Individuals willing to be contacted for information and/or leading groups of activists striving for truth around the crimes of 9-11-2001. To request your name be added to this list, or to change or remove your information, please utilize the Contact form linked at the righthand column.

Monday, August 22, 2016

Colorado Public TV New Documentary - Demolition of Truth

Paul Craig Roberts - Can Russia Survive Washington's Challenge?

Can Russia Survive Washington’s Challenge?

By Paul Craig Roberts

August 22, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - News services abroad ask me if President Erdogan of Turkey will, as a result of the coup attempt, realign Turkey with Russia. At this time, there is not enough information for me to answer. Speculation in advance of information is not my forte.

Moreover, I do not know if it is true that Moscow warned the President of Turkey of the coup, and I do not know if Washington was behind the coup. Therefore, I do not know how to weigh the scales. As I see it, whether Turkey stays with Washington or realigns with Moscow depends first of all on whether or not Moscow warned Turkey and whether or not Washington was behind the coup. If this is what Erdogan believes, whether true or false, Erdogan is likely to align with Russia. However, other factors will also influence Erdogan’s decision. For example, Erdogan’s belief about how resolute Putin is to standing up to Washington.

Erdogan will not want to align with Russia if he thinks Russia is not up to Washington’s challenge. Erdogan sees Putin endlessly asking for Washington’s cooperation, and Erdogan understands that Washington sees this as a sign of Russian weakness. Washington slaps Putin in the face, and Putin replies by asking for cooperation against ISIS. I understand why Putin responds this way. He wants to avoid a war between US/NATO and Russia that neither side can win. Putin is a man of peace and accepts affronts in order to save life. This is admirable. But that might not be the way Erdogan sees it. Erdogan might see it like Washington sees it: weakness.

The second consideration is whether Washington or Moscow offers Erdogan the best deal. Washington most certainly does not want the breakup of NATO and will strive to keep Turkey in NATO at all costs. Washington, for example, might deliver Gulen to Erdogan, and Washington might put one billion dollars in a bank account for Erdogan. This is easy for Washington to do, as Washington can print all of the world’s reserve currency it wishes to print. It is impossible for Moscow to deliver Gulen, and because Yeltsin accepted US advice conveyed through the IMF, the Russian ruble is not a substitute for the US dollar.

The world is accustomed to seeing Washington prevail, because Washington relies on force. Except for Putin’s response to the Georgian attack on South Ossetia, the world is accustomed to seeing Putin rely on diplomacy. As Mao said, power comes out of the barrel of a gun, and so the world believes. Putin seemed to be decisive when he accepted the Crimean vote and reunited the Crimea with Russia, But Putin turned down the requests of the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk to rejoin Russia, and this made Russia look weak. It also prolonged the conflict and the death and destruction continues.

In my opinion this strategic failure by Putin is the result of advice from the Russian “Atlanticist Integrationists”—the people who think that Russia does not count unless it is part of the West. In every sense, these pro-Western members of the Russian government are de facto members of the Treason Party. Yet they serve as a constraint on Russian decisiveness. The absence of Russian decisiveness provokes more pressure from Washington. It is a losing game for the Russian government to invite pressure from the West.

Washington sees that Putin is unable to break away from the influence of the Atlanticist Integrationists, which includes the Russian economic establishment led by the independent central bank. Therefore, Washington continues to make Washington’s cooperation with Russia in Syria dependent on Putin’s agreement that “Assad must go.” Putin wants to get rid of ISIS, because ISIS can infect Muslim areas of the Russian Federation. But if he agrees to get rid of Assad, chaos will prevail in Syria just as chaos prevails in Iraq and Libya, and Russia will have accepted Washington’s overlordship. Russia will become another vassal country added to Washington’s collection.

The real danger for Russia lies in Russia’s desire for Western acceptance. As long as Russians have this desire, they are a doomed people.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Trump was right - proof they DID found ISIS

How We Know ISIS Was Made In The USA
By Roger Stone

August 20, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - "Lew Rockwell" - Judicial Watch proved it. Under a Freedom of Information Act request, Judicial Watch was able to obtain a (heavily redacted) copy of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) directive that initiated the creation of ISIS in 2012. the DIA report states,


Not even Judicial Watch seems to have appreciated the significance of this document, where its press release focused on the Benghazi attack. Recent releases of Hillary’s emails, moreover, confirm that taking out Assad has nothing to do with his alleged abuse of the Syrian people but because it will help Israel.

