Who Exactly is “Julian Assange”..? part 2.

Who Exactly is “Julian Assange”..?

By Dave Emory 

Introduction: The second program about the WikiLeaks network highlights the organization’s links with intelligence services around the world, as well as connections the group has with the Swedish Nazi milieu described in the late Stieg Larsson’s novels and the movies made from them. WikiLeaks receives support from Pirate Bay and its associated Pirate Parties. Composed largely of idealistic, relatively young hackers, most left of center, Pirate Bay is controlled by [40%] investor Carl Lundstrom, a prominent Swedish fascist.John Young, one of WikiLeaks’ founders turned critic of the organization harbors deep suspicions concerning the group.” . . . they’re acting like a cult. They’re acting like a religion. They’re acting like a government. They’re acting like a bunch of spies. They’re hiding their identity. They don’t account for the money. They promise all sorts of good things. They seldom let you know what they’re really up to. . .There was suspicion from day one that this was entrapment run by someone unknown to suck a number of people into a trap. So we actually don’t know. But it’s certainly a standard counterintelligence technique. And they’re usually pretty elaborate and pretty carefully run. They’ll even prosecute people as part of the cover story. That actually was talked about at (Sunday’s) panel. They’ll try to conceal who was informing and betraying others by pretending to prosecute them. . . .” [Italics are mine–D.E.]Young harbors many other suspicions about the group as well.

WikiLeaks kingpin Julian Assange boasts of his links to Australian intelligence and the Wau Holland Foundation in Germany (which is helping with WikiLeaks’ financing) consults with the BND, the successor organization to the Gehlen spy outfit that jumped from the Third Reich to the CIA and the Federal Republic of Germany at the end of World War II. Assange’s e-mails reveal that the group was founded by dissident expatriates from Russia, China and Tibet–a description that sounds very much like a Western intelligence front of some kind.Central to assessing WikiLeaks’ intelligence connections is the concept of the “Turned Hacker Syndrome,” to coin a term. It is common for criminal hackers to be “turned” after they are brought to justice–they are put to work for the authorities using their skills against some of their former associates and/or for the benefit of their former adversaries.Assange himself got a wrist slap from the Australian authorities after hacking national security databases maintained by elements of Western intelligence, suggesting the distinct possibility that Assange was “turned” and is working for one or more intelligence services. In addition, the WikiLeaks-associated Wau Holland Foundation also gives evidence of being a “Turned Hacker” element.A fascinating detail not included in the original broadcast concerns the fact that Moneybookers, the company that was handling 0nline contributions to WikiLeaks is a subsidiary of Investcorp, a company that is inextricably linked with the milieu of the BCCI, an intelligence bank that was used for machinations in the Iran-Contra scandal, drug trafficking, the Afghan mujahideen support effort and terrorism. Investcorp is inextricably linked with elements of the Gulf elite who are connected to the Bush family interests, as well as to the events surrounding 9/11.

As discussed in FTR #707, Sweden (in which WikiLeaks has located its operations) hosts a vigorous fascist community, connected to some of its wealthiest citizens, its intelligence servicesand an international criminal milieu involved with various forms of criminal sex trafficking.In remarkable fashion, the world of WikiLeaks overlaps the world portrayed by the late Stieg Larsson in his Millenium novels and the movies made from them (The Girl with the Dragoon TattooThe Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest.) In the Larsson novels/movies, we find the intertwining of the world of computer hackers, Nazis (old and new), sex trafficking and criminal sexuality. We find the same elements in the WikiLeaks story. (A knowledgeable source familiar with the Swedish political landscape assured author Christopher Hitchens that everything in the Larsson novels/movies actually took place!)Program Highlights Include: Review of Assange’s relationship with The Family of Anne Hamilton-Byrne; Assange’s possible indictment for sexual molestationPRQ server’s hosting of a pedophile chat forum(PRQ also hosts Pirate Bay and WikiLeaks); the Swedish Pirate Party’s sponsorship of WikiLeaks in Sweden (the Party is closely connected to Pirate Bay); the Swiss Pirate Party’s hosting of WikiLeaks following DNS attacks; the WikiLeaks’use of a company owned by a co-founder (with Lundstrom) of Pirate Bay as an emergency fund-raising conduit; review of the financing of Pirate Bay by Nazi financier Carl Lundstrom; Lundstrom’s suggestion that Pirate Bay’s operations be moved to ArgentinaPirate Bay’s acquisition by a Swedish company; the mysterious offshore entity that is the corporate shell of Pirate Bay; indications that the stock of that Swedish company may have been subject to insider trading; the resignation of the German Pirate Party’s lone member of Parliament because of possession of child pornography; WikiLeaks’ release of the East Anglia University documents, which cast aspersions on the research underscoring global warming (“progressives” tend to forget this about WikiLeaks); the death of Nobel Prize winning climatologist Stephen Schneider (who was receiving death threats from neo-Nazis and was on a flight from Sweden.)1. Among those who harbor suspicions concerning the possible involvement of WikiLeaks with elements of the intelligence community is one of the group’s founders, John Young (now a prominent critic of the group).In addition, he notes that WikiLeaks has behaved in a mercenary manner, seeking generous amounts of funding. Young also notes that the organization has behaved deceptively with regard to its advisory board. Having himself been the focal point of government inquiries, Young is also skeptical of Assange’s accounts of being harrassed by sinister “government agents.”Lastly, Young doesn’t think that WikiLeaks’ strategic retreat to Sweden is likely to bear fruit–according to Young, no hacker outfit is “takedown-proof.”John Young was one of WikiLeaks’ early founders. Now he’s one of the organization’s more prominent critics.Young, a 74-year-old architect who lives in Manhattan, publishes a document-leaking Web site called Cryptome.org that predates WikiLeaks by over a decade. He’s drawn fire from Microsoft after posting leaked internal documents about police requests, irked the U.K. government for disclosing the names of possible spies, and annoyed Homeland Security by disclosing a review of Democratic National Convention security measures.Cryptome’s history of publicizing leaks–while not yielding to pressure to remove them–is what led Young to be invited to join Wikileaks before its launch over three years ago. He also agreed to be the public face of the organization by listing his name on the domain name registration.Operating a Web site to post leaked documents isn’t very expensive (Young estimates he spends a little over $100 a month for Cryptome’s server space). So when other Wikileaks founders started to talk about the need to raise $5 million and complained that an initial round of publicity had affected “our delicate negotiations with the Open Society Institute and other funding bodies,” Young says, he resigned from the effort.In the last few weeks, after the arrest of Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning cast a brighter spotlight on Wikileaks, Young has been trying to trace Wikileaks’ money flows. On July 17, Wikileaks asked supporters for $200,000 to pay for Mannings’ attorneys, even though co-founder Julian Assange said a few days earlier that the organization had already raised $1 million.CNET caught up with Young at the Next HOPE hacker conference here last weekend, where he was attending the Wikileaks keynote speech. Following is a transcript made from a recorded interview with Young, lightly edited for space.Q: How many hours a day or days a week do you spend on Cryptome?
Young: Well, it varies. When I’m doing professional practice work, it’s very little. I just answer e-mail and when something hot comes in, I’ll put it up. Most of my time is spent on my architectural practice. So I do Cryptome between when I have time to get to it. It’s by no means a full-time activity.What you’re doing sounds a lot like what Wikileaks is doing, no?
Young: Only superficially, Declan, because, and we can talk more about this, I initially thought that was what they were going to be doing when I first agreed to participate. But it became clear right away that they were going to set up an operation with multiple people involved. So the first difference is that I don’t run an operation. I don’t have any people working on this. This is strictly–and I like the term myself, but other people hate it–it’s strictly an amateur version.It’s not like Wikileaks and their grand goals. I’ve never had any desire to overturn governments or do any of these noble things that they want to do. Or jack up journalism. This was just a way to get certain kinds of documents out to the public.And so when they explained the amount of money they were going to try to raise, that was the basis for parting company with them. I thought it was going to be more like Cryptome, which is a collective of people contributing their time to it and not a centralized operation raising lots of money. Cryptome is not into that kind of thing. We parted company at that point. We’re still not like Wikileaks in that we don’t do any promotional work for our activities.Who were the other Wikileaks founders?Young: I’m not going to talk about those. I’ll say Julian (Assange) was clearly there. I elected to conceal those names when I published these messages. And I think it’s basically a violation of Cryptome’s policy–to publish the names of people who do not want to be identified.You had a falling-out with the other Wikileaks founders?
Young: Yes. But it was over this: someone said that the initial goal was $5 million. That caught my attention. One, because I think the type of stuff I was going to publish, you should never do it for money. Only because that contaminates the credibility and it turns it into a business opportunity where there’s great treachery and lying going on.And it will contaminate Wikileaks. It always does. In fact, that’s the principal means by which noble endeavors are contaminated, the money trail. That’s pretty obvious. I happen to think that amateur stuff is better than paid stuff.How long were you involved before you resigned?
Young: Not long. A few weeks. It wasn’t long. However, one of the things that happened is that somehow I got subscribed to that list under another name and the messages kept coming in. I got to keep reading what they were saying about me after they booted me off. The messages kept coming in. So I published those too.Did they criticize you for, well, leaking about Wikileaks?
Young: They certainly did. They accused me of being an old fart and jealous. And all these things that come up, that typically happen when someone doesn’t like you. That’s okay. I know you would never do that and journalists never do that, but ordinary people do this all the time.Because journalism is a noble profession in all its guises?Young: That’s right. And there’s no back-biting there.Over the years you’ve been running Cryptome, you’ve had some encounters with federal agencies. What visits did you have and what were the agents concerned about?
Young: They were most concerned that we published lists. The names of spies. That was the first issue that brought us to their attention. There was a request, so we were told, from one of the British intelligence people to have that list removed.And did you remove it?Young: No. And not only that, but the FBI was always very polite. They said you’ve done nothing illegal, we’re not pursuing a criminal investigation. These are just courtesies we’re offering other governments. We had one with the Brits and one with the Japanese that brought them to our door.You had no other interaction with, say, Homeland Security?Young: The other was when we started our eyeball series of publishing photos. That brought one visit and one phone call. But again, they were polite and said there’s nothing illegal about this. They never used a negative term. They just said the issue has been raised with us.And by the way, I did a FOIA trying to get records of these visits, but I could never find anything. I did get business cards, though, and I asked for ID. They were very polite and gave me business cards and I published all that. They asked me not to publish their names. But what the hell, Declan, what else do I have to go with?So if you’ve been publishing sensitive government information for so long, why have you not had the same encounters that Wikileaks has had? [Ed. Note: Wikileaks has claimed its representatives have been harassed by U.S. government agents.]I don’t think they’ve had any encounters. That’s bogus. But that’s okay. I know a lot of people who talk about how the government’s after them. It’s a fairly well-worn path. You know it from your own field. It remains to be seen whether any of this stuff holds up or not.One of the tests is: unless you go to jail, it’s all bogus. When I go to jail, you’ll say he actually did it, finally. He came up with something that offended someone. So far that hasn’t happened, no indictments or anything. These polite visits are the closest I’ve come.Professionals are going to have nothing to do with Wikileaks, as you probably know if you check around. People who know security will not have anything to do with Wikileaks. But the public will.Wikileaks pledges to maintain the confidentiality of sources and stressed that in the presentation over the weekend. Do you offer your contributors the same guarantee?Young: No. That’s just a pitch. You cannot provide any security over the Internet, much less any other form of communication. We actually post periodically warnings not to trust our site. Don’t believe us. We offer no protection. You’re strictly on your own.We also say don’t trust anyone who offers you protection, whether it’s the U.S. government or anybody else. That’s a story they put out. It’s repeated to people who are a little nervous. They think they can always find someone to protect them. No, you can’t. You’ve got to protect yourself. You know where I learned that? From the cypherpunks.So Wikileaks cannot protect people. It’s so leaky. It’s unbelievable how leaky it is as far as security goes. But they do have a lot of smoke blowing on their site. Page after page after page about how they’re going to protect you.And I say, oh-oh. That’s over-promising. The very over-promising is an indication that it doesn’t work. And we know that from watching the field of intelligence and how governments operate. When they over-promise, you know they’re hiding something. People who are really trustworthy do not go around broadcasting how trustworthy I am.It sounds like you’ve become more critical of Wikileaks over time.Young: It’s not just them. It’s also that they’re behaving like untrustworthy organizations. So yes, if the shoe fits, fine.I don’t want to limit this to Wikileaks, but yes, they’re acting like a cult. They’re acting like a religion. They’re acting like a government. They’re acting like a bunch of spies. They’re hiding their identity. They don’t account for the money. They promise all sorts of good things. They seldom let you know what they’re really up to. They have rituals and all sorts of wonderful stuff. So I admire them for their showmanship and their entertainment value. But I certainly would not trust them with information if it had any value, or if it put me at risk or anyone that I cared about at risk.Nevertheless, it’s a fascinating development that’s come along, to monetize this kind of thing. That’s what they’re up to. You start with free samples.You’ve been trying to follow some of Wikileaks’ money flows. You contacted the German charity and posted their response. They said they’re going to have some information to you perhaps in early August. Does that make you feel any better about the money trail?Young: No. To clarify, they’re going to publish it on their Web site. They said, “you could mirror it or point to it.” So it’s not just for me.But it’s only a tiny sliver of what Wikileaks claims it’s raised. whether Wikileaks has raised a million dollars as they’ve claimed, or whether they’re trying to prime the pump, I don’t know. (German charity) Wal Holland has only handled a very tiny amount of this, and they’ve said that, “We know nothing about the rest.” . . .. . . There was suspicion from day one that this was entrapment run by someone unknown to suck a number of people into a trap. So we actually don’t know. But it’s certainly a standard counterintelligence technique. And they’re usually pretty elaborate and pretty carefully run. They’ll even prosecute people as part of the cover story. That actually was talked about at (Sunday’s) panel. They’ll try to conceal who was informing and betraying others by pretending to prosecute them. [Italics are mine–D.E.] . . .2. Young leaked WikiLeaks e-mails, which indicate that dissident exiles from China, Russia and elsewhere founded the group. From this description–again, derived from WikiLeaks’ own e-mails, it sounds like the group is associated with a right-wing intelligence network–one that is also willing to work against U.S. interests. Among the elements that should be considered in this regard are the UNPO and the Safari Club. It appears that Assange imagined that he would be able to fleece CIA and Western intelligence services.“1. WL was founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.1.1 Our advisory board, which is still forming, includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers.2. There are currently 22 people directly involved in the project.3. We haven’t sought public feedback so far, but dissident communities have been been very gracious with their assistance.”To: John YoungFrom: WikileaksSubject: martha stuart pgpDate: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:20:25 –0500J. We are going to fuck them all. Chinese mostly, but not entirely a feint. Invention abounds. Lies, twists and distorts everywhere needed for protection. Hackers monitor Chinese and other intel as they burrow into their targets, when they pull, so do we.Inexhaustible supply of material. Near 100,000 documents/emails a day. We’re going to crack the world open and let it flower into something new. If fleecing the CIA will assist us, then fleece we will. We have pullbacks from NED, CFR, Freedomhouse and other CIA teats. We have all of pre 2005 Afghanistan. Almost all of India fed. Half a dozen foreign ministries. Dozens of political parties and consulates, Worldbank, apec, UN sections, trade groups, Tibet and Fulan Dafa associations and… Russian phishing mafia who pull data everywhere. We’re drowning. We don’t even know a tenth of what we have or who it belongs to. We stopped storing it at 1Tb.”http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm3. As discussed in FTR #724, WikiLeaks has been collecting funds (in part) through the Wau Holland Foundation in Berlin. (The foundation has indicated that the group’s fundraising is fairly mysterious–they have claimed to be raising money for the defense of Bradley Manning (the apparent source of the “Collateral Murder” documents). Yet it appears that they haven’t allocated any funds for that purpose.One of the things that is noteworthy about the Wau Holland Foundation is the organization’s apparent links to the German intelligence service–the BND. Central to understanding this program is the concept of what–for lack of a better term– could be called “Turned Hacker Syndrome.”Frequently, hackers who have been “taken down” are “turned”–they are put to work for the very governments against whose laws they have transgressed. The possibility that the CCC may have been “turned” is one to be seriously considered.Before WikiLeaks became associated with CCC, members of that group hacked into sensitive NATO and U.S. databases on behalf of the KGB, which rewarded their charges with drugs and money. Following that hack, one CCC luminary was found hanged (an alleged suicide, his feet were still on the ground) and another was burned to death after having been doused with an gasoline. Wau Holland himself died of a stroke at the age of 49.. . . Twenty years later, the CCC now has to continue without its honorary president Wau Holland, also known as Herwart Holland-Moritz. Holland suffered a stroke in late May and fell into a coma; he died Sunday morning, age 49. . . . Holland taught his fellow CCCers to never hack for profit, to alwaysbe open about what they were up to, and to fight for an openinformation society. He was deeply embarrassed when some CCCers soldtheir discoveries from within the U.S. military computer network tothe KGB. This incident and the subsequent discussions in the clubbrought the next generation to the CCCs helm.While the new leadership has a less strict moralistic, more postmodernsense of hacking, it remains true to the CCCs political objectives.Holland became the clubs honorary president. Under his stewardship,the CCC gained considerable status in German politics, with itsspeakers invited by the parliament, telecoms firms, banks and even thesecret service . . .http://lists.jammed.com/ISN/2001/07/0082.html4. Assange himself may be something of a “turned hacker.” Is he connected to Australian intelligence, as he claims? Is an element of that connection the wrist slap he received for his criminal hacking in Australia?. . . Programming quickly became hacking once Assange got an Internet connection, and soon he was accessing government networks and bank mainframes. He was arrested in 1991 and charged with more than 30 criminal counts related to his hacking. Facing as many as 10 years in prison, Assange struck a plea deal.During sentencing, the judge ruled that Assange only had to pay a fine. Assange’s hacks were not malicious; they were the harmless result of “inquisitive intelligence,” said the judge. . . .“Julian Assange: The Hacker Who Created WikiLeaks” by Scott Bland; The Christian Science Monitor;7/26/2010.5. Assange has claimed he was warned by “Australian intelligence” that the “Pentagon” would try to discredit him.A top Swedish prosecutor said on Wednesday she was reopening an investigation into rape allegations against Julian Assange, the founder of whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.…Assange has denied the charges, which a lower official had withdrawn two weeks ago, and said he has been warned by Australian intelligence that he could face a campaign to discredit him after leaking the documents. . . . [Italics are mine–D.E.]“Sweden Reopens WikiLeaks Founder Rape Investigation” by Simon Johnson and Patrick Lannin [Reuters];msnbc.com; 9/1/2010.

