Donald Trump attacked reporters the other day who asked Pam Bondi, head of the DOJ, for details on the Jeffery Epstein case, only to get a reply that there is "No Epstein Client List".
Even if he didn't have a client list written in a black book, as everyone expects there is. We have seen the flight lists, and the paying off of victims by Prince Andrew. So there were lots of important people flying to his island, and they were doing something there, apart from just getting massages.
Even Epstein's lawyer, who also defended Gishlane Maxwell, was named as someone someone who had abused Virginia Giuffre. That was until she changed her mind and said she "had made a mistake", about Epstein's lawyer assaulting her. Someone with Alan Dershowitz's face is pretty hard to forget.
I wouldn't be surprised if the counter suit he launched against her scared her off, and was the primary reason she changed her mind. I find it very hard to believe a sexual abuse victim could mistake the person assaulting her 6 times, on Epstein's plane, on the island, and in his mansion, as she claimed he did.
However, he is a well connected staunch Zionist, and I wouldn't be surprised if the threat of losing the millions paid to her by Prince Andrew, in a court case with a lawyer like him, scared her enough to insist she "got his face wrong".
Not being funny, but I think if anyone had the Desh on top of them, it would be hard to forget that distinctive ugly mug of his, especially if as Giuffre claims he raped her multiple times.
Plus he was someone who changed his story 3 times, from someone who had a massage from one of these sex slaves, who he had no idea of course about their situation, but kept his pants on. To telling the world his wife had organised the massage, something he didn't even like having, which seems a bit strange.
Some believe he died on his yacht when Mossad agents pushed him overboard, as his pension scandal at the Mirror in which he had stolen millions, just brought too much heat. It is still a debate whether he just fell overboard, committed suicide, or had help being "suicided".
It seems Gishlane Maxwell was the brains of the blackmail operation according to the victims, yet she was convicted in a trial where the no of witnesses to her abuse were whittled down to a handful, and she has been locked away in a minimum security prison for a term she will probably see out.
Alan Dershowitz has already called for Trump to pardon her. Why?
He seems to be very friendly with this duo even after the outrage of her crimes. Then we have the blatant lies from Pam Bondi, who claimed all the videos found at his property we all saw on the news at the time, were just child porn that Epstein liked to watch.
This is just taking the piss out of everybody in MAGA, Democrats, and anyone who has been following this story.
We are being gaslight about a major scandal that the elites just seem to want to sweep away. Especially as it has links to Israeli intelligence, and the Zionists Trump is surrounding himself with probably don't want to embarrass an ally, just as President Johnson said, after Israel tried sinking the USS Liberty in the 1967 war.
There is no mention that every property Epstein owned had cameras in every room and bathroom, and that so many influential people visited these properties for parties and "massages", by sex trafficked women.
From the surface it clearly seems that the Trump administration has just taken what they found, and wants to carry on using the evidence, to hold control over the powerful people involved.
This video explains it well.
Where is the FBI?
Kash Patel promised to go after anyone involved with Epstein's sex trafficking and we know big names like Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and Bill Gates were visiting this sex island.
Why have the known 25 underage sex victims at the time, not been brought in to see if any of these famous faces were amongst those that abused them?
Donald Tump campaigned against a 2 tier justice system when he was being attacked by Democratic lawfare, but it is clear the United States justice system is for sale.
If you are rich and famous, and involved in sick stuff, the FED's who usually have over a 90% conviction rate, seem to just drop the ball, and allow those elites to get away with their sick abuse.
Just look at the P Diddy Trial, where there was so much evidence, and he had basically been convicted in the eyes of the public. However, the prosecutor Maurene Comey, dropped major charges, ignored the kid sex trafficking, as well as little Rods affidavit where he named names.
This included the security guard who had control of all the video tapes from yet another blackmail operation, as well as big names in Hollywood who amazingly were not even looked into. Again, a situation where P Diddy had cameras in every room and bathroom to film drugged up guests shagging prostitutes and under age girls and boys.
She didn't even put Diddy on the stand to ask him any questions, and his defence didn't even bring forth any witnesses. They obviously knew the fix from the FED's was in, and they just had to let them fuck up the trial, so that he would only be charged with what Alex Jones said, "Was legal in Las Vegas".
I think we saw some of the results of his blackmail during the 2024 election, where famous Hollywood stars and singers, all known attendees of his parties, came out to do feeble endorsements of Kamala Harris.
They obviously got a call reminding them of the dirt they had on them and were pressured into making speeches endorsing Kamala Harris. That's ignoring all those celebrities who left the country as soon as Diddy was in jail.
However, there is nothing to see here, according to Kash Patel and Pam Bondi, despite their earlier comments on the matter that "The files are on my desk".
So lets just move on and forget that it certainly feels like a number of politicians and elites have been compromised.
Whitney Webb who wrote One Nation Under Blackmail, has extensively detailed the Israeli Intelligence and Mob ties to the blackmailing of US politicians since the countries creation, in her amazing books.
However, now that the evidence seems to be in Trumps hands, and after campaigning on a Presidency of transparency, we now are told by him to just forget about it. This is not what he, and Pam Bondi, were saying only a few months ago.
It seems that this lie is not to deceive the public, who all recognize the lies, but it's a signal to those implicated in Epstein's scheme, to let them know that the Government will protect them at all costs, whatever sick stuff they have done.
Oh and don't even read ex US Attorney General Bill Barrs Dad's "fiction" novel, Space Relations, about a planet ruled by oligarchs who are so rich and bored, they engage in ritualistic sex abuse with minors for "entertainment".
