War on Terror

America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama’s reign


10th Jan 2017

Most Americans would probably be astounded to realize that the president who has been painted by Washington pundits as a reluctant warrior has actually been a hawk. The Iran nuclear deal, a herculean achievement, and the opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba unfortunately stand alone as President Obama’s successful uses of diplomacy over hostility.

While candidate Obama came to office pledging to end George W Bush’s wars, he leaves office having been at war longer than any president in US history. He is also the only president to serve two complete terms with the nation at war.

President Obama did reduce the number of US soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he dramatically expanded the air wars and the use of special operations forces around the globe. In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.

Looking back at President Obama’s legacy, the Council on Foreign Relation’s Micah Zenko added up the defense department’s data on airstrikes and made a startling revelation: in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.

While most of these air attacks were in Syria and Iraq, US bombs also rained down on people in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. That’s seven majority-Muslim countries.

One bombing technique that President Obama championed is drone strikes. As drone-warrior-in-chief, he spread the use of drones outside the declared battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, mainly to Pakistan and Yemen. Obama authorized over 10 times more drone strikes than George W Bush, and automatically painted all males of military age in these regions as combatants, making them fair game for remote controlled killing.

President Obama has claimed that his overseas military adventures are legal under the 2001 and 2003 authorizations for the use of military force passed by Congress to go after al-Qaida. But today’s wars have little or nothing to do with those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

The twisted legal architecture the Obama administration has constructed to justify its interventions, especially extrajudicial drone killings with no geographic restrictions, will now be transferred into the erratic hands of Donald Trump.

What does the administration have to show for eight years of fighting on so many fronts? Terrorism has spread, no wars have been “won” and the Middle East is consumed by more chaos and divisions than when candidate Barack Obama declared his opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

While the switch from US troops on the ground to airstrikes and special forces has saved US lives, untold numbers of foreign lives have been snuffed out. We have no idea how many civilians have been killed in the massive bombings in Iraq and Syria, where the US military is often pursuing Isis in the middle of urban neighborhoods. We only sporadically hear about civilian killings in Afghanistan, such as the tragic bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz that left 42 dead and 37 wounded.

Pushed to release information about civilian deaths in drone strikes, in July 2016 the US government made the absurd claim it had killed, at most, 116 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya between 2009 and 2015. Journalists and human rights advocates said the numbers were ridiculously low and unverifiable, given that no names, dates, locations or others details were released. The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has tracked drone strikes for years, said the true figure was six times higher.

Given that drones account for only a small portion of the munitions dropped in the past eight years, the numbers of civilians killed by Obama’s bombs could be in the thousands. But we can’t know for sure as the administration, and the mainstream media, has been virtually silent about the civilian toll of the administration’s failed interventions.

In May 2013, I interrupted President Obama during his foreign policy address at the National Defense University. I had just returned from visiting the families of innocent people killed by US drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan, including the Rehman children who saw their grandmother blown to bits while in the field picking okra.

Speaking out on behalf of grieving families whose losses have never been acknowledged by the US government, I asked President Obama to apologize to them. As I was being dragged out, President Obama said: “The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to.”

Too bad he never did.




Not even US president can legalize torture, Abu Ghraib inmates allowed to sue – court ruling


22nd Oct 2016

A federal court has ruled in favor of four former Abu Ghraib detainees intending to sue a US military contractor for its alleged role in torturing them. The decision also said laws against torture apply to all branches of government, even the executive.

On Friday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a former ruling that claimed torture to be a “political question” out of the court’s hands. It also reinstated a lawsuit against CACI Premier Technology that alleges their employees abused and tortured four men during interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in the early years of the Iraq occupation.

The ruling is a major breakthrough for the eight-year long lawsuit for the Abu Ghraib inmates who were told last June that legal action would involve second-guessing military officials in a war zone. Therefore, the judge believed that the claims could not be litigated in the judicial system.

However, Friday’s unanimous ruling determined that contractors employed by the CACI Premier Technology were subject to the same anti-torture laws that govern the country and were not allowed to circumvent or interpret the laws differently due to their positions.

While executive officers can declare the military reasonableness of conduct amounting to torture, it is beyond the power of even the president to declare such conduct lawful,” wrote appellate Judge Barbara Keenan.

This is the fourth time this case has reached the appeals court, the Intercept reported. From here, it will return to the district court for reconsideration.

CACI denied any wrongdoing, saying in a statement released on Friday: “We’ll proceed with our expectation unchanged: exoneration for CACI. Nothing in today’s decision changes our view of the ultimate outcome.”




As many as 44 Afghan troops go missing while on US military training visits – Pentagon


6th Oct 2016

In an effort to find illegal work and settle permanently in America, at least 44 Afghan troops visiting the US for military training have gone missing since January 2015, Pentagon officials said. It raises concerns about procedures for such programs.

Eight Afghan troops have left military bases without authorization since September alone, Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump told Reuters, disclosing the total number of Afghan troops who have gone missing for the first time.

“The Defense Department is assessing ways to strengthen eligibility criteria for training in ways that will reduce the likelihood of an individual Afghan willingly absconding from training in the US and going AWOL [absent without leave],” Stump said.

The Afghan Army has previously been occasionally infiltrated by Taliban militants who carried out attacks on Afghan and US troops. Rogue shootings of foreign troops claimed lives of nearly 40 soldiers in several dozen attacks in 2012.

Before being allowed into the US, Afghans are carefully vetted for security reasons, to make sure they have not been involved in human rights abuses and are not affiliated with militant groups, the Pentagon spokesman said.

Some 2,200 Afghan troops have received military training in the United States since 2007. Other foreign troops on US military training visits have sometimes run away too, but a US defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the frequency of Afghan troops going missing was concerning and “out of the ordinary.”

According to the official, there was no evidence any of those who had run away had carried out crimes or posed a threat to America.

Since 2002, Washington has earmarked over $60 billion “to build, equip, train, and sustain” the Afghan troops, a quarterly report by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) said in late July. Money has failed to buy security, however, with the internal US report saying that the NATO-trained Afghan military only controls about two-thirds of Afghanistan’s districts and keeps losing territory to the Taliban.