Just in case it has slipped anyone’s mind, Hillary was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. Barack was inaugurated in 2008 and steps down in 2016. It happened on their watch. It could not have happened without their approval. They really did create ISIS!

The chemical attacks on Syrian citizens on 21 August 2013 was meant to justify lobbing cruise missiles into Syria. Obama was ready, but Americans were not. And when the ploy was debunked by a 50-page dossier the Russians provided to the UN, they resorted to “Plan B”, which was the creation of ISIS by the DIA.

The chemical weapons are widely believed to have been provided to the “rebels” by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, to whom the Bush family refers as “Bandar Bush”. But recent releases of Hillary’s emails suggest that she was directing the transfer of weapons from Libya to Syria and chemical weapons may have been among them.

The Benghazi attack appears to have been initiated because Ambassador Christ Stevens was concerned that some of the weapons being sent to Syria could be used against the civilian population. The Obama administration has stonewalled inquiries as to whether Benghazi had anything to do with transferring weapons to the rebels. That means “Yes!”

The signs have been there right along the way, but the media has not been reporting them. Here are some of the facts reported in a recent study about ISIS:

* On 23 February 2015, *FARS* reported that the (much maligned) Iraqi Army had downed 2 UK cargo planes carrying weapons for ISIS, which was among the first signs that things were not as the world was being told by Western—and especially US—news sources.

* On 1 March 2015, *FARS* reported that Iraqi popular forces are known as “Al-Hashad Al-Shabi” shot down a US helicopter carrying weapons for ISIL in Al-Anbar province of which they had photographs.

* On 10 April 2015, *Press TV* reported that, in response to a request by Syrian that ISIL be named a terrorist organization, the US, Britain, France, and Jordan refused, which was rather baffling on its face.

* Photographs were appearing contemporaneously showing ISIS members sporting “US Army” tattoos, which the American media has yet to acknowledge. Confirm this for yourself by searching for “ISIS members sporting US Army tattoos” online.

* On 19 May 2015, Brad Hoof of, “2012 Defense intelligence Agency document: West will facilitate rise of Islamic State ‘in order to isolate the Syrian regime”, based upon the release of a selection of formerly classified documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the US Department of Defense and Department of State.

* On 22 June 2015, ex-CIA contractor, Steven Kelley, explained the US “created ISIL for sake of Israel” and to have a “never-ending war” in the Middle East, which would make the countries there “unable to stand up to Israel” and to provide “the constant flow of orders for weapons from the military-industrial complex at home, which is feeding a lot of money to the senators pushing for these wars”.

There’s more–a lot more, including photographs of Sen. John McCain with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. You can find dozens of them on the internet. In Washington, ISIS is widely known as “John McCain’s army”. So what’s wrong with a candidate for president making the point that his opponent and her most prominent support actually created ISIS? Trump is right.

Reference: ent/Documents/How-We-Know-ISIS -Was-MADE-IN-THE-USA-.htm

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

NYC 9/11 Event


by James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization


The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union replaced its 64-year-old regime with a restructured one, suddenly dropping its remaining lip-service to Marxist-Leninist principles, in 1991, and dividing itself into 15 sovereign states, the largest of which are Ukraine and Russia (still a colossus spanning continents).

But increasingly, over the past several years, the neocon forces largely having taken command of, consequently, now uber-militarized U.S. foreign policy and “defense” strategy, have audaciously sought to goad and surround the Russian state likewise rife, mainly due to inheritance, with a doomsday nuclear arsenal and active advanced weapon development capabilities. Leading a fairly ambivalent bevy of NATO allies, the U.S. has, for reasons of its own, systematically dragged the two sides back to the brink of existential nuclear war – fomenting what amounts to a dangerous new Cold War on steroids.

To the best of my non-specialist, observant layman’s understanding, here’s 1) how they’ve done it, and 2) how they’ve said (and still say) they’ve done it.

Beginning around the time they (the neocon internal hijackers of U.S./western policy) sprung 9/11 on an unwary world, they began, through the captive CIA, working with internal malcontents and turncoats-for-hire inside a sizable number of smaller new states and old surrounding gargantuan Russia, to bring about what are referred to as a series of “color revolutions”. The object of which was the overthrow of Russia’s bordering allies, and their replacement with regimes willing to host western nuclear bases in exchange for western lucre.

