All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

.

Global Research Editor’s Note

As September approaches, we are reminded that the anniversary of the tragic events of 9/11 will soon be upon us once again.

22 years laters, are we any closer to the truth about what really happened on that fateful day?

For the next month until September 11, and the illegal invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, we will be posting on a daily basis important articles from our early archives pertaining to the tragic events of 9/11.

“The official theory about the Twin Towers is that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fire.

The following text by the late Professor David Ray Griffin originally published on Global Research in January 2006 forcefully refutes the official narrative.

David Ray Griffin’s legacy will live!

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 2023

***

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:

Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

by

Dr. David Ray Griffin

January 29, 2006 

In The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d).[1] This approach, which shows every aspect of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective challenge to the official story.

But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation, especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after all.

In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded by the New York Fire Department shortly after 9/11 but released to the public only in August of 2005.

I will begin with the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed, then raise the same question about building 7.

1. The Collapse of the Twin Towers

Shortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September” (Bush, 2001).[2] Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, has likewise warned against “outrageous conspiracy theories” (Hansen, 2005). What do these men mean by this expression? They cannot mean that we should reject all conspiracy theories about 9/11, because the government’s own account is a conspiracy theory, with the conspirators all being members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that we should reject outrageous theories.

But what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? This is one of the central questions in the philosophy of science. When confronted by rival theories—let’s say Neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design—scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.

With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.

No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire

The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never—prior to or after 9/11—caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST—the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)—even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.

Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.[5] Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11). Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel.[6]

The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse—never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City—never.

One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.

There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: “steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.” Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted” (Barter, 2001).[7]

These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene—which is what jet fuel is—can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.[10]

Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300°F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.

But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F” (Eagar, 2002).

There are reasons to believe, moreover, that the fires were not even that hot. As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, “only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250°C [482°F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88).

NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST’s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that—pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence.

Moreover, even if the fire had reached 1,300°F, as Eagar supposes, that does not mean that any of the steel would have reached that temperature. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. Put a fire to one part of a long bar of steel and the heat will quickly diffuse to the other parts and to any other pieces of steel to which that bar is connected.[13]

For fires to have heated up some of the steel columns to anywhere close to their own temperature, they would have needed to be very big, relative to the size of the buildings and the amount of steel in them. The towers, of course, were huge and had an enormous amount of steel. A small, localized fire of 1,300°F would never have heated any of the steel columns even close to that temperature, because the heat would have been quickly dispersed throughout the building.

Some defenders of the official story have claimed that the fires were indeed very big, turning the buildings into “towering infernos.” But all the evidence counts against this claim, especially with regard to the south tower, which collapsed first. This tower was struck between floors 78 and 84, so that region is where the fire would have been the biggest. And yet Brian Clark, a survivor, said that when he got down to the 80th floor: “You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames . . . just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall.”[14] Likewise, one of the fire chiefs who had reached the 78th floor found only “two isolated pockets of fire.”[15]

The north tower, to be sure, did have fires that were big enough and hot enough to cause many people to jump to their deaths. But as anyone with a fireplace grate or a pot-belly stove knows, fire that will not harm steel or even iron will burn human flesh. Also in many cases it may have been more the smoke than the heat that led people to jump.

In any case, the fires, to weaken the steel columns, would have needed to be not only very big and very hot but also very long-lasting.[16] The public was told that the towers had such fires, with CNN saying that “very intense” fires “burned for a long time.”[17] But they did not. The north tower collapsed an hour and 42 minutes after it was struck; the south tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

To see how ludicrous is the claim that the short-lived fires in the towers could have induced structural collapse, we can compare them with some other fires. In 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this building’s 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage (FEMA, 1988). In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building’s 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report, although “[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted . . . under severe fire exposures. . . , the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage” (FEMA, 1991). In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building’s top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse (Nieto, 2004). And yet we are supposed to believe that a 56-minute fire caused the south tower to collapse.

Unlike the fires in the towers, moreover, the fires in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Caracas were hot enough to break windows.

Another important comparison is afforded by a series of experiments run in Great Britain in the mid-1990s to see what kind of damage could be done to steel-frame buildings by subjecting them to extremely hot, all-consuming fires that lasted for many hours. FEMA, having reviewed those experiments, said: “Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900°C (1,500-1,700°F) in three of the tests. . . , no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments” (1988, Appendix A).

These comparisons bring out the absurdity of NIST’s claim that the towers collapsed because the planes knocked the fireproofing off the steel columns. Fireproofing provides protection for only a few hours, so the steel in the buildings in Philadelphia and Caracas would have been directly exposed to raging fires for 14 or more hours, and yet this steel did not buckle. NIST claims, nevertheless, that the steel in the south tower buckled because it was directly exposed to flames for 56 minutes.[18]

A claim made by some defenders of the official theory is to speculate that there was something about the Twin Towers that made them uniquely vulnerable to fire. But these speculations are not backed up by any evidence. And, as Norman Glover, has pointed out: “[A]lmost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire. The WTC was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service” (Glover, 2002).

Multiple Evidence of Controlled Demolition

There is a reverse truth to the fact that, aside from the alleged cases of 9/11, fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse. This reverse truth is that every previous total collapse has been caused by the procedure known as “controlled demolition,” in which explosives capable of cutting steel have been placed in crucial places throughout the building and then set off in a particular order. Just from knowing that the towers collapsed, therefore, the natural assumption would be that they were brought down by explosives.

This a priori assumption is, moreover, supported by an empirical examination of the particular nature of the collapses. Here we come to the second major problem with the official theory, namely, that the collapses had at least eleven features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used. I will briefly describe these eleven features.

Sudden Onset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses—if we had any examples of such—the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show,[19] there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse.

Straight Down: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings. The whole art or science of controlled demolition is oriented primarily around this goal. As Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has explained, “to bring [a building] down as we want, so . . . no other structure is harmed,” the demolition must be “completely planned,” using “the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges” (Else, 2004).[20] If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.[21]

Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance. The fact that the collapses of the towers mimicked this feature of controlled demolition was mentioned indirectly by The 9/11 Commission Report, which said that the “South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 305).[22] The authors of the report evidently thought that the rapidity of this collapse did not conflict with the official theory, known as the “pancake” theory. According to this theory, the floors above the floors that were weakened by the impact of the airliner fell on the floor below, which started a chain reaction, so that the floors “pancaked” all the way down.

But if that is what happened, the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, would have provided resistance. The upper floors could not have fallen through them at the same speed as they would fall through air. However, the videos of the collapses show that the rubble falling inside the building’s profile falls at the same speed as the rubble outside[23] (Jones, 2006). As architect and physicist Dave Heller (2005) explains:

the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall. (Garlic and Glass 6)

Total Collapse: The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high. How was that possible? The core of each tower contained 47 massive steel box columns.[24] According to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing. The 9/11 Commission came up with a bold solution to this problem. It simply denied the existence of the 47 core columns, saying: “The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, 541 note 1). Voila! With no 47 core columns, the main problem is removed.

The NIST Report handled this most difficult problem by claiming that when the floors collapsed, they pulled on the columns, causing the perimeter columns to become unstable. This instability then increased the gravity load on the core columns, which had been weakened by tremendously hot fires in the core, which, NIST claims, reached 1832°F, and this combination of factors somehow produced “global collapse” (NIST, 2005, pp. 28, 143).

This theory faces two problems. First, NIST’s claim about tremendously hot fires in the core is completely unsupported by evidence. As we saw earlier, its own studies found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482°F (250°C), so its theory involves a purely speculative addition of over 1350°F.[25] Second, even if this sequence of events had occurred, NIST provides no explanation as to why it would have produced global—-that is, total–collapse. The NIST Report asserts that “column failure” occurred in the core as well as the perimeter columns. But this remains a bare assertion. There is no plausible explanation of why the columns would have broken or even buckled, so as to produce global collapse at virtually free-fall speed, even if they had reached such temperatures.[26]

Sliced Steel: In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces. A representative from Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said of RDX, one of the commonly used high explosives, that it slices steel like a “razor blade through a tomato.” The steel is, moreover, not merely sliced; it is sliced into manageable lengths. As Controlled Demolition, Inc., says in its publicity: “Our DREXSTM systems . . . segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment.”[27]

The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well. Jim Hoffman (2004), after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel seemed to be “chopped up into . . . sections that could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero.”[28]

Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials: Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles. And, Hoffman (2003) reports, “nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.”[29] That observation was also made by Colonel John O’Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “At the World Trade Center sites,” he told the History Channel, “it seemed like everything was pulverized” (History Channel, 2002).

This fact creates a problem for the official theory, according to which the only energy available was the gravitational energy. This energy would have been sufficient to break most of the concrete into fairly small pieces. But it would not have been anywhere close to the amount of energy needed to turn the concrete and virtually all the non-metallic contents of the buildings into tiny particles of dust.

Dust Clouds: Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great energy. And, as one can see by comparing videos on the Web, the collapses of the towers produced clouds that are very similar to those produced by controlled demolitions of other structures, such as Seattle’s Kingdome. The only difference is that the clouds produced during the collapses of the towers were proportionally much bigger.[30]

The question of the source of the needed energy again arises. Hoffman (2003), focusing on the expansion of the North Tower’s dust cloud, calculates that the energy required simply for this expansion—ignoring the energy needed to slice the steel and pulverize the concrete and other materials—exceeded by at least 10 times the gravitational energy available.

The official account, therefore, involves a huge violation of the laws of physics—a violation that becomes even more enormous once we factor in the energy required to pulverize the concrete (let alone the energy required to break the steel).

Besides the sheer quantity of energy needed, another problem with the official theory is that gravitational energy is wholly unsuited to explain the production of these dust clouds. This is most obviously the case in the first few seconds. In Hoffman’s words: “You can see thick clouds of pulverized concrete being ejected within the first two seconds. That’s when the relative motion of the top of the tower to the intact portion was only a few feet per second.”[31] Jeff King (2003), in the same vein, says: “[A great amount of] very fine concrete dust is ejected from the top of the building very early in the collapse. . . [when] concrete slabs [would have been] bumping into each other at [only] 20 or 30 mph.”

The importance of King’s point can be appreciated by juxtaposing it with the claim by Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, that although the clouds of dust created during the collapses of the Twin Towers may create the impression of a controlled demolition, “it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception” (Popular Mechanics, 2005). The pancaking, according to the official theory being defended by Sunder, began at the floor beneath the holes created by the impact of the airliners. As King points out, this theory cannot handle the fact, as revealed by the photographs and videos, that dust clouds were created far above the impact zones.

Horizontal Ejections: Another common feature of controlled demolition is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives are set off. In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that “[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers” (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7). But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.

Demolition Rings: Still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run rapidly around a building. This feature was also manifested by the collapses of the towers.[32]

Sounds Produced by Explosions: The use of explosives to induce collapses produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions. Like all the previous features except the slicing of the steel columns inside the building, this one could be observed by witnesses. And, as we will see below, there is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapses of the towers.

Molten Steel: An eleventh feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the steel columns would be molten steel, and its existence at the WTC site was indeed reported by several witnesses, including the two main figures involved in the clean up, Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Incorporated. Tully said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the site. Loizeaux said that several weeks after 9/11, when the rubble was being removed, “hot spots of molten steel” were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels” (both statements quoted in Bollyn, 2004).[33]

Also, Leslie Robertson, the chief structural engineer for the Twin Towers, said: “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running” (Williams, 2001). Knight-Ridder journalist Jennifer Lin, discussing Joe “Toolie” O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked for many months on the rescue and clean-up efforts, wrote: “Underground fires raged for months. O’Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. ‘It was dripping from the molten steel,” he said'” (Lin, 2002). Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint, Inc., which supplied some of the computer equipment used to identify human remains at the site, described the working conditions as “hellish,” partly because for six months, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees or higher. Fuchek added that “sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel” (Walsh, 2002). And still more witnesses spoke of molten steel.[34]

This testimony is of great significance, since it would be hard to imagine what, other than high explosives, could have caused some of the steel to melt.

The importance of the nature of the collapses, as summarized in these 11 features, is shown by the fact that attempts to defend the official theory typically ignore most of them. For example, an article in Popular Mechanics (2005), seeking to debunk what it calls some of the most prevalent myths about 9/11 fabricated by “conspiracy theorists,” completely ignores the suddenness, verticality, rapidity, and totality of the collapses and also fails to mention the testimonies about molten steel, demolition rings, and the sounds of explosions.[35]

2. Testimonies about Explosions and Related Phenomena in the 9/11 Oral Histories

Most of these 11 features—all but the slicing of the core columns and the molten steel in the basements—are features that, if they occurred before or during the collapses of the towers, could have been observed by people in the area. And, in fact, testimonies about some of these phenomena have been available, since shortly after 9/11, from reporters,[36] fire fighters,[37] police officers,[38] people who worked in the towers,[39] and one prominent explosives expert, Van Romero, [40] who said on that very day after viewing the videotapes, that the collapses not only resembled those produced by controlled implosions but must, in fact, have been caused by “some explosive devices inside the buildings” because they were “too methodical” to have been chance results of the airplane strikes (Uyttebrouck, 2001).[41] Some of these testimonies were very impressive. There were, however, only a few of them and they were scattered here and there. No big body of testimony was readily accessible.

But this situation has dramatically changed. Shortly after 9/11, the New York Fire Department recorded over 500 oral histories, in which firefighters and emergency medical workers recounted their experiences of that day. [Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire Department(Dwyer, 2005a).] Mayor Bloomberg’s administration, however, refused to release them. But then the New York Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit and, after a long process, the New York Court of Appeals ordered the city to release the bulk of these oral histories, which it did in August 2005[42] (Dwyer, 2005b). The Times then made them publicly available (NYT, 2005).[43]

These oral histories contain many dozens of testimonies that speak of explosions and related phenomena characteristic of controlled demolition. I will give some examples.

Explosions

Several individuals reported that they witnessed an explosion just before one of the towers collapsed. Battalion Chief John Sudnik said: “we heard . . . what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down” (NYT, Sudnick, p. 4).

Several people reported multiple explosions. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski said:

“I heard three explosions, and then . . . tower two started to come down” (NYT, Darnowski, p. 8).

Firefighter Thomas Turilli said,

“it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight” (NYT, Turilli, p. 4).

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters

“heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down” (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6).

Firefighter Joseph Meola said,

“it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops” (NYT, Meola, p. 5).

Paramedic Daniel Rivera also mentioned “pops.” Asked how he knew that the south tower was coming down, he said:

It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was—do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’? . . . I thought it was that. (NYT, Rivera, p. 9)

Collapse Beginning below the Strike Zone and Fire According to the official account, the “pancaking” began when the floors above the hole caused by the airplane fell on the floors below. Some witnesses reported, however, that the collapse of the south tower began somewhat lower.

Timothy Burke said that

“the building popped, lower than the fire. . . . I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion” (NYT, Burke, pp. 8-9).

Firefighter Edward Cachia said:

“It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down” (NYT, Cachia, p. 5).

The importance of these observations is reinforced by the fact that the authors of the NIST Report, after having released a draft to the public, felt the need to add the following statement to the Executive Summary:

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. . . . Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward.

Firefighters Burke and Cachia presumably now need to ask themselves: What are you going to believe, your own eyes or an official government report?

Flashes and Demolition Rings

Some of the witnesses spoke of flashes and of phenomena suggestive of demolition rings. Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said:

“I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” (NYT, Gregory, pp. 14-16).

Captain Karin Deshore said:

“Somewhere around the middle . . . there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. . . . [W]ith each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building” (NYT, Deshore, p. 15).

Firefighter Richard Banaciski said:

“[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions” (NYT, Banaciski, pp. 3-4).

Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick said:

“It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV” (NYT, Fitzpatrick, pp. 13-14).

Horizontal Ejections

A few witnesses spoke of horizontal ejections. Chief Frank Cruthers said:

“There was what appeared to be . . . an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse” (NYT, Cruthers, p. 4).

This testimony is important, because the official theory holds that the ejections were produced by the floors collapsing. So listen to firefighter James Curran, who said:

“I looked back and . . . I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu. I looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of the floors before it actually collapsed” (NYT, Curran, pp. 10-11).

Battalion Chief Brian Dixon said, “the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because . . . everything blew out on the one floor” (NYT, Dixon, p. 15).[44]

Synchronized Explosions

Some witnesses said that the explosions seemed to be synchronized. For example, firefighter Kenneth Rogers said,

“there was an explosion in the south tower. . . . I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another . . . [I]t looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing” (NYT, Rogers, pp. 3-4).[45]

Why Does the Public Not Know of These Reports? If all these firefighters and medical workers witnessed all these phenomena suggestive of controlled demolition, it might be wondered why the public does not know this. Part of the answer is provided by Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac. Having said that “there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact” (Lavello, n.d.). Another part of the answer is that when a few people, like Isaac and William Rodriguez, have spoken out, the mainstream press has failed to report their statements.

3. Implications

The official theory about the collapse of the towers, I have suggested, is rendered extremely implausible by two main facts. First, aside from the alleged exception of 9/11, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been caused to collapse by fire; all such collapses have all been produced by carefully placed explosives. Second, the collapses of the Twin Towers manifested at least 11 characteristic features of controlled demolitions. The probability that any of these features would occur in the absence of explosives is extremely low. The probability that all 11 of them would occur is essentially zero.[46]

We can say, therefore, that the official theory about the towers is disproved about as thoroughly as such a theory possibly could be, whereas all the evidence can be explained by the alternative theory, according to which the towers were brought down by explosives. The official theory is, accordingly, an outrageous theory, whereas the alternative theory is, from a scientific point of view, the only reasonable theory available.[47]

4. Other Suspicious Facts

Moreover, although we have already considered sufficient evidence for the theory that the towers were brought down by explosives, there is still more.

Removal of the Steel: For one thing, the steel from the buildings was quickly removed before it could be properly examined,[48] with virtually all of it being sold to scrap dealers, who put most of it on ships to Asia.[49] Generally, removing any evidence from the scene of a crime is a federal offense. But in this case, federal officials facilitated the removal.[50]

This removal evoked protest. On Christmas day, 2001, the New York Times said: “The decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses from the WTC in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known.”[51] The next week, Fire Engineering magazine said: “We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence (Brannigan, Corbett, and Dunn, 2002). . . . The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately” (Manning, 2002).

However, Mayor Bloomberg, defending the decision to dispose of the steel, said: “If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that’s in this day and age what computers do.[52] Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn’t tell you anything.”[53] But that is not true. An examination of the steel could have revealed whether it had been cut by explosives.

This removal of an unprecedented amount of material from a crime scene suggests that an unprecedented crime was being covered up.[54]

Evidence that this cover-up was continued by NIST is provided by its treatment of a provocative finding reported by FEMA, which was that some of the specimens of steel were “rapidly corroded by sulfidation” (FEMA 2002, Appendix C). This report is significant, because sulfidation is an effect of explosives. FEMA appropriately called for further investigation of this finding, which the New York Times called “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation” (Killough-Miller, 2002). A closely related problem, expressed shortly after 9/11 by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, is that “[f]ire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated” (Glanz, 2001). But the NIST report, in its section headed “Learning from the Recovered Steel,” fails even to mention either evaporation or sulfidation.[55] Why would the NIST scientists apparently share Mayor Bloomberg’s disdain for empirical studies of recovered steel?

North Tower Antenna Drop: Another problem noted by FEMA is that videos show that, in the words of the FEMA Report, “the transmission tower on top of the [north tower] began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building” (FEMA 2002, ch. 2).[56] This drop was also mentioned in a New York Times story by James Glanz and Eric Lipton, which said: “Videos of the north tower’s collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building’s steel core somehow gave way first” (Glanz and Lipton, 2002). In the supposedly definitive NIST Report, however, we find no mention of this fact. This is another convenient omission, since the most plausible, and perhaps only possible, explanation would be that the core columns were cut by explosives—an explanation that would fit with the testimony of several witnesses.

South Tower Tipping and Disintegration: If the north tower’s antenna drop was anomalous (from the perspective of the official theory), the south tower’s collapse contained an even stranger anomaly. The uppermost floors—above the level struck by the airplane—began tipping toward the corner most damaged by the impact. According to conservation-of-momentum laws, this block of approximately 34 floors should have fallen to the ground far outside the building’s footprint. “However,” observe Paul and Hoffman,

“as the top then began to fall, the rotation decelerated. Then it reversed direction [even though the] law of conservation of angular momentum states that a solid object in rotation will continue to rotate at the same speed unless acted on by a torque” (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 34).

And then, in the words of Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU, “this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!” This disintegration stopped the tipping and allowed the uppermost floors to fall straight down into, or at least close to, the building’s footprint. As Jones notes, this extremely strange behavior was one of many things that NIST was able to ignore by virtue of the fact that its analysis, in its own words, “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached” (NIST 2005, p. 80, n. 12). This is convenient because it means that NIST did not have to answer Jones’s question: “How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?” (Jones, 2006).

This behavior is, however, not strange to experts in controlled demolition. Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said:

[B]y differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance . . . . We’ll have structures start facing north and end up going to the north-west. (Else, 2004)

Once again, something that is inexplicable in terms of the official theory becomes a matter of course if the theory of controlled demolition is adopted.

WTC Security: The suggestion that explosives might have been used raises the question of how anyone wanting to place explosives in the towers could have gotten through the security checks. This question brings us to a possibly relevant fact about a company—now called Stratesec but then called Securacom—that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. From 1993 to 2000, during which Securacom installed a new security system, Marvin Bush, the president’s brother, was one of the company’s directors. And from 1999 until January of 2002, their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO (Burns, 2003).[57] One would think these facts should have made the evening news—or at least The 9/11 Commission Report.

These facts, in any case, may be relevant to some reports given by people who had worked in the World Trade Center. Some of them reportedly said that although in the weeks before 9/11 there had been a security alert that mandated the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, that alert was lifted five days before 9/11 (Taylor and Gardiner, 2001).

Also, a man named Scott Forbes, who worked for Fiduciary Trust—the company for which Kristen Breitweiser’s husband worked—has written:

On the weekend of [September 8-9, 2001], there was a “power down” condition in . . . the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. . . . The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded . . . . Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors [while] many, many “engineers” [were] coming in and out of the tower.[58]

Also, a man named Ben Fountain, who was a financial analyst with Fireman’s Fund in the south tower, was quoted in People Magazine as saying that during the weeks before 9/11, the towers were evacuated “a number of times” (People Magazine, 2001).

Foreknowledge of the Collapse: One more possibly relevant fact is that then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, talking on ABC News about his temporary emergency command center at 75 Barkley Street, said:

We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building.[59]

This is an amazing statement. Prior to 9/11, fire had never brought down a steel-frame high-rise. The firemen who reached the 78th floor of the south tower certainly did not believe it was going to collapse. Even the 9/11 Commission reported that to its knowledge, “none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 302). So why would anyone have told Giuliani that at least one of the towers was about to collapse?

The most reasonable answer, especially in light of the new evidence, is that someone knew that explosives had been set in the south tower and were about to be discharged. It is even possible that the explosives were going to be discharged earlier than originally planned because the fires in the south tower were dying down more quickly than expected, because so much of the plane’s jet fuel had burned up in the fireball outside the building.[60] This could explain why although the south tower was struck second, suffered less structural damage, and had smaller fires, it collapsed first—after only 56 minutes. That is, if the official story was going to be that the fire caused the collapse, the building had to be brought down before the fire went completely out.[61]

We now learn from the oral histories, moreover, that Giuliani is not the only one who was told that a collapse was coming. At least four of the testimonies indicate that shortly before the collapse of the south tower, the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) had predicted the collapse of at least one tower.[62] The director of OEM reported directly to Giuliani.[63] So although Giuliani said that he and others “were told” that the towers were going to collapse, it was his own people who were doing the telling.

As New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer has pointed out, the 9/11 Commission had access to the oral histories.[64] It should have discussed these facts, but it did not.

The neglect of most of the relevant facts about the collapses, manifested by The 9/11 Commission Report, was continued by the NIST Report, which said, amazingly:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. . . . [Our simulation treats only] the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building . . . was poised for collapse (80n, 140).

Steven Jones comments, appropriately:

What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? . . . What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas . . . ? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at all the data, without computer simulations that are “adjusted” to make them fit the desired outcome. (Jones, 2006)

Summary: When we add these five additional suspicious facts to the eleven features that that the collapses of the Twin Towers had in common with controlled demolitions, we have a total of sixteen facts about the collapses of these buildings that, while being inexplicable in terms of the official theory, are fully understandable on the theory that the destruction of the towers was an inside job.

5. The Collapse of Building 7

As we have seen, the 9/11 Commission simply ignored the facts discussed above. Still another matter not discussed by the Commission was the collapse of building 7. And yet the official story about it is, if anything, even more problematic than the official story about the towers—as suggested by the title of a New York Times story,

“Engineers Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC” (Glanz, 2001).[65]

Even More Difficult to Explain

The collapse of building 7 is even more difficult to explain than the collapse of the towers in part because it was not struck by an airliner, so none of the theories about how the impacts of the airliners contributed to the collapses of the towers can be employed in relation to it.

Also, all the photographic evidence suggests that the fires in this building were small, not very hot, and limited to a few floors. Photographs of the north side of the building show fires only on the 7th and 12th floors of this 47-floor building. So if the south side, which faced the towers, had fires on many other floors, as defenders of the official account claim, they were not big enough to be seen from the other side of the building.[66]

It would not be surprising, of course, if the fires in this building were even smaller than those in the towers, because there was no jet fuel to get a big fire started. Some defenders of the official story have claimed, to be sure, that the diesel fuel stored in this building somehow caught fire and created a towering inferno. But if building 7 had become engulfed in flames, why did none of the many photographers and TV camera crews on the scene capture this sight?

The extreme difficulty of explaining the collapse of building 7—-assuming that it is not permissible to mention controlled demolition—has been recognized by the official bodies. The report prepared under FEMA’s supervision came up with a scenario employing the diesel fuel, then admitted that this scenario had “only a low probability of occurrence.”[67] Even that statement is generous, because the probability that some version of the official story of building 7 is true is the same as it is for the towers, essentially zero, because it would violate several laws of physics. In any case, the 9/11 Commission, perhaps because of this admission by FEMA, avoided the problem by simply not even mentioning the fact that this building collapsed.

This was one of the Commission’s most amazing omissions. According to the official theory, building 7 demonstrated, contrary to the universal conviction prior to 9/11, that large steel-frame buildings could collapse from fire alone, even without having been hit by an airplane. This demonstration should have meant that building codes and insurance premiums for all steel-frame buildings in the world needed to be changed. And yet the 9/11 Commission, in preparing its 571-page report, did not devote a single sentence to this historic event.

Even More Similar to Controlled Implosions

Yet another reason why the collapse of building 7 is especially problematic is that it was even more like the best-known type of conventional demolition—-namely, an implosion, which begins at the bottom (whereas the collapse of each tower originated high up, near the region struck by the plane). As Eric Hufschmid has written:

Building 7 collapsed at its bottom. . . . [T]he interior fell first. . . . The result was a very tiny pile of rubble, with the outside of the building collapsing on top of the pile.[68]

Implosion World.com, a website about the demolition industry, states that an implosion is

“by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions.”[69]

Can anyone really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the same time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a miracle. Physicist Steven Jones agrees, saying:

The likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of WTC7 due to random fires (the “official” theory)—requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns—is infinitesimal. I conclude that the evidence for the 9/11 use of pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in Towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling.[70]

Much More Extensive Foreknowledge

Another reason why the collapse of building 7 creates special problems involves foreknowledge of its collapse. We know of only a few people with advance knowledge that the Twin Towers were going to collapse, and the information we have would be consistent with the supposition that this knowledge was acquired only a few minutes before the south tower collapsed. People can imagine, therefore, that someone saw something suggesting that the building was going to collapse. But the foreknowledge of building 7’s collapse was more widespread and of longer duration. This has been known for a long time, at least by people who read firefighters’ magazines.[71] But now the oral histories have provided a fuller picture.

Widespread Notification: At least 25 of the firefighters and medical workers reported that, at some time that day, they learned that building 7 was going to collapse. Firefighters who had been fighting the fires in the building said they were ordered to leave the building, after which a collapse zone was established. As medical worker Decosta Wright put it:

“they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand,” which was “5 blocks away” (NYT, Wright, pp. 11-12).

Early Warning: As to exactly when the expectation of the collapse began circulating, the testimonies differ. But most of the evidence suggests that the expectation of collapse was communicated 4 or 5 hours in advance.[72]

The Alleged Reason for the Expectation: But why would this expectation have arisen? The fires in building 7 were, according to all the photographic evidence, few and small. So why would the decision-makers in the department have decided to pull firefighters out of building 7 and have them simply stand around waiting for it to collapse?

The chiefs gave a twofold explanation: damage plus fire. Chief Frank Fellini said:

“When [the north tower] fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing” (NYT, Fellini, p. 3).

There are at least two problems with each part of this explanation. One problem with the accounts of the structural damage is that they vary greatly. According to Fellini’s testimony, there was a four-floor hole between the third and sixth floors. In the telling of Captain Chris Boyle, however, the hole was “20 stories tall” (2002). It would appear that Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST, settled on somewhat of a compromise between these two views, telling Popular Mechanics that,

“On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom–approximately 10 stories–about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out” (Popular Mechanics, March 2005).

The different accounts of the problem on the building’s south side are not, moreover, limited to the issue of the size of the hole. According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, the problem was not a hole at all but a “bulge,” and it was “between floors 10 and 13″ (Hayden, 2002).

The second problem with these accounts of the damage is if there was a hole that was 10 or 20 floors high, or even a hole (or a budge) that was 4 floors high, why was this fact not captured on film by any of the photographers or videographers in the area that day?

With regard to the claims about the fire, the accounts again vary greatly. Chief Daniel Nigro spoke of “very heavy fire on many floors” (NYT, Nigro, p. 10). According to Harry Meyers, an assistant chief,

“When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories” (quoted in Smith, 2002, p. 160).

That obvious exaggeration was also stated by a firefighter who said:

“[Building 7] was fully engulfed. . . . [Y]ou could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other” (NYT, Cassidy, p. 22).

Several of the testimonies, however, did not support the official line. For example, medical technician Decosta Wright said:

“I think the fourth floor was on fire. . . . [W]e were like, are you guys going to put that fire out?” (NYT, Wright, p. 11). Chief Thomas McCarthy said:

“[T]hey were waiting for 7 World Trade to come down. . . . They had . . . fire on three separate floors . . . , just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it’s the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said ‘we know’” (NYT, McCarthy, pp. 10-11).

The second problem with the official account here is that if there was “very heavy fire on many floors,” why is this fact not captured on any film? The photograph that we have of the north side of the building supports Chief McCarthy’s view that there was fire on three floors. Even if there were fires on additional floors on the south side of the building, there is no photographic support for the claim that “the flames [on these additional floors went] straight through from one side of the building to the other.”

Moreover, even if the department’s official story about the collapse of building 7 were not contradicted by physical evidence and some of the oral histories, it would not explain why the building collapsed, because no amount of fire and structural damage, unless caused by explosives, had ever caused the total collapse of a large steel-frame building.[73] And it certainly would not explain the particular nature of the collapse—that the building imploded and fell straight down rather than falling over in some direction, as purportedly expected by those who gave the order to create a large collapse zone. Battalion Chief John Norman, for example, said: “We expected it to fall to the south” (Norman 2002). Nor would the damage-plus-fire theory explain this building’s collapse at virtually free-fall speed or the creation of an enormous amount of dust—additional features of the collapses that are typically ignored by defenders of the official account.

The great difficulty presented to the official theory about the WTC by the collapse of building 7 is illustrated by a recent book, 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, one of the authors of which is New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer, who wrote the stories in the Times about the release of the 9/11 oral histories. With regard to the Twin Towers, Dwyer and his co-author, Kevin Flynn, support the theory put out by NIST, according to which the towers collapsed because the airplanes knocked the fire-proofing off the steel columns, making them vulnerable to the “intense heat” of the ensuing fires.[74] When they come to building 7, however, Dwyer and Flynn do not ask why it collapsed, given the fact that it was not hit by a plane. They simply say: “The firefighters had decided to let the fire there burn itself out” (Dwyer and Flynn, 2005, p. 258). But that, of course, is not what happened. Rather, shortly after 5:20 that day, building 7 suddenly collapsed, in essentially the same way as did the Twin Towers.

Should this fact not have led Dryer and Flynn to question NIST’s theory that the Twin Towers collapsed because their fireproofing had been knocked loose? I would especially think that Dwyer, who reported on the release of the 9/11 oral histories, should re-assess NIST’s theory in light of the abundant evidence of explosions in the towers provided in those testimonies.[75]

Another Explanation: There is, in any case, only one theory that explains both the nature and the expectation of the collapse of building 7: Explosives had been set, and someone who knew this spread the word to the fire chiefs.

Amazingly enough, a version of this theory was publicly stated by an insider, Larry Silverstein, who owned building 7. In a PBS documentary aired in September of 2002, Silverstein, discussing building 7, said:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.”[76] And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. (PBS, 2002) [77]

It is very puzzling, to be sure, that Silverstein, who was ready to receive billions of dollars in insurance payments for building 7 and the rest of the World Trade Center complex, on the assumption that they had been destroyed by acts of terrorism, would have made such a statement in public, especially with TV cameras running. But his assertion that building 7 was brought down by explosives, whatever the motive behind it, explains why and how it collapsed.

We still, however, have the question of why the fire department came to expect the building to collapse. It would be interesting, of course, if that information came from the same agency, the Office of Emergency Management, that had earlier informed the department that one of the towers was going to collapse. And we have it on good authority that it did. Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, “Someone from the city’s Office of Emergency Management” told him that building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it,” after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out (Murphy, 2002, pp. 175-76).[78]

But that answer, assuming it to be correct, leaves us with more questions, beginning with: Who in the Office of Emergency Management knew in advance that the towers and building 7 were going to collapse? How did they know this? And so on. These questions could be answered only by a real investigation, which has yet to begin.

6. Conclusion

It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding buildings. And they could not have orchestrated a cover-up, from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to the NIST Report. All of these things could have been orchestrated only by forces within our own government.

The evidence for this conclusion has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush’s advice not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories.” We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administration’s conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.

There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not pointed out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times said:

The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of ‘X-Files’ proportions and insidiousness.[79]

The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration’s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.

In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this essay—as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed in my books—I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is any news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11 oral histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion. 

 

ENDNOTES

[1] Both lectures are also available on DVDs edited by Ken Jenkins ([email protected]). See also Griffin, 2005c.

[2] Bush’s more complete statement was: “We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of 11 September—malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.” Excellent advice.

[3] This report was carried out by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) on behalf of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The public was exposed to this theory early on, with CNN saying shortly after 9/11: “The collapse, when it came, was caused by fire. . . . The fire weakened that portion of the structure which remained after the impact. . . to the point where it could no longer sustain the load” (CNN, September 24, 2001).

[4] NIST describes the collapses of the towers as instances of “progressive collapse,” which happens when “a building or portion of a building collapses due to disproportionate spread of an initial local failure” (NIST Report, p. 200). NIST thereby falsely implies that the total collapses of the three WTC buildings were specific instances of a general category with other instances. NIST even claims that the collapses were “inevitable.”

[5] The chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, said that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, at that time (1966) the largest airliner. See “The Fall of the World Trade Center,” BBC 2, March 7, 2002 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml ). For a comparison of the 707 and the 767, see “Boeing 707-767 Comparison,” What Really Happened (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html). Also relevant is the fact that in 1945, a B-25 bomber struck the Empire State Building at the 79th floor, creating a hole 20 feet high. But there was never the slightest indication that this accident would cause the building to collapse (see Glover, 2002).

[6] The NIST Report (2005, pp. xliii and 171) says: “the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.”

[7] Supported by these authorities, the show went on to claim that “as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel cores in each building would have eventually reached 800°C [1472°F]—hot enough to start buckling and collapsing.”

[8]In Griffin, 2004, pp. 12-13, I cite Professor Thomas Eagar’s acknowledgment of this fact.

[9] Given the fact that the claim that the fires in the towers melted its steel is about as absurd, from a scientific point of view, as a claim could be, it is amazing to see that some scientific journals seemed eager to rush into print with this claim. On the day after 9/11, for example, New Scientist published an article that said: “Each tower [after it was struck] remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts” (Samuel and Carrington, 2001). The article’s title, “Design Choice for Towers Saved Lives”, reflects the equally absurd claim—attributed to “John Hooper, principal engineer in the company that provided engineering advice when the World Trade Center was designed”—that “[m]ost buildings would have come down immediately.”

[10] Stating this obvious point could, however, be costly to employees of companies with close ties to the government. On November 11, 2004, Kevin Ryan, the Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories, which is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, wrote an e-mail letter to Dr. Frank Gayle, Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In this letter, Ryan stated: “We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000°F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000°F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000°F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.” After Ryan allowed his letter to become public, he was fired. His letter is available at http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php .

[11] One well-known attempt to defend the official account has tried to use the absurdity of the steel-melting claim against those who reject the official account. In its March issue of 2005, Popular Mechanics magazine published a piece entitled “9/11: Debunking the Myths” (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y). This article sets out to debunk what it alleges to be “16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists.” One of these “poisonous claims,” according to Popular Mechanics, results from the fact that that these “conspiracy theorists” have created a straw-man argument—pretending that the official theory claims that the buildings came down because their steel melted—which the conspiracy theorists could then knock down. Popular Mechanics “refutes” this straw-man argument by instructing us that “[j]et fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength.” As we have seen, however, the idea that the towers collapsed because their steel melted was put into the public consciousness by some early defenders of the official theory. For critics of this theory to show the absurdity of this claim is not, therefore, to attack a straw man. The idea that the official theory is based on this absurd claim is, in any case, not one of “the most prevalent claims” of those who reject the official theory.

[12] Even Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the NIST study, said: “The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes” (Field, 2004). The NIST Report itself says (p. 179): “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.”

[13] The NIST Report (2005, p. 68), trying to argue that steel is very vulnerable unless it is protected by insulation, says: “Bare structural steel components can heat quickly when exposed to a fire of even moderate intensity. Therefore, some sort of thermal protection, or insulation, is necessary”. As Hoffman (2005) points out, however: “These statements are meaningless, because they ignore the effect of steel’s thermal conductivity, which draws away heat, and the considerable thermal mass of the 90,000 tons of steel in each Tower.” Also, I can only wonder if the authors of the NIST Report reflected on the implications of their theory for the iron or steel grating in their fireplaces. Do they spray on new fireproofing after enjoying a blazing hot fire for a few hours?

[14]Quoted in “WTC 2: There Was No Inferno,” What Really Happened (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_fire.html).

[15] Quoted in “Tape Sheds Light on WTC Rescuers,” CNN, August 4, 2002 (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/04/wtc.firefighters/ ). The voices of the firefighters reportedly “showed no panic, no sense that events were racing beyond their control.” (Dwyer and Fessenden, 2002)

[16] As Eric Hufschmid (2002, p. 33) says: “A fire will not affect steel unless the steel is exposed to it for a long . . . period of time”.

[17] CNN, September 24, 2001.

[18] Kevin Ryan, in his letter to Frank Gayle (see note 10, above), wrote in criticism of NIST’s preliminary report: “This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. . . . Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.”

[19] See, for example, Eric Hufschmid’s “Painful Deceptions” (available at www.EricHufschmid.Net); Jim Hoffman’s website (http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html); and Jeff King’s website (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html ), especially “The World Trade Center Collapse: How Strong is the Evidence for a Controlled Demolition?”

[20] Incredibly, after explaining how precisely explosives must be set to ensure that a building comes straight down, Loizeaux said that upon seeing the fires in the Twin Towers, he knew that the towers were “going to pancake down, almost vertically. It was the only way they could fail. It was inevitable.” Given the fact that fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse, let alone in a way that perfectly mimicked controlled demolition, Loizeaux’s statement is a cause for wonder. His company, incidentally, was hired to remove the steel from the WTC site after 9/11.

[21] The fire theory is rendered even more unlikely if the first two characteristics are taken together. For fire to have induced a collapse that began suddenly and was entirely symmetrical, so that it went straight down, the fires would have needed to cause all the crucial parts of the building to fail simultaneously, even though the fires were not spread evenly throughout the buildings. As Jim Hoffman has written: “All 287 columns would have to have weakened to the point of collapse at the same instant” (“The Twin Towers Demolition,” 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, n.d., http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/slides.html ).

[22] That statement is probably a slight exaggeration, as the videos, according to most students, seem to suggest that the collapses took somewhere between 11 and 16 seconds. But this would still be close to free-fall speed through the air.

[23] As physicist Steven Jones puts it, “the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references . . . . Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum—one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors—and intact steel support columns—the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . [B]ut this is not the case. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed” (Jones, 2006; until then available at http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html).

[24] Each box column, besides being at least 36 by 16 inches, had walls that were at least 4 inches thick at the base, then tapered off in the upper floors, which had less weight to support. Pictures of columns can be seen on page 23 of Hufschmid, 2002. The reason for the qualification “at least” in these statements is that Jim Hoffman has recently concluded that some of them were even bigger. With reference to his article “The Core Structures: The Structural System of the Twin Towers,” 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, n.d. [http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html], he has written (e-mail letter of October 26, 2005): “Previously I’ve been saying that the core columns had outside dimensions of 36″ X 16″, but I now think that at least 1/3 of them had dimensions of 54″ X 22″, based on early articles in the Engineering News Record and photographs I took of close-up construction photos on display at the Skyscraper Museum in Manhattan. . . . Also, according to the illustration in the Engineering News Record, the thickness of the steel at the bases was 5″, not 4″.”

[25] And, as Hoffman (2005) says, NIST’s claim about these tremendously hot fires in the core is especially absurd given the fact that the core “had very little fuel; was far from any source of fresh air; had huge steel columns to wick away the heat; [and] does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos.” All the evidence, in other words, suggests that none of the core columns would have (from the fire) reached the highest temperatures reached by some of the perimeter columns.

[26] NIST rests its theory largely on the idea that collapse began with the failure of the trusses. Being much smaller and also less interconnected, trusses would have been much easier to heat up, so it is not surprising that the NIST Report focuses on them. To try to make its theory work, however, NIST claims that the trusses became hotter than their own evidence supports. That is, although NIST found no evidence that any of the steel had gotten hotter than 1112°F (600°C), it claims that some of the steel trusses were heated up to 1,292°F (700°C) (2005, pp. 96, 176-77). A supposedly scientific argument cannot arbitrarily add 180°F just because it happens to need it. In any case, besides the fact that this figure is entirely unsupported by any evidence, NIST’s theory finally depends on the claim that the core columns failed as “a result of both splice connection failures and fracture of the columns themselves,” because they were “weakened significantly by . . . thermal effects” (2005, pp. 88, 180). But there is no explanation of how these massive columns would have been caused to “fracture,” even if the temperatures had gotten to those heights. As a study issued in the UK put it: “Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has not been described [by NIST] as yet” (Lane and Lamont, 2005).

[27] The RDX quotation is in Tom Held, ‘Hoan Bridge Blast Set Back to Friday,’ www.jsonline.com (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel), Updated Dec. 19, 2000 (http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec00/hoan20121900a.asp ). The DREXS quotation is in Hufschmid’s video, “Painful Deceptions” (www.EricHufschmid.Net).

[28] In that statement, Hoffman said that most of the sections seemed to be no more than 30-feet long. He later revised this, saying that, judging from an aerial image taken 12 days after the attacks, most of the pieces seemed to be between 24 and 48 feet long, with only a few over 50 feet. He also noted that “the lengths of the pieces bears little resemblance to the lengths of the steel parts known to have gone into the construction,” which means that one could not reasonably infer that the pieces simply broke at their joints (e-mail letter, September 27, 2005).

[29] The available evidence, says Hoffman (2003), suggests that the dust particles were very small indeed—on the order of 10 microns.

[30] Hoffman (“The Twin Towers Demolition”) says that the clouds expanded to five times the diameter of the towers in the first ten seconds. The Demolition of the Kingdome can be viewed at the website of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030317140323). The demolition of the Reading Grain Facility can be seen at ImplosionWorld.com (http://implosionworld.com/reading.html).

[31]Jim Hoffman, “The Twin Towers Demolition.”

[32]For visual evidence of this and the preceding characteristics (except sliced steel), see Hufschmid’s Painful Questions; Hufschmid’s video “Painful Deceptions” (available at www.EricHufschmid.Net); Jim Hoffman’s website (http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html); and Jeff King’s website (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html), especially “The World Trade Center Collapse: How Strong is the Evidence for a Controlled Demolition?”

[33] Bollyn says (e-mail letter of October 27, 2005) that these statements were made to him personally during telephone interviews with Tully and Loizeaux, probably in the summer of 2002. Bollyn added that although he is not positive about the date of the telephone interviews, he is always “very precise about quotes” (http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html).

[34]Professor Allison Geyh (2001) of Johns Hopkins, who was part of a team of public health investigators who visited the site shortly after 9/11, wrote: “In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel”. Dr. Keith Eaton, who somewhat later toured the site with an engineer, said that he was shown slides of “molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event” (Structural Engineer, 2002, p. 6). Herb Trimpe (2002), an Episcopalian deacon who served as a chaplain at Ground Zero, said: “[I]t was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while. . . . I talked to many contractors and they said . . . beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat.”

[35] This article in Popular Mechanics is, to be blunt, spectacularly bad. Besides the problems pointed out here and in note 11, above, and note 39, below, the article makes this amazing claim: “In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, in October 1999.” In reality, as genuine 9/11 researchers know, the FAA reported in a news release on Aug. 9, 2002, that it had scrambled fighters 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001, and the Calgary Herald (Oct. 13, 2001) reported that NORAD scrambled fighters 129 times in 2000. By extrapolation, we can infer that NORAD had scrambled fighters over 1000 times in the decade prior to 9/11. The claim by Popular Mechanics could be true only if in all of these cases, except for the Payne Stewart incident, the fighters were called back to base before they actually intercepted the aircraft in question. This is a most unlikely possibility, especially in light of the fact that Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesperson, reportedly told the Boston Globe a few days after 9/11 that “[NORAD’S] fighters routinely intercept aircraft” (Johnson, 2001).

As to why Popular Mechanics would have published such a bad article, one clue is perhaps provided by the fact that the article’s “senior researcher” was 25-year old Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new head of the Department of Homeland Security (see Bollyn, 2005a). Another relevant fact is that this article was published shortly after a coup at this Hearst-owned magazine, in which the editor-in-chief was replaced (see Bollyn, 2005b). Young Chertoff’s debunking article has itself been effectively debunked by many genuine 9/11 researchers, such as Jim Hoffman, “Popular Mechanics’ Assault on 9/11 Truth,” Global Outlook 10 (Spring-Summer 2005), 21-42 (which was based on Hoffman, “Popular Mechanics’ Deceptive Smear Against 9/11 Truth,” 911Review.com, February 15, 2005 [http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html]), and Peter Meyer, “Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11,” http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm. To be sure, these articles by Hoffman and Meyer, while agreeing on many points, take different approaches in response to some of the issues raised. But both articles demonstrate that Popular Mechanics owes its readers an apology for publishing such a massively flawed article on such an important subject.

[36] NBC’s Pat Dawson reported from the WTC on the morning of 9/11 that he had been told by Albert Turi, the Fire Department’s Deputy Assistant Chief of Safety, that “another explosion . . . took place . . . an hour after the first crash . . . in one of the towers here. So obviously . . . he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building” (Watson and Perez, 2004). A Wall Street Journal reporter said: “I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.” And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES . . . . I saw the explosions” (Shepard and Trost, 2002). BBC reporter Steve Evans said: “I was at the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an explosion. . . . [T]he base of the building shook. . . . [T]hen when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions” (BBC, Sept. 11, 2001; quoted in Bollyn, 2002).

[37] In June of 2002, NBC television played a segment from tapes recorded on 9/11 that contained the following exchange involving firefighters in the south tower:

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we’ve just had another explosion.

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we’ve had additional explosion.

Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion (“911 Tapes Tell Horror Of 9/11,” Part 2, “Tapes Released For First Time”, NBC, June 17, 2002 [www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html ]).

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli reported that upon entering the north tower’s lobby, he saw elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris. “I remember thinking . . . how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above?” When he reached the 24th floor, he encountered heavy dust and smoke, which he found puzzling in light of the fact that the plane had struck the building over 50 stories higher. Shortly thereafter, he and another fireman “heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.” After they pried themselves out of the elevator, he reported, “another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I’m thinking, ‘Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!’ . . . Then as soon as we get in the stairwell, I hear another huge explosion like the other two. Then I heard bang, bang, bang—huge bangs” (Szymanski, 2005a). A briefer account of Cacchioli’s testimony was made available in the Sept. 24, 2001, issue of People magazine, some of which is quoted in Griffin, 2004, Ch. 1, note 74.

[38] Terri Tobin, a lieutenant with the NYPD public information office, said that during or just after the collapse of the south tower, “all I heard were extremely loud explosions. I thought we were being bombed” (Fink and Mathias, 2002, p. 82). A story in the Guardian said: “In New York, police and fire officials were carrying out the first wave of evacuations when the first of the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a ‘planned implosion’” (Borger, Campbell, Porter, and Millar, 2001).

[39] Teresa Veliz, who worked for a software development company, was on the 47th floor of the north tower when suddenly “the whole building shook. . . . [Shortly thereafter] the building shook again, this time even more violently.” Veliz then made it downstairs and outside. During this period, she says: “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons” (Murphy, 2002).

William Rodriguez worked as a janitor in the north tower. While he was checking in for work in the office on sub-level 1 at 9:00 AM, he reports, he and the other 14 people in the office heard and felt a massive explosion below them. “When I heard the sound of the explosion,” he says, “the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking. . . . Seconds [later], I hear another explosion from way above. . . . Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower.” Then co-worker Felipe David, who had been in front of a nearby freight elevator, came into the office with severe burns on his face and arms yelling “explosion! explosion! explosion!” According to Rodriguez: “He was burned terribly. The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below” (Szymanski, 2005b).