The US mission in Afghanistan has dragged out much longer than originally anticipated, with President Barack Obama canceling the initial plan to withdraw the majority of troops in 2014 in exchange for a blueprint to scale back forces by early 2017.

America’s combat mission in Afghanistan “came to a responsible end” a year-and-a-half ago, Obama said in July. Forces there are now focused on “two narrow missions”: training and terrorism prevention. “But even these narrow missions continue to be dangerous.

In July this year, Washington announced that the US will leave 8,400 troops through the end of the Obama administration, citing an increase in Taliban attacks.

Low morale and lack of training to fight the Taliban could partially explain dozens of the troops leaving.

“They face a formidable enemy, with very limited resources and many Afghan troops aren’t getting paid on time,” Michael Kugelman, a South Asia specialist at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank, told Reuters.

The US bears full responsibility for the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, who served as Russian envoy to Afghanistan in 2004-2009, said earlier this month.

Washington “cut back their presence [in Afghanistan] and did not resolve a single issue and created more problems. They carry political and moral responsibility for what is taking place in Afghanistan now,” he noted.


source: https://www.rt.com/news/361784-afghan-troops-missing-us/

Pentagon Paid PR Firm $540 Million to Make Fake Terrorist Videos


3rd Oct 2016

The Pentagon paid a UK PR firm half a billion dollars to create fake terrorist videos in Iraq in a secret propaganda campaign exposed by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

PR firm Bell Pottinger, known for its array of controversial clients including the Saudi government and Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet’s foundation, worked with the US military to create the propaganda in a secretive operation.

The firm reported to the CIA, the National Security Council and the Pentagon on the project with a mandate to portray Al-Qaeda in a negative light and track suspected sympathizers.

Both the White House and General David Petraeus, the former general who shared classified information with his mistress, signed off on the content produced by the agency.

The Bell Pottinger operation started soon after the US invasion of Iraq and was tasked with promoting the “democratic elections” for the administration before moving on to more lucrative psychological and information operations.

Former employee Martin Wells told the Bureau how he found himself working in Iraq after being hired as a video editor by Bell Pottinger. Within 48 hours, he was landing in Baghdad to edit content for secret “psychological operations” at Camp Victory.

The firm created television ads showing Al-Qaeda in a negative light as well as creating content to look as though it had come from “Arabic TV.” Crews were sent out to film bombings with low quality video. The firm would then edit it to make it look like news footage.

They would craft scripts for Arabic soap operas where characters would reject terrorism with happy consequences. The firm also created fake Al-Qaeda propaganda videos, which were then planted by the military in homes they raided.

Employees were given specific instructions to create the videos. “We need to make this style of video and we’ve got to use Al-Qaeda’s footage,” Wells was told. “We need it to be 10 minutes long, and it needs to be in this file format, and we need to encode it in this manner.”

The videos were created to play on Real Player which needs an internet connection to run. The CDs were embedded with a code linking to Google Analytics which allowed the military to track IP addresses that the videos were played on.

According to Wells, the videos were picked up in Iran, Syria, and the US.

“If one, 48 hours or a week later shows up in another part of the world, then that’s the more interesting one,” Wells explained. “And that’s what they’re looking for more, because that gives you a trail.”

The Pentagon confirmed the PR firm did work for them under the Information Operations Task Force (IOTF) creating content they say was “truthful.” The firm also worked under the Joint Psychological Operations Task Force (JPOTF). The Pentagon said it could not comment on JPOTF operations.

US law prohibits the government from using propaganda on its population, hence the use of an outside firm to create the content.

Documents show the Pentagon paid $540 million to Bell Pottinger in contracts between 2007 and 2011, with another contract for $120 million in 2006. The firm ended its work with the Pentagon in 2011.

In 2009, it was reported that the Pentagon had hired controversial PR firm, The Rendon Group, to monitor the reporting of journalists embedded with the US military, to assess whether they were giving “positive” coverage to its missions.

It was also revealed in 2005 that Washington based PR company the Lincoln Group had been placing articles in newspapers in Iraq which were secretly written by the US military. A Pentagon investigation cleared the group of any wrongdoing.



How the Govt Used the NY Bombing to Convert Millions of Citizens into Spies — Literally Overnigh

liberty and police

21st Sept 2016

Yet again, putative acts of terror — bombs detonated and discovered in New York and New Jersey, and a mass stabbing in Minnesota — conveniently paved the way for an expansion of police and surveillance state powers in the U.S., while providing an instant distraction from multiple ongoing and breaking crucial news topics.

This is not to downplay the severity of injuries to the public or the panic and fresh insecurity witnesses undoubtedly felt, but to avoid governmental manipulation of fear — incidentally a classic tool of fascist regimes seeking greater control of their citizenry — perspective is imperative.

An examination of events and reactions from politicians and the authorities over the last few days already evidences the knee-jerk response to crack down on farcically-nebulous terrorism, as has been typical in the years following the attacks of 9/11.

This weekends ‘attacks,’ however, brought a telling portent about the government’s intent to twist the public’s anxiety — but those plans should stoke alarm far beyond the altogether remote possibility of more attacks.

At 9:30 a.m. Saturday, as runners prepared to participate in the annual Marine Semper Five charity race in Seaside Park, New Jersey, a pipe bomb suddenly exploded in a trash can along the route — thankfully injuring no one, but forcing cancellation of the event. Two additional pipe bombs in the same vessel fortunately failed to detonate. Federal authorities swiftly arrived on scene to seek out any additional devices and investigate the matter.

“It makes me very angry that this could happen in a sleepy little town like Seaside Park after Labor Day,” nearby Toms River resident Adam Carswell told a local NBC affiliate, according to the New York Daily News.

Then, around 8:15 p.m. in St. Cloud, Minnesota, a man described by corporate media as both “wearing a security guard uniform” and “a security guard” began indiscriminately stabbing people inside a shopping mall, after reportedly asking his first victim if he were Muslim.

Ten people were wounded by the man — later identified by authorities as 22-year-old Dahir Adan — though none of the injuries would prove fatal. An off-duty cop did, however, fatally shoot the attacker.

Friends of Adan expressed shock and confusion he could be responsible for what the FBI is investigating as a possible act of terror. As the New York Times described, he was the “son of Somali refugees, he lived in the United States most of his life, did well in school, played sports, worked as a security guard and took classes at a local college.”