6. Recall that in FTR #724, we examined Assange’s relationship with “The Family,” which has apparent connections to Australian intelligence. (Well-connected beyond anything one could suppose from “coincidence” in the civilian sector, the cult cared for Lord Casey, the Australian governmental minister in charge of overseeing the Australian intelligence service.) Although Assange dismisses his relationship to the group as having spent years fleeing with his mother from the group’s attempts at seizing his half-brother, this “flight” entailed his mother repeatedly seeking refuge in the same places and telling friends what she was doing and where she was doing it.Was this “flight” actually part of the creation of a “legend”–a plausibly deniable cover for intelligence work? It should be noted that the group repeatedly caught up with Assange and his mother. Was Assange tipping them off? Was this part of the cover all along? Might this have been intended to explain any future, potentially troublesome eyewitness accounts of contact between the group, Assange and his mother?The possibility that this story involves the creation of a “legend” is not one to be too readily cast aside.Assange’s strange white/platinum/blonde hair is a subject of interest. Characteristic of children raised in the Anne Hamilton-Byrne cult, the origins of that odd coif are explained by his mother as stemming from yet another child custody case. Supposedly, his hair turned white because of the trauma of repeated court appearances in connection with attempts at gaining custody of his daughter. Is this part of the creation of a legend, as well. It appears that Assangedies his hair–as illustrated above and at right.. . . In 1999, after nearly three dozen legal hearings and appeals, Assange worked out a custody agreement with his wife. Claire told me, “We had experienced very high levels of adrenaline, and I think that after it all finished I ended up with P.T.S.D. It was like coming back from a war. You just can’t interact with normal people to the same degree, and I am sure that Jules has some P.T.S.D. that is untreated.” Not long after the court cases, she said, Assange’s hair, which had been dark brown, became drained of all color. . .“No Secrets” by Jeff Khatchatourian; The New Yorker; 6/7/2010.7. Interestingly, and significantly, it was while “on the run” from the Hamilton-Byrne cult that Assange began his hacking career. It should be noted that his hacks involved targets that would certainly have placed him on the radar screen of Western intelligence! Again, was the wrist-slap he received symptomatic of “Turned Hacker Syndrome”?. . . While on the run, Claire rented a house across the street from an electronics shop. Assange would go there to write programs on a Commodore 64, until Claire bought it for him, moving to a cheaper place to raise the money. He was soon able to crack into well-known programs, where he found hidden messages left by their creators. . . .. . . He joined with two hackers to form a group that became known as the International Subversives, and they broke into computer systems in Europe and North America, including networks belonging to the U.S. Department of Defense and to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. . . .Idem.8. The conclusion of the program highlights the group’s current place of operations–Sweden–and the circumstances under which they arrived in that nation.WikiLeaks has been touting Sweden as a safe base of operations–for those who would work with them. WikiLeaks co-founder and critic John Young says that WikiLeaks’ assurances of security are illusory.BBC: What do you think about Wikileaks being based in a country which will protect it from takedown.Cryptome: There is no place where a takedown cannot occur. The distribution system for communication can always be blocked and servers confiscated. Only multiple, growing and changing public outlets for prohibited information can offer a chance of avoiding shutdown, demonization, corruption through finance and bribery and orchestrated distrust. . . .“BBC Interviews Cryptome”; cryptome.org; 1/14/2010.9a. Another fascinating detail concerning the tangled web that is WikiLeaks concerns the PRQ server, based in Sweden. In addition to hosting WikiLeaks, it is the base for Pirate Bay, a controlling interest in which is owned by Carl Lundstrom, a prominent Swedish Nazi and financier of that country’s fascist political parties (including the Sweden Democrats, who enjoyed considerable success in the recent Swedish elections.) It is unclear if this would give Swedish Nazi elements access to information from documents accessed by WikiLeaks, but that seems a reasonable possibility. [Knowledgeable contacts in the Silicon Valley have told me that that would have been the case.]Note that Lundstrom sold his family business to the Sandoz company. Part of the old I.G. Farben complex, it is the firm that developed LSD and, according to Sarah Moore, provided it gratis to the Hamilton-Byrne cult. Note that theelements of the old I.G. Farben firm have coalesced into an essential element of the Bormann capital network, the economic component of the Underground Reich.A Swedish Internet company linked to file-sharing hub The Pirate Bay says it’s helping online whistle-blower WikiLeaks release classified documents from servers located in a Stockholm suburb. Mikael Viborg, the owner of theWeb hosting company PRQ, on Friday showed The Associated Press the site — the basement of a drab office building — in Solna on the condition that the exact location was not revealed.“This is the office. The server room is further inside,” the 28-year-old Viborg said, with the door to the office cracked open. Desks with computers, documents, and empty pastry boxes and soda cans could be seen inside before he closed the door.WikiLeaks posted more than 76,900 classified military and other documents, mostly raw intelligence reports from Afghanistan, on its website July 25. The White House angrily denounced the leaks, saying they put the lives of Afghan informants and U.S. troops at risk.The secretive website gives few details about its setup, but says its “servers are distributed over multiple international jurisdictions and do not keep logs. Hence these logs cannot be seized.” . . .” Swedish Web Hosting Firm Confirms WikiLeaks Link” by Karl Ritter [AP]; msnbc.com; 8/6/2010.9b. Ultimately, Pirate Bay was sold to Swedish gaming firm GGF. (It ultimately appears that the deal wasn’t consummated due to the bankruptcy of GGF. Pirate Bay, in turn, is controlled by an offshore entity called Reservella, registered in the Seychelles.)The ultimate motive for a fascist like Lundstrom to fund Pirate Bay is, obviously, a matter of speculation. One possibility to be considered is the Serpent’s Walk scenario, with the Underground Reich gaining control of all world media. (This is discussed at greater length in the long For The Record series about German Corporate Control of U.S. media. Recall BMG’s alliance with Napster in the early part of the decade. Might Lundstrom have been grooming Pirate Bay for corporate takeover by an Underground Reich entity?)The lucrative commercialization of Napster may well have been one of the inspirations for GGF’s takeover of Pirate Bay.Global Gaming Factory (GGF) has paid 60m kronor (£4.7m) to take over the site from its founders.Once it has taken control, GGF said it would start paying copyright fees for the movies, music and games linked to via the site. . . .“Pirate Bay Site Sold to Game Firm”; BBC News; 6/30/2009.9c. In that same context, it is worth noting that the quasi-populist ideological rhetoric surrounding Pirate Bay dovetails nicely with the sort of “fascist populism” marketed by the political parties financed by Lundstrom.. . . The money man, Carl Lundström, on whose servers The Pirate Bay [and WikiLeaks–D.E.] was housed, is straight out of the crime novels of Stieg Larsson. He inherited a fortune built on crispbread, and has a long history of involvement with extreme rightwing politics. In the 1980s, he was a member of “Keep Sweden Swedish”, an anti-immigrant fringe group; he has financially backed the Sweden Democrats, a would-be populist and anti-immigrant party; and only this month the managing director of one of his companies was charged with a robbery in a small west-coast town, part of a feud within a neo-Nazi group. Lundström told the Metro newspaper (http://bit.ly/metro) after he sacked the man that he had known he was a party member, but not that he had gone to collect another member’s computer with a submachine gun.Gottfrid Svartholm Varg and Frederik Neij, the nerds who run The Pirate Bay itself, have also been accused by the prosecutor of tax evasion, but deny that they were making any money from their business. Their attitude of sneering entitlement towards the government is all of a piece with their attitude towards the big content companies. . . .. . . I know that a little bit of the rhetoric around The Pirate Bay sounds leftwing – the idea that it is wrong for “international capital” to push Sweden around – but that’s just populist, and could be found in the rhetoric of the kind of parties that Carl Lundström has supported too.The overwhelming impression is of a clash between two rightwing views, one that says it is all right to steal from the state, and one which says it is sinful to steal from corporations. . . .“The Pirate Bay trial Is the Collision of ‘Can I?’ and ‘Should I?’ Cultures” by Andrew Brown; The Guardian; 2/26/2009.9d. Interestingly, and perhaps significantly, the purchase of Pirate Bay by GGF took place the same week as the death of Michael Jackson. In FTR #695, we examined his untimely demise against the background of Bertelsmann’s re-entry into the music business and Michael Jackson’s ownership of the highly lucrative Beatles catalog. Might the two events have been linked–part of the Underground Reich’s bid to increase its presence in the music business?Just before GGF’s purchase of Pirate Bay, the stock increased dramatically in price, causing many to speculate that insider trading may have been involved.There have been two big music-business news stories in the past week. One has been – and still is – dominating all media outlets, and the other pretty much snuck in under the radar.The biggest story, of course, was the death of Michael Jackson and the resulting cancellation of his 50 gigs at the O2. . .. . . There are reports that subscribers are closing their accounts, and GGF is facing an insider-trading investigation after its stock saw a huge upswing in trades on Monday – the day before the deal was announced. . . .“Behind the Music: Pirate Bay’s Purchase Proves they’re not Altruistic”; The Guardian; 7/03/2009.9e. Lundstrom is alleged to have suggested moving Pirate Bay’s operations to Argentina–certainly a hospitable place for a potential Bormann capital network business enterprise!. . . . The paper also talks about knowledge on Lundstrom’s side about potential legal ramifications. Prosecutors say Ludstrom personally sent an SMS to Fredrik Neij on May 31st of 2006 to warn him about the raids against The Bay and its owners. Lundstrom supposedly also suggested in an email to move The Pirate Bay’s operations to Argentina. . . .“Who Is the Fourth Man in the Pirate Bay Case?” by Janko Roettgers; Gigaom; 2/2/2008.9f. The precise corporate titular parent of the old Pirate Bay remains somewhat mysterious.. . . . Maybe more worrying; it’s still unclear who’s the owners of The Pirate Bay. There’s no company with the name The Pirate Bay registered in Sweden. According to GGF’s legal advisor Per Eric Alvsing, The Pirate Bay is owned by a company in the Seychelles, called Reservella, Dagens Industri writes. But he doesn’t know who’s the owner of Reservella. . . .“The Pirate Bay Sold to Swedish IT Company” by John Nylander; The Swedish Wire; 6/30/2009.9g. Pirate Bay sugar daddy Lundstrom has discussed his political sympathies. [The excerpt below is from Google translations. The Swedish sentence is followed by the English translation.]. . . Lundström har inte gjort någon hemlighet av sina sympatier för främlingsfientliga grupper, och förra året fanns hans namn med på kundregistret hos det nazistiska bokförlaget Nordiska Förlaget. Lundstrom has made no secret of his sympathy for the xenophobic groups, and last year was his name with the customer code of the Nazi publishing house Nordic Publishers.– Jag stöder dem genom att köpa böcker och musik. – I support them by buying books and music. Ni i media vill bara sprida missaktning om olika personer. You in the media just want to spread contempt for different people. Ni i media är fyllda av hat till Pirate Bay, avslutar en mycket upprörd Carl Lundström. You in the media is full of hatred to the Pirate Bay, finishing a very upset Carl Lundström.Nordiska Förlaget säljer vit makt musik och böcker som hyllar rasistiska våldshandlingar. Nordic publishing company sells white power music and books that celebrates the racist violence. Förlaget stöder nazisternas demonstration i Salem och bjöd in Ku Klux Klan ledaren till en föredragturné i Sverige. Publisher supports the Nazi demonstration in Salem and invited the Ku Klux Klan leader for a lecture tour in Sweden. . . .“The Goal: Take over all Piracy” by Peter Karlsson; realtid.se; 3/10/2006.10. As discussed in FTR #707, Sweden hosts a vigorous fascist community, connected to some of its wealthiest citizens, its intelligence services and an international criminal milieu involved with various forms of criminal sex trafficking.In remarkable fashion, the world of WikiLeaks intersects with the world portrayed by the late Stieg Larsson in his Millenium novels and the movies made from them (The Girl with the Dragoon TattooThe Girl Who Played with Fire andThe Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest.) In the Larsson novels/movies, we find the intertwining of the world of computer hackers, Nazis (old and new), sex trafficking and criminal sexuality. We find the same elements in the WikiLeaks story.Author Christopher Hitchens described the political/social environment portrayed by Larsson. Note that Larsson was the focal point of death threats and plots by Swedish Nazis, and that someone familiar with the Swedish political and legal scene said that everything Larsson wrote about actually happened! Furthermore, Larsson died on the anniversary of Die Krystallnacht (November 9th), a very important date in the Nazi world view. His strategically timed heart attack should be pondered in light of the Swedish Nazi milieu’s links to that country’s intelligence services. Such elements can simulate an apparent heart attack very easily.. . . In the Larsson universe the nasty trolls and hulking ogres are bent Swedish capitalists, cold-faced Baltic sex traffickers, blue-eyed Viking Aryan Nazis, and other Nordic riffraff who might have had their reasons to whack him. . . His best excuse for his own prurience is that these serial killers and torture fanciers are practicing a form of capitalism and that their racket is protected by a pornographic alliance with a form of Fascism, its lower ranks made up of hideous bikers and meth runners. This is not just sex or crime—it’s politics! . . .And this is not the only murk that hangs around his death, at the age of 50, in 2004.To be exact, Stieg Larsson died on November 9, 2004, which I can’t help noticing was the anniversary of Kristallnacht. Is it plausible that Sweden’s most public anti-Nazi just chanced to expire from natural causes on such a date? Larsson’s magazine, Expo, which has a fairly clear fictional cousinhood with “Millennium,” was an unceasing annoyance to the extreme right. He himself was the public figure most identified with the unmasking of white-supremacist and neo-Nazi organizations, many of them with a hard-earned reputation for homicidal violence. The Swedes are not the pacific herbivores that many people imagine: in the footnotes to his second novel Larsson reminds us that Prime Minister Olof Palme was gunned down in the street in 1986 and that the foreign minister Anna Lindh was stabbed to death (in a Stockholm department store) in 2003. The first crime is still unsolved, and the verdict in the second case has by no means satisfied everybody.A report in the mainstream newspaper Aftonbladet describes the findings of another anti-Nazi researcher, named Bosse Schön, who unraveled a plot to murder Stieg Larsson that included a Swedish SS veteran. Another scheme misfired because on the night in question, 20 years ago, he saw skinheads with bats waiting outside his office and left by the rear exit. Web sites are devoted to further speculation: one blog is preoccupied with the theory that Prime Minister Palme’s uncaught assassin was behind the death of Larsson too. Larsson’s name and other details were found when the Swedish police searched the apartment of a Fascist arrested for a political murder. Larsson’s address, telephone number, and photograph, along with threats to people identified as “enemies of the white race,” were published in a neo-Nazi magazine: the authorities took it seriously enough to prosecute the editor. . . .Still, I have attended demonstrations by these Swedish right-wing thugs, and they are truly frightening. I also know someone with excellent contacts in the Swedish police and security world who assures me that everything described in the ‘Millennium’ novels actually took place. [Italics are mine–D.E.] And, apparently, Larsson planned to write as many as 10 in all. So you can see how people could think that he might not have died but been ‘stopped.’” . . .“The Author Who Played with Fire” by Christopher Hitchens; Vanity Fair; 12/2009.11. In Sweden, Assange his been charged with “molestation,” a sexual harassment offense.A top Swedish prosecutorsaid on Wednesday she was reopening aninvestigation into rape allegations againstJulian Assange, the founder of whistleblowingwebsite WikiLeaks.WikiLeaks published more than 70,000 secretmilitary files on Afghanistan in July in what U.S. officials have called one of the biggestsecurity breaches in U.S. military history.Assange has denied the charges, which alower official had withdrawn two weeks ago,and said he has been warned by Australianintelligence that he could face a campaign todiscredit him after leaking the documents.Neither Assange nor his lawyer could beimmediately reached for comment.Director of Public Prosecutions Marianne Nysaid she decided to reopen the investigationafter further review of the case.“There is reason to believe that a crime hasbeen committed. Considering informationavailable at present, my judgment is that theclassification of the crime is rape,” Ny said in astatement on the Prosecution Authority’swebsite.“More investigations are necessary before afinal decision can be made,” she added. Shealso said a preliminary investigation intocharges of molestation would be expanded tosexual coercion and sexual molestation.“The case has a high priority,” she toldReuters. She declined to say whether Assangehad already been questioned or give furtherinformation.Allegations of rape and molestation werebrought against Assange, an Australiancitizen, two weeks ago.The more serious charge was dropped almostimmediately, though prosecutors continued tolook into the molestation charge. . . .“Sweden Reopens WikiLeaks Founder Rape Investigation” by Simon Johnson and Patrick Lannin [Reuters];msnbc.com; 9/1/2010.12. The PRQ server (which serves Pirate Bay and WikiLeaks and is largely financed by Nazi luminary Carl Lundstrom) also serves a site that caters to pedophiles, who use it to “groom” potential partners.One question that suggests itself concerns the sexual abuse to which children of “The Family” were subjected (see FTR #724.) Is there any relationship between the systematic sexual abuse of children by the Hamilton-Byrne cult and the charges leveled against Assange? In turn, is there any link between those considerations and the Nazi-linked PRQ’s hosting of both WikiLeaks and a pedophile site?About the pedophile site:Despite a new law designed to tackle grooming of young people by suspected paedophiles on internet websites, police are unable to act against those hosting chat forums, contact sites and advice pages.“The so-called grooming law which came into force last July forbids sexually motivated contact with children over the internet. But the adult has to take some sort of initiative in that contact for it to be an offence — to arrange a date, buy a train ticket or such like,” said Jonas Persson of the Swedish police to The Local on Friday.In the six months after the law was adopted the police received only 100 reports, despite the fact that more than half of Swedish girls aged 15 to17 claimed to have been subject to grooming attempts by adults over the internet before reaching the age of 15, according to a National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebygganderådet — Brå) report from 2007.The law does not allow for the closure of websites or the prosecution of those behind them. Jonas Persson explained why:“I don’t think a tightening of the legislation is desirable — it would come dangerously close to encroaching on freedom of expression legislation,” he said.Legal obligations for those behind websites visited by suspected paedophiles and would-be “groomers” extend only to the removal of pictures and films which feature minors, or the publication of personal information.The Local has received information that a man resident in Stockholm is alleged to be behind a chat forum serving as a contact point for paedophiles and hosted by PRQ — a Swedish web-hosting firm run by Pirate Bay co-founders Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and Fredrik Neij, and also noted for hosting the Wikileaks whistle-blower website. [Italics are mine–D.E.]Anti-paedophilia activists claim to have made attempts to persuade PRQ to close the man’s website but to no avail. . . .“Police Powerless to Close Paedophile Forums”; The Local [Sweden]; 4/9/2010.13a. Pirate Bay overlaps and is closely associated with a political party–The Pirate Party–that has branches in Sweden, Switzerland and Germany, among other countries. The Swedish Pirate Party is helping sponsor WikiLeaks’ presence in the country, helping to provide them with a former underground nuclear shelter for an operating base.One of the world’s most controversial websites now has one of the world’s coolest datacenters.Andy Greenberg at Forbes has picked up on a Norwegian report that Wikileaks‘ servers are now hosted in Sweden’s Pionen datacentre, housed inside a Cold War-era underground nuclear bunker. 30 metres below Stockholm, it reportedly has a single entrance with half-metre thick metal doors.The move has been initiated by the Swedish Pirate Party, who began looking after Wikileaks’ hosting this month. “We have long admired Wikileaks”, the Pirate Party’s Rick Falkvinge told Norway’s VG, claiming that as his party is hosting Wikileaks, an attack on Wikileaks is also regarded as an attack on a political party. . . .“Wikileaks Now Hosted from an Underground Nuclear Bunker” by Martin Bryant; thenextweb.com; 8/30/2010.13b. After WikiLeaks was the focal point of DOS and hacking attacks in November of 2010, the Swiss Pirate Party undertook to access WikiLeaks’ material.. . . . On Friday, the Pirate Party of Switzerland — part of an international movement fighting for the free sharing of online content — said it owned the “wikileaks.ch” domain name and was happy to support WikiLeaks.“I don’t see an opportunity for a foreign government to reach into Switzerland,” said Leenaars. “This is a very forward-looking move.” . . .““WikiLeaks Diverts Traffic to European Websites amid U.S. Fury” [Reuters]; Vancouver Sun; 12/3/2010.13c. A start-up owned by a co-founder of the Swedish Pirate Bay (a controlling interest in which is owned by Swedish fascist Carl Lundstrom) remains as a conduit for donations for WikiLeaks.While major online financing services such as PayPal, MasterCard, and Visa have shut down their dealings with the embattled WikiLeaks, one microfinancing startup is still hanging on. Flattr, a micropayment startup created by Peter Sunde, co-founder of the infamous BitTorrent sharing site The Pirate Bay, still accepts donations on behalf of the document-leaking non-profit. . . .. . . Sunde has been a public advocate for Assange and WikiLeaks. He has also proposed a peer-to-peer DNS system that would prevent domain name registrations from being revoked, as was done with the WikiLeaks.org domain. . . .“WikiLeaks Still Funded by Pirate Bay Founder’s Startup” by Kenneth Musante; Web Newser; 12/9/2010.13d. Following a number of organizations’ refusal to continue accepting money for WikiLeaks, members of Anonymous,allied with Pirate Bay/Pirate Party, launched “Operation Payback,” attacking numerous websites.
Julian Assange is a man who has made enemies. The editor-in-chief and creator of WikiLeaks is fighting battles on all fronts: legally, financially, personally and professionally, and even now sits in a jail cell in England following his arrest earlier today, after Sweden issued an arrest warrant stemming from four charges of sexual offences, including one of rape. But Assange is not without his allies, either. One of the more potentially powerful groups to throw in its support is the website 4chan, and its some of its members that are collectively known as Anonymous. The group that is either famous or infamous depending on your point of view, have begun a new campaign to support WikiLeaks and its creator that they are calling “Operation Avenge Assange”.The hacker friendly website 4chan has begun to organize its members, known collectively as Anonymous, in an effort to prevent “the oppressive future which looms ahead.” The “Operation Avenge Assange” will consist of a series of Internet attacks that have begun with PayPal.Operation Avenge Assange is a systematic attack that will target groups that Anonymous has deemed to have essentially treated Assange unfairly. The first target on the list is PayPal, which reports that cyber attacks have already begun. . . .“4chan-based Group ‘Anonymous’ Targets PayPal to Support WikiLeaks” by Ryan Fleming; Digital Trends; 12/7/2010.14. Whether coincidence or not, the German Pirate Party’s lone member of parliament resigned following charges that he possessed child pornography!Former parliamentarian Jörg Tauss, the most prominent member of the German Pirate Party, has resigned from the party following his conviction for possessing child pornography last week.Two days after the Karlsruhe district court handed the 56-year-old a 15-month suspended sentence, Tauss said on Sunday that he would leave the party to avoid damaging its reputation, saying his presence would be “counterproductive.”“We must be able to discuss our issues at our information stands and should not allow ourselves to be crippled by the ‘Tauss debate.’ For this reason I declare my exit from the party,” the politician said Sunday on his blog, insisting he would still support the party. . . .“Tauss Leaves Pirate Party after Child Pornography Conviction”; The Local [Germany]; 5/31/2010.15. Although WikiLeaks has garnered publicity for its ostensible antiwar leaks, “progressives” have quickly forgotten that the group leaked the documents which proved to be the foundation of an attempt to discredit the notion of global warming.. . . Though Assange’s most recent, well-known projects have had an antiwar bent – the recent Afghan war leaks, the infamous “collateral murder” video of a US helicopter crew gunning down a group that included two Reuters journalists in Iraq – his site does not appear to have an obvious ideology beyond exposing secrets.In other projects, Assange published a trove of text messages sent in the US on September 11, 2001, and e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which led many to believe that scientists were suppressing anti-global warming research and results. . . .“Julian Assange: the Hacker Who Created WikiLeaks“by Scott Bland; Christian Science Monitor; 7/26/2010.16. Recently deceased, Nobel-Prize winning climatologist Professor Stephen Schneider of Stanford University was receiving death threats from Neo-Nazis. These are the same kind of elements that were threatening the life of the late Stieg Larsson before he, too, died of an apparent heart attack.Administering drugs which can produce a fatal heart attack is a capability possessed by most modern intelligence services. The Swedish neo-Nazi milieu maintains close connections with the Swedish intelligence service.Were both men murdered? Might some of the Nazi/intelligence/industrialist links have manifested themselves in both instances?Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford University biologist on the vanguard of climate-change research for four decades, who argued eloquently on human culpability in global warming and willingly threw himself into the political fray to explain and defend the scientific evidence, has died. He was 65. . . .Schneider had a heart attack Monday while flying to London from a science meeting in Stockholm, according to Stanford spokesman Dan Stober. [Italics are mine–D.E.] . . .. . . . Santer and Schneider were among the scientists who served on the international panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore, who in a statement Monday called Schneider a “prolific researcher and author … and a wonderful communicator” whose contributions to the advancement of climate science will be “sorely missed.” . . .. . . He [Schneider] said he had received hundreds of abusive e-mails from critics, particularly since the Copenhagen climate change summit in December. A few weeks ago he told the London Guardian newspaper that his name was among those of several climatologists that appeared earlier this year on a death list on a neo-Nazi website [Italics are mine–D.E.]. . .
“Stephen H. Schneider Dies at 65; Stanford Expert on Climate Change” by Elaine Woo; Los Angeles Times; 7/20/2010.