It seems a bit of an odd story line to write a novel about. That is unless you believe he was writing from his own experience, where we know sex abuse of children is going on, and being constantly covered up by the Elites.
Here is the Epstein client List for your viewing, as composed by Ryan Dawson.
He meticulously went through all the legal documents and affidavits from the sex abused survivors to create this list.
So there is nothing to see here, so carry on you dumb cows.
Just keep asking AI on your phone, what to do and what to believe.
Especially when the elites ask you to walk straight into the slaughter house.
....................................
Let me know what you think about this gaslighting by the DOJ and President Trump over Epstein's non existent "client list".
Google AI analysis of Moon Landing photos show it was faked at AI conference
By Dark Politricks
As my time is nearing an end, I thought for a bit of fun and to get away from all the doom and gloom of Gaza, Ukraine and Donald Trump, I thought a good old conspiracy theory orientated article was in need of posting.
There are a few main conspiracies that have stuck around us for decades, whilst modern obvious ones like the assassination attempts on Donald Trump, COVID, and Epstein, seem to be getting ignored, there are a few good ones that will never die and seem to always be debated, such as who killed JFK, and was 9.11 an inside job.
Another one is the Moon Landing Conspiracy. Did we really go to the moon?
Or rather did NASA really go to the moon in 1969, and was what the world saw on their TV sets really Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the moon, or was it men on a film set?
Can people hold conflicting conspiracy or rather scientific theories in their head at the same time?
Theories such as, we didn't go to the moon at all in 1969, and it was all staged due to the Space Race, and JFK's promise to go to the Moon by the end of the century. Then due to NASA realising that it was impossible to achieve this, they decided to fake the whole event to win the race against the USSR.
It seems like an impossible equation doesn't it?
How can you believe we had the power to harness gravity, and access unlimited power from an empty cup of air in the 1940's, possibly after reverse engineering downed alien space craft like The Roswell Incident in 1947, or just from brilliant scientists like Nikola Tesla, and others who worked on the Manhattan Project. As well as believing that we couldn't reach the moon in 1969?
If we had the power to utilise Zero Point Energy, and control gravity so that we could fly around at incredible speeds in UAPs mistaken for aliens by many people back in the late 1940s, then why wouldn't we be able to reach the moon in such craft by 1969?
Well if you take the head of Lockheed Skunkworks,Ben Rich's word for it, then just before he died he claimed "We now have the technology to take ET home", and that the problem was that the technology was all locked up in off the books, Unacknowledged Special Access Projects, that are controlled by private MIC companies and not Government agencies.
Even the President and the head of the CIA were asking HIM, why they couldn't access these Unacknowledged Special Access Projects.
Well buckle up for what seems like a big own goal that is not making much media noise by Google. I guess it's due to their AI system talking to Putin before Trump that might be the reason.
During the event, the Russian President was shown an AI analysis of the moon landing, with the claim that images of the US astronauts landing on the moon were not authentic. Putin and Nikolai Gerasimenko from Sberbank watched a Google neural network analysis of the moon landing, which suggested the possibility of synthetic photographs having been used.
President Putin, apparently just said “Very interesting,” when he was told by Gerasimenko, that the neural network “considered almost everything” in the photographs of the US landing on the moon to be fake. Also, most importantly, that "no bias" could be found because the analysis is based on Google’s neural network, an American system.
Neither the U.S. nor NASA have commented on the Google AI analysis of the Moon photos, or Putin’s response.
You can read an article about it here and NO, it is not from a Russian news site, it's an Australian site. I just had to use Yandex, a Russian based search engine to find it, as Google obviously doesn't want people to know about this news.
What do I think?
I've gone back and forth over this issue in my head as new evidence is uncovered, also as NASA videos come out revealing that in designing the next rockets to take man into the Solar System, they can't get past Low Earth Orbit (LEO), due to radiation from the Van Allen belts, have come to the surface.
For instance in this video a NASA engineer talks about their next rockets, Orion, and how it has to do non human test flights through the Van Allen belts, so that scientists can study the data collected about the radiation and how dangerous it is.
He says “We must solve these challenges before sending humans through this region of space”.
If we went through this region of Space in what was paper thin protection in the 1960's, compared to todays spaceships, then you would expect them to know how to achieve this already. It sure would have helped if NASA hadn't decided to destroy all the technical data on how we achieved the Apollo flights.
In a 2016 interview, veteran NASA astronaut Don Pettit made the following statement:
I have, like many, watched the back and forth between scientists and researchers who have debated shadows, stars not appearing in photos, flags waving on the Moon, background scenes used in Hollywood at the time, and other photos anomalies.
Sometimes I hear something that seems convincing, but then I hear a valid rebuttal of the idea, so I have been very open on the subject.
I have often wondered that if the Space Race was so important to win for the USA, then why didn't the scientists from the Manhattan Project that went on to work for the Nuclear Agencies and MIC companies, that seemed to control a lot of the hidden physics that UAPs are built around, help the Government in this endeavour.
Why didn't they let NASA use a modern Zero Point Energy based system to get to the moon?
Then I always come back to the control mechanism that this planet is currently based upon, which people like Steven Greer are trying to break.
The world is based on a Petro-Carbon economy, and the 0.1% of people at the top of the pyramids of power don't want us to have free energy as it would hurt their bank balance as well as their grip on the mechanisms of power.
So a display of using such energy to get to the moon would have let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, and people would have started asking questions. Of course some of us did anyway, but a global display of this control over gravity without having to use rocket fuel to get to the moon would have been a too obvious display of the goodies they controlled.