Stationary engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the north tower’s sixth sub-basement, stated that after his co-worker reported seeing lights flicker, they called upstairs to find out what happened. They were told that there had been a loud explosion and the whole building seemed to shake. Pecoraro and Chino then went up to the C level, where there was a small machine shop, but it was gone. “There was nothing there but rubble,” said Pecoraro. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press–gone!” They then went to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls.” Then on the B Level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil.” Finally, when they went up to the ground floor: “The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors were missing. The marble was missing off some of the walls” (Chief Engineer, 2002).

One of the “prevalent claims” of 9/11 skeptics that Popular Mechanics tries to debunk (see note 11, above) is the claim that explosives were detonated in the lower levels of the tower. The magazine, however, conveniently ignores the testimonies of Veliz, Rodriguez, and Pecoraro.

[40] This expert is Van Romero, vice president for research at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. Romero had previously been the director of this institute’s Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, which studies the effects of explosions on buildings.

[41] Romero, it is true, changed his public stance 10 days later, as announced in Fleck, 2001. But this is not a convincing retraction. “Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape,” according to this article, led Romero to conclude that “the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers’ steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above.” But there is no indication as to what any structural engineer said, or what Romero saw in his “more detailed looks at the tape,” that led him to change his earlier view that the collapses were “too methodical” to have been produced by anything except explosives. There is no suggestion as to how weakened beams would have led to a total collapse that began suddenly and occurred at virtually free-fall speed. Romero has subsequently claimed that he did not change his stance. Rather, he claimed that he had been misquoted in the first story. “I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building. I only said that that’s what it looked like” (Popular Mechanics, 2005). But if that is the truth, it is strange that the second story, written by Fleck, did not say this but instead said that Romero had changed his mind. Romero clearly did change his mind—or, to be more precise, his public stance.

A clue to the reason for this change may be provided by another statement in the original article, which said that when the Pentagon was struck, “[Romero] and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance [at New Mexico Tech], were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech” (Uyttebrouck, 2001). Indeed, as pointed out in a later story on the New Mexico Tech website (“Tech Receives $15 M for Anti-Terrorism Program” [http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/25sept03.html ]), the December 2003 issue of Influence magazine named Romero one of “six lobbyists who made an impact in 2003,” adding that “[a] major chunk of [Romero’s] job involves lobbying for federal government funding, and if the 2003 fiscal year was any indication, Romero was a superstar,” having obtained about $56 million for New Mexico Tech in that year alone. In light of the fact that Romero gave no scientific reasons for his change of stance, it does not seem unwarranted to infer that the real reason was his realization, perhaps forced upon him by government officials, that unless he publicly retracted his initial statements, his effectiveness in lobbying the federal government for funds would be greatly reduced. Romero, to be sure, denies this, saying: “Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth” (Popular Mechanics, 2005). But that, of course, is what we would expect Romero to say in either case. He could have avoided the charge only by giving a persuasive account of how the buildings could have come down, in the manner they did, without explosives.

[42] As Dwyer explained, the oral histories “were originally gathered on the order of Thomas Von Essen, who was the city fire commissioner on Sept. 11, who said he wanted to preserve those accounts before they became reshaped by a collective memory.”

[43] The 9/11 oral histories are available at a New York Times website (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/ met_WTC_histories_full_01.html). I am heavily indebted to Matthew Everett, who located and passed on to me virtually all the statements I have quoted from these oral histories.

[44] Like many others, Dixon indicated that he later came to accept the official interpretation, adding: “Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That’s what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.” I have here, however, focused on what the witnesses said they first experienced and thought, as distinct from any interpretation they may have later accepted.

[45] Some of the testimonies also mentioned the creation of a dust cloud after the explosions. One firefighter said: “You heard like loud booms . . . and then we got covered with rubble and dust” (NYT, Viola, p. 3). Another said: “That’s when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous explosion. . . . The wind rushed. . . , all the dust. . . and everything went dark” (NYT, Rivera, p. 7). Lieutenant William Wall said: “[W]e heard an explosion. We looked up and the building was coming down . . . . We ran a little bit and then we were overtaken by the cloud” (NYT, Wall, p. 9). Paramedic Louis Cook, having said that there was “an incredible amount of dust and smoke,” added that there was, “without exaggerating, a foot and a half of dust on my car” (NYT, Cook, pp. 8, 35).

[46] Even if we were generous to a fault and allowed that there might be as high as a 1-in-10 chance (a chance much higher than 1-in-100, or 1-in-500) that any one of the 11 features could occur without explosives, the chance that all 11 of them would occur together would be one in 100 billion. (This calculation with its very generous assumption of 1-in-10 does assume the 11 are independent of each other. For more completeness, if only 6 were independent while 5 were correlated to others, we would still have one chance in a million. Yet, if the chance were 1-in-100 and each is independent, we would have one chance in ten-to-the-22nd-power.)

Were we to also add in the probability that all these features would occur in three buildings on the same day, the probability would become so vanishingly small that it would be hardly distinguishable from zero.

On the other hand, if explosives were used in the buildings, there would be a high probability that all 11 features would have occurred in all three buildings. For this argument, I am indebted to James Fetzer, who—through his essay “‘Conspiracy Theories’: The Case of 9/11”—inspired it, and to Paul Zarembka, who helped with the final formulation.

[47] A nice summary of the argument for this conclusion has been provided by Nila Sagadevan (e-mail communication of November 8, 2005) in response to a person who asked: “Are you saying all the floors simply fell down as though there were nothing supporting them?” Stating that this is precisely what he was saying, he then suggested the following thought-experiment:

Imagine a massive steel cable, lowered from a tall crane, firmly secured to the middle of the uppermost (110th) floor of one of the towers.

Now, imagine that this floor were somehow decoupled from the rest of the structure beneath it.

Summon your personal genie and have him make all 109 floors and supporting structures beneath this now-supported slab magically disappear.

What we now have is our concrete floor slab dangling 1,350 feet up in the sky, suspended by a cable from our imaginary crane.

Now, have your genie cut the cable.

Your 110th floor would now freefall through the air and impact the ground in about 9 seconds (which is about how long it took for the top floors of both towers to reach the ground).

Now, imagine a variation of this scenario: We will not decouple the top floor nor dabble with a crane.

Instead, we shall ask our genial genie to magically “soften” all the supporting columns of the lower 109 floors.

Wouldn’t every one of these floors and their now-softened supporting structures immediately begin to buckle under the weight of the 110th floor?

Wouldn’t this buckling significantly slow down the descent of the top floor by continuing to offer a degree of resistance to its descent?

Wouldn’t these progressive viscous “arrests”—-the sagging steel aided by ripping rivets, shearing bolts and tearing welds—-slow down the top floor’s fall significantly?

Wouldn’t this cause the top floor to take a lot longer than 9 seconds to eventually reach the end of its descent and come to rest atop the crushed pile of floors beneath it?

But on September 11, 2001, every floor, of every tower, fell as though nothing existed below it but air.

For that to happen, every supporting (i.e., resisting) column beneath every collapsing floor would have had to have been taken out of the way.

Only well-placed explosives can do that.

This is what happens in a controlled demolition.

Sagadevan’s point is not significantly affected if we say that the collapse time was closer to 15 seconds, since that is still very close to free-fall speed through the air.

[48]The official investigators found that they had less authority than the clean-up crews, a fact that led the Science Committee of the House of Representatives to report that “the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence” (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf).

[49] “Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris,” Eastday.com, January 24, 2002 (http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm ).

[50] This removal was, moreover, carried out with the utmost care, because “the loads consisted of highly sensitive material.” Each truck was equipped with a Vehicle Location Device, connected to GPS. “The software recorded every trip and location, sending out alerts if the vehicle traveled off course, arrived late at its destination, or deviated from expectations in any other way. . . . One driver . . . took an extended lunch break of an hour and a half. . . . [H]e was dismissed” (Emigh, 2002).

[51] New York Times, December 25, 2001. This protest was echoed by Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who said: “Where there is a car accident and two people are killed, you keep the car until the trial is over. If a plane crashes, not only do you keep the plane, but you assemble all the pieces, take it to a hangar, and put it together. That’s only for 200, 300 people, when they die. In this case, you had 3,000 people dead. You had a major . . . manmade structure. My wish was that we had spent whatever it takes. . . . Get all this steel, carry it to a lot. Instead of recycling it. . . . After all, this is a crime scene and you have to figure out exactly what happened“ (CBS News, March 12, 2002).

[52] Bloomberg was thereby recommending precisely what Bill Manning, the editor of Fire Engineering, had warned against when he wrote: “As things now stand . . . , the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper-and computer-generated hypotheticals” (Manning, 2002). What Bloomberg desired and Manning feared is exactly what we got with the NIST Report. It is, in fact, even worse. Physicist Steven Jones, after pointing out that there are “zero examples of fire-caused high-rise collapses” and that even NIST’s “actual [computer] models fail to collapse,” asks: “So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses?” He answers: “Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for very ‘severe’ cases,” and then these cases were further modified to get the desired result. The NIST Report, Jones adds, admits this, saying on page 142: “The more severe case . . . was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for [these cases]. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input” (Jones, 2006).

[53] “Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris.”

[54] Bill Manning wrote: “The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA . . . is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members—described by one close source as a ‘tourist trip’—no one’s checking the evidence for anything” (Manning, 2002).

[55] See the section headed “The ASCE’s Disclosures of Steel Sulfidation” in Hoffman, 2005.

[56] For visual evidence, see Hoffman, “North Tower Collapse Video Frames: Video Evidence of the North Tower Collapse,” 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, n.d. (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html ).

[57] Marvin Bush’s role in the company is mentioned in Craig Unger, 2004, p. 249.

[58]Forbes’ statement is posted at www.apfn.org/apfn/patriotic.htm.

[59] For Giuliani’s complete statement, see “Who told Giuliani the WTC Was Going to Collapse on 9/11?”, What Really Happened, n.d. (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html); it can be heard at www.wireonfire.com/donpaul .

[60] As Hufschmid points out, “photos show the spectacular flames vanished quickly, and then the fire . . . slowly diminished” (2002, p. 38).

[61] “If the . . . intention was to blame the collapse on the fires,” Peter Meyer has written, “then the latest time at which the towers could be collapsed would be just as the fires were dying down. Since the fire in the South Tower resulted from the combustion of less fuel. . . , the fire in the South Tower began to go out earlier. . . . Those controlling the demolition thus had to collapse the South Tower before they collapsed the North Tower” (Peter Meyer, n.d.).

[62] Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Division Chief John Peruggia said that he was told that the “north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.” Medical technician Richard Zarrillo, evidently a liaison between the OEM and EMS, said that he was told that “the buildings are going to collapse.” Fire Marshal Stephen Mosiello and Deputy Assistant Chief of Safety Albert Turi also used the plural (“buildings”) in reporting what they heard from Zarrillo. Turi reported that when Zarrillo was asked “where are we getting these reports?”, his reply was: “you know, we’re not sure, OEM is just reporting this” (NYT, Oral Histories of Peruggia, Zarrillo, Mosiello, and Turi).

[63] In “A Brief History of New York City’s Office of Emergency Management,” we read: “1996: By executive order, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management is created. The Director reports directly to the Mayor, and serves as the local Director of Civil Defense” (  http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/other/oem_history.html  ).

[64] “The city . . . initially refused access to the records to investigators from . . . the 9/11 Commission” but “relented when legal action was threatened” (Dwyer, 2005b).

[65] Glanz (2001) wrote that “[e]xperts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.”

[66]For photographs and discussion, see Hufschmid, 2002, pp. 62-65, and the section entitled “The ‘Raging’ Fires at WTC Tower Seven” in “The World Trade Center Fires (Not So Hot Eh?),” Global Research, September 27, 2004 (http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=523 ).

[67]FEMA, 2002, Ch. 5, Sect. 6.2, “Probable Collapse Sequence,” discussed in Griffin, 2004, p. 22.

[68] Hufschmid, 2002, p. 64. The collapse of building 7 also had all the other features of conventional demolitions, such as beginning suddenly and then going down at virtually free-fall speed—which in this case meant under 7 seconds. This similarity to conventional implosions was commented on by Dan Rather. Showing a video of the collapse of building 7 on CBS that very evening, Rather said that it was “reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down” (CBS News, September 11, 2001). Videos of the collapse of building 7, which have seldom appeared on mainstream television, can be viewed at various websites, including  www.geocities.com/killtown/wtc7.html
 and www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html. Particularly good for this purpose is Eric Hufschmid’s DVD, “Painful Deceptions” (available at www.EricHufschmid.Net).

[69] Implosion World.com ( http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html  ).

[70] Steven Jones, e-mail letter, October 10, 2005.

[71] See Norman, 2002, and Firehouse Magazine, 2002a and 2002b.

[72] Chief Frank Fellini said that the collapse zone was established “five or six hours” before the building came down, which would have been around noon (NYT, Fellini, p. 3). This time fits with the testimony of a firefighter who said he “heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down” and of another who said: “We hung out for hours waiting for seven to come down” (NYT, Murray, p. 12, and Massa, pp. 17-18).

[73] Even earthquakes, which have produced some partial collapses, have never produced total collapses.

[74] “[F]ederal investigators concluded that it had been primarily the impact of the planes and, more specifically, the extreme fires that spread in their wake, that had caused the buildings to fall. . . . After the planes hit, . . . [m]uch of the spray-on fireproofing in the impact zone was dislodged, leaving the structural steel exposed and mortally vulnerable to the intense heat” (Dwyer and Flynn, 2005, p. 252). These co-authors (p. 253) even endorse NIST’s claim—-which is totally unsupported (Hoffman, 2005)–that the collapses became “inevitable.”

[75] Dwyer, in fact, wrote an article entitled “Vast Archive Yields New View of 9/11,” New York Times, August 13, 2005 ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/13records.html?ex=1131339600&en=e619ef623287178f&ei=5070
  ). But he did not mention the “new view” that would be suggested by the testimonies about explosions.

[76] Silverstein’s statement has been quoted in many places, including Morgan and Henshall (2005). A critique of this book entitled “9/11 Revealed? New Book Repeats False Conspiracy Theories,” put out by the U.S. State Department (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html ), claims that “[t]he property owner was referring to pulling a contingent of firefighters out of the building in order to save lives because it appeared unstable.” But that is hardly a plausible interpretation, especially given the following sentence and the fact that elsewhere during the documentary (PBS, 2002), we hear the expression clearly used to mean “bring the building down.”

[77] Silverstein’s statement can be viewed (http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV) or heard on audio file (http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3). For a discussion, see Baker, n.d.

[78] Currid, incidentally, was re-elected president in 2002 (http://www.uniondemocracy.com/UDR/34-NYC%20Public%20Employees.htm ).

[79] Letter to the LA Times Magazine, September 18, 2005, by William Yarchin of Huntington Beach, California, in response to an interview with me in that magazine, conducted by Mark Ehrman, entitled “Getting Agnostic about 9/11,” published August 28, 2005.

 

REFERENCES

Baker, Jeremy, n.d. “PBS Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7,” Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm ).

Barter, Sheila, 2001. “How the World Trade Center Fell,” BBC News, September 13 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm).

Bollyn, Christopher, 2001. “Some Survivors Say ‘Bombs Exploded Inside WTC,’” American Free Press, October 22 ( http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html  ).

__________, 2002. “New York Firefighters’ Final Words Fuel Burning Questions About 9-11,” American Free Press, August 9 ( http://americanfreepress.net/08_09_02/New_York_Firefighters__/new_york_firefighters.html ).

_____, 2004. “New Seismic Data Refutes Official Explanation,” American Free Press, updated April 12.

_____, 2005a. “9/11 and Chertoff: Cousin Wrote 9/11 Propaganda for PM,” Rumor Mill News, March 4 (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66176 ).

_____, 2005b. “The Hidden Hand of the C.I.A. and the 9/11 Propaganda of Popular Mechanics,” American Free Press, March 19 (http://www.rense.com/general63/brutalpurgeofPMstaff.htm ).

Borger, Julian, Duncan Campbell, Charlie Porter, and Stuart Millar, 2001. “Special Report: Terrorism in the US,” Guardian, September 12 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,600839,00.html).

Brannigan, Francis L., Glenn P. Corbett, and Vincent Dunn, 2002. “WTC ’Investigation’?: A Call to Action” Fire Engineering, January (http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm ?Section=ARCHI&ARTICLE_ID=133211&VERSION_NUM=1&p=25).

Burns, Maggie, 2003. “Secrecy Surrounds a Bush Brother’s Role in 9/11 Security,” American Reporter, 9/2021, January 20.

Bush, George W., 2001. Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, November 10.

Chief Engineer, The, 2002. “We will Not Forget: A Day of Terror” (http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029)

Dwyer, Jim, 2005a. “Vast Archive Yields New View of 9/11,” New York Times, August 13 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/13records.html ?pagewanted=print).

_____, 2005b. “City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11 Today,” New York Times, August 12.

Dwyer, Jim, and Ford Fessenden, 2002. “Lost Voices of Firefighters, Some on 78th Floor,” New York Times, August 4 (http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_lostvoicesfiredept.html ).

Dwyer, Jim, and Kevin Flynn, 2005. 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, New York: Times Books.

Eagar, Thomas, 2002. “The Collapse: An Engineer’s Perspective,” which is part of “Why the Towers Fell,” NOVA, April 30 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html).

Eagar, Thomas, and Christopher Musso, 2001. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation,” JOM: Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 53/12, pp. 8-11.

Else, Liz, 2004. “Baltimore Blasters,” New Scientist 183/2457 (July 24): p. 48 (http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp ?rp=1&id=mg18324575.700). The reason for the title is that the office of Controlled Demolition, Inc., is near Baltimore.

Emigh, Jacqueline, 2002. “GPS on the Job in Massive World Trade Center Clean-Up,” July 1 (http://securitysolutions.com/ar/security_gps_job_massive ).

FEMA (1988). “Interstate Bank Building Fire, Los Angeles, California” ( http://www.lafire.com//famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/ FEMA-TecReport/FEMA-report.htm).

FEMA, 1991. “High-Rise Office Building Fire One Meridian Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania” (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:CHrKDNvrjsEJ:www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/ Tr-049.pdf+High-Rise+Office+Building+Fire+One+Meridian+Plaza&hl=en&client=safari ).

FEMA, 2002. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, May (http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm ).

Field, Andy, 2004. “A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC Collapse,” Firehouse.com, February 7 (http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=25807 ).

Fink, Mitchell, and Lois Mathias, 2002. Never Forget: An Oral History of September 11, 2001. New York: Harper Collins.

 Firehouse Magazine, 2002a. “WTC: This Is Their Story: Interview with Deputy Chief Peter Hayden,” April (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html ).

Firehouse Magazine, 2002b. “WTC: This Is Their Story: Interview with Captain Chris Boyle,” August (www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html ).

Fleck, John, 2001. “Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says,” Albuquerque Journal, September 21 (http://www.abqjournal.com/terror/anniversary/pmvan09-21-01.htm ).

Fink, Mitchell, and Lois Mathias, 2002. Never Forget: An Oral History of September 11, 2001. New York: Harper Collins.

Geyh, Allison, 2001. Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, Late Fall.

Glanz, James. 2001. “Engineers Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC; Steel Members Have Been Partly Evaporated,” New York Times, November 29.

lanz, James, and Eric Lipton, 2002. “Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says,” New York Times, March 29.

Glover, Norman, 2002. “Collapse Lessons,” Fire Engineering, October ( http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm ?Section=Archi&Subsection=Display&P=25&ARTICLE_ID=163411&KEYWORD=norman %20glover ).

Griffin, David Ray, 2004. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about 9/11 and the Bush Administration. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink).

___________, 2005a. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink).

_________, 2005b. “9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious People Respond?” 9/11 CitizensWatch, May 7 (http://www.911itizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=535 ).

_____________, 2005c. “9/11 and the Mainstream Press,” 9/11 Visibility Project, July 29 (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-07-29-pressclub.php ).

_____, 2005d. “Truth and Politics of 9/11: Omissions and Distortions of The 9/11 Commission Report,” Global Outlook, Issue 10 (Spring-Summer), pp. 45-56. Available at www.GlobalOutlook.ca.

Griffin, David Ray, and Peter Dale Scott, eds., 2006. 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink).

Hansen, Thomas, 2005. “Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: Report on a Conversation with Philip Zelikow,” 9/11 Visibility Project, June 7 (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-06-07-outrageous.php ).

Heller, David, 2005. “Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center,” Garlic and Grass, Issue 6, November 24 (http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm ).

History Channel, The, 2002. “The World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an American Icon,” September 8.

Hoffman, Jim, 2003. “The North Tower’s Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center,” Version 3, 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, October 16 (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html ).

_____, 2004. “Your Eyes Don’t Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses,” 9-11 Research.wtc7.net (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html  ).

_____, 2005. “Building a Better Mirage: NIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century,” 911 Research, August 21 (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html).

Hufschmid, Eric, 2002. Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack. Goleta, CA: Endpoint Software.

Johnson, Glen, 2001. “Otis Fighter Jets Scrambled Too Late to Halt the Attacks,” Boston Globe, September 15 (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=print ).

Jones, Steven E., 2006. “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” In Griffin and Scott, eds., 2006.

Kean, Thomas H., and Lee H. Hamilton, 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Authorized Edition, New York: W. W. Norton. (For the sake of convenience, Kean and Hamilton, who as chair and vice-chair of the Commission, respectively, signed the Preface, are listed as the Report’s authors.)

Killough-Miller, Joan, 2002. “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” WPI Transformations, Spring (http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html ).

King, Jeff, 2003. “The WTC Collapse: What the Videos Show,” Indymedia Webcast News, November 12 (http://ontario.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=7342&group=webcast ).

Lane, B., and S. Lamont, 2005. “ARUP Fire’s Presentation regarding Tall Buildings and the Events of 9/11,” ARUP Fire, April 2005 (http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf ).

Lavello, Randy, n.d. “Bombs in the Building,” Prison Planet.com (http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html).

Lin, Jennifer, 2002. “Recovery Worker Reflects on Months Spent at Ground Zero,” Knight Ridder, May 29 (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm ).

Manning, Bill, 2002. “Selling Out the Investigation”, Fire Engineering, January (http://fe.pennet.com/Articles/ArticleDisplay.cfm ?Section=ARCHI&ARTICLEID=133237&VERSION NUM=1 ).

Meyer, Peter, n.d. “Did the Twin Towers Collapse on Demand?”, Section 3 of “The World Trade Center Demolition and the so-Called War on Terrorism,” Serendipity (www.serendipity.li/wtc.html).

Morgan, Rowland, and Ian Henshall, 2005. 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions. New York: Carroll and Graf.

Murphy, Dean E., 2002. September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday.

NYT (New York Times), 2005. “The September 11 Records” (9/11 Oral Histories) ( http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/ 20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html  ).

Nieto, Robin, 2004. “Fire Practically Destroys Venezuela’s Tallest Building,” Venezuelanalysis.com, October 18.

NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology), 2005. Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft), June.

Norman, John, 2002. “Search and Rescue Operations,” Fire Engineering, October.

Paul, Don, and Jim Hoffman, 2004. Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City. San Francisco: Irresistible/Revolutionary.

People Magazine, 2001. “Hell On Earth,” September 24.

Popular Mechanics, 2005. “9/11: Debunking the Myths,” March (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y ).

PBS, 2002. “America Rebuilds” (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds ).

Ryan, Kevin, 2004. E-mail letter to Dr. Frank Gayle, Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php).

Samuel, Eugenie, and Damian Carrington, 2001. “Design Choice for Towers Saved Lives,” New Scientist, September 12 (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1281 ).

Shepard, Alicia, and Cathy Trost of Newseum, 2002. Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind the Breaking News of 9/11, Foreword by Tom Brokaw. Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield.

Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam.

Structural Engineer, The, 2002. September 3.

Szymanski, Greg, 2005a. “NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli Upset that 9/11 Commission ‘Tried to Twist My Words,’” Arctic Beacon, July 19 (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/29548.htm ).

_____, 2005b. “WTC Basement Blast and Injured Burn Victim Blows ‘Official 9/11 Story’ Sky High,” Arctic Beacon, June 24 (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm).

Taylor, Curtis L., and Sean Gardiner, 2001. “Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted,” New York Newsday, September 12 (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/ ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,6794009.story).

Trimpe, Herb, 2002. “The Chaplain’s Tale,” Times-Herald Record (http://www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm).

Unger, Craig, 2004. House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties. New York & London: Scribner.

Uyttebrouck, Olivier, 2001. “Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says,” Albuquerque Journal, September 11 (http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal).

Walsh, Trudy, 2002. “Handheld APP Eased Recovery Tasks,” Government Computer News, Vol. 21, No. 27a, September 11 (http://www.gcn.com/21_27a/news/19930-1.html).

Watson, Paul Joseph, and Dan Perez, 2004. Prison Planet.TV, May 5 (http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/may2004/050504bombsinwtc.htm).

Williams, James, 2001. “WTC a Structural Success,” SEAU NEWS: The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

image: Michael C. Ruppert

*** 

Below are edited excerpts from an article by the late Michael C. Ruppert entitled “A War in the Planning for Four Years”. It was published on November 11, 2001, two months after 9/11 and one month after the October 7, 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.

Michael Craig Ruppert, former LAPD police officer, author and whistleblower: He is the author of “Crossing The Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil” (2004).

Michael Ruppert passed away in April 2014. His Legacy will live. 

Ruppert reviews Zbigniew Brzezinski‘s book entitled “The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. He describes with foresight the role of the 9/11 attacks: 

“World events since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have not only been predicted, but also planned, orchestrated and — as their architects would like to believe — controlled.

The current Central Asian war is not a response to terrorism, nor is it a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism.

It is in fact, in the words of one of the most powerful men on the planet [Brzezinski], the beginning of a final conflict before total world domination by the United States leads to the dissolution of all national governments.” (Michael C. Ruppert, November 11, 2001)

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research September 11, 2023

 

A War in the Planning for Four Years

by 

Michael C. Ruppert

November 7, 2001 

Introduction

The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997.

These are the very first words in the book,

“Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.” p. xiii.

Eurasia is all of the territory east of Germany and Poland, stretching all the way through Russia and China to the Pacific Ocean. It includes the Middle East and most of the Indian subcontinent.

The key to controlling Eurasia, says Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics. And the key to controlling the Central Asian republics is Uzbekistan. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Uzbekistan was forcefully mentioned by President George W. Bush in his address to a joint session of Congress just days after the attacks of September 11 [2001] as the very first place that the U.S. military would be deployed.

As FTW [Ruppert’s Website From the Wilderness] has documented in previous stories, major deployments of U.S. and British forces had taken place before the attacks. And the U.S. Army and the CIA had been active in Uzbekistan for several years. There is now evidence that what the world is witnessing is a cold and calculated war plan – at least four years in the making and that, from reading Brzezinski’s own words about Pearl Harbor, the World Trade Center attacks were just the trigger needed to set the final conquest in motion.

The New World Order

There’s a quote often attributed to Allen Dulles after it was noted that the final 1964 report of the Warren Commission on the assassination of JFK contained dramatic inconsistencies.

Those inconsistencies, in effect, disproved the Commission’s own final conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on November 22, 1963. Dulles, a career spy, Wall Street lawyer, the CIA director whom JFK had fired after the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco – and the Warren Commission member who took charge of the investigation and final report – is reported to have said, “The American people don’t read.”

Some Americans do read. So do Europeans and Asians and Africans and Latin Americans.

World events since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have not only been predicted, but also planned, orchestrated and — as their architects would like to believe — controlled.

The current Central Asian war is not a response to terrorism, nor is it a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism.

It is in fact, in the words of one of the most powerful men on the planet, the beginning of a final conflict before total world domination by the United States leads to the dissolution of all national governments.

This, says Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member and former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, will lead to nation states being incorporated into a New World Order, controlled solely by economic interests as dictated by banks, corporations and ruling elites concerned with the maintenance (by manipulation and war) of their power.

As a means of intimidation for the unenlightened reader who happens upon this frightening plan — the plan of the CFR — Brzezinski offers the alternative of a world in chaos unless the U.S. controls the planet by whatever means are necessary and likely to succeed.

“The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission — founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller — and the Bliderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens.”

[quotation assigned to an interview with an alleged Dr. Johannes Koeppl, this statement is by Michael C. Ruppert]

Brzezinski’s own words — laid against the current official line that the United States is waging a war to end terrorism — are self-incriminating.

In an ongoing series of articles, FTW has consistently established that the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the World Trade Center attacks and chose not to stop them because it needed to secure public approval for a war that is now in progress [November 2001].

It is a war, as described by Vice President Dick Cheney, “that may not end in our lifetimes.”

What that means is that it will not end until all armed groups, anywhere in the world, which possess the political, economic or military ability to resist the imposition of this dictatorship, have been destroyed.

These are the “terrorists” the U.S. now fights in Afghanistan and plans to soon fight all over the globe.

Brzezinski and The Grand Chessboard

Brzezinski sets the tone for his strategy by describing Russia and China as the two most important countries, almost but not quite superpowers – whose interests that might threaten the U.S. in Central Asia. Of the two, Brzezinski considers Russia to be the more serious threat.

Both nations border Central Asia. In a lesser context he describes the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran and Kazakhstan as essential “lesser” nations that must be managed by the U.S. as buffers or counterweights to Russian and Chinese moves to control the oil, gas and minerals of the Central Asian Republics (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan).

He also notes, quite clearly (p. 53) that any nation that might become predominant in Central Asia would directly threaten the current U.S. control of oil resources in the Persian Gulf.

In reading the book it becomes clear why the U.S. had a direct motive for the looting of some $300 billion in Russian assets during the 1990s, destabilizing Russia’s currency (1998) and ensuring that a weakened Russia would have to look westward to Europe for economic and political survival, rather than southward to Central Asia.

A dependent Russia would lack the military, economic and political clout to exert influence in the region and this weakening of Russia would explain why Russian President Vladimir Putin has been such a willing ally of U.S. efforts to date [2001]. (See FTW Vol. IV, No. 1  — March 31, 2001)

An examination of selected quotes from “The Grand Chessboard,” in the context of current events [November 2001] reveals the darker agenda behind military operations that were planned long before September 11th, 2001.

“The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power.” (p. xiii)

“But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)

“The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia; Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)

“America’s withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy.” (p. 30)

“In that context, how America “manages” Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”(p.31)

Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them; second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above” (p. 40)

“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)

“Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power.” (p.55)

“Uzbekistan — with its much more ethnically homogeneous population of approximately 25 million and its leaders emphasizing the country’s historic glories — has become increasingly assertive in affirming the region’s new postcolonial status.” (p.95)

“Thus, even the ethnically vulnerable Kazakhstan joined the other Central Asian states in abandoning the Cyrillic alphabet and replacing it with Latin script as adapted earlier by Turkey. In effect, by the mid-1990s a bloc, quietly led by Ukraine and comprising Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and sometimes also Kazakhstan, Georgia and Moldova, had informally emerged to obstruct Russian efforts to use the CIS as the tool for political integration.” (p.114)

“Hence, support for the new post-Soviet states — for geopolitical pluralism in the space of the former Soviet empire — has to be an integral part of a policy designed to induce Russia to exercise unambiguously its European option. Among these states. Three are geopolitically especially important: Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine.” (p. 121) “Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures.” (p. 121)

Referring to an area he calls the “Eurasian Balkans” and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict — describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance – Brzezinski writes: 

“Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.” (p.124) [Emphasis added]

The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.” (p.125)

“Kazakhstan is the shield and Uzbekistan is the soul for the region’s diverse national awakenings.” (p.130)

“Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia.(p.130) “Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan’s truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country’s people. (p.132)

“In fact, an Islamic revival — already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia — is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian—and hence infidel —control.” (p. 133).

“For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan — and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan — and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea.” (p.139)

Moreover, sensible Russian leaders realize that the demographic explosion underway in the new states means that their failure to sustain economic growth will eventually create an explosive situation along Russia’s entire southern frontier.”(p.141) [This would explain why Putin would welcome U.S. military presence to stabilize the region.]

“Turkmenistan has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea” (p.145)

“It follows that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.” (p148)

“China’s growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area’s independence are also congruent with America’s interests.”(p.149)

“America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe’s central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and to America’s historical legacy.” (p.194)

“The Eurasian Balkans threatens to become a cauldron of ethnic conflict and great-power rivalry.”(p.195)

“Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today’s Eurasia but of the world more generally.”(p.194)

“With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design.” (p.197)

“That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy” (p. 198)

“The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.” (p. 198)

“In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last.” (p.209)

“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”(p. 211) [Emphasis added]

Towards a “World Dictatorship”? 

Brzezinski’s book is sublimely arrogant. While singing the praises of the IMF and the World Bank, which have economically terrorized nations on every continent, and while totally ignoring the worldwide terrorist actions of the U.S. government that have led to genocide; cluster bombings of civilian populations from Kosovo, to Laos, to Iraq, to Afghanistan; the development and battlefield use of both biological and chemical agents such as Sarin gas; and the financial rape of entire cultures it would leave the reader believing that such actions are for the good of mankind.

“This is more than a war against terrorism.

This is a war against the citizens of all countries.

The current elites are creating so much fear that people don’t know how to respond. But they must remember. This is a move to implement a world dictatorship within the next five years. There may not be another chance”.  

[quote assigned to interview with Dr. Koeppl, The above is Michael Ruppert’s statement]

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This version contains Robert J Sawyer’s original narration.

The previous version entitled The Fourth Industrial Revolution and The Future of AI was a second take after this version was lost. Michael Welch, GRNH, September 10, 2023

***

“Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth? Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilization? Such decisions must not be delegated to unelected tech leaders…

Therefore, we call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.” – Future of Life Institute (March 22, 2023) [1]

“Wonder is not only a superb conclusion to a tremendous trilogy, but stands alone as one of the best books that Sawyer has ever written.” – Winnipeg Free Press [2]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Imagine a world where you can now take your problems to a computer and found that it is the best therapist you ever had! Where the companion on-line that could well be the love of your life based on your private conversations is in fact not human! Where every professor, every lawyer, every writer, every artist, every detective, physician and architect you ever met cannot match this new program at your finger tips! And how this threatens just about every upper income job in existence!

Ladies and gentlemen, it seems that this moment may finally be upon us…

The Artificial Intelligence research laboratory OpenAI, which ran on a non-profit basis, announced the release of ChatGPT, an AI chatbot on November 30, 2022. Two months later, it was used by 100 million users! And the numbers have continued to expand ever since. [3]

Then in February of 2023, Microsoft announced it was building AI technology on the same foundation as ChatGPT and incorporating it into Microsoft Bing, Edge, and other products.

Then in March, the Future of Life Institute has attracted the signatures of several people specializing in Artificial Intelligence in calling for a “ pause for at least 6 months” in the development of post-GPT-4 AI systems. The ability to further inflame our media with mis-information and dis-information, the disruption of the Labour landscape and yes even an attack or subversion against humanity by an artificial system that can out-think us are some of the primary concerns. [4][5]

This episode of the Global Research News Hour takes a deep dive into these various areas and both the opportunities and the perils from which we cannot turn back once we have crossed the first threshold of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

This week’s guests feature individuals fully capable of engaging the host in a fifty minute long conversation: Khal Shariff, head of the Virtual Reality and related Technology company Project Whitecard, and Robert J Sawyer, the acclaimed Canadian Science fiction author and keynote speaker.

Khal Shariff is the founder and CEO of Project Whitecard, a company dedicated to using technology for good. They use game technology for education, and the latest project is all about driver training in BC, where Project Whitecard is using AI extensively during development.

Robert J Sawyer is, according to multiple press organizations, the leading science fiction author in Canada. The only Canadian to receive all 3 of the world’s top science fiction awards for best novel of the year, he is also the first writer to receive the Lifetime Achievement Aurora Award. His now fourteen year old series, Wake, Watch and Wonder (WWW), was his in-depth look at Artificial Intelligence and received the Hugo Award and three Aurora Awards.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 395)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

1. https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/
2. https://sfwriter.com/exw3.htm
3. https://www.globalresearch.ca/ai-fastest-growing-application-ever/5819668
4. Tom Dotan (February 10, 2023)’Microsoft Adds ChatGPT AI Technology to Bing Search Engine’, Wall Street Journal; https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-adds-chatgpt-ai-technology-to-bing-search-engine-11675793525
5. https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

On August 10, the UK tabloid Daily Express warned that a new pandemic, possibly caused by a yet unknown “Disease X”, could lead to “civil unrest and food shortages” worldwide.

The world is already experiencing a surge in “civil unrest and food shortages” due to a raft of senseless global policies pushed by an unhinged West and its institutional lackeys. A new “pandemic” would conveniently mask this inevitability.

Disease X is the placeholder name for a hypothetical pandemic caused by a yet-unknown virus. The operative word here is “hypothetical”. Billions in taxpayer money will be spent on developing a vaccine for a phantom virus that has yet to emerge or evolve from an indeterminate origin.

Following a depressingly familiar pattern, the World Health Organization (WHO) is lending its scientific gravitas to this absurdity.

Global “statesmen” are correspondingly providing the political gravitas. From mid-2021 onwards, then senior minister of Singapore and WEF board trustee Tharman Shanmugaratnam repeatedly warned that “future pandemics” and “new viruses” are “coming”. This assertion was based on “blue sky research” undertaken by the “global scientific community”. Shanmugaratnam also pledged that an “all-in-one vaccine” was also on the cards. (Ergo, expect a renewed crackdown on vaccine refuseniks).

Is it possible to preempt a disease that has yet to exist with an all-in-one-vaccine? That is exactly what the UK government is attempting at the moment.

It will be justified based on the known pestilential potentials of select viruses and their hypothesised pathogenic pathways and morphologies (including their potential to cross the species barriers). To provide a veneer of scientific rigour, elements of Artificial Intelligence will be thrown into the viral potpourri. From a statistical standpoint, this feat would be akin to firing a bullet into the sky and expecting it to take down a drone, an aircraft or a flying saucer on the very first attempt.

Since we are frequently bombarded by the rancid call to “listen to The Science”, let me elaborate further.

From a systems science perspective, the feat of developing an all-in-one vaccine for a Disease X may arguably surpass the two century-old quest to resolve the Unified Field Theory – something a host of scientific luminaries, including Albert Einstein himself, could not accomplish. It may be mathematically easier to predict next month’s jackpot-winning lottery number than to develop a vaccine for a phantom virus. Accomplishing this feat would be broadly equivalent to resolving physics conundrums such as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle which states that “we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with simultaneous accuracy”. Some theoreticians claim that if this uncertainty is ever resolved, we will be able to predict the future.

Certitudes parroted by proponents of The Science can be tricky. Let us consider an example from the medical world, particularly over a drug that has been tried and tested for more than four decades. Prof Andy Crump, who had worked with Nobel Prize-winning scientist Satoshi Omura – who discovered the microorganism that led to the synthesis of ivermectin – recently made the following observation: “Surprisingly, despite 40 years of unmatched global success, plus widespread intensive scientific study in both the public and private sectors, scientists are still not certain exactly how ivermectin works. Moreover, whereas ivermectin-resistant parasites swiftly appeared in treated animals… no confirmed drug resistance appears to have arisen in parasites in human populations, even in those that have been taking ivermectin as a monotherapy for over 30 years.”

If we do not even know how yesterday’s ivermectin fully works, how can we be confident of tomorrow’s all-in-one Vaccine X that will supposedly neutralise a Virus X that in turn may cause Disease X (or a new coronavirus pandemic)? Science is governed by its immutable laws but then again, we are living in an age of lawlessness which pervades every sphere of human life, including scientific activity. In the aftermath of the Covid-19 hysteria, Crump lamented that the days when we could “unquestioningly trust science and scientists are long gone”.

All in all, I would place the advent of a naturally-occurring Disease X on the same probabilistic plane as the arrival of Planet X. But what if it is not “naturally occurring”?

Gain of Function Madness

Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, head of the Russian Armed Forces’ Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense (RCBD) Troops, recently held a briefing on US military-biological activities worldwide which he viewed as a threat to global security.

According to Kirillov, gain of function (i.e. dual use) research into anthrax, tularemia, coronavirus, avian influenza and African swine fever have ironically – and perhaps unsurprisingly – caused the very outbreaks they were supposed to prevent. Even more damning was his observation that on Oct 18 2019 – two months before official reports emerged over a new coronavirus phenomenon in China –  John Hopkins University had conducted an Event 201 exercise in New York which suspiciously preambled the Covid-19 pandemic. Kirillov suggested that this sequence of events was artificially engineered. More ominously, there appears to be a mechanism in place to handle another “outbreak”.

Kirillov warned: “We do not rule out that the United States may use so-called defensive technologies for offensive purposes, as well as for global governance by creating crisis situations of biological nature.” It is worth checking out Kirillov’s translated presentation (the original documents are either blocked, shadow-banned or deliberately taken down).

Kirillov outlined the timeline, institutions and senior personnel involved in the US biowarfare program as well as the pathogenic viruses currently being subjected to gain of function experimentations. While this does not constitute “news” to dissenting experts a.k.a “conspiracy theorists”, nearly 20,000 incriminating documents, as of January 2023, were allegedly uncovered during the course of Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine. Many of them were reportedly submitted to the UN Security Council for deliberation. If these appeals continue to be ignored, the Russian ministry of defence should just post the incriminating documents online. Otherwise, Western analysts may conclude that the Kremlin is merely using them as a grambit towards a final settlement in eastern Ukraine. In a similar vein, China has remained suspiciously reticent over the contents of these documents. Can one conclude that Taiwan and Southeast Asia may become the eventual quid pro quo for Beijing’s silence?

In the meantime, periodic revelations from Moscow remain outright damning. Last year, the Russian Security Council revealed that there were over 400 US biolabs worldwide, including 30 in Ukraine alone. Conducting highly dangerous experiments on potential pathogens in highly-unstable countries appears outright criminal. The sheer number of labs involved and the geographic spread of these alleged facilities suggest that a pervasive campaign of international subversion is at work. Therefore, do not expect national leaders, medical experts, non-governmental organisations and the media to question the rationale behind US military-linked biolabs in their midst. Once Virus X or a “deadly” coronavirus variant leaks out, these individuals and entities will have little choice but to promote the “international consensus” of billionaire-hijacked institutions like the WHO.

Era of Superfluous Humans

What exactly is the point of creating vaccines for intentionally weaponized viruses as well as non-existent ones? You can throw science and human conscience out of the window to approximate a logical answer. Big Pharma can extract big profits through innumerable means. The toxification of our foods (GMO and junk food) alone would provide an endless source of pharmaceutical revenue.

The real answer, in my opinion, was articulated decades ago. The Club of Rome’s “Predicament Of Mankind” project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1971, for example, had probed the consequences of a rapidly rising global population in the face of finite natural resources. The study concluded that unless a balance was struck, global societal collapse was inevitable. Dennis Meadows, former project director and co-author of the bestselling book The Limits to Growth, claims that the sequence of events leading to the collapse was “unknowable” – unlike the surefooted scientists who are developing an all-in-one vaccine. Meadows hoped for a “civil”, “peaceful”, “non-violent” and “equal” means to reduce the global population to just one billion people. This has been a repeated theme of the architects of our current global order. This is what the Great Reset is all about.

Top WEF ideologue and advisor, Yuval Noah Harari, even crystallised the emerging political and economic dilemmas to the central question of “what to do” with hordes of “useless people”. Harari repeats this travesty at every high-profile international forum, including those hosted by the United Nations and its agencies like the UNESCO. No national leader, no mainstream NGO, academic or media has ever dared express outrage at Harari’s pet anti–human theme. The Pope and other religious figures have remained criminally silent. The Hindu mystic Sadhguru even routinely echoes Harari’s ideas.

At the very least, one would have expected the population-dense Islamic world to be alarmed by these statements – articulated by an Israeli homosexual no less – but their senior imams have scrupulously avoided the topic. Where are the fiery sermons from archrivals Iran and Saudi Arabia? What are they afraid of? Weasel “fact-checkers”?

Scripture-quoting religious stalwarts should note that Revelations 13:4 had foreseen a time when nations would surrender to a bottomless, universal evil by conceding: “Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?” We have reached a point in history when nation-states are powerless and national sovereignty is a myth. With the exception of scattered individuals, do not expect any nation, global leader or organised entity to challenge the metastasizing anti-human agenda.

But will the global ruling class settle for a worldwide population of just one billion people? Due to technological advancements since the 1971 Club of Rome study was published, the optimal population figure has been revised to just 500 million people. At a World Economic Forum panel in 2020, UN “Messenger of Peace” Jane Goodall called for the global population to return to what it was “500 years ago” i.e. 500 million. Roughly 95% of today’s population would have to vanish in order to meet the optimal number. Goodall did speak with a lot of grace and compassion, particularly for the chimpanzees she had encountered in Africa. Her call was also eerily redolent of the mysterious Georgia Guidestones manifesto which advocated a global population of 500 million in “perpetual balance with nature”.

At the end of the day, who would be deemed worthy to inherit the post-Great Reset world; that vast, green lebensraum of just 500 million people? Third World leaders should realise that the original proponents of global population controls were exclusively white, from the West, and had endorsed colonial depredations. Many of them were inspired by the Nazis.

All the Woke nonsense we are witnessing right now, replete with Potemkin diversity figures, appear like a stalking horse to a decades-long anti-human agenda. Ever wondered why many household brands are driving themselves into extinction through suicidal Woke campaigns? Maybe, their owners know that the future global market would be a drastically shrunken one.  If so, the US government’s armada of biolabs and an outbreak of Disease X or a new Covid-19 variant may speed up the process.

In any case, national populations have been effectively shrinking since the Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out. Now, that is something to think about…

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr Mathew Maavak’s research interests include systems science, global risks, geopolitics, foresight and governance. Follow him on Twitter @MathewMaavak or read his latest articles here: https://drmathewmaavak.substack.com 

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published May 1st, 2022

***

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.[3 , 6 , 57]

We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence.

For the first time in American history a president, governors, mayors, hospital administrators and federal bureaucrats are determining medical treatments based not on accurate scientifically based or even experience based information, but rather to force the acceptance of special forms of care and “prevention”—including remdesivir, use of respirators and ultimately a series of essentially untested messenger RNA vaccines.

For the first time in history medical treatment, protocols are not being formulated based on the experience of the physicians treating the largest number of patients successfully, but rather individuals and bureaucracies that have never treated a single patient—including Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, EcoHealth Alliance, the CDC, WHO, state public health officers and hospital administrators.[23 , 38]

The media (TV, newspapers, magazines, etc), medical societies, state medical boards and the owners of social media have appointed themselves to be the sole source of information concerning this so-called “pandemic”.

Websites have been removed, highly credentialed and experienced clinical doctors and scientific experts in the field of infectious diseases have been demonized, careers have been destroyed and all dissenting information has been labeled “misinformation” and “dangerous lies”, even when sourced from top experts in the fields of virology, infectious diseases, pulmonary critical care, and epidemiology.

These blackouts of truth occur even when this information is backed by extensive scientific citations from some of the most qualified medical specialists in the world.[23] Incredibly, even individuals, such as Dr. Michael Yeadon, a retired ex-Chief Scientist, and vice-president for the science division of Pfizer Pharmaceutical company in the UK, who charged the company with making an extremely dangerous vaccine, is ignored and demonized. Further, he, along with other highly qualified scientists have stated that no one should take this vaccine.

Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most cited experts in his field, who has successfully treated over 2000 COVID patients by using a protocol of early treatment (which the so-called experts completely ignored), has been the victim of a particularly vicious assault by those benefiting financially from the vaccines. He has published his results in peer reviewed journals, reporting an 80% reduction in hospitalizations and a 75% reduction in deaths by using early treatment.[44] Despite this, he is under an unrelenting series of attacks by the information controllers, none of which have treated a single patient.

Neither Anthony Fauci, the CDC, WHO nor any medical governmental establishment has ever offered any early treatment other than Tylenol, hydration and call an ambulance once you have difficulty breathing. This is unprecedented in the entire history of medical care as early treatment of infections is critical to saving lives and preventing severe complications. Not only have these medical organizations and federal lapdogs not even suggested early treatment, they attacked anyone who attempted to initiate such treatment with all the weapons at their disposal—loss of license, removal of hospital privileges, shaming, destruction of reputations and even arrest.[2]

A good example of this outrage against freedom of speech and providing informed consent information is the recent suspension by the medical board in Maine of Dr. Meryl Nass’ medical license and the ordering of her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation for prescribing Ivermectin and sharing her expertise in this field.[9 , 65] I know Dr. Nass personally and can vouch for her integrity, brilliance and dedication to truth. Her scientific credentials are impeccable. This behavior by a medical licensing board is reminiscent of the methodology of the Soviet KGB during the period when dissidents were incarcerated in psychiatric gulags to silence their dissent.

Other Unprecedented Attacks

Another unprecedented tactic is to remove dissenting doctors from their positions as journal editors, reviewers and retracting of their scientific papers from journals, even after these papers have been in print. Until this pandemic event, I have never seen so many journal papers being retracted— the vast majority promoting alternatives to official dogma, especially if the papers question vaccine safety. Normally a submitted paper or study is reviewed by experts in the field, called peer review. These reviews can be quite intense and nit picking in detail, insisting that all errors within the paper be corrected before publication. So, unless fraud or some other major hidden problem is discovered after the paper is in print, the paper remains in the scientific literature.