17. WikiLeaks’ has been collecting money through a subsidiary of Investcorp, controlled by the Gulf elite, including elements tied to the Saudi elite, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.The whistleblowing group WikiLeaks claims that it has had its funding blocked and that it is the victim of financial warfare by the US government.Moneybookers, a British-registered internet payment company that collects WikiLeaks donations, emailed the organisation to say it had closed down its account because it had been put on an official US watchlist and on an Australian government blacklist. . . .. . . . Moneybookers, which is registered in the UK but controlled by the Bahrain-based group Investcorp, would not make anyone available to explain the decision. Its public relations firm, 77PR, said: “We have never had any request, inquiry or correspondence from any authority regarding this former customer.” Asked how this could be reconciled with the references in the correspondence to a blacklist, it said: “We stick with our original statement.” . . .“WikiLeaks Says Funding Has Been Blocked after Government Blacklisting” by David Leigh and Rob Evans;guardian.co.uk; 10/14/2010.18. Investcorp features participation by numerous Gulf luminaries, including Abdullah Taha Bakhsh and Khalid bin Mahfouz. The entire milieu is inextricably linked with the BCCI. (Baksh was involved with Harken Energy, George W. Bush’s failed energy companies.)Investcorp isn’t your everyday investment company. It merely works with the very rich, preferably from the middle-east. In 2005 its portfolio is valued at 8.6 billion dollars.If we would be really accurate we would call Investcorp a leveraged buy-out company. It’s WALLSTREET all over. Investcorp holds different funds to which you — not you, but they, the very rich — can subscribe. Investcorp then puts the companies it acquires into these funds and immediately has its money back (with a profit for the real shareholders of Investcorp).According to Time Magazine, Investcorp is known to have worked the books in the ninetees, making a losing company look like a profitmaker.Nemir Kirdar is president and CEO. Forbes puts him at number 206 on the Rich List. His excellency Abdul-Rahman Al-Ateequ, ex-minister of oil and finance of Kuwait, advisor to the emir of Bahrain and the first ambassador of Kuwait to the U.S.A. has been Chairman since the start of the investment company. Vice-president is, Ahmed Ali Kanoo, who manages about 1.5 billion dollars of the family fortune. Among the shareholders we find Sheik Ahmed Zki Yamani, ex minister of oil of Saudi-Arabia and seven members of the House of Saud.Also present in this group is Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, connected to different bank frauds. Until September 11th 2001 he was representative of the Saudi Bin Laden group in the U.S. According to the prospectus of Investcorp from 1992 the Minister of Finance of Bahrain is indirectly one of the major shareholders through a shell-company.This is where it gets really interesting. Abdullah Taha Bakshs, Abdul Rahman Al-Ateeqi were both important shareholders in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. The BCCI went down in a sea of scandals in the early 90’s. 23 billion dollars disappeared in the hole in 73 countries and still is missing. The American Justice Department calls BCCI a criminal organization under cover of a bank.The C.I.A. slushed funds through BCCI to the Mujahedin. This went quite easy because Osama Bin Laden had a few accounts at the BCCI. Illegal finance for arms deals with Iraq and Iran were being done at BCCI. Money laundering for the Escobar and Meddelin-cartel all went through BCCI. When the curtain fell 1 billion dollars worth of loans was booked to a random collection of Kuwaiti from the yellow pages.Khalid binMafhouz holds the number 2 slot at Investcorp with 25% of the shares. He currently is number 210 on the Times rich List. He was member of the board of BCCI and made a deal with the U.S. Justice Department. He paid 225 million dollars for claims, 37 million dollars in lieu of fines and 253 million dollars for claims.In 2003 it transpired that the Bank of England never stopped the British seat of BCCI though it knew the bank laundered money from drugs trade.Former president Manuel Noriega, former President Ferdinand Marcos, and Saddam Hussein were among the clientele. From complaints in South-Korea it is clear that about 120 members of staff from 33 embassies had put money at the BCCI.Khalid bin Mafhouz, explains he has financially backed the Mujahedin in Afghanistan. But then, so did the U.S. It may be useful to remind the reader that Osama Binladen was one of the leaders of the Mujahedin. Bakr Mohammed bin Laden, Osama’s brother, has a seat on the executive board. . . .“Investigating Investcorp”; kycbs.net; 9/2/2005.

Crude oil does not exist, all of our ‘oil’ comes from plants, not ‘molten dinosaur’…

2017-02-09 by factsnotfeelings

taken from : https://libertysoft4.github.io/conspiracy-text-post-archive/conspiracy/comments/5/s/x/4/r/s/crude_oil_does_not_exist_all_of_our_oil_comes.html

When have any of you seen an actual barrel of oil? Or any crude oil anywhere?

Do you know that the word ‘Shell’ (major oil producer) is used to describe fake economic entities?

A shell corporation is a corporation without active business operations or significant assets.

Perhaps this is the Illuminati passing the truth in plain sight about so-called ‘crude oil’?

Oil drilling operations

They seem to have genuine images of oil rigs, but the pictures of oil drills embedded in the ocean floor are all cartoons. For the same reason why any photo of a ‘virus’ is a cartoon, they don’t exist!

Old photos

Similar fakery is used to hoax the iconic ‘bursting oil well’ photos that we have come to know and love.

This photo has two main problems. No oil on the ground, or on the roof of the nearby building; and to top it off, many of the workers aren’t even looking at the oil, although it is difficult to tell with the low quality.

This picture is simply one big joke. Not only does the ‘gushing oil’ look like it was scribbled in by a five year old, the oil should cast a shadow onto the roof on the lower right, and yet it doesn’t.

The sun is coming from the left, as we can see by the shadow on the right side of the rig. I have highlighted the lack of shadow in this edited version


It’s fairly obvious by now that crude oil is just yet another Illuminati hoax. The few pictures we have of crude oil simply show muddy water or black paint.

That’s all there really is to the crude oil hoax: a dozen or so floating platforms which don’t actually drill into the seabed, some day traders gambling on fake markets and some cups of black paint.

When you have total control of all media and more importantly science and education, hoaxes are easy to pull off…

Dinosaurs are a hoax also, so that on it’s own helps to invalidate the existence of crude oil. Maybe this is why they are talking of ‘abiotic oil’, so that they can eventually use this to replace the molten dinosaur story…

Dinosaurs Never Existed


Dinosaurs Never Existed

The class “Dinosauria” was originally defined by “Sir” Richard Owen of the Royal Society, and Superintendent of the British Museum Natural History Department in 1842. In other words, the existence of dinosaurs was first speculatively hypothesized by a knighted museum-head “coincidentally” in the mid-19th century, during the heyday of evolutionism, before a single dinosaur fossil had ever been found. The Masonic media and mainstream press worldwide got to work hyping stories of these supposed long-lost animals, and then lo and behold, 12 years later in 1854, Ferdinand Vandiveer Hayden during his exploration of the upper Missouri River, found “proof” of Owen’s theory! A few unidentified teeth he mailed to leading paleontologist Joseph Leidy, who several years later declared them to be from an ancient extinct “Trachodon,” dinosaur (which beyond ironically means “rough tooth”).https://www.youtube.com/embed/ubkZVzVv4Nc?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent

Firstly, it should be needless to say that it is impossible to reconstruct an entire hypothetical ancient animal based on a few teeth! But even more importantly, it is dubious that a myriad of ancient reptile/bird and reptile/mammal transitional forms necessary for the blossoming theory of evolution, would be hypothesized and then conveniently “discovered” by teams of evolutionist archeologists purposely out looking to find such fossils! And it is even more dubious that such fossils have supposedly existed for millions of years but were never found by or known to any civilization in the history of humanity until evolutionism’s Masonic renaissance in the mid-19th century!

Why are there no discoveries by native Americans in all the years previous when they roamed the American continents? There is no belief of dinosaurs in the Native American religion or tradition. For that matter, why were there no discoveries prior to the nineteenth century in any part of the world? According to the World Book Encyclopedia, ‘before the 1800’s no one ever knew that dinosaurs existed.’ During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, large deposits of dinosaur remains were discovered …Why has man suddenly made all these discoveries?” -David Wozney, “Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction”

No tribes, cultures or countries in the world ever discovered a dinosaur bone before the mid-1800s, and then they were suddenly found all over the world in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Argentina, Belgium, Mongolia, Tanzania, West Germany and many other places apparently had large deposits of dinosaur fossils never before seen. All these places were inhabited and well-explored for thousands of years before this time, why had no one ever found a dinosaur fossil before?

According to the book, “The Dinosaur Project,” paleontological journalist Wayne Grady claims the period following this, from around 1870 to 1880 became “a period in North America where some of the most underhanded shenanigans in the history of science were conducted.” In what was known as “The Great Dinosaur Rush” or “Bone Wars,” Edward Drinker Cope of the Academy of Natural Sciences and Othniel Marsh of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, began a life-long rivalry and passion for “dinosaur hunting.” They started out as friends but became bitter enemies during a legendary feud involving double-crossing, slander, bribery, theft, spying, and destruction of bones by both parties. Marsh is said to have discovered over 500 different ancient species including 80 dinosaurs, while Cope discovered 56. Out of the 136 dinosaur species supposedly discovered by the two men, however, only 32 are presently considered valid; the rest have all proven to be falsifications and fabrications! None of them once claimed to find a complete skeleton either, so all their work involved reconstructions. In fact, to this day no complete skeleton has ever been found, and so all dinosaurs are reconstructions.

Discoveries and excavations seem not to be made by disinterested people, such as farmers, ranchers, hikers, outdoor recreationists, building construction industry basement excavators, pipeline trench diggers, and mining industry personnel but rather by people with vested interests, such as paleontologists, scientists, university professors, and museum organization personnel who were intentionally looking for dinosaur bones or who have studied dinosaurs previously. The finds are often made during special dinosaur-bone hunting trips and expeditions by these people to far-away regions already inhabited and explored. This seems highly implausible. More believable is the case of the discovery of the first original Dead Sea scrolls in 1947, which were unintentionally discovered by a child, and which were all published by 1955. In some cases of a discovery of dinosaur bones by a disinterested person, it was suggested to them by some ‘professional’ in the field to look or dig in a certain area. Also very interesting to note are special areas set aside and designated as dinosaur parks for which amateur dinosaur hunters are required to first obtain a dinosaur hunting license.” -David Wozney, “Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction”

Whatever destination these establishment-funded archeologists and paleontologists set, it seemed they found incredible numbers of fossils in tiny areas. In one of the largest dinosaur excavation sites, called the Ruth Mason Quarry, over 2,000 fossils were allegedly discovered. Casts and original skeletons assembled from these bones are currently on display in over 60 museums world-wide. Florentino Ameghino, head of paleontology at La Plata Museum is amazingly responsible for 6,000 fossil species supposedly discovered throughout his career all in Argentina. Dinosaur hunter Earl Douglass sent 350 tons of excavated “dinosaur” bones to the Carnegie Museum of Natural History throughout his career, all coming from the “Dinosaur National Monument” in Utah. During an expedition to Patagonia, Dr. Luis Chiappe and Dr. Lowell Dingus supposedly discovered thousands of dinosaur eggs at a site of only a few hundred square yards. Many experts have mentioned how such finds of huge quantities of fossils in one area, by just a few highly-invested individuals, goes against the laws of natural probability and lends credence to the likelihood of forgeries or concentrated planting efforts.

‘Dinosaur’ bones sell for a lot of money at auctions. It is a profitable business. There is pressure for academics to publish papers. Museums are in the business of producing displays that are popular and appealing. Movie producers and the media need to produce material to sell to stay in business. The mainstream media loves to hype alleged dinosaurs finds. Much is to be gained by converting a bland non-dinosaur discovery, of a bone of modern origin, into an impressive dinosaur find, and letting artists’ interpretations and imaginations take the spotlight, rather than the basic boring real find. There are people who desire and crave prestige, fame and attention. There is the bandwagon effect and crowd behaviour. And then there are people and entities pursuing political and religious agendas. Highly rewarding financial and economic benefits to museums, educational and research organizations, university departments of paleontology, discoverers and owners of dinosaur bones, and the book, television, movie, and media industries may cause sufficient motivations for ridiculing of open questioning and for suppression of honest investigation.” -David Wozney, “Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction”.

The fact that “T-Rex” bones have sold at auctions for upwards of $12 million shows how lucrative the field of dinosaur-hunting can be, and it just happens to be Museum officials who serendipitously seem to make the most prolific finds! The first dinosaur to ever be publicly displayed was the “Hadrosaurus foulkii,” at Edward Drinker Cope’s Academy of Natural Sciences in Philidelphia. The bones were co-discovered by Joseph Leidy, Cope’s esteemed professor, and the man responsible for the “Trachodon” toothosaurus. The original Hadrosaurus reconstruction, which is still on display today, shows a huge plaster cast bipedal reptile standing upright using its tail as a third-leg. What few people know, however, is that no skull was ever discovered and no original bones were put in the public exhibit.

A visual and a sculptural artist were promptly hired to invent a skull, and from the illustrations of another artist, who had depicted the Iguanadon, the two artists drew the same face for the Hadrosaurus foulkii. The people involved could now technically defend the existence of this dinosaur, if someone were to ask. The stunt worked out so well, and fooled the public so thoroughly, that they could later change the head of the creature without anyone noticing. To this day, Hadrosaurus foulkii is on display at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. The bones are said to be kept behind heavy, closed doors, but a plaster copy is exhibited in their place … So we learn of an iguana skull being substituted for the skull of a dinosaur on display. Was the public told at the time? What are we not being told today?” -David Wozney, “Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction”

What we are not being told is that this is the rule and the not the exception. To this day not a single complete skeleton of any dinosaur has ever been found! All the museum displays, models, mannequins, cartoons, and movies of prehistoric monsters you have ever seen are all imaginative reconstructions based on incomplete skeletons arranged in a manner paleontologists believe to be most realistic. Furthermore, the skeletons exhibited in museums are all admittedly intricate fabrications made of plaster, fiberglass, various epoxies, and other animal bones, not original fossils.

When “dinosaur” bones are transported and prepared they use strips of burlap soaked in plaster to jacket over the fossils. Then after applying a tissue separator to keep the plaster from direct contact with the bone, the soaked burlap strips are laid on until it is totally encased in a protective mummy-like coating ready for safe transport. In an article titled “A Fossil’s Trail From Excavation to Exhibit” one insider remarked that, “Through moldmaking and casting we can totally fabricate limbs, ribs, vertebrae, etc., for the missing pieces of an articulated skeletal mount. Plaster, fiberglass and epoxies are often and commonly used. In reconstruction work on single bones, small to large cracks can be filled in with mache or plaster mixed with dextrin, a starch that imparts an adhesive quality and extra hardness to regular molding plaster. We’ve also had success using epoxy putties. Large missing fragments can be sculpted directly in place with these same materials.” In other words, Museum personnel work with plaster and other materials to transport and fabricate skeletons and missing or incomplete bones all the time. In fact, the huge “dinosaur bone” displays found in museums across the world are admittedly carefully prepared fakes! No independent researcher has ever examined a real dinosaur skull! They claim all the actual fossils are kept in high-security storage, but only a select few paleontologists are ever allowed to examine them, so the ability to ascertain their authenticity is kept from the general public.

Most people believe that dinosaur skeletons displayed in museums consist of real dinosaur bones. This is not the case. The real bones are incarcerated in thick vaults to which only a select few highly placed researchers hold a key, which means that NO independent researcher has ever handled a tyrannosaurus rex bone. When people unaffiliated with the paleontological establishment attempt to gain access in order to study these dinosaur bones, they are met with refusal upon refusal … Only around 2100 dinosaur bones sets have been discovered worldwide, and out of these, only 15 incomplete Tyrannosaurus Rex bone sets have been found. These dinosaur bone sets have never formed a complete skeleton, but from these incomplete bones sets, paleontologists have constructed a hypothesis about the appearance of the whole skeleton, which they have modeled in plastic. If thousands of longnecks and large carnivorous reptiles had really roamed Earth, we wouldn’t only have found 2100 dinosaur bone sets, but millions of bones, with ordinary people tripping over them when digging in their vegetable patches.” -Robbin Koefoed, “The Dinosaurs Never Existed”

When children go to a dinosaur museum, are the displays they see displays of science or displays of art and science fiction? Are we being deceived and brainwashed at an early age into believing a dinosaur myth? Deep probing questions need to be asked of the entire dinosaur business. There may have been an ongoing effort since the earliest dinosaur ‘discoveries’ to plant, mix and match bones of various animals, such as crocodiles, alligators, iguanas, giraffes, elephants, cattle, kangaroos, ostriches, emus, dolphins, whales, rhinoceroses, etc. to construct and create a new man-made concept prehistoric animal called the dinosaur. Where bones from existing animals are not satisfactory for deception purposes, plaster substitutes may be manufactured and used. Some material similar or superior to plasticine clay or plaster of Paris would be suitable. Molds may also be employed. What would be the motivation for such a deceptive endeavor? Obvious motivations include trying to prove evolution, trying to disprove or cast doubt on the Christian Bible and the existence of the Christian God, and trying to disprove the ‘young-earth theory.’ The dinosaur concept implies that if God exists, He tinkered with His idea of dinosaurs for awhile, then probably discarded or became tired of this creation and then went on to create man. The presented dinosaur historical timeline suggests an imperfect God who came up with the idea of man as an afterthought, thus demoting the biblical idea that God created man in His own image.” -David Wozney, “Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction”

Type “Dinosaur Skulls” into a search engine and you will find a variety of replicas, tailor made dinosaurs, and “museum-quality” skeletons. One of the largest and most-renowned suppliers of fake dinosaurs is the Zigong Dino Ocean Art Company in Sichuan, China which provides natural history museums worldwide with ultra-realistic dinosaur skeletons made from real bones! Chicken, frog, dog, cat, horse and pig’s bones are melted down, mixed with glue, resin and plaster, then used as base material for re-casting as “dinosaur bones.” They are even given intentional fractures and an antiquated/fossilized look to achieve the right effect. Their website boasts, “Over 62% of our output goes to American and European markets, which means we will understand and are familiar with the intricacies and regulation of exporting to these regions … Since we are a partner of Dinosaur Museums, all products are made under the guidance of experts of the Chinese Academy of Sciences … We have gained a global sales network reaching the USA, Brazil, France, Poland, Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, exhibited in Peru, Argentina, Vancouver, Cincinnati, Chicago and other places.”

I have heard there is a fake-fossil factory in northeast China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feather dinosaurs were found.” -Alan Feduccia, University of North Carolina Paleontology Professor

The possibility exists that key dinosaur bones on display have been artificially modified through sculpture and carving. Bone sculpture is not an unknown human activity. Many cultures participate in creating man-made objects out of existing bones, totally unrecognizable from the original shape. Is the dinosaur industry a customer of this sort of business? Is it possible that dinosaur skeleton replica are secretly assembled or manufactured in private buildings out of public view, with bones artificially constructed or used from a number of different modern-day animals? Why bother having any authentic original fossils at all if alleged replicas please the public?” -David Wozney, “Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction”

Another problem with dinosaurs is their unnatural structural dynamics. Many dinosaur skeletons and reconstructions feature bipedal monsters like the T-Rex with a forward-leaning torso and head far larger and heavier than its counter-balancing tail. Many museum displays cannot even stand up under their own weight; it is highly unlikely that beasts this large and disproportionate could exist at all. The loads acting on their skeletons are so great that calculations indicate the bones of the largest dinosaurs would buckle and crack under their own immense weight! Experts have also pointed out that dinosaurs would have to have moved much slower than portrayed in movies to prevent sudden shocks to their skeletons.

This idea of slow moving animals does not agree with the bio-mechanical analysis of dinosaurs, which indicate that the Dinosaurs were agile, active creatures. This is the paradox between the Dinosaurs size and lifestyle. Many displays and drawings of dinosaurs appear to be an absurdity, showing a two-legged animal that would be totally off-balance, with the weight of head and abdomen much greater than weight of tail, which is supposed to act as a counter-balance. Is the dinosaur industry a case of science trying to meet public desires or expectations? The movie Jurassic Park is an example of showing dinosaurs much larger than any current displays in museums. After the movie came out, it is interesting to note that many articles were written asking ‘Is this possible?’ I can recall a report of dinosaur DNA being discovered preserved in amber, which later turned out to be false.” -David Wozney, “Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction”

“”Overall, several millions of dollars have been spent promoting the existence of dinosaurs through movies, TV, magazines and comics. The world of movies and paleontology are like Siamese twins. People’s view on the existence of dinosaurs is based not on firm evidence, but on Hollywood fixated artistic impressions. Documentaries colorfully illustrate each dinosaur’s characteristics, like colors, weight and muscle mass, but Don Lessem (advisor for Jurassic Park) admits that this is pure guesswork – consider for instance the question of how much these dinosaurs weigh. Don Lessem says, ‘Scientists don’t know how much dinosaurs weighed!’” -Robbin Koefoed, “The Dinosaurs Never Existed”

Dinosaurs are presented to the public with colorful artistic reconstructions, drawings, models, mannequins, gigantic skeletons in museums, cartoons and movies showing these beasts in explicit detail, but the fact is from the assigning and arrangement of bones in each species, to the impossible to discern soft tissue, skin, eyes, noses, color, hairyness, texture etc., just like the many supposed Ape-Man species, all dinosaur reconstructions are 100% fictional fabrications created by invested and inventive evolutionists. They purposely present dinosaurs to children in the media to spark and bias their young imaginations towards their machinations. Cartoons like “Ice Age” and “The Land Before Time,” movies like “Jurassic Park” and “Dinosaur Island,” coloring books, dolls, plastic toys, elementary school textbooks, and huge displays in children’s museums certainly have an effect on budding young minds.

National Geographic and the Ice Age movies were produced by Mason Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and 20th Century Fox. The Masonic production company Universal Studios created Jurassic Park and The Land Before Time. They are owned by Comcast, whose main shareholders are Masons JP Morgan and the Rothschilds. Discovery Channel which features many dinosaur documentaries is also financially advised by N M Rothschild and Sons Limited.

Former Paleontology student Michael Forsell claimed on a radio interview with leading paleontologist Jack Horner, that he was “a total fraud, fabricating evidence and perpetuating the myth of dinosaurs.” He continued on saying, “I started my career in the field of paleontology, only to leave my studies once I realized the whole thing was a sham. It’s nonsense, most of the so-called skeletons in museums are actually plaster casts. They even do it openly on documentaries now, preserving the bones my ass! I struggled as a student, mainly because I could not tell the difference between a fossilized egg and an ordinary rock, and of course there is no difference. I was treated like a leper when I refused to buy into their propaganda, and promptly left the course. Dinosaurs never existed, the whole shebang is a freak show, they just grab a couple of old bones and form them into their latest Frankenstein’s monster-like exhibit. If dinosaurs existed they would be mentioned in the Bible. We are all being fooled and it’s wrong, but together we can stop it.”

Many claim that since dinosaur fossils have been radiometrically dated to be tens of millions of years old that their authenticity is thus proven. The fact is, however, that the methods used to date dinosaur fossils involve not measuring the actual fossils, but the rocks near where they are found. Most fossils are found near the surface of the earth, and if a modern-day animal were to die in the area, paleontologists would be likely to date them the same age! Dr. Margaret Helder in her book “Completing the Picture, A Handbook on Museums and Interpretive Centers Dealing with Fossils,” she writes, “Scientists used to be very impressed with the potential of radiometric for coming up with absolutely reliable ages of some kinds of rocks. They do not feel that way anymore. Having had to deal with numerous calculated dates which are too young or too old compared with what they expected, scientists now admit that the process has many more uncertainties than they ever would have supposed in the early years. The public knows almost nothing about uncertainties in the dating of rocks. The impression that most people have received is that many rocks on earth are extremely old and that the technology exists to make accurate measurements of the ages. Scientists have become more and more aware however that the measurements which the machines make, may tell us nothing about the actual age of the rock.”