Those in regular contact with Adan insisted he showed no signs of having become radicalized, despite reports from the terrorist group of the same name claiming he was “a soldier of the Islamic State.” In fact, local leaders in the Somali community flatly doubt the young man could even have perpetrated such a heinous crime, as executive director of the Saint Cloud Area Somali Salvation Organization, Mohamoud Ismail Mohamed, explained, until police release video footage of the attack, “we cannot believe the speculation we hear.”

According to unnamed sources cited by the Times, who ostensibly know Adan’s family, on Saturday he “seemed to be in good spirits and said he was going to the mall to buy a new iPhone.” On social media, friends tried to understand what had happened, echoing, as one person tweeted, “He was a sweet humble guy, and that’s still how I see him.”

Just over 24 hours after unexplained events in Minnesota, an explosion in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York City shattered windows and sent shrapnel flying, injuring at least 29 people, though, again, none fatally. Investigators later described a pressure-cooker and cellphone improvised device — similar to that used at the Boston Marathon in 2013 — as responsible for the blast.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio promptly announced there was “every reason to believe this was an act of terror” — despite the nascent investigation.

A similar explosive device was discovered three hours later just four blocks from the first, though it inexplicably failed to detonate.

Not long after that explosion, authorities in Elizabeth, New Jersey, were alerted to a backpack with suspicious contents by two homeless men who discovered the bag sitting on a garbage can and worried it could be a bomb.

Law enforcement used a robot to investigate, and around 12:40 a.m., the device unintentionally exploded.

Authorities worked astonishingly quickly to identify a person of interest in the New York and New Jersey incidents — but how they spread the information is indicative of a Kafkaesque dark turn in the United States’ dubious war on purposely-nebulous terror.


“For what is believed to be the first time,” the Times wrote, “the nation’s Wireless Emergency Alerts system was deployed as an electronic wanted poster, identifying a 28-year-old man sought in connection with the bombings in Manhattan and New Jersey over the weekend.”

“WANTED: Ahmad Khan Rahami, 28-yr-old male. See media for pic. Call 9-1-1 if seen,” stated the alert.

Instantaneously, millions became Big Government’s unwitting spies — enlisted without warning in a manhunt for a suspect now inextricably linked to the explosions, regardless of actual guilt — before completion of a thorough investigation, much less an actual jury trial.

Officials decided on the language of the alert and approved its dissemination in just 15 minutes, and issued the dubious message at 7:57 a.m.

Considering the success of years instilling xenophobic fear in the citizenry, the electronic widespread plastering of Rahami’s name and face as Suspect Number One could as facilely painted a target on his forehead.

Or perhaps that was the idea.

Either way, authorities apprehended Rahami following a shootout in which several officers were wounded, after a worker discovered him sleeping in the doorway of a bar in Linden, New Jersey. Ironically, the worker didn’t recognize the man as the “armed and dangerous” subject of the massive manhunt, rather alerted authorities to a possible vagrant.

Responding officers roused the sleeping man, quickly recognizing he looked similar to the suspect in pervasive alerts. Ordered to show his hands, Rahami instead brandished a gun and shot the officer in the abdomen, hitting his bulletproof vest, Linden Police Capt. James Sarnicki told reporters.

Rahami continued firing as he fled the scene, but was taken into custody after being wounded.

Rahami might be the luckiest person in the country both because he escaped death at the hands of police after actively shooting at them, but, more pertinently, because authorities — not a petrified, Islamophobic propaganda-believing citizen — affected his capture.

Concerns about the breakthrough use of the Emergency Alerts System have been unfortunately underreported and downplayed in favor of the premise of added security against errant terrorists it supposedly will now provide.

“This is a tool we will use again in the future,” Mayor de Blasio asserted adamantly during a press conference. “No more wanted posters on the precinct house wall. This is a modern approach that really engaged a whole community.”

His assertion, of course, failed to add ‘whether or not they approve of this use or desire to become the State’s citizen-spies.’

Beyond crafting guilt for one person before it’s been proven, the alert exposed several additional disturbing flaws.

“It was very troublesome,” Bandana Kar, a professor of geography at the University of Southern Mississippi who has studied the alert system, told the Times. “The alert was very unspecific and open-ended.”

Advising people to blindly turn to media for a picture of the man trusts that they will, but issuing his name, which sounds obviously Middle Eastern — during a time of heightened xenophobia and bigotry — put countless others in peril.

“By encouraging people to go to the media to look at a picture, what if someone had identified the wrong person?” Kar added.

Misidentification — an issue so common, eyewitness accounts aren’t necessarily weighted in court testimony — could easily have cost a wholly innocent person their life.

“Today, brown guys like me are walking around worrying about the threat of terrorism like everyone else,” Brooklyn resident Shuja Haider told the Times. “But we’re also worried about being blamed for it.”

Already, additional police have been deployed in the locations of the attacks and politicians have called for increased or improved surveillance programs and powers.

After the first test of forcibly roping an entire city into hunting for an alleged criminal, however, it appears the surveillance state just commanded its biggest opportunity to date — hundreds of millions of captive and terrified proxy employees.


source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09/govt-used-ny-bombing-convert-millions-citizens-spies-literally-overnight.html

Egyptian state media claims Isis is ‘made up’ and 9/11 was carried out by West to justify war on terror


16th Sept 2016

A columnist for a state-run newspaper in Egypt has suggested the US invented Isis and set up the 9/11 attacks to justify its military interventions in the Middle East.

“Is it possible to believe the official version, from the US government, of the events of 11 September 2001?” wrote journalist Noha Al-Sharnoubi in Al-Ahram, a major national Egyptian newspaper owned by the government.

Ms Al-Sharnoubi said the World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks could have been premeditated to “justify the war on terror” in her column, published on 23 August.

She also cast doubt over the veracity of the actions of the so-called Islamic State, alleging the extremist group could have been made up to “trick” the world and validate US foreign policy.

Ms Al-Sharnoubi does not appear to shy away from controversial subjects. Her weekly column has recently discussed issues such as burkini bans, French military involvement in Libya and whether it is acceptable to sacrifice chickens, duck and geese.

According to an English translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), Ms Al-Sharnoubi wrote: “Is it a coincidence that the commanders of the September 11 attack trained at American flight schools?”