We are now witnessing a growing number of excellent scientific papers, written by top experts in the field, being retracted from major medical and scientific journals weeks, months and even years after publication. A careful review indicates that in far too many instances the authors dared question accepted dogma by the controllers of scientific publications—especially concerning the safety, alternative treatments or efficacy of vaccines.[12 , 63] These journals rely on extensive adverting by pharmaceutical companies for their revenue. Several instances have occurred where powerful pharmaceutical companies exerted their influence on owners of these journals to remove articles that in any way question these companies’ products.[13 , 34 , 35]

Worse still is the actual designing of medical articles for promoting drugs and pharmaceutical products that involve fake studies, so-called ghostwritten articles.[49 , 64] Richard Horton is quoted by the Guardian as saying “journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”[13 , 63] Proven fraudulent “ghostwritten” articles sponsored by pharmaceutical giants have appeared regularly in top clinical journals, such as JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine—never to be removed despite proven scientific abuse and manipulation of data.[49 , 63]

Ghostwritten articles involve using planning companies whose job it is to design articles containing manipulated data to support a pharmaceutical product and then have these articles accepted by high-impact clinical journals, that is, the journals most likely to affect clinical decision making of doctors. Further, they supply doctors in clinical practice with free reprints of these manipulated articles. The Guardian found 250 companies engaged in this ghostwriting business. The final step in designing these articles for publication in the most prestigious journals is to recruit well recognized medical experts from prestigious institutions, to add their name to these articles. These recruited medical authors are either paid upon agreeing to add their name to these pre- written articles or they do so for the prestige of having their name on an article in a prestigious medical journal.[11]

Of vital importance is the observation by experts in the field of medical publishing that nothing has been done to stop this abuse. Medical ethicists have lamented that because of this widespread practice “you can’t trust anything.” While some journals insist on disclosure information, most doctors reading these articles ignore this information or excuse it and several journals make disclosure more difficult by requiring the reader to find the disclosure statements at another location. Many journals do not police such statements and omissions by authors are common and without punishment.

As concerns the information made available to the public, virtually all the media is under the control of these pharmaceutical giants or others who are benefitting from this “pandemic”. Their stories are all the same, both in content and even wording. Orchestrated coverups occur daily and massive data exposing the lies being generated by these information controllers are hidden from the public. All data coming over the national media (TV, newspaper and magazines), as well as the local news you watch every day, comes only from “official” sources—most of which are lies, distortions or completely manufactured out of whole cloth—all aimed to deceive the public.

Television media receives the majority of its advertising budget from the international pharmaceutical companies—this creates an irresistible influence to report all concocted studies supporting their vaccines and other so-called treatments.[14] In 2020 alone the pharmaceutical industries spent 6.56 billion dollars on such advertising.[13 , 14] Pharma TV advertising amounted to 4.58 billion, an incredible 75% of their budget. That buys a lot of influence and control over the media. World famous experts within all fields of infectious diseases are excluded from media exposure and from social media should they in any way deviate against the concocted lies and distortions by the makers of these vaccines. In addition, these pharmaceutical companies spend tens of millions on social media advertising, with Pfizer leading the pack with $55 million in 2020.[14]

While these attacks on free speech are terrifying enough, even worse is the virtually universal control hospital administrators have exercised over the details of medical care in hospitals. These hirelings are now instructing doctors which treatment protocols they will adhere to and which treatments they will not use, no matter how harmful the “approved” treatments are or how beneficial the “unapproved” treatments are.[33 , 57]

Never in the history of American medicine have hospital administrators dictated to its physicians how they will practice medicine and what medications they can use. The CDC has no authority to dictate to hospitals or doctors concerning medical treatments. Yet, most physicians complied without the slightest resistance.

The federal Care Act encouraged this human disaster by offering all US hospitals up to 39,000 dollars for each ICU patient they put on respirators, despite the fact that early on it was obvious that the respirators were a major cause of death among these unsuspecting, trusting patients. In addition, the hospitals received 12,000 dollars for each patient that was admitted to the ICU—explaining, in my opinion and others, why all federal medical bureaucracies (CDC, FDA, NIAID, NIH, etc) did all in their power to prevent life- saving early treatments.[46] Letting patients deteriorate to the point they needed hospitalization, meant big money for all hospitals. A growing number of hospitals are in danger of bankruptcy, and many have closed their doors, even before this “pandemic”.[50] Most of these hospitals are now owned by national or international corporations, including teaching hospitals.[10]

It is also interesting to note that with the arrival of this “pandemic” we have witnessed a surge in hospital corporate chains buying up a number of these financially at-risk hospitals.[1 , 54] It has been noted that billions in Federal Covid aid is being used by these hospital giants to acquire these financially endangered hospitals, further increasing the power of corporate medicine over physician independence. Physicians expelled from their hospitals are finding it difficult to find other hospitals staffs to join since they too may be owned by the same corporate giant. As a result, vaccine mandate policies include far larger numbers of hospital employees. For example, Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees for exercising their right to refuse a dangerous, essentially untested experimental vaccine.[51 , 57] Mayo Clinic did this despite the fact that many of these employees worked during the worst of the epidemic and are being fired when the Omicron variant is the dominant strain of the virus, has the pathogenicity of a common cold for most and the vaccines are ineffective in preventing the infection.

Screenshot from NBC News

In addition, it has been proven that the vaccinated asymptomatic person has a nasopharyngeal titer of the virus as high as an infected unvaccinated person. If the purpose of the vaccine mandate is to prevent viral spread among the hospital staff and patients, then it is the vaccinated who present the greatest risk of transmission, not the unvaccinated. The difference is that a sick unvaccinated person would not go to work, the asymptomatic vaccinated spreader will.

What we do know is that major medical centers, such as Mayo Clinic, receive tens of millions of dollars in NIH grants each year as well as monies from the pharmaceutical makers of these experimental “vaccines”. In my view, that is the real consideration driving these policies. If this could be proven in a court of law the administrators making these mandates should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and sued by all injured parties.

The hospital bankruptcy problem has grown increasingly acute due to hospitals vaccine mandates and resulting large number of hospitals staff, especially nurses, refusing to be forcibly vaccinated.[17 , 51] This is all unprecedented in the history of medical care. Doctors within hospitals are responsible for the treatment of their individual patients and work directly with these patients and their families to initiate these treatments. Outside organizations, such as the CDC, have no authority to intervene in these treatments and to do so exposes the patients to grave errors by an organization that has never treated a single COVID-19 patient.

When this pandemic started, hospitals were ordered by the CDC to follow a treatment protocol that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of patients, most of whom would have recovered had proper treatments been allowed.[43 , 44]

The majority of these deaths could have been prevented had doctors been allowed to use early treatment with such products as Ivermectin, hydroxy-chloroquine and a number of other safe drugs and natural compounds. It has been estimated, based on results by physicians treating the most covid patients successfully, that of the 800,000 people that we are told died from Covid, 640,000 could have not only been saved, but could have, in many cases, returned to their pre-infection health status had mandated early treatment with these proven methods been used. This neglect of early treatment constitutes mass murder. That means 160,000 would have actually died, far less than the number dying at the hands of bureaucracies, medical associations and medical boards that refused to stand up for their patients. According to studies of early treatment of thousands of patients by brave, caring doctors, seventy-five to eighty percent of the deaths could have been prevented.[43 , 44]

Incredibly, these knowledgeable doctors were prevented from saving these Covid-19 infected people. It should be an embarrassment to the medical profession that so many doctors mindlessly followed the deadly protocols established by the controllers of medicine.

One must also keep in mind that this event never satisfied the criteria for a pandemic. The World Health Organization changed the criteria to make this a pandemic. To qualify for a pandemic status the virus must have a high mortality rate for the vast majority of people, which it didn’t (with a 99.98% survival rate), and it must have no known existing treatments—which this virus had—in fact, a growing number of very successful treatments.

The draconian measures established to contain this contrived “pandemic” have never been shown to be successful, such as masking the public, lockdowns, and social distancing. A number of carefully done studies during previous flu seasons demonstrated that masks, of any kind, had never prevented the spread of the virus among the public.[60]

In fact, some very good studies suggested that the masks actually spread the virus by giving people a false sense of security and other factors, such as the observation that people were constantly breaking sterile technique by touching their mask, improper removal and by leakage of infectious aerosols around the edges of the mask. In addition masks were being disposed of in parking lots, walking trails, laid on tabletops in restaurants and placed in pockets and purses.

Within a few minutes of putting on the mask, a number of pathogenic bacteria can be cultured from the masks, putting the immune suppressed person at a high risk of bacterial pneumonia and children at a higher risk of meningitis.[16] A study by researchers at the University of Florida cultured over 11 pathogenic bacteria from the inside of the mask worn by children in schools.[40]

It was also known that children were at essentially no risk of either getting sick from the virus or transmitting it.

In addition, it was also known that wearing a mask for over 4 hours (as occurs in all schools) results in significant hypoxia (low blood oxygen levels) and hypercapnia (high CO2 levels), which have a number of deleterious effects on health, including impairing the development of the child’s brain.[4 , 72 , 52]

We have known that brain development continues long after the grade school years. A recent study found that children born during the “pandemic” have significantly lower IQs—yet school boards, school principals and other educational bureaucrats are obviously unconcerned.[18]

Tools of the Indoctrination Trade

Image on the right is from The Corbett Report

The designers of this pandemic anticipated a pushback by the public and that major embarrassing questions would be asked.

To prevent this, the controllers fed the media a number of tactics, one of the most commonly used was and is the “fact check” scam. With each confrontation with carefully documented evidence, the media “fact checkers” countered with the charge of “misinformation”, and an unfounded “conspiracy theory” charge that was, in their lexicon, “debunked”. Never were we told who the fact checkers were or the source of their “debunking” information—we were just to believe the “fact checkers”. A recent court case established under oath that facebook “fact checkers” used their own staff opinion and not real experts to check “facts”.[59] When sources are in fact revealed they are invariably the corrupt CDC, WHO or Anthony Fauci or just their opinion. Here is a list of things that were labeled as “myths” and “misinformation” that were later proven to be true.

The asymptomatic vaccinated are spreading the virus equally as with unvaccinated symptomatic infected.

The vaccines cannot protect adequately against new variants, such as Delta and Omicron.

Natural immunity is far superior to vaccine immunity and is most likely lifelong.

Vaccine immunity not only wanes after several months, but all immune cells are impaired for prolonged periods, putting the vaccinated at a high risk of all infections and cancer.

COVID vaccines can cause a significant incidence of blood clots and other serious side effects

The vaccine proponents will demand numerous boosters as each variant appears on the scene.

Fauci will insist on the covid vaccine for small children and even babies.

Vaccine passports will be required to enter a business, fly in a plane, and use public transportation.

There will be internment camps for the unvaccinated (as in Australia, Austria and Canada).

The unvaccinated will be denied employment.

There are secret agreements between the government, elitist institutions, and vaccine makers

Many hospitals were either empty or had low occupancy during the pandemic.

The spike protein from the vaccine enters the nucleus of the cell, altering cell DNA repair function.

Hundreds of thousands have been killed by the vaccines and many times more have been permanently damaged.

Early treatment could have saved the lives of most of the 700,000 who died.

Vaccine-induced myocarditis (which was denied initially) is a significant problem and clears over a short period.

Special deadly lots (batches) of these vaccines are mixed with the mass of other Covid-19 vaccines.

Several of these claims by those opposing these vaccines now appear on the CDC website—most still identified as “myths”. Today, extensive evidence has confirmed that each of these so-called “myths” were in fact true. Many are even admitted by the “saint of vaccines”, Anthony Fauci.

For example, we were told, even by our cognitively impaired President, that once the vaccine was released all the vaccinated people could take off their masks. Oops! We were told shortly afterward— the vaccinated have high concentrations (titers) of the virus in their noses and mouths (nasopharynx) and can transmit the virus to others in which they come into contact—especially their own family members. On go the masks once again— in fact double masking is recommended. The vaccinated are now known to be the main superspreaders of the virus and hospitals are filled with the sick vaccinated and people suffering from serious vaccine complications.[27 , 42 , 45]

Another tactic by the vaccine proponents is to demonize those who reject being vaccinated for a variety of reasons.

The media refers to these critically thinking individuals as “anti-vaxxers”, “vaccine deniers”, “Vaccine resisters”, “murders”, “enemies of the greater good” and as being the ones prolonging the pandemic. I have been appalled by the vicious, often heartless attacks by some of the people on social media when a parent or loved one relates a story of the terrible suffering and eventual death, they or their loved one suffered as a result of the vaccines. Some psychopaths tweet that they are glad that the loved one died or that the dead vaccinated person was an enemy of good for telling of the event and should be banned. This is hard to conceptualize. This level of cruelty is terrifying, and signifies the collapse of a moral, decent, and compassionate society.

It is bad enough for the public to sink this low, but the media, political leaders, hospital administrators, medical associations and medical licensing boards are acting in a similar morally dysfunctional and cruel way.

Logic, Reasoning, and Scientific Evidence Has Disappeared in this Event

Has scientific evidence, carefully done studies, clinical experience and medical logic had any effect on stopping these ineffective and dangerous vaccines? Absolutely not! The draconian efforts to vaccinate everyone on the planet continues (except the elite, postal workers, members of Congress and other insiders).[31 , 62]

In the case of all other drugs and previous conventional vaccines under review by the FDA, the otherwise unexplained deaths of 50 or less individuals would result in a halt in further distribution of the product, as happened on 1976 with the swine flu vaccine. With over 18,000 deaths being reported by the VAERS system for the period December 14, 2020 and December 31^st, 2021 as well as 139,126 serious injuries (including deaths) for the same period there is still no interest in stopping this deadly vaccine program.[61] Worse, there is no serious investigation by any government agency to determine why these people are dying and being seriously and permanently injured by these vaccines.[15 , 67] What we do see is a continuous series of coverups and evasions by the vaccine makers and their promoters.

The war against effective cheap and very safe repurposed drugs and natural compounds, that have proven beyond all doubt to have saved millions of lives all over the world, has not only continued but has stepped up in intensity.[32 , 34 , 43]

Doctors are told they cannot provide these life-saving compounds for their patients and if they do, they will be removed from the hospital, have their medical license removed or be punished in many other ways. A great many pharmacies have refused to fill prescriptions for lvermectin or hydroxy- chloroquine, despite the fact that millions of people have taken these drugs safely for over 60 years in the case of hydroxy chloroquine and decades for Ivermectin.[33 , 36] This refusal to fill prescriptions is unprecedented and has been engineered by those wanting to prevent alternative methods of treatment, all based on protecting vaccine expansion to all. Several companies that make hydroxy chloroquine agreed to empty their stocks of the drug by donating them to the Strategic National Stockpile, making this drug far more difficult to get.[33] Why would the government do that when over 30 well-done studies have shown that this drug reduced deaths anywhere from 66% to 92% in other countries, such as India, Egypt, Argentina, France, Nigeria, Spain, Peru, Mexico, and others?[23]

The critics of these two life-saving drugs are most often funded by Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci, both of which are making millions from these vaccines.[48 , 15]

To further stop the use of these drugs, the pharmaceutical industry and Bill Gates/Anthony Fauci funded fake research to make the case that hydroxy chloroquine was a dangerous drug and could damage the heart.[34] To make this fraudulent case the researchers administered the sickest of covid patients a near lethal dose of the drug, in a dose far higher than used on any covid patient by Dr. Kory, McCullough and other “real”, and compassionate doctors, physicians who were actually treating covid patients.[23]

The controlled, lap-dog media, of course, hammered the public with stories of the deadly effect of hydroxy-chloroquine, all with a terrified look of fake panic. All these stories of ivermectin dangers were shown to be untrue and some of the stories were incredibly preposterous.[37 , 43]

Image below is from Children’s Health Defense

The attack on Ivermectin was even more vicious than against hydroxy-chloroquine. All of this, and a great deal more is meticulously chronicled in Robert Kennedy, Jr’s excellent new book—The Real Anthony Fauci. Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.[32] If you are truly concerned with the truth and with all that has occurred since this atrocity started, you must not only read, but study this book carefully. It is fully referenced and covers all topics in great detail. This is a designed human tragedy of Biblical proportions by some of the most vile, heartless, psychopaths in history.

Millions have been deliberately killed and crippled, not only by this engineered virus, but by the vaccine itself and by the draconian measures used by these governments to “control the pandemic spread”. We must not ignore the “deaths by despair” caused by these draconian measures, which can exceed hundreds of thousands.

Millions have starved in third world countries as a result. In the United States alone, of the 800,000 who died, claimed by the medical bureaucracies, well over 600,000 of these deaths were the result of the purposeful neglect of early treatment, blocking the use of highly effective and safe repurposed drugs, such as hydroxy-chloroquine and Ivermectin, and the forced use of deadly treatments such as remdesivir and use of ventilators. This does not count the deaths of despair and neglected medical care caused by the lockdown and hospital measures forced on healthcare systems.

To compound all this, because of vaccine mandates among all hospital personnel, thousands of nurses and other hospital workers have resigned or been fired.[17 , 30 , 51] This has resulted in critical shortages of these vital healthcare workers and dangerous reductions of ICU beds in many hospitals. In addition, as occurred in the Lewis County Healthcare System, a specialty-hospital system in Lowville, N.Y., closed its maternity unit following the resignation of 30 hospital staff over the state’s disastrous vaccine mandate orders. The irony in all these cases of resignations is that the administrators unhesitatingly accepted these mass staffing losses despite rantings about suffering from short staffing during a “crisis”. This is especially puzzling when we learned that the vaccines did not prevent viral transmission and the present predominant variant is of extremely low pathogenicity.

Dangers of the Vaccines Are Increasingly Revealed by Science

While most researchers, virologists, infectious disease researchers and epidemiologists have been intimidated into silence, a growing number of high integrity individuals with tremendous expertise have come forward to tell the truth—that is, that these vaccines are deadly.

Most new vaccines must go through extensive safety testing for years before they are approved. New technologies, such as the mRNA and DNA vaccines, require a minimum of 10 years of careful testing and extensive follow-up. These new so-called vaccines were “tested” for only 2 months and then the results of these safety test were and continue to be kept secret. Testimony before Senator Ron Johnson by several who participated in the 2 months study indicates that virtually no follow-up of the participants of the pre-release study was ever done.[67] Complains of complications were ignored and despite promises by Pfizer that all medical expenses caused by the “vaccines” would be paid by Pfizer, these individuals stated that none were paid.[66] Some medical expenses exceed 100,000 dollars.

As an example of the deception by Pfizer, and the other makers of mRNA vaccines, is the case of 12-year-old Maddie de Garay, who participated in the Pfizer vaccine pre-release safety study. At Sen. Johnson’s presentation with the families of the vaccine injured, her mother told of her child’s recurrent seizures, that she is now confined to a wheelchair, must be tube fed and suffers permanent brain damage. On the Pfizer safety evaluation submitted to the FDA her only side effect is listed as having a “stomachache”. Each person submitted similar horrifying stories.

The Japanese resorted to a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lawsuit to force Pfizer to release its secret biodistribution study. The reason Pfizer wanted it kept secret is that it demonstrated that Pfizer lied to the public and the regulatory agencies about the fate of the injected vaccine contents (the mRNA enclosed nano-lipid carrier). They claimed that it remained at the site of the injection (the shoulder), when in fact their own study found that it rapidly spread throughout the entire body by the bloodstream within 48 hours.

The study also found that these deadly nano-lipid carriers collected in very high concentrations in several organs, including the reproductive organs of males and females, the heart, the liver, the bone marrow, and the spleen (a major immune organ). The highest concentration was in the ovaries and the bone marrow. These nano-lipid carriers also were deposited in the brain.

Image on the right: Dr. Ryan Cole. CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics. (Source: Health Impact News)

Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist from Idaho reported a dramatic spike in highly aggressive cancers among vaccinated individuals, (not reported in the Media). He found a frighteningly high incidence of highly aggressive cancers in vaccinated individuals, especially highly invasive melanomas in young people and uterine cancers in women.[26] Other reports of activation of previously controlled cancers are also appearing among vaccinated cancer patients.[47] Thus far, no studies have been done to confirm these reports, but it is unlikely such studies will be done, at least studies funded by grants from the NIH.

The high concentration of spike proteins found in the ovaries in the biodistribution study could very well impair fertility in young women, alter menstruation, and could put them at an increased risk of ovarian cancer. The high concentration in the bone marrow, could also put the vaccinated at a high risk of leukemia and lymphoma. The leukemia risk is very worrisome now that they have started vaccinating children as young as 5 years of age. No long-term studies have been conducted by any of these makers of Covid-19 vaccines, especially as regards the risk of cancer induction. Chronic inflammation is intimately linked to cancer induction, growth and invasion and vaccines stimulate inflammation.

Cancer patients are being told they should get vaccinated with these deadly vaccines. This, in my opinion, is insane. Newer studies have shown that this type of vaccine inserts the spike protein within the nucleus of the immune cells (and most likely many cell types) and once there, inhibits two very important DNA repair enzymes, BRCA1 and 53BP1, whose duty it is to repair damage to the cell’s DNA.[29] Unrepaired DNA damage plays a major role in cancer.

There is a hereditary disease called xeroderma pigmentosum in which the DNA repair enzymes are defective. These ill-fated individuals develop multiple skin cancers and a very high incidence of organ cancer as a result. Here we have a vaccine that does the same thing, but to a less extensive degree.

One of the defective repair enzymes caused by these vaccines is called BRCA1, which is associated with a significantly higher incidence of breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men.

It should be noted that no studies were ever done on several critical aspects of this type of vaccine.

They have never been tested for long term effects.

They have never been tested for induction of autoimmunity.

They have never been properly tested for safety during any stage of pregnancy.

No follow-up studies have been done on the babies of vaccinated women.

There are no long-term studies on the children of vaccinated pregnant women after their birth (Especially as neurodevelopmental milestone occur).

It has never been tested for effects on a long list of medical conditions:

• Diabetes
• Heart disease
• Atherosclerosis
• Neurodegenerative diseases
• Neuropsychiatric effects
• Induction of autism spectrum disorders and schizophrenia
• Long term immune function
• Vertical transmission of defects and disorders
• Cancer
• Autoimmune disorders

Previous experience with the flu vaccines clearly demonstrates that the safety studies done by researchers and clinical doctors with ties to pharmaceutical companies were essentially all either poorly done or purposefully designed to falsely show safety and coverup side effects and complications. This was dramatically demonstrated with the previously mentioned phony studies designed to indicate that hydroxy Chloroquine and Ivermectin were ineffective and too dangerous to use.[34 , 36 , 37] These fake studies resulted in millions of deaths and severe health disasters worldwide. As stated, 80% of all deaths were unnecessary and could have been prevented with inexpensive, safe repurposed medications with a very long safety history among millions who have taken them for decades or even a lifetime.[43 , 44]

It is beyond ironic that those claiming that they are responsible for protecting our health approved a poorly tested set of vaccines that has resulted in more deaths in less than a year of use than all the other vaccines combined given over the past 30 years. Their excuse when confronted was—“we had to overlook some safety measures because this was a deadly pandemic”.[28 , 46]

In 1986 President Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which gave blanket protection to pharmaceutical makers of vaccines against injury litigation by families of vaccine injured individuals. The Supreme Court, in a 57-page opinion, ruled in favor of the vaccine companies, effectively allowing vaccine makers to manufacture and distribute dangerous, often ineffective vaccines to the population without fear of legal consequences. The court did insist on a vaccine injury compensation system which has paid out only a very small number of rewards to a large number of severely injured individuals. It is known that it is very difficult to receive these awards. According to the Health Resources and Services Administration, since 1988 the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has agreed to pay 3,597 awards among 19,098 vaccine injured individuals applying amounting to a total sum of $3.8 billion. This was prior to the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccines, in which the deaths alone exceed all deaths related to all the vaccines combined over a thirty-year period.

In 2018 President Trump signed into law the “right-to-try” law which allowed the use of experimental drugs and all unconventional treatments to be used in cases of extreme medical conditions. As we have seen with the refusal of many hospitals and even blanket refusal by states to allow Ivermectin, hydroxy-chloroquine or any other unapproved “official” methods to treat even terminal Covid-19 cases, these nefarious individuals have ignored this law.

Strangely, they did not use this same logic or the law when it came to Ivermectin and Hydroxy-Chloroquine, both of which had undergone extensive safety testing by over 30 clinical studies of a high quality and given glowing reports on both efficacy and safety in numerous countries. In addition, we had a record of use for up to 60 years by millions of people, using these drugs worldwide, with an excellent safety record. It was obvious that a group of very powerful people in conjunction with pharmaceutical conglomerates didn’t want the pandemic to end and wanted vaccines as the only treatment option. Kennedy’s book makes this case using extensive evidence and citations.[14 , 32]

Dr. James Thorpe, an expert in maternal-fetal medicine, demonstrates that these covid-19 vaccines given during pregnancy have resulted in a 50-fold higher incidence of miscarriage than reported with all other vaccines combined.[28] When we examine his graph on fetal malformations there was a 144-fold higher incidence of fetal malformation with the Covid-19 vaccines given during pregnancy as compared to all other vaccines combined. Yet, the American Academy of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology endorse the safety of these vaccines for all stages of pregnancy and among women breast feeding their babies.

It is noteworthy that these medical specialty groups have received significant funding from Pfizer pharmaceutical company. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, just in the 4^th quarter of 2010, received a total of $11,000 from Pfizer Pharmaceutical company alone.[70] Funding from NIH grants are much higher.[20] The best way to lose these grants is to criticize the source of the funds, their products or pet programs. Peter Duesberg, because of his daring to question Fauci’s pet theory of AIDS caused by HIV virus, was no longer awarded any of the 30 grant applications he submitted after going public. Prior to this episode, as the leading authority on retroviruses in the world, he had never been turned down for an NIH grant.[39] This is how the “corrupted” system works, even though much of the grant money comes from our taxes.

Hot Lots—Deadly Batches of the Vaccines

A new study has now surfaced, the results of which are terrifying.[25] A researcher at Kingston University in London, has completed an extensive analysis of the VAERs data (a subdepartment of the CDC which collects voluntary vaccine complication data), in which he grouped reported deaths following the vaccines according to the manufacturer’s lot numbers of the vaccines. Vaccines are manufactured in large batches called lots. What he discovered was that the vaccines are divided into over 20,000 lots and that one out of every 200 of these batches (lots) is demonstrably deadly to anyone who receives a vaccine from that lot, which includes thousands of vaccine doses.

He examined all manufactured vaccines—Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), etc. He found that among every 200 batches of the vaccine from Pfizer and other makers, one batch of the 200 was found to be over 50x more deadly than vaccines batches from other lots. The other vaccine lots (batches) were also causing deaths and disabilities, but nowhere near to this extent. These deadly batches should have appeared randomly among all “vaccines” if it was an unintentional event. However, he found that 5% of the vaccines were responsible for 90% of the serious adverse events, including deaths. The incidence of deaths and serious complications among these “hot lots” varied from over 1000% to several thousand percent higher than comparable safer lots. If you think this was by accident—think again. This is not the first time “hot lots” were, in my opinion, purposefully manufactured and sent across the nation—usually vaccines designed for children. In one such scandal, “hot lots” of a vaccine ended up all in one state and the damage immediately became evident. What was the manufacture’s response? It wasn’t to remove the deadly batches of the vaccine. He ordered his company to scatter the hot lots across the nation so that authorities would not see the obvious deadly effect.

All lots of a vaccine are numbered—for example Modera labels them with such codes as 013M20A. It was noted that the batch numbers ended in either 20A or 21A. Batches ending in 20A were much more toxic than the ones ending in 21A. The batches ending in 20A had about 1700 adverse events, versus a few hundred to twenty or thirty events for the 21A batches. This example explains why some people had few or no adverse events after taking the vaccine while others are either killed or severely and permanently harmed. To see the researcher’s explanation, go to https://www.bitchute.com/video/6xIYPZBkydsu/ In my opinion these examples strongly suggest an intentional alteration of the production of the “vaccine” to include deadly batches.

I have met and worked with a number of people concerned with vaccine safety and I can tell you they are not the evil anti-vaxxers you are told they are. They are highly principled, moral, compassionate people, many of which are top researchers and people who have studied the issue extensively. Robert Kennedy, Jr, Barbara Lou Fisher, Dr. Meryl Nass, Professor Christopher Shaw, Megan Redshaw, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Neil Z. Miller, Dr. Lucija Tomjinovic, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Dr. Steve Kirsch and Dr. Peter McCullough just to name a few. These people have nothing to gain and a lot to lose. They are attacked viciously by the media, government agencies, and elite billionaires who think they should control the world and everyone in it.

Why Did Fauci Want No Autopsies of Those Who Died After Vaccination?

There are many things about this “pandemic” that are unprecedented in medical history. One of the most startling is that at the height of the pandemic so few autopsies, especially total autopsies, were being done. A mysterious virus was rapidly spreading around the world, a selected group of people with weakened immune systems were getting seriously ill and many were dying and the one way we could rapidly gain the most knowledge about this virus—an autopsy, was being discouraged.

Image below is from Children’s Health Defense

Guerriero noted that by the end of April, 2020 approximately 150,000 people had died, yet there were only 16 autopsies performed and reported in the medical literature.[24] Among these, only seven were complete autopsies, the remaining 9 being partial or by needle biopsy or incisional biopsy. Only after 170,000 deaths by Covid-19 and four months into the pandemic were the first series of autopsies actually done, that is, more than ten. And only after 280,000 deaths and another month, were the first large series of autopsies performed, some 80 in number.[22] Sperhake, in a call for autopsies to be done without question, noted that the first full autopsy reported in the literature along with photomicrographs appeared in a medico-legal journal from China in February 2020.[41 , 68] Sperhake expressed confusion as to why there was a reluctance to perform autopsies during the crisis, but he knew it was not coming from the pathologists. The medical literature was littered with appeals by pathologist for more autopsies to be performed.[58] Sperhake further noted that the Robert Koch Institute (The German health monitoring system) at least initially advised against doing autopsies. He also knew that at the time 200 participating autopsy institutions in the United States had done at least 225 autopsies among 14 states.

Some have claimed that this dearth of autopsies was based on the government’s fear of infection among the pathologists, but a study of 225 autopsies on Covid-19 cases demonstrated only one case of infection among the pathologist and this was concluded to have been an infection contracted elsewhere.[19] Guerriero ends his article calling for more autopsies with this observation: “Shoulder to shoulder, clinical and forensic pathologists overcame the obstructions of autopsy studies in Covid-19 victims and hereby generated valuable knowledge on the pathophysiology of the interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 and the human body, thus contributing to our understanding of the disease.”[24]

Suspicion concerning the worldwide reluctance of nations to allow full post mortem studies of Covid-19 victims may be based on the idea that it was more than by chance. There are at least two possibilities that stand out. First, those leading the progression of this “non-pandemic” event into a perceived worldwide “deadly pandemic”, were hiding an important secret that autopsies could document. Namely, just how many of the deaths were actually caused by the virus? To implement draconian measures, such as mandated mask wearing, lockdowns, destruction of businesses, and eventually mandated forced vaccination, they needed very large numbers of covid-19 infected dead. Fear would be the driving force for all these destructive pandemic control programs.

Elder et al in his study classified the autopsy findings into four groups.[22]

• Certain Covid-19 death
• Probably Covid-19 death
• Possible Covid-19 death
• Not associated with Covid-19, despite the positive test.

What possibly concerned or even terrified the engineers of this pandemic was that autopsies just might, and did, show that a number of these so-called Covid-19 deaths in truth died of their comorbid diseases. In the vast majority of autopsy studies reported, pathologists noted multiple comorbid conditions, most of which at the extremes of life could alone be fatal. Previously it was known that common cold viruses had an 8% mortality in nursing homes.

In addition, valuable evidence could be obtained from the autopsies that would improve clinical treatments and could possibly demonstrate the deadly effect of the CDC mandated protocols all hospitals were required to follow, such as the use of respirators and the deadly, kidney-destroying drug remdesivir. The autopsies also demonstrated accumulating medical errors and poor-quality care, as the shielding of doctors in intensive care units from the eyes of family members inevitably leads to poorer quality care as reported by several nurses working in these areas.[53 – 55]

As bad as all this was, the very same thing is being done in the case of Covid vaccine deaths—very few complete autopsies have been done to understand why these people died, that is, until recently. Two highly qualified researchers, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi a microbiologist and highly qualified expert in infectious disease and Dr. Arne Burkhardt, a pathologist who is a widely published authority having been a professor of pathology at several prestigious institutions, recently performed autopsies on 15 people having died after vaccination. What they found explains why so many are dying and experiencing organ damage and deadly blood clots.[5]

They determined that 14 of the fifteen people died as a result of the vaccines and not of other causes. Dr. Burkhardt, the pathologist, observed widespread evidence of an immune attack on the autopsied individuals’ organs and tissues— especially their heart. This evidence included extensive invasion of small blood vessels with massive numbers of lymphocytes, which cause extensive cell destruction when unleashed. Other organs, such as the lungs and liver, were observed to have extensive damage as well. These findings indicate the vaccines were causing the body to attack itself with deadly consequences. One can easily see why Anthony Fauci, as well as public health officers and all who are heavily promoting these vaccines, publicly discouraged autopsies on the vaccinated who subsequently died. One can also see that in the case of vaccines, that were essentially untested prior to being approved for the general public, at least the regulatory agencies should have been required to carefully monitor and analyze all serious complications, and certainly deaths, linked to these vaccines. The best way to do that is with complete autopsies.

While we learned important information from these autopsies what is really needed are special studies of the tissues of those who have died after vaccination for the presence of spike protein infiltration throughout the organs and tissues. This would be critical information, as such infiltration would result in severe damage to all tissues and organs involved—especially the heart, the brain, and the immune system. Animal studies have demonstrated this. In these vaccinated individuals the source of these spike proteins would be the injected nanolipid carriers of the spike protein producing mRNA. It is obvious that the government health authorities and pharmaceutical manufacturers of these “vaccines” do not want these critical studies done as the public would be outraged and demand an end to the vaccination program and prosecution of the involved individuals who covered this up.

Conclusions

We are all living through one of the most drastic changes in our culture, economic system, as well as political system in our nation’s history as well as the rest of the world.

We have been told that we will never return to “normal” and that a great reset has been designed to create a “new world order”. This has all been outlined by Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, in his book on the “Great Reset”.[66] This book gives a great deal of insight as to the thinking of the utopians who are proud to claim this pandemic “crisis” as their way to usher in a new world. This new world order has been on the drawing boards of the elite manipulators for over a century.[73 , 74] In this paper I have concentrated on the devastating effects this has had on the medical care system in the United States, but also includes much of the Western world. In past papers I have discussed the slow erosion of traditional medical care in the United States and how this system has become increasingly bureaucratized and regimented.[7 , 8] This process was rapidly accelerating, but the appearance of this, in my opinion, manufactured “pandemic” has transformed our health care system over night.

As you have seen, an unprecedented series of events have taken place within this system. Hospital administrators, for example, assumed the position of medical dictators, ordering doctors to follow protocols derived not from those having extensive experience in treating this virus, but rather from a medical bureaucracy that has never treated a single COVID-19 patient. The mandated use of respirators on ICU Covid-19 patients, for example, was imposed in all medical systems and dissenting physicians were rapidly removed from their positions as caregivers, despite their demonstration of markedly improved treatment methods. Further, doctors were told to use the drug remdesivir despite its proven toxicity, lack of effectiveness and high complication rate. They were told to use drugs that impaired respiration and mask every patient, despite the patient’s impaired breathing. In each case, those who refused to abuse their patients were removed from the hospital and even faced a loss of license—or worse.

For the first time in modern medical history, early medical treatment of these infected patients was ignored nationwide. Studies have shown that early medical treatment was saving 80% of higher number of these infected people when initiated by independent doctors.[43 , 44] Early treatment could have saved over 640,000 lives over the course of this “pandemic”. Despite the demonstration of the power of these early treatments, the forces controlling medical care continued this destructive policy.

Families were not allowed to see their loved ones, forcing these very sick individuals in the hospitals to face their deaths alone. To add insult to injury, funerals were limited to a few grieving family members, who were not allowed to even sit together. All the while large stores, such as Walmart and Cosco were allowed to operate with minimal restrictions. Nursing home patients were also not allowed to have family visitations, again being forced to die a lonely death. All the while, in a number of states, the most transparent being in New York state, infected elderly were purposefully transferred from hospitals into nursing homes, resulting in a very high death rates of these nursing home residents. At the beginning of this “pandemic” over 50% of all death were occurring in nursing homes.

Throughout this “pandemic” we have been fed an unending series of lies, distortions and disinformation by the media, the public health officials, medical bureaucracies (CDC, FDA and WHO) and medical associations. Physicians, scientists, and experts in infectious treatments who formed associations designed to develop more effective and safer treatments, were regularly demonized, harassed, shamed, humiliated, and experience a loss of licensure, loss of hospital privileges and, in at least one case, ordered to have a psychiatric examination.[2 , 65 , 71]

Anthony Fauci was given essentially absolute control of all forms of medical care during this event, including insisting that drugs he profited from be used by all treating physicians. He ordered the use of masks, despite at first laughing at the use of masks to filter a virus. Governors, mayors, and many businesses followed his orders without question.

The draconian measures being used, masking, lockdowns, testing of the uninfected, use of the inaccurate PCR test, social distancing, and contact tracing had been shown previously to be of little or no use during previous pandemics, yet all attempts to reject these methods were to no avail. Some states ignored these draconian orders and had either the same or fewer cases, as well as deaths, as the states with the most strictly enforced measures. Again, no amount of evidence or obvious demonstration along these lines had any effect on ending these socially destructive measures. Even when entire countries, such as Sweden, which avoided all these measures, demonstrated equal rates of infections and hospitalization as nations with the strictest, very draconian measures, no policy change by the controlling institutions occurred. No amount of evidence changed anything.

Experts in the psychology of destructive events, such as economic collapses, major disasters and previous pandemics demonstrated that draconian measures come with an enormous cost in the form of “deaths of despair” and in a dramatic increase in serious psychological disorders. The effects of these pandemic measures on children’s neurodevelopment is catastrophic and to a large extent irreversible.

Over time tens of thousands could die as a result of this damage. Even when these predictions began to appear, the controllers of this “pandemic” continued full steam ahead. Drastic increases in suicides, a rise in obesity, a rise in drug and alcohol use, a worsening of many health measures and a terrifying rise in psychiatric disorders, especially depression and anxiety, were ignored by the officials controlling this event.

We eventually learned that many of the deaths were a result of medical neglect. Individuals with chronic medical conditions, diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and neurological diseases were no longer being followed properly in their clinics and doctor’s offices. Non-emergency surgeries were put on hold. Many of these patients chose to die at home rather than risk going to the hospitals and many considered hospitals “death houses”.

Records of deaths have shown that there was a rise in deaths among those aged 75 and older, mostly explained by Covid-19 infections, but for those between the ages of 65 to 74, deaths had been increasing well before the pandemic onset.[69] Between ages of 18 and aged 65 years, records demonstrate a shocking hike in non-Covid-19 deaths. Some of these deaths were explained by a dramatic increase in drug-related deaths, some 20,000 more than 2019. Alcohol related deaths also increased substantially, and homicides increased almost 30% in the 18 to 65-year group.

The head of the insurance company OneAmerica stated that their data indicated that the death rate for individuals aged 18 to 64 had increased 40% over the pre-pandemic period.[21] Scott Davidson, the company’s CEO, stated that this represented the highest death rate in the history of insurance records, which does extensive data collections on death rates each year. Davidson also noted that this high of a death rate increase has never been seen in the history of death data collection. Previous catastrophes of monumental extent increased death rates no more than 10 percent, 40% is unprecedented.

Dr. Lindsay Weaver, Indiana’s chief medical officer, stated that hospitalizations in Indiana are higher than at any point in the past five years. This is of critical importance since the vaccines were supposed to significantly reduce deaths, but the opposite has happened. Hospitals are being flooded with vaccine complications and people in critical condition from medical neglect caused by the lockdowns and other pandemic measures.[46 , 56]

A dramatic number of these people are now dying, with the spike occurring after the vaccines were introduced. The lies flowing from those who have appointed themselves as medical dictators are endless. First, we were told that the lockdown would last only two weeks, they lasted over a year. Then we were told that masks were ineffective and did not need to be worn. Quickly that was reversed. Then we were told the cloth mask was very effective, now it’s not and everyone should be wearing an N95 mask and before that that they should double mask. We were told there was a severe shortage of respirators, then we discover they are sitting unused in warehouses and in city dumps, still in their packing crates. We were informed that the hospitals were filled mostly with the unvaccinated and later found the exact opposite was true the world over. We were told that the vaccine was 95% effective, only to learn that in fact the vaccines cause a progressive erosion of innate immunity.

Upon release of the vaccines, women were told the vaccines were safe during all states of pregnancy, only to find out no studies had been done on safety during pregnancy during the “safety tests” prior to release of the vaccine. We were told that careful testing on volunteers before the EUA approval for public use demonstrated extreme safety of the vaccines, only to learn that these unfortunate subjects were not followed, medical complications caused by the vaccines were not paid for and the media covered this all up.[67] We also learned that the pharmaceutical makers of the vaccines were told by the FDA that further animal testing was unnecessary (the general public would be the Guinea pigs.) Incredibly, we were told that the Pfizer’s new mRNA vaccines had been approved by the FDA, which was a cleaver deception, in that another vaccine had approval (comirnaty) and not the one being used, the BioNTech vaccine. The approved comirnaty vaccine was not available in the United States. The national media told the public that the Pfizer vaccine had been approved and was no longer classed as experimental, a blatant lie. These deadly lies continue. It is time to stop this insanity and bring these people to justice.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Russell L. Blaylock is a Retired Neurosurgeon, Theoretical Neuroscience Research, LLC, Ridgeland, Mississippi, United States.

Notes

1. Abelson R. Buoyed by federal Covid aid, big hospital chains buy up competitors. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/health/covid-bailout-hospital-merger.html.

2. Albright L. Medical nonconformity and its persecution. https://brownstone.org/articles/medical-nonconformaity-and-its-persecution [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

3. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL.editors. The China Virus. What is the truth?. United States: James I. and Carolyn R. Ausman Education Foundation (AEF); 2021. p.

4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008. 19:

5. Bhakdi S. Presentation of autopsy findings. https://www.brighteon.com/4b6cc929-f559-4577-b4f8-3b40f0cd2f77 Pathology presentation on findings https://pathologie-konferenz.de/en [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

6. Blaylock RL. Covid-19 pandemic: What is the truth?. Surg Neurol Inter. 2021. 12:

7. Blaylock RL. National Health Insurance (Part 1): the socialist nightmare. Aug 19, 2009 https://haciendapublishing.com/national-health-insurance-part-i-the-socialist-nightmare-by-russell-l-blaylock-md [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

8. Blaylock RL. Regimentation in medicine and its human price (part 1 & 2) Hacienda publishing. p.

9. Blaylock RL. When rejecting orthodoxy becomes a mental illness. Aug 15, 2013 https://haciendapublishing.com/when-rejecting-orthodoxy-becomes-a-mental-illness-by-russell-l-blaylock-m-d [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

10. Bloche MG. Corporate takeover of Teaching Hospitals. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1731&context=facpub [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

11. Bosh X, Ross JS. Ghostwriting: Research misconduct, plagiarism, or Fool’s gold. Amer J Med. 2012. 125: 324-6

12. Breggin PR, Breggin GR.editors. Top Medical Journals Sell their Souls. Breggin PR, Breggin GR. Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey. Ithaca, NY: Lake Edge Press; 2021. p. 285-292

13. editorsp.

14. Bulik BS. The top 10 ad spenders in Big Pharma for 2020. Fierce Pharma Apr 19, 2021 https://www.fiercepharma.com/special-report/top-10-ad-spenders-big-pharma-for-2020 [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

15.

16. Chughtai AA, Stelzer-Braid S, Rawlinson W, Pontivivi G, Wang Q, Pan Y.editors. Contamination by respiratory viruses on outer surface of medical mask used by hospital healthcare workers. BMC Infect Dis. 2019. p.

17. Coleman-Lochner L. U.S. Hospitals pushed to financial ruin as nurses quit during pandemic. Dec 21, 2021 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-21/u-s-hospitals-pushed-to-financial-ruin-as-nurses-quit-en-masse [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

18. D’Souza K. Pandemic effects may have lowered baby’s IQs, study says EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/pandemic-may-have-lowered-baby-iq-study-says/661285. [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

19. Davis GG, Williamson AK. Risk of covid-19 transmission during autopsy. Arch Path Lab Med. 2020. 144: 1445a-1445

20. Department of Health and Human Services: Part 1. Overview Information. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-HD-20-013.html [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

21. Durden T.editors. Life Insurance CEO says deaths up 40% among those aged 18 to 64. Tyler Durden Report. 2022. p.

22. Elder C, Schroder AS, Aepfelbacher M, Fitzek A, Heinemann A, Heinrich F. Dying with SARS-CoV-2 infection an autopsy study of the first consecutive 80 cases in Hamberg, Germany. Inter J Legal Med. 2020. 134: 1275-84

23. Front Line Covid Critical Care Alliance. https://covid19criticalcare.com [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

24. Gueriero M. Restriction of autopsies during the Covid-19 epidemic in Italy. Prudence or fear? Pathologica. 2020. 112: 172-3

25. Hope JR.editors. Sudden death by “hot lot”—Dr. Michael Yeadon sounds the alarm. The Desert review. 2022. p.

26. Huff E. Idaho doctor reports “20 times increase” in cancer among those “vaccinated” for covid. https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-09-14-idaho-doctor-20times-increase-cancer-vaccinated-covid.html [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

27. Ioannou P, Karakonstantis S, Astrinaki E, Saplamidou S, Vitsaxaki E, Hamilos G. Transmission of SARS-C0V-2 variant B1.1.7 among vaccinated health care workers. Infect Dis. 2021. p. 1-4

28. James Thorpe interview by Dr. Steve Kirsch. Rumble https://rumble.com/vru732-dr.-james-thorp-on-medical-censorship.html [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

29. Jiang H, Mei Y-F. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein impairs DNA damage repair and inhibits V(D)J recombination in vitro. Viruses. 2021. 13: 2056

30. Jimenez JVigdor N. Covid-19 news: Over 150 Texas hospital workers are fired or resign over vaccine mandates. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/22/world/covid-vaccine-coronavirus-mask [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

31. Katz E. Postal service seeks temporary exemption from Biden’s vaccine-or-test mandate. https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2022/01/postal-service-seeks-temporary-exemption-bidens-vaccine-or-test-mandate/360376 [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

32. Kennedy R.editors. The Real Anthony Fauci. Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. Skyhorse Publishing; 2021. p. 24-29

33. Kennedy RF.editorsp. 24-25

34. Kennedy RF.editorsp. 26-30

35. Kennedy RF.editorsp. 32

36. Kennedy RF.editorsp. 35-56

37. Kennedy RF.editorsp. 47-56

38. Kennedy RF.editorsp. 135

39. Kennedy RF.editorsp. 217

40. Lee M. University of Florida finds dangerous pathogens on children’s face mask. NTD https://www.ntd.com/university-of-florida-lab-finds-dangerous-pathogens-on-childrens-face-masks_630275.html [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

41. Liu Q, Wang RS, Qu GQ, Wang YY, Liu P, Zhu YZ. Gross examination report of a Covid-19 death autopsy. Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2020. 36: 21-23

42. Loffredo J. Fully vaccinated are Covid ‘Superspreaders’ Says inventor of mRNA technology. https://childrenshealthdefernce.org/defender/justin-Williams-Robert-Malone-fully-vaccinated-covid-super-spreaders [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

43. Marik PE, Kory P, Varon J, Iglesias J, Meduri GU. MATH+ protocol for the treatment oof SARS-CoV-2 infection: the scientific rationale. Exp rev Ant-infective Ther. 2020. p.

44. McCullough P, Kelly R, Ruocco G, Lerma E, Tumlin J, Wheeland KR. Pathophysiological basis and rationale for early outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Amer J Med. 2021. 134: 16-22

45. McCullough P.editors. Study: Fully vaccinated healthcare workers carry 251 times viral load, pose threat to unvaccinated patients, Co-workers. p.

46. McCullough P. “We’re in the middle of a major biological catastrophe”: Covid expert Dr. Peter McCullough. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/were-in-the-middle-of-a-major-biological-catastrophe-top-covid-doc-mccullough/?_kx=9EtupqemhhFXJ1kgCo9W3xUNfwrkqB5nT7V2H15fUnA%3D.WXNMR7 [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

47. McGovern C. Thousands report developing abnormal tumors following Covid shots. Nov 1, 2021 https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/thousands-report-developing-abnormal-tumors-following-covid-shots [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

48. Mercola J. Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci: a ‘formidable, nefarious’ partnership. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rfk-jr-the-real-anthony-fauci-bill-gates [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

49. Moffatt B, Elliott C. Ghost Marketing: Pharmaceutical companies and ghostwritten journal articles. Persp Biol Med. 2007. 50: 18-31

50. Mulvany C.editors. Covid-19 exacerbates bankruptcy for at-risk hospitals. Health Care Financial Management Association. 2020. p.

51. Muoio D. How many employees have hospitals lost to vaccine mandates?. https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/how-many-employees-have-hospitals-lost-to-vaccine-mandates-numbers-so-far [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

52. Nalivaeva NN, Turner AJ, Zhuravin IA. Role of prenatal hypoxia in brain development, cognitive functions, and neurodegeneration. Front Neurosci. 2018. p.

53. Nicole Sirotek shares what she saw on the front lines in NYC. # Murder. https://rumble.com/vt7tnf-registered-nurse-nicole-sirotek-shares-what-she-saw-on-the-front-lines-in-n.html [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

54. Noether MMat S. Hospital merger benefits: Views from hospital leaders and econometric analysis. Jan, 2017 https://www.aha.org/guidesreports/2017-01-24-hospital-merger-benefits-views-hospital-leaders-and-econometric-analysis [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

55. Nurse Colette Martin testimony to Louisiana House of Representatives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBwnIRUav5I [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

56. Nurse Dani: It’s the Covid-19 hospital protocols are killing people. https://rumble.com/vqs1v6-nurse-dani-its-the-covid-19-hospital-protocols-are-killing-people.html [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

57. Parpia R. Mayo Clinic fires 700 employees for refusing to get Covid-19 vaccinations. https://thevaccinereaction.org/2022/01/mayo-clinic-fires-700-employees-for-refusing-to-get-covid-19-vaccinations [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

58. Pomara C, Li Volti G, Cappello F. Covid-19 deaths: are we sure it is pneumonia? Please, autopsy, autopsy, autopsy!. J Clin Med. 2020. p.

