All Episodes
Previous Next
June 2, 2021 - InfoWars Films
01:50:12
TERRORSTORM - A History Of Government Sponsored Terror (2006)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I can't believe it.
The war on terror may last a hundred years.
The new kind of war against a shadowy enemy that can never be defeated.
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
Generation after generation will have to lay down its liberty in an endless war for global empire.
It was a breathtaking display of firepower.
And the Pentagon says we ain't seen nothing yet.
The perfect specter to convince populations to relinquish their liberty in the name of security.
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.
And if he does not disarm, the United States of America will lead a coalition and disarm him in the name of peace.
We've been told that we're facing a hundred-year war that will last generation after generation.
In this film, we will explore who pulls the strings and who benefits from the dark spectacle of modern warfare.
We will answer the question, do the people know how they are controlled?
Do they understand the systems of power that surround them, the modern propaganda machines of public relations that wash their brains and fill their minds full of ball games and mindless fluff?
Is the population beginning to realize that governments throughout history have used the specter of fear to drive their populations into acquiescing to total tyranny?
September 11th, national ID cards, Big Brother, the Iraq War, the 7-7 bombings in London, the invasion of Iran.
How are they all interconnected?
In previous films, we have focused predominantly on September 11th as the foundational event, the pretext for the current geopolitical structure.
The smartest thing to do is pull it.
And they made that decision to pull.
Then we watched the building collapse.
National polls show that most Americans and Westerners believe the official story of 9-11 to be a fraud.
And a large part of that majority believes that 9-11 was an inside job.
But the establishment press continues to contest any alternative view concerning 9-11.
In this documentary, we will first look at historical events that are not contested.
Events where the fact of government-sponsored terror is not debated, but in fact openly admitted to by Western governments.
There are literally hundreds of examples of government-sponsored terrorism in modern history, or what are known as false flag operations.
We're going to start by looking at just five past examples, then we'll look at several modern cases.
What is a false flag?
The encyclopedia definition reads, False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or by other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they were carried out by other entities.
The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors, that is, flying the flag of a country other than your own.
There are many variants of false flag operations, but one of the most popular, carried out by governments, is to stage a terror attack or horrible criminal incident and then blame it on your political enemies.
One of the best-known cases of a false flag op was carried out by the newly elected Adolf Hitler on February 27, 1933. Nazi documents uncovered at the end of World War II, as well as testimony during the Nuremberg trials, revealed what many historians already suspected, that Hermann Göring had set fire to the Reichstag, the German parliament building.
The Nazis then produced their patsy, Marinus van der Lube, an extremely mentally handicapped young man who was found rolling around in an alley behind the Reichstag, naked.
Vander Lube was then taken before a Nazi show trial, found guilty, and sentenced to death.
He was beheaded on January 10, 1934. Using the crisis he had created to pass laws similar to the USA Patriot Act, Hitler became dictator and set his sights on the world.
By March of 1939, Hitler had already seized Czechoslovakia.
Having gained both Austria and Czechoslovakia, Hitler desired to move east against Poland.
But he did not want to look like the aggressor.
Hitler needed an excuse for attacking Poland.
It was Heinrich Himmler who came up with a plan.
Thus, the operation was codenamed Operation Himmler.
On the night of August 31, 1939, the Germans took an unknown prisoner from one of the concentration camps, dressed him in a Polish uniform, took him to the town of Gliwitz on the German-Polish border, and then shot him.
The stage scene with a dead prisoner dressed in a Polish uniform was supposed to appear as a Polish attack against the German radio station.
German radio, newspapers, and newsreels were flooded with images of what appeared to be a dead Polish soldier who had dared attack the Reich.
Now Hitler had his excuse to invade Poland, and the nightmare of World War II had begun.
In 1953, the Central Intelligence Agency, working in tandem with MI6, working in tandem with MI6, overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, Dr. Mohamed Mouzadek. .
Mozadek had been educated in the West, was pro-America, and had driven communist forces out of the north of his country shortly after being elected in 1951. Mozadek then nationalized the oil fields, And denied British Petroleum a monopoly.
The CIA's own History Department at CIA.gov details how U.S. and British intelligence agents carried out terror attacks and then subsequently blamed them on Mosaddegh.
In the late 1990s, large sections of Operation Ajax were declassified.
The field commander of Operation Ajax was none other than the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt.
Before his death in 2000, Roosevelt went public to the media bragging about his patriotism and carrying out terror attacks in Iran and blaming it on the government.
The provocations included propaganda, demonstrations, bribery, agents of influence, and false flag operations.
They bombed the home of a prominent religious leader and blamed it on Mosaddegh.
They attacked mosques, machine gun crowds, and then handed out thousands of handbills claiming that Mosaddegh had done it.
The handbills read, up with Mosaddegh, up with communism, down with Allah.
Dr. Mohamed Mosaddegh was incarcerated for the duration of his life.
He fared better than many of his ministers who were executed just days after the successful coup.
For crimes that MI6 and CIA had committed.
The CIA then formed the dreaded Iranian Secret Police, or SAVAK, and a 25-year reign of terror and torture then commenced.
The operation was seen by Western intelligence agencies as a huge success.
the CIA then successfully used the exact same technique in scores of countries to overthrow elected governments and dictators alike.
Operation Gladio is an umbrella name for literally hundreds of bombings carried out by Western intelligence agencies in NATO, in Italy, Western Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia. Western Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia.
From 1947 until 1981, Italian presidents have gone public admitting Operation Gladio targeted innocent civilians and was to be blamed on leftists and communists.
On November 22, 1990, the European Parliament had a resolution condemning the activities of Operation Gladio.
The former Italian intelligence chief has come clean concerning Gladio's actions as well.
Many other countries have declassified documents concerning Gladio.
It is part of the public record that our government and other Western governments targeted trains, buses, schools.
Several times operatives zeroed in on school buses, knowing that images of dead children would get the population hopping mad and ready to relinquish their liberties.
A particularly bloody bombing at the central station of Bologna, Italy, on the morning of August 2nd, 1980, which killed 85 people and wounded more than 200, caused some Italian officials to break their silence and begin to expose just a small part of this wicked operation.
And now the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
In the summer of 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson needed a pretext to commit the American people to the already expanding covert war in Southeast Asia.
Three communist PT boats attacked an American destroyer off the coast of Vietnam yesterday, and today President Johnson's response was hard and tough.
To any armed attack upon our forces, we shall reply.
To any in Southeast Asia who ask our help in defending their freedom, we shall give it.
In November of 2001, the LBJ Presidential Library and Museum released tapes of phone conversations with the President and then Defense Secretary Robert the LBJ Presidential Library and Museum released tapes of phone conversations with the President and then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, where they openly discussed As a pretext to expand the war.
Then, in late 2005, the National Security Agency declassified its own official history of the Gulf of Tonkin and admitted that intelligence agency officers had deliberately skewed the intelligence and claimed that Vietnamese patrol boats had attacked U.S. destroyers on August 4, 1964, when in reality they had done nothing, even while being fired on by U.S. forces.
Congress then authorized the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
The Tonkin lie paved the way for 58,000 American deaths and over a million and a half dead Vietnamese.
On October 6, 1976, two time bombs made of C-4 planted on a Douglas DC-8 aircraft exploded, killing all 73 people on board in the most deadly act of airline terrorism in the Western Hemisphere until September 11, 2001. The plane was carrying Olympic athletes from three countries, including gold medal winners from Cuba.