One of the main reasons that evolutionists “needed” the existence of dinosaurs was to answer the complicated problems present in the theory of evolution including: sea-dwelling animals evolving into land-dwellers; reptiles evolving wings, feathers, flying and becoming birds; as well as other reptiles evolving warm-blood, live births, breasts and becoming mammals. Through their imaginary multi-million-year timeline and a variety of supposed transitional dinosaur forms, the paleontological establishment has been promoting various sea-dinosaur, reptile/birds and reptile/mammals to bridge these gaps. Many professionals and experts in the field have disputed such findings as often as they have been presented, however. Dr. Storrs Olson, a Smithsonian Institute Scientist, wrote, “The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes or our age.”

No authentic feathers have ever been found with dinosaur fossils, though a few exposed hoaxes certainly attempted to fake it. Dr. Olson called the adding of feathers to their findings “hype, wishful thinking, propaganda, nonsense fantasia, and a hoax.” In the 1990s many fossils with feathers were supposedly discovered in China (suspiciously close to the Zigong Dino Ocean Art Company), but when examined Dr. Timothy Rowe found the so-called “Confuciusornis” was an elaborate hoax. He also found the “Archeoraptor” supposedly discovered in the 90s was composed of bones from 5 different animals! When Dr. Rowe presented his findings to National Geographic the head scientist reportedly remarked “well all of these have been fiddled with!” National Geographic then proceeded with their news conferences and media stories about the Archeoraptor fossils being genuine and having found the missing link in evolution.

In 1999, National Geographic magazine was busted when they presented, in a colorful and fancily presented article, the missing link. An Archeoraptor dinosaur, which was supposed to support the basic tenet of evolutionary theory, that dinosaurs had slowly developed over millions of years. Their proof consisted of a fossil, where carefully arranged bone imprints gave the impression of a creature half dinosaur and half bird. The scam was discovered during a CT scan which uncovered unnatural bone links. National Geographic magazine was later forced to admit, when pressured, that the fossil was man-made!” -Robbin Koefoed, “The Dinosaurs Never Existed”

Paleontologists claim that “Archaeopteryx” is another transitional form of bird evolved from dinosaurs, but this theory falls on its face against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Other species like Confuciusornis, Liaoningornis, and Eoalulavis have all been found to be contemporary with the Archaeopteryx and are indistinguishable from present-day birds. Alan Feduccia from University of North Carolina, one of the most famous ornithologists in the world stated, “I’ve studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don’t see any similarities whatsoever. I just don’t see it. The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.” Larry Martin from the University of Kansas, a paleo-ornithologist says, “to tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I’d be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.”

Even if dinosaurs did evolve into birds to fill their evolution gap, it does not explain how something like the common housefly could have evolved. Flies flap their wings simultaneously 500 times per second, even the slightest dissonance in vibration would cause them to lose balance and fall, but this never happens. How could they “evolve” such an amazing and specialized ability? Why were dinosaurs never discovered before the evolutionist renaissance in the mid-19th century? Why do paleontologists think they can reconstruct an entire species of ancient animal from a few teeth? Why have so many dinosaur “discoveries” turned out to be hoaxes? Why are all “authentic dinosaur fossils” kept under tight lock and key away from any independent analysis? Why has erosion and weathering not destroyed all these supposed prints and fossils that are allegedly millions of years old? If dinosaurs were supposedly wiped out by a meteor impact or other such global catastrophe, why is it that all the other various animal species that exist today were not similarly wiped out? There are many more questions which need to be answered before anyone in their right-mind should consider the existence of dinosaurs anything but a convenient evolutionist myth.

The paleontological establishment can control which hypotheses will be constructed through textbooks and the curriculum. In this way, students are brainwashed into a pseudo-reality controlled by the text material and the teacher’s authority. A short practical example; a random dental bone is found at an excavation site and from this dental bone, the rest of the skeleton is guessed at. We are not kidding about this. The entire dinosaurian field of the paleontological program is a sham.” -Robbin Koefoed, “The Dinosaurs Never Existed”

During the nineteenth century a new world view of evolution was being pursued by then influential people such as Darwin and Marx. During this era of thought the first dinosaur discoveries were made. Were these discoveries ‘made’ to try to make up for inadequacies in the fossil record for the theory of evolution? The following issues raise red flags as to the integrity of the dinosaur industry and cast doubts as to whether dinosaurs ever existed: (1) dinosaur discoveries having occurred only within the last two centuries and in huge unusual concentrated quantities going against the laws of nature and probability; (2) dinosaur discoverers typically and generally not being disinterested parties without a vested interest; (3) the nature of public display preparation, calling into question the integrity and source of fossils, and allowing for the possibility of tampering and bone substitution, and the possibility of fraudulent activities on a systemic basis; (4) existing artistic drawings and public exhibits showing off-balance and awkward postures that basic physics would rule out as being possible; (5) very low odds of all these dinosaur bones being fossilized but relatively few bones of other animals; (6) implications of dinosaur discoveries to the theory of evolution and the belief that man was created in God’s image, suggesting possible hidden and subtle political or religious agendas served on a naive and unsuspecting public; and, (7) a lack of funding for organizations and people questioning or being skeptical of each and every discovery and public display.  The possibility exists that living dinosaurs never existed. The dinosaur industry should be investigated and questions need to be asked. I am unaware of any evidence or reason for absolutely believing dinosaurs ever were alive on earth. The possibility exists that the concept of prehistoric living dinosaurs has been a fabrication of nineteenth and twentieth century people possibly pursuing an evolutionary and anti-Bible, anti-Christian agenda. Questioning what is being told instead is a better choice rather than blindly believing the dinosaur story. ‘O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.’ (1 Timothy 6:20). The choice between believing the word of man, the evolutionists, or the word of God, the Bible, is a matter of faith.” -David Wozney, “Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction”

How Israel Wages Game Theory Warfare

By: Jeff Gates AUGUST 20, 2009

In 2005, the Nobel Prize in Economic Science was awarded to Israeli mathematician and game theory specialist Robert J. Aumann, co-founder of the Center for Rationality at Hebrew University. This Jerusalem resident explains: “the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel” has turned “Israel into the leading authority in this field.”

Israeli strategists rely on game theory models to ensure the intended response to staged provocations and manipulated crises. With the use of game theory algorithms, those responses become predictable, even foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. The waging of war “by way of deception” is now a mathematical discipline.

Such “probabilistic” war planning enables Tel Aviv to deploy serial provocations and well-timed crises as a force multiplier to project Israeli influence worldwide. For a skilled agent provocateur, the target can be a person, a company, an economy, a legislature, a nation or an entire culture—such as Islam. With a well-modeled provocation, the anticipated reaction can even become a powerful weapon in the Israeli arsenal.

For instance, a skilled game theorist could foresee that, in response to a 911-type mass murder, “the mark” (the U.S.) would deploy its military to avenge that attack. With phony intelligence fixed around a preset goal, a game theory algorithm could anticipate that those forces might well be redirected to invade Iraq—not to avenge 911 but to pursue the expansionist goals of Greater Israel.

To provoke that invasion required the displacement of an inconvenient truth (Iraq played no role in 911) with what lawmakers and the public could be deceived to believe. The emotionally wrenching nature of that incident was essential in order to induce Americans to abandon rational analysis and to facilitate their reliance on false intelligence.

Americans were (predictably) provoked by that mass murder. The foreseeable reaction—shock, grief and outrage—made it easier for them to believe that an infamous Iraqi Evil Doer was to blame. The displacement of facts with beliefs lies at heart of how Israel, the world’s leading authority in game theory, induces other nations to wage their wars.

False but Plausible

To displace facts with credible fiction requires a period of “preparing the minds” so that the mark will believe a pre-staged storyline. Thus the essential role of a complicit media to promote: (a) a plausible present danger (Iraqi weapons of mass destruction), (b) a plausible villain (a former ally rebranded as an Evil Doer), and (c) a plausible post-Cold War threat to national security (The Clash of Civilizations and “Islamo-fascism”).

Reports from inside Israeli intelligence suggest that the war-planners who induced the 2003 invasion of Iraq began their psyops campaign no later than 1986 when an Israeli Mossad operation (Operation Trojan) made it appear that the Libyan leadership was transmitting terrorist directives from Tripoli to their embassies worldwide. Soon thereafter, two U.S. soldiers were killed by a terrorist attack in a Berlin discotheque. Ten days later, U.S., British and German aircraft dropped 60 tons of bombs on Libya.

The following is a senior Mossad operative’s assessment (published in 1994 in The Other Side of Deception) of that 1986 operation—five years before the Gulf War and 15 years before the murderous provocation that preceded the invasion of Iraq:

After the bombing of Libya, our friend Qadhafi is sure to stay out of the picture for some time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are the next target. We’re starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there’s no doubt that it’ll work.

Could this account by former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky be correct? If so, Tel Aviv’s Iraqi operation required more pre-staging than its relatively simple Libyan deception.

America the Mark

From a game theory perspective, what is the probability of a violent reaction in the Middle East after more than a half-century of serial Israeli provocations—in an environment where the U.S. is identified (correctly) as the Zionist state’s special friend and protector?

During the 1967 War, the Israeli killing of 34 Americans aboard the USS Liberty confirmed that a U.S. president (Democrat Lyndon Johnson) could be induced to condone murderous behavior by Israel. Two decades later, Operation Trojan confirmed that a U.S. president (Republican Ronald Reagan) could be induced to attack an Arab nation based on intelligence fixed by Israel.

For more than six decades, the U.S. has armed, financed, befriended and defended Zionism. This “special relationship” includes the U.S.-discrediting veto of dozens of U.N. resolutions critical of Israeli conduct. From a game theory perspective, how difficult was it to anticipate that—out of a worldwide population of 1.3 billion Muslims—19 Muslim men could be induced to perpetrate a murderous act in response to U.S support for Israel’s lengthy mistreatment of Arabs and Muslims, particularly Palestinians?

Israeli game theorists operate not from the Center for Morality or the Center for Justice but from the Center for Rationality. As modeled by Zionist war planners, game theory is devoid of all values except one: the ability to anticipate—within an acceptable range of probabilities—how “the mark” will react when provoked. Thus we see the force-multiplier potential for those who wage war with well-planned provocations and well-timed crises.

Israeli behavior is often immoral and unjust but that does not mean it is irrational. For Colonial Zionists committed to the pursuit of an expansionist agenda, even murderous provocations are rational because the response can be mathematically modeled, ensuring the results are reasonably foreseeable. That alone is sufficient for a people who, as God’s chosen, consider it their right to operate above the rule of law.


Egyptian mummies with tobacco and cocaine

Egyptian mummies with tobacco and cocaine

By Newspaper Rock

Someone recently mentioned a documentary called Curse of the Cocaine Mummies. I haven’t seen it, but I looked into it online. I gather it appeared on the Discovery Channel in January 1997.

It seems to be legitimate science. Here’s the story:

Sky High Egyptians?

Were the Pharoahs Junkies?The problem started in Munich. A forensic pathologist specialising in toxins had been asked to carry out what should have been a series of routine tests on a number of whole and part mummies to determine what drugs had been used by the Egyptians and how widespread such use may have been. It has long been known that the Egyptians had and used a number of narcotics and hallucinogens including mandrake, belladonna and henbane–and lotus, one of the main icons of Egyptian art and religion, was also known to various ancient cultures as a powerful narcotic and hallucinogen.

What came as a bombshell, therefore, was the apparent discovery of both cocaine and tobacco in the mummy of a XXIst Dynasty priestess, as well as a number of other bodies and body parts. Disbelieving this incredible result, the pathologist re-ran her tests only to obtain the same results; she then sent samples from the bodies to other laboratories expecting negative results in which case she could have explained her original results as being due to contamination of the samples tested by her. To her amazement, the results came back the same. She then published her findings, only to come up against the archaeological establishment; the results were fraudulent; the results were the caused by gross negligence due to the contamination of the mummies and/or the samples; anyway, the results were impossible. The accusations of contamination were based on the suggestion that earlier generations of Egyptologists had been heavier smokers than those of today and had been more careless in handling the mummies. Stung by these accusations, the pathologist then took further samples taken from deep inside the mummies and had these analysed as well–still with the same result.The evidence grows:Deeply skeptical about the results, Dr David of Manchester Museum ran similar tests on a number of mummies in the Manchester collection. To her utter amazement these also produced positive results and showed that the Munich findings were not isolated. In the past couple of years, similar tests have been carried out on on bodies in from places as far apart as China, the middle east, Germany and Austria and ranging in date from around the same date as the mummies in question through to the European Middle Ages. The presence of tobacco (if not cocaine) was found in all these areas. Nor was it found in isolates specimens, for some areas traces were found in every body tested.

The German pathologist originally suggested that an unknown species of tobacco had once grown in Africa and Eurasia and had been used in various ways until it was driven to extinction by overuse. However, no evidence of an unknown species of tobacco has ever been found in Africa or Europe (unless Rameses II’s bandages were shown to be made of tobacco fibre from an unknown specie–see below)–and besides that could not account anyway for the presence of cocaine in the mummies.The author’s theory:The significance of the cocaine and tobacco discovery in Egypt (if it is eventually upheld and accepted by the archaeological establishment) is that it effectively blows apart current archaeological theories about the nature and scale of world trade in the ancient world. Bear in mind that, barely 40 years ago, the idea that the Vikings could have crossed the Atlantic to the Americas was considered utterly ludicrous. Here is a suggestion, however, that world trade was being carried on on a regular and organised basis some 2,000 years earlier. Impossible!

The somewhat conservative archaeological establishment is therefore having to wrestle with the idea that international trade on a world scale was regularly being undertaken from at least as early as 1,000 bce. What is NOT being suggested by anyone, however, is that the Egyptians were trading directly across the Atlantic with the Americas–with or without the benefit of warehousing facilities on Atlantis! Rather, it is suggested that trade was being conducted across the Pacific, probably by the Chinese, and that products from the Americas were being traded westwards through south Asia and the Middle East, eventually reaching Egypt.

Leaving aside the trans-pacific trade theory, the other possible explanations for the positive test results are downright fraud or deliberate hoax (which would involve both the German pathologist and Dr David of Manchester and which is NOT being suggested); carelessness in conducting the tests (unlikely but not impossible by a forensic pathologist with experience of working with the police); contamination of some sort yet to be clarified; or that both tobacco and cocaine in some form had once grown in the Old World, or that some other plants with similar chemical constituents had once done so. The archaeological world currently seems to be favouring the last two possible explanations, i.e. contamination or an Old World source of some kind.Another researcher rebuts the alternate explanations in more detail:

American Drugs in Egyptian Mummies

By S. A. WellsAbstract:

The recent findings of cocaine, nicotine, and hashishin Egyptian mummies by Balabanova et. al. have been criticized on grounds that: contamination of the mummies may have occurred, improper techniques may have been used, chemical decomposition may have produced the compounds in question, recent mummies of drug users were mistakenly evaluated, that no similar cases are known of such compounds in long-dead bodies, and especially that pre-Columbian transoceanic voyages are highly speculative. These criticisms are each discussed in turn. Balabanova et. al. are shown to have used and confirmed their findings with accepted methods. The possibility of the compounds being byproducts of decomposition is shown to be without precedent and highly unlikely. The possibility that the researchers made evaluations from of faked mummies of recent drug users is shown to be highly unlikely in almost all cases. Several additional cases of identified American drugs in mummies are discussed. Additionally, it is shown that significant evidence exists for contact with the Americas in pre-Columbian times. It is determined that the original findings are supported by substantial evidence despite the initial criticisms.Some of this “significant evidence”:“A bibliography of these early contacts is given by John Sorensen (1998) in the first issue of Pre-Columbiana. It is a good example of the kinds of evidence being uncovered by legitimate researchers and institutions. The bibliography is itself a condensation of a two-volume work of these publications and includes titles such as: The world’s oldest ship? (showing evidence for a pre-Columbian ship in America) published in Archaeology; Peruvian fabrics (showing very strong similarities between Peru and Asia) published in Anthropological papers of the American Museum of Natural History; Robbing native American cultures: Van Sertima’s Afro centricity and the Olmecs (showing evidence for connections between Africa and the Olmecs of Middle America) published in Current Anthropology; Possible Indonesian or Southeast Asian Influences in New World textile industries (showing at least three textile-related inventions that appear in both Indonesia and the New World) published in Indonesian Textiles; and, Genes may link Ancient Eurasians, Native Americans, published in Science.”

“And the list goes on and on–some evidence being better than others–but as a whole it seems pretty much irrefutable. Claims to the contrary seem to be made by individuals with a vested interest in the isolationist position. The evidence, pro and con, when evaluated objectively, would seem without question, to favor the diffusionist position (which claims that pre-Columbian contacts took place).”Comment:  I haven’t read much on pre-Columbian contacts, but I don’t have a problem envisioning them. Columbus didn’t succeed because he had superior shipbuilding technology. He succeeded because he believed in his theories and stuck with them rather than giving up.

Therefore, it’s quite possible to imagine Egyptians, Phoenicians, or Africans–or, later, the Welsh, Irish, or Vikings–sailing to the “New World.” I also wouldn’t be surprised if a few Native tribes sailed in the opposite direction. If people can invent oceangoing vessels once, they can invent them several times.

This seems more reasonable than the Chinese alternative. Really, merchants transported tobacco and cocaine two-thirds of the way around the world without leaving a trace anywhere in-between? And we didn’t have a hint of this global trade in American drugs until 1992?

Could be, but it doesn’t seem especially plausible. Occam’s Razor tells us the simplest explanation is usually the best one. So I’m guessing someone from the Middle East or Africa reached the Americas first. Direct trade between the Egyptians and Indians would explain the lack of tobacco and cocaine elsewhere.

Indians still were first

None of this is meant to suggest that Paleo-Indians from Asia weren’t the hemisphere’s first inhabitants. That they didn’t build great civilizations of their own without outside help. Things like the Indians’ building techniques or the Mesoamerican and Egyptian pyramids probably were just coincidences. If there was a connection, it probably was in the form of barely-remembered legends.

The contacts must’ve been limited or there would’ve been more evidence of them. Much of the trade probably was in perishable items such as food and clothing. Other than that, the visitors may have left nothing more than a pictograph here or a cuneiform tablet there.

Even if Indians didn’t cross the oceans themselves, they developed tobacco and cocaine and gave them to the world. In particular, they contributed these substances to the Egyptian practice of mummification. So civilization is more complex and multicultural than people think it is, as usual.

For more on the subject, see Kennewick Man, Captain Picard, and Political Correctness and Multicultural Origins of Civilization.

Holmgren’s Deeper Analysis of Manipulation within the “truth” movement

Submitted by theSaiGirl on Sun, 2007-07-22 04:43.

Am reposting this because I can’t find an active link to it anymore.
Not sure if Holmgren has updated it yet.
I’m guessing here .. but I didn’t think he would mind if it were posted .. just to give people some more detailed background and context to the latest conflicts here a this site.

I figure it will elevate the level of discussion to bring it back to poliitcal analysis… cause that’s what makes me comfortable.
Apologies to Holmgren if he takes any offense at my re-posting it….
I mean no offense.
Just struggling for some clarity amidst all this …

Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer – “Lying for Truth”

by Gerard Holmgren


This article exposes some of the deepest levels of deception within the so called “truth movement”. It deals with the deceptive maneuvering of three individuals who have tried to present themselves as being at the cutting edge of controversial truth, and shows how they are are in fact dedicated to the cause of deception and doublethink.

This article will be difficult to understand unless you are first familiar with a considerable amount of background.

If you are not familiar with the basic arguments and issues surrounding the background material, then I suggest that you discontinue reading this article and return to it when you have become familiar with the necessary background information.The links below will guide you to some reading about the relevant issues.


1) A summary of the evidence that the events of Sept 11 were entirely orchestrated by the US Govt and its agencies in full partnership with major media organizations.

2) The evidence that the event was partly fictional in that the iconic imagery of the event – planes flying into the WTC – never happened. The belief in this event was manufactured through the airing of faked videos passed off as footage of real events.

To be more specific, the video of the first tower strike shows quite clearly that the tower was not hit by a plane but by a very strange looking form of advanced weaponry.

The uncritical belief that a large passenger jet was responsible for the first strike is based not on examination of the video, but by association with the video of the second tower strike – which superficially appeared to show a large passenger jet. The object in the first strike doesn’t look anything like a plane, but the superficial appearance of a large passenger jet being responsible for the second strike creates the assumption that the first strike must have been the same thing. The Sth tower footage- the second strike- was shown over and over -from different angles -to the public for about 16 hours before the first hit footage was ever aired. By the time that most people were exposed to the first hit footage, they were numb with shock and drilled with the endless imagery of what appeared to be multiple planes hitting multiple buildings, were confused about which tower was which and therefore understandably never thought to question which piece of footage showed which tower specifically. This caused people to miss the fact that in amongst the jumble of imagery of planes hitting buildings, there was actually only one video of the first strike -and that no plane can be seen in this footage.

The videos which sold the idea of planes hitting buildings were those of the second strike. These videos appear superficially to show – from several different angles – a large passenger jet hitting the building, but on closer examination, it becomes quite obvious that the videos are fake. The plane is a crude animation and in retrospect doesn’t look very realistic at all. The different videos even contradict each other in relation to flight paths.

As argument over this evidence became more intense, supporters of the official story introduced the idea that the apparent plane shaped holes in both buildings, approximately matching the size and shape of the kinds of planes alleged to have been involved was forensic evidence that planes did indeed hit the buildings.

Apart from ignoring the fact that the second strike “plane” demonstrates such impossible physical characteristics that it is an obvious fake, and the first strike object doesn’t even look like a plane, the forensic claim is only attractive to someone who hasn’t really thought about the physics at all. I responded to this argument by showing that a simple common sense application of basic Newtonian physics principles demonstrated that in fact the plane shaped holes represented more proof that planes did not hit the buildings.

If you don’t understand what I’m saying in the above summary, or don’t feel convinced that there is any credible evidence for it, then I suggest that you don’t continue reading this article because you wont understand it. You need to become conversant with the background research first.


(Note: The subject of complaint against Reynolds in this article is not that he’s a planehugger. It is that he is a plane hugger who is pretending to be a no plane proponent. And in the process he also by implication, falsely attributes pro plane views to those who do not hold them.To put it another way, he is promoting a form of doublethink which allows people to believe that planes both did and did not hit the towers.)