59. .editors. Post Editorial Board Facebook admits the truth: “Fact checks” are just (lefty) opinion. New York Post. p.

60. Rancourt DG. Mask don’t work. A review of science relevant to the covid-19 social policy. https://archive.org/details/covid-censorship-at-research-gate-2 [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

61. Redshaw M.editors. As reports of injuries after Covid vaccines near 1 million mark. CDC, FDA clear Pfizer, Moderna boosters for all adults. p.

62. Roche D.editors. Members of Congress and their staff are exempt from Biden’s vaccine mandate, Newsweek 9/10/21 Boston Herald Editorial Staff. Editorial: Political elites exempt from vax mandates. Boston Herald. 2021. p.

63. Ross E. How drug companies’ PR tactics skew the presentation of medical research. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/may/20/drug-companies-ghost-writing-journalism [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

64. Saul S. Ghostwriters used in Vioxx studies, article says. April 15, 2008 https://www.fpparchive.org/media/documents/public_policy/Ghostwriters%20Used%20in%20Vioxx%20studies_Stephanie%20Saul_Apr%2015,%202008_The%20New%20Times.pdf [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

65. Saxena V. Doctors loses medical license. Ordered to have Psych Eval for Ivermectin Scrits, Sharing Covid “misinformation”. Available from: https://bizpacreview.com/2022/01/16/doctor-loses-license-orderedto-have-psych-eval-for-prescribing-ivermectin-sharining-covid-falsehoods-1189313. [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

66. Schwab K, Malleret T.editors. The Covid-19 Pandemic and the Great Reset. Forum Publishing 2020 World Economic Forum. Cologny/Geneva: p.

67. Sen. Ron Johnson on Covid-19 vaccine injuries to test subjects. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxqC9SiRh8 [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

68. Sperhake J-P. Autopsies of Covid-19 deceased? Absolutely!. Legal Med. 2020. p.

69. Svab P.editors. Non-Covid death spike in Americans aged 18-49. The Epoch Times. p.

70. US Medical, Scientific, Patient and Civic Organization Funding Report: Pfizer: Fourth Quarter 2010. https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/responsibility/grants_contributions/pfizer_us_grants_cc_q4_2010.pdf [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06].

71. Vivek Saxena. Doctors loses license, ordered to have psych eval for Ivermectin scrits, sharing Covid ‘misinformation’. https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/01/16/doctor-loses-license-ordered-to-have-psych-eval-for-prescribing-ivermectin-sharing-covid-falsehoods-1189313.

72. Westendorf AM. Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2017. 41: 1271-84

73. Wood PM.editors. Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order. Coherent Publishing; 2018. p.

74. Wood PM.editors. Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. Coherent Publishing; 2015. p.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

This article was originally published on the 9th of September 2003.

Twenty-two years ago, on the 9th of September 2001, the leader of the Northern Alliance Commander Ahmad Shah Masood was mortally wounded in a kamikaze assassination.

It happened two days before the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. Masood died from wounds suffered in the suicide attack on the Saturday (9/15) following  9/11.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the killing of Ahmad Shah Masood was barely mentioned. The broad media consensus was that the two events (9/9 and 9/11)  were totally unrelated.

Yet the Northern Alliance had informed the Bush administration through an official communiqué that Pakistan’s ISI was allegedly implicated in the assassination:

“A Pakistani ISI-Osama-Taliban axis  [was responsible for] plotting the assassination by two Arab suicide bombers.. ‘We believe that this is a triangle between Osama bin Laden, ISI, which is the intelligence section of the Pakistani army, and the Taliban'” (The Northern Alliance’s statement was released on 14 September 2001, quoted in Reuters, 15 September 2001)

“Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Abdullah Abdullah told AFP the assassination bid was plotted by the ruling Taliban militia, bin Laden and their allies in Pakistan’s intelligence agency.

‘This was a premeditated plan. They have tried it several times in the past as well but all of them have been thwarted,’ he said.

‘Pakistan’s ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), the Taliban and Osama bin Laden appear to be behind this plot.'” (AFP, 10 September 2001)

September 11

Now it just so happens that Pakistan’s ISI was allegedly also implicated in 9/11.

Several intelligence and media reports (including the FBI, Indian Intelligence, and AFP ) have pointed to the role of Pakistan’s ISI in financing the 9/11 attacks.

The FBI confirmed in late September 2001, in an interview with ABC News (which went virtually unnoticed), that the 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta,, had been financed from “unnamed sources” in Pakistan.

(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html )

The findings of the FBI are confirmed by AFP and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). According to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9-11 attacks had allegedly been: “wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad].” (Times of India, 9 October 2001, See also Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, the Truth behind September 11, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html )

According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source):

“The evidence we have supplied to the U.S. is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism.”(AFP, 9 October 2001)

These 2001 disclosures by the FBI and Indian Intelligence seem to be corroborated by a recent statement to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs by the Deputy Head of the FBI’s Counter-Terrorism division, John Pistole, who points to the role of Pakistan in the financing of the September 11 attacks.  (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SEN308A.html ).

The ISI has consistently supported the Taliban and Al Qaeda. According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR): “The role that … the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate ( ISI), played in helping build up the Taliban is now a matter of record.” (Foreign Affairs, January 2002)

What the CFR fails to acknowledge, which is also a matter of public record, is the consistent support provided by the CIA to Pakistan’s ISI.

Connecting the Dots between 9/9 and 9/11

In other words, there is reason to believe that the 9/9 and 9/11 are not isolated and unrelated events.

According to official statements and reports, the ISI was allegedly implicated in both events: the September 9, 2001 assassination of Shah Masood and the financing of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Both these events directly implicate senior officials in the Bush administration.

The head of Pakistan’s ISI, whose organisation allegedly (according to the Northern Alliance) played a role in the assassination of General Shah Masood, was on an official visit to Washington (red carpet treatment) from the 4th to the 13th of September.

While the US media acknowledges the role of Pakistan’s ISI in the assassination of Shah Masood, it fails to dwell upon the more substantive issue: How come the head of the ISI was in Washington, on an official visit, meeting Bush administration officials on the very same day Masood was assassinated?

During his visit to Washington, the head of the ISI had meetings with Colin Powell, Richard Armitage and CIA Drector George Tenet.

On the morning of September 11,  the head of the ISI General Ahmad) was having breakfast with Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, on Capitol Hill, the two Florida lawmen entrusted by the Senate and the House to reveal the truth on 9/11.(For further details see: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO308C.html ) Needless to say, neither the assassination of Shah Masood nor Pakistan’s ISI are mentioned in the 900 page report of the Joint 9/11 Inquiry.

Political Assassination

Had Masood not been assassinated, the Bush administration would not have been able to install their political puppet Hamid Karzai in Kaboul.

Masood rather than Hamid Karzai (a former employee of UNOCAL oil company), would have become the head of the post-Taliban government formed in the wake of the U.S. bombings of Afghanistan.

In other words, the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance, was consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives.

Since the late 1980s, the U.S. had sought to sidetrack and weaken Masood, who was perceived as a nationalist reformer, by providing support both to the Taliban and the Hezb-I-Islami group led by Gulbuddin Hektmayar against Masood.

Moreover, Masood was supported by Moscow. In the wake of his assassination, the Northern Alliance became fragmented into different factions. This also served to weakening Russian influence in Afghanistan.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on Global Research on September 1, 2022.

***

Dear everyone, who is nervously looking around and is asking “What the hell is going on?”

I hope this isn’t too controversial. It’s certainly frightening, but I believe we are still on the right side of disaster & if enough of us become aware of what is happening here & everywhere in the democratic world, we can recover the situation. We really don’t have long. I believe it’s likely things will change irretrievably over this coming winter. Hence this urgent and unusual request.

Everything that’s happened and is happening becomes much simpler and it all makes sense, only when you force yourself to think the impossible.

If you experimentally adopt the position that OUR GOVERNMENT IS ACTIVELY WORKING TO HARM US, TO DISMANTLE MODERN SOCIETY & ENSLAVE ALL PEOPLE IN A DIGITALLY CONTROLLED TOTALITARIAN WORLD, it all fits. Nothing is surplus.

Even if your immediate response is that this is absurd, please try it for a day or so.

I ask you further to adopt the experimental position that the media, controlled by just six global corporations, all allied to a single global organization you’ve all heard of, is relentlessly lying to you and has been doing so for over 2.5 years. Same for the internet, controlled by fewer global corporations, also all allied to that same global organization.

Because I am certain it’s true. I am certain because this all started with a scientific fraud relating to a virus, augmented it with a relentless campaign of fear, imposed measures known to be useless, which wrecked the economy and smashed civil society, then coerced most to accept useless, unnecessary, ineffective and deliberately dangerous injections. Obviously, this is an odious crime. Nothing like it has ever happened.

I’ve been 41 years in life sciences from training to successful biotech CEO and was worldwide research head and Vice President of Pfizer’s respiratory unit (1995-2011).

I have absolutely no incentive to say any of this if I wasn’t certain.

I am certain. This all took place “in my wheelhouse”, my domain of expertise.

Please consider what I’ve said.

’’I’ve given over 70 interviews, all censored. I’ve been foully smeared. It’s propaganda. It tells you what they’re capable of.

Here’s what Pfizer’s former board member wrote about my accomplishments: Turning Pfizer Discards Into Novartis Gold: The Story Of Ziarco

Do I sound like a fool?

Many have asked why people didn’t resist tyrants in the past. Partly it is fear. But it’s more than that. It’s that normal people, like you and me, simply cannot imagine being so evil. We trust in humanity. And so we should. Most people are good. Few are truly terrifyingly horrible. But some are. It’s the inability to believe it’s happening that really stopped people objecting when they should, when the evidence was unmistakable but had not yet quite reached their door, their family.

They are coming for you and your children. It is happening again. There’s ample evidence emerging of long-term, patient planning. I’m so sorry.

It’s now up to you. I genuinely don’t see what else I can do.

Best wishes & sincere thanks,

Dr. Michael Yeadon

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Exposing the Darkness

---

Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store!

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Of utmost relevance to the unfolding war in Ukraine, below is the review article of Manlio Dinucci first published by Global Research on May 25, 2019, which provides an analysis of a Rand Report entitled: Overextending and Unbalancing Russia.

***

Force the adversary to expand recklessly in order to unbalance him, and then destroy him. This is not the description of a judo hold, but a plan against Russia elaborated by the Rand Corporation, the most influential think tank in the USA. With a staff of thousands of experts, Rand presents itself as the world’s most reliable source for Intelligence and political analysis for the leaders of the United States and their allies.

The Rand Corp prides itself on having contributed to the elaboration of the long-term strategy which enabled the United States to win the Cold War, by forcing the Soviet Union to consume its own economic resources in the strategic confrontation.

It is this model which was the inspiration for the new plan, Overextending and Unbalancing Russia, published by Rand [1].

CLICK TO ACCESS the complete document of RAND May 2019

 

According to their analysts, Russia remains a powerful adversary for the United States in certain fundamental sectors. To handle this opposition, the USA and their allies will have to pursue a joint long-term strategy which exploits Russia’s vulnerabilities. So Rand analyses the various means with which to unbalance Russia, indicating for each the probabilities of success, the benefits, the cost, and the risks for the USA.

Rand analysts estimate that Russia’s greatest vulnerability is that of its economy, due to its heavy dependency on oil and gas exports. The income from these exports can be reduced by strengthening sanctions and increasing the energy exports of the United States. The goal is to oblige Europe to diminish its importation of Russian natural gas, and replace it by liquefied natural gas transported by sea from other countries.

Another way of destabilising the Russian economy in the long run is to encourage the emigration of qualified personnel, particularly young Russians with a high level of education.

In the ideological and information sectors, it would be necessary to encourage internal contestation and at the same time, to undermine Russia’s image on the exterior, by excluding it from international forums and boycotting the international sporting events that it organises.

In the geopolitical sector, arming Ukraine would enable the USA to exploit the central point of Russia’s exterior vulnerability, but this would have to be carefully calculated in order to hold Russia under pressure without slipping into a major conflict, which it would win.

In the military sector, the USA could enjoy high benefits, with low costs and risks, by increasing the number of land-based troops from the NATO countries working in an anti-Russian function.

The USA can enjoy high probabilities of success and high benefits, with moderate risks, especially by investing mainly in strategic bombers and long-range attack missiles directed against Russia.

Leaving the INF Treaty and deploying in Europe new intermediate-range nuclear missiles pointed at Russia would lead to high probabilities of success, but would also present high risks.

By calibrating each option to gain the desired effect – conclude the Rand analysts – Russia would end up by paying the hardest price in a confrontation, but the USA would also have to invest huge resources, which would therefore no longer be available for other objectives. This is also prior warning of a coming major increase in USA/NATO military spending, to the disadvantage of social budgets.

This is the future that is planned out for us by the Rand Corporation, the most influential think tank of the Deep State – in other words the underground centre of real power gripped by the economic, financial, and military oligarchies – which determines the strategic choices not only of the USA, but all of the Western world.

The “options” set out by the plan are in reality no more than variants of the same war strategy, of which the price in sacrifices and risks is paid by us all.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Il Manifesto. Translated by Pete Kimberley.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on December 5, 2022

***

The “New World Order” (NWO) is a  social engineering project aimed at reshaping human civilization on Planet Earth in its every aspect, to suit the selfish interests of a small group of billionaires obsessed by greed for power and profit. But also – and no less so – obsessed by their fear of violent hungry and deprived masses ransacking and destroying their properties. And eager to display how superior they are to 99.99 % of their fellow humans – and their ability to beat both Nature, the Universe, and Divine Consciousness at the eternal game of Creation.  

The NWO idea grew out of John D. Rockefeller’s business idea, hatched already around 1900, to take on health care and make a global monopoly of medical science. Just as he had already created a virtual global monopoly of the petroleum business.

Rockefeller’s brilliant but sneaky self-serving initiative took the guise of a non-profit institution in order to escape taxes and at the same time gain respect, if not popularity, instead of the anger and hate his ruthless business methods had earned him until then.

And what better way of taking control of medical research, education and practice? – All under the guise of generously donating fortunes for the benefit of the masses – and of Science. While tailoring it all to his own strictly-for- profit business model. Which has resulted in Big Pharma ́s secret mantra “Every cured patient is a lost customer” becoming a fundamental principle of modern Western school medicine. It does not offer any cures, only life-long treatments by patented and high priced, synthetic pharmaceutical drugs and surgery with a long list of potentially fatal side effects that need additional drugs.

By creating the “non-profit” Rockefeller Foundation in 1913 “to alleviate human suffering world wide”, his oil billions became exempt of taxation, and could be used to discretely control almost anything he wanted to take over, through outright purchases or bribes, or through donations with specific conditions, or through influencing Boards of Directors and other decision makers. Scientists, research and publications were bought, and politicians were funded and made to change legislations to favor Rockefeller business interests. 

The Rockefeller family controls Chase Manhattan Bank and The First National City Bank. Chase Manhattan is the third largest banking establishment in the world and, according to Wikipedia, by far the most influential. 

This means they also own a major chunk of “The Federal Reserve”, the privately owned US central bank created through a coup in Congress on December 23, 1913, when the majority of congressmen and senators had already left for their Christmas holiday.

To a great extent, therefore, Rockefeller interests control global finance, such as interest rates, and the printing of fiat dollars, which is counterfeit money on a massive scale. The Federal Reserve therefore has the power to cause stock market booms and busts, as well as financial crises leading to recessions and depressions at will. They have used that power several times. And are deep into it right now, as I am writing this in October of 2022. 

The Rockefeller social engineering project was first documented in 1910 with the Flexner Report, 3 years before the creation of the Rockefeller Foundation. It was about reforming and controlling medical education in the US and Canada. 

Realizing that their plan would need support from public opinion to become successful, they began to focus on influencing and shaping the thoughts and opinions of the general population. 

On the one hand they targeted the educational system in general, from kindergarten and all the way through the Universities. This meant getting children into the hands of specially trained nurses and pre-school teachers, who would make sure all children were properly indoctrinated, practically from birth.

The way to get women to abandon their traditional role as first and foremost mothers, housewives and home-makers, was first to change people ́s perception of value and happiness. 

Traditional values favored nature, family bonds, motherhood and cooperation in agricultural communities. In pre-Rockefeller society most male full- time income earners could normally support a whole family with often many children. Now, such an earner may not have had the privilege of working only 40 hours a week. Nor would the family have enjoyed all sorts of technical wonders, gadgets or games, nor cars or boats. Neither were they able to buy new fashionable clothes four times a year, or travel abroad on holidays. 

So, in order to shape children’s minds as early as possible into accepting Rockefeller’s industrial world model, and help create an expanded source of both workers and customers for the new industries of the wealthy ”elite”, it was necessary from the Rockefeller point of view to make women want to compete with men in the workplace and earn as much money as men. That’s why they launched the Feminist movement.

The means to achieve this was to take control of news media, and also to use entertainment and games, including Hollywood movies, to reshape people ́s perception of what is important in life. All in subtle indirect ways over time, so that very few people have been aware of the programming and mind control they have been exposed to.

Women leaving their homes to work for industry was a mortal blow to the closely knit family structure that was the traditional basis of society. 

We now take for granted that women should have the liberty to choose what they want to do with their lives. The problem is that, due to this social programming, they would now feel guilty or less worth, if they decide they want to dedicate themselves to children, home and family. 

We should not underestimate the importance for society of women’s traditional role as educators of their children during the crucial first 7 years of life.

And no less so as wise influencers of their husbands. And not least as guardians of the wisdom and experiences of previous generations, passed down from mothers and grandmothers to their children during childhood. An invaluable source of knowledge and – above all – wisdom, now largely lost in favor of kindergarten schooling and modern media’s commercial propaganda and political indoctrination. 

The value system our society is built on was then slowly changed from patriot, emotional, moral, spiritual and communal, to focusing on maximum money and power through individual competition in a global setting. 

Even so, the newly created materialists are expected to obey authority. Not question what they are taught. Not think for themselves. The Rockefeller educational plan never intended them to be anything other than reliable and easily manageable cogs in the wheels of the global wealthy elite ́s industries and political power structures. Never mind hypnotic repetitions of the mantras Democracy and Equality, increasingly meaningless.

David Rockefeller wrote in his autobiography: 

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. 

The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” 

***

The Rockefeller and Gates families have been close allies for several generations. And the Carnegie, Mellon and Ford foundations have also cooperated closely with the Rockefeller projects.

Among the various fundaments of the New World Order is the ability to control access to both energy and food. Without energy the entire industrial and financial structure grinds to a halt. And without food, the population becomes easy to control. 

Henry Kissinger, one of the staunchest propagators of the NWO project, and close collaborator with the Rockefellers, has famously remarked that who controls oil (then synonymous with energy) controls the governments of the world, and who controls the food supply, controls the people. 

I think it was also Kissinger who coined the term “useless eaters” referring to the broad masses, that will no longer be required as workforce and servants for the “Elite”, when robots, computers and AI will do all productive work more cheaply and more reliably than humans. Who should therefore be eliminated by one means or another, before starving masses become a threat to the “Elite”.

If we look closely, we’ll find that the GROWTH of the world population has slowed down in the last century for several reasons. If we look even closer, we shall find that it has slowed down much more in the economically developed countries than in the so called “developing” (previously “under-developed”) countries. Which is easily explained by people in “developed” countries choosing to have fewer children. Which, in turn, is due to more education, increased awareness, more choices on how to spend their increased income. But also to less infant mortality and less need to depend on their children in old age. 

Looking closer still, we find “culling” of population already active, even if we cannot know for sure how much of it has been done specifically with that intention. The principal means by which it has been happening, are: 

1)  More or less constant warfare, estimated to have killed around 100 million people since 1914.

2)  Rockefeller Medicine’s drugs, surgery and vaccinations estimated to have killed at least 50 million people since WW1, the vast majority of whom in the last 40 years.

3) Industrially produced food causing metabolic illness such as cancer, diabetes, stroke, heart attacks etc. is deemed to have caused incalculable millions of premature deaths during the last century. 

One of the most insidious and dangerous of Rockefeller power plays to dominate the world and reduce population is the genetic manipulation of food (GMO). A global campaign has been going on since 1990 to lure farmers to use GMO seeds that do not produce viable new seeds and therefore have to be bought from the manufacturers every year. The result have been disastrous and tragic for the farmers. 

GMO research on mice have shown that those fed GMO products develop cancer, and their second or third generation offspring becomes infertile. They have even produced a GMO maize (corn) with a anti-sperm ingredient that makes men sterile. Surprised, anyone? 

The final execution plan for the NWO was launched in 1990 after the fall of the Berlin wall and the Soviet Empire. Once the US deep state, aka the globalist mafia, got rid of its only real opponent, the Soviet Union, they saw the way open to 

finally claim control of the entire planet. 

So, on 9/11 of 1990, exactly to the day 11 years before their 9/11 false flag terrorist act in New York City, Papa Bush announced in a voice trembling with emotion the launch of the New World Order, that would make the world into a paradise of “peace, affluence and the Rule of Law” for everybody, under one benevolent world government. 

This was the starting signal for 30 years of preparation  of the global coup that was finally set off with the Covid tale of the Emperor ́s New Virus, officially launched on March 11, 2020. Please observe the intentional choice of date for this announcement. March 11 is the polar opposite in the calendar of 9/11, and several other major state terrorist acts from the same source have also occurred on March 11. No coincidence. 

1992 was a key year for the New World Order agenda, with several long term, falsely labeled projects being launched.
Here some of the operations put into action: 

1) The most publicly and globally promoted of these projects was the so-called Agenda 21, where the number refers to the 21st century as a whole. It was the result of the United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro in June of 1992, on the initiative of David Rockefeller and under the chairmanship of his “right hand”, the Canadian oil magnate and politician Maurice Strong. 

Its full name was “the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests”, and it was adopted by 178 Governments. The majority of them probably had no clue of what its real purpose was. 

It was an agenda built on the 100% false claim that the world was in dire danger from man-made “global warming”, caused by the human and livestock populations. And promoted with the help of a fear-mongering campaign, commissioned from former US vice president Al Gore, none of whose scary predictions are occurring. Contrary to what globalist media ́s fake news tries to make you believe. 

The idea of global warming justifying world government goes all the way back to 1968 when the Club of Rome was formed by David Rockefeller and two others. The next step on that road was the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in June 1972 when Olof Palme was Prime Minister of Sweden. Incidentally the Rio conference in June 1992 was programmed to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Stockholm conference which had also been organized by Maurice Strong on behalf of David Rockefeller. 

Another “climate conference” was held in Stockholm in June of 2022, to celebrate the 50-years anniversary of the original Stockholm conference of 1972. 

The UN, the EU, and many similar organizations were all created on a Rockefeller initiative for the ultimate purpose of creating a New World Order with One Global Government. 

2) In 1992 the World Economic Forum began a program to train people from all over the world who already were, or aspired to become, politicians or high-level public servants. 

The secret goal was to infiltrate the governments and centers of power in every country in the world with ambitious and obedient globalist puppets, much like “Manchurian candidates”. 

They would grasp the power to execute the global coup in their respective country, ordering lockdowns and making sure everybody was duly “vaccinated”. All of it supported by an intense fear campaign, whipped up by globally controlled mainstream media. 

Some public figures considered powerful influencers in business, sports, entertainment etc, were also included among the trainees. Notably the people controlling Facebook and YouTube. 

Even members of royal families were recruited. King Charles III of the United Kingdom, while still Prince of Wales, is one of them, and so are the heirs to the Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian thrones. 

To date many thousand ”young” men and women aged between 38 and 44 have completed this training, directly aimed at getting them elected as presidents or prime ministers, or appointed ministers or heads of important government departments in every country of the world. They are instructed to betray their constituents who trusted them enough to vote for them, and instead obey orders from WEF. Orders that violate constitutions and legal protection of citizens, along with inalienable human rights and freedoms. Not to mention political party programs that got them elected into power. In actual fact, this amounts to

High Treason and Genocide.

Here are some of the governments around the world that have been infiltrated and “infected” by the WEF virus: 

The USA, Canada, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Argentina, Costa Rica, Haiti, Australia, New Zealand, Tanzania and South Africa, some more virulently than others. The list is far from complete. 

Jurisdictions and judges have also been infiltrated, so that attempts by brave people to prosecute the traitors are set to fail. 

Besides WEF´s network targeting government levels, they also have in place a global network of young people called Global Shapers who work on provincial and municipal levels to push for Agenda 2030. There are over 10,000 of them working via nearly 500 “hubs” in 149 countries! 

Sweden was, surprisingly, one of the first countries to get a kind of globalist puppet regime under Carl Bildt, already in 1990, even before the WEF ́s Young Global Leaders program was formally initiated in 1992. 

3) Meanwhile, a global consolidation of media outlets, both TV channels and press, has been going on by globalist media consortiums, to the point that now almost all media all over the world are owned by only six multi-billionaire owner consortiums, all of which are aggressively in the globalist camp. The same goes for the news agencies, like Reuter ́s and Associated Press (AP), whose news are copied word for word by media all over the world. 

That ́s how the response to the created Covid “pandemic” could be so swift and coordinated in implementing uncalled for dictatorial restrictions and control measures all over the world. Measures that in many cases directly violated both generally accepted scientific opinion, human rights, current laws, and even the very constitutions of their respective countries. Purposefully wrecking the world economy, and the personal economy of all but the wealthy. 

4) Part of the plan was to infiltrate Muslim communities, via imams, mosques and schools, to create fanaticism that would cause conflicts. 

This provides false culprits for false-flag state terrorism, such as 9/11, and justifies increased control and restrictions. 

Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset, whose whereabouts was known at all times. 

He was not brutally murdered by Obama and Hillary on foreign soil without any proof of guilt or legal procedure, as they bragged all those years later. The reason for that publicity stunt and the time chosen for it, will have been to gain popular support as national heroes in the then upcoming presidential elections. 

Osama died from kidney disease. The videos later shown with him were fakes. 

The other side of this coin – the strategy to rule by dividing – “Divide et impera” – is to plant fear and hatred in western populations against Muslims through media reporting, in order to get public support for aggressions against Muslim countries. This has been going on since 1990, beginning with the first Gulf war and the creation, by the CIA and Pentagon, of the false flag Al Qaida terrorist organization they could then blame for their own secret terrorist acts. 

In 1990 Papa Bush orchestrated the first “Gulf war”, invading Iraq after inciting Saddam Hussein to claim part of Kuweit – That was a signal for “the West” to start looking at Muslim countries as enemies, even when they had previously been allies. All to satisfy Israel. Big exception being Saudi Arabia. Follow the money! And don ́t forget that it was the US that installed and supported Saddam Hussein as dictator of Iraq. And that Saddam had dutifully fought a long and dirty proxy war with Iran on behalf of the US, Britain and Israel. 

It ́s also only since 1990 that Muslim fundamentalism has flourished with demands for Sharia law, terrorist attacks, certain dress requirements for women, such as always wearing Hijab, even for little girls in elementary school. 

1990 is also when terrorist acts became more common. In my opinion the vast majority of them have been “planted” by CIA or other US-sponsored organizations. Each such event has offered the US globalists a new justification to increase control, restrictions and prohibitions, which are imposed on other countries as well, and move us all one step closer to the final takeover by the New World Order. 

All this fits in with US General Wesley Clark’s revelation in 2003 of the plan by the US Ministry of “Defense” to “take out” seven (7) Muslim countries within five years in the Middle East and North- Eastern Africa. Starting with Iraq and finishing with Iran. Not counting Afghanistan. 

Now we see how this global coup has been planned, step by step, pervading every government, including provincial, municipal and NGO levels, in nearly all signatory countries of Agendas 21 and 2030. 

Fortunately for Russia and the world, the US plan failed that assumed they could just step in and take over the entire Soviet Empire with all its vast resources. They had not counted on Yeltsin appointing Putin his successor in a moment of soberness, when he realized what the Americans were trying to do with his Russia. But the NWO launch had been done 10 years previously, and the project proceeded as scheduled in spite of Russia, 9/11 and all, till the crucial Covid moment in late 2019 – early 2020. 

Losing control of Russia was a shock to the US  doctrine  for global supremacy and total domination, and now we understand why the US Deep State hates Putin with such venomous intensity. Simply because he defended his country and stopped the US from taking over and destroying it. Without a single shot, and without destroying a single other country. 

Compare that to the long list av countries the US has destroyed, and the millions upon millions of innocent people who have died or had their lives entirely ruined by the American war machine in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. 

Putin’s surgically measured invasion of Ukraine was directly and intentionally provoked by the Biden government on behalf of the globalist mafia. After two decades of  continuous aggressive provocations by NATO. Far from unprovoked as Western globalist media claim. 

NATO has expanded to almost twice its size after the collapse of the Soviet empire, in blatant violation of a formal promise by the US not to move it a single inch to the East of Germany. NATO, no longer a defence organisation, has been creeping right up to the Russian frontiers with nuclear missile ramps and tried to achieve power or control over neighboring former Soviet republics, set up by the West as independent border states around Russia upon the dissolution of the Soviet empire. 

Western media driving the NWO narrative hide the fact that the US government staged a coup in Ukraine in 2014 against democratically elected President Yanukovych, who had to flee to Russia to save his life. Instead, the present president Zelenskyy was installed by the US government which de facto rules Ukraine since then. It has brought vast amounts of U/S weaponry including nuclear-abled missiles right up to the Russian border, not far from Moscow. 

To get a perspective on this, imagine how the US would react, if Putin did the same thing on the US border with Canada or Mexico! 

One aspect of Washington´s war-provoking policies is the fact that most people behind political decisions of the US, all make billions on every war, as shareholders of the weapons industries, and they always make sure all their wars are on different continents from their own. From their safe US mansions they have been heard calling US soldiers “dumb cannon fodder”, as they are sent to die in other parts of the world so that their stock market profits may multiply. 

Putin has respected international conventions and treaties, as opposed to the US. He has also patiently tried to get to terms with the US through reason and negotiations, but the US has refused to negotiate. It has continued its breech of agreements and relentless provocations until Putin saw no other way to protect his people and country than invading Ukraine,  toot to conquer it, but to 

1)  defend ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, who have been subject to relentless warfare, bordering on genocide, by the US-controlled Ukraine government ever since the US took over by the coup in 2014.

2)  close down the many bioweapon laboratories the US has established, funded and partially staffed in Ukraine, some of them also very close to the Russian border. Which he tries to do as carefully as possible, respecting the safety of the civilian population. Contrary to globalist propaganda.

As we now well know, the first victim of a war is the Truth. 

These laboratories work on illegal biological warfare, outlawed by international agreements. And they are clearly directed against the Russian people. It has been leaked that one of the things these high-risk laboratories are working with, is infectious agents that only attack specific ethnicities or genotypes, and are airborne, even spread by mosquitoes. And it is known that these laboratories have been collecting Russian DNAs. This is in the category of genocide and crimes against Humanity. 

Agenda 2030 is the first major interim goal on the way to completing Agenda 21, which refers to the entire 21st century. 

Fascinating how globalists plan for centuries ahead, isn’t it? Do they think they will become immortal before that, so they can enjoy it in their present body? I wouldn’t be surprised. I know some have bought a new service to have their dead bodies frozen in the expectation of a new technology that can eventually wake them up from death and rejuvenate them to a new digitally turned-on existence.  What a waste of money! 

Some of the plans of the WEF globalist mafia have leaked out and become common knowledge among those of us who have access to independent truthful information.

Still very few realize the true purpose of the “vaccines”. Apart from that of gradually killing us off, and make the rest infertile. 

The prime reason to stage the fake “pandemic” was to force “every man, woman and child on the planet” to get “vaccinated”. 

The truth is that these “vaccines” are NOT vaccines at all. They do not correspond to the established medical definition of a vaccine, nor to its legal definition. Besides, it has now been acknowledged that they neither prevent those injected from catching Covid or any other type of influenza, nor prevent them from spreading the infection. 

Regardless, and in spite of a massive number of deaths and serious health injuries caused by these injections, WEF-hijacked health authorities everywhere keep trying to force everybody to get injected with them, not just once, nor twice. In Sweden we are at our 5th “shot” for the ”elderly and frail”, if I haven ́t lost count. And now the tune is “new season, new injection”, every 4 months. 

Moderna, one of the “vaccine” manufacturers sponsored by the US government, has called it “a biological operating system” and it is a new kind of genetic manipulation technique the long term consequences of which have NOT been investigated, and are impossible to know. Quite apart from the fact that some of the ingredients are kept secret! 

What HAS become known by independent analysis – though of course denied by its pushers – is that it contains electronic self-assembling nano-particles, not declared on the list of ingredients, able to both receive and send all kinds of signals and information by 5G frequencies. Which is why the Internet of Things now is called The Internet of Things and Bodies! 

So, dear friends, the true purpose of this WEF coup, is to reduce the world population – and especially the non-white, undeveloped “useless eaters” whom they no longer need in their world, since the vast majority of all jobs are now done by robots, computers and AI software, which do the work faster, better and cheaper. And they don ́t have families, nor need to eat, sleep, rest or take holidays. Or stage protests. 

The few people allowed to survive to serve the WEF “Elite” will “own nothing and be happy” as they are crammed on top of each other in minute apartments in new “smart cities”. 

Holy Nature will be off limits for all, except the “Elite” themselves, who will be free to rape it for their own gain or pleasure. All according to Agenda 2030, which practically all governments have agreed to. 

The globalist rulers leave nothing to chance: the self-assembling electromagnetic nanobots they secretly inserted into their “vaccines” give them complete control of everybody. Via the 5G technology they are now able to send subtle signals to influence our moods, health, beliefs, feelings etc., either collectively or individually, and even “turn us off” when we no longer serve any purpose for them. In other words kill us. 

We are all now frogs in a fast heating water pot, about to reach the boiling point of no return. Do we decide to jump out of that pan we ́ve been lured into, before we are cooked and consumed for dinner by the coup-maker globalist “Elite”? 

YOU TELL ME!

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jens Jerndal, M.D.(MA), M.Sc.(Econ.), D.Sc.h.c., is Former Professor of Holistic Medicine.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

This article was first published on March 31, 2017. An earlier version was published in 2015

Lest we forget, one day before the 9/11 attacks, as well as on the morning of 9/11, the dad of the sitting President of the United States of America, George Herbert Walker Bush was meeting none other than Shafiq bin Laden, the brother of the alleged terror mastermind Osama bin Laden.

It was a routine business meeting on September 10-11, no conflict of interest, no relationship to the 9/11 attacks which allegedly were carried out on the orders of Shafiq’s brother Osama, no FBI investigation into the links between the Bush and bin Laden families. 

What is presented below is a factual account. Confirmed by the Washington Post, “fellow investors” of the Carlyle Group including Osama’s brother Shafiq bin Laden and GWB’s dad former President George H. W. Bush (and former CIA director) met in the plush surroundings of New York’s Ritz-Carlton Hotel on September 10-11, 2001.  Their business encounter under the auspices of the Carlyle Group was unfortunately interrupted on September 11 by the 9/11 attacks.

It didn’t help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden [Shafiq bin Laden]. Former president Bush [senior], a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day. (Greg Schneider, Pairing the Powerful With the Rich, Washington Post, March 16, 2003)

screenshot Washington Post, March 16, 2003

A timely business meeting on September 10-11 at the Ritz Carlton with Osama’s brother disrupted by the 9/11 attacks: pure coincidence, totally unrelated to the 9/11 attacks.

What was GWB’s Dad “Poppy” doing with Osama’s brother Shafiq on September 10?

Media coverup:  the WP report came out 18 months later in March 2003. There was no media coverage of the Shafiq bin Laden – G. Herbert W. Bush meeting in September 2001. The event was known, yet mainstream media editors decided not to provide coverage of this timely 9/11 encounter at the Ritz Carleton.

A day later, on the evening of September 11, 2001, president George W. Bush pronounced a historic speech in which he defined the relationship between “terrorists’ and “state sponsors of terrorism”:

The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I’ve directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them. (emphasis added)

Let’s be clear as to what happened: the Dad of the sitting president of the US was “harboring” (to use GWB’s expression) the brother of  the alleged terror mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

Should the President have not  instructed the “law enforcement communities” to at least question his Dad?

Click to order Michel Chossudovsky’s International Best Seller directly from Global Research 

Why was Poppy Bush’s meeting with Osama bin Laden’s brother Shafiq not subject to the normal rules of  police investigation:

Question: “What were you doing with Osama’s brother”?

Why was this not the object of investigative media reporting or US Congressional enquiry?

Also in attendance at the Ritz Carlton meetings were former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci, former secretary of state James Baker III, and other unnamed members of the bin Laden family.

The bin Laden – Bush Carlyle Group meeting was also confirmed by The Economist in a June 2003 article entitled C- for Capitalism (see screenshot below):

“ON the day Osama bin Laden’s men attacked America, Shafiq bin Laden, described as an estranged brother of the terrorist, was at an investment conference in Washington, DC, along with two people who are close to President George Bush: his father, the first President Bush, and James Baker, the former secretary of state who masterminded the legal campaign that secured Dubya’s move to the White House. The conference was hosted by the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that manages billions of dollars, including, at the time, some bin Laden family wealth. It also employs Messrs Bush and Baker.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when no one was being allowed in or out of the United States, many members of the bin Laden family in America were spirited home to Saudi Arabia. The revival of defence spending that followed greatly increased the value of the Carlyle Group’s investments in defence companies.

The Carlyle Group is embroiled with the defense and intelligence establishment. “It is widely regarded as an extension of the US government, or at least the National Security Agency, the CIA, and the Pentagon.” (The Economist June 26, 2003, emphasis added)

‘

screenshot of Economist report

• Double standards in anti-terrorism legislation?
• Double standards in police and law enforcement?
• Double standards in media coverage.
• No questions asked.
• No police investigation or interrogation of Osama’s brother Shafiq.

Normally, under established rules of police investigation, both Shafiq bin Laden and the president’s Dad George Herbert Walker Bush would have been remanded in custody for police questioning and in all likelihood, Shafiq bin Laden would have been arrested as a potential suspect. But that did not happen.

In 2003, the CBC brought out a carefully investigated report which focusses on the bin Laden-Bush family connections:

Video 

No Travel Ban for the Bin Ladens

The presence of members of the bin Laden family meeting up with the father of the president of the United States was hushed up and 13 members of the bin Ladens including Shafiq were flown out of the US on September 19, 2001 in a plane chartered by the White House.

Meanwhile, suspected Muslims are routinelyarrested on a mere suspicion, –e.g. [author’s paraphrase] that they have an old school friend, who’s cousin’s 86 year old grandmother is an alleged sympathizer of the “jihad”.

The Global War on Terrorism is Born

On the day following the departure of the bin Ladens, President Bush delivered an address to a joint session of the House and the Senate (September 20, 2001), in which he stated unequivocally his administration’s intent to “pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism”, with no exceptions (e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan)

“We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.)

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime [state sponsor of terrorism]. President George W. Bush, 20 September 2001 (emphasis added)

The Bushes and the bin Ladens, they’re with us and with the terrorists.

An earlier version of this article was published in 2015.

---

Click image to order Michel Chossudovsky’s book 

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published by Global Research on August 26, 2023

*** 

Introduction

It can be indicated from a historical viewpoint that the USA emerged on the stage of global (world) politics in 1867 (four years before Germany did the same in 1871 after the Franco−Prussian War of 1870−1871). Both these imperial states at the same time exerted extremely influential politics in the process of radical transformation of the modern world both in Europe and outside of the Old Continent. In 1867, Washington purchased Alaska from Russia (regardless of the claims that Russia just rented Alaska for 99 years), and in April 1917, the USA entered the Great War on the side of France and the UK (after the Russian February/March Revolution in 1917) and brought about a decisive defeat of the German Second Empire on the Western Front in the Autumn of 1918 making at the same time as a direct consequence itself the global greatest power.

The historical time from 1867 to 1917, was a period of extraordinary (up to that time) rivalries in international relations and global affairs. The point of global politics was, in fact, that Washington took full advantage of the time and global geopolitical situation. It has to be noticed that the USA’s wider geopolitical ambitions were manifested since the end of the 18^th century. However, the political and economic strife between northern and southern US states which went to the US 1861−1865 Civil War simply postponed further US geopolitical expansion. Nevertheless, after 1865, the geopolitical forward policy of Washington became re-driven, and industrialization and finance capitalism became superior factors compared to older types of the process of building global empires founded on commerce and territory acquisition.

Such a new type of US global imperialism practically started in the 1898 war against Spain (in fact, Spanish colonies). Many experts in US history and global politics will say that the year 1898 was, actually, a turning point year in US foreign policy when Washington started to push toward the creation of the global empire of the USA. Nonetheless, meanwhile, Washington was making more powerful its navy followed by occupation strategies of certain outposts before diplomatically claiming military supremacy in both the Pacific Ocean and Central America with the Caribbean Sea.

The US Expansion in the Pacific Ocean

The US colonial expansion in the area of the Pacific Ocean was attracted by the explorations of the British Captain James Cook. Therefore, the US sailors started navigation in 1784 via Cape Horn (Chile).

In 1867, it was the first clear move by Washington to resume its imperial policy after the Civil War when the USA acquired Alaska from Russia. It has to be understood that for the American geostrategic policy, Alaska was both the corridor to Canada (as a part of the USA) and the back door to Asia (in fact, Japan and China). The Washington administration, in fact, believed that North America, which was controlled by the UK (Canada), as encircled in such a way was going to be finally forced to join the USA.

Consequently, Canadian membership in the Union would realize the geopolitical dream of the USA as a continent-wide empire. The only practical obstacle, however, to the final implementation of such a design was that the Canadians themselves opposed such dreams: first by the federation in 1867 and second by the purchase of Rupert’s Land from the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1869. The final end of the US imperial dream concerning Canada was in 1870 when Canada attracted Manitoba followed by British Columbia in 1871 (exactly during the 1870−1871 Franco-Prussian War) into the new Dominion (under the UK patronage) and therefore stopping the US northward geopolitical ambitions. The US−UK geopolitical tensions in (Anglo−Saxon−French) North America from the time of the US Civil War have been fixed by the 1871 Washington Treaty. After that, the US geopolitical ambitions could be directed elsewhere.

For Washington, Alaska was an appropriate bridge for the American penetration to the northeastern portion of Asia (Siberia) especially taking into consideration the chain of Aleutian Islands stretching out toward Japan. Between British Canada and the USA, it was at the turn of the 20^th century the so-called Alaska border dispute. In other words, the rush to the Kiondike gold fields in 1897 brought this dispute near the stage of war. During the conflict, Canada feared the loss of its north-west territories to the USA. However, an anti-Canadian politically oriented tribunal with the UK judge holding the most decisive vote, favored the border line demanded by Washington in 1903. That was how US Alaska received the “appendix” up to Dixon Entrance.

However, since the mid-19^th century, Hawaiian Islands have been playing the focal springboard to Asia (Korea, Japan, China). There was a rivalry between the UK, France, and the USA which was kept until the end of the 19^th century American relations with the native Hawaiian Kingdom to be unsettled. Nevertheless, when the USA annexed Midway Island in 1867 (in the same year when purchased Alaska) Washington seriously moved ahead toward influence in the Orient of France and the UK.

The Hawaiian Islands were the next on the imperialistic list of Uncle Sam. The US geopolitical and economic interests controlled Hawaii by 1842, and Washington shared in the concessions exported from China by Britain.

It was a commercial treaty signed in 1875 which, in fact, made the Hawaiian Kingdom a virtual US protectorate (colony). Further, in 1887, Washington obtined Hawaiian Pearl Harbor as a coaling station and future naval base (the biggest in the Pacific Ocean). The annexation of the Hawaiian Islands entered its ultimate phase in 1893 when a certain group of sugar planters together with Honolulu business peoples supported by the US administration, overthrew the native Hawaiian monarchy (putsch) and established instead a puppet republic that served American national interests in the Pacific area.

The islands were formally annexed by the USA in 1898 with the start of the 1898 Spanish-American War (provoked by Washington). As a consequence of the war which Spain lost to America, Pacific Wake Island was annexed while Pacific Guam Island together with the Philippines was ceded to the USA. Therefore, a direct colonial transpacific line from California to the Philippines was established. Some years earlier, in 1878, the American foothold in the South Pacific was founded at Pago Pago in the Samoan group where the UK and Germany as well as have been present. Friction was solved by the 1899 treaty which partitioned the group of Samoan Islands into German Western Samoa and American Eastern Samoa. However, the Germans lost their part of the Samoan group in 1914 when the Great War started (neighboring Fiji Islands were in British possession since 1874).

The US Navy forcibly “opened” the Japanese Islands in 1854 and the Korean Peninsula in 1882 for economic (trade) relations with the USA followed by the US political, economic, financial, and cultural influence in the region. Washington obtained Pago Pago Bay (Samoa) in 1878 and then in 1898 followed the great annexation which enabled Washington to complete its “lifeline” to China.

It has to be stressed that concerning the Pacific Ocean, the focal achievement of the American expansion occurred as the consequence of the 1898 Spanish-American War: the Philippines and the Islands of Wake and Guam, which opened a direct penetration way to China and Southeast Asia, already the focus of international friction as the area for capital investment and consequent economic-financial exploitation. The US bankers and businessmen have been directly supported by the US administration in their struggle for business in the region. It was a phrase that they would secure the “Open Door” to China for the purpose of securing great entrepreneurial (profit) opportunities both China and Southeast Asia were supposed to offer. It was a secret American policy in the year 1900 with the aim of getting a lease over Samsah Bay in the Fukien province of China (just opposite Formosa/Taiwan), but it became unsuccessful.

Nevertheless, the American colonial expansionism in Asia-Pacific at the turn of the 20^th century outpaced the Western European great powers in the scramble for imperialistic influence in the region. However, the American prime attention was focused on the region of Manchuria. There were US officials, like Willard Straight, who was consul-general in Mukden, who promoted the province of Manchuria as the “New West” of the USA (the “Old West” was a territory from Mt. Appalachian to California/Pacific). The “New West” in China had to be covered by railways owned and managed by the US entrepreneurs and government. Nonetheless, such and similar American colonial plans concerning Manchuria were blocked by both Japan and Russia as they divided the region between themselves by the two treaties in 1907 and 1910.

The US Imperial Policy in Central America and the Caribbean Sea   

Another crucial area of the colonial expansion of the USA since the mid-19^th century was Central America (primarily Mexico) and the islands of the Caribbean Sea.

The US intervention in a Cuban insurrection against the Spanish colonial authorities led Washington to war with Spain in 1898 and to a protectorate over Puerto Rico in 1898 and Cuba in 1903. The Caribbean Sea and Central America experienced a series of US interventions from 1906 to 1934 (the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Nicaragua). Under US diplomatic pressure, Denmark was pressed to sell the Virgin Islands to the US in 1917. Meanwhile, the US expansionist policy southward of Rio Grande resulted in two abortive military interventions in Mexico in 1914 and 1916.

It has to be clearly understood that the US administration wrested the Mexican provinces of Texas, New Mexico, and California between 1846 and 1848. The rest of the Mexican provinces became annexed up to 1912. Consequently, around 60% of Mexican land was incorporated into the USA leaving only 40% as today’s independent state of Mexico (the United States of Mexico).

In Mexico, there were American land, mining, and oil companies that had been competing with West European geopolitical and financial-economic interests in the region, penetrating the country in the 1880s. However, all of them became checked by the 1911 Mexican Revolution, which promulgated a far-reaching program of anti-colonial nationalization of the Mexican economy. In order to protect American expansionist interests in Mexico, the 28^th US President Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1913−1921) ordered two military interventions against Mexico. The first was an occupation army sent to Tampico and Veracruz in 1914. The second was a punitive expedition across the Rio Grande in 1916 entering the territories of Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Nuevo León. However, both of these military actions of aggression stimulated more profound resistance from the Mexican people and helped the start of a German political influence in Mexico which reached its peak in 1917.

As a consequence of the 1898 Spanish-American War, Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the USA followed by the conversion of Cuba into the US protectorate in 1903. The UK, like other West European powers, was very much interested in the affairs concerning the islands in the Caribbean Sea. However, London recognized the changed geopolitical situation in the area by the 1901 Hay-Paunceforte Treaty which gave the US a free hand of expansionism within both Central America and the Caribbean Sea. The essence of the agreement was, in fact, that the Panama Canal was built (functioning from 1914) but under the sole ownership and control of the USA (before the building of the canal, Washington detracted Panama from Colombia following the same pattern of the previous Hawaiian pro-American “colored” revolution).

Concerning the US colonial expansionist policy in both Central America and the Caribbean Sea, the ideological foundation for such imperial hegemony was the same: the 1823 Monroe Doctrine which clearly under the moto “America to Americans” promulgated the US imperialism in the area of Latin America (without West European interference) as implied an intention to treat Latin America as the exclusive US area of influence. Nevertheless, the 1861−1865 American Civil War temporarily postponed Washington’s imperial-expansionist policy in Latin America but the 1823 Monroe Doctrine was by no means put aside and forgotten.

It was the French geopolitical attempt to establish a colonial state (empire) in Mexico within the years of 1862−1867 which offered, in essence, starting work on the building of the Panama Canal but the French engineer, Ferdinand de Lesseps, builder of the Suez Canal, faced serious objections from the US. The point was that the Panama Canal was understood by Washington as “virtually a part of the coastline of the United States” as was stated in 1879 by the US 19^thPresident Rutherford B. Hayes (1877−1881). Nevertheless, under the treaty with Panama (separated from Colombia) in 1903, the US leases the Panama Canal Zone in perpetuity. The zone is 10 miles wide and is bisected by the Canal which, unlike the Suez Canal, has locks.