Declassified FBI and CIA documents show that the convicted bombers of the flight had been given U.S. visas just days before the attack and that they were in the employ of the U.S. government.
This had been reported on in respected publications for years, but has now been confirmed by multiple declassifications.
Cuban plane bomber was CIA agent.
Declassified U.S. government documents show that a man suspected of involvement in the bombing of a Cuban passenger plane worked for the CIA. Luis Posada Correlias In
the early 1960s, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ella Lemonser, concocted a plan for false flag operations as a pretext to invade Cuba and for war with the Soviet Union.
In Operation Northwoods, they planned to hijack jets by remote control, crash them, and blame the attack on Cuba.
There were many other terrorist attacks they planned to carry out that were contained within the document.
One scenario mentioned was the destruction of a U.S. naval vessel that was to be blamed on a foreign power.
As a pretext for war with any enemy they picked, President Lyndon Baines Johnson went operational with Northwoods on June 8, 1967 during the Six-Day War.
During the Six-Day War between Israel and the Arab nations, the USS Liberty was sent by Johnson to collect electronic intelligence in the eastern Mediterranean.
The clearly marked U.S. intelligence ship was 14 miles off the coast of Israel in international waters.
A short time after the air attack had been completed...
The three torpedo boats approach us from our starboard quarter at high speed and in an apparent torpedo launch attitude.
Israeli surveillance aircraft flew low over the ship and clearly identified it as an American vessel.
At 2 p.m.
that afternoon, the USS Liberty was attacked by three Mirage 3 fighter bombers.
From the onset of the attack, the fighter bombers were jamming U.S. signals.
Not only were they jamming U.S. signals specifically, they were also unmarked, the only unmarked aircraft in Israel's arsenal.
The fighter bombers strafed the ships with their cannons, dropped conventional munitions and napalm on the ship, repeatedly from stem to stern.
After the Mirages had done their work, the ship was hit by medium bomber Desalt Miseries carrying napalm and other munitions like white phosphorous.
The USS Liberty was then attacked by three Israeli torpedo boats bearing Israeli flags.
The torpedo gunboats opened fire with high-caliber machine guns and launched torpedoes.
A single torpedo struck the ship, blowing a hole in both sides, entering the ship and leaving a 30-foot exit hole when it exploded.
Then the torpedo boats began strafing life rafts in the water, an international war crime.
While all of this was happening, the oversized American flag flew clearly above the ship.
The attack on the Liberty went on for hour after hour after hour.
During the entire attack, the USS Liberty continually called the 6th Fleet that was nearby, begging for air support or rescue.
Two aircraft carriers in the Med responded by launching fighter aircraft.
Unbelievably, they were recalled by the White House.
Rear Admiral Geis, then commanding the carriers in the 6th Fleet, called Washington personally to confirm the recall order.
Secretary of Defense McNamara came on the line, and then President Johnson himself told Geis, I want that goddamn ship going to the bottom.
No help.
Recall the wings.
Imagine being Admiral Geis, begging the President to allow you to defend an American ship that's under attack, and being told by him that he wants the ship going to the bottom.
Despite the fact that the U.S. carriers withdrew their help, a Russian spy ship appeared and witnessed part of the attack.
After three hours into the attack, the Israelis withdrew because there were witnesses, allowing the damaged USS Liberty to limp to safety.
Forty years after the attack on the USS Liberty, we know exactly what happened.
I've interviewed former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moore.
I've interviewed the admirals that were on the line, who heard what President Johnson said.
I've even talked to the head JAG officer of the Navy who was ordered to falsify the reports and cover up what had really happened.
One of the Israeli pilots has gone public as well, saying that three times he refused over his radio to headquarters to attack the ship, saying clearly that it was an American ship in international waters and an ally.
He was ordered under threat of court-martial to engage the ship.
In a nutshell, this is what happened.
President Johnson had personal control over the ship, Parked it in the Mediterranean, made a backroom deal with Israel to attack it with an order to kill all aboard.
Then the attack on the ship was to be blamed on Egypt.
The U.S. would enter the war and take over the entire Middle East in the aftermath of the attack on the most highly decorated ship in U.S. history.
The captain and his entire crew were told they would spend life in prison or be killed if they told anyone what happened.
Captain William L. McGonagall was given the Congressional Medal of Honor in secret and told not to tell anyone that he had won the award.
Now that we've looked at a small cross-section of historical examples of government-sponsored terrorism, let's fast forward to the horrific attacks of 7-7 in London.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, leader of the Labour Party, was facing an uphill battle in parliamentary elections.
National polls showed that his pro-war party was sure to lose, and then right on time, the bombings of 7-7 and 7-21 occurred.
Within days of the London bombings, evidence began to emerge indicating Western Intelligence Agency involvement.
I traveled to London from Austin, Texas to personally investigate.
God save our gracious Queen, the people of the Queen, God save our Queen.
Sing the victorious, happy and glorious, come to the Lord and come to the Lord and sing the Queen.
Once I arrived, I was met by Paul Joseph Watson and his brother Steve Watson, who are reporters for my news website, PrisonPlanet.com.
I'm not sure if I'm going to die.
To understand the London bombers and who perpetrated them, we first need to look at 3/11, 2004, the bombings in Madrid, Spain.
Years after the blast that rocked trains in the city of Madrid, Spain, the government admits that Al-Qaeda had no connection to the attacks.
Every one of the supposed bombers had intimate links to the Spanish security services, including the head of their bomb squad.
The alleged leader of the bombers, who reportedly gave dynamite to the terrorists, was connected to the Madrid bomb squad.
And we see the exact same earmarks, the same M.O., In the London bombings that we witnessed in Madrid, on the morning of July 7, 2005, three trains and a city bus were ripped to pieces when four military-grade explosive devices detonated.
At 8.50 a.m., three explosive devices simultaneously detonated on three separate trains.
Within minutes, eyewitnesses were reporting to the press that there had been multiple terror attacks.
Despite the fact that three train cars were burning wrecks strewn with dead and dying Londoners, Scotland Yard, for over an hour and a half, claimed that all of the disruptions were simply caused by a power outage in the London Underground.
Power surge on the underground.
That's all we heard.
I mean, the bus was about an hour after the underground, so...
That's when I think everybody knew that it wasn't what it was, you know.
I think it was just an excuse, a power surge, whatever.
Why would they say that, though, knowing it wasn't?
Trying to cover up, probably, you know what I mean?
So there wasn't no panic and everybody used to like, just get on with everything, you know, so...
Then mysteriously, 50 minutes into the attack, the London Police Department orders the No.
30 Hackney to Marble Arch bus to leave its normal route and to park at the corner of Woburn Square and Tavistock Place.
At 9.47, a fourth bomb detonates, killing 13 civilians and injuring many others.
Note, out of several hundred buses in service that morning, it's the only bus that the police take special control of and direct to Tavistock Square.
I've been walking up and down this road looking at the bus stops for a number 30. The bus stops have all the numbers of the buses on them individually.
There's no number 30 on any of the bus stops.
That's because the number 30 bus was specifically rerouted here on that day.
To simplify it, there's no bus stop here.
There's no number 30 bus stop here, no.