I had been arguing this position about forensic evidence on email lists for some time before it was first posted on a web site as an article on Nov 11 2005. The presentation is a little rough because the posting is really just a paste from one of these email lists, not a properly prepared and presented article. But for any sensible and open minded person it provides all the proof necessary to show that from a forensics point of view alone, one can prove that no planes hit the towers. More recently, newer researchers have put the icing on the cake in relation to the forensic arguments. 1 2

Around the time that I began promoting the forensic arguments, an individual named Morgan Reynolds began to show a public interest in Sept 11 issues and after making his initial appearance with the somewhat belated observation (better late than never) that the WTC was deliberately demolished, began to take an interest in the no planes issue.

Reynolds and I made contact, and after he showed interest in the no planes issue, I personally tutored him by email in the physics of the forensic evidence.

Reynolds was so impressed that he responded by writing his own article which was essentially a direct copy of my article. Because Reynolds took 7 months to write his article- while I was doing the work to argue and promote the concepts around the various discussion groups on the web- Reynolds final presentation was slicker and better presented than mine. It contained no original observations whatsoever, but it appeared to be a valuable addition to the cause because of the time that he had put into the presentation.

However there was some fine print which we didn’t notice at the time.

First I will present a generalized summary and then I will deconstruct Reynolds’ article in detail.


At first, the no plane advocates welcomed Reynolds’ contribution But over time a darker side of Reynolds emerged and in recent months he has been unmasked as working to undermine the very evidence which he purports to support. In retrospect we should have seen it immediately- but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Although Reynolds briefly acknowledges some contributions on my part, he effectively commits plagiarism by falsely presenting his article as a groundbreaking development in this issue, when in fact it contains no significant original information or observations at all and is in substance, nothing but a copy of my work – more professionally presented and differently styled.

That in itself is a minor complaint. The real problem is that Reynolds -after plagiarizing my work -is now presenting it as an argument for the exact opposite of what it actually proves. Reynolds now claims that although the forensic analysis in question shows that “no Big Boeings” hit the WTC, it is still quite possible that they were hit by different kinds of planes.

But Reynolds did not present this dissenting conclusion in a straightforward and transparent manner.

Reynolds of course is free like anyone to make his own contribution to the forensic argument and argue that I came to the wrong conclusion from my own observations – if that’s what he wants to do. What he is not entitled to do is to claim those observations as his original work, twist them to draw the opposite conclusion, without ever directly stating his opposition to my argument and create the false impression that his “no Big Boeings” conclusion makes him a “no planer”, while also falsely attributing to me – and to other no planers -a view which allows for planes other than “big Boeings”.

His agenda is to promote doublethink at a subconscious level by confusing the position of “planes other than big Boeings” with that of “no planes” and merging them to mean the same thing.

As we shall see, this is what Reynolds has really been working on during the time that he has been pretending to be allied with the promotion of arguments for no planes.

Reynolds’ language has been so cleverly duplicitous that it took some time to realize that he was actually promoting “no big Boeings” rather than “no planes”. Once again, Reynolds – like anyone – is free to directly state and argue such a position if he chooses. But by the use of his cleverly ambiguous position, Reynolds gave the impression that he was supporting the no planes position and thus drew the fire of “planehuggers” (people who are hostile to the no plane evidence). Through this subterfuge he managed to create an image of himself as being at the forefront of the “no planes” argument through what he falsely presents as being his original contributions to the evidence.

There’s a big problem when the self styled king of the “no planers”- who supposedly did ground breaking research into the question – a person who became a major hate target of the planehuggers-is actually a plane hugger himself – in disguise.

This is part of a process which I call “Griffinization” named after the masterful doublethink efforts of David Ray Griffin, who after managing to promote himself as one of the world’s “foremost 9/11 researchers” -without actually doing any significant research at all – simply copying the carefully cherry picked work of others – has managed to create a situation where a plane both did and did not hit the pentagon and where there both were and were not Arab hijackers involved.

I predicted some time ago that this kind of Griffinization and doublethink would eventually be applied also to the no WTC planes evidence, although I hadn’t picked Reynolds as the chief messenger. Again, the presentation in the most recently linked article is rough because it’s a paste of a list email, not a properly prepared and presented article, but it should make the point clearly enough.

Recently the planes/no planes doublethink has picked up in intensity. Enter Jim Fetzer. I have exposed Fetzer in several other articles as a serial liar and plagiarist 1 2 3 .After more than a year of attacking the no planes position, Fetzer has recently been lauding and promoting the work of Reynolds (as original and groundbreaking of course) at the same time as continuing to attack its most fundamental concepts. Reynolds responds by presenting Fetzer as being involved in open minded inquiry and promotion of the issue, while tacitly supporting Fetzer’s litany of lies and philosophical abominations -including his direct exhortation to lie for the sake of truth -as documented in the latter half of the article linked above as 1.

Fetzer- with the full support of Reynolds -is now managing to present himself as being in some way associated with “no plane theories” and a target for those hostile to the position – at the same time as actually attacking the substance of the arguments for such a position himself. This duplicitous campaign is fully supported by Reynolds, as the two feed each other publicity and when questioned, protect each other from awkward questions about their duplicitous position. They’ll even stage a disagreement from time to time, where necessary.

As part of his doublethink campaign both for and against the forensic concepts falsely claimed by Reynolds as his original work, Fetzer went so far as to directly challenge the validity of Newtonian physics, claiming that Newton’s third law of motion was wrong and postulating his own law of motion in its place, and using this garbage to attack the concepts promoted by Reynolds – at the same time as lauding Reynolds’ work as an important development.

Fetzer was supported in this endeavor by Reynolds who also challenged Newton in more subtle language by indirectly claiming that Newton’s third law applied in some situations but not in others. This enabled Reynolds to use Newtonian physics to prove “no Big Boeings” while using doublethink to postulate that the very same principles proved nothing when applied to other kinds of planes.

Their third ally is Professor Judy Wood, who supports the “no Big Boeings” sleight of hand from Reynolds, and supports Fetzer and Reynolds in everything they do, regardless of the contradictory doublethink issues it raises. But the main role of Wood in this deception trio is a little different and will have to wait for a separate article.

Collectively, these three doublethinkers are very successfully putting the position that planes both did and did not hit the WTC. They are managing to become the chief villains in the eyes of the planehuggers without actually presenting a no plane case. They switch Newtonian physics on and off as suits their duplicitous cause.

For example, when I asked Wood whether she supports the challenges by Fetzer and Reynolds to Newtonian physics, Wood refused to answer and instead got her lawyer to act as her representative. It does seem strange that a scientist claiming to be using science “to reveal truths and expose falsehoods” should react to a simple question about physics fundamentals by calling in a lawyer to (not) answer the question on her behalf. Wood’s lawyer said that Wood was refusing to answer the question because”‘it might prove Reynolds wrong” and because any answer would “drive a wedge” between them.

This is effectively a direct admission from Wood that she knows that Reynolds and Fetzer are talking scientific garbage in their challenge to Newton , but is happy for scientific fraud to be promoted whenever convenient for the cause of “truth”. Thus Wood tacitly endorsed their lies while trying to stay free of direct responsibility for Fetzer’s ludicrous claim that Newton was wrong about the third law of motion.

In an astonishing display of double standards, Wood (correctly) criticizes the official story of the WTC demolition, on the basis that to believe it requires a suspension of basic physics laws, but then has her lawyer tell us that suspension of such laws is desirable if it’s in the interests of maintaining her political unity with Reynolds and Fetzer.

Likewise, Fetzer and Reynolds trumpet the use of basic physics principles in showing that the WTC was demolished, but then attack those very same laws as being incorrect in order to support the WTC planes story – at the same time as Reynolds trying to create the impression that he’s actually a no planer.

Reynolds goes even further in using Newton’s laws to prove that the Government is lying about “big Boeings” but refusing to invoke the same laws in relation to other kinds of planes and making no objection to Fetzer’s claim that Newton isn’t even half right.

And they call the Government dishonest.

Why should the Govt use honest science if the self styled “truth movement” wont ?

In another outrageous piece of double standards, Wood and Reynolds – partly supported by Fetzer, attack (justifiably) the dishonest and fraudulent science of Professor Steven Jones, 1 2 but openly use the same kind of fraudulent and dishonest junk science themselves as described above.

I have been as harsh a critic of Steven Jones as anyone, but to be fair – why should Jones be expected to tell the truth if his critics are just as dishonest ?

Just to cap it off, Fetzer while seemingly supporting these attacks on Jones, describes the same attacks as “disgusting” if presented by others, and continues to promote Jones, including the lie that Jones’ work is “peer reviewed”.

Confused ? Welcome to the world of 9/11 doublethink ! A world where “truth” is defined as anything which is politically convenient. A world where any number of contradictory scenarios can be true as long as all of them are good for the “movement”. A world where basic physics principles are used as the supreme proof for one piece of evidence and then dismissed as a political inconvenience in relation to a different issue of evidence.

A world where David Ray Griffin – in saying AA77 did not hit the pentagon -can be the hero to rally around for those who angrily dismiss that very same claim as deliberate disinformation. As shown in my article linked here there are people who demand the promotion of Griffin instead of “junk” and “disinformation” about AA77 not hitting the pentagon. How can this be so, when Griffin himself apparently supports such a view ? Welcome to the world of 9/11 doublethink!

A world where Griffin, at the same time as claiming that AA77 did not hit the pentagon, claims that the air force was stood down to allow AA77’s hijackers to complete their mission – at the same time as claiming that the hijackers perhaps didn’t even exist. Apart from the doublethink, this is what I call the “Griffinization” of evidence, named after the practice of swooning over Griffin as a hero and holding up his books like bibles at the same time as angrily dismissing almost all of the substance in them as “disinformation” – while at the same time celebrating the supposed research of their hero in unearthing such “disinformation” -when in fact he didn’t research any of it but just copied it from other people – who are usually mercilessly attacked as “disinformation agents” for distracting from the work of the hero.

Fetzer is building this kind of cult around Reynolds. In one email debate, Fetzer invoked his new law of motion to challenge everything in Reynolds’ article at the same time as describing Reynolds’ work as impressive and moving us towards proof. Proof that…? It’s not exactly clear.

A world where Fetzer boasts that his mission is “revealing truths about 9/11, letting the chips fall where they may” ,but also tells us that in relation to “controversial” evidence – “even if it were true, it hurts the movement.”

A world where Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood self righteously attack the dishonest fraudulent science of Steven Jones, and of NIST at the same time as telling us that Professor Wood wont affirm a simple and fundamental scientific principle like Newton’s third law of motion because such an admission would “drive a wedge” between her and Reynolds.

Orwell’s “ministry of truth” slogan – “truth is lies” has come to fruition in the form of the 911 doublethink movement.

Wood, Reynolds and Fetzer are now in the process of “Griffinizing” the no WTC planes evidence

Before moving on to the documentation in relation to this Orwellain maneuvering by Wood, Reynolds and Fetzer, I will quote some concluding observations from my article The 9/11 doublethink movement , dated Nov 7 2006.

[[The main idea of the truth movement seems to be to promote the truth movement by just saying “truth movement ” over and over, occasionally pausing to swoon at the feet of its heroes who approve the plethora of conflicting truths sanctioned as acceptable beliefs for truthlings…

…the truthling cult makes a brash frontal assault on the fundamental concept of truth. Truth is defined as the chanting of a truth hero’s name. It is the copyrighted logo of the truth movement.

In terms of it’s specific content , truth is *overtly* expendable, disposable, malleable, market driven, a creation of those of those with the branding rights, strategy driven. It is the property of “truthers” and can be traded and negotiated like company shares. Truth is a popularity poll.

…Truth is determined by it’s usefulness to the movement. The movement appoints truth heroes who become the personification of truth, the content which they utter being no more than an almost arbitrarily chosen vehicle for the expression of worship of his truthliness, and the importance of such worship to the movement.]]

Reynolds, Wood and Fetzer are attempting to create a sub cult within the doublethinking truthling cult which could be described as no planers who actually believe that there were planes.

Let us now examine more closely the article with which Reynolds began his Griffinization campaign, dated March 5 2006.

We have some holes in the plane stories

In retrospect, I plead guilty to charges of naivety and carelessness in failing to be suspicious and vigilant enough when it was first published to notice how Reynolds subtlety played both sides of the plane/no plane question with duplicitous language. To the extent that I did notice any such problems, I thought at the time that it merely reflected the inexperience and caution of someone new to the issue who was taking things one step at a time.


Reynolds produces an excellently presented rehash of my original forensics article. I wont explain in great detail the actual forensics arguments here. My forensics article doesn’t take long to read and if you have any common sense understanding of the most basic physics principles, you’ll quickly see the point that I’m making. The idea that a plane consisting mostly of aluminium punched through a steel structure so decisively that it left a near perfect shape of itself is absurd. It would have smashed up on impact. Perhaps some of the plane might have penetrated the building, but most of it would have been smashed into wreckage that scattered to the streets below. But even supposing that it was somehow able to form this miraculous feat, there is a second impossibility. Any object which punches so decisively through another object that it leaves a shape of itself, is then by definition, relatively undamaged in the collision. Like an arrow being shot through a piece of cardboard. It doesn’t punch through and then disintegrate into nothing after having done its punch through. It emerges the other side, negligibly damaged. Or if it’s an arrow with an explosive device attached, then in the act of blowing itself up, the explosion also affects the cardboard such that you wont finish up with with a neat arrow shaped entry hole in the cardboard, and the arrow blasted into oblivion without doing any extra damage to the cardboard beyond the original entry hole.

The physics of the supposed plane entry are multi layered impossibilities. On the one hand they postulate things which are individually impossible – like aluminium plane wings slicing through steel construction beams – after the front half of the plane has already taken the brunt of the impact resulting in slowing of speed and destruction of the plane’s structure. But in addition to that, even if one were to concede each individual absurdity as possible, they would have had to occur in such a way that the combination of events is impossible. Basically, the situation is that A,B,C and D all need to have occurred in combination for a plane to have entered the building. Each one of them is an individual absurdity, but even hypothetically conceding all of them as possible in isolation, they still could not occur in combination.

Reynolds to his credit found some good language with which to succinctly rehash this observation.

[[an airplane cannot transform itself from invincible to flimsy within an instant in the same general environment…

…supposedly powerful 767s easily penetrated steel walls and floors yet identically crumbled within a fraction of a second and vanished inside despite huge fuselage length and wingspan ¾ the length of a tower wall. Both 767s were never seen again from any side of either tower, a dazzling combination of imposing strength and fragility within a tenth of a second…

…The immense difficulty with this idea, also favored by the NIST, is how to reconcile an aluminum aircraft bursting through the steel in its path followed immediately by complete failure within 0.1 seconds, shredding completely and vanishing…

…After silent entry into the tower, UA 175’s remaining kinetic energy dissipated within a quarter second and proved insufficient to penetrate the east or north wall. A crashing jetliner would decelerate because of the resistance of the steel wall, six steel/concrete floors and the dense core within 37 feet of the south tower wall, impacted within .05 seconds. No deceleration and no visible plane wreckage means we have situation in progress because these alleged facts are physically impossible. A jetliner cannot be invincible and then flimsy the next instant…

…The fuselage could not neatly fold up, accordion style, to conceal itself after demonstrating strength enough to silently rip through the south wall, six steel/concrete floors and penetrate so far into the core to vanish. ]]

My compliments to Reynolds for so eloquently rehashing the concepts already explained in my earlier linked forensics article. One would hope that taking 7 months to rewrite someone else’s work in one’s own words would result in some eloquent expression of the concepts and Reynolds certainly delivered on that point.

And so one would assume that if such laws of physics apply to Boeing 767s or to any kind of “big Boeing” then they would apply equally to other kinds of planes. Or if not, then one would address the question to explain why.

Apparently not.

Here’s the small print which I missed at the time of Reynolds’ publication.

[[Hoffman denounces “ideas that have no basis in evidence, such as the idea that no planes hit the towers.” Well, let’s be careful here: the idea that specific jetliners identified by government did not hit the WTC towers has an initial “basis in evidence” ]]

“specific airliners identified by the Govt”.

My compliments again to Reynolds. This time its a backhanded compliment for a masterful piece of double speak which I didn’t pick up when he first published. First Reynolds provides cheer to the no plane cause by going head to head with one of the most insistent and vitriolic of the planehuggers in Jim Hoffman. He takes issue with Hoffman’s denouncement of “no planes” and then uses the heat of battle to hide the jump from “no planes” to “specific airliners identified by the Govt”.

Having established this transition, Reynolds then continues in more overt fashion.

[[A commuter plane, specially prepared aircraft, military planes, missiles or drones as some eyewitnesses reported or nothing at all may have hit the towers from outside. I do not have enough evidence yet to say.]]

So commuter planes, specially prepared aircraft or military planes are capable of transcending the physics laws which apply so definitely to the “specific airliners identified by the Govt.”? If so, then shouldn’t we get some explanation of why?

But Reynolds covers himself by not going so far as to assert with any confidence that planes did hit the towers. He creates a tone of careful academic caution, giving the impression that with more time, he’ll look at the situation more closely, but he’s just settling one question at a time. And considering that this was his first contribution on the issue, as someone who had been a no planer for years, with more time to think such issues through, I decided to cut him a little slack and allow time for him to develop the issue fully in his own mind. He makes all the right promising noises.

This then allows him to warm to his task of transforming the position of “no planes” into “no big Boeings”- now operating on the subliminal level.

[[Most 9/11 researchers reject the government’s Big Boeing Theory for the Pentagon and Pennsylvania events for lack of supporting evidence and presence of contrary evidence. Skepticism about BBT at WTC is less common but if we look at the gashes in the towers, a telling question arises:

How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone?]]

A question which apparently applies only to “Big Boeings”and “wide bodied jetliners.”

But the earlier statement that “I do not yet have enough evidence” implies a promise that before long, in some forthcoming article, Reynolds will provide either a retraction of this exemption for other types of planes or else a detailed argument for why the exemption is justified. This seemed reasonable at the time of publication.

In his carefully designed doublespeak in the earlier part of his article, Reynolds set the stage for for being excused from scrutiny over this question. The quality and clarity of his presentation of the forensics rehash has skillfully hidden the double standards which he subtly implies in relation to “big Boeings” vs other kinds of planes.

Having set his stage properly, Reynolds is now free to skillfully play this double standard throughout the rest of the article. It may seem obvious now in the glare of my analysis, but it wasn’t so obvious when one read the article for the first time, focusing on the more obvious aspects of what he was presenting and allowing him leeway as a newcomer to the issue.

In order to maintain this double speak, in amongst the incessant references to “big Boeings” and “767s”and “wide bodied airliners” Reynolds occasionally uses the generic term “plane” – without ever admitting that “planes” of any kind are ruled out by the same observations which rule out “big Boeings”

In fact, in a brief moment of transparency in the introduction, he openly declared that he could not at this stage commit to such a view. But even that admission was soothed with the appearance that all he needed was more time before he addressed that question.

The double speak continues.

[[it is difficult if not impossible to accept the proposition that a wide-body jetliner can smash into a dense steel-concrete tower and disappear virtually without a trace ]]

Reynolds then has a section where he talks generically about “planes” and how fragile they are , but still does not convert this to an overtly stated position that it is anything other than the

[[the government’s Big Boeing Theory]]

which is at issue, and never retracts his earlier claim that “planes” in a generic sense are still on the table.

He then moves into the section which contains most of the previously quoted material which I mentioned favourably – the “flimsy vs invincible” observations.

But even these have some subconscious qualifications built in.

[[767 aircraft are fragile rather than invincible and the holes in the towers were too small to allow passage of an intact 767 even if it were built to “invincible” standards…

…Conclusion: No Boeing 767 hit either WTC tower…

…the 767 would fly through a tower and continue at the same speed, speeding out the other side like a .357 magnum bullet fired through 1 mm thick balsa wood. Further, a Boeing 767 cutting completely through a tower would seriously destabilize the tower by cutting substantial core sections and major sections of at least two walls. ..

…all parties agree 767s are not invincible and it is impossible to build them to such a standard; even the government felt obligated to produce photos of aircraft pieces ….

…A 767 would be flimsy in a high-speed collision against a steel and concrete tower except for engines and undercarriage…]]

All well argued stuff. By this stage in the article its easy to have then forgotten his introductory statement about whether other kinds of planes might have hit the towers and why such arguments seemedto be unique to “big Boeings”.

[[I do not have enough evidence yet to say.]]

Hasn’t he just presented that evidence himself in convincing fashion? The “flimsy vs invincible” problem, which after copying from my article, took him 7 months to work out how to express in his own style, does not provide “enough evidence” ?

If not, then one might have thought that this amount of time might have provided Reynolds with an opportunity to think this problem through and present some reasons for why some kinds of planes might behave differently to “big Boeings ” in collisions.

Not yet. Let’s continue through his article.

[[While a 767 would carry enormous “momentum” or kinetic energy at impact, resistance by steel columns, spandrel plates, floors and core would consume its fixed energy supply rapidly…

…That leaves 767 proponents 100% dependent on the shredding/wrap-around theory…

…Faith in the Big Boeing Theory rests on each 767 disintegrating completely into small pieces inside each tower, concealing all plane parts…

…The official/Hoffman theory is impossible to accept unless the plane was rigged to explode or disintegrate upon contact with the wall, enabling its thorough destruction inside. That might restore some plausibility to the 767 story but it is certainly not the government story. ..

…There is no convincing physics for how two wide-body aluminum jetliners flying at high speed could penetrate steel walls, floors and core via undersized gashes, exhibit no deceleration in videos, decelerate to zero within a quarter second, and conceal themselves entirely within each tower.]]

Having so convincingly devastated the “big Boeing” or “wide bodied airliner” theory, Reynolds still refuses to contemplate the idea that such proofs apply equally to all types of planes, but effectively promises that he will get around to it.

[[Sorting out theories of “what really happened” awaits another day but note that nothing I have written above constitutes an endorsement of a particular alternative theory to the official 757/767 BBT lies…

In other words, Reynolds will not say “no planes” and will not yet explain why. But in order to hide this, he again uses the fog of battle with the planehugger enemy to subconsciously present himself as allied with the “no plane” argument.