In 1895, Washington interfered in the UK dispute with Venezuela over the border question and declared the USA “practically sovereign on this continent” (the words of the US Secretary of State Olney). The UK, however, dropped the argument. It was the policy of Colombia to meet the US expansionistic demands to build and exploit the Panama Canal (still on the territory of Colombia) that led to an insurrection in 1903 (inspired and supported by Washington like in the case of the Hawaiian Islands) that resulted in the forcible separation of Panama from Colombia. The US administration after the putsch guaranteed formal political independence of Panama but, in fact, the territory became an American colonial protectorate.

The historical period of the US dominance in the Caribbean Sea (since 1898) survived under several political difficulties until the end of WWII. During this time, Mexican resistance from 1934 to 1938 forced the US administration to imply a tactic to appease Latin America in order to struggle against the activities of Nazi Germany. At the same time, there were many US colonial interventionists in the affairs of Latin America including the Caribbean Sea area being covert or at least indirect, but working on the line of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine. However, for tactical reasons, they altered the original doctrine into the more flexible policy of “Good Neighbourhood”. However, after 1945, new political actors in Latin America and the Caribbean Sea came into force resulting in the receding of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine by the US administration.

Final Words

The Times of London predicted, after the US’s decisive military victory over the Spanish overseas empire in 1898, that the USA would consequently play a prominent role in global politics and world affairs primarily at the expense of the UK.

It was the 1898 Spanish-American War after which the US became a great global power. The war was rooted in the struggle for independence of the island of Cuba followed by Washington to realize the American global economic and imperial ambitions at the expense of the Spanish colonial possessions. Sympathetic to Cuban rebels whose second war of independence against the Spanish rule started in 1895, Washington (mis)used the very mysterious blowing up of the American battleship (false-flag), Maine, in Havana harbor as a formal pretext for the declaration of the war to Spain. The Spanish Navy suffered serious defeats in both Cuba and the Phillippines. It was followed by the US expeditionary force (in which future US President Theodore Roosevelt served) defeated Spanish ground forces on the territory of the island of Cuba and in Puerto Rico. Spain finally surrendered at the end of 1898. Consequently, Puerto Rico was ceded to the US while Cuba became put under the American protectorate. Guam (the Pacific island) was as well as ceded to Washington while the Phillippines were bought by the US for $20 million. In essence, this war signified the emergence of the USA as one of the most powerful players in international relations of the time but at the same time the American dominant influence in the area of the Caribbean Sea.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. 

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Cinquant’anni fa, l’11 Settembre 1973, avveniva il colpo di stato in Cile. Anche se è passato mezzo secolo, esso conserva una drammatica attualità. Questa, in sintesi, è la storia.

Nel novembre 1970 diviene Presidente del Cile Salvador Allende, eletto da una coalizione di forze democratiche con un programma di progresso sociale e sovranità nazionale. Due mesi prima, in settembre, il presidente Nixon ordina alla CIA di preparare un piano per impedire che Allende realizzi il suo programma. Il primo obiettivo di Washington è quello di “far saltare l’economia cilena”.

Quando il presidente Allende nazionalizza le miniere cilene di rame, fino a quel momento in mano a multinazionali statunitensi, Washington crea una task force federale che, operando sui mercati finanziari, fa crollare il prezzo mondiale del rame per colpire l’economia cilena. Mentre viene privato della principale fonte di reddito del suo export, il Cile viene sottoposto dagli USA a un ferreo embargo che gli impedisce di importare generi essenziali di prima necessità. Contemporaneamente la CIA blocca per 40 giorni i trasporti interni, finanziando con milioni di dollari uno sciopero dei camionisti.

Viene così preparato il terreno al colpo di stato organizzato dalla CIA e attuato dalla giunta militare capeggiata da Augusto Pinochet. L’11 settembre 1973 il golpe inizia con l’attacco al palazzo presidenziale, l’uccisione di Salvador Allende e degli uomini della sua scorta che decidono di rimanere con lui fino all’ultimo. Decine di migliaia di cileni vengono rinchiusi negli stadi e altri luoghi di detenzione, torturati nei modi più atroci e assassinati. Le tecniche del golpe, delle torture e uccisioni sono quelle della “Scuola delle Americhe” creata dal Pentagono per addestrare i militari latinoamericani sotto il suo comando.

Con la connivenza di Washington, il regime di Pinochet, “presidente” del Cile dal 1974 al 1990, prosegue la sua catena di crimini, assassinando gli oppositori sia all’interno che all’estero e reprimendo nel sangue le manifestazioni popolari. Ciò non impedisce a Giovanni Paolo II, in visita ufficiale in Cile il 2 aprile 1987, di affacciarsi di fronte alla folla plaudente, dal balcone del palazzo della Moneda, a fianco del Augusto Pinochet, colui che quattordici anni prima aveva assassinato a La Moneda il Presidente Salvador Allende.

Manlio Dinucci

VIDEO :

Published on July 1, 2023. Updated on July 6, 2023

I have just read an important article by Dr. Emanuel Garcia focussing on how many deaths are associated with the Covid mRNA vaccine since the outset of the Vaccine program in mid-December 2020.

Emanuel Garcia rightfully says that the “evidence is there. It is overwhelming”.

But that evidence is by no means complete. It is fragmented. It does not provide a broader picture of what is happening at the level of the entire planet. 

Scientists and medical doctors have documented the tragic circumstances of vaccine related deaths of numerous people in all walks of life and age groups, including children and new born.

Emanuel begs the question  “So IS the truth getting out? Or isn’t it?”

Numerous individual cases of Covid-19 vaccine related mortality are carefully documented on a daily basis: Musicians, Singers, Pilots, Athletes, High School Children, Children from 5 to 12 Years Old, Newly Born babies, Vaccinated Pregnant Women, the list is long. 

See the outstanding analysis of Dr. William Makis. Below is a selection of recent articles: 

Musicians and Singers Dying Suddenly in May and June 2023. The Trend Is Accelerating.

By Dr. William Makis, June 30, 2023

Nursing Students, Pharmacy Students, Medical Students Are Dying Suddenly. Ongoing Consequences of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Mandates

By Dr. William Makis, June 28, 2023

Young Drivers (COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated) Are Having Medical Emergencies and Crashing While Driving

By Dr. William Makis, June 26, 2023

The Broader Picture

What is documented (individual cases) by Dr. William Makis is happening at the level of the entire planet.

We must address the broader picture: Millions of people are affected by the Covid-19 vaccine all over the World. The Covid-19 Vaccine is affecting humanity in its entirety.

We require “to get the truth out” . In the words of Emanuel Garcia:

“Judging from the normies I know, it’s not. Anti-vaxxers are nut-jobs and pariahs who are to be shunned by members of the Church of Vaccinology.

The point I wish to make here, psychologically speaking, is that the jab campaign and the propaganda behind it – which has been decades in the marinating – has created a mindset that truth cannot enlighten.”

We have to inform our fellow citizens and apply common sense. 

What is the Impact of the Covid-19 “Vaccine” at the Level of the Entire Planet?

How does it affect humanity’s population of 8 billion people including new born children as well as the unborn?

I have examined the data at a World level. It boggles the mind.

Over a two year period starting in mid-December 2020, more than 12.9 billion vaccine doses were administered across 184 countries (Bloomberg, September 21, 2022, see graph below). 

 

Recorded September 21, 2022: 12.9 Million doses administered (mid December 2020- September 21, 2022)

At the time of writing (July 1, 2023), almost 13.5 billion vaccine doses have been administered to a Worldwide population of 8 billion people, i.e. an average of 1.7 doses per person.

The data compiled by the WHO (June 27, 2023) is as follows (see WHO table):

• 13,461,751,619 vaccine doses administered
• 5,579,548,776 persons vaccinated with at least one dose
• 5,137,861,772 persons vaccinated with a complete primary series (CPS)

The figures above confirm that approximately 70% ( 5.138 billion people) of the World’s population has been vaccinated with “a complete primary series” which normally consists  of at least two vaccine doses.

The WHO map below should be carefully analyzed. 13,5 billion doses have been administered. 

In most countries, including the most populated countries on the planet, the total number of vaccine doses administered per 100 population is well in excess of 100 (dark green in map below).

The only region of the World which so far has escaped the “Killer Vaccine” is Africa, with barely 25% of its 1.4 billion population fully vaccinated (Africa CDC) (see map below). In recent developments, the African Union, Africa CDC in liaison with the WHO is to establish local vaccine manufacturing facilities in Africa. This  target is to fully vaccinate 70% of Africa’s impoverished population. We call upon the people of Africa, who are already the victims of an unprecedented food crisis to firmly oppose this insidious agenda, which in a bitter irony is fully endorsed by the IMF, as part of their  “shock and awe” reforms which over the years have contributed to impoverishing an entire continent. 

Whereas national governments and the WHO publish fake statistics  pertaining to alleged SARS-CoV2 related mortality (see Chapter III of Michel Chossudovsky’s book), they fail to inform the public regarding the deadly impacts of the Covid-19 Vaccine, (i.e. the tabulation of country-level Covid-19 Vaccine related mortality and morbidity).

Media Disinformation and “Fake Science”: Fear Campaign. “The Virus is more Dangerous than the Vaccine” 

A sensationalist BBC report under the title: Why is the Virus such a Threat” … Quoting “scientific opinion” the virus’ has a “hit and run killer evolutionary tactic” to spread the Covid-19 infection far and wide. 

Timely report published two weeks prior to the launching of the mRNA vaccine in November 2020. The objective of this insiduous BBC report was to generate fear throughout the UK as well as acceptance of the mRNA vaccine.

Global Implications 

From our knowledge of country level mortality as well as from carefully documented studies and sample surveys, the global implications of the “killer vaccine” on humanity are beyond description. 

The evidence is scattered Worldwide. Multiply those documented cases by the thousands of millions of people on the planet who have already been vaccinated. It’s the future of humanity which is at stake.

What has been imposed on 184 countries is a Depopulation Agenda, a criminal undertaking (accepted by corrupt national governments) which is unprecedented in the history of humanity. 

Aggregation, Extrapolation, “Order of Magnitude”, Loss of Life Worldwide?  

What should be addressed is detailed epidemiological and statistical analysis requiring a perspective of “aggregation” pertaining to the documented individual cases, the examination of country-level data where available with a view to “extrapolating” and establishing the “order of magnitude” of the loss of life at the level of the entire planet, humanity’s 8 billion population.  

This study would be based on country level vaccine related data pertaining to deaths and adverse events, excess mortality studies, numerous sample surveys not to mention Pfizers controversial “Confidential Report” which acknowledges from the “Horse’s Mouth” that #Yes, It’s “A Killer Vaccine. 

Pfizer Criminality Revealed

In early 2021, Pfizer was fully aware that the mRNA Pfizer-BionTech vaccine –which in the meantime has been marketed Worldwide– has resulted in an unprecedented wave of mortality and morbidity.

By acknowledging the number of vaccine doses which have already been administered Worldwide, namely 13,5 billion for a World population of 8 billion, we cannot come to any other conclusion. 

This is tantamount to a crime against humanity on the part of Big Pharma. It is also a  Mea Culpa and Treason on the part of corrupt national governments which have obfuscated what is best described as a criminal process of depopulation, namely genocide. 

We Call for the Reinstatement of  “Responsible Government”. Those responsible for imposing the vaccine are “criminals”.

To Save Lives, the Covid-19 Vaccine Must be Cancelled, Discontinued Worldwide, Without Delay.

Killer Vaccine: The Global Picture has to be Revealed

Scientists, Medical Doctors, Social Scientists, Statisticians must  Address the Global Picture 

“Another needless death” says Emanuel Garcia. Imagine what it is at the level of 8 billion people.

We must also acknowledge the unthinkable:

There is A Worldwide “Tide of Depopulation”.  Can This Tendency be Reversed?

The Answer is through the urgent development of Health Procedures and/or Effective Medication which contribute to reversing the devastating health impacts (e.g spike protein) of the Covid-19 Vaccine.

Preliminary research is underway: See Dr. William Makis’ article entitled: 

“Covid Vaccine Injury Treatment: Fasting for 48-72 Hours Creates Autophagy”

The focus is on “The Body’s Detox Process That Kills COVID-19 Vaccine Spike Protein Damaged Cells and Reboots the Immune System”

---

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on August 24, 2022

***

In March 2022, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned of a “hurricane of hunger and a meltdown of the global food system” in the wake of the crisis in Ukraine. 

Guterres said food, fuel and fertiliser prices were skyrocketing with supply chains being disrupted and added this is hitting the poorest the hardest and planting the seeds for political instability and unrest around the globe.

According to the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, there is currently sufficient food and no risk of global food supply shortages.

We see an abundance of food but skyrocketing prices. The issue is not food shortage but speculation on food commodities and the manipulation of an inherently flawed global food system that serves the interests of corporate agribusiness traders and suppliers of inputs at the expense of people’s needs and genuine food security.

The war in Ukraine is a geopolitical trade and energy conflict. It is largely about the US engaging in a proxy war against Russia and Europe by attempting to separate Europe from Russia and imposing sanctions on Russia to harm Europe and make it further dependent on the US.

Economist Professor Michael Hudson recently stated that ultimately the war is against Europe and Germany. The purpose of the sanctions is to prevent Europe and other allies from increasing their trade and investment with Russia and China.

Neoliberal policies since the 1980s have hollowed out the US economy. With its productive base severely weakened, the only way for the US to maintain hegemony is to undermine China and Russia and weaken Europe.

Hudson says that, beginning a year ago, Biden and the US neocons attempted to block Nord Stream 2 and all (energy) trade with Russia so that the US could monopolise it itself.

Despite the ‘green agenda’ currently being pushed, the US still relies on fossil fuel-based energy to project its power abroad. Even as Russia and China move away from the dollar, the control and pricing of oil and gas (and resulting debt) in dollars remains key to US attempts to retain hegemony.

The US knew beforehand how sanctions on Russia would play out. They would serve to divide the world into two blocks and fuel a new cold war with the US and Europe on one side with China and Russia being the two main countries on the other.

US policy makers knew Europe would be devastated by higher energy and food prices and food importing countries in the Global South would suffer due to rising costs.

It is not the first time the US has engineered a major crisis to maintain global hegemony and a spike in key commodity prices that effectively trap countries into dependency and debt.

In 2009, Andrew Gavin Marshall described how in 1973 – not long after coming off the gold standard – Henry Kissinger was integral to manipulating events in the Middle East (the Arab-Israeli war and the ‘energy crisis’). This served to continue global hegemony for the US, which had virtually bankrupted itself due to its war in Vietnam and had been threatened by the economic rise of Germany and Japan.

Kissinger helped secure huge OPEC oil price rises and thus sufficient profits for Anglo-American oil companies that had over-leveraged themselves in North Sea oil. He also cemented the petrodollar system with the Saudis and subsequently placed African nations, which had embarked on a path of (oil-based) industrialisation, on a treadmill of dependency and debt due to the spike in oil prices.

It is widely believed that the high-priced oil policy was aimed at hurting Europe, Japan and the developing world.

Today, the US is again waging a war on vast swathes of humanity, whose impoverishment is intended to ensure they remain dependent on the US and the financial institutions it uses to create dependency and indebtedness – the World Bank and IMF.

Hundreds of millions will experience (are experiencing) poverty and hunger due to US policy. These people (the ones that the US and Pfizer et al supposedly cared so much about and wanted to get a jab into each of their arms) are regarded with contempt and collateral damage in the great geopolitical game.

Contrary to what many believe, the US has not miscalculated the outcome of the sanctions placed on Russia. Michael Hudson notes energy prices are increasing, benefiting US oil companies and US balance of payments as an energy exporter. Moreover, by sanctioning Russia, the aim is to curtail Russian exports (of wheat and gas used for fertiliser production) and for agricultural commodity prices to therefore increase. This too will also benefit the US as an agricultural exporter.

This is how the US seeks to maintain dominance over other countries.

Current policies are designed to create a food and debt crisis for poorer nations especially. The US can use this debt crisis to force countries to continue privatising and selling off their public assets in order to service the debts to pay for the higher oil and food imports.

This imperialist strategy comes on the back of ‘COVID relief’ loans which have served a similar purpose. In 2021, an Oxfam review of IMF COVID-19 loans showed that 33 African countries were encouraged to pursue austerity policies. The world’s poorest countries are due to pay $43 billion in debt repayments in 2022, which could otherwise cover the costs of their food imports.

Oxfam and Development Finance International have also revealed that 43 out of 55 African Union member states face public expenditure cuts totalling $183 billion over the next five years.

The closure of the world economy in March 2020 (‘lockdown’) served to trigger an unprecedented process of global indebtedness. Conditionalities mean national governments will have to capitulate to the demands of Western financial institutions. These debts are largely dollar-denominated, helping to strengthen the US dollar and US leverage over countries.

The US is creating a new world order and needs to ensure much of the Global South remains in its orbit of influence rather than ending up in the Russian and especially Chinese camp and its belt road initiative for economic prosperity.

Post-COVID, this is what the war in Ukraine, sanctions on Russia and the engineered food and energy crisis are really about.

Back in 2014, Michael Hudson stated that the US has been able to dominate most of the Global South through agriculture and control of the food supply. The World Bank’s geopolitical lending strategy has transformed countries into food deficit areas by convincing them to grow cash crops – plantation export crops – not to feed themselves with their own food crops.

The oil sector and agribusiness have been joined at the hip as part of US geopolitical strategy.

The dominant notion of ‘food security’ promoted by global agribusiness players like Cargill, Archer Daniel Midland, Bunge and Louis Dreyfus and supported by the World Bank is based on the ability of people and nations to purchase food. It has nothing to do with self-sufficiency and everything to do with global markets and supply chains controlled by giant agribusiness players.

Along with oil, the control of global agriculture has been a linchpin of US geopolitical strategy for many decades. The Green Revolution was exported courtesy of oil-rich interests and poorer nations adopted agri-capital’s chemical- and oil-dependent model of agriculture that required loans for inputs and related infrastructure development.

It entailed trapping nations into a globalised food system that relies on export commodity mono-cropping to earn foreign exchange linked to sovereign dollar-denominated debt repayment and World Bank/IMF ‘structural adjustment’ directives. What we have seen has been the transformation of many countries from food self-sufficiency into food deficit areas.

And what we have also seen is countries being placed on commodity crop production treadmills. The need for foreign currency (US dollars) to buy oil and food entrenches the need to increase cash crop production for exports.

The World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) set out the trade regime necessary for this type of corporate dependency that masquerades as ‘global food security’.

This is explained in a July 2022 report by Navdanya International – Sowing Hunger, Reaping Profits – A Food Crisis by Design – which notes international trade laws and trade liberalisation has benefited large agribusiness and continue to piggyback off the implementation of the Green Revolution.

The report states that US lobby and trade negotiations were headed by former Cargill Investors Service CEO and Goldman Sachs executive – Dan Amstutz – who in 1988 was appointed chief negotiator for the Uruguay round of GATT by Ronald Reagan. This helped to enshrine the interests of US agribusiness into the new rules that would govern the global trade of commodities and subsequent waves of industrial agriculture expansion.

The AoA removed protection of farmers from global market prices and fluctuations. At the same time, exceptions were made for the US and the EU to continue subsidising their agriculture to the advantage of large agribusiness.

Navdanya notes:

“With the removal of state tariff protections and subsidies, small farmers were left destitute. The result has been a disparity in what farmers earn for what they produce, versus what consumers pay, with farmers earning less and consumers paying more as agribusiness middlemen take the biggest cut.”

‘Food security’ has led to the dismantling of food sovereignty and food self-sufficiency for the sake of global market integration and corporate power.

We need look no further than India to see this in action. The now repealed recent farm legislation in India was aimed at giving the country the ‘shock therapy’ of neoliberalism that other countries have experienced.

The ‘liberalising’ legislation was in part aimed at benefiting US agribusiness interests and trapping India into food insecurity by compelling the country to eradicate its food buffer stocks – so vital to the nation’s food security – and then bid for food on a volatile global market from agribusiness traders with its foreign reserves.

The Indian government was only prevented from following this route by the massive, year-long farmer protest that occurred.

The current crisis is also being fuelled by speculation. Navdanya cites an investigation by Lighthouse Reports and The Wire to show how speculation by investment firms, banks and hedge funds on agricultural commodities are profiting off rising food prices. Commodity future prices are no longer linked to actual supply and demand in the market but are based purely on speculation.

Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus and investment funds like Black Rock and Vanguard continue to make huge financial killings, resulting in the price of bread almost doubling in some poorer countries.

The cynical ‘solution’ promoted by global agribusiness to the current food crisis is to urge farmers to produce more and seek better yields as if the crisis is that of underproduction. It means more chemical inputs, more genetic engineering techniques and suchlike, placing more farmers in debt and trapped in dependency.

It is the same old industry lie that the world will starve without its products and requires more of them. The reality is that the world is facing hunger and rising food prices because of the system big agribusiness has instituted.

And it is the same old story – pushing out new technologies in search of a problem and then using crises as justification for their rollout while ignoring the underlying reasons for such crises.

Navdanya sets out possible solutions to the current situation based on principles of agroecology, short supply lines, food sovereignty and economic democracy – policies that have been described at length in many articles and official reports over the years.

As for fighting back against the onslaught on ordinary people’s living standards, support is gathering among the labour movement in places like the UK. Rail union leader Mick Lynch is calling for a working class movement based on solidarity and class consciousness to fight back against a billionaire class that is acutely aware of its own class interests.

For too long, ‘class’ has been absent from mainstream political discourse. It is only through organised, united protest that ordinary people will have any chance of meaningful impact against the new world order of tyrannical authoritarianism and the devastating attacks on ordinary people’s rights, livelihoods and standards of living that we are witnessing.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.

The author receives no payment from any media outlet or organization for his work. If you appreciated this article, consider sending a few coins his way: [email protected] 

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

---

Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled

Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also involved (documented in ‘Gates to a Global Empire‘ by Navdanya International), whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, promoting a much-heralded (but failed) ‘green revolution’ for Africa, pushing biosynthetic food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.

Click here to read.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on July 23, 2023

***

Way back in the 1970s, the far-seeing genius Henry Kissinger identified food (in addition to energy) as a major mechanism that could be used to subdue recalcitrant mankind:

“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

Control of money seems to be slipping out of the hands of Dr. Henry’s cabal, and their dominion over the global energy supply seems to be evaporating as well, but they are not giving up on their trump card. That is the capacity to control and, most importantly, to catastrophically diminish the world’s food resources.  

True to his word, at the 1974 World Food Conference in Rome Henry unveiled the plan how to use food to cull the world’s population and blackmail governments into doing his masters’ will. It was all circumspectly phrased, of course, and couched in the Aesopian language fully intelligible, besides the cognoscenti, only to a lesser number of alert observers, but remaining largely opaque to the serfs whose mass extermination is being contemplated.

Since then, with their characteristic persistence Henry’s friends and mentors have been hard at work to make it happen. An engineered global food crisis is in the works.

Hundreds of millions, and preferably billions, of clueless earthlings will be made to depart from this world in order meet the agendas (“Green”, in this particular case) of the wicked psychopaths who run much of it. And that is not happening owing to the operation of nature’s inexorable forces (as asserted by phony environmental narratives) but by human design.

That much is evident from the ominous Pan-European legislation proposed a few days ago by the European Commission. Details of it were reported by Brussels-based Arche Noah, which is for a change a genuine NGO, not a Soros-financed fraud. It advocates vigorously for the public interest in the most authentic and in this instance unequivocally existential sense.

The somnolent world ought to be paying attention, but sadly it is not. The lethal sting of EU’s proposed legislative package is deceptively mislabelled as concern for the “sustainable use of natural resources.” That duplicitous phrase however is no more than a code word. It stands for the sinister new “EU Seed Regulation” policy and the concomitant legislative initiative to deregulate the “New Genetic Engineering”.

“We are dismayed by this attack on our seed and crop diversity in Europe,” plaintively comments Arche Noah’s policy officer, Magdalena Prieler. And she explains: “With these proposals we run the risk of global corporations gaining complete control over our food. Agriculture Ministers and the European Parliament must act to protect farmers, consumers, and biodiversity.”

They are acting, to be sure, but in the diametrically opposite direction. There is scant chance of the proposed seed legislation not being adopted by the bought and paid for European Parliament because economically powerful and ideologically cohesive interests are arrayed behind it. One of its principal intended effects is to reclassify any transfer of natural seeds beyond a very narrow private sphere as “marketing.”

Such reclassification is not merely rhetorical. It automatically opens the door to unrestricted bureaucratic regulation for which the European Union is infamous, the permissible curvature of cucumbers that may be sold in supermarkets being just one of the more egregious examples.

But while the shape of cucumbers is a risible topic that only very sick control freaks would concern themselves with, regulation of infinitely reproducible natural seeds and their mandated substitution with single use GMO varieties is a deadly serious affair. Its ultimate effect would be to make food producers absolutely and irreversibly dependent on a half dozen transnational corporations which on the global level control this business.

Their executives, let us not forget, mingle together with fellow globalist potentates at the WEF and other similar gatherings and institutions. There, without public scrutiny or accountability, multifarious plans are being laid, including whether, how much, and what millions of human beings world-wide shall be allowed to eat.

If “whether” sounds like too brusque a word, doubts should be dispelled by Ethiopia’s recent experience in that regard.

Two examples will suffice to demonstrate the extent and totality of that control and the maniacal determination to arbitrarily restructure the living patterns of millions that inspires it. In the Netherlands, school lunchrooms are already quietly introducing mealworm and insect food for pupils, on the spurious pretext of saving the planet from global warming.

The pilot program in the Netherlands dispels the insouciant assurances (of those who should have known better) that the once comically-sounding references to the obligatory consumption of insects were no more than harmless theatrical excess, but not a firm policy objective. Now, the humourless globalists’ unrelenting resolve in this regard is corroborated also by the plans they  have unveiled for Germany. Meat is set to be abolished in the country which is that protein’s biggest consumer in Europe by rationing the permitted daily personal intake to just ten grams. Of course, Germany happens to be also Europe’s most obedient country, so it will be highly indicative to see how successfully this drastic pilot program is implemented.

But disgusting as the increasingly coercive substitution of detritus “foods” for meat may be, the crux of the agenda is to gain absolute control over and genetically reengineer the crops which are essential for both human and animal consumption.

Accordingly, under the European Commission’s draft law two parallel processes are to be set in motion. On the one hand, as pointed out earlier farmers will only be allowed to exchange their own seeds in small quantities and under tightly regulated conditions. Selling natural seeds will henceforth not be possible. Public gene banks, private collections and seed initiatives will no longer be allowed to give their seeds to farmers.

At the same time, however, genetically engineered crop varieties will be promoted and completely deregulated, putting farmers at the mercy of powerful agrochemical corporations such as Bayer, BASF, Corteva and Syngenta, which already control more than half of the global seed market. According to Arche Noah spokeswoman Magdalena Prieler: “New genetic engineering is first and foremost a tool for corporations to squeeze their competitors out of the market and to expand further their control over our food system.”

Correct, but their chief competitors, she might have added, are the aggregate of individually small-scale farmers whose economic survival is the essential precondition for every person’s food independence as well as access to healthy, chemically and biologically uncontaminated foodstuffs.

Needless to say, unlike their “lesser brethren”, under the new dispensation Bill Gates, the great proponent of synthetic beef, along with  Klaus Schwab and Yuval Hariri, his hackable animal “prophet” (Hariri’s contemptuous epithet for the rest of us which is justifiably applicable to himself) will not be eating insects for dinner.

While uncouth, flatulating Irish cows are being massively slaughtered and abundantly productive Dutch farms are shut down to potentially starve the rest of us on fraudulent rationales invented by charlatans like Greta Thunberg, they only will need to snap their fingers to be served Kobe beef or whatever exquisite delicacy (other than mealworms, of course) their delicate palates should fancy.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image is from OffGuardian

First published in December 2016, this article is of relevance to an understanding of the ongoing debate on Climate Change as well the Green New Deal,  largely controlled by the financial establishment. The Rockefellers also play a key role in the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Proposal.

***

“Beginning in the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became leading advocates of the global warming agenda. …

In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists, citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the establishment of the “U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.” in Rio in 1992 (excerpt from Report)

The following text is the Executive Summary of  a full length report by The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute published in 2016.

This informative report is brought to the attention of Global Research readers. The CRG does not necessarily endorse the title nor the contents of this report.

What is important, however, is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family –which historically was the architect of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists, environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against “Big Oil” and the fossil fuel industry.

Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance. But who controls and FINANCES that debate?

There is an obvious contradictory relationship: Whereas “Big Oil” is the target of Global Warming activism, “Big Oil” through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the Worldwide climate protest movement. Ask yourself Why?

Of  relevance to “extreme weather events”  and the current climate change debate.

Michel Chossudovsky, July 13, 2023

Read full report here.

***

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny. Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Keep in mind that, much sooner than later, the great avenues will again be opened through which will pass free men to construct a better society. Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!”

–President Salvador Allende’s farewell speech (September 11, 1973) [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

An event taking place in the South American country of Chile 50 years ago this coming week, not only claimed the life of democratically elected President Salvador Guillermo Allende Gossens, but of 2,200 other Chileans, including social activists and students. Roughly 30,000 people were tortured in the National Stadium of Chile and other makeshift detention centres. Almost 1,500 more simply disappeared. [2]

In other words, in terms of the number count of dead people in a country, Chile’s 9/11 easily equalled or exceeded America’s 9/11. [3]

Allende’s socialist government, in power since the 3rd of November 1970 came crashing down not by any democratic process but via a violent coup d’etat.

A military dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet was now in charge of the Latin American country. And thanks to the diligent work of Peter Kornbluh, a senior analyst at the National Security Archive and director of the archive’s Chile and Cuba Documentation Projects, we now know through declassified documents that the U.S. played a role in the plot to overthrow Allende and side with Pinochet. [4]

It is one of the best counter-examples one can think of to the assumed, overstated principle that America fights for democracy and human rights!

Likewise, as the Canadian foreign policy writer Yves Engler has pointed out, there have been several examples through the years immediately before the coup that show the country’s government the more right wing government and withdrew their support when Allende was in power…

“Worried about growing support for socialism, Ottawa gave $8.6 million to Frei’s Chile, its first aid to a South American country. When Allende won the next election Canadian assistance disappeared. Export Development Canada (EDC) also refused to finance Canadian exports to Chile, which contributed to a reduction in trade between the two countries.”[5]

The purpose of this week’s Global Research News Hour radio program is just to remind the world about another great tragedy of America’s so-called altruistic endeavours in a foreign country, but to show how the Chilean people have endured and to hold aloft hope for a better society and a better future!

On the show’s first half hour, we hear from a member of the Chilean military at the time, Francisco Valenzuela, about what he witnessed at the time, and how the military transformed against Allende. Another Chilean Canadian, Bernardo Jorquera, briefly describes the 50 commemoration of the event taking place in the city of Winnipeg at 6pm local time at CCFM Centre Culturel, Franco Manitobain on 340 Provencher Blvd.

In the second half hour, York University in Toronto Emeritus Professor of Politics Liisa North breaks down the book she edited: Canada-Chile Solidarity 1973-1990: Testimonies of Civil Society Action. The book documents the ways in which Churches and unions were active in coordinating the formulation of foreign policy with regard to refugees and dealing with a military dictatorship.

Francisco Valenzuela is a 93 year old former military man working for Allende. He now lives in Winnipeg, Canada.

Bernardo Jorquera is an organizer and chair of the Winnipeg Chilean Association Committee.

Liisa L. North is Emeritus Professor of Politics at York University in Toronto. She has made many important contributions as a teacher, researcher of rural issues and reformist movements in Latin America, and social activist.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 399)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

1. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Chiles-911-Coup-Salvador-Allendes-Last-Words-20190911-0006.html
2. Julian Borger (3 Sep 2023), ‘Fifty years on: the lasting tragedy of Chile’s coup’, The Guardian; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/03/fifty-years-on-the-lasting-tragedy-of-chiles-coup
3. https://www.globalresearch.ca/chile-september-11-1973-first-911/5608471 
4. Lucia Newman (6 Sep 2023), ‘Fifty years after Chile’s coup, the search for truth continues’, Al Jazeera; https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/6/fifty-years-after-chiles-coup-the-search-for-truth-continues
5. https://yvesengler.com/2018/09/10/remembering-canadas-support-for-the-right-wing-coup-in-chile/

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Bosnia and Herzegovina is governed as a neo-colonial backwater, which is the status that Gabon, Niger, and Burkina Faso had until recently. The difference is that lately the Africans have been making concerted efforts to throw off their yoke. By contrast, in Bosnia many seem happy to be yoked, with the notable exception of the Republic of Srpska, which for quite some time has been the Niger of the Balkans.

And that is fundamentally the reason why, like Niger, it is now targeted. The recently unleashed hybrid attack against the Republic of Srpska is a sophisticated operation which is being marketed under the legal guise of restoring democracy. It would be a grave mistake however to underestimate that cunning manoeuvre and its potential for generating chaos. Its mission is not to improve but to implode the imperfect but carefully balanced constitutional system that was set up in 1995 as an integral part of the Dayton peace arrangements. At the time, all Bosnian parties had the wisdom to assent to it as the price of peace. The fully intended collateral effect of undermining the system erected in Dayton is the destruction, or at a minimum degradation, of Bosnia’s intolerable entity, the Republic of Srpska.

The focus of the current iteration of Bosnia’s chronic political crisis is the lawsuit filed before the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] by a certain Slaven Kovačević, who claims that his rights as a Bosnian citizen (and presumably as a human as well) are threatened by the ethnic representation provisions of the Bosnian Constitution.

Kovačević (who happens to be of Croat ethnicity) is allegedly upset because in his judgement current constitutional arrangements are discriminatory, since they prevent him from standing for political office on a country-wide basis.

The only avenue available to him to post his candidacy is as a citizen and resident of one of Bosnia’s two ethnically defined entities. Without delving further into the gist of this arcane objection, let it only be said that Bosnia’s complex ethnic representation system, an outgrowth of the 1995 peace treaty, with its admittedly convoluted provisions, was instituted precisely because of the demonstrated incapacity of Bosnia’s ethnicities to live side by side amicably under any other systemic arrangement. Such a solution Kovačević may now find bothersome and unsatisfactory, but certainly Montesquieu would have approved of it wholeheartedly. Be it recalled that according to Montesquieu good constitutions are not ideological constructs but practical instruments that take into account the temperament, customs, and behavioural patterns of the men they are designed to govern and serve.

But, of course, the real crux of the issue has nothing to do with whether or not citizen Slaven Kovačević was subjected to insufferable discrimination due to the fact that he is barred from participating in Bosnian elections on a country-wide basis but only through facilities provided by the entity he happens to reside in. In his case that is the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the other being the Republic of Srpska).

Elections in Bosnia, all pretence aside, carry about as much political weight as similar exercises did in Gabon under the recently deposed President Bongo. As we explained at length in a number of previous posts, Bosnia can at best be described as a protectorate, and at worst as a colony which is not effectively ruled by its citizens anyway – whatever ethnicity they may fancy to identify with. It is ruled by the High Representative selected by a consortium of foreign powers. With the vast executive prerogatives claimed by that office, from the standpoint of democratic governance Bosnia’s de facto ruler is in any event inherently illegitimate. And in large measure that would still be the case even if, unlike the current office holder, he were to be properly confirmed by the Security Council of the United Nations. So for a credible explanation of this particular Bosnian crisis we must look elsewhere, away from the demagogic smokescreen of alleged electoral grievances.

The purpose of the current crisis, contrived with the generous assistance of the European Court of Human Rights, is to place a powerful charge of dynamite underneath the foundation of Bosnia’s constitutional order, such as it is. It is the culmination of an intention of long standing. Recall that no sooner was the Dayton Peace Agreement signed in 1995 than Bosnia’s Western curators declared that adjustments to the constitution that was an integral part of the Agreement just reached had urgently to be made, to reflect the “Spirit of Dayton,” never mind the letter. Naturally, they envisioned themselves as the sovereign, self- appointed interpreters of that elusive spirit, with which they alone had the capacity to communicate.

That perfidy revealed plainly and from the start their corrupt intent. They viewed the multilateral Dayton treaty that ended the war, which textually includes Bosnia’s Constitution as its Annex IV, as merely a temporary, transitional device that would be tolerated only as long as it had to be, until a unitary Bosnian satrapy corresponding to their geopolitical designs could be set up to replace it. It foreshadowed by decades the corrupt Minsk Agreements, and their equally deceitful “spirit”.

Practical colonisers are known to select from amongst the natives the constituency they judge to be the most suitable instrument for the perpetration of their rule. In Ireland, the British chose Protestants and empowered them to play the colonial overseers’ role, in much of the Balkans the Ottomans employed Albanians to do their dirty work and keep other subject nations in line, in Rwanda the Belgians appointed the Tutsi to lord it over the Hutu, and so forth. In Bosnia, the winners of this dishonourable contest for imperial favour are the local Muslims, or Bosniaks as they misleadingly call themselves. They naturally have no special place in the hearts of the Western hegemons. However, a practical assessment of their qualities has been made and it indicates that from amongst all the local ethnic constituencies they would be the most compliant.

The required transition in Bosnia from “letter” to “spirit” has been meandering inconclusively for decades, opposition to it in the Republic of Srpska has been fierce, and after snapping his fingers innumerable times without obtaining the desired results the hegemon is losing his patience and becoming greatly annoyed. Hence this new variant of the  old agenda to deconstruct Bosnia’s confederal state and bring down its ethnically based entities, the pesky Republic of Srpska in particular, to clear the decks for a centralised government that would be more easily controlled. Based on a pseudo-democratic rationale validated by an international court decision, democratically plausible groundwork is being laid for the demolition of the fundamental principle upon which the Dayton Peace Agreement rests.

All concerned, including the leading powers of the collective West, are working in concert to accomplish a common purpose. They have jointly concocted this destabilising campaign to destroy constitutional mechanisms that may not have worked brilliantly but have kept at least a semblance of peace in Bosnia over the last quarter century. They are perfectly aware of the destructive consequences of their actions and Bosnia’s foreign overlords will it to be done. By demanding the implementation of the European Human Rights Court’s decision they are creating deliberately a pretext for a new and extraordinarily invasive intervention in Bosnia’s affairs, with unforeseeable consequences. In light of the ECHR decision they will declare Dayton unworkable and obsolete and will order a new, centralistic constitution to be written up for Bosnia and Herzegovina, formulated to empower their designated local minions, through whom they intend to rule. And, of course, they will be the ones to write it and their High Representative will interpret it. As mandated by the Human Rights Court, country-wide electoral engineering will ensure permanent numerical domination for their ethnic protégés and their local colonial elite pawns of all ethnic shades will cheerfully assent to the manipulated outcome. How the plebes will react, that remains to be seen.

In order to fully appreciate the havoc the ECHR ruling is bound to produce, it is enough to imagine the impact of a similar verdict upon constitutional arrangements in other ethnically complex societies, such as Belgium, Lebanon, or Switzerland. The last of the aforementioned governments could not possibly survive in its present form the application of RCHR’s verdict, just as Bosnia and Herzegovina will not. Of the total population of Switzerland, 62% are German speakers, 22% are French speakers, the remainder being Italian and Romansh. Clearly, if the ECHR’s “one man, one vote” formula were to be imposed on Switzerland, abolishing or emasculating cantonal autonomy and doing away altogether with the safeguards of ethnically based representation, harmoniously functioning Switzerland as we know it today would cease to exist. It would be transformed into a German-dominated country seething with the resentment of subservient ethnicities. For Switzerland, that may not quite be the desired outcome, but for Bosnia and Herzegovina it definitely is the plan. Just substitute “Bosniaks” for Germans and a clear picture emerges.

It goes without saying that Montesquieu has nothing useful to say to the shallow modern hegemons, whose power is waning but whose potential for destruction remains immense. Insistence on upsetting the carefully calibrated constitutional balance which since 1995 has served Bosnia and Herzegovina well, regardless of its miserable position in most other respects, is bound to produce an inordinate amount of additional trouble in that dark and unhappy land. But that precisely will relentlessly be insisted upon, with a vengeance and using the full range of coercive instruments still at the disposal of the malicious globalist cabal, before they finally fade away.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image: President Slobodan Milosevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, President Alija Izetbegovic of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and President Franjo Tudjman of the Republic of Croatia initial the draft of the Dayton Peace Accords. The Balkan Proximity Peace Talks were conducted at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Nov. 1-21, 1995. The talks ended the conflict arising from the breakup of the Republic of Yugoslavia. The Dayton Accords paved the way for the signing of the final “General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina” on Dec. 14 at the Elysee Palace in Paris. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Global Research Editor’s Note

This is an important study, carefully documented.

What it does not address is that cocaine trafficking is supported by powerful financial interests. The so-called Narco-State plays a key role, namely the criminalization of politics, in Colombia but also in Peru during the Fujimori Era as well as in its aftermath.

The smuggling groups are also covertly supported. The government officials mentioned in this report are often complicit in the conduct of the drug trade. 

M.Ch. Global Research, September 2023

***

The Amazon forest and watershed shared by Peru, Colombia, and Brazil provide ideal cover for coca cultivation and processing. As a result, a cocaine trafficking chain has emerged there — one that begins with coca grown in Peru. The criminal infrastructure created to feed this trade also protects and promotes environmental crimes, such as illegal deforestation, timber trafficking, and illegal gold mining. The remote areas have little state presence, and the dense forest canopy makes illicit activities and armed groups largely invisible.

The tri-border where Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela meet has continued to maintain its longstanding role as a transit corridor for cocaine. Though it’s not known as a drug production hub, the Venezuelan side may be seeing new coca cultivation.

A pilot in Puerto Ayacucho, a city in Venezuela’s Amazonas state, said he had observed coca cultivation in the northwestern municipalities of Autana and Maroa.

While the pilot could not provide more specifics about coca growing in that region, coca has been cropping up more and more along Venezuela’s border with Colombia, a 2022 InSight Crime investigation found.

A Burst of Coca Crops in Peru’s Amazon

Until just a few years ago, Peru’s tri-border region had been relatively free of coca. But now, criminals are clearing rich, verdant rainforest along the Amazon River to make way for the illicit crop.

Coca growing in Peru’s Amazon first took hold further south of the tri-border, in the Upper Huallaga Valley, which extends for 322 kilometers along the Huallaga River in central Peru. In the early 2010s, mass cultivation for the cocaine trade shifted southward to the Valley of Apurímac, Ene, and Mantaro River Valley, a mountainous jungle region slightly larger than Puerto Rico that is known by its Spanish acronym, VRAEM.

The [corrupt] government has, at times, tried to eradicate coca in the VRAEM with little success, yet the military presence appears to have pushed coca cultivation to other parts of the country — most dramatically, the Amazon wilderness along Peru’s tri-border with Colombia and Brazil. Previously, coca growing had been minimal there.

Loreto, the massive northeastern department that encompasses more than half of the country’s Amazon, registered just 12% of the coca cultivated in Peru in 2004. The department’s Mariscal Ramón Castilla province, whose easternmost limits touch both Colombia and Brazil, registered only 440 hectares of coca in 2012. By 2020, the area occupied by coca crops in Loreto’s Bajo Amazonas region — comprising Mariscal Ramón Castilla as well as neighboring Maynas and Requena provinces — expanded to 4,247 hectares, according to a 2021 report by the Peruvian Drug Observatory. The number increased more than 50% to 6,472 hectares in 2021, according to the observatory’s 2022 report.

Security officials in both Colombia and Peru agreed that coca cultivation is increasing in Peru’s border region. Juan Mojica and Santos Mojica, leaders of the Colombian Indigenous community of Nazareth, about an hour up the Amazon River from Leticia, said that crops being grown on the Peruvian side of the river have become a problem for their community.

People, including school-aged adolescents, are crossing the river to work as raspachines, or day laborers hired to pick and process coca leaves, they said.

Poor Indigenous and rural communities in Peru’s Mariscal Ramón Castilla province are being paid to sow coca, according to an investigation by Peruvian newspaper La República.

Traffickers also pay communities for sacks of coca leaves, known as arrobas. In some cases, they negotiate with community leaders to set up monthly payments for access to their territories. Ledgers kept by community assemblies even contain line items for land rents from traffickers and projects financed by them, according to the La República report.

Gunmen linked to traffickers have also invaded Indigenous communities’ lands to install coca farms.

An official from Mariscal Ramón Castilla’s municipality mayor’s office, who asked to remain anonymous for security reasons, said he feared that the Amazon province has become another VRAEM for traffickers. Coca cultivation has doubled there over the past four years, and its 6,362 hectares of coca accounted for nearly all the illicit crops in Bajo Amazonas in 2021, according to the latest drug report. Bajo Amazonas was the third-largest area for cultivation in the country.

“We are in an area that for the state is not a priority,” he said. “That is one of the reasons behind the increase in coca crops. We are on our own here.”

For years Peruvian authorities [which are complicit] have focused their [alleged] counternarcotics efforts in the VRAEM. Meanwhile, authorities have ignored the tri-border while criminal networks have taken advantage of the area’s natural infrastructure. Its numerous river arteries and thick jungle connect Colombia and Peru, the main drug-producing countries, with one of the major international cocaine exit points, Brazil.

Raids on primitive jungle laboratories in the Peruvian provinces of Putumayo and Mariscal Ramón Castilla reveal that coca is not only being grown but also processed there.

Authorities have announced seizures of gasoline drums, cement, and calc, all of which are used in the production of cocaine base.

For example, a March 2020 raid ended in the destruction of two laboratories near the Orosa River, halfway up the Amazon River from Leticia. The camp held half a dozen 2,000-liter tanks, which are used to mix coca leaves with solvents. In February 2021, 600 kilograms of processed cocaine were discovered at a camp on the Atucari River, along the Colombia-Peru border.

Drug and environmental crime also appear to be occurring in tandem. For example, a 2019 operation carried out in Mariscal Ramón Castillo led to the dismantling of wooden buildings for storing coca leaves, cocaine, and illegal timber.

It is unclear who controls coca cultivation and processing labs in Peru’s northeastern Amazon region.

Colombian law enforcement officials mentioned a group called Clan Chuquizuta. The Indigenous and rural communities in Mariscal Ramón Castilla described the traffickers who are paying them in general terms as “narco-benefactors.”

The most likely scenario is that the Peruvian traffickers in this region are freelancers who supply Brazilian and Colombian groups.

Santa Rosa is a small island on the Amazon belonging to Peru that sits adjacent Colombia’s Leticia and the Brazil border city of Tabatinga. Long motorboats with plastic canopies carry locals to and from the island’s port, which is nothing more than a wooden dock.

Along stretches of Peru’s Amazon River, coca is being grown. Santa Rosa de Yavarí, Perú, August 2022. Photograph by: Seth Robbins

A soldier standing guard at the port said smugglers mostly avoid the island. Instead, they pass at night, using smaller waterways to evade controls, he said.

Just north of the island on a wide stretch of river are the communities of Gamboa and Chinería. A senior Peru military official who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to speak said he had heard of coca cultivation occurring there.

Armed Groups, Drug Routes, and Environmental Crime

The Amazon River and its vast network of tributaries and streams provide smuggling routes from Peru into Colombia and Brazil.

Groups’ names change in this fluid criminal landscape. National and political allegiances are largely irrelevant. Alliances and enemies are made easily. Reaching deeper into this corner of the Amazon to control drug corridors, these armed groups have broadened into environmental crimes, particularly illegal gold mining.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Colombian government’s security operations dropped by half, according to a report by the Ideas for Peace Foundation (Fundación Ideas para la Paz – FIP). With state authorities increasingly absent, Colombia’s Amazonas department began to see a heavy presence of armed groups, particularly around the Putumayo River area, according to Jhon Fredy Valencia, agricultural and environmental secretary for the department.

Gunmen shut down villages, confining people to their homes, said an Indigenous leader who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals. At night, boats of all sizes, likely carrying drugs, can be heard along the waterways of Tarapacá.

“There are drugs, there is coca,” said the Indigenous leader. “They are in our territory, cutting down forest. There is the invasion of our rivers for mining.”

The Indigenous leader said the gunmen who threatened her community called themselves the Sinaloa. Human rights officials and the representative of the National Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon, said they had also taken declarations from people who had been threatened by representatives of the so-called Sinaloa group.

The name Sinaloa doesn’t appear to have any connection to the notorious Mexican cartel. Instead, it has been used at times by members of the Border Command, a confluence of ex-FARC cells and remnants of the Colombian drug trafficking organization La Constru. The Border Command emerged in 2017 in the wake of the dissolution of the FARC’s Southern Bloc. Members have described themselves as opposed to injustices committed by FARC commanders, including not sharing wealth with the rank and file.

According to a report by think tank A la Orilla del Río, which studies Colombia’s Amazon region, the Border Command accepts “all types of combatants, regardless of their origin and armed history.” Its foot soldiers are paid a monthly stipend of 2 million pesos (about $450), double the Colombian minimum wage.

“Nobody knew what they did with all that money,” the member told investigators. “Here we decided that those resources go to those who are in the fight.”

The Border Command, which the Colombian military has dubbed “residual structure 48,” controls much of the corridor along the Putumayo River, according to officials. The group’s sway stretches to the western Colombian department of Nariño, a key cocaine production and trafficking center, via Putumayo.

At some 300-strong, the extent of the Border Command’s influence in the deep recesses of Colombia’s Amazonas department is unclear.

The human rights official who works with communities in Amazonas said the group operates more like a paramilitary drug clan, extending its reach by recruiting smaller groups and making alliances with Brazilian groups. Social control and youth recruitment are part of its modus operandi.

“They make every decision about these communities,” the human rights official said.

Brazilian Gangs Enter the Rainforest

Weak cross-border cooperation and a lack of customs and migration controls in the tri-border of Colombia, Peru, and Brazil has made it a magnet for Brazil’s drug gangs, which feed Latin’s America’s biggest domestic narcotics market and a cocaine pipeline to Europe.

In Tabatinga, Brazil, graffiti offers some insight into which gangs are dominant. A building at the city’s river port is scrawled “Os Crias” and “Voz Da Morte” (Voice of Death). The Crias appear to be a brazen new gang of which little is known. A July 2020 report in A Crítica, a news outlet focused on Brazil’s Amazonas state, claims that the group is a faction of the Northern Family (Familia do Norte – FDN), and that it is allied with Brazil’s powerful PCC gang.