Well, that was in the news that it was specifically diverted here.
They admitted that the number 30 bus was the only bus that was directed to a different area of the city.
For what reason?
Nobody knows, but they admit that.
So it's very strange that for no reason it would come down this road when it was bombed.
Remember, while all this is happening, the police are on radio and TV telling everyone that it's just a power failure, an outage.
Meanwhile, commuters on the bus were listening to other radio reports where eyewitnesses were reporting explosions.
The supposed bomber on the bus with the rucksack became panicked and began looking in his rucksack in what witnesses said was a confused and frightened manner.
Weeks later, police detectives investigating the case said that all four of the bombers...
On the three trains and the bus didn't fit the MO, the modus operandi, of bombers.
They'd bought two-way tickets.
They'd played games of cricket the night before.
They had good jobs and happy families.
One of the alleged bombers was caught by surveillance camera arguing with the ticket clerk about the price of his pass.
After Scotland Yard detectives had a chance to talk to some of the eyewitnesses from the bus and the trains, They stated clearly on the record that they believed that the bombers did not know that they had explosives in their backpacks.
This was only one of many huge developments in the case that only received bare mentions in the back of the newspaper.
The July 29th edition of Fox News Channel's Dayside program revealed that the so-called mastermind of the 7-7 bombings, Harun Rashida Swat, is a British intelligence asset.
Former Justice Department prosecutor and FBI terror expert John Loftus exposed the fact that a SWAT was being protected by MI6 and was clearly under their control.
A SWAT is believed to be the mastermind of all the bombings in London.
On the 7-7 and 7-21, this is the guy we thank.
This is the guy, and what's really embarrassing is that the entire British police are out chasing him.
And one wing of the British government, MI6, or the British Secret Service, has been hiding him.
And this has been a real source of contention between CIA, Justice Department, and Britain.
MI6 has been hiding him.
Are you saying that he has been working for them?
Oh, I'm not saying it.
This is what the Muslim sheik said in an interview in a British newspaper back in 2001. So he's a double agent, or what?
He's a double agent.
So he's working for the Brits to try to give them information about Al-Qaeda, but in reality, he's still an Al-Qaeda operative.
Yeah.
The CIA and the Israelis all accused MI6 of letting all these terrorists live in London.
Now, we knew about this guy Aswat.
Back in 1999, he came to America.
The Justice Department wanted to indict him in Seattle because him and his buddy were trying to set up a terrorist training school in Oregon.
The headquarters of the U.S. Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors...
Not to touch Aswat.
Hello!
Now hold on.
Why?
Well, apparently, Aswat was working for British intelligence.
Now, there's a split of opinion within U.S. intelligence.
Some people say that the British intelligence fibbed to us.
They told us that Aswat was dead.
And that's why the New York group dropped the case.
That's not what most of the Justice Department thinks.
They think that it was just, again, covering up for this.
Very publicly affiliated guy with Al Mujahroof.
He was a British intelligence plant.
Our CIA says, OK, let's arrest him.
But the Brits say no again?
The Brits say no.
Now, at this point, two weeks ago, the Brits know that the CIA wants to get a hold of Haroun.
So what happens?
He takes off again.
Goes right to London.
He isn't arrested when he lands.
He isn't arrested when he leaves.
Even though he's on a watch list.
He's on a watch list!
The only reason he could get away with that was if he was working for British intelligence.
He was a wanted man.
And then takes off the day before the bombing, as I understand it.
And goes to Pakistan.
The Pakistanis arrest him.
They jail him.
They jail him.
He's released within 24 hours.
In London, we spoke with David Shaler, a former MI5 agent who was convicted of breaking the Official Secrets Act and in prison for six months.
With regard to 7-7, There has been a witness report, now included in a local British newspaper called the Cambridge Evening News, in which somebody who was on one of the tube trains says that he didn't see a man with a rucksack.
In fact, after the explosion, what he saw was metal pointing upward from the bottom of the carriage.
That would indicate, of course, that the bomb was not carried onto the tube train, but was in fact attached underneath it.
Now again, nobody in the...
The British national press is following that up.
I hope investigators and the police are.
A current member of British Parliament and a former cabinet minister in Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, Michael Meacher was sacked in 2003 for raising important questions on the eve of the Iraq war.
Atrocity of London bombings where 56 people were killed.
That was on the 7th of July, 7-7 we call it.
It's a very convenient way of ensuring there is fear, of ensuring that there is control, and of ensuring that those who are in the know, and of course we cannot tell you because it is all secret, are in a position of extreme power.
As part of our inquiry into the London bombing, we wanted to investigate the suspicious death of Jean-Charles de Mendez.
Within days of his brutal murder at the Stockwell tube station in the London Underground, evidence of a cover-up began to emerge.
What did you witness with the unfortunate Brazilian man that died?
All we saw was the police running into the station with guns.
That's all we saw.
We didn't see anything else at all.
And then after that, a couple of seconds after that, we were vacated down South Lambeth Road.
That was all we saw.
We didn't see anything else.
I mean, are you sad for him and his family that he's dead?
Oh, yeah.
But at the end of the day, he should have stopped and surrendered, shouldn't he?
If it had happened in his own country, he would have been shot down as well.
So, with all that's gone on, the police were only doing what they thought was best, as far as I'm concerned.
Why do you think he ran?
Well, because his visa had run out, obviously, but he's not going to have armed police running after him just because his visa's run out, has he?
So, the police were protecting, you know, the people traveling on the tube, so I don't see any wrong in what the police have done at all.
No, I understand your view on that.
Why do you think they shot him eight times in the head?
Oh, I don't know.
It's a lot of times to shoot him.
It is a lot of times to shoot him.
How many times did you hear have they shot him?
Five at first.
Five.
No, three at first, then five, then it went up to eight.
And the police admit they tackled him and then shot him.
Well, they told him to surrender, didn't they?
They told him to stop, and he didn't.
He carried on running, so, you know.
What else could they have done, as far as I'm concerned?
007, huh?
007. License to kill.
Yeah.
I still believe that there should be a shoot-to-kill policy.
I still believe, personally.
But that's my views, you know.
I think people should give up their liberty for freedom.
All right.
London police were later forced to admit that Mr. Domenes never ran from them, wasn't wearing a heavy coat, and that a special army unit had killed him execution style with over 10 shots to the head at point-blank range.
The British government was so desperate to keep the details of the shooting secret that they went so far as to arrest an ITN television journalist who had simply gotten a copy of what would normally be a public police report.
Government whistleblowers and police have also been suspended and arrested for telling the truth.
We had our details taken and were threatened with arrest simply for asking questions of locals outside the Stockwell station and videotaping police.
Where are you based?
Austin, Texas.
How long is it until you date?
211-74.
Would you just rather sit carefully?
No, it's okay.
Well, here, just let me do it.
Take it down.
That's all I need, mate.
And you're just filming for a program back in the States or something?
Exactly.
In fact, I think it'll probably be broken into...
It'll probably be broken into...
Think about it.
Sir, what do you think about this event?
I think it's very bad that it's happened.
What do you think should happen?
I think the policy of shooting should have been more thoroughly thought out.
I'm afraid there must have been a terrible mistake here.
I feel very sorry for the family and very sorry for the policeman that made a horrible mistake.
Yeah, it's got to be bad for everybody.
It's a tragedy all around, I think.