…“To argue jetliners were not involved is baseless,” avers Jim Hoffman. I disagree, especially if Mr. Hoffman means the 767/757 fables sold to the public by the government. A series of physical impossibilities combined with numerous irrefutable facts contradict the official jetliner story, although questions about what really happened remain and multiple theories are still on the table. ]]

Once again, Reynolds hides his jump from “no planes” to “no 767/757s” by invoking the Hoffman bogey to cover the double speak .To the extent that it is transparent he makes an implied promise to address the question of other planes eventually, but more than a year later it still

[[awaits another day]]

Giving a brief reference to the video of the first tower strike, Reynolds observes

[[Whatever the flying object is, it does not look like a commercial airliner to me.]]

But it seems that this doesn’t count as definitive evidence either as he continues

[[Was there an actual aircraft or projectile of some kind? I don’t know, but if there was, someone tampered with the Naudet pixels so that no one can identify it in the video. Just like the five Pentagon parking lot frames dated September 12, the video conceals more than it reveals. Both are intended to deceive.]]

This is a particularly ugly piece of doublespeak. First Reynolds admits directly that it doesn’t look like a “commercial” airliner. Then he admits indirectly that it doesn’t look like any kind of plane, but in such a way as to plant the suggestion that it probably was.

[[Was there an actual aircraft or projectile of some kind? I don’t know, but if there was, someone tampered with the Naudet pixels so that no one can identify it in the video. ]]

So rather than simply admit directly that the video doesn’t look like any kind of plane, Reynolds again applies different standards to different kinds of planes. The idea of a “commercial” airliner is easily enough dismissed on the basis that it doesn’t look like one. No problem so far.

But rather than apply the same standards to “an actual aircraft of some kind”, Reynolds then suggests that the failure of the video to show any other kind of aircraft might mean that the video is faked. What a classic planehugger argument ! In keeping with the whole theme of the article , Reynolds is ready to easily accept and strongly argue any evidence against “big Boeings” or any of the other labels which he sometimes substitutes but refuses to apply the same standards to other kinds of planes. If it doesn’t show a BB, then it’s simple – there wasn’t one. But if it doesn’t show some other kind of plane then we should suspect that it’s a fake video.

This assumption begins as merely a suggestion to be considered, but is then quickly elevated to the level of a firm conclusion – again through the use of subliminal language. First Reynolds unnecessarily associates the Naudet video with the Pentagon frames – something which he knows that the great majority of no planers agree to be faked. Apart from distracting critical readers, it complicates any potential argument by forcing a potential critic to explain that these are two quite different cases. Otherwise a critic might be labeled as supporting the authenticity of the Pentagon frames if they word their critique carelessly. Furthermore, by associating the Naudet video with one which definitely is faked, Reynolds better hides his jump from suggestion to certainty in relation to the Naudet video, because what he attributes to both of them is clearly the case for the Pentagon frames.

[[Both are intended to deceive.]]

It seems that this method of presentation is intended to fog the awareness that it is supposedly the Naudet video which is under scrutiny here. The one which he admits does not show a plane.

A genuine undoctored video of a real event cannot be “intended to deceive” us about what the event was. So with this statement Reynolds is making an unqualified allegation that the Naudet is faked – but through subliminal suggestion, not direct argument. First, he created the impression of doubt in the first part of the quoted passage and then hid the jump from doubt to certainty by confusing the issue with the definitely faked Pentagon frames and then hid the certainty of the conclusion by the use of the term “intended to deceive”, rather than overtly stating that it’s a fake.

He seals the spin by also asserting that the video “conceals more than it reveals.” Unless a video is a fake then it can’t be concealing anything. It can only revealing what was there. A genuine undoctored video of the striking object approaching the WTC can not be “concealing” what the object is. The unqualified assertion that this video is an instrument of deception and concealment is complete gibberish unless taken to mean the only thing that it can possibly mean. That the Naudet video is faked.

When you untangle the doublespeak, Reynolds has presented a crude planehugger argument. That because the Naudet video does not show a plane then we must assume that the video is a fake. He attempted to hide this accusation from concious view not only thorugh the use of duplicitous language, but also by gratuitously tying the Naudet video to the Pentagon frames – which have nothing to do with the analysis in question.

While the actions of Reynolds are contemptible, I will admit an admiration for his extremely high skills in the use of deceptive subliminal language and hand him points for managing to pull the wool over my eyes for so long.

Having now led the reader to the view that the Naudet video is “concealing ” and “deceiving” – that is – fake – Reynolds has now used his article to suggest that there isn’t enough evidence to say that no planes hit the towers. The Naudet video doesn’t constitute evidence because it’s fake. And the physical evidence proves only that “big Boeings” did not hit the towers. He might as well be pushing the pod theory or the 737 spin already tried by earlier more crude attempts to drown the no plane evidence in a fog of substitute plane theories.

I have to marvel at the calculated and skillful manner in which he has presented his argument for planes hitting the WTC. No wonder it took him 7 months to write. It’s a masterpiece. He used my forensic arguments, and the Naudet video to present the exact opposite of what they actually prove, while superficially appearing to support the no plane position.In doing so, he subliminally merged the idea of “no Big Boeings” with that of “no planes”.

One is reluctant to pin the label of “cointelpro” on everyone who is fibbing and deceiving as there can be a lot of different motivations for such behavior. But given Reynolds’ background and the extraordinarily calculated nature and highly skilled presentation of this ugly piece of doublespeak, the accusation can be made here with more confidence than usual.

Reynolds boldly declares in conclusion that

[[the official 9/11 airliner tales are proven hogwash…

…What is clear is that the government is lying about the four reported Big Boeing crashes]]

So it appears that while the physics rule out “big Boeings” or “wide bodied jetliners” according to Reynolds, other kinds of planes are still on the table. This carefully downplayed assertion is made without any attempt to explain why they should follow different laws of physics. And a video which shows an object that is not a plane can’t be trusted, because if it doesn’t show a plane then it has to be faked.

I plead guilty to simply not noticing the duplicity of language in this article when it was first published. It may have also been that to any extent that I did notice it, I shrugged it off, thinking that Reynolds was on the right path and that given time he would get the rest of it, and that trying to ram the complete picture down someone’s throat before they’re ready for it is not always the best way to build a relationship.

In the light of this analysis, I feel frankly embarrassed that I was ever taken in by Reynolds’ pretence to be an ally in the no planes argument, but one lives and learns.

Reynolds of course is free to be as illogical as he likes in asserting that 767s follow different laws of physics from

[[commuter planes, specially prepared aircraft, military planes ]].

The problem is that none of the above physics observations are actually Reynolds’ work in concept, only in expression and style. In terms of concept his article is entirely my work – a direct copy – and yet it’s being used to present a view completely the antithesis of what I presented , while failing to overtly make the reader aware of the conflict, and using cleverly duplicitous language to try to create the impression that it is a reinforcement in agreement with my original work.

Reynolds continued this deception and increased the intensity of it with a follow up article published Oct 27 2006. Exploding the airliner crash myth.

He begins in similar fashion.

[[Steven Jones had publicly promised to publish pro-plane and anti-plane articles, had solicited them and this was our effort to defend the position that on 9/11 No Big Boeings crashed at the four government/media-designated sites.]]

It’s becoming a familiar pattern. As in his first article, Reynolds transforms “no planes” into ” no big Boeings” within one sentence, and hides the jump by burying it in the heat of confrontation with a notorious planehugger – this time Steven Jones. Notice that the terms “anti-plane” and “no big Boeings” are subliminally presented as being the same thing.

And now he really goes to town on this theme. Complaining that Jones refused to publish his article, he declares

[[Our article might also profitably be compared with the pro-plane article by Eric Salter (pdf) recently found worthy enough in terms of “scientific” merit to appear in Jones’ Journal. Amid Salter’s unprofessional attacks on No-Big-Boeing researchers, we encourage you to pick through his paper in search of scientific merit in the Salter defense of the government/media Big-Boeing WTC crash stories. We also ask the reader to consider why Salter’s paper proved worthy of journal acceptance and ours was not. Could it be that the editors did not want side-by-side comparison of the pro/con arguments and evidence about alleged Big Boeing crashes at the four designated sites on 9/11? See this for a powerful critique of Salter’s article]]

Notice that he describes Salter as “pro plane” one moment and as a defender of “Big Boeing theories” the next. A further reinforcement of the subliminal suggestion that they are the same thing. He then offers his critique of “alleged Big Boeing crashes” as one of the “anti – plane” articles which Jones was supposed to publish. Once again, the jump from “no plane” to “no big Boeing” is hidden by the heat of battle with strident planehuggers. But it’s not so much a jump from one concept to the other now. It a barrage of constant subliminal suggestion that they are the same thing.

He also widens the subliminal attack on any distinction between the two. He manages to covertly imply the false attribution of a “no big Boeings” position to people who are on record as avowed no planers.

[[Salter’s unprofessional attacks on No-Big-Boeing researchers]]

Anyone who knows the history of this issue knows about the attacks which Salter launched against Rosalee Grable, Scott Loughrey and myself – back when we were almost the only people carrying the no plane arguments. These attacks were launched before anyone had heard of Reynolds. But according to Reynolds, Salter was attacking “no Big Boeing researchers”. None of us ever used that phrase or even implied that it was our position.

So having plagiarized my forensics work in his first article to twist into a position of “no big Boeings”, Reynolds is now beginning the work to make it appear as if Rosalee, Scott and I – the three original no planers – are actually NBB advocates – to the extent that there is any difference at all in the doublespeak world of Reynolds.

He continues

[[Newtonian laws of motion combined with physical evidence prove no Boeing airliners crashed on September 11, 2001 at any of the four designated sites. ]]

This article was published 4 months after Reynolds’ first article which itself took him 7 months to write. This is more than enough time to address the glaring question of why, if Newtonian physics prove “no Big Boeings” do they fail to prove “no planes”. Reynolds is entitled to hold any view he likes. But he needs to be accountable for those views, to openly and transparently state them and to be prepared to argue them. His first article implied a promise to deal with the issue, but nothing has changed in this article.

Although he never overtly and obviously states it as such, Reynolds is effectively putting the view that Newtonian physics prove “no big Boeings” but do not prove “no planes”. And yet, although he is prepared to argue the first half of this view in detail, he steadfastly refuses to even transparently state the second part of the view, let alone argue the case.

The duplicity continues

[[here we prove no Big Boeings crashed, we repeat, no Big Boeings crashed (NBB), at designated locations]]

And now Reynolds launches a direct assault on the people whom he pretends to support. The people who’s work he has attached himself to like a parasite. He now purports to speak on their behalf thus.

[[The conspiracy runs deep and the No Big Boeings Crashed (NBB), not the somewhat misnamed no-planes-theory (NPT), takes the analysis to a new level, right into the inner sanctum. ]]

Well, thank you very much Professor Reynolds for pointing out to me that “no planes” is a misnaming of our “theory” that no planes hit the WTC. How else would one suggest that a view of no planes be described?

It doesn’t matter whether or not Reynolds likes the “no planes” tag , because it accurately describes the view held by Rosalee and I and a number of others and it is not for Reynolds to falsely attribute to us a different view for the sake of his political comfort.

In his efforts to take possession of our work and control it and misrepresent it, Reynolds not only hides his own position through duplicitous language, he presumes the power to tell us that we don’t claim no planes either, only “no Big Boeings”.

That’s news to us.

Also notice that while using the word “theory” in relation to “no planes”, the term NBB is free of any such qualification. Reynolds of course is free to assert that one thing is proven and therefore no longer a “theory” while the same certainty cannot be afforded to other things. I’ll readily admit that I do the same thing myself. The difference is that I’m upfront about what my views are. The same can’t be said for Reynolds. He’s fooled most of the Sept 11 research and discussion community into thinking that he’s no planer, when he might as well be a pod pusher or 737 advocate. Is a 737 a “big Boeing” or a “medium” sized Boeing ? One might might make a reasonable case for the latter description and if so, is Reynolds prepared to rule out a 737 ?

Whatever hogwash Reynolds wants to believe about smaller planes or military planes is his own business. But he has no business falsely attributing such views to others who have clearly stated “no planes”.

Reynolds now delivers a full on assault on our position disguising it as support.

[[The other side makes the familiar charges that NBB advocates are kooks, divisive and spew nonsense to discredit the sensible 9/11 skeptics. The media, goes the argument, can have a field day any time they wish by setting NBB proponents and opponents against each other, so no-crash advocates had best remain silent to preserve a united front and not confuse the public…

…Once their deception and treasonous collaboration come into bright sunlight for all to see, an unprecedented wave of anger will be unleashed against the killers, their media mouthpieces and their paymasters. The traitors will be drowned and America’s reinvention will begin. This explains the intensity of the Big Boeing debate]]

Who would have thought it? For more than four years I have laboured under the delusion that I have been involved in an intense debate arguing the case for no planes. It’s just as well that Morgan Reynolds has finally arrived to inform me that I was really arguing for “no Big Boeings”. I just didn’t know it ! Thanks so much Professor Reynolds, for telling me what I really believe, and what I’ve really been arguing for!

Having established that “no planes” supposedly does not describe my position or that of other committed no planers, Reynolds then proceeds to copy a swag of documentation from my research relating to evidence which in terms of “no planes” is more circumstantial – documentation casting doubt on the specific flights or destruction of the specific planes in the official story. The use of this information within the context of having just falsely labeled us as NBB advocates further implies the fiction we are one with Reynolds in our “no Big Boeing” views.

Reynolds then goes on to present what could be described as an updated version of his previous article, and then completes his implied attribution to me as an advocate of “NBB” by boasting that he’s got me on side to argue such a case.

[[Get them in court and cross-examine them under oath. That is a new ball game and I strongly suspect that an attorney of the “Gerard Holmgren” variety would crush them. ]]

In fact it appears that if there is anyone who is terrified of being “crushed” by me, it is Reynolds himself. Because as his duplicity has gradually become clear to me over time, I have repeatedly challenged him to debate the physics of why Newtonian laws prove NBB but not no planes. Reynolds is not only too afraid to debate this question, he is even afraid to openly declare himself as holding such a position. Take this piece of slithering doublespeak from an email dated April 28 2007.

Responding to Nico Haupt’s observation that Reynolds “hugs smaller planes”, Reynolds proceeded to both deny and confirm the accusation within the space of of one sentence.

[[Nico, Reynolds does not “hug smaller planes” but leaves open the question of what
really happened for lack of adequate evidence yet. But we have overwhelming proof that Boeings did not crash at any of the four designated sites. That is beyond doubt.]]

So within the one sentence, Reynolds claims not to hug smaller planes and then goes on to assert that there is a lack of adequate evidence to say that no such planes crashed into the WTC. Can you say “doublethink”?

“Lack of adequate evidence yet”. Exactly the same line that he was hawking more than a year earlier in his first article. No development of that position. The question which more than a year earlier was dismissed with the vague promise that it

[[awaits another day ]]

apparently still

[[awaits another day ]].

The question which more than a year earlier was dismissed with

[[I do not have enough evidence yet to say.]]

has since received not one word of analysis or debate from Reynolds and when pressed about it is reiterated as

[[lack of adequate evidence yet.]]

Note the sleight of hand here. By using the term “lack of adequate evidence”, Reynolds attempts to create the impression that he is simply not expressing any view at all. This is pure deception. Reynolds is presenting a very definite view. He is stating that physics observations prove beyond doubt that Boeings did not crash, but that the same physics observations do not make the same case against other kinds of planes. This is therefore a covertly expressed, but nevertheless clear claim that one has strong reason to believe that other kinds of planes might behave differently to “big Boeings” in such a situation.

To assert that Newtonian physics prove something beyond doubt in relation to one kind of plane but provide “a lack of adequate evidence” in relation to some other kind of plane, Reynolds is quite clearly putting forward the view that there is something fundamentally different about the way that different kinds of planes respond to such physical laws.

If that’s the argument, then lets hear it. No such luck. In more than a year of thundering against “big Boeings” but declaring himself agnostic about other kinds of planes ,Reynolds has never addressed one word of analysis or argument to reasons for this difference. He has provided nothing but brief generic conclusions implying a vague promise that one day he’ll get around to it. We have been patient with him, but that patience has now run out.

In this recent email he again employs his masterful use of doublespeak to give the impression that he’s not suggesting anything at all. That he simply has no opinion. As shown above this subliminal suggestion does not stand up to close scrutiny. He is expressing a very definite opinion. That there is no reason for any confidence in applying Newtonian physics in this way to any kind of plane other than “big Boeings”.

He’s now had plenty of time to argue that case. But he prefers to try to pretend that it’s not his position.

Since he wont provide such a case in his articles, he has been repeatedly challenged on email lists to present such arguments there and refuses to do so. Perhaps he is afraid that

[[an attorney of the “Gerard Holmgren” variety would crush them. ]]

So afraid in fact, that he tries to deny holding any opinion at all, by means of the duplicitous slithering quoted and analyzed above.

This is a contemptible and cowardly attitude. On the one hand, Reynolds boasts that he has me on hand to “crush” his opponents for him, apparently chortling in glee over their impending destruction at my hands, but then runs off in a hurry when asked to take his own medicine. While using – or to put it more specifically – *misrepresenting* my work and touting my name in an apparent attempt to scare or intimidate plane huggers, the professed respect for me doesn’t go as far as being prepared to put his NBB spin to the test in a debate with me.

It was OK to directly copy my physics observations to use in his own article, but those same observations are not worth the time to test in debate.

I have been misused and misrepresented by Reynolds for too long now. I have been more than patient with him in waiting for him to clear up what I first thought (foolishly so on my part) to be anomalies, uncertainties and teething problems in the learning process on his part, but are now revealed as having been part of a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception campaign from the beginning.

So it appears that some “crushing” has now become necessary.

This article has only scratched the surface of the duplicitous game of the 9/11 Liars Club of Fetzer,Wood and Reynolds.

In future installments, I will analyze how the duplicity of Reynolds as exposed in this article is integrated into a carefully planned network of deception with fellow Liar’s Club members, Fetzer and Wood.‹ This Is Gerard Holmgren’s Site There’s No Research HereupIt’s an angry little truthling ›theSaiGirl’s blogLogin or register to post comments444 reads

Comment viewing options

Flat list – collapsedFlat list – expandedThreaded list – collapsedThreaded list – expandedDate – newest firstDate – oldest first10 comments per page30 comments per page50 comments per page70 comments per page90 comments per page150 comments per page200 comments per page250 comments per page300 comments per pageSelect your preferred way to display the comments and click “Save settings” to activate your changes.

theSaiGirl's picture

Mining for useful insights

Submitted by theSaiGirl on Sun, 2007-07-22 06:02.

It’s important not to let Holmgren’s rhetorical excesses, rude temperment and insufferable arrogance get in the way of the well-thought-out content of his method.

He extrapolates very logically, almost mathematically, down the paths and implications and agendas represented by these individuals,
…the muddying of waters to service variant possible narratives,
… the introduction of a tolerable level of cognitive dissonance around this or that contradictory and arbirtary configuration of dual facts
…. the undermining of basic and essential facts that would be the foundation
for any kind of case or argument.

He argues with a very ruthless and precise logic.

Unfortunately, most of his projections and predictions over the years have turned out to be correct.
So, empirically speaking, we really have no choice but to consider the lab record, when modeling the likely future paths and behaviors of the individiuals and evolving world-views to be packaged for consumption.

I believe that there is also a kind of social construct model described here; or form of organization (style of social network “realtionships” accomplished through manipulation of others, individual manipulation of thirid- and fourth- parties and, especially, organized self-deception.
This reads like a clinical pathological or socio-pathological biopsy, which Holmgren dissects in sometimes excruciating detail.

It is rather like parsing a strictly legal argument.

A style some might mis-charactarize as “pedantic” or Talmudic ….
.. as self-serving opportunist and apple-polishing careerist James Fetzer might characterize it
It’s really the painful and depressing ethical implications, presented here, that make the most difficult reading.

Holmgren really does drag us back to Orwell again.
And one wonders whether figures like Wood or Reynolds are themselves somehow assimilated into a permanent structure of deception, ventilated by lots of vague and indecisive “clues” to “truth” …
just enough to keep things “in control” … politcally, ideologically…

As you read thru the brief excerpt below, keep in mind that WE ALREADY KNOW the historical role played by Fetzer …

Recall how Fetzer was “manipulated”
(according to Fetzer’s own testimony)
by Floum, Steve Jones, Fred Burks … and
Fetzer himself has publicly conceded that he was conned and shucked and jived by the covert faction of “Los Alamos 9/11 Truth”… for quite some time.

But now.. he has seen the light.
And he has broken the bonds of darkness and deception.
He is born anew…. ready to lead.

Think about Fetzer’s relationship (again historically and structurally) to other figures who somehow, magickally, get MSM exposure …..
or mainstream fake “alternative” media
from Alex Jones to John Stadtmiller, to Phil Berg and Webster Tarpley…

Think about who ends up making it onto that cable TV screen the most; when they get the exposure and how they get it (that’s never unplanned or spontaneous) ……

Think about the whole way this “9/11 truth” thing has been structured and synchronized from a media management point-of-view.

Put it in it larger social context.

And think about how emerging directions of thought (research) and new social tendencies challenging the authority of corporate media domination (activism) … might be channeled, contained, “satisfied” with empty symbolic “victories” … content to live lip-service to “truth” that is engieered to go nowhere….

That’s what it makes it the most gut-wrenching of all…

Note the sleight of hand here. By using the term “lack of adequate evidence”, Reynolds attempts to create the impression that he is simply not expressing any view at all. This is pure deception. Reynolds is presenting a very definite view. He is stating that physics observations prove beyond doubt that Boeings did not crash, but that the same physics observations do not make the same case against other kinds of planes. This is therefore a covertly expressed, but nevertheless clear claim that one has strong reason to believe that other kinds of planes might behave differently to “big Boeings” in such a situation.

To assert that Newtonian physics prove something beyond doubt in relation to one kind of plane but provide “a lack of adequate evidence” in relation to some other kind of plane, Reynolds is quite clearly putting forward the view that there is something fundamentally different about the way that different kinds of planes respond to such physical laws.

If that’s the argument, then lets hear it. No such luck. In more than a year of thundering against “big Boeings” but declaring himself agnostic about other kinds of planes ,Reynolds has never addressed one word of analysis or argument to reasons for this difference. He has provided nothing but brief generic conclusions implying a vague promise that one day he’ll get around to it. We have been patient with him, but that patience has now run out.

In this recent email he again employs his masterful use of doublespeak to give the impression that he’s not suggesting anything at all. That he simply has no opinion. As shown above this subliminal suggestion does not stand up to close scrutiny. He is expressing a very definite opinion. That there is no reason for any confidence in applying Newtonian physics in this way to any kind of plane other than “big Boeings”.