Graffiti of “Os Crias,” or “the Crias,” at river port in Tabatinga. Tabatinga, Brazil, August 2022. Photograph by: Seth Robbins

Officials in Colombia confirmed that the Crias splintered from the FDN, but made no mention of the gang’s connection to the PCC.

The Crias appear to have displaced the FDN in Tabatinga over the past three years. The group is believed to control street-level drug sales in the tri-border. The gang is also said to be behind an armed assault of the lone bank on Peru’s island of Santa Rosa, and a spate of killings in both Brazil and Colombia.

The gang’s wider involvement in the drug trade is unclear. The A Crítica report claims that the Crias have made alliances with Colombian and Peruvian groups to control trafficking in the region and to sideline the Red Command, the PCC’s main rival. Renato Sérgio Lima, president of non-governmental organization Brazilian Forum on Public Security (Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Pública), said in a June 6, 2022 tweet that the Crias are seeking to control Brazil’s Javari Valley, a large swath of rainforest that lies along the Peruvian border.

While the upstart gang would only be able to control the critical drug corridor by forming alliances with powerful traffickers and larger criminal groups, its possible spread into the Javari Valley should raise alarm.

Fish poaching, drug running, illegal logging, mining, and ranching have proliferated in the Javari Valley, the second-largest reserve in Brazil and home to several isolated Indigenous groups. A surge in piracy attacking boats moving drugs in the region there has added a dangerous transnational dimension to these environmental crimes.

For example, the Javari Valley is where British journalist Dom Phillips and the Indigenous advocate Bruno Araújo Pereira were murdered in June 2022 while working on a report. Three fisherman were arrested and charged in the crime, including one who confessed and led police to their bodies.

A fourth man, Rubens Villar Coelho, who has admitted to having a commercial relationship with the fishermen, is also under investigation. Arrested on charges of possession of false documents, Coelho — who goes by the alias “Colômbia” but is from Peru — is suspected of running an illegal fishing operation, prosecutors say.

The federal police chief for Brazilian Amazonas state, Alexandre Fontes, said at a press conference in Manaus, the state capital, that investigators had concluded Colômbia had ordered the murders.

“I have no doubt that Colômbia was the mastermind,” Fontes said.

Prior to the killings, Pereira had been investigating illegal fishing and had been seen photographing the poaching of pirarucu, a massive freshwater fish, and tracajá, a river turtle whose meat and eggs are commonly eaten. Both are protected species in the Javari Valley reserve.

According to an associate of Pereira’s who knew of his investigation, one of the fishermen charged in the killings, Amarildo da Costa Oliveira, provided a steady supply of poached fish and turtles to Coelho, who sent them to fish markets across the border in Leticia. News outlets have reported that residents and investigators suspect Coelho’s involvement in drug trafficking as well.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The premier professional membership organization for obstetricians and gynecologists accepted $11.8 million from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to promote COVID-19 vaccines to pregnant women, despite the exclusion of pregnant women from clinical trials and regulatory data showing the vaccine had not been tested for safety during pregnancy.

To learn more about COVID-19 funding received by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) during the pandemic and what prompted the organization’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women, Maggie Thorp, JD, told The Epoch Times she made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 2022 to HHS.

The request sought to obtain documents involving the three grants HHS/CDC made to ACOG during the pandemic, one of which was for $11.8 million, listed on a publicly accessible open data source for federal spending.

Documents obtained by Ms. Thorp show that ACOG, on Feb. 1, 2021, was awarded the first of three cooperative agreement grants by HHS and the CDC. The receipt of COVID-19 grant money was contingent upon ACOG yielding substantial control over projects funded by the CDC to the agency and ACOG’s full compliance with CDC guidance on COVID-19 infection and control.

“This is a cooperative agreement, and CDC will have substantial programmatic involvement after the award is made. Substantial involvement is in addition to all post-award monitoring, technical assistance, and performance reviews undertaken in the normal course of stewardship of federal funds,” the documents state.

ACOG also agreed to allow the CDC program staff to “assist, coordinate, or participate in carrying out effort under the award.”

The contracts further provided for the return of funding to the HHS if ACOG did not adhere to the federal government’s messaging that COVID-19 vaccines were safe and effective for pregnant women and new mothers.

HHS Funds ‘Trusted Messengers’ to Increase Vaccine Confidence

HHS, on April 1, 2021, launched the “COVID-19 Community Corps,” a “nationwide, grassroots network of local voices and trusted community leaders to encourage vaccinations,” with more than 275 founding member organizations, including ACOG, that had the “ability to reach millions of Americans.” An archived HHS webpage states the program provides resources and fact-based public health information through HHS in partnership with the CDC.

As part of the multibillion-dollar program, Vice President Kamala Harris and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy met with founding members to discuss the next phase of the “public education campaign from the White House” to encourage vaccinations and increase vaccine confidence.

Members received weekly updates on the “latest scientific and medical updates, talking points about the vaccine, social media suggestions, infographics, factsheets with timely, accurate information, and tools to help people get registered for an appointment and vaccinated.”

“As part of the COVID-19 Community Corps, HHS awarded billions of federal dollars to recruit what HHS referred to as ‘trusted community leaders’ who could push vaccines within our most private relationships,” Dr. James Thorp, a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and maternal-fetal medicine physician told The Epoch Times. “Much like modern-day trojan horses, these ‘trusted messengers’ would be unique in their ability to permeate all facets of private life.”

ACOG Encourages Members to ‘Enthusiastically Recommend Vaccination’

Former CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, on April 23, 2021, announced for the first time during a White House COVID-19 briefing the agency was recommending all pregnant women get vaccinated despite limited data on the safety of the shot, as pregnant women were not included in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials.

Dr. Walensky said her decision was based on preliminary findings published in The New England Journal of Medicine on the use of COVID-19 vaccines during the first 11 weeks of the vaccine rollout.

“We know that this is a deeply personal decision, and I encourage people to talk to their doctors and their primary care providers to determine what is best for them and for their baby,” Dr. Walensky said.

ACOG, on July 30, 2021, along with the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM), began recommending COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy.

ACOG, founded in 1951, is the leading organization representing physicians and specialists in obstetrical care, with over 60,000 members. ACOG sets the standard of care for pregnant women and obstetrician–gynecologists generally follow the recommendations made by ACOG, just as pediatricians follow the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The SMFM represents more than 5,500 individuals with additional years of formal training in maternal-fetal medicine, making them “highly qualified experts and leaders in the care of complicated pregnancies.”

ACOG’s former president, Dr. J. Martin Tucker, in a statement on the organization’s website, encouraged members to “enthusiastically recommend vaccination” to their pregnant patients and to emphasize the “known safety of the vaccines and the increased risks of severe complications associated with COVID-19 infection, including death, during pregnancy.”

“It is clear that pregnant people need to feel confident in the decision to choose vaccination, and a strong recommendation from their obstetrician–gynecologist could make a meaningful difference for many pregnant people,” Tucker added. “Pregnant individuals should feel confident that choosing COVID-19 vaccination not only protects them but also protects their families and communities,” he added.

Dr. William Grobman, president of SMFM, said experts in high-risk pregnancy should “strongly recommend” pregnant women get vaccinated and that vaccination is “safe before, during, or after pregnancy,” despite the absence of clinical trial data.

“I think it’s very obvious that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists entered into a quid pro quo arrangement in the early months of 2021, taking large sums of money from HHS and CDC, and in return, they signed a contract stating that they were not allowed to deviate from any of the CDC and HHS COVID policy narratives,” Dr. Thorp said. “This is firmly established in the 1,400 pages of FOIA documents—50 percent of which, or more, were redacted.”

Dr. Thorp told The Epoch Times that shortly after exposing the financial incentives ACOG received to promote COVID-19 vaccines to pregnant women, he was fired from his position with SSM Health, a not-for-profit health care system.

ACOG Recommends New Bivalent Boosters With No Safety Data

ACOG now recommends pregnant women receive their initial primary series and new bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccines that have not received full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“Vaccination may occur in any trimester, and emphasis should be on vaccine receipt as soon as possible to maximize maternal and fetal health,” ACOG’s website states. “This recommendation applies to both primary series and booster vaccination.”

The FDA’s healthcare provider factsheet (pdf) for Moderna’s bivalent vaccine states:

“Available data on Moderna COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy. Data are not available on Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, Bivalent, administered to pregnant women.”

The FDA’s healthcare provider factsheet (pdf) for Pfizer’s bivalent vaccine states:

“No data are available regarding the use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent during pregnancy.” It further states, “Available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”

ACOG also says on its website that COVID-19 vaccines may be administered simultaneously with other vaccines, including influenza and Tdap vaccines, despite the absence of clinical trials showing that coadministering multiple vaccines to pregnant women is safe.

Although pregnant women were previously included in the CDC’s v-safe pregnancy registry that collected information specific to pregnancy, the CDC announced in May it would no longer allow people to enroll later that month and would stop collecting data on June 30, 2023, because monovalent vaccines are no longer available. The CDC’s website states the agency is developing a new v-safe. Until it does, pregnant women can only report adverse events to the agency’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The Epoch Times reached out to HHS and ACOG for comment and had not received a response at the time of publication.

Update: This article has been updated with the following response from ACOG on Sept. 7.

“ACOG partners with the CDC, through the federal funding grants process, to disseminate evidence-based information to obstetrician-gynecologists about critical public health topics related to the field of obstetrics and gynecology, including the COVID-19 and flu vaccines, fetal alcohol syndrome, and screening for hereditary cancers.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Megan Redshaw is an attorney and investigative journalist with a background in political science. She is also a traditional naturopath with additional certifications in nutrition and exercise science.

Featured image is from LifeSiteNews

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Discussions about Ukraine’s possible entry into NATO still seem far from over. Now, NATO’s top official has stated that Kiev is close to gaining its long-awaited access, which is surprising given that Zelensky was publicly ignored during the bloc’s last summit.

The words were spoken by the head of the alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, on September 7, during a meeting with members of the European Parliament. During his speech, he emphasized that the military bloc “shares the same values [and] the same challenges” with Ukraine, in addition to commenting on recent progress towards Kiev’s integration with the alliance.

“We reiterated that Ukraine will become a member of NATO, but then we added three elements which actually move them closer to membership (…) And these three things, the interoperability, the NATO-Ukraine Council and removal of the requirement for Membership Action Plan for Ukraine, demonstrates that Ukraine has never been closer to a membership in NATO than now”, he said. (emphasis added)

Recalling the Vilnius summit, Stoltenberg stated that, despite not having received a precise “roadmap” on its path to accession, Kiev was promised that some steps would be advanced in the process. The steps established were the increase in military interoperability, the creation of an official representation council for Ukraine within NATO and the process simplification, with the possibility of skipping some bureaucratic requirements that must be accomplished by other candidates. Considering that these measures have already been implemented, Stoltenberg believes that Kiev is closer to membership now than ever before.

However, Stoltenberg did not give any “roadmap” for Kiev in his latest speech either. He only said that fulfilling the three promises makes access “closer” now than it was before but did not state what will happen next in this process. No announcement was made about new discussions on the admission, with the speech being limited to simply saying that it is “close”, without concrete evidence to corroborate this conclusion.

In practice, the words sound like a mere bluff. To date, there has been no significant progress in the process and NATO does not seem interested in moving this agenda forward. However, to keep the alliance’s public image positive and avoid criticism from Kiev and the mainstream media, Stoltenberg recalls the membership pledge and tries to give new “hope” to the proxy state. The aim is to make Ukraine and its supporters, as well as Western public opinion, believe that access will actually happen, even if all evidence suggests that the project is being “frozen”.

The refusal to accept Ukraine into the alliance is the correct attitude to be taken, as the country is currently in a situation of open conflict. Considering NATO’s collective defense norms, the entry of the Kiev regime would mean the immediate start of an open global conflict. It is known that Kiev is fighting for NATO on the battlefield, obeying orders from Western leaders and working as a proxy. However, the neo-Nazi regime’s participation in the alliance’s war plans will certainly remain limited to this proxy role.

NATO wants war with Russia, but does not want to risk losing its troops in a direct confrontation with no chance of victory. For the alliance, it is more interesting to maintain a proxy war, trying to “wear down” Russia in the long term without causing so much direct damage to Western countries. Evidence of NATO’s lack of interest in a direct war can be seen in the fact that the alliance ignored Ukrainian false flag allegations about “Russian attacks” against Poland and Romania, for example. If NATO wanted a direct conflict with Russia, it would certainly adopt the Ukrainian narrative – but this is not in the West’s plans, at least for now.

Western countries know that in order to prevent the process of geopolitical transition to multipolarity it will be necessary to simultaneously neutralize Russia and China. It is impossible to win a war with both powers at the same time, so the bet is on maintaining proxy conflicts with Russia and launching an anti-Chinese military campaign in the future. In this sense, the current conflict in Ukraine must be seen as just one part of NATO’s real anti-Russian strategy.

There is nothing so “special” in Kiev to legitimize Western intervention in its favor. The military aid given by NATO is not motivated by “common values” or “defense of democracy”, as the propaganda says. It is just a way to indirectly prolong the conflict with Russia. For the West, the Ukrainians are just “cannon fodder” in this scenario. It is a shocking reality, but Ukraine agreed to participate in this war plan a long time ago, when it chose to align with the West in 2014.

So, unless new factors emerge in the near future indicating some real progress for Ukrainian membership, Stoltenberg’s words are seen as a simple bluff, as Kiev’s access does not appear to be in NATO’s interests.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) recently launched an effort to make computerized clothing a reality — a move critics say could result in massive biometric surveillance of citizens and an increase in people’s exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) on Aug. 22 announced that the IC’s advanced research and development arm, Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), would develop its computerized clothing program — Smart Electrically Powered and Networked Textile Systems, or SMART ePANTS — over the next three-and-a-half years.

The government’s SMART ePANTS program works to create clothing with “integrated audio, video, and geolocation sensor systems that feature the same stretchability, bendability, washability, and comfort of regular textiles.”

Items slated for production include shirts, pants, socks and underwear.

IARPA, in partnership with the Naval Information Warfare Center, Pacific, awarded research contracts to develop and manufacture the computerized clothing totaling over $22 million to Nautilus Defense and Leidos, Inc., according to an Aug. 9 Pentagon announcement.

SRI International, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Areté received undisclosed amounts to develop the technology, according to an article in The Intercept.

Investment giants Vanguard and Black Rock — which benefited from the sale of COVID-19 vaccines and have ownership stakes in technology companies developing vaccine passports and digital wallets — are listed among Nautilus Defense’s and Leidos’ top investors.

SMART ePANTS Program Manager Dawson Cagle, Ph.D., who traced his inspiration for the program to a desire for better health-monitoring options for his diabetic father, said in the recent press release,

“IARPA is proud to lead this first-of-its-kind effort for both the IC and broader scientific community which will bring much-needed innovation to the field of ASTs [Active Smart Textiles].”

An article published in January in PubMed hyped the potential of electronic textiles as a “new age of wearable technology for healthcare and fitness solutions,” touting their uses in products as varied as diapers, masks and bedding, and for such applications as “monitoring health conditions, treating chronic diseases, rehabilitation, and improving health and social lifestyles.”

“SMART ePANTS could revolutionize the Internet of Things by collecting data to help intelligence, medical and sports commmunities,” wrote the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association.

But critics — including Ted Claypoole, legal expert and cyberspace law committee chair for the American Bar Association — said IARPA’s program raises major “obvious” privacy concerns.

Claypoole told The Defender that fabrics being developed by the IC are likely “not just for keeping our people safe, but also for finding and following smart-fabric wearers who do not know they are being followed.”

The development of smart fabrics and computer wearables is not a new effort, he said.

In their book, “Privacy in the Age of Big Data: Recognizing Threats, Defending Your Rights, and Protecting Your Family,” Claypoole and Theresa Payton traced commercial efforts to create smart clothing over the past decade, including a ski jacket with earphones in the hood and input devices on the sleeve that connect to the wearer’s phone via bluetooth.

However, the fact that these smart wearables are being designed by the IC is particularly worrisome to Claypoole:

“The technology, when used by the government, opens a new level of intrusion that raises serious Constitutional concerns. Will the government need a warrant to anonymously track people using these fabrics? It should, but that determination will need to be made by courts over time.”

‘I question whether any of this is legal’

W. Scott McCollough — Children’s Health Defense (CHD)’s chief litigator for the organization’s electromagnetic radiation (EMR) cases — shared Claypoole’s concerns.

“While the person choosing to wear the computerized clothing at least has given some kind of consent, all those around that person have no say at all,” McCollough said.

“I question whether any of this is legal,” McCollough added. “The technology will gather biometric data from those nearby, as well as capture all audio and visual data. There are states where all-party consent is required for this.”

Nicole de Haay, an IARPA spokesperson, told The Intercept that IARPA programs are “designed and executed in accordance with, and adhere to, strict civil liberties and privacy protection protocols.”

“IARPA performs civil liberties and privacy protection compliance reviews throughout our research efforts,” she added.

The IARPA did not elaborate further on how it would ensure that citizens’ privacy is not breached.

Computerized Clothing Likely to Exacerbate Negative Health Impacts of EMR

Miriam Eckenfels-Garcia, director of the CHD’s EMR work, pointed out that computerized clothing also raises potential health concerns.

“As with all new technology that is being sold as exciting and new,” she said, “there are concerns and drawbacks. We know about the negative health impacts of EMR. Having this technology so close to the body could pose additional health risks.”

Moreover, Eckenfels-Garcia added,

“SMART ePANTS is a step closer to the merger between humans and technology. This technology, with its many sensors, makes you part of the Internet of Things, which is part of the World Economic Forum’s agenda.”

Annie Jacobsen, author of “The Pentagon’s Brain,” about the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, pointed out that SMART ePANTS’s developments could usher in troubling new forms of government biometric surveillance.

“They’re now in a position of serious authority over you,” Jacobsen told The Intercept. “In TSA, they can swab your hands for explosives. Now suppose SMART ePANTS detects a chemical on your skin — imagine where that can lead.”

U.S. Spy Agencies Spend Billions — And Want to Spend More

IARPA noted the “smart” clothing could “assist personnel and first responders in dangerous, high-stress environments, such as crime scenes and arms control inspections without impeding their ability to swiftly and safely operate.”

In addition to running IARPA, the ODNI also oversees the National Intelligence Program which in 2022 was given $65.7 billion of taxpayer money by Congress. For its 2023 and 2024 budgets, the program asked Congress for $67.1 and $72.4 billion, respectively. These amounts are not yet approved.

The ODNI director, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate, serves as the head of the U.S. Intelligence Community by advising the president, vice president, the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council on intelligence matters related to national security.

‘We need an electronic privacy bill of rights’

According to John Whitehead, a civil liberties attorney and author, we have already moved into a system of total surveillance. The government’s funding of computerized clothing that spies on its citizens is yet another example of this, he told The Defender.

Whitehead said that the FBI already collects samples of citizens’ DNA.

“Supposedly, the police say they are doing their job to collect this information and that it doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. Well, that’s a stupid argument,” he said, adding that the courts are always behind when it comes to technology.

Whitehead said:

“Most judges do not understand it. Most are so either pro-government or pro-police that they’re going to do anything to get around [saying that it is unconstitutional].

“What we need now in this government is an electronic privacy bill of rights.”

Whitehead is working with a number of law firms to develop the concept of a legal document that “really clearly” protects citizens from electronic privacy violations of this kind.

Realistically, there is no way to escape surveillance, according to Whitehead.

“The only hope we have is if enough people will get vigilant for freedom and we can establish some kind of electronic privacy bill of rights that will limit what these people can do,” he said.

“Education precedes action, so I’m telling people to get educated about what’s going on and understand this,” he added.

Watch IARPA’s program manager discuss SMART ePants:

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.

Featured image is from CHD

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The US military is devising a new system designed to field thousands of drones controlled by artificial intelligence, deputy Pentagon chief Kathleen Hicks said on Wednesday, voicing hopes the tech would help to overcome Beijing’s “advantage in mass.”

Speaking at the yearly Defense News conference in Arlington, Virginia, Hicks outlined the Pentagon’s new “Replicator Initiative,” which aims to develop a fleet of low-cost, AI-powered drones that will operate in ‘swarms’ in the air, land and sea.

“With Replicator, we’re beginning with all-domain, attritable autonomy, or ADA2, to help us overcome the PRC’s advantage in mass: more ships, more missiles, more forces,” she said, adding that the military plans to deploy the drones “at a scale of multiple thousands, in multiple domains, within the next 18-to-24 months.”

The official did not specify costs for the new project, but insisted the Pentagon would not draw any additional funds from Congress. Instead, she said Replicator would use “existing funding, existing programming lines, and existing authorities,” although she offered few other details.

While Hicks said conflict with China “is neither imminent nor inevitable,” she went on to stress the need for “deterrence” against the People’s Republic – including “across the Taiwan Strait,” in Beijing’s back yard.

“Our goal always is to deter, because competition does not mean conflict. We must ensure the PRC leadership wakes up every day, considers the risks of aggression, and concludes, ‘today is not the day’ – and not just today, but every day, now and for the foreseeable future,” she continued.

The Pentagon deputy proposed several potential uses for the new drone system – including for surveillance and reconnaissance, missile defense, logistics support, and combat itself – saying the UAVs could be deployed in “constellations” or “flocks” to overwhelm enemy defenses.

Hicks first unveiled the Replicator program at another military conference in Washington, DC last month, where she told attendees the Pentagon would “counter the PLA mass with mass of our own.” At the same event, US Indo-Pacific Command head Admiral John Aquilino said the military is seeking the capability to identify and strike 1,000 targets in 24 hours, adding that the drone system would create a “hellscape” for Chinese troops in the event of a conflict.

Earlier this year, the US, UK, and Australian militaries held a “capabilities trial” to demonstrate new AI-powered drone systems, which were used as a “collaborative swarm to detect and track military targets,” the Pentagon said. While it is unclear exactly how artificial intelligence will factor into the Replicator program, the three allies have placed increasing focus on Beijing in the Indo-Pacific, repeatedly pledging to deploy new military capabilities in the region to counter China.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Will Porter is the assistant news editor of the Libertarian Institute and a staff writer at RT.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

New CDC Report July 2023: Developmental disability up 17%, developmental delay up 19% and rising!

I will briefly review the following peer-reviewed literature on the effects of masks on children:

• 2021 Feb – Green et al – Face masks for babies
• 2021 May 25 – Gori et al – Masking Emotions
• 2021 June 30 – Walach et al – CO2 in inhaled air (censored!)
• 2022 Jan – Kisielinski et al – Toxicity of CO2 in children
• 2022 Feb – Carnevali L et al – Face processing in early development
• 2022 May 13 – Lalonde et al – Masks impact audiovisual consonant recognition
• 2022 Dec 15 – De bolt et al – Mask impact on infant learning of faces

I will also review the following articles:

• 2023 July 13 – CDC Report (July 2023) developmental disabilities up 17%
• 2022 Oct.12 – Mask mandates stunted babies’ development (Byrne et al)
• 2021 Nov.26 – 23% dive in children’s development (Deoni et al)

2021 Feb – Green et al – Face masks for babies

• baby brain grows rapidly
• brain growth is strongly affected by experiences with people in their world
• baby can recognize a mother’s face from faces of strangers
• only takes newborns a few days to learn how to discriminate between differing emotional facial expressions, such as happy, sad and surprised
• by 5 months of age a baby can match an emotional expression like a sad face with a corresponding sad vocal expression
• a 5 year old child has developed ability to recognize and label facial expressions with the competence of most adults.
• masking may hinder an infant’s ability to develop facial processing and orientating
• may interfere with the parent-infant bond and longer-term attachment.
• delays or impairments of an infant’s cognitive, social-emotional, and/or neurobehavioral development can also occur, leading to difficulties in learning and forming effective relationships later in life.

2021 May 25 – Gori et al – Masking Emotions

• early childhood is a critical period for development of understanding emotions and emotion processing
• face masks affect emotion understanding for all ages, but the effect is especially pronounced for toddlers
• toddlers’ performance is more impaired by a mask than older children and adults
• Around 3–5 years old toddlers focus almost exclusively on facial expressions, whereas children rely on situational cues by 8 or 9 years of age. Could explain the lower performance observed in younger children when the mask is present
• Even WHO and UNICEF discourage use of masks under age 5
• unknown if younger children exposed to face masking will have altered or delayed development of social skills later in life.

2021 June 30 – Walach et al – CO2 in inhaled air (censored!)

• study measured how much CO2 children 6 to 17 years old breathe over 3 minutes with surgical and FFP2 masks
• Children had CO2 exposure 3-6 times the allowable limit after only 3 minutes of breathing with a mask
• youngest children had the highest CO2 exposures!
• study was censored (retracted)

2022 Jan – Kisielinski et al – Toxicity of CO2 in children 

• Extensive review of animal studies
• Fresh air has 0.04% CO2
• Wearing masks (surgical or N95) more than 5 minutes: 1.4 to 3.2% CO2
• 0.3% CO2 – children – irreversible neuron damage, neuron destruction, increased anxiety, impaired learning and memory
• 0.5% CO2 – adolescents – testicular toxicity

2022 Feb – Carnevali L et al – Face processing in early development

• Faces are a predominant stimulus in an infant’s environment and constitute an important source of learning from soon after birth
• Facial expressions also have a central role in early learning; processing expressions require the use of configural information that is hindered by wearing face masks
• problem: mask wearing disrupts configural face processing – no information can be obtained about the nose, cheeks, chin, mouth, and mouth movements
• problem: processing of simultaneous changes in face features building up emotional expressions is limited due to the lower part of the face being covered.
• infants typically make use of multiple scanning strategies and pay differential attention to specific face regions and features to reach developmental milestones
• they gradually learn to analyze the eyes and gaze direction within the context of the entire face configuration—which contributes to the early face bias, identity recognition, as well as emotional expression discrimination
• Language learning – Infants rely on facial information to learn language, by means of intersensory redundancy coming from mouth movements.
  • They pay particular attention to the mouth between 4 and 8 months of ageand gradually shift it to the eye region as their language expertise increases.
  • After the first year, when entering the word acquisition phase, infants again pay selective attention to the interacting adults’ mouth to learn to articulate verbal sounds.
  • If the speaking person has her mouth covered, infants cannot take advantage of audiovisual synchrony that is relevant for speech learning.
  • A disadvantage linked to this could be particularly enhanced within multilingual environments, whereby infants rely on multisensory information to disentangle languages
  • bilingual infants make use of visual information coming from the mouth region to disambiguate between languages from 8 months of age. These infants are going to struggle more.

2022 May 13 – Lalonde et al – Masks impact auditory and audiovisual consonant recognition 

• Face masks disrupt speech understanding by concealing lip-reading cues and reducing transmission of high-frequency acoustic speech content
• the combination of a noisy environment and face masks negatively impacts speech understanding in children
• CDC guidelines suggest teachers wear a transparent mask if they interact with students with special education or healthcare needs, teach young students who are learning to read, teach English as a second language, or teach students with disabilities including hearing loss.

2022 Dec 15 – De bolt et al – Mask impact on infant learning of faces 

• studied how face masks influence face memory in 6 to 9 month old infants
• Infants showed memory for the faces if the faces were unmasked at test, regardless of whether or not the face was masked during familiarization
• infants did not show robust evidence of memory when test faces were masked, regardless of the familiarization condition

Articles: 

2023 July 13 – Face mask effect: developmental disabilities 

• CDC Report released in July 2023 shows:
• children ages 3-17: developmental disabilities are up 17% in 2021 (includes speech disorders, dyslexia, ADHD)
• children ages 3-17: developmental delays are up 19% in 2021
• boys have higher prevalence of developmental disability than girls with 10.8% for boys vs 5.3% for girls
• Boys have higher prevalence of intellectual disability than girls, with 2.3% for boys vs 1.4% for girls
• Boys (4.7%) were more than three times as likely as girls (1.5%) to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.
• prevalence of intellectual disability increased with age
• prevalence of other developmental delay decreased with age

2022 Oct. 12 – Mask mandates stunted babies’ development

• (Byrne et al) – A paper led by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, researchers looked at 309 babies born between March and May 2020.
• Lockdowns and mask mandates have stunted babies’ development
• Study looked at 10 developmental milestones at 1 year old
• lockdown babies were 14% less likely to have said one definite word
• lockdown babies were 9% less likely to have started pointing
• lockdown babies were 6% less likely to wave goodbye
• authors say face masks limited children’s ability to read facial expressions or see people’s mouths move — a crucial part of learning to speak. 

2021 Nov. 26 – 23% dive in Children’s development 

• Paper by Deoni et al – The COVID-19 Pandemic and Early Child Cognitive Development: A Comparison of Development in Children Born During the Pandemic
• Social distancing measures including face masks are suspected of causing young children’s development to drop by up to 23% during the COVID pandemic
• 23% drop in scores measuring kids’ IQ since the start of the pandemic
• 30% drop in verbal development quotient
• 24% drop in non-verbal development quotient
• “children born during the pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic.”
• “masks worn in public settings and in school or daycare settings may impact a range of early developing skills, such as attachment, facial processing, and socio-emotional processing”

My Take…

Here in Alberta, Canada, we have far left activist PEDIATRICIANS who publicly claim that there is NO HARM inflicted on children via masking. Here is an example:

Dr. Tehseen Ladha is an Alberta, Canada pediatrician at University of Alberta, with a Master of Public Health from Johns Hopkins.  

Her pronouns are: she’s/corrupt.

This is the level of medical malpractice and evil we are dealing with.

Many pediatricians are willing to intentionally harm thousands of children in order to promote the fraudulent COVID-19 propaganda and narrative.

To summarize:

• “Children born during the pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic.”
• “Masks worn in public settings and in school or daycare settings impact a range of early developing skills, such as attachment, facial processing, and socio-emotional processing”
• 23% drop in children’s IQ since start of pandemic (Deoni et al)
• 30% drop in verbal development quotient (Deoni et al)
• 24% drop in non-verbal development quotient (Deoni et al)
• lockdowns and mask mandates have stunted babies’ development
• 1 yo lockdown babies 14% less likely to have said one definite word (Byrne et al)
• 1 yo lockdown babies 9% less likely to have started pointing (Byrne et al)
• 1 yo lockdown babies 6% less likely to wave goodbye (Byrne et al)
• kids 3-17: developmental disabilities are up 17% in 2021 (CDC July 2023)
• kids 3-17: developmental delays are up 19% in 2021 (CDC July 2023)
• bilingual children are at a severe disadvantage and will struggle more with masking as they make use of visual information coming from the mouth region to disambiguate between languages from 8 months of age.
• face masks affect emotion understanding for all ages, but the effect is especially pronounced for toddlers
• currently unknown if younger children exposed to face masking will have altered or delayed development of social skills later in life.

When it comes to masks and children, it’s all harm and no benefit. When you put a mask on a child, the toxic CO2 exposure after only minutes of mask wearing, starts damaging and killing off their neurons. 

Younger children who are placed in an environment of unscientific and unethical mask mandates, experience developmental difficulties and delays, learning problems, speech problems and socio-emotional problems.

We have not begun to fully understand the damage that has been done to kids via masks that are ineffective in a respiratory viral outbreak and mask mandates that were implemented in schools and in society.

Parents must draw a line in the sand and not allow mask mandates of any kind ever again.

Especially now that they’re attempting to bring them back.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

Featured image is from COVID Intel

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

A Spanish company recruiting volunteers to fight in Ukraine claims to be in contact with the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence, offering contracts for up to €3,400.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The Pentagon confirmed Wednesday that the U.S. will send depleted uranium ammunition to Ukraine as part of a new $175 million military aid package, drawing outrage from progressive foreign policy advocates who have warned against such a move and noted the horrific impact such weapons have had in Iraq and elsewhere.

A byproduct of natural uranium enrichment, depleted uranium is highly dense and often used for projectiles designed to pierce tanks and other armored vehicles. On impact, depleted uranium weapons produce a cloud of particles that can be inhaled by soldiers and nearby civilians.

The Pentagon said it is sending Ukraine 120mm depleted uranium rounds that can be fired from the Abrams tanks the U.S. is also set to begin delivering.

The announcement came weeks after the U.S. shipped widely banned cluster munitions to Ukraine, ignoring human rights groups’ warnings about the potentially devastating consequences for civilians in the present and years into the future.

“It wasn’t enough for the U.S. to send cluster bombs that will kill children for generations to Ukraine,” Aída Chávez, communications director for the progressive anti-war group Just Foreign Policy, wrote on social media. “Now, the Biden admin is sending depleted uranium—which will cause babies to be born with severe deformities and cancer.”

“To this day,” Chávez added, “children in places like Fallujah are being born with gruesome birth defects due to the U.S. military’s use of depleted uranium.”

The U.S.-led coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003 used thousands of tonnes of depleted uranium bombs and shells over just a three-week period that year.

Research suggests the lasting health effects for Iraqis have been severe.

According to a study published in the journal Environmental Pollution in 2020, proximity to a U.S. military base in Iraq was linked to “higher levels of uranium and thorium” and a greater risk of birth defects, including heart problems and missing limbs.

The study notes that thorium is “a radioactive compound and a direct depleted uranium decay product.”

A 2021 study published in BMJ Public Health also found “possible associations between exposure to depleted uranium and adverse health outcomes among the Iraqi population,” though the authors noted that “U.S. sanctions on Iraq may have played a role in limiting research and publication on the health impacts of weaponized uranium.”

“Biden’s decision to send tanks with depleted uranium to Ukraine has been made possible in large part because Britain led the way.”

The U.S. is not the first country to send depleted uranium to Ukraine as it fights invading Russian forces. The United Kingdom announced in March that it would deliver thousands of rounds of depleted uranium ammunition to the Ukrainian military.

Moscow decried the U.S. decision to arm Ukrainian forces with depleted uranium as “an indicator of inhumanity” and has threatened to use its own stockpile of depleted uranium.

Phil Miller, chief reporter for Declassified UK, said in a Democracy Now! appearance on Wednesday that “Biden’s decision to send tanks with depleted uranium to Ukraine has been made possible in large part because Britain led the way on this.”

Earlier this week, Miller reported that a U.K. tank capable of firing depleted uranium rounds was destroyed in Ukraine, prompting contamination fears.

“What we’ve seen in other conflicts, notably in Iraq, is that these tank hulls litter the battlefield for many years after the conflict,” Miller said Wednesday. “Children go and play on them, thinking they’re some kind of climbing frame, and they can become contaminated with depleted uranium, leading to very rare forms of cancer.”

“It really is quite alarming to now think that this is going to be used or is being used in Ukraine in areas where, you know, we want Ukrainian civilians to be able to live after the conflict,” Miller added. “On top of dealing with unexploded cluster munitions, they’re also going to have this huge hazard of depleted uranium to contend with, as well.”

[From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.]

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jake Johnson is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.

Featured image is from Morning Star

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In commemoration of the 22nd anniversary of 9/11, we repost this article by Ted Walter and the late Prof. Graeme MacQueen, first published in 2020.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Editor’s Note

As of the publication of this article, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is awaiting a decision from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the request for correction that AE911Truth and ten family members of 9/11 victims submitted to NIST on April 15, 2020. The request seeks corrections to eight separate items of information in NIST’s 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, any of which would effectively force NIST to reverse its conclusion that fires caused the building’s destruction.

NIST informed AE911Truth on June 12, 2020, that it was unable to meet its goal of responding within 60 days. Under the procedure governing such requests, NIST must provide a decision within 120 days of the submission, which would fall on August 13, 2020. If NIST elects not to take the corrective action being sought, AE911Truth and its fellow requesters would then have 30 days to file an appeal with NIST. Should NIST fail in any way to comply with the procedure governing requests or should it fail to rectify the information quality violations documented in the request, AE911Truth and its fellow requesters are prepared to take legal action.

In the meantime, AE911Truth is taking one further step toward correcting the record on the destruction of the Twin Towers with the publication of this article. This exhaustive review of 70 hours of 9/11 news coverage reveals that the hypothesis of explosions bringing down the Twin Towers was not only prevalent among reporters covering the events in New York City on 9/11 but was, in fact, the dominant hypothesis.

The 36 reporters who brought us the Twin Towers’ explosive demolition on 9/11 include, by network, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Cynthia McFadden; CBS’s Harold Dow, Tom Flynn, Mika Brzezinski, and Carol Marin (appearing on WCBS); NBC’s Pat Dawson and Anne Thompson; CNN’s Aaron Brown, Rose Arce, Patty Sabga, and Alan Dodds Frank; Fox News’ David Lee Miller and Rick Leventhal; MSNBC’s Ashleigh Banfield and Rick Sanchez; CNBC’s John Bussey, Ron Insana, and Bob Pisani; WABC’s N.J. Burkett, Michelle Charlesworth, Nina Pineda, Cheryl Fiandaca, and Joe Torres; WCBS’s John Slattery, Marcella Palmer, Vince DeMentri, and Marcia Kramer; WNBC’s Walter Perez; New York 1’s Kristen Shaughnessy, Andrew Siff, John Schiumo, and Andrew Kirtzman; USA Today’s Jack Kelley; and two unidentified reporters (1 and 2) who attended a press conference with Mayor Giuliani and Governor Pataki. Video clips of each reporter’s statements on 9/11 can be viewed below.

***

See the authors followup article (Part II) published on September 9, 2022:

The Triumph of the Official Narrative: How the TV Networks Hid the Twin Towers’ Explosive Demolition on 9/11

By Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Ted Walter, September 09, 2022

***

The widely held belief that the Twin Towers collapsed as a result of the airplane impacts and the resulting fires is, unbeknownst to most people, a revisionist theory. Among individuals who witnessed the event firsthand, the more prevalent hypothesis was that the Twin Towers had been brought down by massive explosions.

This observation was first made 14 years ago in the article, “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers.” A review of interviews conducted with 503 members of the New York Fire Department (FDNY) in the weeks and months after 9/11 revealed that 118 of them described witnessing what they interpreted that day to be explosions. Only 10 FDNY members were found describing the destruction in ways supportive of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

The interviews of fire marshal John Coyle and firefighter Christopher Fenyo explicitly support this finding. Coyle remarked in his interview, “I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I thought for hours afterwards. . . . Everybody I think at that point still thought these things were blown up.” Similarly, Fenyo recalled in his interview, “At that point, a debate began to rage [about whether to continue rescue operations in the other, still-standing tower] because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges.”

News reporters constitute another group of individuals who witnessed the event firsthand and whose accounts were publicly documented. While many people have seen a smattering of news clips on the internet in which reporters describe explosions, there has never been, as far as we know, a systematic attempt to collect these news clips and analyze them.

We decided to take on this task for two reasons. First, we wanted to know just how prevalent the explosion hypothesis was among reporters. Second, anticipating that this would be the more prevalent hypothesis, we wanted to determine exactly how it was supplanted by the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse.

In this article, we present our findings related to the first question. In a subsequent article, we will examine how the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse so quickly supplanted the originally dominant explosion hypothesis.

Television Coverage Compiled

To determine how prevalent the explosion hypothesis was among reporters, we set out to review as much continuous news coverage as we could find from the major television networks, cable news channels, and local network affiliates covering the events in New York.

Through internet searches, we found continuous news coverage from 11 different television networks, cable news channels, and local network affiliates. These included the networks ABC, CBS, and NBC; cable news channels CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNBC; and local network affiliates WABC, WCBS, and WNBC. We also incorporated coverage from New York One (NY1), a New York-based cable news channel owned by Time Warner (now Spectrum), which we grouped with the local network affiliates into a local channel category.

Unfortunately, we were not able to find coverage spanning most of the day for every channel. Thus, while the collection of news coverage we compiled is extensive, it is not comprehensive. To fill in the gaps where possible, we included excerpts of coverage that aired later in the day if we found that coverage to be relevant. We also included one excerpt from USA Today’s coverage that we found to be relevant and three excerpts from an afternoon press conference with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Governor George Pataki that aired on almost every channel. In general, the times at which these excerpts aired are unknown, though in some cases we were able to identify an approximate time.

The news coverage we compiled and reviewed totaled approximately 70 hours.

Table 1: Television Coverage Compiled

Note: We invite anyone who has portions of the television coverage we were not able to find to send them to us at [email protected]. We will incorporate anything we receive and update this article accordingly. For anyone who wishes to replicate our work, the entire collection of footage can be downloaded here.

Criteria for Defining ‘Explosion’ Versus ‘Non-Explosion’ Reporters

We sought to answer one main question in our review of the news coverage: How many reporters described the occurrence of explosions — both the raw number of reporters and as a percentage of all reporters who covered the Twin Towers’ destruction — and what was the nature of their reporting? To answer this question, we needed to establish clear criteria for identifying what we will call “explosion reporters” and “non-explosion reporters.”

We should make clear that this article addresses the statements of reporters only and does not address the statements of anchors, except for in the case of one anchor (CNN’s Aaron Brown) who had a direct view of the Twin Towers. In our next article, we will address statements made by anchors, who were also interpreting the Twin Towers’ destruction but without having witnessed it firsthand.

Because the airplane impacts were often referred to as explosions, we were careful to exclude any instances where it was not absolutely clear that the reporter was referring only to the destruction of the Twin Towers.

As we studied the news coverage and began to recognize patterns in how the Twin Towers’ destruction was reported, we developed three separate categories of reporting that would classify someone as an “explosion reporter”: (1) eyewitness reporting, (2) narrative reporting, and (3) source-based reporting. Below we provide definitions of each.

Eyewitness Reporting

“Eyewitness reporting” is when a reporter is an eyewitness with a direct view of or in close proximity to the destruction of one or both of the Twin Towers and perceives an explosion or explosions in conjunction with the destruction — or perceives one or both of the towers as exploding, blowing up, blowing, or erupting. Although we usually excluded the word “boom,” which could apply either to an explosion or to a collapse, we included it in one case because the totality of what the reporter (Nina Pineda) described indicated that she viewed the event as being explosion-based.

We did not include reporters who described only a “shaking” or “trembling” of the ground. The perception of the ground shaking was widespread and constitutes important eyewitness evidence, but it does not necessarily reveal much about how the reporter interpreted what she or he was witnessing. Among reporters who mentioned demolition, we excluded the ones who merely compared the destruction to a demolition whenever it was clear that the reporter believed it to be a collapse caused by structural failure. We also excluded reporters who used the word “implode” or “implosion” whenever it was clear that the reporter used it to describe the building collapsing in on itself, as opposed to a demolition.

Here is an example of eyewitness reporting:

David Lee Miller, Fox News, 10:01 AM:

“Suddenly, while talking to an officer who was questioning me about my press credentials, we heard a very loud blast, an explosion. We looked up, and the building literally began to collapse before us. . . . Not clear now is why this explosion took place. Was it because of the planes that, uh, two planes, dual attacks this morning, or was there some other attack, which is — there has been talk of here on the street.”

Narrative Reporting

“Narrative reporting” is when a reporter refers to the Twin Towers’ destruction as an explosion-based event when speaking of it in the course of his or her reporting. This could be a reporter who was an eyewitness to the destruction or a reporter who otherwise understood the destruction to be an explosion-based event.

The main distinction between eyewitness reporting and narrative reporting is that eyewitness reporting involves an eyewitness describing his or her direct perceptions, often uttering them spontaneously, while narrative reporting involves interpretation and/or outside influence, either of which inform the reporter’s developing narrative of what took place. (In several cases, reporters go from engaging in eyewitness reporting around the time of the destruction to engaging in narrative reporting later on, with their direct perceptions informing their developing narrative).

This distinction is not meant to imply that one type of reporting is more valuable or reliable than another. In this analysis, eyewitness reporting tells us about what reporters perceived and immediately interpreted during, or shortly after, the event. It thus gives us more information about the actual event. Narrative reporting, by contrast, tells us how reporters interpreted the event after having more time to process their perceptions and to synthesize additional information from other sources. Narrative reporting thus tells us about the collective narrative that was developing among reporters covering the event.

Here is an example of narrative reporting:

George Stephanopoulos, ABC, 12:27 PM:

“Well, Peter, I’m going to give you kind of a pool report from several of our correspondents down here of basically what happened down here in downtown New York between 9:45 and 10:45 when the two explosions and the collapse of the World Trade Center happened. At the time, I was actually in the subway heading towards the World Trade Center right around Franklin Street. And after the first explosion the subway station started to fill with smoke. The subway cars started to fill with smoke, and the subways actually stopped. They then diverted us around the World Trade Center to Park Place, which is one stop beyond the World Trade Center. We got to that train station at around 10:35, Peter, and it was a scene unlike I’ve ever seen before in my entire life.”

Source-based Reporting

“Source-based reporting” is when a reporter reports on the possible use of explosives based on information from government officials who said they suspected that explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers.

Source-based reporting is similar to narrative reporting in that it involves outside influence. The main distinction is that source-based reporting is based on information from government sources. Information from government sources inherently indicates how government agencies were interpreting the event and is sometimes given extra weight by reporters and viewers.

Here is an example of source-based reporting:

Pat Dawson, NBC, 11:55 AM:

“Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department . . . [He] told me that shortly after 9 o’clock he had roughly 10 alarms, roughly 200 men in the building trying to effect rescues of some of those civilians who were in there, and that basically he received word of a possibility of a secondary device— that is, another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here. So obviously, according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. . . . But the bottom line is that, according to the Chief of Safety of the New York City Fire Department, he says that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions. And he said that there were literally hundreds if not thousands of people in those two towers when the explosions took place.”

Non-Explosion Reporters

The main criterion we developed for classifying someone as a “non-explosion reporter” was that she or he reported on the destruction of one or both of the Twin Towers and did not engage in any of the types of explosion reporting defined above. To qualify as a non-explosion reporter, it was not necessary for the reporter to explicitly articulate the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. The mere absence of explosion reporting was enough to classify someone as a non-explosion reporter.

The challenge here lay not in identifying the absence of explosion reporting but in defining what constituted “reporting on the destruction.” In the end, we decided this should mean that the reporter had to describe the event of the destruction and not simply mention it in passing.

We should note that a reporter’s use of the word “collapse” did not necessarily qualify that person as a non-explosion reporter. Many explosion reporters described the occurrence of an explosion followed by collapse and they used the word “collapse” in their reporting (David Lee Miller, quoted above, is a prime example). Thus, use of the word “collapse” is not incompatible with being an explosion reporter and did not qualify someone as a non-explosion reporter.

Also, if a reporter made a statement that qualified him or her as an explosion reporter and then subsequently made a statement explicitly supporting the fire-induced collapse hypothesis (which is the case for WABC’s Joe Torres), we classified this reporter as an explosion reporter because he or she engaged in some explosion reporting at some point during the day. In this analysis, being classified as an “explosion reporter” does not imply a permanent stance. Rather, it just means that at some point in the day he or she reported the occurrence of explosions or the possible use of explosives in relation to the Twin Towers’ destruction.

Before we move on to the next section, it is important to note that because non-explosion reporters had to describe the event of the destruction and not simply mention it in passing, the only way to make a valid numerical comparison between explosion reporters and non-explosion reporters is to include only those who engaged in eyewitness reporting. According to the criteria we developed, explosion reporters who engaged in narrative reporting were not describing the event of the destruction but rather were referring to it as an explosion-based event in the course of their reporting, i.e., in passing. A comparable classification does not exist for non-explosion reporters, because we excluded those who only mentioned the event in passing (most commonly using the word “collapse”).

Numerical Analysis of ‘Explosion’ and ‘Non-Explosion’ Reporters

In total, we identified 36 explosion reporters and four non-explosion reporters in the approximately 70 hours of news coverage we reviewed. The 36 explosion reporters and their statements are listed in Appendix A. The four non-explosion reporters and their statements are listed in Appendix B. In addition, there were three borderline cases that we determined could not be clearly classified as either explosion or non-explosion reporters. Those cases are listed in Appendix C.

Of the 36 explosion reporters, 21 of them engaged in eyewitness reporting, 22 of them engaged in narrative reporting, and three of them engaged in source-based reporting. Recalling our definitions from above, this means the following:

• 21 reporters witnessed what they perceived as an explosion or explosions during the destruction of the Twin Towers or they perceived the Twin Towers as exploding, blowing up, blowing, or erupting.

• 22 reporters (eight of whom also fall into the eyewitness reporting category) referred to the Twin Towers’ destruction as an explosion or an explosion-based event when speaking of it in the course of their reporting.

• Three reporters (two of whom also fall into the narrative reporting category) reported on the possible use of explosives based on information from government officials who said they suspected that explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers.

• Four reporters reported on the destruction of the Twin Towers and did not report explosions in any way (either having witnessed explosions, having interpreted the destruction as being an explosion-based event, or having been informed by government officials about the possible use of explosives).

In terms of the percentage of explosion and non-explosion reporters, 21 of the 25 reporters who directly witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers, or 84%, either perceived an explosion or explosions or they perceived the Twin Towers as exploding, blowing up, blowing, or erupting. In comparison, four of the 25 reporters who directly witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers, or 16%, did not report explosions in any way.

The tables below list each reporter and each instance of reporting according to the time at which each report was made.

Table 2A: Eyewitness Reporting by Explosion Reporters

Table 2B: Narrative Reporting by Explosion Reporters

*These reporters also engaged in eyewitness reporting.

Table 2C: Source-based Reporting by Explosion Reporters

*These reporters also engaged in narrative reporting.

Table 2D: Non-Explosion Reporters

How Reporters Reported the Twin Towers’ Destruction

The picture that unmistakably emerges is that the great majority of reporters who witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers either perceived an explosion or perceived the towers as exploding. This hypothesis of the Twin Towers’ destruction then continued to be prevalent among reporters covering the event, who essentially viewed the destruction of the towers as an explosion-based attack subsequent to the airplane strikes. We learn from the source-based reporting that the same hypothesis was also held by officials in the FDNY, the New York Police Department (NYPD), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) — three of the most important agencies involved in the response to the attacks. In particular, with regard to the FBI, we are told the explosion hypothesis was the agency’s “working theory” as of late in the afternoon on 9/11.