Thank you.
The police first claimed that it was a hot morning when official weather reports showed that it was around 60 degrees and that Mr. Jimenez was running down the street wearing a giant padded coat with wire sticking out of it, that he vaulted over the turnstiles, charged through a crowd of pedestrians, raced onto the train, and was about to detonate bombs when the heroic officers gunned him down.
The authorities then conveniently claimed that all the surveillance cameras malfunctioned that morning.
Police have now been forced to admit, thanks to watchdogs and their ranks, that none of the cameras malfunctioned, and they've now released the video.
The government has now been forced to admit that he was wearing a light denim jacket, and there were no wires of any type.
Police that weren't part of the special military unit didn't know why they killed him.
The police had followed him from his home.
They knew that he was a Latin Brazilian working in England as an electrician.
They followed him for 30 minutes as he walked from his home towards the station.
Once in the station, he calmly bought a Metro paper, paid for his ticket with his Metro Oyster card, and then walked onto the train.
Passengers then reported that they were told to get off the train.
Once they'd stepped off, still looking through the windows, they saw the Special Forces police squat on Mr. DeMendez and shoot him over 10 times in the head.
Witnesses said DeMendez looked at the authorities as if he knew them.
He was like a scared rabbit, and he was killed execution style.
The question is why.
A special military hit team stalked him and tracked him from his home to the train station, and then killed him in cold blood, making sure he was dead.
It's well known that if somebody has a bomb, you don't shoot at them.
And you certainly don't get near them.
No, Mr. DeMendez had seen something he wasn't supposed to see.
He learned a little too much.
And he had to be eliminated.
We were at the station just a week after he was killed, and many of the facts we've covered were already public knowledge.
But still, some of the locals made excuses for the police.
Within hours of the 7-7 bombings, Israeli Army Radio was reporting that Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, had been warned not to leave his hotel that morning to attend a meeting less than 100 yards away from one of the train stations that was bombed.
The Associated Press ran the headline, Netanyahu changed plans due to warning.
Then the current Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon's office, instructed Israeli officials not to give interviews to the foreign media concerning the warning.
Israel's foreign office attempted to spin the story, saying that they'd given a general warning to the British that day.
Then several weeks later, the head of Mossad told a major German newspaper that he indeed had issued a warning to Benjamin Netanyahu at 8.40 a.m., ten minutes before the first blast.
Conveniently for authorities, the bus surveillance camera malfunctioned.
Something else happened that was convenient for the establishment line.
All four of the supposed bomber's identification cards survived unscathed at all four events.
But there was just one problem.
In one case, one of the bomber's IDs was found at two separate locations.
As the evidence mounts, it is crystal clear.
Only criminal elements of the British government could stage the attacks and then engage in the cover-up.
The reason the Netanyahu story is important is it clearly shows that other intelligence agencies were aware of what was going on in London that day.
And took necessary precautions to protect their Minister of Finance.
In 1994, the Israeli embassy in London was bombed.
This was at a time when I was in the service.
I joined the Middle Eastern section shortly after that.
And I was actually astounded to read a document written by a senior MI5 officer who'd seen all the information coming in about this attack.
And he said that he believed that the Israelis had bombed their own embassy.
In any stage terror attack, governments have to be extremely careful to keep the operation shielded, compartmentalized.
Most people in government are moral individuals who believe that they're standing up for their nation's sovereignty, for its national interest, and it's absolutely essential to keep them in the dark.
One of the chief tools used by governments as a smokescreen is staging exercises or drills at the exact same time and exact same places as real events.
When the Oklahoma City Federal Building was bombed, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms was staging an anti-terror drill with their bomb squad on the morning of April 19, 1995, at the same time that the real event took place.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, the Pentagon was running five separate drills, two of the drills targeting the exact same targets at the exact same time.
That caused NORAD to stand down, believing it was just a drill.
And London was no different.
It's important to note that those taking part in the drills need not know that they're part of a larger operation.
In fact, it's better for the conspirators that they not be informed.
One of the chief reasons this is done is so that if any of the operatives carrying out the attack are caught by other elements of the government, they can simply claim that they were taking part in a drill or an exercise.
NSA, InfoPoll 9, and Echelon-type systems that are scanning for terrorist chatter, We'll be fooled into believing they've simply picked up part of an exercise.
On the morning of 7-7 in London, there was a simultaneous exercise targeting the exact same trains, the exact same bus, at the exact same locations, at the very same time.
What we're supposed to believe is some kind of coincidence, there was also an anti-terrorist drill going on on 7-7.
And again, just like 9-11...
They were talking about attacks on the same targets, the same kind of tube stations, and exactly the same time as the actual attack happened.
We learned of the drills of 7-7 on 7-7 from Peter Power, the head of Visor Consultants, a crisis management firm based in London.
Mr. Power was the former spokesperson for Scotland Yard.
Mr. Power told National British Television, ITN News, about the drills.
Today we were running an exercise for a company, bearing in mind I'm now in the private sector, and we sat everybody down in the city, a thousand people involved in the whole organisation, but the crisis team, and the most peculiar thing was we based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on the underground and mainline station.
So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from fictional to real.
And one of the first things is, get that bureau number, when you have a list of people missing, tell them.
And it took a long time.
Just to get this right, you are actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario.
Almost precisely.
I was up to two o'clock this morning because it's our job.
My own company, VISA Consultants, we specialize in helping people to get their crisis management response.
How do you jump from slow time thinking to quick time doing?
And we chose a scenario with their assistance.
Which is based on a terrorist attack because they're very close to a property occupied by Jewish businessmen.
They're in the city, and there are more American banks in the city than there are in the whole of New York.
A logical thing to do.
And I've still got the...
How extraordinary today must feel for you as it unfolds.
He repeated himself to BBC Radio 5. The thing that concerns me is that what are we doing for the thousands of men and women actually who are in London working?
And I say that because at half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for over a company of a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations that happened this morning.
So I still have the hairs on the back of my necks turning upright.
To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise.
Precisely.
And it was about half past nine this morning.
We planned this for a company for obvious reasons.
I don't want to reveal their name, but they're listening and they'll know it.
And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they met.
And so within five minutes, we made a pretty rapid decision.
This is the real one.
And so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.
If we use a standard actuary employed by major insurance companies to calculate the probability Of these events coinciding in a 10-year meme, we learn that the probability of this happening is greater than 1 in 300 Tretagillion.
To put that in perspective, that's a number with 41 zeros behind it.
That is trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and still more trillions times greater than all the grains of sand in all the world.
To put that number in perspective, it has 41 zeros.
Scientists using supercomputers have estimated that the Earth has over 7 quotillion grains of sand.
A quotillion has 18 zeros.
It would appear as some way of stopping the response of the emergency services or providing some kind of cover for what must be operations orchestrated in some way by the state.
The evidence is overwhelming.
All the telltale signs are there of government-sponsored terror.
Only the British government had the know-how to carry out the attacks and to control the situation before and after the bombings.
And of course, there's all the other admitted cases where the British government has hired terrorists to carry out assassinations or carried out bombings in their own country as a pretext for political control.
And then, of course, there's Kibono, Latin for who benefits, who stands to gain.
In the weeks leading up to 7-7, Tony Blair's poll numbers had fallen to the lowest point in his seven-year administration.