“Is it conceivable that four hijacked planes flew around so freely, penetrated US airspace and hit the towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon one by one, with an interval of 15 minutes and 30 minutes between the attacks,” she added.

“All this took place without the Americans targeting the planes and downing them, despite all their intelligence, satellites and radars?

“Or was the whole thing planned [in advance] in order to justify the war on terror, the [first] episode of which [later] began in Iraq?”

Ms Al-Sharnoubi also questioned the contents of Isis propaganda videos, suggesting the militant group could be “another story that was prepared in advance [by the West] to justify the devastation, partitioning and occupation” of Middle Eastern countries.

“Does it make sense that most Isis members are foreigners [i.e., Western nationals], unless ISIS is another story that was prepared in advance [by the West] to justify the devastation, partitioning and occupation [of countries] that is taking place and will continue to take place in the Middle East?” she wrote, according to Memri.

“Those who are murdered and [then] accused of perpetrating terror attacks in the West – are they the real culprits?

“[Perhaps Western] intelligence elements are behind the attacks and the bombings, and later Muslim citizens are arrested and killed and simply accused of perpetrating [the attacks] in order to justify what is happening in the Arab countries in the name of the war on terror, and in order to justify the plan to persecute the Muslims in the U.S. and Europe and expel them? Have we really been deceived, and continue to be deceived, to such an extent?!”

Egypt is listed as number 159 out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’s 2016 World Press Freedom Index.

According to the report, “journalists are obliged on national security grounds to report only the official version of ‘terrorist’ attacks” under an anti-terrorism law passed in 2015



source; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/egyptian-911-inside-job-state-media-war-on-terror-isis-made-up-al-ahram-noha-al-sharnoubi-columnist-a7308926.html

9/11 – The Art Of Blaming Others

911 2

By Bernie Suarez

Several years back, when pressed by an activist about the need for true justice and accountability for the events of September 11, 2001 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerry stated that 9/11 is a “30-year-old conspiracy.” But what exactly did Kerry mean by this? I believe there are only two possibilities. Either he meant that:

a- The 9/11 event took 30 years to plan or,
b- He meant that the investigation time-period is expected to last for 30 years.

I believe he meant choice ‘B’ only because choice ‘A’ would implicate foreknowledge and amount to accusing the U.S. government of orchestrating 9/11, something we wouldn’t expect Kerry to do if he was expecting to keep his position as a 9/11 commissioner. So if Kerry is telling us that 9/11 will take 30 years to solve, this is sort of an admission that 9/11 is not meant to be solved now. It also implies that other things have to happen to kill time until we arrive at the 30-year mark.

If Kerry was correct in this “30-year” time span then that means we are only halfway in this time-table. Frankly, it would be interesting to get Kerry under oath explaining exactly what he meant by this. Nevertheless, if Kerry is correct then (again) here we are at the halfway mark.

Fifteen years later humanity is certainly much more politically awakened. The world is packed with information. Access to that information is easier now more than ever and knowledge of the world we live in is spreading faster than ever. All of these developments and realities also present a problem for the ruling elite which to this day is still protecting the 9/11 “official” story. And if indeed we have fifteen more years of disinformation ahead of us, then shouldn’t we do our best to confront the tactics that so far have made us all look the other way when looking to assign blame for the event? In fact, for fifteen years we’ve been told that no one should dare to blame our government or blame anyone in particular until we have all the facts, unless of course you blame Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Put another way, blaming the US government for 9/11 is considered almost blasphemous today. The masses have been conditioned to not question who actually did 9/11. And now, after fifteen years I believe it’s time to confront who did 9/11 by pointing out some of the very tricks they (those who did 9/11) have used to mislead us all these years. I call this the art of blaming others. An art that the perpetrators have become very good at.

As to the question of who did 9/11, given what we know today about the events of 9/11, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the heaviest evidence of guilt today points squarely at the two men who were in charge of the entire country on that day, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Cheney was acting as commander in chief after Bush was sent off to read stories to children, and as the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld was in charge of the entire US military and Department of Defense on that day. Once you truly understand this power combination of Cheney and Rumsfeld, which I refer to as “Dick and Don,” you have to come up with a realistic and believable scenario to prove that someone on dialysis living in a cave halfway around the world could outsmart and outmaneuver these two powerful men in control of the greatest military and intelligence force ever assembled in the history of humanity.

Of course we’re not just talking about two men, with the Bush administration came a deeply connected network of criminals; many of them part of the same boys club, many having worked with and for each other, many owing each other favors and all on the same page ready to cover each other’s behinds if necessary. Understanding this Deep State criminal network is the key to understanding who did 9/11. When you study it and understand how the ranking system works in this criminal Neocon network then it will become clear that Cheney and Rumsfeld were indeed very likely the top two masterminds of the entire operation with everyone else playing out their roles as instructed. Now to further demonstrate this hypothesis and build our case let’s explore some elements of 9/11 and apply the problem solving principle of Occam’s razor to them. That is, we’ll search for the explanation with the least amount of assumptions or the simplest explanation.

We’ve already discussed the positions held by Cheney and Rumsfeld on the day of the attack and the likelihood that their duel leadership was at the controls of the associated tightly knit criminal network in position that day. By applying Occam’s razor now let’s demonstrate how this team of criminals had all the means to execute 9/11 and how improbable if not impossible it is that they could ever have been outperformed by a sick and dying man on dialysis living in the caves of Afghanistan.

Since the attacks of September 11th were airliner related let’s look to the sky and consider who was in charge of the sky. It is undeniably documented that many war games were going on that morning, many of them conveniently were simulating a hijacking scenario (Operation Vigilant Guardian and many other operations) and these games perfectly played into the engineered confusion taking place at various air command centers who were contacted about the hijacked planes. Again, all of this not-so-coincidental engineered and convenient confusion made the execution of the attacks perfectly possible. The magnitude and frequency of the convenient mistakes, deliberate confusion and downright non-action documented on that day cannot be attributed to chance when looking for the simplest explanation and when looking at functional capacity of the US military and DOD as a whole on that day. This topic of deliberate war games and confusion which made it as difficult as possible for anyone to mount a successful and timely response to the reported hijackings that morning, I feel, is one of the most important pieces of the puzzle for understanding who did 9/11.