Unlike members of the FDNY, most of whom provided their accounts during interviews conducted weeks or months after the event, it was the job of reporters to spontaneously communicate their perception and interpretation of events. Thus, when their reporting is compiled into one record, we are left with a rich and largely unfiltered collective account of what took place. Considered alongside the FDNY oral histories, these reporters’ statements, in our view, constitute strong corroborating evidence that explosives were used to destroy the Twin Towers.

Regarding the four non-explosion reporters, in addition to the fact that there are so few of them, we find that their individual accounts add little support to the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

Two of the reporters were quite far away from the Twin Towers at the time of their destruction relative to most of the explosion reporters: Drew Millhon was “about 10 to 12 blocks north of the World Trade Center,” at the intersection of Varick Street and Canal Street, while Bob Bazell was at St. Vincent’s hospital on West 12th Street, approximately two miles from the World Trade Center. Meanwhile, Don Dahler, the only reporter who explicitly articulated the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, nonetheless likened the South Tower’s destruction to a controlled demolition, saying: “The entire building has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off — when you see the old demolitions of these old buildings.” The fourth non-explosion reporter, John Zito, was quite close to the South Tower when it came down. He did not describe an explosion, but he also did not attribute the destruction to a fire-induced collapse. It is worth noting that Ron Insana, whom Zito was with, vividly described seeing the building “exploding” and “blowing” and hearing a “noise associated with an implosion.”

Conclusion

Returning to the first question posed at the top of this article, we conclude that the hypothesis of explosions bringing down the Twin Towers was not only prevalent among reporters but was, in fact, the dominant hypothesis.

Furthermore, the 21 instances of eyewitness reporting, all of which contain spontaneous descriptions of the phenomena the reporters witnessed, strongly corroborate the overwhelming scientific evidence that explosives were used to destroy the Twin Towers.

In a subsequent article, we will examine how the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse so quickly supplanted the originally dominant explosion hypothesis.

***

Appendix A: Statements by 36 Explosion Reporters

These statements are organized by channel in the same order as presented in Table 1. Within each channel, they are organized chronologically based on the time of the first noted statement by each reporter.

1. George Stephanopoulos, ABC

12:27 PM, Narrative Reporting

“Well, Peter, I’m going to give you kind of a pool report from several of our correspondents down here of basically what happened down here in downtown New York between 9:45 and 10:45 when the two explosions and the collapse of the World Trade Center happened. At the time, I was actually in the subway heading towards the World Trade Center, right around Franklin Street. And after the first explosion the subway station started to fill with smoke. The subway cars started to fill with smoke, and the subways actually stopped. They then diverted us around the World Trade Center to Park Place, which is one stop beyond the World Trade Center. We got to that train station at around 10:35, Peter, and it was a scene unlike I’ve ever seen before in my entire life. As we tried to get out of the subway station and walk up into the street, it was pitch black, midnight black, snowing soot all down through downtown Manhattan. This was about two blocks from the World Trade Center. You couldn’t see a foot in front of your face at that time.”

2. Cynthia McFadden, ABC

5:56 PM, Narrative Reporting

“We’ve been told that all victims now who are taken out of the blast site are going to be taken here first. . . . Part of the problem initially was that when the first rescue workers went in — and we have talked to some of them, some of the second wave of rescue workers — the first wave of rescue workers who went in were trapped, many of them killed by the second blast. . . . There have been hundreds of people at area hospitals, as you note. But they don’t believe that anywhere near the full weight of this has yet been uncovered, that there are hundreds and thousands of people who have been injured in this blast, and that’s the people that they expect to bring here.”

3. Harold Dow, CBS

10:05 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Yes, I arrived on the scene about an hour and a half ago. Believe it or not, there was another major explosion. The building itself, literally the top of it came down, sending smoke and debris everywhere. I tried to run to get away from all of the debris. A number of other people here are trapped in the subway here in a shoe store, trying to get away from most of the debris. It’s just an incredible sight.”

4. Tom Flynn, CBS

11:03, Eyewitness Reporting

“At that time, maybe 45 minutes into the taping that we were doing, which was maybe a half hour after, there was — it was an explosion. It was way up where the fire was. And the whole building at that point bellied out in flames, and everybody ran.”

5. Mika Brzezinski, CBS

11:15 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Dan, we’re three blocks from the scene and we saw it all after the first two hits. We saw the explosion and also the collapse of the tower.”

6. Pat Dawson, NBC

11:55 AM, Source-based Reporting

“Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, who was obviously one of the first people here on the scene after those two planes were crashed into the side — we assume — of the World Trade Center towers, which used to be behind me over there. Chief Albert Turi told me that he was here just literally 10 or 15 minutes after the events that took place this morning, that is, the first crash. . . . [He] told me that shortly after 9 o’clock he had roughly 10 alarms, roughly 200 men in the building trying to effect rescues of some of those civilians who were in there, and that basically he received word of a possibility of a secondary device — that is, another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here. So obviously, according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks, that took place after the initial impact, he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building. So that’s what we have been told by Albert Turi, who is the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department. He told me that just moments ago. . . . But the bottom line is that, according to the Chief of Safety of the New York City Fire Department, he says that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions. And he said that there were literally hundreds if not thousands of people in those two towers when the explosions took place.”

3:02 PM, Narrative Reporting

Dawson asks a police officer: “How would you describe your efforts to organize to the rescue effort now, given that we saw a sequence of events this morning? A sequence of crashes, then explosions, and then the collapses.”

7. Anne Thompson, NBC

12:43 PM, Eyewitness Reporting

“And I was walking on Broadway at Fulton, and suddenly we heard an explosion. It was the first tower coming down. And down Broadway you could just see this wall of debris flying at us. . . . It looked like a war zone. Debris, dust ankle deep, cars on fire, cars turned askew in the explosion. . . . Then at about 10:30 it looked like everything was all clear. I started to walk out. I walked down Broadway towards Canal. And we heard the second explosion. . . . At that point a fireman came into the building and said we all had to stay in one place. He then told us all to get out of the building because they felt if there was a third explosion that this building would be in danger.”

8. Aaron Brown, CNN

Note: Although Aaron Brown is a news anchor, we include him among the explosion reporters because he was positioned outside and witnessed the events directly, and his direct perception played a major role in his evolving interpretation of the event.

9:59 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Wow! Jamie. Jamie, I need you to stop for a second. There has just been a huge explosion. We can see a billowing smoke rising. And I can’t — I’ll tell you that I can’t see that second tower. But there was a cascade of sparks and fire and now this…it looks almost like a mushroom cloud, explosion, this huge, billowing smoke in the second tower. This was the second of the two towers hit. And I, you know, I cannot see behind that smoke obviously, as you can’t either. The first tower in front has not changed. And we see this extraordinarily (sic) and frightening scene behind us of this second tower now just encased in smoke. What is behind it…I cannot tell you. But just look at that. That is about as frightening a scene as you will ever see.”

10:02 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Again, there has been a second explosion here in Manhattan at the Trade Center. We are getting reports that a part of the tower, the second tower, the one a bit further to the south of us, has collapsed. We are checking on that. . . . What we can tell you is that just in the last several minutes here — two or three minutes — a second or third, I guess, technically, extraordinary event has happened here in lower Manhattan. You can see this extraordinary plume of smoke that is, or was at least, the second tower of the World Trade Center.”

9. Rose Arce, CNN

10:29 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“I’m about a block away. And there were several people that were hanging out the windows right below where the plane crashed, when suddenly you saw the top of the building start to shake, and people began leaping from the windows in the north side of the building. You saw two people at first plummet and then a third one, and then the entire top of the building just blew up, and splinters of debris are falling on the street.”

10:50 AM, Narrative Reporting

“It looks like a large chunk of that debris has hit a building very close by, about two blocks away next to an elementary school, causing another explosion. . . . So as people are coming up the street running from the scene of this new explosion you can see them slipping on the ash and literally having to drag each other up the street.”

Note: We include Rose Arce’s statement at 10:50 AM as narrative reporting because it indicates that she initially perceived and then continued to interpret the destruction of the Twin Towers as explosions.

12:26 PM, Narrative Reporting

“As you walk through the ash you can see debris from inside the World Trade Center itself, a very eerie scene, pieces of paper from people’s desks, office supplies many, many blocks from the site the actual explosion where they now are fearing that there may be yet another explosion because of this potential gas leak.”

10:43 PM, Eyewitness Reporting

“People were rushing to the windows. They were taking clothes — one thing looked like a blanket that they were waving — and then suddenly there was another, an explosion, and you saw folks start to jump out the front window of the building and plunge. I saw at least six people do this. Folks were pushing each other. Some people were screaming for help and then just falling out.”

10. Patty Sabga, CNN

10:57 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“About an hour ago I was on the corner of Broadway and Park Place — that’s about a thousand yards from the World Trade Center — when the first tower collapsed. It was a massive explosion. At the time the police were trying desperately to evacuate people from the area. When that explosion occurred it was like a scene out of a horror film.”

10:59 AM, Narrative Reporting

“The scene was like a ghost town in the Financial District. Very eerie. You saw people being wheeled on gurneys away from the site of the explosion. . . . Now, at the time I was back on the corner again of Broadway and Park Place. At that time, the police started running toward us telling everybody to move who was left on the street. I looked up and that’s when I heard the — [coughs] pardon me — that’s when I heard the explosion. That’s when the second tower came down.”

11. Alan Dodds Frank, CNN

11:07 AM, Narrative Reporting

“Aaron, just two or three minutes ago there was yet another collapse or explosion. . . . But at a quarter to 11:00 there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second Tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon.”

Note: We include Alan Dodds Frank’s statement at 11:07 AM as narrative reporting because it indicates that he interpreted the destruction of the Twin Towers as possibly being an explosion-based event.

12. David Lee Miller, Fox News

10:01 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Jon, the scene is horrific. One of the two towers literally collapsed. I was making my way to the foot of the World Trade Center. Suddenly, while talking to an officer who was questioning me about my press credentials, we heard a very loud blast, an explosion. We looked up, and the building literally began to collapse before us. . . . And I am now standing in a black cloud of smoke. . . . I’m on a pay phone on the street right now and I literally cannot see more than quarter-block away. That’s how thick the smoke is. I’m on Murray Street and West Broadway for those who know Lower Manhattan. Not clear now is why this explosion took place. Was it because of the planes that, uh, two planes, dual attacks this morning, or was there some other attack which is — there has been talk of here on the street.”

10:32 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Jon, just seconds ago there was a huge explosion, and it appears right now the second World Trade tower has just collapsed.”

13. Rick Leventhal, Fox News

10:05 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

He asks a police officer: “Do you know if it was an explosion or if it was a building collapse?”

Then he asks: “How many people would you say were on the ground when the building exploded or collapsed?”

10:06 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“When the building did collapse — or whatever it was that happened — it was a huge explosion, a huge rumbling cloud of smoke and fire came a cross Church Street and started billowing this way. . . The FBI is here, as you can see. They had roped this area off. They were taking photographs and securing this area just prior to that huge explosion that we all heard and felt.”

10:12 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“And we were standing here when there was some sort of collapse or explosion and everyone started running in this direction.”

14. Ashleigh Banfield, MSNBC

9:59 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

Chris Jansing (news anchor): “It does appear that there has been a third explosion in the area of the World Trade Center. There was first one plane that hit one of the Twin Towers. A second plane, each about one hour ago. And now a third explosion. Ashleigh Banfield is in Manhattan. Ashleigh, did you see or hear anything just moments ago?”

Ashleigh Banfield: “God. Oh my god, Chris, this is incredible. I’m looking right at it.”

Jansing: “What are you seeing, Ashleigh?”

Banfield: “Well, I saw the explosion, for one.”

Jansing: “Could you feel it?”

Banfield: “I can smell it. Everyone around screamed at the time it happened. It’s just unbelievable. I can’t see that it’s another building. It looks almost in the same position as the second bomb, or second explosion. It’s unbelievable.”

Jansing: “What’s the scene around you? What are people doing?

Banfield: “Most people, as I said earlier, are absolutely aghast.

Jansing: “Are they running?”

Banfield: “No one’s running. No, I’m not close enough at this point to be seeing that. I wouldn’t be showered with debris from my position here. I’m too far north of it. But I have a bird’s eye view of what’s happening. The route that I’m on is the emergency route right now, so all of the emergency vehicles are streaming past us. But as I was looking up I saw the entire explosion. It looked exactly like the first two. Unbelievable. And everyone who watched it around me screamed. It was just a chorus of “oh my gods” from everyone standing around. I’m walking, so what I’m hearing are a lot of people whose cars are parked, who’ve got their radios tuned to local news stations and trying to catch up on just exactly what’s happening. But now I’m seeing people running. But I really don’t think they’re running from the area. We’re too far away to be in the direct line of any debris. But we certainly had the most perfect vantage point for that explosion. It was unbelievable. And the smoke now is so thick. It’s just incredible.”

10:54 AM, Narrative Reporting

“Well, we just heard another explosion go off a couple minutes ago, Chris, and saw a bunch more people sort of running this way. A woman on her bike was screaming as it went off. And there was a New York City officer who was plain-clothed walking by with a radio. I tried to stop him to ask what happened. And all he said was ‘car bomb, car bomb.’ And then I couldn’t ask him for any information. He said, ‘I have no time for this.’ We haven’t seen anything since. But the cloud of smoke is still extremely thick right around the direct vicinity of the World Trade Center. I am now about, I’d say — what do you say, we’re about five or 10 blocks north of it now? About five or 10 blocks north of it, and just unbelievably the sun has come out. There’s blue sky above us. We started with sheer blackness. When that cloud of debris and of smoke came out, when the explosion happened, we couldn’t see anything, we couldn’t breathe. We tried to make our way a few blocks up and we’ve made contact with some other NBC crew here.”

10:55 AM, Narrative Reporting

“It’s terrifying here, Chris. When that last bomb — or when that last collapse happened, and the cloud came out, it was like something out of Hollywood. . . . It’s really eerie seeing the people who got caught in that blast, because everyone looks like a ghost.”

1:35 PM, Narrative Reporting

“What did you see in the epicenter when you came out of that explosion?”

1:36 PM, Narrative Reporting

“At the very start of the day when this happened, we were right in the epicenter where the explosion was. Right now I’m covered in the debris and the dust from the explosion itself. I was hit with a cloud of debris and smoke.”

1:37 PM, Narrative Reporting

“That is 7 World Trade Center. Apparently on the south side, that’s the side that’s not facing us, about halfway way up it’s still burning pretty badly, because it was rocked with a lot of the explosion from the force of the Twin World Trade Centers, when they came down. A large concern is what’s going to happen with that brown building now, which is why we keep getting moved further and further north. You can see people down on the street moving towards us. Even media who originally were allowed to have more sort of free rein to report this story, we’re being pushed out as well as, because there was some concern that there might be additional explosions, possibly other bombs.”

15. Rick Sanchez, MSNBC

10:52 AM, Narrative Reporting

“You have to understand that when this first happened, they certainly didn’t imagine that there would be second or tertiary explosions. So they parked some of their vehicles in those areas. And many of those vehicles — people in those vehicles have lost their lives.”

11:26 AM, Narrative Reporting

“Well, we’ve been told, as matter of fact moments ago, to try and get out of this area, because they’re moving everyone out. And the fear is, of course, that there are gas leaks, natural gas in this area that either fed into or out of the buildings that have exploded. And now those lines are open and may rupture.”

12:07 PM, Source-based Reporting

“Well, I’m in that area, if you’re familiar with this area of where West Broadway and Hudson come together, right at Chambers. That would put us about a block and a half away from the site of where the explosion was. That area has just been evacuated because police have found what they describe as a suspicious device. They fear that it might be something that could lead to another explosion. Obviously, there’s a real sense of caution here on the part of police. I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris. And they told me that they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center — aside from the ones that may have been caused by the impact of the plane with the building — may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it. So their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area. And that’s why they’re being so cautious in this vicinity right now.”

12:09 PM, Narrative Reporting

“This is why it’s so difficult for them in this area where we are. Imagine, they came here originally to deal with a crisis. They set up some command centers, and they had many of their chiefs and many of their supervisors in the area of the building. The second and third explosions literally have wreaked havoc on those field forces and those command centers. So they’ve had to back up. And now they’re trying to see how they can approach it again.”

16. John Bussey, CNBC Contributor, Wall Street Journal Reporter

11:52 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“I was getting ready to talk with Haines [inaudible], and the fire was raging in both buildings. I looked up at the south building, the second World Trade Center to be hit, and explosions were coming down the building. It looked as if charges had been set on each floor and they were in succession going off. Now, this is probably not what was happening. It just looked that way to me. The building just blew out floor by floor, and it probably had something to do with the structural damage that was done by the planes hitting it. When I saw the floor-by-floor explosions happening, I dove out of the office where I was because the windows looked directly over the World Trade Center. We are in the World Financial Center directly across West Street from the two Trade Centers. By the time I came up from under a desk where I sought shelter, the entire floor, the entire room where I was completely dense with cement and smoke. You could not see.”

Note: Here Bussey has started to interpret the phenomena he witnessed as the building simply collapsing. However, it is clear from this and from his other accounts of the event (Source 1, Source 2) that his initial interpretation was that explosives were destroying the building.

11:55 AM, Narrative Reporting

“We were so close to the building that you could feel it hitting your shoulder as it rained down. But we were on the safe side of the building — much, much safer than where the firefighters were on the other side of the building, exposed directly to the explosion.”

Click here to continue reading…

Note: Here Bussey has started to interpret the phenomena he witnessed as the building simply collapsing. However, it is clear from this and from his other accounts of the event (Source 1, Source 2) that his initial interpretation was that explosives were destroying the building.

11:55 AM, Narrative Reporting

“We were so close to the building that you could feel it hitting your shoulder as it rained down. But we were on the safe side of the building — much, much safer than where the firefighters were on the other side of the building, exposed directly to the explosion.”

17. Ron Insana, CNBC

12:41 PM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Well, I was heading down after we had learned of it, about 9:00 or 8:55 this morning, I had called in to see if we should go down and aid the coverage. And I was on my way down. We got fairly close to the building, and I ran into a camera man from MSNBC and we were trying to get across town past the World Trade Center to the Westside Highway, which is on the lower southwest corner of Manhattan to hook up with our colleagues from CNBC. And as we were going across one of the restricted zones, the building started to explode, I guess the only way I could describe it. It was hard to tell if it was an actual explosion, but the building began to come down. . . . We heard, we heard — I wouldn’t call it an explosion. We did notice that the building began to blow at the top, and that material began to come down. . . . And as we turned to run, material just began to fall. And like that scene in Independence Day, where wind was just whipping down the street in the wake of an explosion, that’s exactly what we experienced. It went down the street, curved around corners, and blew with a fair degree of intensity, again, Tyler, until the sky was completely black.”

1:08 PM, Eyewitness Reporting (appearing on NBC)

“As we were moving towards the building we saw the top begin to blow out in a plume of smoke. And we heard the noise associated with an implosion.”

18. Bob Pisani, CNBC

2:42 PM, Narrative Reporting

“And the real panic, I think in my mind, occurred, Maria, I was outside when you were when the second explosion occurred, because so many people had been attracted to what was going on. The explosion threw debris on top of a lot of people. That was when the real panic began.”

19. N.J. Burkett, WABC

9:59 AM (unknown air time), Eyewitness Reporting

“And you can see the two towers — a huge explosion now raining debris on all of us! We better get out of the way!”

20. Michelle Charlesworth, WABC

10:10 AM, Eyewitness and Narrative Reporting

“I can only hope that people got out of the area on the sidewalks below the South Tower before it came tumbling down. But it literally exploded and came down as though it had been hit. Plumes of smoke moving out into the harbor. . . . To give you some idea of where I am, I’m approximately 20, 30 blocks from where this latest explosion just happened.”

21. Nina Pineda, WABC

10:17 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

Bill Ritter: “Nina, I want you to describe one more time what it felt like when that tower collapsed. What did it feel like to you on the ground there?”

Nina Pineda: “We were standing probably about three blocks away advancing toward the scene to try and gather some photos and some videotape. And it felt like the entire ground shook. It felt like what it feels like to be in an earthquake. The ground was shaking followed by plumes and plumes of overwhelming smoke and flying debris, ash, and pieces of the building. As the ground was shaking . . .”

Lori Stokes: “Was there sound?”

Pineda: “There was a tremendous booming sound, and then it just felt like a rumbling. But it didn’t sound like an explosion. It sounded like a loud rumbling. And then the next thing we saw were the streets — the way the streets looked were just overcome by smoke, just plumes and plumes of smoke like a bomb had gone off, coming up the street as people were racing to get in front of these clouds of smoke, and not doing too good of a job.”

10:18 AM, Narrative Reporting

“And what were doing when the explosion happened was shooting pieces of the plane. There are pieces of the plane on Church Street.”

10:19 AM, Narrative Reporting

“Seconds before the explosion happened there was another kind of a renewed interest in really getting people away. Because, of course, out of curiosity everyone’s trying to get pictures of the World Trade Center on fire. They started screaming, ‘Get back! Get back! There’s another explosion happening.’ I guess they were being warned on their radios that the top was going to come down, because it was burning for the better part of half an hour. And they screamed to get people back. They started screaming, ‘Leave Manhattan if possible. Everybody leave Manhattan if possible.’”

Unknown time, Narrative Reporting

Pineda: “The ladies that are with me were in the World Trade Center in the first building and escaped through the lobby where they report that they believe there was a bomb in the lobby.”

Michelle Scott (witness): “And even the turnstile was burnt and it was sticking. And they just told us to run.”

Igarlow Sweezer (witness): “And we were coming out, we passed the lobby, there was no lobby. So I believe the bomb hit the lobby first, and a couple of seconds and the first plane hit.”

Unknown time, Narrative Reporting

“If you can see behind me, this a moment ago you could see all the way through. But from that last explosion that Jeff Rossen was telling us about, it is now again dark. It was strangely and eerily calm here in the Financial District because everything’s been evacuated.”

Unknown time, Narrative Reporting

“The only thing left in the street are people’s shoes as they ran out of their shoes to escape the fire bombs and the explosions.”

22. Cheryl Fiandaca, WABC

10:38 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“I was right next to the South Tower. I was about two blocks away. It was just a small explosion, and then rocks and debris and everything started pouring down.”

Unknown time shortly after 10:38 AM, Eyewitness and Narrative Reporting

“Right, we were about two blocks away when the second explosion hit. And all we heard was just a small explosion. And then we saw a roar of an explosion, and all kinds smoke coming billowing out, debris falling down, people running, the firefighters and police screaming at everyone to run as the debris was coming down and hitting people.”

23. Joe Torres, WABC

Unknown Air Time, Eyewitness Reporting

“Ten o’clock this morning, photographer Glenn Mayrose and I, along with FBI agents, police officers, fire officials, we all thought for sure a bomb was set to explode underneath our feetoutside 7 World Trade Center. We took off running for our lives north on Church Street. We had no idea the top of one of the Twin Towers had just exploded. . . . As others looked back in shock and horror, we started another interview with a Port Authority engineer who worked at World Trade Center and spoke to us about the strength and integrity of the skyscrapers. Then, suddenly, the second tower erupted right before our eyes.”

24. Carol Marin, CBS Reporter appearing on WCBS

10:59 AM, Narrative Reporting

Carol Marin: “After the second tower went down, I was trying to make my way to a CBS crew or to try to help CBS crews if I could. And then, I don’t know what it was, John. But another explosion, a rolling blast of fire, a rolling column of fire towards us. My respect for fire and police already knew no bounds given the danger, it now exceeds what I thought it could, because a firefighter threw me into the wall of a building, covered me with his body as the flames approached us. And another police officer in New York named Brendan Duke, wherever he is, got me through smoke that neither one of us could see more than about a foot ahead of us. There are still people in there. Excuse me, I’ve breathed a fair amount of soot. The personnel, the police and the fire working in there are doing so against really dangerous odds. And they still don’t know if there’s something left to explode, John.”

John Slattery: “Where were you at the time?

Marin: “I was — not being a New Yorker, you’ll have to help me here. I came around Stuyvesant High School, and that street at the north end. And I came up and asked if anyone had seen a CBS crew. And I was directed by a firefighter who said, ‘Walk down the middle of the road, because you don’t know what’s going to come down.’ At which point, we heard a rumble like I’ve never heard before, and a firefighter ran towards me. We ran as fast as we could. I lost my shoes. I fell down. He picked me up and slammed me into a wall and covered me with him until we could make it more to safety.” 

John Slattery: “Was this from the first rolling blast or the second?”

Carol Marin: “John, I looked at my watch. It was about 10:44, is what my watch said. So it was after the second tower, I think the second tower explosion.”

Note: The focus of Marin’s account is one of several widely corroborated explosions that occurred between 10:38 AM and 11:30 AM after both towers had come down. However, Marin’s reporting qualifies her as an explosion reporter in regard to the Twin Towers because she references “the second tower explosion,” and it is clear she interprets the towers’ destruction as an explosion-based event.

25. John Slattery, WCBS

11:44 AM, Narrative Reporting

“There were many tears. There was an awful lot of anguish. And then, with subsequent explosions, and when a portion of World Trade 1 hit the ground, there was an enormous burst, a cloud of smoke and debris that started moving north.”

26. Marcella Palmer, WCBS

Unknown time, Eyewitness Reporting

Marcella Palmer: “We heard another explosion. And I’m assuming that’s the one that came from the lower level, since there were two.”

Unidentified Anchor: “Right, because it was like 18 minutes apart?”

Palmer: “Well, this is — no, the first explosion, then there was a second explosion in the same building. There were two explosions.”

27. Vince DeMentri, WCBS

Unknown time, Narrative Reporting

“Very difficult to breathe, but look around. This must have been Ground Zero where this thing blew up. Car after car after car, buses, completely burned and obliterated straight down to the steel.”

28. Walter Perez, WNBC

9:59 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“We’re not sure exactly what happened, but it was another explosion on the far side of one of the buildings from where we’re standing. The reverberation — and another explosion on the right-hand side! Another building has gone up on the right-hand side of the road. People are now running down the street. We’re not sure if that was another explosion or if that was advanced debris.”

10:00 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“At this point, as you can tell, there’s absolute pandemonium in this area because of what has just happened. Exactly what, I can’t confirm. But on the far side of the building, there seemed to be another explosion and also on the right-hand side, there was also another explosion. We’re not sure if that was extra reverberation from what happened at the World Trade Center or if that was an added explosion. At this point, there’s a lot of smoke, massive plumes of smoke falling from the building across the street. People that were running down the street or walking are now running away. We don’t have any information as far as what the most recent reverberations were. But from two blocks away you could feel what happened.”

10:27 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“As you can imagine, it was a pretty frenzied scene here. Just a few moments ago, I’d say about 20 minutes ago, we’re not sure exactly what it was, we have not confirmed it. But something either exploded or fell off the side of the one building that was attacked and caused a massive plume of smoke.”

29. Kristen Shaughnessy, NY1

9:59 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Oh, it is just coming down, Pat. It is just coming down. It’s exploding. It is billowing. Pat, the debris is flying. I’m going to run.”

10:42 AM, Narrative Reporting

“Good morning again, Pat. I am actually just across from City Hall, I don’t have to tell you. With that second explosion the dust did not seem as bad.”

10:43 AM, Narrative Reporting

“It’s unbelievable because you hear these explosions. In fact, I just heard another one — I don’t know if it was like an aftereffect or what not — just while you were on the phone talking about the school closings. It wasn’t as big, obviously, as the other ones. But it still sent a tremor all the way over here, and I’m obviously on the other side of the World Trade Center, on the other side of the city. And it’s just unbelievable.”

10:45 AM, Narrative Reporting

Kristen Shaughnessy: “I’m hearing another explosion, just so you know. I’m hearing another rumble. It’s not as bad as the other ones were. But, I don’t know if you have pictures.”

Sharon Dizenhuz: “We have a picture and we don’t see anything beyond the enormous billows of smoke that have been there. But no additional bursts from our vantage point.”

Shaughnessy: “Okay, didn’t mean to interrupt, Sharon. What you can feel when these tremors come is that it literally comes up under your feet. That’s what it feels like. That’s the best way I know to describe it.”

30. Andrew Siff, NY1

10:12 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

Sharon Dizenhuz: “Andrew, when you saw this happen, what did it look like to you at close range? Because to us it seemed almost like dominoes, you know, going floor by floor by floor.”

Andrew Siff: “It was a little difficult to tell at first to figure out what was happening. We heard an explosion. We heard either an explosion or the sound of something making impact. We were in the middle. I was with news assistant Jason Post, and we were walking down West Street. And when we heard the sound we whipped around and saw just a buckling of the tower. And it just looked like it collapsed within itself. You could just see the top of the tower collapse. We can’t tell what happened to the bottom half of the tower from here.”

31. John Schiumo, NY1

10:18 AM, Narrative Reporting

“There’s another explosion as we speak!”

Note: Although the phenomenon Schiumo describes occurs between the destruction of the two towers, which happened to the South Tower at 9:59 AM and the North Tower 10:28 AM, we classify him as an explosion reporter because he refers to it as “another explosion” — thus suggesting he understood the destruction of the South Tower to be an explosion-based event — and because the explosion he describes may have come from the North Tower and been related to its eventual destruction 11 minutes later.

32. Andrew Kirtzman, NY1

11:11 AM, Narrative Reporting

“Mayor Giuliani appeared about 45 minutes ago on Chambers Street near Church Street. We began walking up Church Street when the second building proceeded to collapse, and a huge plume of smoke flew up into the air, went up into the air, and the mayor and his party started running up 6th Avenue. A plainclothes detective threw his arm around Mayor Giuliani as we took off, not knowing what the repercussions of a second explosion would be.”

11:12 AM, Narrative Reporting

“And for about 10 minutes they tried to break into the fire station as the mayor stood by and the police commissioner stood by waiting to set up an operations center. That’s — kind of wanted to paint a picture of kind of the seat-of-the-pants operation that they’ve been forced to construct here because of the explosion downtown.”

33. Jack Kelley, USA Today

Unknown time apparently around 5:30 PM, Source-based Reporting

Jack Kelley: “Apparently, what appears to have happened is that at the same time two planes hit the building, that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the building which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down.”

USA Today Anchor: “Now that’s the first time we’re hearing that. So two planes and explosives that were in the building, is that correct?”

Kelley: “That is the working theory at this point. That is still unconfirmed, but that is what the FBI is going on at this point.”

34. First Unidentified Reporter at Giuliani and Pataki Press Conference

2:43 PM, Narrative Reporting

“Do you know anything about the cause of the explosions that brought down the two buildings yet? Was it caused by the planes or by something else? Those second explosions.”

35. Marcia Kramer, WCBS, at Giuliani and Pataki Press Conference

2:44 PM, Narrative Reporting 

“Mr. Mayor, could you tell us, do you expect any further attacks on New York? Is there anything to indicate that there could be more bombs, more planes out there? I know originally there was a report that eight planes had been hijacked. Four have only been accounted for. What about the remaining four? And is there any possibility that there could be bombs on the ground planted by someone?”

Note: Kramer was in the studio when the destruction of the Twin Towers occurred, but later went into the field to conduct reporting, including attending the afternoon press conference with Mayor Giuliani and Governor Pataki. While watching the destruction of the first tower from the studio in the morning, Kramer hypothesized that it was caused by an explosion or bomb, which explains the rationale for her questions during the press conference.

At 10:02 AM, three minutes after the destruction of the first tower, she stated, “Right now police have to determine if whether that explosion was caused from the initial impact of the plane or whether it was something that was exploded on the ground. Generally speaking, for a building to collapse in on itself like that, it would seem to indicate — obviously, this is just early speculation — but it would seem to indicate that there could have been an explosion, a bomb planted on the ground, that would make the building collapse within itself.” Then, at 10:14 AM, she stated, “Well, we have a number of updates. Number one: CNN is now reporting that there was a third explosion at the World Trade Center, probably an explosion from the ground that caused World Trade Center 1 to collapse on top of itself. Again, there was a third explosion. It is unclear what caused it, whether it was a bomb or whether the first plane that crashed into the tower had somehow been booby-trapped with a bomb that was timed to explode later after the crash had occurred. But CNN is reporting that there was a third explosion that caused World Trade Center 1 to collapse within itself and then collapse on other surrounding buildings.”

This is a brief glimpse at how CNN and one of the anchors at WCBS interpreted the destruction of the Twin Towers. In our next article, we will delve much deeper into how the anchors at each of networks interpreted destruction of the Twin Towers.

36. Second Unidentified Reporter at Giuliani and Pataki Press Conference

2:54 PM, Narrative Reporting

“So the only National Guard we’ll see will be in Lower Manhattan in the bomb site area, they won’t be patrolling the rest of Manhattan?”

---

Appendix B: Statements by Four Non-Explosion Reporters

1. Don Dahler, ABC

10:00 AM

Peter Jennings: “[Don] Dahler from ABC’s Good Morning America is down in the general vicinity. [Don], can you tell us what has just happened?”

Don Dahler: “Yes, Peter. It’s Don Dahler down here. I’m four blocks north of the World Trade Center. The second building that was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed. The entire building has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off — when you see the old demolitions of these old buildings. It folded down on itself and it is not there anymore.”

Jennings: “Thanks very much, [Don].”

Dahler: “It has completely collapsed.”

Jennings: “The whole side has collapsed?”

Dahler: “The whole building has collapsed!”

Jennings: “The whole building has collapsed?”

Dahler: “The building has collapsed.”

Jennings: “That’s the southern tower you’re talking about?”

Dahler: “Exactly. The second building that we witnessed the airplane enter has been — the top half had been fully involved in flame. It just collapsed. There is panic on the streets. Thousands of people running up Church Street, which is what I’m looking out on, trying to get away. But the entire — at least as far as I can see, the top half of the building — at least half of it, I can’t see below that — half of it just started with a gigantic rumble, folded in on itself, and collapsed in a huge plume of smoke and dust.”

10:02 AM

Jennings: “The southern tower, 10:00 eastern time this morning, just collapsing on itself. This is a place where thousands of people work. We have no idea what caused this. If you wish to bring — anybody who’s ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you’re going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down.”

Dahler: “Peter?”

Jennings: “Yes, Dan.”

Dahler: “What appeared to happen from my vantage point, the top part of the building was totally involved in fire, and there appeared to be no effort possible to put that fire out. It looked like the top part of the building was so weakened by the fire the weight of it collapsed the rest of the building. That’s what appeared to happen. I did not see anything happening at the base of the building. It all appeared to start at the top and then just collapse the rest of the building by the sheer weight of it. There was no explosion or anything at the base part of it. But I did see that the top part of it started to collapse. The walls started to bulge out, glass things coming out. And then it collapsed down on itself. And then it appeared to just fold down from there, from the very top.”

Jennings: “Thanks, Don, very much.”

2. Drew Millhon, ABC

11:09 AM

“I was at the corner of Varick and Canal, which is about 10 to 12 blocks north of the World Trade Center, where roughly 300 to 400 people were gathered watching the flames and the smoke from both the World Trade Centers going through the air. And I began to cross the street and I heard a collective scream from this group of people. And I looked up and the first World Trade Center that collapsed was falling down. The shriek lasted for quite a long time. And then many of these people fell into tears, just crying and sobbing. ‘I don’t know where my mother is. I don’t know where my friends are.’ That sort of thing was heard all around this crowd.”

3. Bob Bazell, NBC

10:08 AM

“I was actually standing and saw that collapse. And everybody here [at St. Vincent’s hospital on West 12^th Street] just gasped. Even the medical workers and the ambulance attendants when they saw that, people who are used to tragedy, grabbed each other and hugged each other. And some started to cry.”

4. John Zito, MSNBC

10:36 AM

Chris Jansing: “Were you able to feel the collapse of that second tower?”

John Zito: “The second tower, no. But the first tower that went down, I was very close, I’d say about five blocks away. And CNBC’s Ron Insana and I were trying to hook up with a truck or find any NBC contact down there. And we were very close to when that tower came down. And debris came showering down, and Ron and I both ran for cover. I managed to get inside an alcove of buildings. And all the scaffolding around collapse in front of me and broke the window next to me. And I climbed inside that and stayed in there for about 10 minutes. I couldn’t get out of there. It was pitch black outside.”

---

Appendix C: Borderline Cases

This appendix contains three borderline cases that we determined could not be clearly classified as explosion or non-explosion reporters.

1. Minah Kathuria, NBC

Kathuria is a borderline case because it is unclear whether she suspects the destruction of the South Tower to have been a demolition or whether she is merely likening the destruction to a demolition in its appearance. In the case of Don Dahler, who is included in Appendix B as a non-explosion reporter, it is clear that he ultimately interpreted the destruction as a fire-induced collapse even though he likened the destruction to a demolition in its appearance.

10:11 AM

“We’re on the corner of Duane and West Broadway walking down towards the Twin Towers, and it just collapsed. It looked like a — it looked sort of like the building just demolished. Smoke, clouds — I mean, clouds of smoke everywhere.”

2. Brian Palmer, CNN

Palmer is a borderline case because he is asked by CNN’s Aaron Brown if it sounded like an explosion or just the sound of the collapse itself, and he does not favor one interpretation over the other, and he describes the sound as a “boom,” which was not strong enough in our view to classify him as an explosion reporter. We view Palmer as being distinct from Alan Dodds Frank, who, although he did not commit to one interpretation over the other, readily asserted the possibility that the destruction of the towers was an explosion-based event.

10:41 AM

Aaron Brown: “Brian, did it sound like there was an explosion before the second collapse, or was the noise the collapse itself?”

Brian Palmer: “Well, from our distance, I was not able to distinguish between an explosion and the collapse. We were several hundred yards away. But we clearly saw the building come down. I heard your report of a fourth explosion: I can’t confirm that. But we heard some ‘boom’ and then the building fold in on itself.”

3. Maria Bartiromo, CNBC

Bartiromo is a borderline case because she repeatedly uses the word “explosion” and her description of what she witnessed corroborates the explosion hypothesis, but although she uses the word “explosion” to describe what she witnessed, she attributes it to the sound of the buildings collapsing.

10:14 AM

Maria Bartiromo: “Now I’m standing on the floor of the exchange. But I just came back from outside and I am covered with soot. Basically, I was outside when that third explosion occurred. . . . The whole area turned pitch black when that third explosion happened. . . . I don’t know if you can see my jacket and my shoes, but I’m completely covered in white smoke from that third explosion.”

Unidentified Anchor: “Maria, do you know what that explosion was?”

Bartiromo: “That was about 10 — I’d say 15 minutes ago.”

Unidentified Anchor: “But do you know what caused it?”

Bartiromo: “No, I don’t.”

Mark Haines: “At the moment, Maria — and for the people with you — at the moment there are eyewitnesses who feel that another plane, a third plane . . .”

Bartiromo: “Yes, some people are saying that . . .”

Haines: “. . . hit the base of the South Tower.”

Bartiromo: “I was under the impression that it was just the actual collapse of the building. But some people are speculating that. I didn’t want to say that because . . . .”

Haines: “We had — at the moment it happened — we had MSNBC’s feed up, and we could hear people shouting ‘a third plane, a third plane.’ And then there was an explosion — ‘another plane, another plane,’ and there was an explosion.”

Bartiromo: “That’s right. And I was outside during that explosion.”

10:49 AM

“The second explosion I witnessed was about 10:00 AM, and that was, in retrospect, the collapse of that tower. And again, debris came at us. The whole area turned pitch black. All we could see was smoke. We couldn’t even breathe practically. We were closing our eyes. I actually went under the building across the New York Stock Exchange.”

12:24 PM

“I walked outside a little while ago. There are dust, white dust, this thick on the floor. Debris and smoke just settling after the explosions. I mentioned to you earlier in the coverage that I myself witnessed two of the explosions. The first one that I witnessed was when the second plane went into the second tower. And truly it was out of a movie. This plane going right in, putting a hole into the second tower. The second thing that I myself witnessed, the further collapse of one of the towers. And this huge bang down on Wall Street. Everyone ran for their lives.”

1:01 PM

“I was outside a little while ago. It almost looks like there’s snow on the ground. There are piles, and really just a thick sheet of dust — white, white dust — from the explosion. . . . Then about 15 minutes later I went back outside, thinking that it was safe again. And lo and behold I witnessed the third explosion, which of course was the sound of the tower collapsing. And at that time, when I heard the tower collapsing — again, it was a huge, huge thump and explosion noise. You’re looking at the scene right now. And that’s what we were all watching. The building collapsed. We all ran for our lives. Metal and papers and debris were flying at us in the face.”

1:37 PM

“Then, 10 minutes or 15 minutes later, I walked out there again thinking that, you know, we had seen the worst. And, of course, then there was a third explosion. And that third explosion was the sound of the second tower collapsing.”

2:42 PM

“Bob and I took a walk together outside and we came back really, really covered with it earlier, when I witnessed that third explosion, the third explosion being the collapse of one of the towers.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for AE911Truth. He is the author of AE911Truth’s 2015 publication Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 and its 2016 publication World Trade Center Physics: Why Constant Acceleration Disproves Progressive Collapse and co-author of AE911Truth’s 2017 preliminary assessment of the Plasco Building collapse in Tehran. He holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

Graeme MacQueen received his Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies from Harvard University and taught in the Religious Studies Department of McMaster University for 30 years. While at McMaster he became founding Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster, after which he helped developed the B.A. program in Peace Studies and oversaw the development of peace-building projects in Sri Lanka, Gaza, Croatia and Afghanistan. Other works in MacQueen’s body of historical 9/11 research include: 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers; Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories; Did the Earth Shake Before the South Tower Hit the Ground?; Eyewitness Evidence of the Twin Towers’ Explosive Destruction; and Foreknowledge of Building 7’s Collapse.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

An Air Canada Boeing 737-8 MAX, registration C-FSCY performing flight AC-348 (dep Aug 26th) from Vancouver, BC to Ottawa, ON (Canada), was enroute at FL370 about 50 minutes prior to estimated landing in Ottawa when one of the pilots reported he was not feeling well and was unable to continue duties.

The other pilot consulted with dispatch and medical services, a decision was made to continue to Ottawa, where the aircraft landed without further incident about 50 minutes later.

The Canadian TBS reported a PAN PAN was declared, medical services met the aircraft after arrival.

Aircraft Type: Boeing 737-800MAX

Aircraft Registration: C-FSCY

ICAO Type Designator: B38M

Pilot Incapacitations in August 2023, Three Pilot Deaths

Aug. 17, 2023 – IndiGo Flight (NAG-PNQ) Nagpur to Pune, India, pilot 40 year old Manoj Subramanium died after collapsing at the boarding gate, about to board.

Aug. 16, 2023 – Qatar Airways Flight QR579 (DEL-DOH) Delhi to Doha, Qatar, 51 year old pilot collapsed as a passenger inflight and died, plane diverted to Dubai.

Aug. 14, 2023 – LATAM Flight LA505 (MIA-SCL) Miami to Santiago, Chile – 2 hours into 8hr flight, 56 year old Captain Ivan Andaur collapsed and died in the lavatory – plane diverted to Panama City!

Aug. 9, 2023 – United Airlines UAL1309 (SRQ-EWR) Sarasota to Newark, pilot had a heart attack and lost consciousness in flight

Aug. 7, 2023 – TigerAIR Flight IT237 (CTS-TPE) Sapporo to Taipei, copilot had a medical emergency after landing plane in Taipei

Recent Pilot Incapacitations 

July 19, 2023 – Eurowings Discover Flight 4Y-1205 (HER-FRA) Heraklion to Frankfurt, pilot incapacitated, first officer took control, landed safely

Jun. 7, 2023 – Air Canada Flight ACA692 (YYZ-YYT) Toronto to St.John’s, First Officer became incapacitated, deadheading Captain assumed duties

Jun. 4, 2023 – Cessna Citation N611VG flying Tennessee to Long Island, fighter jets spotted pilot slumped over in cockpit unconscious, plane crashed and all onboard died

May 11, 2023 – HiSKy Flight H4474 (DUB-KIV) Dublin to Chisinau (Moldova), 20 min after liftoff pilot became “unable to act”, plane diverted to Manchester

May 4, 2023 – British Charter TUI Airways Flight BY-1424 (NCL-LPA) Newcastle to Las Palmas Spain pilot became ill, plane diverted back to NCL.

April 4, 2023 – United Airlines Flight 2102 (BOI-SFO) – captain was incapacitated, first officer was only one in control of the aircraft.

March 25, 2023 – TAROM Flight RO-7673 TSR-HRG diverted to Bucharest as 30 yo pilot had chest pain, then collapsed

March 22, 2023 – Southwest Flight WN6013 LAS-CMH diverted as pilot collapsed shortly after take-off, replaced by non-Southwest pilot

March 18, 2023 – Air Transat Flight TS739 FDF-YUL first officer was incapacitated about 200NM south of Montreal

March 13, 2023 – Emirates Flight EK205 MXP-JFK diverted due to pilot illness hour and a half after take-off

March 11, 2023 – United Airlines Flight UA2007 GUA-ORD diverted due to “incapacitated pilot” who had chest pains

March 11, 2023 – British Airways (CAI-LHR) pilot collapsed in Cairo hotel and died, was scheduled to fly Airbus A321 from Cairo to London

March 3, 2023 – Virgin Australia Flight VA-717 ADL-PER Adelaide to Perth flight was forced to make an emergency landing after First Officer suffered heart attack 30 min after departure.

Military Pilot Incapacitations

Aug. 18, 2023 – US Army Aviation Center (Alabama) student pilot went into cardiac arrest behind the controls midflight (Aug.18, 2023), Instructor landed plane – pilot was dead for 18 minutes!

Recent Pilot Deaths

Pilot death July 16, 2023 – 2006 Piper Meridian, flying from Westchester NY, crashed at Martha’s Vineyard Airport after pilot had medical emergency upon final approach and passenger took control of the plane and attempted a landing. Pilot, 79 year old Randolph Bonnist, died later in hospital.

Pilot death – May 2023 – 4 Singapore Airlines pilots died suddenly in May 2023

Pilot death – May 9, 2023 – United Airlines and US Air Force Pilot Lt. Col. Michael Fugett, age 46, died unexpectedly at his home

Pilot death – May 3, 2023 – Air Transat and Air Canada Pilot Eddy Vorperian, age 48, died suddenly during layover in Croatia

Pilot death – April 13, 2023 – Phil Thomas, graduate of Flight Training Pilot academy in Cadiz, Spain (FTEJerez) died suddenly.

Pilot death – March 17, 2023 – 39 year old Westjet Pilot Benjamin Paul Vige died suddenly in Calgary

Pilot death – March 11, 2023 – British Airways pilot died of heart attack in crew hotel in Cairo before a Cairo to London flight (name & age not released

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

In commemoration of the 22nd anniversary of 9/11, we repost this article by Ted Walter and the late Prof. Graeme MacQueen, first published in 2022.

*** 

This article is the second installment of a two-part research project we began in July 2020 with the article “How 36 Reporters Brought Us the Twin Towers’ Explosive Demolition on 9/11.”

In that article, our goal was to determine the prevalence, among television reporters on 9/11, of the hypothesis that explosions had brought down the Twin Towers. Through careful review of approximately 70 hours of news coverage on 11 different channels, we found that the explosion hypothesis was not only common among reporters but was, in fact, the dominant hypothesis.

Our second question, which we set aside for the present article, was to determine how, despite its prevalence, the explosion hypothesis was supplanted by the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse.

In this article, we shall concentrate not on reporters in the field, as in Part 1, but on the news anchors and their guests who were tasked with discovering and making sense of what was happening. As we trace the supplanting of the explosion hypothesis with the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, we witness the great shift toward what quickly became the Official Narrative.

We do not see our task as trying to discover whether the Official Narrative of 9/11 is true or false. In the 21 years since the attacks took place, it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, we believe, that the Official Narrative is false.

While we support and participate in the further accumulation of evidence for this position, as well as the presentation of this evidence to the public, we believe it is also important to look into how the triumph of the Official Narrative was accomplished. If we are able to discover this, we will greatly advance our understanding of the psychological operation conducted on September 11, 2001 — and, thus, our understanding of how other psychological operations are perpetrated on the public.

Our Argument

Our argument is that two strategies were employed to accomplish the triumph of the Official Narrative:

(a) Where news anchors were sincerely dedicated to discovering the facts of the situation, Strategy One was employed. This strategy involved directly confronting the news anchor of the relevant network with an “expert” who would explain that the destruction of the Twin Towers was caused by structural failure induced by the airplane impact and the ensuing fires. This would allay concerns about reports of explosions in the towers and would domesticate the news anchor so that he or she would stop raising problematic questions. Of course, as we can see clearly today, these experts could not possibly have known what they so confidently proclaimed. In fact, we can now see that their explanations were simply wrong. But their interviews seem to have accomplished their goals on 9/11. To illustrate this strategy, we shall choose as our chief examples CNBC and CNN, whose anchors showed the most interest in the explosion hypothesis, and we will also look at CBS and NBC.

(b) Strategy Two was used on all networks, regardless of the stance of the news anchors. This strategy involved developing two related narratives — two engaging, emotionally charged stories — that appeared to explain the day’s horrors and offered viewers a set of active responses. They were not scientific hypotheses and were not directly related to the destruction of the Twin Towers, but indirectly they appeared to favor the fire-induced collapse hypothesis more than the explosion hypothesis. By the end of the day, they had silenced the explosion hypothesis.

The first of these two stories is what we shall call the War on Terror narrative. This grand narrative, resonant with older storied events, explained how the righteous, the civilized, the United States had been subjected to an act of war from the evil, the uncivilized, the terrorists supported by nations in the Middle East and Central Asia; and how American leaders must respond to this aggression with an initiative that was warlike on many levels. This narrative was articulated early (before noon on 9/11) and was repeated throughout the day. It established the foundations of the Global War on Terror.

The second story is the Bin Laden narrative, which nested within the wider War on Terror narrative and was used to transform myth into plausible history. According to this narrative, an evil Saudi national based in Afghanistan had masterminded the attacks.