They didn't want normal people to be able to replace paying for Oil and Gas, and use free energy devices to heat their homes, and power their modes of transport.
However, the point that convinced me that we went to the Moon, was that I was informed by a video debunking conspiracies about the mission that thousands of people with telescopes all over the world, watched the trip happen with their own eyes.
Apollo 11 apparently manged to go to the moon with less computing power than a modern smart phone multiplied by a hundred thousand. They had less computing power than the first Spectrum and Amstrad PCs. The iPhone 11 has more than a million times computing power than Apollo 11's guidance computer which only had 74KB ROM and 4KB RAM.
So the main question I want answered about NASA space missions is this.
If we went to the moon in the 60s with less computing power than a modern day calculator.
Then why can we not leave Low Earth Orbit (LEO) now?
Sure we can send non human Satellites, and James Webb & Hubble telescopes past LEO, but we can't for some reason place the International Space Station, or even attempt to send a test flight with humans aboard out of LEO.
Why?
Surely since 1972 our technology has advanced a bit. The reason given by NASA, is that it cost too much money, £257bn (in todays money), to achieve the feat, and people have lost interest in Space.
However that is not really accurate.
The recent rescue of NASA astronauts by Elon Musk's SpaceX rocket engaged the people, and there is enough talk about UAP's even in Congress, that if all the MIC companies with machines that could fly to the moon in minutes were made public. Then I think the people would be very engaged and interested.
However, even if we went to the moon, I have never believed the photos and film were real for the reasons listed below. I agree with Google's AI analysis of the photos, and no they are not the usual flag, shadows and stars arguments:
1. Prior to the manned Apollo 8 lunar orbiting mission in December 1968, NASA had not sent any animals through the Van Allen radiation belts. When the Apollo 11 mission went to the Moon, they did not know what effect the radiation from passing the belts, the strong Sun rays on the Moon, and walking on the lunar surface, would have on any camera film footage taken.
If they don't know the effect on humans now because for some strange reason NASA decided to destroy all the data needed to go back in the future. Then the question remains how did they manage it back in 1969?
Even if we admit they did manage it in 1969. Then I want to know how would NASA know the effect on camera film or even the television signal sent back home from the Moon, passing through this strong radiation belt.
It might have failed, or destroyed the film due to radiation, and it was untested until the actual event.
Showing live footage to the world would have been a big gamble if NASA did not even know if the TV signal would reach Earth okay to be viewed live. It was a risk they could not take I suggest, which is why they only had one stream to a single TV, and they filmed the moon walk on a filmset before the actual launch.
Whether they went to the Moon or not is moot in my argument, as I am only arguing that the footage and photos from the Moon were faked, and it seems a Google AI analysis of the footage agrees with me.
The maths just doesn't work. They just didn't have the time to take so many perfect pictures. How did they manage so many perfectly taken photos with their chest bound cameras, whilst experiencing weightlessness for the first time, and doing their other tasks?
How many camera shots were badly taken due to the experience of being on the lunar surface with gravity issues, and a chest bound camera unlike those we have on our smart phones today?
They would have been constantly taking pictures with their chest bound cameras with no time to pick up the 400kg of moon rocks they supposedly brought back home.
"The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood."
3. Why did NASA force everyone to film one TV in their HQ for their coverage rather than just beam it worldwide?
That's why the original TV footage of the Moon landing is so grainy and such poor quality.
The BBC for instance, along with all other major news corporations covering the mission, literally had to point a camera at a TV where a single stream was being shown. Like me videoing my TV on my phone but using 1960s tech.
It would have made any conspiracy to hide the fake moon footage which could have been recorded months before the event so much easier.
They would have even been able to hide the lie from the staff working at NASA, who were all compartmentalised, none of them would have known if the footage being shown was live or recorded before the flight.
4. The press conference with the astronauts after their return to earth and isolation period for "safety reasons"
I am not sure whether MK Ultra psychiatrist Jolyon West passed by for a visit at anytime, as the 3 astronauts look like silent stunned rabbits caught in the headlights, when they were finally famously interviewed.
It is as if they are doped up on strong drugs, or hypnotised to act disinterested and not as if they just accomplished a great feat for the USA.
Or were they just totally embarrassed because they knew they were total frauds sitting in front of the world's press, pretending they were heroes?
It is very strange behaviour I think for 3 people who should have been raving about their record breaking experience as the first people to walk on the moon.
5. The film maker Bart Sibrel, found NASA footage, not meant for us to see, that suggests even the TV stream of the Astronauts halfway to the moon on day 2 were actually still flying in LEO.
Of course people have videos debunking the film but that is up to you to decide whether the Apollo 11 mission actually went to the Moon or not.
I think they went, whether they did everything the video shown to one screen in NASA HQ happened or not I don't know. However, I think all the photos were staged, along with the video footage.
In this regards, I agree with Googles AI analysis of the images from the mission.
Google is part of the CIA, so I am basically agreeing with the CIA for once!
You might also find this recent interview with Bart Sibrel interesting.
In it, he discusses the documentary, Google AI analysis of the photos, attempts on his life, killings of whistleblowers, deathbed confessions and more.
Now if NASA did fake the moon landing, I don't know why didn't Russia blow the whistle on the fake voyage for PR purposes.
In fact according to some people, he was just the first of about 10 Soviet astronauts that actually made it home alive.
There could probably be a few old Soviet rockets circling earth right now, with skeletons of Russian cosmonauts and dogs, that never made it back to the motherland.
Maybe once the USA had won the propaganda war, they gave up on their own attempts to land a man on the moon.