In charge of all those war games was the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). And the person in command of NORAD was General Ralph Eberhart, another piece of the criminal network controlled by Cheney and Rumsfeld. As a group called ‘Pilots for 9/11 Truth’ thoroughly demonstrate (in the video below), US air command response to the notification of multiple hijacked planes was deliberately sloppy and slow and at one point deliberately misleading information was even confirmed to have come from Washington D.C. seemingly designed to sabotage the speed and effectiveness of any potential air defense response to the hijacked planes. Applying Occam’s razor, only Dick and Don and their immediate network of players including Eberhart would have been able to impact this non-response in such a way, again, making the seemingly desired attacks possible, or as we shall see later, making the NARRATIVE of the desired attack possible.


In a 2004 Senate hearing, Senator Mark Dayton put it this way regarding the towering non-response by NORAD to the known hijackings:

This country and its citizens were completely undefended … for 109 minutes


In his book Another Nineteen author and researcher Kevin Ryan states the following regarding NORAD, the lies told by General Eberhart and the suspiciously convenient failures of the entire US air defense the morning of September 11th:

The timeline showed that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43 am, a full twenty minutes before it impacted the south tower of the World Trade Center (WTC). Moreover, F-15 interceptor jets from Otis Air Force Base (AFB) were said to be airborne by 8:52, having been scrambled in response to the first hijacking. This allowed twice the time needed for the jets to reach New York City before Flight 175 crashed.

Eberhart added that NORAD was notified about the hijacked Flight 77 coming into Washington at 9:24 am, fourteen minutes before it impacted the Pentagon. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee (repeatedly) that this was a “documented notification”. If true, interceptor jets from Andrews AFB, only ten miles from the Pentagon, could have easily reached the errant airliner given this lead time.

Although the military might use the excuse that Andrews AFB was not technically under the command of NORAD, the 9/11 Commission said that Eberhart’s statement was simply not true. In fact, both Commission counsel Dan Marcus and team leader John Farmer were later very blunt about this being false. Therefore, it is clear that Eberhart should be charged with related crime. It is illegal to make any materially false statement or representation in testimony to the United States Congress. And that was not the only false statement that Eberhart apparently made to the senators.

The story told by NORAD and Eberhart later changed to perfectly fit the official story told by the 9/11 Commission Report. Ryan states in his book:

The fourth and final story from NORAD was the official account given by the 9/11 Commission Report, now supported by NORAD. In this explanation NORAD received “no advance notice” on any of the last three hijacked airliners. Instead of 20 minutes of notice of Flight 175, 14 minutes notice on Flight 77, and 47 minutes notice on Flight 93, we were told that NORAD was not notified about any of them until it was too late. The military was off the hook entirely.

All the evidence for notification and response, which had constituted the official account for nearly three years, had been thrown out the window. In place of these documents and testimonies, new explanations were given for why the scrambled aircraft never reached the hijacked airliners. These included unbelievable claims of communication failures and misdirection of the scrambled jets, as well as the introduction of a never-before mentioned “Phantom 11” scenario.

In light of the big picture painted here, the theory that Bin Laden along with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were somehow the supposed masterminds of this event becomes a truly ridiculous proposition with nearly zero percent probability of that being the case for the reasons already stated. And this theory is just one of four theories which have circulated over that past 15 years which I want to discuss here. Each of these theories, I firmly believe, have been put out by the same criminal network that did 9/11 and the primary goal is to keep both Cheney and Rumsfeld as well as the rest of the network from having to go to jail for the rest of their lives or face execution. The original intent and attempted survival of this criminal Neocon network is another key to understanding 9/11.

So let’s examine these four intelligence-engineered blame-game theories and explore how for 15 years these theories have been adopted by even well-meaning truth seekers. All four of these theories have one simple common denominator that everyone should look for and that most people miss every time even though it’s hidden in plain sight. They all point the blame for 9/11 AWAY from Dick and Don, the two most powerful men in America the day of the attacks and the two men with the means, the motive (which we’ll discuss later) and the opportunity to coordinate such an attack.

To see and feel the simplicity of this argument more clearly close your eyes and imagine yourself reading this story two three or even four hundred years from now in the very distant future. Try to imagine how simple this logic really is when you remove current day propaganda and emotions from the equation. The emotions, rebuttals, name-calling, propaganda and lies act as signal disrupters to the otherwise very easy logic (think Occam’s razor) needed to solve the riddle of who did it.

9/11 blame-game: 4 theories commonly told

1 – Bin Laden and al-Qaeda did 9/11- box cutters and all!

As already discussed earlier, application of simple logic and reason and taking all logistical and tactical realities into account there is almost no mathematical probability of this scenario playing out in the real world. First, Bin Laden was also known as CIA asset Tim Osmond and in addition to being armed and trained by the US in the 1980s when he was part of the Mujahideen fighting force in Afghanistan, he (Bin Laden and his family) was intricately connected to both Cheney and Bush as well as many in the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Neocon network.

The very morning of September 11th members of the Carlyle group including George HW Bush himself was meeting with Bin Laden’s brother Shafig Bin Laden talking business! It doesn’t get any more obvious than this. Yet through the magic of cognitive dissonance most Americans will shut their minds off and refuse to look at this evidence because it forces them to face the reality of 9/11. That it was a well-planned false flag attack coordinated by a network of criminal in the Bush administration with the cooperation of many Deep State operatives and corporate entities spanning various countries to accomplish all the goals set forth by this network long before September 11, 2001.

Of all the theories, once a person begins to think on their own, this is usually the first theory they let go due to the obvious evidence. Anyone can see that Bin Laden could not have placed all those explosive devices and all the military grade thermite (or nano-thermite) and cutter charges in the three towers that dropped controlled demolition style (WTC 1,2,7). Let’s look at some other theories commonly circulated and believed that are designed to (again) point the finger away from Dick and Don.

2 – Bin Laden did it but the government let it happen – negligence theory!

This second theory is common among people who see what happened but don’t want to be on record as “blaming the US government” directly. Perhaps they are afraid of getting fired or losing friends or whatever. This is a middle of the road approach for people who don’t want to go “too far.” It feels “safer” and less prone to “conspiracy theories.” We often hear Hollywood celebrities and people on TV talk this way.