He’s now had plenty of time to argue that case. But he prefers to try to pretend that it’s not his position.
Since he wont provide such a case in his articles, he has been repeatedly challenged on email lists to present such arguments there and refuses to do so. Perhaps he is afraid that

[[an attorney of the “Gerard Holmgren” variety would crush them. ]]

So afraid in fact, that he tries to deny holding any opinion at all, by means of the duplicitous slithering quoted and analyzed above.

This is a contemptible and cowardly attitude. On the one hand, Reynolds boasts that he has me on hand to “crush” his opponents for him, apparently chortling in glee over their impending destruction at my hands, but then runs off in a hurry when asked to take his own medicine. While using – or to put it more specifically – *misrepresenting* my work and touting my name in an apparent attempt to scare or intimidate plane huggers, the professed respect for me doesn’t go as far as being prepared to put his NBB spin to the test in a debate with me.

It was OK to directly copy my physics observations to use in his own article, but those same observations are not worth the time to test in debate.

I have been misused and misrepresented by Reynolds for too long now. I have been more than patient with him in waiting for him to clear up what I first thought (foolishly so on my part) to be anomalies, uncertainties and teething problems in the learning process on his part, but are now revealed as having been part of a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception campaign from the beginning.

Why I took my site down (By Gerard Holmgren back in 2007)

Submitted by Gerard Holmgren on Wed, 2007-07-04 13:32.

This is my first and final post on this forum.

I have dispensed with the normally meticulous standards of documentation and logic which I use in my articles.

The reason – hardly anybody ever takes any notice. Since ranting is a lot less work than careful, considered and documented argument, but the former seems to be respected more than the latter in the cesspit of 911untruth, then why not ?

Why not just do things the easy way in my very last contribution to this nuthouse, since 99% of you have already made up your mind what to “think”, and no amount of careful documentation or logical argument will make the slightest difference to your idiotillogical convictions?

A warning – the language in this post is distinctly unpleasant , but it still comes nowhere near describing my anger – because there are not words in the language which can express it.

The purpose is simply to clarify the truth about why I took my site down.

Now I hope that just this once – in my final piece of writing on the subject of 911untruth – you allow me the indulgence of asking you to simply believe what I say. After all, I think I’m the one who knows the truth about why I took my site down.

Is that OK with everyone, or do I have to provide verified brainwave readings in order to determine that I’m not lying about why I took my site down ? No-one took any notice of documentation in previous articles, so I assume that it’s OK…

Speaking of lying – it is the lies told about this subject by the two faced, backstabbing treacherous Webhag and her Nazi sidekick Hauptmeister, which have caused me to come (reluctantly) once more into this nuthouse in order to refute those lies.

Cheap insults and name calling ? Why not ? There’s been plenty of that in that in amongst the vicious McCarthyist pack of lies that these two swine have told in the Stalinist style denouncement of Coffinman. So why don’t I join the fun of name calling and cheap insults too ?

During this dispute ,it is Coffinman who has displayed integrity and told the truth. Regardless of whether one agrees with him on all points of judgment and opinion, he has stood up for the principles of honesty and transparency and – importantly – has told the truth about how this dispute began.

This is in stark contrast to the malicious, deceptive and destructive pitchfork parading of the Webhag and the Hauptmeister ( who apparently believes that bus drivers and trans-sexuals belong in death camps).

Oh, have I exaggerated ? Have I (gasp) *misrepresented* him ? Well, fair’s fair. If the Hauptmeister wants to resort to low personal smears of that sort (sneering at someone’s occupation and gender history) in addition to flat out LYING about why I took my website down, all in the pursuit of the campaign to “denounce” Coffinman in Stalinist style, then why don’t we all join the party?

This smear from Adolph Hauptmeister is one of the lowest things I’ve ever seen. The target of his Stalinist denouncement – Coffinman – runs his videos from the servers of a certain person who is a participant in the nuthouse into which I have temporarily descended in order to write some home truths for the denizens of untruth to squabble over. Looking for a cheap gutter point to score against CM, our resident third Reich reject couldn’t find anything of substance ,so he resorted to sneering at the owner of this server as a “trans-sexual bus driver”.

Apart from the complete irrelevance of the server owner’s occupation and gender history, what makes this really low is that Hauptmeister – who’s dispute was with CM – evidently considered the server owner’s feelings to be acceptable collateral damage. The Commandant doesn’t care who else he hurts in order to score any kind of gutter point he can against the target of his Stalinist campaign.

Now I’ll throw down a challenge to the gutless Hauptmeister. The next time that it finds it necessary to get on a bus, why doesn’t it try insulting the driver to their face and telling them what a useless crap life they lead – and cop the consequences directly ?

Because he’s a gutless lying turd. “Bus drivers” not good enough for us , eh ? We need “distinguished professors” of critically ill thinking to swoon over.

So – to the specific lie which I am addressing.

Coffinman stated – quite correctly – that the reason that I took my site down was because I was devastated by the utter treachery, lies and backstabbing, poisonous McCarthyism of the Webhag – who has betrayed everything that I thought that we were fighting for.

Now – put aside for the moment whether you think that my assessment of the Webhag is accurate, and if so whether my response was appropriate. Regardless of how you might judge the situation, this is the *absolute truth* about why I took down my website.

Coffinman stated that truth – and was called a liar for it. The Hauptmeister *lied* in response to CM, saying that I had taken down my site in response to a hack on other servers, apparently fearing that mine would also be attacked. The Nazi scum *knew* he was lying. He *knew* that he was just making that up. Because the Nazi scum had absolutely no way of knowing why my site was down, so he was lying in a calculated, premeditated way, just to score a point against Coffinman, by being able to call him a liar.

The Commandant ( who’s various addresses I have been blocking for months) had no way of knowing why my site was down because I’ve had no communication with SS headquarters – a point which Adolph himself actually made the mistake of admitting in a previous post. (Oops, there I go, breaking the rules of 911untruth by resorting to logic and documentation) – sorry , I’ll get back to the insults and ranting…

If the Commandant had said something like “I don’t know if what Coffinman says is true, because I’ve had no communication with Gerard” Then that would have been fine.

But it lied. It *fabricated* a reason – on my behalf -knowing that it was a complete fabrication, and then used that fabricated “fact” to call CM a liar.

Now, I can already hear the cries of “this is so petty ! We need to get back to working for the truth ! “

Excuse me ! Your self appointed leaders, forum moderators and spokescreatures are flat out *lying* to you – in the pursuit of a Stalinist campaign against one of the better researchers, and it’s all yawns and “who cares if Haupt lied ?…”

Do you see the remarkable similarities to the flag wavers, who refuted early complicity style evidence by casually remarking “Who cares if Bush lied about when he got to the school and whether he saw the plane crash on TV ?”

Who cares if your fellow untruthers are *lying* to you in order to smear and discredit fellow researchers ?

Now to the more serious lies of the despicable Webhag.

“The ultimate conspiracy” Hah ! More like “the ultimate treachery”.

This dispute began on a small email list. I’m not going to go into a lot of detail, but having seen the fallout which has been posted here, I will state that Coffinman has told the absolute truth about how that dispute began and that the Webhag has lied and lied and lied and lied. The Witch has twisted his words, projected her own lies and ugly prejudices on to him, has used every despicable smoke throwing technique possible in order to cover the original lies it told in that dispute and use the result as a McCarthyist style denouncement of someone who was standing up for ethics, proper philosophical principles and – worst of all – telling the truth about how the dispute began.

If you don’t believe me, look at the lie which I just exposed by the Hauptmeister. Unless of course – you want to allege that I’m the one lying about why I took my site down ?

I’ll skip over the details of the original dispute except to say that the Web – bitch has now revealed herself as a supporter of lies, doublethink, and slogan chanting hero worship of the worst sort. The creature is also cheering defamatory lies about other researchers. She openly cheered the defamatory lies told about me by Reynolds and accused me of leading a “pitchfork parade” against her hero Wood, simply because I refused to accept Reynolds’ lies and doublethink.

The Web-witch knowingly and deliberately protected Reynolds by smothering all examination of his writing with shrill screams that it was all a plot to get Wood, and accusing us of being sexists.

As part of its smoke throwing campaign to protect Reynolds, it even suggested that Wood was actually an android manufactured by NASA for the purpose of helping us to spread real truth.
Hmmm… I’m sure that NASA is working over time to help us… But it was only pretending to be stupid. Trolls know that pretending to be stupid is the best way to squash any real discussion and analysis.

The aim of the Webhag was to squash any discussion of the lies of Reynolds by screaming at the top of her voice about Wood. Unfortunately CM took the bait and got sucked into an argument about Wood, in response to this clever distraction tactic from the Were-witch. Once CM took the bait, then the Webwitch had the discussion where it wanted it with a screaming tirade that anybody who even questioned her Woodliness was a “jackbooting sexist”. And also made it clear that to question his magnificence Reynolds was tantamount to the crime of also questioning her Woodliness.

The Hag said that it was OK for Reynolds to lie because he was protecting Wood. And it was OK for Wood to lie because due to hormonal factors, a woman will always lie for a man who protects her. (It seems that the circuit board of the robot that NASA built for us is even able to simulate female emotions.)

When CM took the bait by stating that he doesn’t accept that premise , but pointed out *if* it were true, then doesn’t mean that Wood is inherently unreliable anyway – then the Webhag started screaming “sexist” at him.

If you can believe it – this is the true origin of the hateful smear campaign against the “sexist jackboot” CM.

Now – you want to know what started all of this ?

I committed a terrible , terrible crime.

I observed that Reynolds has suddenly declared himself to be a no planer after all and is assuring us that he really always was, that he was just lying for the last two years in pretending not to be. Now why, oh why, am I so cynical, given that his sudden conversion came immediately in the wake of my critique of his doublethinking on the issue ?…

But never mind. I suggested that a simple way to test whether my cynicism was justified would be to see whether he was prepared to debate the issue of planes with either Fetzer or Wood. You know… see if political loyalties were still more important than truth.

The Webhag , knowing full well the game that Reynolds was playing and seeing that such a test would unmask him, then hit the roof in a vicious tirade of smoke throwing about her Woodliness.

Also note that Reynolds reply article to me had contained vicious defamatory flat out *lies* about me, and that the treacherous Webhag was cheering these lies with great enthusiasm.

This dispute was never about Wood. It was about Reynolds, and the Were-witch – *knowing* that Reynolds was lying – deliberately protected him in a calculated manner by sabotaging a proposed test – by means of a shrill tirade about Wood. This also also protected the serial liar Fetzer.

These are the scum with whom the Webhag has now allied herself. And the vicious bitch is playing both sides by cheering my critique of Reynolds *and* cheering his lying, slithering defamatory response *and* cheering my response to that. It is doublethinking even worse than Reynolds himself now.

This has betrayed everything – *everything* that we have ever worked for.

CM tried to stand up for the same principles as me, but unfortunatly made the mistake of taking the bait in allowing the Hag to suck him into a debate about Wood, and that is what has been presented on this forum.

Reynolds will never be tested now. The lying treacherous, backstabbing Hag has won. Reynolds, Fetzer and Wood are now the *leaders* of the no planers. Except that none of them actually are no planers. Griffinization successfully completed. Planes both did and did not hit the WTC. Established by means of the treacherous Webhag.

And in order to complete this treachery, the despicable Witch has made CM the sacrificial lamb to take the fall as the cover for her treachery.

*That* is why I took my site down. And now the lying Webhag and Hauptmeister are even lying about that.

But this betrayal by the backstabbing Hag has been building for months.

Months ago, I retired from S11 activites. Why ? Because you (nearly) *all* betrayed me.

Months ago, I picked the dirty little game that Fetzer, Wood, Reynolds and Jones were playing.
The impending Griffinization of the no planes issue, achieved by manufacturing a staged fight between Jones and the other three, in order to dangle exo-weaponry as the carrot to allow Fetzer, Wood and Reynolds to take over and control the no planes issue and Griffinize it.

What I never imagined was the backstabbing Hag was in on it too.

At that time, the evil Witch furiously abused me for daring to tell the truth about Fetzer and co, calling me “hateful”, “spiteful”, “vengeful”. I thought at the time that the witch just didn’t see what was going on.

But when it was made clear to me that it didn’t matter how many lies Fetzer told and how well I documented them, nobody cared, I retired. But the evil bitch wouldn’t accept that either. Then she started abusing me for retiring and sneering at me that it made me look pathetic, and hassled me to come back. She put me on to lists in spite of specific and firm instructions to be left off. When I asked to be taken off those lists, she refused, and sneered at me in private for asking, and kept baiting me with snippets of the philosophical atrocities of Fetzer and co – knowing that I would be unable to resist taking the bait. Because she needed me to control Fetzer and co. I wasn’t allowed to knock them out. I was just needed to clip their wings from time to time.

So the Were- witch would bait me into contests with them, cheer for me when I cut them down, but then start abusing me as “hateful” and “vengeful” and “spiteful” if I got them tied up too badly.

The Hag was playing me for a sucker the whole time.

The Webhag even pressured me to ease off on Jones. And that was what really made me hit the roof this last time around. It was the Hag who applied extreme pressure for me to ease off Jones, when I had him just about down and out. The Bitch said that I had gone too far. That I was “hateful” and “vengeful” and “spiteful” and that even Jones didn’t deserve what I was doing to him. Under this pressure, I did as the Hag commanded.

And now – in this recent misery-go-round, the backstabbing, treacherous, two faced bitch yelled at me that while I was doing a “pitchfork parade against Wood” – by asking Reynolds to demonstrate his commitment and debating skills in relation to his sudden conversion – that the evil Jones was getting a free pass. That was *my* fault that Jones as getting a free pass?

Fucking, two faced, treacherous, backstabbing bitch !

The Hag had me on the misery-go-round for months. Utterly disrespecting my desire to be left alone in the wake of the takeover of the no planes scene by Fetzer, Reynolds and Wood, the bitch would haul me out of retirement when needed to whip one of them into shape a bit and then abuse me back into retirement once the necessary clipping of wings had been done.

This recent incident was the same old cycle. The Hag took exception to an email from Reynolds saying that no planes wasn’t proven and came running to me for a bit of help, knowing that I wouldn’t be able to resist taking the bait. I did the job I was asked – culminating in my critique of Reynolds, and then the backstabbing Hag starts cheering for the defamatory lies about me in Reynolds’ retaliatory article, and then blocks my attempt to expose his deception and then abuses me back into retirement with another tirade about my “hateful” “spiteful” “vengeful” campaign.

This is a sample of how the Hag reacted to my proposal to get Reynolds to debate either Fetzer or Wood on the subject in which Reynolds supposedly now believed with such conviction.

(Oops, here I go providing documentation again – how boring ! ) Perhaps I should revert to the normal standards of this forum and ask the Hauptmeister how many goons he takes with him on his fun nights out bashing trans-sexuals and bus drivers…

Anyway, here is an example of the Hag’s tirade.

[[The part that makes me want to say oh fuck it all is that the more you do, the more you provide, the more you care, the worse you get attacked.

If one percent of the energy spent attacking Judy Wood and trying to dig up dirt on Judy Wood had been aimed at Willie Rodrigues or “Dr” Greg Jenkins I wouldn’t be so disgusted right now.
They get a free pass while almost nothing has been accomplished by 911insidejobbers in a month except examining Judy Wood with a microscope.
If there aren’t two Dr. Judy Wood’s, then ours has some pretty incredible credentials.
It has even occurred to me that “Our” Judy Wood might be an Andriod based partly on the “real” one who works for NASA in man-machine interfaces.
And even that doesn’t bother me a bit cos her site is still a magmificent statement of how to use ones eyes to see with.

And her only reward has been hideous attacks. I went through a lot, but nobody ever called me some of the names they used on her.
And now you guys are planning how to eliminate her.
I’m just sick about this.
She has faced more betrayal than anybody: her “friend” alex, aka Spooked, is the worst for trying to cut down and belittle her work while he hugs “minimukes” which are to me the number one sign of Spook Coverup ever since Dave Shaw ‘s repulsive mix of Technical Rap and Grovelling with the intent that we would all join him in stoning Judy Wood.

I know how hard it is to speak up against someone who has been a bodyguard, cos I feel that way about Gerard Holmgren’as standing up for me makes it almost imopssible for me to criticize him.
But a pitchfork parade he’s leading is just as lowdown shitty negative craphood as if anybody else did it.]]

Now let’s get this in perspective. This was the Bitch’s response to a proposal from me that we get Reynolds to debate no planes with either Fetzer or Wood.

Now, just in case the lying, backstabbing, two faced bitch now wants to weasel her way out of the lies of the Hauptmeiester ( I took my site down, because I was scared of being hacked and CM is a liar in blaming the treachery of the Hag…)

This is what I wrote in return.

[[Excuse me ?

My “attack” on Wood was to ask her whether Fetzer’s challenge to Newton’s third law was scientifically valid. It’s not my fault that I had to ask 20 times and still didn’t get an answer.

But then again, it was my fault for being so impertinent as to ask the great one question which might make chips fall in an inconvenient place.

It’s fine to use Socratic questioning on Griffin, but using it on Wood is a “pitchfork parade.”

The truthlings are duplicitous doublethinkers for screaming outrage over me simply asking Griffin whether or not Hence had misrepresented him in saying that he didn’t support demolition or Pentagon hoax.

But if I use the same firm, basic reasonable line of questioning to Wood, then it’s a “pitchfork parade.”

Well , I’ll tell you what I’m sick of. Having to always be the headkicker because no one else has both the insight and the courage to do so *before* things get completely out of control, being used as the headkicker to get people out of the jams they got themselves into by not listening to me earlier, and then once that’s been done being labeled as spiteful and hateful for the job that I got done.

I made myself a pariah by standing up to Jones when no-one else would. If a few more people had caught on and followed at the time, we might have cut him down before he got started.

But at the time I was told that that my counter attack was spiteful and hateful and that I’d gone too far. Under the pressure to relent, I finally took my foot off his throat against my better judgment and gave him a second chance.

And then just the other day, I got berated because Jones was getting a free pass – which apparently was my fault.

I saw through the staged Fetzer\Jones fight before anyone else, and made myself a pariah again in trying to point it out. Again, all I did was ask a question to expose it, but once again it was unacceptable for me to use the same method which had been cheered when I used it on Gold and Griffin. So who’s doublethinking now ?

Because my warnings about the 3 stooges were almost completely ignored, then this time, rather than fight, I let people have their own way. I said

“Fine , keep working with those 3, but don’t include me. Leave me alone. Do whatever you want, but leave me out of it. Have your own mess, but don’t bother me with it any more.”

But even that couldn’t be permitted. No matter how many times I said ” It’s them or me, you can’t write to both of us.”, it was ignored.

I warned people what would happen if they continued to include me with those 3 spookers, but then they react with outrage when I turned every list into an attack on them. If people didn’t like it, then the answer was simple – leave me off anything which included them – as I asked. It doesn’t matter whether people thought I right or wrong, because all I asked was to be allowed to act according to my own views in *private*. That is, if I was unable to convince people that our entire community was being run by 3 cointelpros, to be allowed to simply opt out, according to my own view.

But no – spitting in my face was too much fun. I had to be included on all these nuthouse lists against my wishes – at the same time as being told to lay off the “pitchfork parades.”

So I do my best to disappear from the mad house rather than disrupt it any more, since its inhabitants are so fond of the other company there, and then I’m criticized for being a hermit.

But as soon as Reynolds’ scam finally dawns on them – as I’d warned months before -, and they don’t know how to handle it – who do they come running to for a bit of Socratic muscle ? Me.

Reynolds got out of hand and some head kicking was needed, so I’m hauled out of retirement to do the job, and then the moment it’s done, I’m again told that I’ve been hateful and spiteful.

In fact after all the work I put into exposing the scam of the 3 stooges, Reynolds only has to send one wishy washy nice email, and all of a sudden I’m the bad guy again.

Well, I’m going to make good on the warning I gave last time, when I said “don’t ask me to come and clean up the mess when the monster gets out of control.”

Clean up your own mess. You’ll get no more “pitch fork parades” from me.

Do * not* ever again ask for my help when the doublethink and layered deceptions get out of control. Work it out yourselves.





And how did the hateful, spiteful, vengeful, backstabbing bitch react ? By taking me off the list and letting me go back into retirement ? Hah ? In your dreams ! The hateful emails continued to pour in.

For example.

[[There is absolutely nothing Judy Wood has done to harm anybody.
She produced a brilliant site. She isn’t pontificating, she has gone silent.

I am sorry for the close juxtoposition of the fact Holmgren bodyguarded me, which makes me reluctant to criticize him with the word Pitchfork Parade.

I cheer for Coffinman standing up for Principles and Objective Reality. How the subject got switched to driving Judy Wood out of the movement makes my middle fingers twitchy.]]

How the subject got switched… It was the Hag herself who switched it – in deliberate and calculated manner in order to protect Reynolds. In order to throw smoke at my proposal to test how genuine was Reynolds’ conversion. That’s what started this tirade about Wood. Unfortunately CM didn’t see the game that the Witch was playing and took the bait and entered into the debate about Wood.

Then the bitch started the sexist crap and projected that on to CM too.

After this it didn’t matter how many times I said “take me off this list.” Just more hate and lies poured in through my mailbox.

So I had to block the Hag’s address.

And just in case there was any doubt about how I felt about things, this is what I wrote to the Hag in an email entitled “Blocking your address”..

[[Fuck you, you malicious, lying, manipulative, backstabbing ungrateful, slimy, cripple kicking two faced piece of shit !


Now I would have thought that an email like this made my displeasure rather clear.

So I think it’s rather obvious why I took my site down. But the Hauptmeister *lies* about that too, and in the process falsely accuses CM of lying.

And as we’ll see the Webhag then pretended not to get this email, and tried to bribe me into making CM take the blame for everything.

Every word of what the Webhag and Nazi Commandant have written about this on this forum is a lie. CM has been the victim of a campaign of outright lies about how this started.

These two despicable individuals are some of the lowest, treacherous scum that I ever encountered.

Now – check the next slimy move of the double-dealing Webhag. A classic Stalinist move. The email below pretends to be unaware of the foul mouthed tirade that I had sent earlier. Knowing that I had blocked its address, the hideous creature wrote to me from a different address.

[[I have grave reservations about Coffinman and whatever it is in your articles that makes it into a Jackboot Hangout for him.

You were never into that. You were into individual individuals independently independent.
Now “singularity” means “hangoutable.”
Your site was certainly singular.]]

Note that earlier, the creature from hell had been berating me for a “negative” “hateful” “spiteful” “craphead” campaign against Wood ( for asking her to affirm Newton’s third law and proposing that we test Reynolds in a no plane debate.)