Or maybe just as they are doing now, and as JFK wanted until he was killed. Russia and the USA are still collaborating on space missions, NASA ones, and Globalist Dark Fleet Missions, that we just don't know the full details about.
This has been going on for years, all through the US proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, and during periods of sanctions. It seems whatever else is going on, when it comes to Space, the USA and Russia are happy to cooperate.
The NASA project, run mostly by NAZI scientists, the USA brought over after WWII in Operation Paperclip, was just a propaganda project for us mere mortals. Whilst a Secret Cabal of Globalists, use the forbidden technology such as Zero Point Energy from Quantum Vacuums, to run their own space operations and work hand in hand with alien entities.
Plus a before and after photo of a supposed alien spacecraft on the moon he found on US military computer systems. He apparently found a photo of a cigar shaped spacecraft on the moon, and then the same picture but with the spacecraft airbrushed out.
The USA definitely tried their best to lock him up forever, even waiting for the UK to change its extradition treaty before an endless court battle.
If he all he had done was use a simple to make port scanner to find open ports and blank admin passwords on Naval Base computers, as he claims, then he should have been awarded money for "ethical hacking", as they call it now, rather than the torment he went through.
So back to my question.
Why have humans not been able or willing to leave Low Space Orbit since the Apollo missions ended?
When you ask Google why we haven't left LEO since the Apollo missions the main reason given is money and a loss in public interest.
However if we are willing to let our government spend billions on never ending wars then I am sure the "First human space flight out of Low Earth Orbit" would actually be quite a newsworthy event and I am sure Elon Musk's SpaceX, would love to take the reigns if NASA won't.
So if Google's AI system really knows the answer, they are obviously hiding it from us peasants but it only confirms what I have long suspected about the photos from the Moon, they are fakes, whether or not we went there in 1969.
Remember The Pentagon Plane Attack Impossibilities
By Dark Politricks
I have been into 9.11 almost as soon as I saw it on the TV screens of secretaries at my work in 2001. I always thought the "Pentagon Plane was really a missile"story was afake or government spined lie to discredit the 9.11 Truth movement. If the witnesses at the WTC, thousands who saw a plane or two hit the Twin Towers then why shouldn't the witnesses at the Pentagon be believed just as much.
However after examining it more extensively and with Pilots for 911Truth getting FOI data showing that the plane actually flew over the building and listening to talks from people who saw no plane debris at the "official" impact site, I changed my mind.
The Plane simply does not fit and cannot fly at 550 mph that low to the ground, and this is the supposed exit point the aluminium plane managed to punch through 3 rings of reinforced concrete walls.
It is impossible for a plane to fly that low, and punch through three rings of concrete building.
From the video given out to the public only after numerous FOI requests, we are expected to believe that a Boeing 757 managed to fly only a few feet off the ground horizontally, for some time, without down-force crashing it into the ground or it's engines, and for it's huge body to disappear into a small hole on the first floor of the Pentagon before punching it's way through 3 re-enforced walls of concrete and coming out of a small exit hole 3 rings later.
Witnesses, TV crew and employees spoke about the lack of debris, bodies, bags and engine parts when they walked through this 3 ring puncture to escape.
I have a detailed talk from Barbara Honegger, an ex Reagan official who appears in this short video, and I think she puts the pieces together well.
She talks about 2 attacks at the site which get around the problems of the first pictures of pristine grass outside the impact zone and no debris and if you watch her speech in the article she explains it as 2 attacks.
One by a drone, coloured to look like a plane and then the main attack at a different section of the building which was a bomb. This was why there was no debris outside or plane engines buried 10 feet in the ground as they would have been if flying that low to the ground to hit the first floor.
Problems with the official story include:
1. The incompetence of the pilot supposedly at the wings of the 757 to make such a complex maneuver. Something experienced pilots would need many attempts on simulators to get anywhere near right.
2. The official path of the plane does not fit with the witness evidence or the broken light poles on the road.
3. A plane cannot fly at 550 mph at only a few feet off the ground which is required to hit the 1st floor "official impact zone".
4. If you watch this video of a test to see what a plane would do a re-enforced concrete wall like the Pentagon had you will see that the possibility of an aluminium plane using kinetic energy would not punch through 3 walls but be destroyed into tiny bits on the first impact. Notice in the video the plane is on train tracks due to the fact you cannot fly a plane that low to the ground at that speed.
So from all the CCTV that the FBI confiscated which could have caught the plane, drone, missile, or flock of concrete beaked seagulls hit the Pentagon we got a short clip from a CCTV camera that showed a few frames that showed no plane and an explosion.
The FBI must know what happened from other CCTV and their threats to staff who went public but they themselves are as corrupt as every part of the US Oligarchy.
The plane did not nose dive down into the first floor it apparently flew parallel to the ground for a good few hundred yards. This is something when I asked my father who worked for one of the UK's top Air Research Facilities as a chief engineer who designed plane engines how difficult it would be. He said "very", and "almost impossible".
He said the same as many other pilots who said that just the huge turn in the air and path the plane took was impossible for this type of plane.
Many ex military men and pilots have come out to say this. John Lear tried to sue the Government and in his affidavit he explains how planes flying at 550 mph (roughly) could not be controlled in the manner they were as they are designed as cruise ships in the sky at 40,000 feet not Jet fighters performing exotic turns at low altitude.
Conspiracies like the official 9.11 Report show that.
1. The Commissioners lied to the public about outside funding from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia when asked numerous times due to the release of the 28/29 pages which admits Saudi Involvement in the attack.
2. Why did the extensive news coverage on the day about white vans being stopped on the Washington Bridge with Israeli Mossad agents inside along with box cutters and bombs not heard about after the event on the day?