Now I want to pose an argument for suggesting that this “negligence” theory could very well be and (IMO) likely is yet another psyop that the perpetrators were working on long before 9/11 actually happened. I firmly believe this is why certain pieces of information ping-ponged back and forth between FBI and CIA. In some case lower level informants either intentionally or unintentionally released information intended to give credibility to the official story.

Some reading this may not necessarily agree with what I’m about to say but all I can say is hear me out. I believe the criminal network that did 9/11 especially the intelligence services (George Tenet) and many others connected to intelligence carefully planned a trail of “evidence” to:

a. Give the official story authenticity

b. Demonstrate that, yes, Bin Laden did it but only because of deliberate negligence and incompetence on the part of the US military and DOD.

Think of how clever of a strategy and how effective this strategy proved to be (or would prove to be). I personally believe this is yet another key to understanding 9/11. The criminals knew they would have to answer (JFK style) to the world forever regarding every detail of this event so why not leave a trail to show the world how it happened. THIS my friends, I believe is why the terrorists were allowed into the country and freely given visas, places to live even flight training. The men had to don the role to make the story real. THIS my friends, is where the whistleblower testimony of (think CIA asset Colonel Anthony Shaffer!) “Operation Able Danger” comes into play. Man blows cover on operation that REALLY shows the terrorists REALLY were here and planning the attacks. End result? Operation looks and feels real and hundreds of millions of people therefore BELIEVE the story. Ta-da!

Pardon the sarcasm but I truly believe this “negligence” theory was carefully planned. We already discussed earlier the “failures” of NORAD to respond to the hijackings. Similarly the entire posture of the Bush administration post-9/11 was one of “gee, we failed didn’t we?” Let that sink in.

911 inside

3 – Israel did it, Mossad surprised the US on 9/11!

The third theory that I believe is part of the pre-planned strategy by the 9/11 criminal network to keep the blame on others instead of Dick and Don and their network is what I’ve been calling for some time now the “Israel did it” psyop.

This theory is much more clever and sophisticated than the first two that we’ve discussed so far because this one directly appeals to those already awakened to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. This movement seeks to supplant already established knowledge about 9/11, it ridicules most of the scholars and researchers who have put out films and books about 9/11 and labels them all as trolls. The “Israel did it” movement seeks to reboot and redefine the 9/11 truth movement so that people can “wake up” to the “new” reality that Israel actually did 9/11. Famously this movement cites the “dancing Israelis” and the Zionist-related players involved in the Dick and Don criminal network as “proof” that the Zionist are secretly the ones calling all the shots. They claim that anonymous Zionist elements (who no one ever actually identifies!) are secretly telling the CIA and EVEN the Pentagon and US military what to do.

Another reason why this third Dick and Don deep state tactic is effective with many people is that it is based on partial truth (think cognitive infiltration). A partial truth is always MUCH more easy to convince someone of. The intelligence community knows this. They know that Israeli Mossad and Zionist elements WERE in fact involved in 9/11. This is enough to convince some people into buying into the entire theory. When it’s all said and done, as with the first two psyop theories, again Cheney, Rumsfeld and their Deep State criminal network get a free pass.

4 – Saudi Arabia did it – we have the “proof” – the 28 pages psyop!

Last but not least, as if the last three psyop theories were not enough, today in 2016, right at the halfway mark of the supposed 30-year 9/11 conspiracy we are now seeing alive and well what I call the “28 pages” psyop. Yes, the 28 pages I believe is an absolute 100% psyop to fool honest truth seekers into thinking that – “ooh, since they tried to censor these 28 pages, it must be truthful information that will help us figure out who did 9/11.”

Here’s a simple question for all truth seekers. If the 28 pages truly revealed who did 9/11 and it spelled out “D-I-C-K   C-H-E-N-EY” and “D-O-N-A-L-D   R-U-M-S-F-E-L-D or any of the criminals who made this event happen, do you really think the mainstream media would be bragging about this paper and happy to tell you about it?? Not a chance in the world! This is the SAME mainstream media and government that buries any truth that exposes them and that sabotages their new world order plans.

Please think with wisdom here my friends. Why let them fool you yet again? There’s no way these evil ruling elite would EVER allow the “28 pages” or ANY document to be released that actually incriminates them. Knowing this, is anyone surprised that the 28 pages implies that Saudi Arabia funded 9/11? Is anyone surprised that the 28 pages reinforces the official story lies of 9/11? Is anyone surprised that the 28 pages exonerates Dick and Don and their Deep State network that had the means, the motive and the opportunity?

What about motive?

Finally, of all the options here, yes one could say that Saudi Arabia could have had some motive since the post-9/11 war on terror has benefited them in their immediate region. We’ve seen (Shiite) enemies of the UAE destroyed, they’ve received arms from the West and they’ve solidified their position in the Middle East.

Likewise Israel (think Great Israel) has benefited from 9/11 as their plans to break up their neighboring countries has gone pretty well. As I’ve said many times Israel is almost inseparable to the US and I think of them as a Zionist led (or occupied) US military base in the Middle East.

However, neither Saudi Arabia or Israel have military bases all over the world and neither of them get billions of dollars a year to fight the war on terror like the Pentagon and DOD get with the post-9/11 Pentagon Slush Fund.

It was the Bush Neocon PNAC think tank that planned US military global domination to be triggered by “a new Pearl Harbor.” Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and their Deep State criminal network had been planning this globalization and this display of US military might on innocent nation states long before 9/11. Iraq and Afghanistan had long been in their crosshairs. Many companies tied to the Bush administration made a lot of money from the invasion and destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq and later the Obama war years.

The police state which stifled all of our freedoms and stripped away the Constitution was all implemented as a result of 9/11 and that mostly benefited those in power here in the US. The rest is history. The criminals have gotten away with torture, murder, theft, war crimes, illegal prisons, state secrecy, a brutal police state, the launching of a Hitler-like surveillance state, destruction of free speech and criminalization of dissent.