It is extremely important to grasp the relationship between these two narratives and what may seem as detailed — even esoteric — facts about the destruction of the Twin Towers. If the buildings were destroyed by pre-planted explosives — as we believe has been demonstrated through years of research — the two narratives, however rational and moral they appeared to be to many television viewers, are profoundly misleading in their political analysis and profoundly immoral in their prescriptions.

Numerical Analysis of Statements by News Anchors and Experts Articulating the Explosion Hypothesis

To understand how the explosion hypothesis was supplanted by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, it is first important to establish whether, and to what degree, the explosion hypothesis was considered by news anchors, their guests, and others at the television networks.

As we showed in Part 1, the great majority of reporters who witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers either perceived an explosion or perceived the towers as exploding. This hypothesis of how the Twin Towers were destroyed then continued to be prevalent among reporters on the ground, who essentially viewed the destruction of the towers as an explosion-based attack subsequent to the airplane strikes.

Given what the reporters were communicating to the rest of the world, how did their colleagues in the studios absorb this information and make sense of what had happened for the viewing public?

As in Part 1, to answer this question, we reviewed approximately 70 hours of continuous news coverage from 11 different networks, cable news channels, and local network affiliates.

Table 1 below shows the news coverage we compiled and reviewed. (For further description of our data collection, see Part 1 of the series.) Table 2 lists the mentions of the explosion hypothesis by network. Table 3 lists the mentions of the explosion hypothesis by the time they occurred.

Videos and transcripts of every mention of the explosion hypothesis are shown in Appendix A.

Table 1: Television Coverage Compiled

Table 2: Explosion Hypothesis Mentions by Network

Table 3: Explosion Hypothesis Mentions by Time

In total, when we include seven ambiguous mentions of the explosion hypothesis — which we defined as an anchor describing the occurrence of an explosion in conjunction with the collapse of either tower but not implying that the explosion necessarily caused the collapse — we found that the explosion hypothesis was mentioned 70 times across all 11 channels.

To our great interest, we found that news anchors or guest experts on every channel, with the exception of Fox News, at some point in the day believed, considered, or at least articulated the possibility that explosions had caused the Twin Towers’ destruction. In addition, several channels, including Fox News, displayed banners or captions or crawls in their lower thirds stating that explosions had caused the Twin Towers’ destruction.

The explosion hypothesis was first mentioned by several anchors on several different channels within minutes of the South Tower’s destruction at 9:59 AM and — within our pool of television coverage — was mentioned for the final time by NBC’s Tom Brokaw at 4:48 PM. It is noteworthy that more than half of the mentions of the explosion hypothesis occurred in the first 31 minutes after the South Tower’s destruction. As we shall discuss below, on some channels the explosion hypothesis was eventually explicitly discarded while on other channels it simply stopped being mentioned.

In some cases, discussion of the explosion hypothesis was driven by the anchors’ own observation and intuition while in other cases it was driven by information provided by reporters on the ground (and, in some cases, both). In a few cases, especially in the lower third captions, mention of the explosion hypothesis appears to have been driven by information circulated on the newswire.

Altogether, the data reflect that the explosion hypothesis was broadly, though in most cases fleetingly, considered by news anchors, their guests, and others at the networks.

The one notable exception was on Fox News, where the anchor, Jon Scott, assertively pushed the fire-induced collapse hypothesis while fabricating the War on Terror and Bin Laden narratives before our eyes. All the while, he seemed uniquely unsurprised and unbothered by the events, as compared to other anchors who exhibited varying degrees of shock, disbelief, and horror. Although Fox News reporters on the ground, like those of other networks, were describing explosions, Scott went out of his way to correct their impressions of what they had witnessed and make the fire-induced collapse hypothesis seem credible to viewers. Because of Scott, no experts were needed to establish the Official Narrative on Fox News. There was only one hypothesis in the foreground, and this hypothesis was so quickly solidified that by noon on 9/11, all of the major elements of the coming Global War on Terror had been set forth.

However, for the anchors who were sincerely dedicated to discovering the facts, Strategy One was employed.

Strategy One for Accomplishing the Triumph of the Official Narrative: An “Expert” Visits a News Anchor

In discussing Strategy One we shall use CNBC and CNN as our chief examples and also look briefly at CBS and NBC.

CNBC

CNBC saw, perhaps, the most notable rise and fall of the explosion hypothesis.

CNBC’s consideration of the explosion hypothesis started at 10:01 AM with news anchor Mark Haines hearing from witnesses on the street that a third airplane had crashed into the South Tower. He surmised that this third airplane impact was responsible for the South Tower’s total destruction.

In a discussion with CNBC reporter Maria Bartiromo, who was on the ground at the New York Stock Exchange, Haines’ suspicion of a third airplane causing the South Tower’s destruction was reinforced by Bartiromo’s repeated reference to “the explosion,” which Bartiromo deduced was “just the actual collapse of the building” but that Haines suggested was a third airplane impact.

After about 15 minutes, Haines was informed that the Associated Press was reporting only two airplane strikes. As Haines began to accept that there was no third airplane strike, he and another anchor (we were unable to determine this person’s name) agreed that some sort of explosion must have caused the South Tower’s destruction. At around 10:21 AM, Haines looked closely at footage of the South Tower’s destruction and began to analyze it with an accuracy and clarity that was unique among news anchors:

“But here you see an enormous explosion about midway up in the South Tower, and the entire structure collapses. It just disappears. . . . Now that’s interesting from a forensic point of view. The explosion that leveled the South Tower came, it seemed, roughly halfway up. And yet it took the entire tower out.”

Minutes later, Haines reacted in horror as he watched the destruction of the North Tower in real time, exclaiming:

“We have an enormous explosion in the remaining World Trade Tower Center!”

Haines then went on to analyze the destruction as he had done before with the following series of comments:

“It happened the same way. The explosion started high in the building and worked its way down.”

“There you see — I don’t understand, and I would be very anxious to hear in the future some, the forensics of this situation.”

“This is — there you see the building imploding. It, it — do you see what’s happening? Now, what would cause that I don’t know.”

In response to Haines’ comments, his co-anchor, Bill Griffeth, acknowledged the possibility of what Haines was suggesting, stating:

“Certainly, the structure had been weakened by the impact. But you’d have to wonder if there was something else there. But we just don’t know at this point.”

Haines responded with his opinion that the destruction of both towers could not have been accidental:

“I don’t think . . . I think we’re safe — here I think I’m on safe ground, Bill. I don’t think — This was clearly, the way the structure is collapsing, this was the result of something that was planned. This is not — it’s not accidental that the first tower just happened to collapse and then the second tower just happened to collapse in exactly the same way. How they accomplished this, we don’t know. But clearly this is what they wanted to accomplish.”

A few minutes later, at around 10:34 AM, Haines left the studio, apparently in shock, and did not return for the day. We can only wonder how aggressively Haines might have continued to pursue the explosion hypothesis had he remained in the newsroom. (Sadly, Haines died of congestive heart failure in 2011.)

At 11:07 AM, co-anchor Griffeth brought structural engineer Eric Gass into the studio for an interview, asking him “whether it would be necessary for a further attack upon the buildings before they would collapse.” Gass happened to be working on the construction of a nearby building for CNBC at the time.

Over the course of his interview, Gass extinguished any remaining suspicion Griffeth and others may have had, making a number of unfounded assertions about the inability of the buildings to withstand the airplane impacts and fires.

Bill Griffeth: “Which is something I wanna get into here, Sue, because there’s been all kinds of speculation about how that would happen, whether it would be necessary for a further attack upon the buildings before they would collapse. And as it happens we have with us in studio here is a structural engineer, Eric Gass, who happens to be in the process of building a building that we’re putting together here at CNBC down the road. And you would have some sense since you’ve been a part of the construction of buildings of this magnitude, Eric, to give us some insight of what would happen with the kind of damage that was done with the jet attacks on the buildings and whether that’s enough to bring those buildings down by themselves.”

Eric Gass: “Well, I think you’ve a got a couple of issues that are going on here. One is, these are concrete reinforced structures. And concrete is a compressive material. So as you can see, especially from the second attack, as it comes in, it appears to shear into the side of the building.”

Herrera: “The plane.”

Griffeth: “Right.”

Gass: “Absolutely. So you have a couple of issues. One, it probably has taken all the concrete away from the steel.”

Herrera: “And now you’re seeing that second plane.”

Gass: “Absolutely. So this structure, and I think as you see as it will collapse later on, it begins to tilt to that side. It has taken all of the concrete and put it into tensile property.”

Herrera: “And these are large planes.”

Gass: “Absolutely. If we’re dealing with a Boeing 767, you’re not just dealing with a large plane, you’re dealing with a large plane that’s coming in at over 500 mph. So you have all of the impact going in to those members. There is no building that I’m aware of that can take this kind of impact.”

Griffeth: “So as we watch the first of the towers collapsing there, it was enough from the initial attack by the jet to bring the tower down eventually. Is that your understanding?”

Gass: “I would say so. Especially the second thing you would have going on, of course, is the airplane’s going to have a great deal of fuel, and the fire is going to be working against that structural steel, which of course is why the fire codes are so stringent in this country. So then you’re going to have a problem with once the fire takes place it’s going to work against the structural strength of that steel and begin to collapse.”

…

Griffeth: “So you’re not surprised that these would go down just based on the jet crashing into the buildings here, Eric?

Gass: “No. As a matter of act, as we were seeing the explosion the first time, that was the first thing that occurred to us, is that there would be an immediate weakening on that side of the building. I think if you look at the second tower that collapsed, you will see that it begins to collapse straight down, which as it appears from what happened in the impact, it impacted much more into the center of the building. Again, you would have gotten rid of all of the ability for fire protection to have gotten rid of some of the fire and the flames, which apparently is why it took longer. The other point too is that you have 15 floors of extremely heavy material bearing down on this situation. It would be impossible to see why it would be able to hold up.”

…

Griffeth: “The terrorist bombing of some years ago against the World Trade Center, which occurred essentially in the parking structure below the building, why didn’t that bring that down at the time?”

Gass: “Well, I think you’re dealing with a different issue. One, you’re dealing with a static explosion, where someone pulls a small truck underneath so you have all of the concrete not only keeping both of the floors above and below. But you’re dealing with the biggest structural strength of that building is sitting underground. Of course, New York is pure bedrock. So that would have been the worst place to attack it. Clearly it did not do that much damage, enough structurally to make major structural problems with the design, as I understand it. Here, you have a much larger vehicle, with much more speed, and literally shearing any of its structural capacity in those particular areas.”

Hours later, at around 2:25 PM, Griffeth repeated Gass’s unfounded assertions.

Griffeth: “We were witness to this horrifying spectacle of the Twin Towers just disintegrating to the ground. And we had heard from this structural engineer that we interviewed earlier that once these towers had been struck by these jets — I mean, these are structures that are built mainly, of course with steel, but with concrete. The concrete essentially was liquefied. Not to that degree, but it just was very suspect in the structure. And according to him it was only a matter of time before it came down. And course that is exactly what happened after the crashes.”

To summarize, engineer Eric Gass, the “expert,” was able to put a stop to the legitimate questioning of Mark Haines and Bill Griffeth. Although we know now that Gass’s hypothesis is false, it would have seemed plausible at the time both to news anchors and the viewing public.

CNN

Shortly after 9:59 AM, news anchor Aaron Brown was standing on a roof in New York City about 30 blocks from the World Trade Center. He was looking directly at the South Tower as it was destroyed. He was, therefore, not just a journalist and not just a news anchor: He was an eyewitness.

He immediately interrupted a journalist who was reporting live on the Pentagon:

“Wow! Jamie. Jamie, I need you to stop for a second. There has just been a huge explosion…we can see a billowing smoke rising…and I can’t…I’ll tell you that I can’t see that second Tower. But there was a cascade of sparks and fire and now this…it looks almost like a mushroom cloud, explosion, this huge, billowing smoke in the second Tower…”

Having reported honestly what he saw with his own eyes, Brown next did exactly what he should have done as a responsible news anchor. He let his audience know that, while he did not know what had happened, it was clear that there were two hypotheses in play, the explosion hypothesis and the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. And then he went to his reporters on the scene, as well as to authorities, to try and sort out which hypothesis was correct.

Here are examples of his setting forth — after the first building was destroyed and again after the second was destroyed — the rival hypotheses:

At 10:03 AM: “…and then just in the last several minutes there has been a second explosion or, at least, perhaps not an explosion, perhaps part of the building simply collapsed. And that’s what we saw and that’s what we’re looking at.”

At 10:04 AM: “This is just a few minutes ago…we don’t know if…something happened, another explosion, or if the building was so weakened…it just collapsed.”

At 10:29 AM: “[W]e believe now that we can say that both, that portions of both towers of the World Trade Center, have collapsed. Whether there were second explosions, that is to say, explosions other than the planes hitting them, that caused this to happen we cannot tell you.”

At 11:17 AM: “Our reporters in the area say they heard loud noises when that happened. It is unclear to them and to us whether those were explosions going on in the building or if that was simply the sound of the collapse of the buildings as they collapsed, making these huge noises as they came down.”

Brown’s honest reporting of his perceptions was balanced repeatedly by his caution. Here is an example:

At 10:53 AM: “…it almost looks…it almost looks like one of those implosions of buildings that you see, except there is nothing controlled about this…this is devastation.”

His next move, having set forth the two hypotheses, was to ask his reporters on the scene, who were choking on pulverized debris and witnessing gruesome scenes, what they perceived.

Reporter Brian Palmer said honestly that he was not in a position to resolve the issue.

Brown at 10:41 AM: “Was there…Brian, did it sound like there was an explosion before the second collapse, or was the noise the collapse itself?”

Palmer: “Well, from our distance…I was not able to distinguish between an explosion and the collapse. We were several hundred yards away. But we clearly saw the building come down. I heard your report of a fourth explosion: I can’t confirm that. But we heard some ‘boom’ and then the building fold in on itself.”

Two other reporters were more definite about what they perceived.

Brown at 10:29 AM: “Rose, whadya got?”

Rose Arce: “I’m about a block away. And there were several people that were hanging out the windows right below where the plane crashed, when suddenly you saw the top of the building start to shake, and people began leaping from the windows in the north side of the building. You saw two people at first plummet and then a third one, and then the entire top of the building just blew up…”

…

Brown at 10:57 AM: “Who do we have on the phone, guys? Just help me out here. Patty, are you there?”

Patty Sabga: “Yes, I am here.”

Brown: “Whaddya got?”

Sabga: “About an hour ago I was on the corner of Broadway and Park Place — that’s about a thousand yards from the World Trade Center — when the first tower collapsed. It was a massive explosion. At the time the police were trying desperately to evacuate people from the area. When that explosion occurred, it was like a scene out of a horror film.”

Clearly, the explosion hypothesis was flourishing on CNN. In what is striking to read today, even the news caption at the bottom of the screen at 10:03 AM, shortly after the destruction of the South Tower, was dramatically articulating the explosion hypothesis:

“THIRD EXPLOSION SHATTERS WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK”

After checking with his reporters, Brown continued to explore his two hypotheses, this time by consulting authorities.

First Brown consulted a political authority. He got the mayor of New York City on the line.

Brown at 12:31 PM: “Sir, do you believe that…was there another set of explosions that caused the buildings to collapse, or was it the structural damage caused by the planes?”

Giuliani: “I don’t, I don’t know, I, uh, I, uh…I, I saw the first collapse and heard the second ‘cause I was in a building when the second took place. I think it was structural but I cannot be sure.”

Later in the afternoon, Giuliani had more confidence in his script. At a press conference that aired on nearly every channel, he ruled out the explosion hypothesis when a reporter asked him, “Do you know anything about the cause of the explosions that brought down the two buildings yet?”

Finally, at 4:20 PM, Brown was visited by an engineer, Jim DeStefano, who we were told was with the National Council of Structural Engineers (the actual name of DeStefano’s organization is the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations). His brief comments put an end to Brown’s explosion hypothesis and rendered CNN’s news coverage safe for public consumption.

Brown: “Jim DeStefano is a structural engineer. He knows about big buildings and what happens in these sorts of catastrophic moments. He joins us from Deerfield, Connecticut on the phone. Jim, the plane hits…what…and I hope this isn’t a terribly oversimplified question, but what happens to the building itself?”

DeStefano: “…It’s a tremendous impact that’s applied to the building when a collision like this occurs. And it’s clear that that impact was sufficient to do damage to the columns and the bracing system supporting the building. That coupled with the fire raging and the high temperatures softening the structural steel then precipitated a destabilization of the columns and clearly the columns buckled at the lower floors causing the building to collapse.”

DeStefano, surely, had a right to make a guess, but he had no right to claim that he knew what had happened. He did not say, “Here is one hypothesis.” He said, in effect, “This is what happened.” But there had been no photographic or video analysis of the buildings’ destruction, no analysis of the physical remains, no cataloguing of eyewitnesses, no examination of seismic or thermal evidence, and so on. He was shooting in the dark, and he was silencing a journalist who was sincerely trying to discover the truth.

As we have discovered since that day, DeStefano’s confidence was misplaced and his hypothesis was wrong. But his explanation appears to have succeeded in ending Aaron Brown’s interest in the explosion hypothesis.

CBS and ABC

The deployment of Strategy One was not unique to CNBC and CNN. Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw, the evening news anchors for CBS, ABC and NBC, respectively, all considered the explosion hypothesis at various points during the course of the day. Two of them, Rather and Jennings, were met with experts who apparently put an end to their curiosity.

In Rather’s case, he was visited by a government official named Jerome Hauer. On 9/11, Hauer was director of the federal Office of Public Health Preparedness and was senior advisor to the Secretary for National Security and Emergency Management. In January 2001, Hauer had been hired to run a new crisis management group at Kroll Associates, the security consulting firm that had designed the security system for the World Trade Center complex in response to the 1993 bombing. And before that, from 1996 to 2000, he was director of the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), where he was chiefly — and controversially — responsible for installing the OEM’s Emergency Operations Center on the 23rd floor of World Trade Center Building 7, which would also collapse later that day.

A little after 12:00 PM on 9/11, Rather and Hauer had this exchange:

Rather: “Is this massive destruction of the World Trade Center — based on what you know, and I recognize we’re dealing with so few facts — is it possible that just plane crash could have collapsed these buildings? Or would it have required the sort of prior positioning of other explosives in the building? What do you think?”

Hauer: “No, my sense is that just, one, the velocity of the plane, and the fact that you have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building that burned. The velocity of the plane certainly had an impact on the structure itself. And then the fact that it burned and you had that intense heat probably weakened the structure as well. I think it was simply the planes hitting the building and causing the collapse.”

One would expect a national security official, especially one working for a company responsible for security at the World Trade Center, to be pursuing all possibilities. Indeed, we know that officials at the FDNY, the NYPD, and the FBI suspected that explosives had brought down the towers. Hauer’s confidence that explosives had nothing to do with the towers’ destruction, less than two hours after it had happened, is at best grossly irresponsible.

In the case of Jennings, he interviewed a structural engineer by the name of Jon Magnusson, who on 9/11 was a partner at the structural engineering firm that had designed the Twin Towers. Magnusson would go on to be a member of the FEMA Building Performance Study, the first official investigation into the Twin Towers’ and Building 7’s destruction.

Earlier that morning, upon learning that the South Tower had completely collapsed, Jennings remarked:

“We have no idea what caused this. If you wish to bring — anybody who’s ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you’re going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down.”

Twenty minutes later, apparently having trouble accepting NBC reporter Don Dahler’s interpretation that the building had simply collapsed from the airplane impact and fires, Jennings said:

“I’m still desperately confused, John, about what may have caused the building to collapse.”

To our knowledge, Jennings did not articulate the explosion hypothesis after that point. Nevertheless, later in the day, Magnusson was brought on to explain to Jennings and millions of viewers why the buildings had collapsed. Magnusson’s interview on ABC was preceded by a pre-recorded piece that put forth the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, basing its claims on advice from engineers at Magnusson’s firm. Once the piece ended, Jennings began his interview with Magnusson.

Jennings: “This is the second time from Robert Krulwich and also from some architect engineers we talked with a little bit earlier that say it was the heat which caused the building to collapse, because the steel at the top of the building would maybe have only been able to sustain an hour, hour-and-a-half of intense fire, and then the steel begins — as Robert points out so clearly — collapse upon itself all the way down to the bottom.

“I think we have with us, on the phone or in person, from Seattle, Jon Magnusson, who is an engineer — Jon, are you there? — Jon Mangusson, who is with the company that actually built the World Trade Center towers. Jon, have you heard our two laymen explanations tonight of what it was we think collapsed the building? And do you agree or disagree?”

Magnusson: “I agree. . . . The description of the fact that steel, when it gets up to 1,500, 1600°F, that it loses its strength is accurate. The buildings actually survived the impact of both the planes. And it was really the fire that created the disaster.”

Jennings: “And the upper floor fell on the next floor down, which fell on the next floor, and the sheer accumulation of weight just forced the whole building to collapse on itself?”

Magnusson: “Right. From the videotape — and I can only go from what I’ve seen on television — but the videotape showed that several of the upper floors fell onto the next lower floor that was still intact. And once that happens, there’s going to be an instant overload situation. And then it will fail. And then that will drop down to the next floor, into another instant overload situation. And so the floors just progressively collapsed down all the way to the bottom.”

Magnusson was somewhat more cautious in his explanation than Gass, DeStefano and Hauer. At the same time, he was arguably the most equipped to recognize that the towers had possibly been destroyed with explosives, yet he advocated solely for the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. As a partner at the very firm that had designed the Twin Towers, his early endorsement of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis was essential in supplanting the explosion hypothesis.

Was it chance that led a series of “experts” to disarm these independent-minded news anchors with one false hypothesis after another? We think that is unlikely.

Consider that many building professionals and technical experts are known to have immediately suspected that explosives were responsible for the Twin Towers’ destruction. Notable examples of experts who first suspected explosives but then quickly changed their position include Van Romero, an explosives expert from New Mexico Tech, and Ronald Hamburger, a structural engineer who went on to work on the FEMA Building Performance Study and later on the NIST World Trade Center investigation. On 9/11, Romero told the Albuquerque Journal:

“The collapse of the buildings was ‘too methodical’ to be the chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures…. ‘My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.’”

On September 19, 2001, Hamburger told the Wall Street Journal:

“‘It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building,’…Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated, ‘I was very surprised.’”

Much like these experts, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks who conducted a four-year computer modeling of Building 7’s collapse, has said that he told his students the week after 9/11 that the Twin Towers could not have collapsed in the way they did due to the airplane impacts and ensuing fires. Similarly, Dr. Fadil Al-Kazily, a civil engineering professor from Sacramento State, once commented to this author (Ted Walter) that he was not aware of a single colleague of his who believed the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

So, how is it that every “expert” who appeared on national television that day advocated the fire-induced collapse hypothesis when there were so many who favored the explosion hypothesis?

Although it cannot be proven, we suspect that intentionality, coordination, and deception are on display in these interviews. We shall see even more of this in the deployment of Strategy Two.

Strategy Two for Accomplishing the Triumph of the Official Narrative: The War on Terror and Bin Laden Narratives

“We tell ourselves stories in order to live, or to justify taking lives…tell ourselves stories that save us and stories that are the quicksand in which we thrash and the well in which we drown.” — Rebecca Solnit, The Faraway Nearby

On 9/11, the power of narrative to evoke horror, anger and a call-to-arms was drawn on by one prominent television guest after another. Genuine evidence, such as was produced early in the day by eyewitnesses, was pushed aside by the two narratives outlined below — the quasi-metaphysical War on Terror narrative and the Bin Laden narrative, which nested within the wider War on Terror narrative.

To the extent that these narratives were convincingly conveyed to viewers, no further argument against the explosion hypothesis was necessary. The foreign evildoers had crashed airplanes into the buildings and the buildings had come down, and that was all one needed to know.

The process of sowing these two narratives relied in part on a propaganda technique visible throughout the day’s coverage. It may be called “normalizing the abnormal.”

A good example of this technique can be seen later in the day. Both before and after World Trade Center Building 7 came down, the television audience was led to believe that such an event was normal. After all, the building was on fire, so of course it might come down! This was exemplified by the captions that began running on CNN around 4:10 PM — “BUILDING 7 AT WORLD TRADE CTR. ON FIRE, MAY COLLAPSE” — and on Fox News around 4:13 PM — “TRADE CENTER BLDG 7 ON FIRE, MAY COLLAPSE” — both more than an hour before the building came down. Of course, no such building had ever come down from fire in a way remotely similar to Building 7. Nevertheless, the television networks portrayed this event as perfectly normal, to the point of being utterly predictable.

In the case of the War on Terror and Bin Laden narratives that were imposed on the attacks as a whole, viewers received a large dose of “normalizing the abnormal.” This massive, complex operation was almost immediately blamed on a relatively small and poorly funded non-state organization based far away in one of the poorest countries of the world. It would have been far more “normal” for the operation to have been carried out by a well-funded military-intelligence apparatus. To exclude this more normal scenario in favor of a much more abnormal scenario required quickly setting forth the non-state terrorism hypothesis, almost immediately offering Osama bin Laden as the prime suspect, and choreographing the repetition of these ideas by various authorities.

As documented below, many claims were made about Osama bin Laden by the prominent television guests. On 9/11, these would have been seen by many as plausible, much like the statements by the building professionals brought on as experts. Many of us expected at the time that the claims made by these guests would soon be supported by actual, usable evidence. But this did not happen.

As this author (MacQueen) wrote in The 2001 Anthrax Deception (p. 31) of the period when the U.S. was making preparations for the invasion of Afghanistan:

“Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that the U.S. would soon be preparing, for the edification of the world, a document detailing evidence of Bin Laden’s guilt. When no such document was produced, the government of the United Kingdom stepped forward. The British document of October 4 [2001] was, however, astonishingly weak. The preamble noted that, ‘this document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in the court of law’ even as it was purporting to provide something of much greater import: a casus belli. Indeed, the document consisted mainly of unverifiable claims from intelligence agencies, the evidence seldom rising to the level of circumstantial. Anthony Scrivener, Q.C., noted in The Times that, ‘it is a sobering thought that better evidence is required to prosecute a shoplifter than is needed to commence a world war [the War on Terror].’”

When the 9/11 Commission later produced its report in 2004, it was unable to support its central narrative with solid evidence and resorted repeatedly to using statements obtained under torture.

In other words, on 9/11, actual evidence usable in a court of law (eyewitness evidence of explosions) was defeated by claims that, however dramatically appealing, would not be admissible in a court of law.

(a) The War on Terror Narrative

The story of the War on Terror, as publicly set forth on television on 9/11, is a story of evil and aggression, a story that extends into the future as the righteous take up the sword of justice and vengeance. This very broad narrative, of mythical dimensions, includes the following eight elements. (Not all speakers include all eight elements, but by the end of the day all eight had been articulated.)

1. 1. Those who carried out the 9/11 operation were evil, a threat to all of civilization.

• 2. These “terror thugs” have carried out an act of war against the U.S., so the U.S. should recognize and accept that a state of war now exists.

1. 3. States that support the terror thugs (for example, Afghanistan, allegedly supporting Bin Laden) are as responsible as the terrorists themselves for the evil deeds done, so the condition of war must extend to such supporting states.

• 4. Not only the 9/11 terrorists and their supporters but all terrorists who have expressed evil intentions against the U.S., together with their supporters — most of whom are explicitly named — are, from 9/11 onward, to be regarded as at war with the U.S.

1. 5. This new and comprehensive war, known as the “War on Terror” or “War Against Terror,” is a metaphorical war (a vigorous striving, using all means, such as economic, political, and cultural), a spiritual war, and a literal war, waged with all military methods and technologies. The terrorists and their supporters, being evil, must be eliminated.

• 6. The righteous must not wait for the evil doers and their supporters to strike out but must take whatever actions are necessary to strike first.

1. 7. All countries in the world must commit themselves to action within this global conflict framework. They must make a choice whether they will be on the side of the righteous or the side of the evil — there will be no middle ground.

• 8. Parties at one time enemies of the righteous (Russia, China, and “moderate” Arab states) should be permitted to join in the War on Terror.

Although Bush administration officials gave voice to these principles in various public speeches and policy statements over a period of time after 9/11, the principles were articulated publicly on television on the day of 9/11 itself and in some cases before noon.

Presented below are three examples of the development of this narrative on 9/11: one on Fox News (by Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives), one on BBC (by Ehud Barak, the former prime minister of Israel), and one on CNN (by Richard Holbrooke, a former U.S. diplomat and assistant secretary of state).

Other speakers — whose words can be found in Appendix B, which contains statements setting forth the Bin Laden narrative — also articulated the elements of the War on Terror narrative.

Note: Although elsewhere in this study we have not used BBC footage, by a stroke of fortune Ehud Barak was in London on 9/11 and was able to spend time in the BBC studio. We include his remarks as useful expressions of this narrative by a very prominent political player.

Videos of the Newt Gingrich and Richard Holbrooke interviews are presented below along with their transcripts. Videos of Ehud Barak appearing on BBC can be found in the Internet Archive’s “Understanding 9/11” archive.

(i) Newt Gingrich, Fox News

Click here to read the full article.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Prof. Graeme MacQueen, renowned author and distinguished professor of religious studies. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for AE911Truth. He is the author of AE911Truth’s 2015 publication Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 and its 2016 publication World Trade Center Physics: Why Constant Acceleration Disproves Progressive Collapse and co-author of AE911Truth’s 2017 preliminary assessment of the Plasco Building collapse in Tehran. He holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

Featured image is from Land Destroyer Report

Video: Lahaina Truths and Newly Emerged Satellite Images Tell a Dark Story. Matt Roeske

Reinette Senum, September 1, 2023

The Criminal Insanity of Climate Change: Direct Energy Weapons (DEW) Create Forest and Bush Fires, Destroying Entire Cities and Igniting Boats in the Sea.

Peter Koenig, September 6, 2023

Is the Almighty US Dollar About to Take a Fall?

Philip Giraldi, September 5, 2023

Are Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) and HAARP Experiments Being Ratcheted Up Worldwide?

Dr. Mathew Maavak, September 3, 2023

Three Reasons: Something Sinister with the Big Push for Electric Vehicles (EVs)

Nick Giambruno, September 6, 2023

“Empire of Drugs”: Taliban’s Eradication of Opium Reveals Harsh Reality of U.S. Occupation of Afghanistan

The Free Thought Project, September 6, 2023

The Bin Ladens and the Bushes: On 9/11 George Herbert Walker Bush Meets Osama’s Brother Shafiq bin Laden

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 3, 2023

Turbo Cancer: Teachers Are Being Decimated by Aggressive and Metastatic Cancers After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Mandates

Dr. William Makis, September 6, 2023

Discredit COVID Vaccine Sceptics as “Mentally Ill”

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, September 3, 2023

Fitness Enthusiasts Are Dying Suddenly. 16 Sudden Deaths Examined

Dr. William Makis, September 4, 2023

COVID-19 Vaccine and Booster Hesitancy: How Do mRNA Vaccine Con-artists and Big Pharma Drug Pushers View Those Who Don’t Want Their Toxic Products Anymore?

Dr. William Makis, September 5, 2023

‘Human Augmentation’: Warfare of the Immediate Future?

Julian Rose, September 4, 2023

Who’s Behind “Ban Robert F. Kennedy, Jr”?

Liam Sturgess, September 2, 2023

Zelensky Buys Luxury Villa in Egypt While His Soldiers Die on Frontlines

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, August 24, 2023

Spike Protein in the Blood of the COVID-19 Vaccinated. New Study: Do 50% of Pfizer and Moderna Vaxxed Produce Spike Protein Forever?

Dr. William Makis, September 3, 2023

The Disappearance of Integrity: Organized Suppression of the Facts, Only Writers Who Support “Official Narratives” Are Tolerated.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 1, 2023

The Devastating Environmental Side Effects of the Electric Car Boom

Eco Central, September 2, 2023

The Japan-ROK-U.S. Summit: Destructive Trilateral Military Alliance. “Expressway to the East-West War”

Prof. Joseph H. Chung, September 4, 2023

The Next Crisis Is Anyone’s Guess, But the Government Is Ready to Lockdown the Nation

John W. Whitehead, September 5, 2023

Video: Is the European Union a “Colony of America”? Enforcing an “Economic Iron Curtain” with Russia: Michel Chossudovsky and James Corbett

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 6, 2023

Is It Time to Fire Your Doctor? CDC VAERS Records More Deaths from COVID Vaccines Than Total of All Previous Vaccines Combined

By Mark Taliano, September 07, 2023

The evidence is in. The COVID jabs kill. Autopsies prove it. CDC VAERS records more deaths from COVID jabs than the total of all previous vaccines combined (though the mRNA jabs are not vaccines), and only a very small percentage of adverse events are reported to VAERS. 

Children in Police Watch Houses: A Nasty Queensland Experiment

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, September 08, 2023

In Australia, jurisdictions have persistently refused to raise the age of criminal responsibility. Down under, troubled children are treated as threatening ogres, monsters to cage rather than educate. Legislatures and lawmakers have taken fiendish pleasure in using more stick than carrot in the penal process, the result being that errant ten-year-olds find themselves in facilities of supervised squalor.

Vaccines and “Fabricated Propaganda”: The Character Assassination Directed Against Robert Kennedy Jr.

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, September 07, 2023

Today, the largest purveyor of misinformation and fabricated propaganda is the US government, think tanks, compromised NGOs, social media and the mainstream corporate media. Behind this web and its false narratives is a network of powerful special interest groups who fund script writers and journalists, traitors to their profession, in order to promulgate their message.

Oil and Gas and Climate Change Fakery

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, September 07, 2023

Once again, the treatment of the Alberta Oil Patch is at the core of a dispute testing the viability of Canada’s increasingly dysfunctional governing structures. In order to better make sense of what is going on, some might see as useful this account of history and contemporary political contention. This essay highlights from my own Albertan perspective the constitutional framework of Energy Policy and of Natural Resource law in Canada, the Western Hemisphere’s largest country.

US Intensifies Its Hybrid War Against Nicaragua

By Miguel Santos García, September 07, 2023

The US is hell bent on making the democratically elected government of Nicaragua buckle under the pressure of various hybrid war tools it has crafted over the years to asphyxiate brave Latin American countries that oppose the Monroe Doctrine of neocolonialism.

Africa Climate Summit Issues Nairobi Declaration

By Abayomi Azikiwe, September 07, 2023

Nairobi, Kenya, the commercial center for the East African region, hosted the Africa Climate Summit which attracted thousands of delegates, investors and observers to discuss the worsening plight of the continent as it relates to environmental degradation.

Women’s Rights: Is There Really Pay Equity at the US Open Tennis Tournament?

By Kim Petersen, September 07, 2023

Imagine if you and others in your group are paid a flat rate, and the members of a different group are paid the same flat rate. The employer proclaims it is equal pay. But wait a minute! Your group works a 5-hour shift while the other group works a 3-hour shift for the same pay. Your group would be working 40% more for the same pay as the other group.

Ukraine’s ‘Biggest Arms Supplier’ Orchestrated 2014 Maidan Massacre, Witnesses Say

By Kit Klarenberg, September 07, 2023

Once denounced by Zelensky as a “criminal,” gun runner Serhiy Pashinksy has become the top private supplier of arms to Ukraine. Eyewitness testimony has fingered Pashinsky as the architect of a bloody false flag operation which propelled the 2014 Maidan coup and plunged the country into civil war.

Myositis: More Evidence of Immune System Damage from COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines

By Dr. William Makis, September 07, 2023

Myositis refers to a group of conditions that share common features of muscle inflammation, resulting in muscle weakness and damage. WHO VigiAccess reports 1729 cases of myositis after COVID-19 vaccination, however this is probably a significant under-reporting, as many cases are mis-diagnosed and very few cases are biopsied.

Open the Contracts: Court Rules in Favour of Vaccine Transparency

By Health Justice Initiative, September 07, 2023

On 17 August 2023, the Pretoria High Court ruled in our favour in our bid to compel the National Department of Health to provide access to the COVID-19 vaccine procurement contracts. The Court ordered (per Millar J) that all COVID-19 vaccine contracts must be made public, and the costs of the case were awarded in our favour.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Today, the largest purveyor of misinformation and fabricated propaganda is the US government, think tanks, compromised NGOs, social media and the mainstream corporate media. Behind this web and its false narratives is a network of powerful special interest groups who fund script writers and journalists, traitors to their profession, in order to promulgate their message. This certainly seems to be the case of a hit piece targeting Robert Kennedy Jr recently printed in the Libertarian publication Reason.

Liz Wolfe’s smear job is only one among many efforts to criticize and delegitimize Kennedy as a viable presidential candidate and to associate him with conspiracy theories.

The rise in Kennedy’s popularity in the polls clearly shows he represents a very real challenge to the status quo in Washington. As the campaign season proceeds, we can expect to see many more such sullied articles, and they will increase in direct proportion to the threats Kennedy poses to those in power.

For many, Kennedy’s appearance in the presidential race is a breath of fresh air for voters across the political spectrum. He represents those higher ideals of his father and his uncle JFK.

Traditional Democrats despair at the party’s lack of substance. This segment are older, more independent yet cling to the party out of loyalty while simultaneously being fed up with the Clinton Wall Street New Democrats and their duplicity, lack of traditional liberal ideals and its growing legacy of deceit and dishonesty.

This arrives at a time when a July Gallup poll found Americans’ faith in our political institutions at an historical low, with public confidence in the presidency at 26 percent and Congress at 8 percent. The television news and prejudiced print media, which Wolfe represents, are equally at dismal lows of 14 percent and 18 percent respectively.

Therefore it is understandable that Kennedy would worry the ideologues in Washington because they are at loggerheads over what might happen to their control over national policy if he were elected.

What they can be certain of is that Kennedy will not be as compliant and manageable as Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama and Biden.

Screenshot of Liz Wolfe’s article

We therefore offer a simple rebuttal to this  journalist and challenge Reason‘s editorial board for their serious negligence in properly vetting a cheap screed that is demonstrably false. 

Wolfe’s Reason article purports to be an objective critique based upon scientific evidence, especially regarding vaccines and infectious disease.

Instead, she fails to support any of her maligned accusations with reliable evidence.

Kennedy on many occasions since announcing his presidential candidacy has been challenged about his stance on vaccine safety. Repeatedly he has retold the story about filing a complaint in the US Southern District of New York Court against the Department of Health and Human Services for its failure to provide a single documented example for any vaccine on the CDC’s children’s vaccination schedule showing that it has been properly tested against a placebo like all pharmaceutical drugs before licensure. By HHS’s own admission, Kennedy stated, no such clinical trial exists. The court document states:

“The [Department]’s searchers for records did not locate any records responsive to your request. The Department of Health and Human Services Immediate Office of the Secretary conducted a thorough search of its document tracking systems…. Also conducted a comprehensive review of all the relevant indexes… of records maintained at Federal Records Centers…”

Except for those mentally handicapped, what other proof is necessary? The federal agency’s attempts to explain away the rationale for the absence of placebo controlled studies in pre-licensure vaccine clinical trials violates all scientific standards of efficacy and safety. Here we enter the twilight zone of corporate science and encounter perhaps one of the most ludicrous declarations in the history of modern medicine.  The HHS responds,

“Inert placebo controls are not required to understand the safety profile of a new vaccine and are thus not required. In some cases, inclusion of placebo control groups is considered unethical. Even in the absence of a placebo, control groups can be useful for evaluating whether the incidence of a specific observed adverse event exceeds that which would be expected without administration of the new vaccine.”

This is voodoo medicine and magical thinking; however, these are not the words of witchdoctors but rather our senior government health officials responsible for the public safety of children’s health and well-being.

Besides there is a voluminous body of peer-reviewed scientific papers showing a strong causal relationship between toxic vaccine ingredients and the rise in childhood neurological disorders.

Biology professor Brian Hooker, and a father of a vaccine-injured autistic son, recently published one of the few thorough studies to date comparing the health status between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. 

Hooker’s and his colleague Dr. Neil Miller’s results reported a statistically significant higher incidence of lower mental development, inflammatory gastrointestinal disorders (as Andrew Wakefield’s Lancet study reported), asthma and ear infections among those vaccinated. Wolfe’s argument that the high rate of delayed mental conditions, such as autism or ADHD, is simply a consequence of undiagnosed cases is at its core disingenuous. It is also stupid. Preparing for this rebuttal to put Wolfe’s wildly opinionated jeremiad into context, we have been unable to find a single robust study in the National Library of Medicine that even suggests Wolfe’s claim might be reasonable.

Moreover, Kennedy has never placed all of the blame for the rise in autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders on vaccines.

As a seasoned environmental attorney for several decades, he is knowledgeable about other environmental toxins found in common everyday household products that contribute to neurodevelopmental delays. Wolfe could have at least conducted a very simple internet search to discover exposure to methylmercury, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, endocrine disruptors, organic pesticides, etc. among the top ten environmental contributors to autism and learning disabilities.  A recent study from Hebrew University in Jerusalem has reconfirmed earlier evidence that fetal phthalates in “everywhere plastic” interfere with emotional and behavioral developmental issues in 2 year old boys.

Taking a side smack at Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Wolfe has evidently fallen into the same rabbit hole as every other pro-vaccination ideologue before her to accuse the British gastroenterological specialist as the father of the anti-vaccination movement. However, what Wakefield’s retracted Lancet paper concludes makes no reference to the MMR vaccine as a cause for autism. The paper states,

“We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunization. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and it’s possible relation to this vaccine.”

Wakefield solely reported an association between vaccine-induced enterocolitis and neuropsychiatric dysfunction. Nor did the study make any reference to the MMR as a possible causal agent for autism. Since the Wakefield incident, later independent research has confirmed his original reporting to have been accurate.

In her accusatory potshot at Kennedy and Wakefield as the culprits who ”stoke” anti-vaccination frenzy, we can observe the utter sloppiness in her research.

Remarking on the 2015 and 2019 measles outbreaks as a result of a decline in vaccination compliance, Wolfe’s sole reference is an article published in 2010, five years before the events she reports. Furthermore, the notion of the MMR’s success in eradicating mumps has no merit whatsoever. Mumps outbreaks most often occur among the mostly heavily vaccinated populations.

This is not speculation; it was the conclusion of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation.  Moreover, in 2014, a Pennsylvania court ruled that two Merck virologists’ lawsuit against the MMR manufacturer would go to trial. The scientists’ charges are that Merck’s claims of its mumps vaccine’s effectiveness is knowingly false and was part of Merck’s business strategy to deceive health authorities for financial advantage in order to monopolize the market. At that time, Merck’s mumps vaccine earned the company $621 million. The case has now expanded into antitrust litigation against the vaccine maker for misleading the public.

Wolfe’s attempt to debunk Kennedy’s comments about the rise of polio cases in relation to the vaccine is again poorly researched. First, the World Health Organization claims about a 99 percent decline in global polio cases has been  held suspect by many.

We might remind ourselves that this is an organization that has been repeatedly wrong about many of its pandemic predictions and preventative policies including the H1N1 swine flu, Zika virus and Ebola pandemic scares, none that could even be ruled as serious epidemics.

Although the polio vaccine has been discontinued in developed nations, due to the adverse risk of “polio-like paralysis” or acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), it is still administered in poorer developed nations for one sole purpose: it is easier to manufacture and more cost effective. AFP continues to affect polio vaccinated populations in the thousands. One of the most nefarious vaccination boondoggles launched by Bill Gates occurred in rural India in 2011. Within a year following a massive vaccination campaign, with an increased dosage of the polio virus due to its failure to generate an adequate immune response, there were over 53,500 reported case of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP), which is clinically indistinguishable from wild polio paralysis yet far more fatal. The Indian health authorities’ investigation was published in the April-June 2012 issue of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics and a legal suit was filed against Gates.  Unsurprising, despite the evidence to the contrary,

Bill Gates and the WHO announced India was a polio-free nation in 2014, another sleight of hand performance of vaccine voodoo.

A later study reported that there have been 490,000 cases of polio-like paralysis in India between 2000-2017. In his article assessing the polio vaccine’s history and efficacy appearing in the journal Medical Veritas, Dr. Neil Miller recounts various incidences of polio outbreaks due to river and sewage contamination. Most poignant was a Japanese discovery of a new infectious polio strain found in Tokyo’s waterways. After genetic sequencing, the novel mutation was traced back to the polio vaccine.

If Bobby Kennedy is correct, and all of our federal health agencies are wrong, then millions of young children’s lives are at risk. Oddly for a new mother, whose child now faces the CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule, Wolfe seems unwilling to critically evaluate the potential risks that Kennedy has been warning about for two decades.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Once again, the treatment of the Alberta Oil Patch is at the core of a dispute testing the viability of Canada’s increasingly dysfunctional governing structures. In order to better make sense of what is going on, some might see as useful this account of history and contemporary political contention. This essay highlights from my own Albertan perspective the constitutional framework of Energy Policy and of Natural Resource law in Canada, the Western Hemisphere’s largest country.

For now, the core controversy has to do with the generation and distribution of electricity in Alberta. Will dependable natural gas fuel the power grid of Alberta? Or will Ottawa get its way and force on Canada’s oil-and-gas dynamo a dependence on the flimsy technology of wind power and solar panels. Will the Alberta government decide the future of its own domestic system for generating energy or will this matter be determined by the climate-change zealots who presently control Canada’s national government?

The current controversy is most likely a gateway to further rounds of antagonism in Canada and beyond. Suddenly it seems the world is at a cross-roads in the life-or-death quest for the most satisfactory means of producing energy safely, profitably, cheaply, and efficiently.

As so much else in the world, the politics of energy policy are in turbulent flux especially now that the fast-growing BRICS coalition is already well along the path to taking control of the lion’s share of world’s oil and gas.

The rapid rise of BRICS in the face of the US-led military machinations in oil-rich Eurasia illustrates the pace of change, seemingly near the speed of light.

These transformations in global energy production are leaving the NATO-tied Canadian government behind in the dust of WOKE ineptitude and confusion. Especially in Alberta, the impatience with federal superciliousness is coming at a time when there is a worldwide upsurge highlighting how governments continue to impose litanies of purposeful harm on their own peoples.

This understanding is leading many to the conclusion that we the people have no choice but to actively resist the extensions of the depopulation agenda which began with the jabbing of military bioweapons forced into bodies through the incessant telling of media lies buttressed by mandated infringements on bodily autonomy. Given what we have experienced since 2020, it is easy to see the makings of another Covidian-style scam with panic-promoting premonitions that the world is about to burn up unless we our trust in governments to protect us from the hellfires.

The Canadian government of Justin Trudeau is starting to generate much ridicule and contempt for its simple-minded directives that Canadians must pull together to conquer “climate change.” The abstraction that climate change represents humanity’s biggest threat is an absurdity that, when enforced, opens the door to many hideous prospects.

The authority of science has been unmasked as oftentimes a fraud to be purchased and manipulated by the highest bidder. There are very few credible arbitrators of scientific claims who have resisted trading on their credentials to receive payola. Peer review and all it represents are now widely understood as a process frequently rigged to further protect the most entrenched interests of the status quo.

There is no genuine scientific consensus to back up back up the extravagant claims of the richly-funded lobby seeking to conquer climate change by applying the nonsensical alchemy of net zero. Carbon emissions generally, and CO2 specifically, are not environmental hazards. Life thrives on carbon in the atmosphere. Thousands of credible researchers including Nobel laureats are going on record to make the point that the crusade to stop climate change is becoming increasingly dangerous.

One of these laureates, Physicist John Francis Clauser, explains

“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists….[click here] There is no real climate crisis.”

Climate-Change Fakery and Energy Policy in Canadian Federalism 

Our atmosphere is subject to many attacks from humans.

The most serious of these attacks have nothing to do with carbon emissions from industrialization. Among these menaces are many forms of military geo-engineering.

A good example of the kind of attacks we are facing from our malevolent governors are the Directed Energy Weapons used to zap Maui in order to clear the way for a 15 minute city. In the face of this military attack, to attribute the Maui disaster to climate change is nothing short of an insult to those with the capacity to think critically. See this.

Geo-engineering together with all forms of warfare menace all varieties of life on earth. Trying to stop the weather from changing is not a valid goal whereas stopping wars from being fought would be an achievement to be treasured for the ages. As we are being beset with directives of what we must do to prevent the climate from changing, we are being subjected to huge arrays of very real menaces. These menaces include the intensifying weaponization of our food, water, air, medicine, elections, Internet, intelligence agencies, courts, schools, and much much more.

The current regional split over Energy Policy in Canada replicates some of the big themes that dominated the imposition of the National Energy Program between 1980 and 1985. The former crisis and the current crisis now in 2023 were both instigated by the actions of the Trudeau dynasty’s two prime ministers, senior and junior. Both attacks have generated especially grave grievances in Alberta. Once again the machinations of a Trudeau are generating increased appetite for greater independence from Ottawa.

I believe it is necessary to dig deeper into history than the 1980s to make sense of the current phase of the dispute over Energy Policy and self-governance within the structures of Canadian federalism.

The conflict unfolding in Canada is regional even as it is also integral to international and global developments currently underway. The conflict is being articulated by two larger-than-life-characters, Justin Trudeau and Danielle Smith. Both seem to have been born for this showdown during this particular of phase of a global eruption that came in response to the campaign to jab the entire population of the world with a harmful gene-modifying concoction.

As long as Ontario and Quebec can overwhelm the rest of the country at the ballot box, there is in my view little possibility of fixing the country by voting our way out of trouble.

Nevertheless, before embarking on more ambitious and adventurous approaches to fixing what ails us, we must try to realize some level of constructive compromise through existing structures including the courts. Before entering the realm of international law and politics, we must be able to demonstrate we have exhausted existing procedures in seeking remedies for the maladies plaguing us.

---

Read Part II:

Oil and Gas and “The Climate-Change Fakery”: The Constitutional Underpinnings of the Natural Resource Wars Between the Canada and Alberta Governments

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, September 14, 2023

---

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.