3. How did the "Dancing Israelis" know to park their van across the Jersey river to get pictures and footage of the first plane hitting the WTC. They are on record saying they were "Sent to document the event", so how did they know the event would even happen.
4. Whatever turned the WTC into dust, metal beams just frazzling up as they fell, the lack of seismic data from the buildings hitting the floor, toasted cars a block away with perfectly fine paper from the WTC offices floating about. Nano thermate particles (or rust) found in the huge dust cloud that covered NYC for days and is now giving first responders cancers, from asbestos and other concrete particles or maybe radiation from a mini nuke under the towers as Russian agent and material witness Dimitri Khalezov believes is unimportant. We know from the extensive library of firemen, police, WTC workers and people like William Rodriguez, a janitor who helped many people escape and described multiple explosions below and above him that there was probably a number of fail safe techniques used to ensure the towers fell that day.
These recent articles are all updates for the upcoming 9.11 anniversary. You can find many more on the site.
(I have to constantly find new videos and images for this article due to YouTube taking them down - why, I d0n't know, it's history. However it is a constant battle to keep this page updated)
9.11 skeptics versus logic, reason and scientific principles
By Dark Politricks
This is an updated version to the original piece on my old site, plus it has the old comments added to the bottom of it so you can read the old debate I had with doubter. Plus we now have even more evidence from the deathbed confession of someone involved in WTC7's demise. A CIA demolition expert who worried the job looked too "real" and too much like a controlled demolition. He is right!
Despite directly contacting 9.11 skeptics and debunker websites and asking very very nicely I still haven't managed to find anyone willing or knowledgeable enough to debate the evidence regarding 9/11 and the official conspiracy theory. The very few people I do find often don't even know the official story well enough let alone all the various contentious topics surrounding the events of 9.11. Therefore I decided to conduct a little one on one imaginary discussion in the manner I would tackle a debate on the topic if required.
Why would our government do such a thing. Surely you're not expecting me to believe that George Bush master minded an attack on his own people just to start a war. The expense both in monetary terms, lives and the reputation of the USA has been severely damaged by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What possible reason exists to commit such a crime?
Yes the wars have been expensive and I am not alleging George Bush was involved at any level as he can barely master his own mind let alone a coordinated attack on the level of 9.11. However that is not to say other members in the US government and / or intelligence community did not know the attacks were about to happen and allowed them for various reasons. Without a full independent investigation we will not know the exact reasons and people involved.
Conspiracy theories are the playground of loons and mentalists with too much time on their hands. We know what happened on 9.11 and the only conspiracy was the one that involved 19 Al Qaeda hijackers who brought carnage to the USA.
You are right in that the events of 9.11 involved a conspiracy but there is a large body of evidence that suggests the 19 hijackers were not the only players involved. The official story is also a coincidence theory in that a number of amazing events all occurred on the same day.
Events which the probability of them all happening together would have been extraordinarily high but which we are expected to accept as happening by pure chance rather than from a concerted planned effort. For example:
4 planes were successfully hijacked at the same time by a few men on each plane armed only with rudimentary weapons.
Not one of these successful hijacked planes was met with a challenge from the US air force which was the standard practice.
Not one camera in the most monitored and controlled part of airspace in the US managed to catch the incoming flight 77 as it hit the Pentagon.
The biggest coincidence is that 3 tall steel framed skyscrapers, all owned by the same person, collapsed into their own footprint after short fires. Never before had a building like this collapse from fire alone and although two buildings were hit by planes the building structures were designed to withstand such impacts and the other building wasn't hit by a plane at all. To have one building collapse looking exactly like a controlled demolition is unlucky, to have two is careless but three is downright freaky. What are the chances that a mile and a half of combined buildings would all collapse at almost free-fall speed in the manner expected from controlled collapses but not be caused by explosives at all.
This is not to say that all these coincidences couldn't have occurred just that before 9.11 the most sophisticated coordinated Al Qaeda attack had been the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya which involved a couple of truck bombs. Therefore the jump in the level of complexity between the usual Modus Operandi and the attacks of 9.11 was immense.
Just because the attacks were sophisticated it doesn't not mean that either Al Qaeda didn't or couldn't carry them out. Suggesting that our government was complicit some-way in these attacks is not only unpatriotic but unproven plus we know Al Qaeda did it as Bin Laden admitted it.
A few points here. Although the CIA and other war mongers have done a good PR job Al Qaeda is not and never has been a Spectre or Smersh like organisation intent on world domination with agents hiding under every bush. Bin Laden was an ex CIA asset who was utilised during the Afghanistan war against the Soviets and according to the most gagged woman in history, Sibel Edmonds, the USA maintained close links with him up until 9.11. As Robin Cook, the ex UK minister wrote in the Guardian, Al Qaeda actually means "the database" and refers to a file of CIA recruited and trained fighters who helped repel the Red army.
As for admitting involvement in the attacks we only have a dodgy video tape and a very unconvincing translation that takes the conversation out of context for these claims. We know that subsequent bin-Laden tapes have been faked and many people believe bin-Laden died in late 2001. Whether you believe he is dead or not we do have one interview that was conducted with him just after the attacks in which he categorically denies any involvement.
As for proving whether the US government, Israel or any other state actors played a part in the attacks we shouldn't rule that out just because a neat trail of evidence was laid to the door of Bin Laden's cave in Tora Bora.
We all know that every country engages in black ops and covert operations and a cursory knowledge of history proves that politicians, the military, intelligence agencies and other influential people are perfectly capable and willing to not only exploit events on the magnitude of 9.11 for their own benefit but actually help cause attacks of this nature either directly or indirectly for political gain.