But it doesn’t end there, right? These criminals which are not limited to Cheney and Bush as we’ve seen during the 8 horrifying years of CIA Manchurian candidate Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, the crimes of the Obama administration have actually surpassed the crimes of the Bush administration and that is because in the end the Deep State is much deeper than any one of us can imagine. These people continue to meet in secret (CFR, Bilderberg) planning how they will rule the world, and they continue to carve out their new world order plans (Agenda 2030, global police, carbon taxes, etc.) all while trying to depopulate the planet (force vaccination, chemtrails, forced GMO and more) so that they can enjoy it for themselves.

This, my friends, is the story of 9/11. At least a brief version of it. One must see the bigger picture to then more easily fit the pieces together and connect the dots in a manner consistent with the most likely scenario requiring the least amount of assumptions.

If you agree please share this 15th anniversary 9/11 message.




US Congress passes Saudi 9/11 bill

911 inside

10th Sept 2016

uS CONGRESS sent President Barack Obama a bipartisan bill that would allow families of September 11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia, putting politicians on a collision course with the White House on the eve of the 15th anniversary of the attacks.

The House passed the legislation overnight by a voice vote, about four months after the measure cleared the Senate despite vehement objections from Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

The legislation gives victims’ families the right to sue in US courts for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks that killed thousands in New York, the Washington, DC, area and Pennsylvania.

The White House has signalled that Mr Obama would veto the legislation over the potential for it to backfire and apprehension about undermining a longstanding yet strained relationship with a critical US ally in the Middle East.

The Obama administration has warned that if US citizens can take the Saudis to court, then a foreign country could in turn sue the United States.

Votes from two-thirds of the members in the House and Senate would be needed to override a veto.

Republican Ted Poe said the U.S. government should be more concerned about the families of the victims than “diplomatic niceties.”

Mr Poe said he doesn’t know if the Saudi government had a role in the September 11 attacks but “that’s for a jury of Americans to decide.”

There was no immediate comment from Saudi Arabia. The timing of the vote could be seen as an additional slap at the kingdom, which was preparing for the annual hajj pilgrimage beginning today. But a sponsor of the bill, Democrat Jerrold Nadler, said politicians were focused only on the symbolism of bringing the bill to the floor as close to the 15th anniversary as possible.

The bill’s proponents disputed the argument that there will be a boomerang effect if the measure is signed into law. Republican Peter King, another sponsor, said foreign governments cannot look the other way if terrorist activities are being plotted or launched from their countries.

Terry Strada, national head of 9/11 Families United For Justice Against Terrorism, dismissed fears the US could be the target of lawsuits.

“If we’re not funding terrorist organisations and killing people, then we don’t have anything to worry about,” she said.

The vote came after House members from both parties briefly adjourned to commemorate the anniversary of the attacks.

House Speaker Paul Ryan led a moment of silence on the Capitol steps, and politicians sang “God Bless America” in remembrance of 9/11, when elected representatives gathered in the same location to sing the song immediately after the attacks on New York and Washington.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act had triggered a threat from Riyadh to pull billions of dollars from the US economy if the legislation is enacted.

But Saudi Foreign Minister Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir denied in May that the kingdom made any threats over the bill. He said Riyadh had warned that investor confidence in the US would shrink if the bill became law.

“In fact what they (Congress) are doing is stripping the principle of sovereign immunities, which would turn the world for international law into the law of the jungle,” Mr Al-Jubeir said.

The House vote came two months after Congress released 28 declassified pages from a congressional report into 9/11 that reignited speculation over links at least a few of the attackers had to Saudis, including government officials. The allegations were never substantiated by later US investigations into the terrorist attacks.

Brian McGlinchey, director of advocacy website 28pages.org, said making the documents public “strengthened the resolve of 9/11 families and other advocates of justice to bring about the enactment” of the bill.

A decision by Mr Obama to veto legislation “that would give 9/11 families their well-deserved day in court would truly stain his legacy,” Mr McGlinchey said.

In a separate development, a bipartisan group of senators are seeking to block the Obama administration’s proposed sale of more than $1 billion worth of US weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Republican Senator Rand Paul cited Saudi Arabia’s poor human rights record and the kingdom’s role in Yemen’s civil war.

The war is pitting Yemen’s internationally recognised government and a Saudi-led coalition against the Shiite rebels known as Houthis, who are allied with army units loyal to a former president.

The Saudi-led coalition has been carrying out air strikes in Yemen since March 2015.


Taxpayer will fund Tony Blair’s legal costs as Iraq War families look to sue

stupid shit

20th Aug 2016

axpayers will be obliged to pay all Tony Blair’s legal bills if he is sued by the families of soldiers killed in Iraq.

The former prime minister is covered for all court costs – including possible multi-million pound damages – related to allegations that he abused his power to take the country to war.

Families of dead soldiers planning to sue Mr Blair have launched a public appeal to get their legal case off the ground, and in less than 24 hours, raised more than £50,000  enough for lawyers to start work on the case.

They said they were ‘sickened to their stomachs’ to discover that while they had to rely on public generosity to bring the action, Mr Blair was indemnified under Cabinet Office rules – meaning the action won’t have to cost him a penny.

Mr Blair faces being sued for misfeasance in public office in the wake of the publication of the Chilcot report, which came as close as it could to suggesting the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal.

The Cabinet Manual, which is the rule book for the operation of Government, states that ministers and former ministers “are indemnified by the Crown for any actions taken against them for things done or  decisions made in the course of their  ministerial duties”.

It goes on: “The indemnity will cover the cost of defending the proceedings, as well as any costs or damages awarded against the minister.”

Blair: I accept full responsibility without exception and without excuse for taking Britain to war Play! 02:10

Roger Bacon, whose son Matthew Bacon, a major in the Intelligence Corps, was killed in a roadside bomb in 2005, said: “It is sickening he is indemnified. You feel this in the pit of your stomach. We will just have to swallow it – as difficult as it is to swallow.”

Reg Keys, whose son Lance Corporal Tom Keys was one of six Royal Military Police slaughtered by a mob at Majar al-Kabir in 2003, said: “It is very very disappointing if Tony Blair is indemnified against any financial punishment. It is nauseous to think he will have the taxpayer fund him while we are trying to raise funds to sue him.”

The Iraq War Families Campaign Group launched a fund-raising drive on Tuesday in an attempt to “bring to justice to those responsible for the war and the deaths of our loved ones”.