His Labour Party was sure to lose the parliamentary elections.
Support for the war was dismal.
Despite the bombings, which did improve his approval ratings and support for the war, he was still only barely able to maintain control over the British House of Commons.
In the wake of the bombings, Tony Blair's administration descended on the British people with a raft of tyrannical legislation, attacking the press, freedom of assembly, and setting up the conditions needed for a martial law takeover of the nation through the Civil Contingencies Act.
And of course, the bombings took place while world leaders were meeting in Scotland, so Bush and Blair could grandstand and blame the whole thing on Iraq, legitimizing their war.
Despite the fact that the G8 World Summit was coming to England on July 7th, the British government lowered the terror threat on the London Underground in early June and conveniently lowered security.
We were told that we invaded Iraq to bring the nation freedom, but Pentagon documents show their real plan was to balkanize the nation into three or four sections and foment endless sectarian civil war.
The true objective was to ensure the nation remained in turmoil as a pretext to build permanent military bases, as well as delivering long-term profits to defense contractors.
Think about it.
Do defense contractors make more money if they were just in Iraq a year?
Or now the projected decade?
United States, British, and Israeli forces have all been caught repeatedly carrying out staged terror attacks in Iraq in an attempt to keep the war going.
In the interest of time, we'll look at just one example.
In late September of 2005, in the British-controlled city of Basra, two British Special Forces SAS commandos attacked a group of police at a checkpoint, killing one and injuring another.
When they were finally subdued and brought into custody, their car was filled with plastic explosives, automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades, and other bomb-making materials.
Why would members of Britain's most elite fighting force, the Special Air Services, be dressed up like Arabs out shooting police with a car full of plastic explosives in a city that had been wracked by sectarian violence?
The governor of Basra in Iraq ordered that the British soldiers be held for trial for the murder they'd committed within hours of their incarceration.
Dozens of British tanks and hundreds of soldiers assaulted the main police station in Basra, killing jail guards and police in the process to free the two commandos.
Over 150 prisoners escaped, and the controlled mainstream media reported on the incident as if it was no big deal.
We cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
The United States knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam Hussein already possesses two out of the three key components needed to build a nuclear bomb.
In early February of 2006, members of the British government leaked documents that the White House admits are authentic.
Known as the White House memo, it is the minutes of a pre-war meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and George Bush in the Oval Office.
The minutes contained the discussion of a classic false flag operation, where Bush tried to lure Saddam into war using U.N. aircraft.
Mr. Bush told Tony Blair of the extraordinary plan during a meeting in the White House on January 31, 2003, six weeks before the war started, the Times of London reported.
The Times reads, President Bush had plans to lure Saddam Hussein into war by flying an aircraft over Iraq painted in U.N. colors in a hope he would shoot it down.
The memo also contained details of President Bush's plan to have defectors claim they had seen weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist.
Well, it is perfectly true that we now know that the evidence both in the United States and in Britain, which was put before the people, turns out to be wrong.
It was known to be wrong.
It was fed to Parliament.
It was fed to Congress in order to get the necessary support.
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
When Congress threatened to block the reauthorization and expansion of the USA Patriot Act in 2006, President Bush announced that he would still enforce the law even if it was not a law.
That, by its definition, is dictatorship.
When President Bush was caught secretly paying off reporters and newspapers and television stations across the country to the tune of $1.6 billion in two years, the governmental accounting office declared it illegal.
Every single action by itself was a felony, and there were tens of thousands of instances.
President Bush simply said that he was above the law, and it didn't matter if Congress said it was illegal, he was going to continue the practice.
When a leader declares themselves above the law, you are living in an official dictatorship.
We have found out from our time in the services that there are certain people in the press who work as agents of influence of the intelligence services.
In Britain, it's very easy to reward people with privileges, with contracts, with honors, with appointments to the House of Lords, with knighthoods and so on.
So no money has to change hands, but those people know very clearly that they have a job.
To put out propaganda on behalf of the services.
Now, I have no problem, of course, with the services arguing their case in the media, but if they're going to do that, like anybody else, they should declare where they come from and why they're stating that point of view.
Fortunately, as a result of our book, Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers, one of the prominent agents of influence, in fact two prominent agents of influence, Dominic Lawson and Con Coughlin, who both work for the Sunday Telegraph, have had to resign.
Because of course, once you're exposed as an agent of influence, you can no longer do that job because people just simply say, well, he's saying that because he's working to an MI6 brief.
When Congress informed Bush that secret arrest, secret detention and torture was illegal, he simply had his attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez, issuing a policy paper claiming that it was lawful. Alberto Gonzalez, issuing a policy paper claiming that it was Known as the infamous torture memos, Gonzalez said that they would simply stop calling it torture and call it pressure, and that if someone died in custody from torture, that that was acceptable.
But White House counsel John Yoo went even further.
In memos that he wrote for the president that were used by the military as their authority to engage in torture, he stated that they could even torture small children in front of their parents.
In some cases, sexually.
And in another shocking turn, President Bush is taken to signing pieces of legislation that haven't even passed the Congress.
President Bush was also caught engaging in warrantless searches using the National Security Agency to spy on the American people.
Bush claimed that he had executive authority to ignore any federal law he wished.
The 1878 posse commentatus law bars the military from engaging in law enforcement activities against the American people.
Bush was caught using the Defense Intelligence Agency, a branch of the Pentagon, to spy on peaceful anti-war activists.
He again claimed that he was above the law.
Bush then claimed that the Constitution gave him the right to spy on the American people.
Of course, the Constitution and Bill of Rights says the exact opposite.
In the midst of the scandal, the retiring head of the National Security Agency went before the National Press Club and informed everyone that there was no need of a warrant in America.
He chastised a reporter who claimed that you needed probable cause to search someone.
He said all that was needed was that it be "reasonable" and the government would decide what was reasonable.
My understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures.
The Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
That's what it says.
The measure is probable cause, I believe.
The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
But does it not say probable?
No.
The court's standard, the legal standard is probable cause.
General, you used the terms just a few minutes ago.
We reasonably believe.
And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you...
A warrant, if you went before them and say, we reasonably believe, you have to go to the FISA court or the Attorney General has to go to the FISA court and say, we have probable cause.
And so what many people believe, and I'd like you to respond to this, is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of reasonably believe in place of probable cause.
The FISA Court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief.
You have to show probable cause.
Could you respond to that, please?
Sure.
I didn't craft the authorization.
I am responding to a lawful order.
The Attorney General has averred to the lawfulness of the order.
I will now read the Fourth Amendment in its entirety.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall be issued but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Notice the Fourth Amendment clearly states, no warrant shall be issued but upon probable cause.
And that must be supported by an oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
That is the definition of reasonable.
Reasonable is having a witness and having probable cause, and specifically knowing what has been done that is wrong and against the law that you're searching for.
Not just, oh, we see.
The National Security Agency director clearly knew what he was doing.
He knows that 99% of Americans have no idea what the Fourth Amendment actually says.
So he claims that it's okay for them to spy on us without a warrant, counting on us being ignorant.
That ignorance needs to end.
Or maybe he's looking at a Fourth Amendment that the rest of us haven't seen.
Several years into the occupation of Iraq, President Bush told the world that they had freedom, freedom of the press.
Now it's been revealed that if you write one story critical of the occupational government, you are instantly arrested and sentenced on average to 30 years in prison.