For a start we should ask ourselves the following:
1. Did certain people in the US establishment want to increase American influence and control in the Middle East and Central Asia?
Yes. It is well known that a large number of neo-conservatives wanted to assert US dominance over the Middle East and Afghanistan for a number of reasons including:
Control of the main source of Oil and other natural resources.
A buffer to emerging powers of China and a re-assertive Russia.
To aid their ally Israel in helping combat their enemies in that region.
You can read all about their desire for such a scenario in the infamous Project for a New American Century reports. This is the same document that asserted that such a plan would be impossible to implement without a major "New Pearl Harbour" event taking place. It can be argued that 9.11 was exactly this event as these plans were then implemented. The question is was this purely co-incidental or linked somehow.
So not only did certain powerful people talk and write about their desire to expand US power into the Middle East and Central Asia they also realised that these plans would be hard to achieve unless a major attack on the country took place.
The fact that such an attack did take place and the exact desired plans were enacted is either a brilliant piece of luck on these war mongers behalf or lady luck was given a helping hand to bring that fateful event about.
Okay so some people may have wanted to expand US power abroad but that doesn't mean they staged 9.11. It's one thing to use a horrific event as an excuse to carry out plans that wouldn't otherwise have been enacted but quite another to cause the act to happen in the first place. Conspiracy theorists always think the worst of people, our government would never be involved in carrying out such a crime against the people.
You obviously are not aware of recent history which unfortunately is littered with cases of supposedly democratic nations engaging in crimes against it's own people for political expediency. The USA went to war in Vietnam over an event which has now been admitted never happened, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and de-classified documents show that the US military was not afraid of discussing the use of false flag attacks. It is also widely believed that Winston Churchill allowed the US passenger ship the Lusitania to be attacked and sunk by German U-Boats to bring the USA into World War 1. Also if you want an example of a conspiracy between nations to start a war you need only look at the Suez crisis in which the UK, France and Israel colluded together to wage war against Egypt so that they could wrestle control of the Suez canal back from Nasser.
More recent examples are not hard to find either and history is littered with many examples of nations engaging in under hand state crimes against it's own people including:
Operation Gladio in which the Italian governments agents staged bombings, assassinations and assaults on it's citizens to be blamed on the far left.
The Russian FSB apartment bombings in which nearly 300 people were killed in attacks blamed on Chechen separatists. Russian agents were filmed planting explosives in an apartment block but when questioned on the matter they claimed it was just a test to see how aware the citizens were.
The Lavon affair in which Israeli agents staged a number of false flag attacks in Egypt by blowing up US and British targets including a library and a theatre in the hope of the attacks being blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Unfortunately these are just three proven incidents out of many however the one thing they all have in common is the misuse of intelligence agencies. A False Flag attack is undeniably a commonly used tool that is used to blacken ones enemies and invoke sympathy for otherwise unsavoury actions.
One of the main perfecters of the false flag attack which it has used many times to get American armed forces to do it's bidding is the Israeli Mossad. I have already mentioned the Lavon affair in which Americans were targeted by Israeli agents in an attempt to pin the blame on Muslims but other examples include:
Operation Trojan, in which a Mossad team planted a fake relay transmitter in Libyan territory and then broadcast fake messages containing coded orders to carry out terrorist attacks knowing that they would be picked up by US interceptors. The Americans fell for this plan and believed fake Intel that pinned a German nightclub bombing which had killed a US solider on Libya. They re-acted by bombing the country and killed Gaddafi's adopted daughter.
The USS Liberty attack in which dozens of US servicemen were murdered in a daylight attack during the 1967 war. Although Israel and it's supporters claim this was an accident the survivors believe it was a deliberate attempt to bring the US into the war on Israels side by pinning the blame on Egypt. The evidence supports their claims including the testimony of an ex Israeli pilot who refused to attack the ship knowing it was American and workers from intercept stations that twice overheard Israeli pilots reporting that the ship was not Egyptian as was claimed but American.
Okay so intelligence agencies can get out of hand but surely our current crop of government officials are moral upstanding God believing civilized humans who would never consider such tactics.
You cannot be serious? Politicians are probably the least moral of all human kind and many politicians either enter politics for selfish notions such as power, money, ego or become corrupted along the way.
This is not to say all politicians are corruptible just that it seems that way due to the many sex, drink and drugs, expenses and other scandals that plague their profession. However to give you specific examples of government officials discussing the use of false flag attacks:
Tony Blair and George Bush discussed flying a UN marked plane over Iraq in the hope it would get shot down and then be blamed on Saddam giving them an excuse to invade. This story has actually re-surfaced in a recent memoir by General Hugh Shelton in which he states that at a meeting:
"A high-ranking cabinet member suggests intentionally flying an American airplane on a low pass over Baghdad so as to guarantee it will be shot down, thus creating a natural excuse to retaliate and go to war."
Dick Cheney discussed staging a false flag attack in the Straight of Hormuz by painting US boats so they looked like Republican Guard boats and then staging a shoot up with US ships which could be used as a pretext to starting a war with Iran.
Therefore we are dealing with people who have little moral fibre but who seem to believe that strong unethical action is needed to be taken sometimes to protect their country. However misguided these people are it is not inconceivable that someone honestly believed that by allowing the attacks of 9.11 to take place they were helping the USA by giving it a chance to "Sweep it all up. Things related and not" as Donald Rumsfeld famously said in the aftermath of the attacks.