The appeal followed the conclusion of the Chilcot Inquiry, which sharply criticised the decision-making behind the war and said it had been poorly-planned and ended in failure.

About 30 families of dead soldiers are understood to be backing the legal action and will use the funding to pay for a legal team from the law firm McCue & Partners for a “full and forensic” analysis of the 2.6 million-word Chilcot report.

Within a day of launching, the appeal on the CrowdJustice website had reached its target of £50,000.

The lawyers estimated they need £150,000 to get to the point of bringing proceedings against Mr Blair, given the huge costs of launching a complex High Court legal action.

The fundraising website states: “Those responsible should be held to account. Now it is down to us, the Families, to ensure that justice is done. Not only for the sake of our children, siblings, parents and spouses, whose lives we can never get back, but to deter our state officials from ever again abusing their positions with such tragic and far-reaching consequences.”

The families have resorted to bringing their own case because the International Criminal Court has ruled out bringing proceedings against Mr Blair while the Crown Prosecution Service has twice rejected calls for him to face criminal prosecution in the UK.

The taxpayer has already paid the costs of  ex-ministers and officials, thought to include Mr Blair, for legal advice ahead of publication of Chilcot earlier this month. The prospect of Mr Blair’s defence being paid for will appal his detractors.

He is reckoned to have earned tens of millions of pounds since leaving Downing Street in 2007 through a consultancy and investment business often operating in countries where he established contacts as prime minister.

Mr Blair has insisted he acted in good faith based on the intelligence available to him in the run up to the war. He has denied making a huge fortune and insists he is worth no more than £10 million. He said the Chilcot Report showed there was no secret plan to invade Iraq and parliament had not been misled in the run up to the invasion.



Psychologists Explain Why People Refuse to Question the Official Version of 9/11

911 inside

31st July 2016

September 11th is the most polarizing event in modern world history. After looking at the aggregate of the accumulated facts and analysis that has emerged since the day itself in 2001, many people find it impossible to believe the official version of events, and since no serious government investigation is considering new evidence or professional analysis, people are left to decide for themselves if there is more to the story.

Due to the sheer volume of information that defies the government’s explanation of events, to believe the official story it now requires some sort of trick of the mind, or some sort of subconscious unwillingness to even entertain a contrary possibility. Regarding 9/11 truth, people will say the most absurdly illogical things, such as:

“I wouldn’t believe what you’re telling me, even if it were true.”
“I don’t need to look at the evidence.”
“I don’t want to know the truth, or I’d become too negative.”
“If that were true, someone would have leaked it by now.”
“That’s ridiculous, there is no way our government would harm us.”
“What makes you think we even deserve to know the truth?”

So, why is it that people have such a hard time even questioning the official version, and why is it difficult for them to even look at alternative information about the events of 9/11?

“At this point we have nine years of hard scientific evidence that disproves the government theory about what happened on September 11th, and yet people continue to be either oblivious to the fact that this information exists, or completely resistant to looking at this information. So the question becomes, why? Why is it that people have so much trouble hearing this information?

From my work  I think we would be remiss not to look at the impact of trauma.” – Marti Hopper, Ph.D.

Trauma Based Mind Control Works

Firstly, it is critical to bring attention to the severity of trauma incurred when witnessing and processing an event of this magnitude. The nation, and much of the world, is still suffering from mass, collective PTSD, and as time goes by, our exposure to more acts of terror only amplify our attempts to bury this trauma within the psyche.

The darker and more horrifying the affront to our humanity, the more effective we are at burying it. The shock and awe theory of consciousness.

“Many people respond to these truths in a very deep way. Some have a visceral reaction, like they’ve been punched in the stomach. To begin to accept the possibility that the government was involved is like opening pandoras box. If you open the lid and peek in a little bit, it’s going to challenge some of your fundamental beliefs about the world.” – Robert Hopper, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist

Protecting Worldview Home

Psychologists highlight how the human mind has a tendency to look out for its own security, protecting itself from ideas that challenge core beliefs. When your worldview comes into serious doubt, it can feel like everything is crashing down, and that you’re being thrown into the great wide open with no security. Much as the body shifts into fight or flight mode when danger is clear and present, so too, the mind has tools of evasion from harm.

“When we hear information that contradicts our worldview, social psychologists call the resulting insecurity, ‘cognitive dissonance.’” – Frances Shure, M.A.

The mind tries to survive by allowing conflicting information to exist simultaneously, unconsciously choosing to bury that which causes the most disruption to the comfort of held beliefs.

In the case of 9/11, and other events where the media plays a critical role in creating a narrative of what happened, one cognition is always the official narrative which typically supports presently held beliefs about society, and the other cognition can be based on fact and evidence, but since it challenges to undermine the safety of such illusions, it is thusly over ridden.

“9/11 truth challenges the beliefs that our country protects us and keeps up safe, and that America is the good guy. When your beliefs are challenged, fear and anxiety are created. In response to that, our psychological defenses kick in, and they protect us from these emotions. Denial, which is probably the most primitive psychological defense is the one most likely to kick in when our beliefs are challenged.” – Robert Hopper, Ph.D

The result is disharmony, the collapse of a very important worldview and a source of psychological protection. What is left in its place is insecurity, vulnerability, and confusion, triggering a survival mechanism.cognitive dissonance


Final Thoughts

9/11 is a crime and a public trauma so grand, that for one to look deeply into it will require them to change or adjust at least some of their fundamental beliefs about the world. Cognitive dissonance, which can lead to the most bizarre reactions to controversially true information, is the mind’s way of hunkering down and weathering the storm in self-protection.

“The terror associated with our unstoppable annihilation creates a subconscious conflict or anxiety called cognitive dissonance. We try to cope with having to accept two contrary ideas. – Gary Vey

This is why the 9/11 issue is so important in our collective awakening. It is so big, and so well-documented that it can lead to a complete reevaluation of our entire worldview and social systems, and a huge leap forward in consciousness and awareness.

If we can think of our world view as being sort of our mental and emotional home, I think all of us would do just about anythign to defend our homes, defend our families…” – Dorothy Loring, M.A., Counseling Psychologist

Take a look at the following presentation looking at why our minds tend to shut down when confronted with the alternate view of 9/11:




source: http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/06/30/psychologists-explain-people-refuse-question-the-official-version-911/