In some cases, reporters are simply executed or tortured.
Then it came out that the Pentagon was covertly controlling almost every major newspaper in Iraq and that PR firms were writing most of the stories in the United States.
But it's not just going on in Iraq.
Billions and billions of dollars a year are spent paying off reporters, planting fake news stories, and producing fake newscasts.
The military calls this Infowars, seizing the mind of the enemy.
And they are treating the American people like an enemy.
When you learn that the Pentagon, the CIA, and the White House are openly engaging in military-style propaganda against the American people, then you begin to realize why large portions of the American population simply don't have their facts straight.
We asked David Shaler about MI5 and MI6 connections to Al-Qaeda.
I learned from an operation.
In which MI6, the British External Intelligence Service, had funded al-Qaeda to carry out an operation to try and assassinate Colonel Gaddafi of Libya.
Once I'd become briefed on a plot in which MI6 was funding our terrorist enemies without government permission, I no longer wanted to be part of that setup.
We also spoke with former MI5 agent Annie Moshan, herself a whistleblower, exposing MI5 and MI6 wrongdoing.
I went public in conjunction with my partner because we'd seen so many dreadful things going on and we believe that the British public deserves better protection.
My own, not as much government but intelligence services, were carrying out operations in which innocent Libyans died.
David was briefed officially by MI6 officers on their attempt to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi by funding al-Qaeda in Libya.
So I felt the need to say something about that.
It took a long time to have the courage to be able to do that with the newspapers in this country, but eventually I decided that was the only way forward.
We had to leave our friends and family, we had to leave our jobs, our home, everything in London, with three days' notice because the newspapers suddenly decided to kick into action.
I lived in exile for three years.
In fact, when I actually tried to use a legal route to alert the British government about MI6 funding al-Qaeda, I was the one thrown in prison.
We then tried to negotiate with the government.
We tried to say, please take our evidence about the crimes we've seen.
The government refused then, and to this day, eight years on, they are still refusing to take David's evidence and my evidence about crimes committed by our intelligence agencies.
We have sources have told the press, sources in America from the State Department and the CIA have confirmed that payments were made to a group in Libya that was associated with Osama bin Laden.
Predates the attack and describes exactly the modus operandi, the way of carrying out the attack, the timing of the attack, the people involved, the Islamic extremists and so on, that I described when I went on the record.
As a result of the attacks on 7-7, the British people seem much more complacent and will allow the state to infringe their liberties in a way that they wouldn't allow them to do otherwise.
While in London, I learned that Parliament had just passed a law that would ban any type of free speech within several miles around the British Parliament building.
Blair's approval ratings go up when there is an event.
Bush's approval ratings go up when there is an event.
What, quote, Muslim extremists in their right mind would carry out an operation that would empower the new world order, global empire, whose epicenter is London and New York and D.C.? Why would anybody put up with it?
My friends, never give up your liberty.
Stand up against charity.
Learn the truth and find out who has the motive.
Find out who has the motive to scare you into submission, to intimidate you, to bully you, into accepting their wars of global war and impasse and genocide.
At a time like this, I think people have appeared to give up a little bit of their liberty, haven't they?
Just a bit.
I mean, you know, it's okay.
I mean, if you get...
If you've got nothing to hide, it's not really a problem, is it?
I think we should be just a bit further on what we've allowed here.
I think we've been too democratic and we've been too soft.
What is done to people who wish to demonstrate is increasingly worrying.
A lot of demonstrations, both at Genoa, at the G8 at Glen Eagles, many other places around the world.
There is no wish of those who demonstrate, in my view, for violence.
They disagree profoundly with what their governments are doing.
I'm not saying whether they're right or wrong.
I'm simply saying that they should have the right to do so without harassment, intimidation or indeed being charged, attacked and being seriously injured.
Out in the public areas, just like in China, are going to be the state.
I must say one of the things that does concern me is Brian Hall.
Who camped outside Parliament in the square, which actually faces the parliamentary buildings, faces the large iron gates where ministers come in and MPs go in and out.
It may be ignored, he may be laughed at, he may be mocked, but at least he is able to do it and some people may listen and you may have more effect than we realise.
Now we call that, at least we used to call that, free speech.
What about the Freedom Lady?
The Statue of Liberty?
Well, I did hear a rumour that the Statue of Liberty has been brought in for questioning.
She may be with Al-Qaeda.
You're probably right.
Six times they've taken me to court.
Oh no, we took them to court this time, by the way.
We took Mr. Charles Clark.
The Home Secretary and Mr Ian Blair, the Commissioner of Police.
I was the complainant, they were the defendants.
And it was found in my favour.
It is very much a concern that we've actually got an Act of Parliament which in one of its sections is clearly designed to prevent him or people like him putting across a message which they feel passionately about and which could be heard within the confines of Parliament.
I find that very worrying.
I bullhorned Parliament three days before the law went into effect.
George Bush carried out 9-11.
Do you think some people in a cave, do you think some people in a cave were able to have NORAD stand down?
Do you think that people in a cave were able to have all of this happen?
It's a total and complete fraud.
The New World Order is using terror to scare you into submission, and they will be defeated.
And here in this supposed free country where they're trying to pass a law to stop this, they're here to talk to us.
I witnessed local activists bullhorning Parliament, and the local police didn't have a problem with that.
But as soon as I got on the bullhorn and began talking about pertinent issues, they became very upset and enrolled me into some type of troublemaker database.
You've got to understand that governments stand to gain from terror to scare you into submission to attack.
Dick Cheney, in September of 2000, openly wrote a document called Rebuilding America's Defenses.
And he said, we need a Pearl Harbor event.
The U.S. government wants to carry out terror attacks to blame it on their enemies.
9-11 was a self-inflicted wound.
9-11 was an inside job.
It was orchestrated.
It was engineered by the globalists.
A few weeks after returning to the United States, I then read in the newspapers in horror, That I had indeed been enrolled in a terrorist database.
The identity cards, the compulsory identity cards that have been proposed for the first time in our history.
Around about 80% of the British people oppose the introduction of these cards.
And it's not just cards, it's the databases that go behind that, that allows the state to access private information and so on.
And yet as a result of 7-7, it seems that these things will be steamrolled through our parliament.
Wherever we look at the moment, there are assaults on civil liberties as a result, of course, of the so-called war on terror.
Similar guidelines have been implemented inside the United States.
A Virginia anti-terror training manual lists property rights activists as potential terrorists.
A Texas manual lists those wearing Levi's jeans, having cell phones, and who are, quote, friendly towards the police as potential terrorists.
In Arizona, they list those that make frequent references to the U.S. Constitution as potential terrorists.
All of these guidelines have been produced by the federal government and distributed at the state level.
The federal government itself has told police to be on the lookout for drivers who have road almanacs or driver atlases.
All across the planet, governments are restricting free speech and setting up so-called free speech zones to stop their populations from demonstrating.
Months later, Paul and Steve Watson came to Texas and joined me live on my radio broadcast to discuss the aftermath of the London bombings.
We are joined in studio by Steve Watson and Paul Watson.
Guys, you've been in the United States now for about seven days.
How have you liked it?
It's been pretty good so far.
Obviously, it's all Western culture, so it's pretty similar.
When we were in London, there were so many facets to it.
