^Back To Top
Not only were no children killed at Sandy Hook, but new video confirms that the Boston bombing was also a staged event, which means we can rejoice since no one was killed in Boston, either. What more could we ask for Christmas 2014?
It has been my pleasure to be featured by Bev Collins on her show, “911 Talk”, twice, first about 9/11 (on 4 December 2014) and again about Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing (on 18 December 2014). During the second show, I even had time for a brief discussion of the raid on the compound that was reported to have ended the life of Osama bin Laden.
What I especially appreciate is that Media Broadcasting Center allows me to use Powerpoint, so I was able (in both instances) to present slides showing the evidence I was talking about. This makes it overwhelmingly easier to explain key points, since we are looking at the evidence as I discuss it. And the second was a fresh opportunity to talk about Sandy Hook.
One of the nice points I made during that part of my presentation is that we have the manual that was used to conduct the drill, where the rehearsal was on the 13th and the “live event” on the 14th, which is why there were so many mistakes in dating events, such as having Adam Lanza’s death reported on the 13th instead of the 14th and posting donation sites a day early:
Because time permitted, I was also able to discuss the Boston bombing, where, on reflection, I realized that I had some slides in the wrong order, because the blood only showed up on a delayed basis after the bombing had taken place, which of course would have been preposterous had this been a real event. So I am rearranging the slides for future presentations. You can see the delay from the images at the top.
In addition, since making that presentation, Clare Kuehn has sent me a link to this video study, which shows that theBoston Globe was tweeting about a demonstration bomb explosion that would take place that day and you can hear officers with megaphones repeating, “This is a drill! This is a drill!” in the background. When you put all the pieces together, there really is no room for doubt.
And that reflects the role of the American government in lying to the American people whenever that might be expedient to promote its political agenda. The case of Osama bin Laden is yet another illustration, where it was useful to Obama to take him out for the second time to position himself for a triumphal reelection. When they aren’t covering up the death of JFK, they are deceiving the public on other matters of great moment.
A film that was nominated for the Academy Award for “Best Picture of 2012” raises serious moral issues; glorifies a political stunt and is based on an historical fiction. It is the latest in Obama propaganda.
Osama bin Laden was not killed on 2 May 2011 during the raid on a compound in Pakistan. He actually died in Afghanistan on or about 15 December 2001 — and he was buried there in an unmarked grave.
Local obituaries reported Osama’s death at the time. Even FOX News subsequently confirmed it. He was buried in an unmarked grave in accord with Muslim traditions. He did not die in Pakistan.
The film suggests that torture produces actionable intelligence, when virtually every military and intelligence expert will confirm that you are told what those being tortured think you want to hear to stop the pain.
As TIME and the Huffington Post have reported, the film’s depiction of torture has created a controversy that may affect its chances for an Oscar. Among the most notable commentaries is one by Matt Tiabbi.
A columnist for Rolling Stone, he has raised serious questions:
“[I]f it would have been dishonest to leave torture out of the film entirely, how is it not dishonest to leave out how generally ineffective it was, how morally corrupting, how totally it enraged the entire Arab world, how often we used it on people we knew little to nothing about, how often it resulted in deaths, or a hundred other facts? Bigelow put it in, which was “honest,” but it seems an eerie coincidence that she was “honest” about torture in pretty much exactly the way a CIA interrogator would have told the story, without including much else.”
Even more importantly, the political context has been all but lost to history. Obama was on the hot seat for an apparently fake birth certificate, having troops in Pakistan and not closing Guantanamo.
By alleging that the tip had come from a prisoner held there and using troops stationed in Pakistan, in a brilliant political stroke, he took his birth certificate off the front page, positioning himself for re-election.
Osama was “our man in Afghanistan.” During the uprising against its occupation by Soviet forces, he was instrumental in securing Stinger missiles, which were used to shoot down their helicopters and planes.
In an earlier film about Afghanistan, “Charlie Wilson’s War”, Osama’s role was conveniently omitted. It would have been embarrassing to have acknowledged “the man behind 9/11” had been working for us.
The demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the military/industrial complex scrambling for some new “boogie man” to justify massive expenditures on military weapons and curtail any “peace dividend.”
Nothing could be more useful than a shadowy “terrorist” threat that has no geographical boundaries, where you can commit a terrorist act any time it’s most politically convenient, as with the Bali bombing.
Australia had been reticent about joining the “war on terror.” What could be a greater inducement than to slaughter many Australians by means of a fabricated attack to motivate its enthusiasm for that war?
Analogously, what could have been more beneficial to Obama than to “take out” a man who was already dead by executing a political stunt that most Americans would not be in a suitable position to contest?
The Daily Mail’s “iconic” photo of Obama and his staff watching the raid (3 May 2011):
But there were problems. Local residents had never seen Osama. They identified the man in the photo as the compound’s owner, who was not bin Laden. The SEALs performed their task and were gone.
A photograph of the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State was widely circulated as engrossed in watching it go down in real time. But the photo itself would turn out to have been staged.
Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA, let the cat out of the bag by noting that there had been no visual footage of the raid during its first 20-25 minutes, which was more than the lapsed time for the whole event.
The body was allegedly identified by DNA comparisons in less time than scientifically possible — and was then dumped into the sea “in accordance with Islamic practice,” which was a ridiculous contention.
Burial at sea is disrespectful of the body, which can be consumed by sharks, fish and crustaceans. That is not a Muslim tradition, but it conveniently disposed of the most powerful proof of fakery and fraud.
When most of the SEAL team involved in the raid were killed when their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan a few months later, it was not implausible to suppose that they might have been silenced.
Osama and al-Qaeda, which was the name given to “our base” in Afghanistan, had nothing to do with 9/11. Osama denied that he was involved in 9/11, implicating a “government within the government.”
Another prominent figure who has acknowledged the existence of a “government within the government” is William Jefferson Clinton, who admitted that this is an entity over which he exercised no control.
Research by experts at the Vancouver Hearings (15-17 June 2012) has vindicated his claim, where US neo-cons — with assistance from the Mossad and the complicity of the Pentagon — orchestrated 9/11.
There are many articles about this, including “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots” (with Preston James, Ph.D.) and “James H. Fetzer: 9/11 IRAN REVIEW Interview”. Or read “9/11: Have we been bamboozed?” The second death of Osama does not stand alone.