Several of these somewhat tooth-like edifices were actually loosened with blinding speed to the extent that they forsook their less-profitable close political and economic alliances with Russia and joined the EU and NATO, all in an attempt to neutralize truculent giant Russia herself by binding her hand and foot.

Of course, Russia did not take this treaty-and promise-breaking sequential development/provocation well. Thus, the rise of Putin, a former knight of the KBG, as the strong leader the Russian people trusted, who commanded the risen Red Army to avenge and correct emboldened resentment against large ethnic Russian minorities in former satellite countries like the Republic of Georgia – despite howls of protest in the western (mainly U.S.) halls of power and media.

Then, a couple of years ago, or a bit more, the goading actions of the west were escalated when the pro-Russian (but independent) duly elected government of a much larger bordering state, Ukraine, to the south, was dislodged by U.S.-encouraged para-military gangs choreographed by Victoria Nuland of the U.S. State Department and led by members of a local neo-Nazi party, marching en masse on Kiev, the country’s ancient capital. These sponsored thugs, recognized as somehow legitimate and in ascendance, meanwhile, fearing reaction by the very large Russian nationality almost-majority concentrated in the eastern half of the country, engaged the local militia forces in pitched battle.

It is important to note that throughout this period of civil strife in eastern Ukraine – according to a statement freely issued by the number 2 man in the unelected Kiev pro-western regime – although actual Russian troops amassed along the Ukraine border, none were known ever to cross into Ukrainian territory.

Meanwhile, to the south of traditional Ukraine, jutting into the Black Sea as a relatively minor peninsular appendage, lay the Crimea, traditionally a small but vital part of Russia. (Its significance lay mostly in the fact that it provided the Russians a unique accessible warm-water port). Historically, the Crimea was tendered as an internal gift of friendship from the Russian Soviet Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic in the early 1950s. About 95% of Crimea’s population was, and is, ethnically Russian.

So, when the entire Russian population of Crimea began to fear drastic treatment at the hands of the neo-Nazil-led Ukrainian forces then running amok in eastern Ukraine, they naturally sent a plea to Russia for protection. And someone got the bright idea of Crimea trying to re-join Russia outright, and so the vehicle of a plebiscite was born to demonstrate that intent – which, of course, was virtually unanimous. And the rest is history.

Except in the U.S. and its strategic European satellites, where the version broadcast goes like this:

Russia, under Putin, it is stated, has shown her aggressive, re-expansionist nature most menacingly, by first attacking poor little Georgia and then invading eastern Ukraine – and then by “grabbing” Crimea! And the pro-Russian government in Ukraine under its pro-Russian former president, Yevtoshenko (actually, democratically-elected) was dictatorially trying to prevent Ukraine from joining the EU and NATO, as its population clamored for, and accordingly, was overthrown by patriotic Ukrainian citizens (who just happened to be wearing brown shirts, or something like that). And the bad Russians shot down the wayward Malaysian airliner over Ukrainian airspace under Putin’s orders – despite all expert findings and testimony to the contrary (see previous postings). Etc.

And now, they (the U.S. media) is screaming that the campaign manager for the benighted candidate opposing their Queen Dowager used to advise as a client the bad old president of Ukraine, Yevtoshenko. And now (supposedly), he, the putrid opposition nominee, and Putin are all in cahoots, surely to no good end.

And the beat goes on. . . while that awful Putin has thrown sand in the gears of the west’s already-sputtering overthrow machinery in Syria, by most-effectively shooting up those very gangs of terrorists who were sponsored, provisioned, and protected by the west, while avoiding harm to those protecting the oddly rather popular object of the west’s wrath, the beleaguered Assad, trying and for the moment succeeding in holding his country together.

Now, if all that doesn’t cry out for thermo-nuclear annihilation of all parties, what on earth does? quoth the QD and the Victoria Nulands. And all of the minions keep reading this very script, more or less, on-air.

P.S. – So, is the U.S. establishment dependent on lies for its maintenance? No; it’s more fittingly called narrative, and even Hollywood’s tightly-enforced narrative is scripted by the nightly news, embroidering new exotic piece-by-piece as required. And as I’ve opined – that is the “top-secret memo”. No need to be leaked.

JH: 8/16/16