What was it like to have the police march up to you?
And tell you to turn your camera off when you were just on a public street interviewing people.
Well, I mean, the fear-mongering at the time, we were there right after the bombings.
Three weeks after the first bombings, I believe, but then there was the second failed attempt.
So the state of panic was still quite high, even though Londoners basically were apathetic to the attack.
They just got on with their lives.
They weren't really buying the government propaganda on it.
We had case after case where we'd be out on the street doing interviews with people, and we'd be showing the video cameras, and there were people working right there at the Hard Rock Cafe.
And I'm like, look at these cameras.
They're everywhere.
They're in plain view.
And the manager comes out and goes, you know, thanks for showing me that.
I've never noticed those.
What's your name, sir?
Charlie.
I'm Alex.
Nice to meet you, Charlie.
Good.
What do you think of the new symbol of the United Kingdom that's going to switch from the Union Jack to the black surveillance camera?
Well, you know, there's plenty going on in London, so they need the surveillance cameras everywhere.
But, I mean, it's going to be the new national symbol.
Of course, I'm being sarcastic, but really, it has become the national symbol.
Four-plus million surveillance cameras in the great city of London alone.
I'm the same at it.
I'm not even seeing them there.
You don't see them?
They don't exist?
No, no.
That's the best one I've even noticed there.
They don't be working here yet.
Out of sight, out of mind, huh?
That's it, that's it.
That's kind of Orwellian, though.
You seem like a smart guy, but you know only the smartest people in the inner party know how to engage in double think and double speak, where you don't even notice the cameras that are there.
In fact, if you say they're not there, they're not there.
Here, together, let's say they don't exist.
Alright, they don't exist.
Two plus two equals five, hey.
Hey, you could get an inter-party membership.
Alright.
I'm into it.
I mean, that was actual DoubleThink.
Steve, Paul, you want to comment on that?
Well, let me read a quote from Orwell from 1984. DoubleThink is an unending series of victories over your own memory, reality control.
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out knowing them to be completely contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic to repudiate morality while laying claim to it.
And this is exactly what we saw over and over again in London.
You've got a nest of, what, six or seven cameras, and people are out there saying they've never noticed them.
It's like it's a survival mechanism to deny reality, but at the end of the day, it's not even a survival mechanism.
It's quite dangerous.
We were asking the attitudes of taxi drivers about the bombings.
They were all quite ambiguous.
They kind of believed the government lying at that point.
Do you ever wonder who's really behind it?
Well, I've heard, there's people who think that other governments are behind it.
You know, British governments, American governments, people have said that.
Oh, really?
You heard some people think it's the government?
Yeah.
Yeah, I've heard that.
Really?
How popular is that to you?
Um, pretty unpopular, I would have thought.
It is straight out of George Arwell's 1984. This poor woman thinks that if you give up your liberty, you supposedly get freedom.
Yeah, well, we went to Stopwell tube station where they shot the Brazilian man.
We basically noticed this woman who was working on the fruit stall.
She'd been interviewed on the BBC, I'd seen her on there, so we went over to interview her.
We were talking to her and Alex asked her if she would sacrifice liberty for security.
And she came back with, yes, I'll sacrifice liberty for freedom.
I think people should give up their liberty for freedom.
Liberty and freedom are the same thing.
We then asked her again to clarify, just in case she made a mistake, and she said the same thing again.
She was willing to give up liberty for freedom, which is really, it's direct double-think, because the two things mean the same thing.
We found the same mindset in Crawford, Texas, outside Bush's ranch, that we witnessed in England.
Populations who are willfully ignorant, who revel in being lied to.
Well, we're on our way out to Crawford, where President Bush is vacationing for five weeks.
He spent about a fourth of his time in the administration out here at his Hollywood set.
Though he admittedly is afraid of horses and cows and many other forms of wildlife, and of course he was born in Kennebuckport, Maine and spent most of his life there, he likes to put on a cowboy hat and a big belt buckle and strut around.
He meets all these different world leaders and decides to Basically how to carve up the world.
He meets with the Saudi leaders and holds hands with them.
He meets with Ariel Sharon.
He meets with leaders from all over the world, but he certainly doesn't meet with the mothers of dead soldiers.
They don't have any skin in the game, so it's easy for them to say, you know, let's keep our chips over there, let's complete the mission, even though we don't even know what the mission That's really a theme, that we've got to get them before they get us.
Do you think Iraq attacked us on 9-11?
Maybe not Iraq itself, but the belief in the cause that those people have.
Yeah, absolutely.
The 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.
Bush is out at his ranch holding hands with the royal princes.
But then we've got to go into Iraq.
No, I mean, seriously, sir, it's a serious issue.
I know where you're going.
Where do you think we're coming from, though, sir?
I mean, tell me.
Why are you trying to connect this, we're in bed with Saudi Arabia BS, and this is all a big farce to get Saudi oil and all that?
That's not what it's about.
So our government isn't in bed with Saudi?
Okay.
While in Crawford, we ran into Ray McGovern and spoke with him about Iraq.
Ray McGovern is a retired, senior-level CIA analyst whose career spanned the administrations of John F. Kennedy to George H.W. Bush.
His duties included chairing national intelligence estimates and preparing the president's daily brief.
I believe that they are still interested in permanent military bases there.
I believe they are still interested in controlling the oil from that part of the world.
And so it will be, stay the course.
It will be six, seven, eight U.S. troops killed every day or every week.
And what's below the surface here was revealed to me by a very well-heeled gentleman who came up to me after a speech I made outside of Milwaukee in a very affluent suburb.
He said, Mr. McGovern.
Get real.
I mean, what's your problem?
He said, you don't have any problem with, you don't deny that we need the oil, do you?
And I said, no.
He said, well, you know, six, seven, eight, ten Marines a week for the oil.
You have to admit, that's a very cheap price for the oil.
I said to him, how do I handle this?
I said, well, the utilitarian argument is probably the best.
I object to it, said I, because we can't do it.
There are 1.3 billion.
Muslims in this world, they're not going to let us do it.
It's already widening.
The borders are porous.
We can't do it.
Well, that didn't convince him.
He said, well, I think we can do it.
I said, oh, well, suppose your son was one of those six killed in Iraq last week.
And you know what?
He looked at me like it had never occurred to him.
And it wouldn't have occurred to him because it wouldn't be his son.
It would be the sons from the farms.
It would be the sons from the city.
And so he said, well, I don't have that either.
So I'm trying, well, maybe I'll try a moral argument on him.
I said, well, are you one of those that likes to have the Ten Commandments brought into the schoolhouses and the courtrooms?
He said, oh, that's a great idea.
I said, well, you know, if memory serves, there's one that says, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's oil.
I mean goods.
Don't bear false witness.
There's one.
There's one that says you shouldn't steal.
And there's also one against killing, if I remember correctly.
So maybe you want to subtract four and bring in the Six Commandments into the schoolhouses and the courtrooms of this world.
Get real, I said.
This is a moral issue.
We shouldn't be going around killing unarmed civilians and causing more violence where violence is endemic.
What did he say, sir?
He turned on his heel, marched out to his SUV, prayed for cheap gasoline, and drove home.
I want the oil.
Let's educate him.
Bringing them into democracy.
And take their own help.
Apparently somebody took too much yellow acid and got the story wrong.