But now, all of a sudden, it’s CM alone who is the villain for twisting my excellent deconstruction of Reynolds into a “pitchfork parade” against Wood. All of a sudden, I’m a noble campaigner for truth against the doublethinking of Reynolds ( in spite of the fact that the Hag had been cheering Reynolds’ slithering lies) and good people like me just want to stay away from crapheads like CM who are trying to twist my good work for evil purposes.

Read between the lines.

What it says is – “ Come back and bask in the status of a revered hero – on the understanding that everyone will gush with admiration at your work, while taking no notice of it whatsoever. You will keep up appearances by the means of token attacks on the worst excesses of Reynolds and Fetzer – on the understanding that no –one will really take any notice, that your writing wont go beyond the permitted parameters, and that everyone will cheer and ignore you. You will be like an honorary head of state – to whom everyone makes a pretence of bowing and deferring while the real decisions are made elsewhere. Fetzer, Reynolds and Wood will lead us, the Webhag will be their whip, you will be the revered but ignored elder statesman, and this little hiccup will be sorted out by denouncing CM as the troublemaker and traitor who tried to twist your work into an attack on her Woodenness.”

This is exactly the tactic that the Stalinists and McCarthyists used to coerce people into denouncing those about to become unperson – as a means of protecting themselves.

I don’t know if you can follow this – but then again, most of you couldn’t follow a fishing line hooked through your nose. How thoroughly and how many times do I have to document the lies of Fetzer ? But the Webhag prances around Fetzer’s feet like a pathetic poodle, licking his boots and begging for scraps, but turning into a snarling Doberman to protect him when necessary, while also playing the other side by sneering at his lies and philosophical abominations just enough to fool people into thinking that that the creature from hell is onto him.

In any research and analysis community with even the slightest shred of integrity and intelligence, Fetzer would have been tarred and feathered and rolled out of town on the railroad track almost as soon as he appeared. Astonished at the failure to do this, I have exposed him over and over again, as well as exposing the unconditional loyalty to this craphead by Reynolds and Wood, but its like trying to explain crash physics to a truthling.

Which brings us to the bigger picture of why I took down my site.

Complete the paragraph.

The mainstream left is as bad as the warmongers. The anti war movement is as bad as the left. The truthlings are as bad as the anti war movement. The no planers are…

Did you manage to complete the paragraph ?

What this has demonstrated is that the no brainers are as big a bunch of lying doublethinking crapheads as the truthlings. You all think that you are so precious and special just because you’ve realized the media hoax on S11. It doesn’t change anything. Demolition is promoted by the truthlings not because it’s true but just because the truth is a fortunate coincidence with their black-hearted agenda. What makes you think that the promotion of the media hoax somehow changes the logical progression in the above uncompleted paragraph ?

The same double thinking. The same “lying for truth”. The same craphead “unity drives” and hero worship. (All hail the *PROFESSORS* (and sneer at the bus drivers). The same Stalinist denouncements of anyone who stands up ( like CM) against the corrupt power brokers (Webhag and the Nazi Goon). The same theft and twisting of intellectual property disguised by the hysterical cheering of the big name heroes who will propel the ultimate truth into the MSM.

Just as there are rare marginalized gems amongst the right, the left, the anti war movement and the LIHOPPERS and the MIHOPPER lites, there are rare marginalized gems amongst the no brainers.

I am speaking generically now – so I ask the forgiveness of those who deserve it – but you no brainers are no better than the truhlings. In fact you are worse.

In a bizarre way, the truhlings were right. The truth does not matter. Because the truth alone will not change the evil in people’s hearts, and the power games they play. And the evil and the power games that I have seen in the no brainers easily matches anything I’ve seen from the truthlings.

If you thought that I was angry about the theft and twisting of my work by Hoffman and Griffin, etc, that is nothing compared to the Orwellian evil that I see looming from you bunch of lying doublethinking cunts. That is why I took my site down.

I’ve learned the lessons from the earlier betrayals. I don’t want you fucking cunts twisting my work for the Orwellian, Stalinist “TV fakery exposure” nightmare that you are cooking up.

Griffin and co were benign compared to you cunts.

I no longer care whether people know that it was an inside job. I no longer care whether they find out that there were no planes. Because regardless of whether we get Ghoulinai, Hitlary Clinton, Cindy Shitting, Kyle sit on the fence, His Holy truthliness Griffin or Moregames Reynolds as our next ruler and hero, it doesn’t change the evil, the treachery, the doublethinking, the malice, the lies, the power games.

I don’t want my well intended but naïve attempt to change things over the last nearly six years used by you cunts in the (s)election campaign for Moregames Reynolds.

The backstabbing treachery by the Webhag is the bitterest betrayal of them all. The betrayal is both personal and against the larger issue of truth and philosophical ethics.

That is why I took my web site down. And I wont be putting it back up. I would rather have people believe in mad Arab hijackers than join in your Orwellian nightmare. Actually, I don’t care what specifics the moron masses believe in. Because underneath it’s the same old lies.

On Sept 11. people got exactly what they deserved – exactly what they wish on everyone other than themselves. And every lying piece of shit has sctrambled to use it for their own power game. The anti war movement, the truhtlings and the no brainers. No difference between any of them.

In closing I’d like to say to thank you to the very few who remained true, and “fuck you” to the rest. I’d like to see the Stalinist campaign against CM end, but I know that I’m pissing in the wind there, because the no brainers – just like truthlings – are in desperate need of a bus driver to bash, a professor to cheer and a lie to chant. I just hope that CM has enough strength and clarity of vision to walk away on his own terms before you cunts crucify him completely.

I’d like to say a special “fuck you” to the Webhag who has played me for a sucker and betrayed everything that I thought we were working for.

Above all, I’d like to remind you of one terrible, horrible, unpalatable truth.

That whatever you think of my rant and my position in general, you can’t escape the fact that
CM *told you the truth* about why I took my site down, and the Hauptmeister lied to you. Reflect on that simple fact…

And finally…

Check this from


Someone has salvaged some of my work for you cunts to scrabble over, with the following into.

[[“Thank you, Gerard, for ‘Giving a Shit’ for so Long.”
-The Webfairy
“WE would have no clue except for [Gerard].
I couldn’t have reached out alone.”- Rosalee Grable]]

You know what this reminds me of ?

The way that corrupt elites assassinate those who have become inconvenient, and then give them a grand funeral with state honours etc – like JFK for example – where half of the mourners with their hands over their hearts and crocodile tears in their eyes are the same bunch who did the killing.

The Webhag assassinated me and everything I stood for- and then delivered a eulogy to a hero at my funeral. Already I can see the beginnings of the unseemly scrabble over my corpse beginning on this forum.

Well this is a voice from the grave.

CM stood up for basic principles of truth, integrity and logic and “letting the chips fall where they may” and got Stalinized.

The Webhag and the Nazi Hauptmeister are two of the lowest most despicable , backstabbing treacherous, lying pieces of shit that I ever had the misfortune to encounter.

Griffinization of no planes is complete. You all think that victory is within your grasp. Well in a way it is. Very soon, Fetzer will be standing up on a podium with the webhag behind him, aanouncing that if you throw a grand piano at a hologram of a pod, it proves that we have dozens of highly qualified experts ( and no bus drivers) to prove that planes both did and did not hit the WTC, thanks to the ground breaking physics research of Moregames Reynolds and the magnificent “911 mysteries video”.

Manufactured Hero Edward Snowden: Caught in a Lie or Cover Story to Protect his Girlfriend’s Privacy?

Manufactured Hero Edward Snowden: Caught in a Lie or Cover Story to Protect his Girlfriend’s Privacy?

Posted on June 10, 2013 by willyloman

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE:  Manufactured Hero Edward Snowden: What are YOU Willing to Risk for Your New FACEBOOK Hero?


This is what $200,000 a year rents in Hawaii?

Edward Snowden said he decided to pack his bags and leave his home for Hong Kong around May 20th when he caught his flight. He said he left his girlfriend behind in the home they shared in Hawaii. He also said he made 200k a year. He said the “NSA police” had gone by his home twice since he had been gone.

Turns out, he and his girlfriend moved out of their little rental home on May 1st. How does that factor in with his story? Was he reassigned to the CIA shop in Hong Kong or is that Century 21 sign in the yard just cover for his girlfriend? Making 200 grand a year with the NSA (pretty easy to maintain good credit there huh?) and he was renting a little bungalow in a suburb?

$200,000 a year? Not bad for a community college drop-out with a GED. At least his rental house makes more sense.

Today it has been revealed that Edward Snowden and his girlfriend moved out of the house they rented on May 1st of this year. THEY packed up everything and moved out, not just him. Almost as if they had some new project they were working on, huh? That’s the story anyway.

A Hawaii real estate agent says Edward Snowden and his girlfriend moved out of their home in a quiet neighborhood near Honolulu on May 1, leaving nothing behind.

Century 21 real estate agent Kerri Jo Heim says Sunday that the owner of the house wanted the couple out so that the home could be sold.

Heim says police came by on Wednesday to ask where the couple went. She told them she didn’t know. Huffington Post

This could mean a couple things: it could mean that the guy is just lying through his teeth and he was reassigned to the new CIA post “right up the road” from the hotel he is staying at. It could mean he left on May 20th to get there and prep for his role with the CIA drama coaches and he and his girlfriend will be jetting off to parts unknown as soon as whatever this psyop is doing is done.

It could mean he was lying about the money he was making as well. Since when does a young man looking to start up his family with his soon to be wife RENT a crappy little house like that if he has NSA connections and $200,000 a year at his disposal?

It could mean he lives in rentals because he knows he could be shipped off to another assignment at a moment’s notice and it JUST SO HAPPENED that the owner of the home asked them to leave at the exact same time he decided to turn his back on the only career he knows and the only career which would ever pay him that much money considering he didn’t even have a high school diploma when he landed the job.

Of course to buy into that, is to dig yourself in deeper to the coincidence theory camp.

It could also mean, and this is probably more likely, that someone is doing what they can to cover for his girlfriend now that his address has become public knowledge. However, that doesn’t add up either. Edward would certainly be aware enough to know that his address is a matter of public record and as soon as he stepped into the spotlight, he was dragging his girlfriend along with him.

It’s not a surprising development one way or the other. What is surprising is that he didn’t mention both he and his girlfriend pulling up stakes on May the 1st in his interview with Glenn Greenwald.

I’ll keep looking into it.

Manufactured Hero Edward Snowden: What are YOU Willing to Risk for Your New FACEBOOK Hero?

Manufactured Hero Edward Snowden: What are YOU Willing to Risk for Your New FACEBOOK Hero?

Posted on June 10, 2013 by willyloman

by Scott Creighton

UPDATES at end of article


For those of you who don’t know, FACEBOOK isn’t just a company that agreed to help out the NSA under their Prism operation, it was created by the NSA and handed over to a couple of guys who played their part and cashed the checks. There have been very few major innovations in the tech world that didn’t come out of military and intelligence R&D over the past few decades, FACEBOOK is certainly no exception.

Edward Snowden is quickly becoming the FACEBOOK HERO of the year. Previous honorees were the likes of Malala (Global privatized education systems for the Middle East) and STOP KONY 2012 (recolonization of the whole of Africa for the benefit of 45 major corporations including Monsanto.

I received an email from World Can’t Wait. Apparently they are running their own Edward The Great campaign. Debra Sweet wrote a long email talking about this guy like he was the reincarnation of Howard Zinn and Martin Luther King Jr. all rolled into one.

She proudly announces the Stand With Edward Snowden campaign and accusingly asks:

“What are you willing to risk for real change?”

What am I willing to risk? I’ve been doing this for 7 years under my own name. When the various and sundry exploits of the NSA and the CIA and the lies of the Pentagon to go to war came out, when they FIRST came out, I was here writing about all of them, under my real name. False flags, staged color revolutions, fake congressional actions which only support the neoliberalizing of America. Even the marketing of the CHANGE candidate, the fake liberal who was nothing more than “George W. Obama” as he was recently called. I was there from the start to the finish and I’ve lost jobs, friends, family members turned their backs on me… all for what? To tell the truth to people about the growing police state and the neoliberalizing of America and the world.

While I was doing that over the past 6 years, Edward Snowden was helping create the lies, helping to sweep up anything and everything all of you said wrote bought and did…  and he was getting paid $200,000 a year to do it while I have had potential employers ask me about American Everyman before telling me I not the right “fit” for the job.

What the fuck am I willing to “risk”? What haven’t I risked? What did Aaron Swartz risk? There was a real activist and look at what it got him. Where’s the calls to Stand With Aaron?

Anyway, that said, the FACEBOOK page for the new Snowden (snowjob?) Movement is up and running called “I Stand with Edward Snowden” (created by Yoni Jakob Brombacher Miller ) so I thought I would share some of the marketing campaign’s choicer quotes (one guy seems to have the right idea though he’s not getting many “likes” on the page “We should be more concerned about organizing around the issue instead of trying to create a hero...”):

(It was started by Yoni who has an interesting image on his FACEBOOK page… it’s a reflection of how tyrannical the Turkish government is, apparently he supports regime change… he’s also one of the guys who posted a picture of the Istanbul Marathon on the bridge from 2012 on his FACEBOOK page claiming it was the current protest. The other photo below the mock flag says a lot to people who pay attention… )

Yoni Jakob Brombacher Miller’s FACEBOOK image

yeah right

Back to the manufactured FACEBOOK Hero comments:

“PLEASE SHARE THIS FAR-AND-WIDE! Details & Press Materials for Today’s Rally. (Includes quotes from activists, whistleblowers, and luminaries.)”

he has given up a very comfortable lifestyle, because letting us know what is really going on was more important, than pretending what was being done wasn’t wrong. We must all take courage,TAKE OFF the blinders”

Yet another American hero. For what it’s worth all my thoughts and prayers go out to this brave young man that he stays safe. Thanks to you too Andy – you guys are cut from the same cloth.”

“There in spirit. A courageous man, I admire what he chose to do for the people, for us.”

What he chose to do “for the people”?

He chose to make serious bank helping to spy on people and subvert democracy and the rule of law for the bankster run government for nearly 10 years. That’s what he did “for the people”

And now he’s safe in Hong Kong ready to start his new life in Iceland as a manufactured hero while NSA run honeypots like FACEBOOK lionize him. While guys who support another regime change operation in Turkey lionize him. While complicit media organizations like Huffington Post, Guardian and the BBC lionize him.

CNN headline today:

Edward Snowden is a hero

Talk about setting the allowed parameters of debate (gate keepers):

“The results of an early Business Insider reader poll suggest that Snowden has won the hearts and minds of people worldwide. Two-thirds of those who responded to the poll think Snowden is a “hero.”” SFGATE

Those are the only choices huh? Hero or traitor? How about option 3 – an intelligence contractor employee doing what intelligence contractors do, “winning hearts and minds”? How bout that for an option?

What exactly did he reveal anyway?

USA Today – 2006

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews..

… The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, this person added.” May 10th, 2006

WIRED –2006

AT&T’s Implementation of NSA Spying on American Citizens

31 December 2005

I wrote the following document in 2004 when it became clear to me that AT&T, at the behest of the National Security Agency, had illegally installed secret computer gear designed to spy on internet traffic. At the time I thought this was an outgrowth of the notorious Total Information Awareness program which was attacked by defenders of civil liberties. But now it’s been revealed by The New York Times that the spying program is vastly bigger and was directly authorized by President Bush, as he himself has now admitted, in flagrant violation of specific statutes and constitutional protections for civil liberties. I am presenting this information to facilitate the dismantling of this dangerous Orwellian project.

AT&T Deploys Government Spy Gear on WorldNet Network— 16 January, 2004

In 2003 AT&T built “secret rooms” hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company’s popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities.” May 17th, 2006

Remember Mark Klein? Remember the FISA bill of 2008 that no one wanted to pass because it gave the telecoms blanket retroactive immunity for committing crimes on behalf of the Bush administration and it kept us from knowing exactly WHAT had been swept up in their blanket surveillance program?

Anybody remember that?

So what has our “hero” really told us that we didn’t already know?

Hell, give him a FACEBOOK hero campaign. Collect money for him. Have a Di$info Jone$ “moneybomb” to pay his “plush hotel” bill “right up the road from the CIA offices in Hong Kong.

But he ain’t no fuckin hero. Sorry to burst your bubble. He’s told us nothing we didn’t already know and if he weren’t being marketed by the MSM like CNN, Guardian, BBC and the New York Times (along with Twitter and FACEBOOK) he would be just another “conspiracy theorists” with the only difference being he’s about 13 years too late with his big revelation.

He’s a product just like “CHANGE” was in 2008!

He’s probably being marketed by the same PR firm.

I saw through that before most and lost friends for that little bit of accurate analysis, and I will probably loose a few here today as well. But that’s a part of the price you pay when you don’t just hop on the KONY 2012 or the LOVE MALALA bandwagons. And I am so far off of this bandwagon apparently FACEBOOK doesn’t want to publish my automatic feeds from WordPress anymore. What a surprise, huh?

What would I be willing to risk for real change?



UPDATE: Just posted them to FACEBOOK myself. We’ll see what happens

UPDATE: Check out the comment section at From the Trenches. Seems to me that this little psyop is starting to fall apart like the Astroturf Adam “Final Revolution” trap did a month ago.

UPDATE:             Is FACEBOOK censoring criticism of their new hero product?

I just checked my FACEBOOK account (I only use it because of automatic feeds from WordPress when I write a new article, like it does with my Twitter account…) not ONE single article I have written about Edward Snowden has been automatically posted to my FACEBOOK accountNot ONE. The last article automatically put up from this site to FACEBOOK was one I wrote on June 6th… I started writing about Edward Snowden on June 7th.


On June 6th, the last article I wrote was Thousands Greet Erdogan at Airport on his Arrival in Turkey   that one was automatically published to FACEBOOK.

The very next article I wrote was about Edward Snowden and the managed revolution taking shape… The Preemptive Revolution to Stave Off the Real One   and it was not publish to FACEBOOK … and no other articles of mine have been automatically published.

Is FACEBOOK censoring criticism of their new hero product?


Help keep independent journalism alive. Please consider DONATING to American Everyman BY USING THE DONATE BUTTON ON THE RIGHT. Your donations will help spread authentic  independent investigative journalism to more people across the world. Thank you.

Tom Bellissimo special effects artist rabbit hole

From imdb.com.


Trade Mark (1)

B B Effects Inc. , Blowituptom.com

Trivia (2)

Moved to Hermosa Bch. from Brooklyn N.Y. as an Illustrator but soon started to work on Rock Video’s.
A proud member of The Academy Of Motion Pictures ” Special Effects Branch”.

Personal Quotes (2)

I rather be the know as the guy that blew up With Quentin Tarantino and George Clooney, than the guy who Blew Up Quentin Tarantino and George Clooney!
50 Times more blood then Quentin Tarantino? Ok, you asked for it.

—–end of IMDB—

Tarantino,Bellissimo and Clooney onset of From Dusk till Dawn(1996)

Shudu And Lil Miquela: The Unreal Social Media Influencers Who Are Replacing Real Models — CyberPunks.com

Computer generated imagery and modeling have become an unlikely couple as “CGI influencers” like Shudu and Lil Miquela begin to appear in cyberspace. This new branch of technology has led to much controversy, backlash, and confusion.
— Read on www.cyberpunks.com/shudu-lil-miquela-cgi-social-media-influencers/

Are You Still Convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Assassin of JFK?

1963is such a long time ago that we sometimes forget how significant the assassination of John F. Kennedy was to the world then? Unfortunately we have been scarred and are now numb from tragic events…
— Read on medium.com/@stowens/are-you-still-convinced-that-lee-harvey-oswald-was-the-lone-assassin-of-jfk-1c909e07ba64

When Was Jesus Christ Born? The Bible Says September 11, 3BC-The Day of the Feast of Trumpets – Goodness Of God Ministries

When Was Jesus Christ Born? The Bible Says September 11, 3BC-The Day of the Feast of Trumpets – Goodness Of God Ministries
— Read on goodnessofgodministries.international/2011/12/22/when-was-jesus-christ-born-the-bible-says-september-11-3bc-the-day-of-the-feast-of-trumpets/amp/

Glenn Greenwald: Media and Intel Community Working Together To Manipulate The American People | Video | RealClearPolitics

Glenn Greenwald appeared on Tucker Carlson’s FOX News show Monday night to criticize the media for its lack of response to the Hunter Biden laptop story. Greenwald also criticized intel community activity in domestic elections and posed the question that even if Russians are behind the story it just requires journalistic investigation in case Biden is compromised.

“Adam Schiff is seriously the most pathological liar in all of American politics that I’ve seen in all of my time covering politics and journalism,” Greenwald said on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’ “He just fabricates accusations at the drop of the hat at the other people change underwear. He’s simply lying when he just asserts over and over that the Russians or the Kremlin are behind the story. He has no idea whether or not that is true. There is no evidence to support it.”

“And what makes it so much worse is that the reason that the Bidens aren’t answering basic questions about the story,” Greenwald said. “Basic questions like did Hunter Biden drop that laptop off of the repair shop? Are the emails authentic? Do you know denied that they are. Do you claim that any have been altered or are any of them fabricated? Did you in fact meet with Barisma executives? The reason they don’t answer the questions is because the media has signaled that they don’t have to. That journalists will be attacked and vilified simply for asking.”

“The whole point of the Intelligence Community since the end of World War II was that whatever propaganda the CIA produces, whatever disinformation campaigns they engaged were never supposed to be directed domestically,” he said. “That was the point of the NSA, the CIA, and all those intelligence communities.”

“What we have seen since 2016 going back to the 2016 campaign is incessant involvement in U.S. domestic politics. Working with journalists to disseminate purely for partisan ends. If you want to talk about things like violating norms, and dangers to democracy, what’s more dangerous than allowing the CIA constantly to be manipulating our politics by making cover for the Biden campaign by claiming anonymously that the Russians are behind the story and therefore you disregard it. Even if the Russians why does that alleviate the responsibility of journalists to evaluate the emails and to examine whether or not Joe Biden actually engaged in misconduct?” Greenwald asked.

“The much bigger point is the way that the information is being disseminated,” he said. “It is a union of journalists who have decided that their only goal is to defend Joe Biden and election him president of the United States working with the FBI, CIA, NSA not to manipulate our adversaries or foreign governments, but to manipulate the American people for their own ends. It’s been going on for four straight years now and there’s no sign of it stopping anytime soon.”
— Read on www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/10/19/glenn_greenwald_media_and_intel_community_working_together_to_manipulate_american_people_for_their_own_ends.html