source of information for many Americans, therefore, the attack on the free Internet is in full force, from numerous angles. Unless people wake up and demand freedom, it will be lost. As usual, the collectivists are using fear in order to sway the public to embrace their predetermined outcome.
Last week, freedoms began to be threatened when the news came out about “cyberthreats” to the Internet, using the tired excuse of terrorism, despite the many years without any serious attacks.(1) Their solution, of course, is to take control over the Internet. The Senate is considering a law to allow the military to seize control over the Internet and content on personal computers, by way of comandeering America’s privately operated power grids.
The Cybersecurity Bill is another way that those in power are trying to take over the Internet, using the all-purpose excuse of terrorism again. Those who want to control what information you read, write and share are doing so under the guise of protecting the critical U.S. network infrastructure. Senator Jay Rockefeller, the driving force behind this bill, has publicly stated that it would have been better if the Internet had never existed. Perhaps this is because so many people have awoken to the truth of the Rockefeller family’s involvement in creating the fraudulent Federal Reserve System. Why is this guy still in office?
As of late March, the Cybersecurity Act bill has passed the House and made is still pending before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs (it is my opinion that it will pass through this committee with ease). Many in the Senate are rushing the enactment of this bill, and are trumpeting the necessity for “safety”. It is safe to presume that they are not acting in the interests of the individual. Further, Public- Private Partnerships (PPP) are planned as part of the takeover.(2) More people need to become aware of the true nature of the PPP (a tool used to implement fascism within the Agenda
The Washington Times publishes story questioning official account.
Newly released photos of New York on September 11, 2001 by the NY Police Association. Remaining pictures below.
(SALEM, Ore.) - The mainstream press is showing interest in a taboo, however glaring subject; the inconsistencies in the Bush White House 9/11 account.
As The Washington Times reports today, “A lingering technical question about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks still haunts some, and it has political implications: How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds? A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.”
The problems with the official federal stories are endless and according to some of the world’s top minds, the suggested account is impossible[1].
When we first began to write about these seemingly pressing questions, our Web Designer Matt Lintz caught the U.S. Air Force attempting to hack into Salem-News.com[2].
One person who has never let the matter fade away is Richard Gage. He’s a San Francisco architect and founder of the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Gage told The Washington Times, “In order to bring down this kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been artificially, exploded outwards.”
The federal government wants you to believe that fires brought the buildings to the ground, yet in all recorded history, no fire has ever toppled a skyscraper. They burn to the framework but they don’t fall down.
Even if it was possible, the World Trade Towers were the least likely candidates. The steel core design of these buildings would not have come down, even if the building collapsed.
Even when you get past that, perhaps finding ways to justify the impossible “official” circumstances, how on earth could any logical explanation account for Building 7?
This is curious, I would suggest that half of all living Americans still don’t realize that a third building also came down that day, and it wasn’t hit by an airplane. But it did contain a lot of records that certain members of the financial industry didn’t miss. Then there are the billions of dollars in missing gold evacuated just before Building 7 pancaked to the ground.
The words of Gage are reflected all over the nation in universities and engineering firms. The Trade Tower buildings were specifically designed to withstand the impact of a jet liner, specifically. Jet fuel is similar to diesel and it doesn’t burn very hot. Firefighters, talking on radios, talked about how the aircraft crash
Another first. AE911Truth runs first-ever television ads on NY1 this Tuesday, 3-30 and Friday, 4-2. Featuring the voice of Ed Asner, these 30-second spots mention nanothermite, show WTC 7 imploding and have great coverage of the AE911Truth website. They will also coincide with Week 3 of the “Building What?!” campaign. Thanks to the A/E video team for providing the original .avi file enhanced for broadcast. This is one HOT commercial! Watch or DVR it if you can.
WeAreChangeLA brought the 9-11 Truth message to the Anti-War march in Los Angeles in a HUGE way. We brought our four massive 2-sided blue banners. These babies are so big, it takes five of us to carry one. We showed up early and it paid off, because we got a good spot up front.Right off the bat, a young representative from the local chapter of ANSWER, the group that organized this Anti-War demonstration, approached us and told us that we would have to take our banners to the back of the march. Bruno Bruhwiler from WeAreChangeLA immediately confronted him about trying to kick us to the back of the bus. The young man said that ANSWER has the permit for the march, and they can tell us what to do. Bruno reminded him that they do not have a permit to trespass on our Freedom of Speech, and went on to advise the young man to go back and tell his team that they do not want to incur the liability for trespassing on our First Amendment Rights. He walked away after warning us that we would have to deal with the Police.
It wasnt long before he came back with four more gentlemen, one of whom began barking at us about a mish mash of reasons why we had to go to the back of the march, and Bruno explained to him why we did not. “Was I done talking?! Dont interrupt me! I am not done talking,” the agitated man barked. Bruno says. “We dont really want to hear what you have to say.” One of the gentleman said to us that our message is not conducive to the message of the march, so Bruno asked them all “What reason did Obama give for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?” “We dont want to have a conversation about this.” “The reason he gave was because of 9-11! Our message is THE anti-war message. There is no message that is more important to the anti-war movement than 9-11 Truth.” You could see what looked almost like shame on their faces, as they had nothing to say in dispute.
Bruno alerts them, “I need to see IDs from everyone. As far as we know you could be anybody off the sidewalk. How do we know you are actually the organizers?” They refused to show IDs, and instead began stating their names, one of which is Jim Lafferty. “Jim Lafferty!” exclaims Bruno with a smile. Jim Lafferty is the president of the Lawyers Guild in Los Angeles, and also one of the primary aholes at the local radio station, KPFK, who has been instrumental in pushing 9-11 Truth out of the programming over the past couple of years. “Jim, are you prepared to incur the liability for trespassing on our First Amendment Rights, today?” Jim had absolutely nothing to say, and began taking steps back and turning away. That left 2 gentleman with us, one of whom was quite level headed. The other seemed no older than 20, wearing an orange vest, who apparently was the head of security. He said to Bruno something along lines of “We are not violating your rights, this is our march.” Bruno corrected him, “Just (more…)
Comments Off