Okay so false flag attacks do happen and western countries are not above carrying out dubious acts in the hope of blaming their enemies. However this does not mean that 9.11 was such an event. For one thing a conspiracy of this size and scale would involve far too many people for it to be kept quiet.
Not necessarily. There are many theories surrounding the events of 9.11 and only with a full independent investigation can we possibly ever know the truth however two of the most likely scenarios in my opinion are that either:
The act was a terrorist operation that was allowed to happen due to someone at a high level within the US intelligence community either deliberately "ignoring" the multiple warnings and signs that an attack was going to happen.
Or the event started off as a terrorist attack but was discovered by intelligence officers and then co-opted and managed by a team of intelligence officers to ensure that it went off successfully.
Unlike some of the more far fetched theories surrounding 9.11 such as the "no planes" theory which would have involved hundreds of people including many civilians and the media being in on the secret both of these plans would only require a small number of people to be involved.
If the attack was allowed to happen on purpose at the minimum the conspiracy need only involve a few key decision makers either losing or not actioning reports that were coming in from foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia, France, Morocco and their own agents that the attacks were coming. By deliberately ignoring such intelligence it makes it easier to give the excuse that the attacks occurred due to negligence rather than any deliberate act to allow them to happen.
The co-opted terrorist attack or planned false flag would also only require a small dedicated team of intelligence officers and their handlers to be in the know.
We should also note that members of intelligence agencies are sworn to keep official secrets acts and it is very unlikely that any serving member of a group involved in the attacks would blow the whistle especially if they believed they were doing it for the greater good. Like the JFK assassination we may have to wait until one of the conspirators is on their death beds before a confession is forth coming.
Hold up, did you just say someone confessed to the assassination of John F Kennedy on their death bed? Why didn't I hear about this on the news?
Yes a confession by an ex CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, who was involved in the Bay of Pigs and the Watergate scandal gave a confession on his death bed regarding his role in the assassination of JFK.
The reason you didn't hear about it or the CIA agent who confessed to demolishing WTC7 on the news is just one example of how the main stream media controls the flow of information regarding certain events. The same can be said for the 9.11 attacks in that:
No sooner had the towers collapsed than bin-Laden was blamed for the attacks and the MSM were parroting the same line without any evidence or counter points viewed.
The collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by any plane and fell at near free-fall speed looking exactly like a controlled demolition was under reported and treated like a non event. Even today many people who still believe the official story have no idea that a third skyscraper collapsed in New York that day.
Reports on the day that included interviews with first responders and survivors about secondary explosions, talk of such explosions by news reporters themselves along with footage containing the sounds of said explosions were never re-broadcasted once the "official" story was released.
Any alternative view point regarding the events on the day are met with derision and cries of conspiracy theory or anti patriotic slurs. Hit pieces full of straw man arguments and selective evidence are constantly aired and the only place that much of the legitimate and very real evidence can be found is in the alternative media.
Okay so the Mainstream media doesn't report on wild conspiracy theories and prefers to only report stories backed up with provable facts. One thing is for sure and that is if members of the government or intelligence community deliberately failed to act on received Intel that showed an attack was imminent then they would have been found out and punished.
You would think so wouldn't you however one of the strange provable facts regarding 9.11 is that the very people who failed in their responsibility to keep the country safe from terrorist attacks were not punished but rather rewarded through promotions.
In fact not one single person within those agencies that were supposed to be protecting the USA from attack was punished or sacked for failing to do their jobs properly. The following people who should have been reprimanded or sacked for failing to keep the country safe were all promoted:
Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11
Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11
Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director
Brigadier General Montague Winfield
Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11
Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney's task force on problems of national preparedness
Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit
Pasquale D'Amuro, in charge of counterterrorism in New York
These are not the only people, there are many more. In any world where blame was appropriated accordingly and people held account for failures which resulted in the deaths of 3,500+ people these high ranking members of Government would not have been promoted for their mistakes but punished. Logically there can only be a couple of reasons for this.
Either the USA rewards abject failure and incompetence and treats the biggest intelligence failure that ever occurred as a successful event rather than the murderous disaster it actually was, or these people were paid off and rewarded for keeping their mouths shut or doing exactly what they were ordered to do on 9.11 e.g nothing.
Your making this out to be some kind of huge conspiracy but we know exactly what happened. An Al Qaeda terrorist cell hijacked multiple planes and flew them into multiple buildings. The 9.11 commission examined all the evidence and proved what happened.
Did it though?
6 out of the 10 commissioners have made comments regarding the failure of the commission to get to the truth of the events of that day due to a concerted cover up action by the White House.
"One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up". - Max Cleland who resigned from the 9.11 commission.
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer has recently gone on record to discuss how the commission refused to hear his evidence regarding the Able Danger program which was a data mining operation set up to identify links between terrorist suspects. By early 2000 this program had identified a Brooklyn terror cell that included Mohammed Atta as well as three other 9.11 hijackers.
The 9.11 commission was also used as the basis by the US government to build up it's case for war against Iraq. We all know the lies used to get us into that war and during the commission a prominent neo-con scholar called Laurie Mylroie repeated unfounded claims that Saddam Hussein had been behind every major terrorist attack against the United States since the early 90's including the first World Trade Center attack, the Oklahoma City bombing, the African embassy bombings and 9.11.
Also the 9.11 commission wasn't fully independent, had a narrow scope of reference and ignored key evidence that conflicted with the official story. In fact no proper criminal investigation was held into the events of 9.11 and it has been left to independent investigators, insurance companies and activists to truly investigate the events of that day.
So what actual evidence is there that conflicts with the official events of the day. From the documentaries I have seen on TV the collapse of the World Trade Center has been explained and NIST has finally released it's report into the collapse of WTC-7 which it proved was caused by fire.
The official story says that the collapse of all buildings on 9.11 was caused by the hijacked planes and resulting fires alone. If it can be proved that one of the buildings was in fact brought down by controlled demolition then this leaves the official story on rocky ground as it means all of the following:
We have been lied to by our government and the owner of the building Larry Silverstein.
The NIST report was in fact not an honest investigation but a cover up.
Probability would suggest that we have been lied to about the cause of the collapse of the other buildings as well.
The hijackers were not acting alone but were instead part of a grander conspiracy which involved agents who were able to access the WTC and plant explosives OR the explosives were planted quickly on 9.11. Either way if the building was brought down in a controlled fashion it has been covered up and investigation into the collapse has been managed to fit the official story.
Surely you can agree with these points and that if it is proven that one of the buildings fell due to a controlled demolition that logically this infers some high level of government collusion as even if a powerful terrorist group or foreign intelligence agency had been able to plant the explosives or bring down the buildings some other way they would find it very hard to control the conclusions of subsequent investigations without government influence at a high level.
Okay I can agree with those conclusions but you still need to actually prove that one of the buildings collapsed in this manner and prove the official story wrong.
Yes I do. Lets start with an overview which has been created by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. These are professionals who have risked their professional reputations by investigating the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 and going on the record to state that they believe the buildings were not brought down by the impact of planes alone.
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed".
So both the Twin Towers and WTC-7 displayed all of the characteristics of controlled demolition and none of those associated with a progressive fire induced collapse.
However just to keep things simple lets concede that the Twin Towers did collapse due to the fires caused by the plane crashes. This still leaves the "smoking gun" of 9.11 which is the collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by a plane and only suffered limited fires before it collapsed at near freefall speed into its own footprint in the afternoon of 9.11.
The following points explain just why the collapse of WTC-7 is so problematic for the official story of collapse by fire alone.
Evidence exists that the owner of the building, Larry Silverstein, wanted to bring the building down. Not only did he make the famous "pull it" comment in a documentary about the events of the day but a recent FOX hit piece on Jesse Ventura by ex Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro reveals that during the day he was on the phone to his insurance company attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.
"I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard....Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building - since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."
Numerous witnesses have gone on the record to say they were told beforehand that WTC-7 was going to be brought down by a controlled demolition. These witnesses include:
Another EMT named Mike wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
"There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us," he stated.
The non peer reviewed NIST report into the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is based on a computer model that they won't release the source code for. This computer model has been thoroughly rubbished by many people for not bearing any resemblance to the actual collapse of the building as it occurred and it relies on some dodgy programming that seems to have loaded the parameters to create the desired outcome.
They did this by excluding important parts of the building that they themselves admitted were present in an interim report as well as assuming no thermal conductivity of steel in their model which meant that only one part of steel re-enforced concrete was heated causing the thermal expansion that supposedly caused the collapse. This video explains why the computer model was flawed. The first video was removed so I had to get a recent backup.
However the major flaw in the NIST report into the collapse is that they had to admit that their report is not consistent with basic principles of physics due to a 2.25 second period during the collapse in which the building collapses at freefall speed for 100 ft. The only way this would be possible would be if all the floors beneath the top part of the building had been completed removed so that the roof had nothing to fall through apart from air!
If WTC 7 is represented by three parts A, B and C, where part A is floors 0-6, part B is floors 6-14 (24 meters tall) and part C is floors 14-47 (see picture left), free fall of part C is only possible if, e.g. part B (or more!) is suddenly and totally removed! Then part C free falls on part A.
Free fall dropping upper part C of WTC 7 (above floor 14) does not apply any loads at all on the structure below floor 14 during this time!
NIST has been asked to explain what David Ray Griffin calls a miracle but cannot do so. Their official position regarding the cause of the collapse is totally inconsistent with physical evidence and the laws of physics which is an obvious problem.
The last point to remember is that a number of scientists have analysed the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center and found evidence of high explosive materials. The following is taken from a lecture given by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth recently.
It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/gray chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11.
Many people who follow the official line have tried to combat these studies by saying that the particles found within the dust were only by-products from the various office furnishings and other building materials.
They have also claimed in a number of documentaries that the amount of Thermite / Thermate explosive required to bring down a building would be too large and would have required a large scale operation to install however numerous people have carried out their own experiments to show that this is not the case.
As you can see not only did the collapse of WTC-7 look like and behave like a controlled demolition there is evidence to support this from witnesses, reporters, physical experiments and scientific analysis as well as the fact that the NIST version of events is total hogwash that cannot even follow the basic laws of physics.
Logic, reason and good science dictate that there is more than enough evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC-7 to warrant a proper investigation.
Remember if this building was brought down deliberately and not caused by secondary fires caused by falling debris from the Twin Towers then it means that we have been lied to on a massive scale.
Not only has there been a huge cover up involving sections of the media and major government agencies but it also means that there is a lot more to the events of that day than we have been led to believe.
WTC-7 is the Ace of Spades sitting at the bottom of a house of cards that the official story is built upon. Once you take the blinkers off and look at the evidence surrounding WTC-7 objectively it becomes quite clear that the evidence points towards a controlled demolition.
We also now have a deathbed confession from a CIA agent who took part in the demolition process and he said that the destruction of the building looked "Too much like a controlled demolition" and thought people would start questioning it. You can read my article on it here.
If we can prove that this one part of the story is based on a massive lie and cover-up then it takes a huge chunk out of the official story and opens up the whole sad event to proper scrutiny.