The majority of the construction, and the vast majority, I can say 90% of the construction that I saw wasn't with the Iraqis, it was with the American bases that they were building.
Concrete structures, incredibly permanent, designed to house thousands of soldiers for a long period of time.
The American people are being kept in the dark about all this.
If it weren't for shows like yours and for a few others and the Internet, people would never have a chance to learn the truth of this.
What Cindy Sheehan has done is brought a human dimension to this.
They said, look, people are getting killed, including my son.
A lot of Iraqis are getting killed.
Why don't we face up to whether this war makes any sense at all?
Do we really want to have our young people sacrificed for...
For what?
We don't know.
We don't know what's going on.
To tell you the truth, my kids don't know the things that are involved in the decisions I make at my house.
And that doesn't mean that they need to be involved in the decisions because I know better than they know because I'm more informed.
And I'll give him that same benefit.
You know, we did elect him.
Where have we lost our freedom?
All across the...
Where?
They're using Homeland Security against topless bars.
They're using Homeland Security against toy store owners.
They're using Homeland Security against pot dealers.
And that's wrong.
They're using Homeland Security, quote, against gang members.
It's admitted.
Are you familiar that the Gulf of Tonkin never happened?
LBJ tapes have now been released.
We went to...
Well, you know, I just got to point out to Wolfowitz and Pearl and Feath and Abrams and Wormsers, you know, people like that, who this has been their plan.
And it's about, you know, it's about imperialism.
It's about abusing a nation's natural resources.
It's about greed and power.
And it's nothing about keeping America safe or freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people.
I believe that America, right from the start of the Bush administration, has been fixed, has been focused on the use of American military power in order to extend control by America of strategic areas in the world.
Now we have the Downing Street Minutes which show that as early as July 23, 2002...
The head of British intelligence, just back from Washington, said to his prime minister, it's a done deal.
The decision for war is inevitable.
The war will be, quote, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
Intelligence and facts would be fixed around the policy of war.
There's the proof that the intelligence, all this justification in quotes for the war, was a fraud, a fraud from day one.
The project for a new American century, the think tank, with the report called Strengthening America's Defenses.
This is frankly a demand for full spectrum dominance by the United States.
I think the most chilling aspect of the Project for a New American Century document is this kind of transformation of our foreign policy, this kind of strengthening of America's defences, is a revolutionary change and is not going to happen at all quickly, absent a new catalyst of massive proportions, for example, a new Pearl Harbor.
In Crawford, Texas, we found individuals who believed the weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
No weapons of mass destruction were found.
Are you kidding me?
Do you buy that?
Yes.
Of course there were masks.
Of course there were.
There were, there were, there were.
This guy would make a great citizen in George Arwell's fictitious 1984. If we took him all away, does that still mean that if he had the capability, would he still...
See, that's in the mind.
Well, first of all, she's got an ad on TV that said, he lied, my son died.
He lied about nobody.
What did George Bush lie about?
He said he was going to protect this country.
Weapons of mass destruction?
No matter what it took to keep the enemies out of our backyards.
He never said there weren't going to be nobody killed.
That's war.
I think they're saying that Bush lied about WMDs, not about troops were going to die.
Those weapons were there.
The authoritarian powers of the state, which are available to government, is very dangerous.
And I think we live in a state, we live in states both the United States and the UK, where the powers to question, to call in evidence, to demand explanation, to hold to account those who are in control, are gradually systematically being weakened.
This is very dangerous in a democracy.
Now Dick Cheney...
And John Bolton and others have been saying Iran poses an immediate danger.
They could get a nuclear weapon before we know it.
All the same things they said about Iraq.
And so we have to do something about that now.
You know, he said the same thing about Iraq.
And like you said, he was caught red-handed.
It's proven to be lies.
Why should we believe him about Iran?
I'm pleased to tell you, American people, that the International Intelligence Estimate just put out on Iran says that Iran cannot possibly have a nuclear weapon for 10 more years.
Let me say that one more time.
Iran can't be a nuclear power, weapons-wise, for 10 more years.
We have to look at whether our governments are creating enemies so that they can justify what they do.
Of course, two of the biggest funders of American presidential campaigns are the oil industry and the arms industry.
And it's in their interests that we invade places like Iraq.
We're going to let the Israelis, or we're going to do it ourselves, attack the nuclear facilities in Iran.
Now, people say, that's crazy.
That is absolutely crazy.
I agree.
The problem is, folks, the people running our policy toward Iraq and Iran were widely known.
In the 1980s when I was briefing the vice president and others as the crazies, okay?
The crazy.
You come in on Monday morning and somebody would say, guess what the crazies did late Friday night?
And you'd know exactly who the reference was.
It was to Wolfowitz, it was to Pearl.
All the same folks, some of them who deserted the sinking ship like...
Proverbial rats, okay?
But it was Fythe, Wolfowitz, and the rest of them.
They were the crazies.
There's a lot of other people that have a dissenting opinion about this war and has another view of this war other than Cindy Sheehan.
and other people have lost sons in this war and daughters.
She's to really go home and do this little protest some other way besides trying to make things sound like she's the only voice of America.
Three weeks later, this gentleman and many others got their wish.
Free speech was banned for hundreds of square miles around Bush's Crawford Ranch.
Now you can only protest on private property or designated free speech zones where no one can even see your protest.
Look, tourist stuff's popped up here now.
Let freedom ring.
We decided to cap off our day in Crawford by traveling down the public highway to where the Secret Service had blocked off the public road, two miles before the entrance to Bush's ranch.
We were promptly told, as if America is now a third world police state, to get out of there, despite the fact we were credentialed press.
You need to get back in your car and see if you can.
Really?
Yeah, you need to get off the road.
Oh, we're, oh, off the road, okay.
Or is it hard to stand over here?
Past your cars, where you can stand.
Oh, but the barricades are here.
So let me get this straight.
You believe that the U.S. government crashed those airplanes under the World Trade Center?
Yes, the evidence shows it.
You're full of s**t.
Take a hike.
The whole point about 9-11 is that it gave a pretext for a preconceived plan.
That plan is in the PNAC document which precedes 9-11 by almost a year.
It became clear to us that the administration was using the corruption of intelligence to justify a war that did not happen.
In my opinion, when you look at the details of 9-11 and you read reports that there were planes that supposedly contained terrorists but did not take off that day, and that the Flight 93, for example, was supposed to be aimed at either Capitol Hill or the White House, you're in fact looking at a coup d'etat that they wanted to destroy the infrastructure of American government.
There are a host of unanswered questions on all of this.
The reason they're unanswered is because this president, this administration, will not answer the questions.
Why is it that perhaps the biggest question of all, why is it that after on 9-11, 8.20 a.m., when it was undoubtedly...
Without any question, one of those planes had been hijacked.
Between 8.20 and 9.38, when the Pentagon was hit, an hour and 20 minutes, no US airplane was put into the air.
There were drills on the day of 9.11 in which the American Defence Force was supposed to be dealing with mock hijackings.
Obviously, those would have slowed down the response of national defence to the hijacked airliners.
Passenger jets go off course and they are tackled by American fighter jets.
The default position is to shoot them down.
And yet in this case, of course, none of that happened.
There was the Andrew Air Force Base 10 miles from Washington.
It has a squadron of F-16 fighters.
None of those was put into the air.
This is absolutely...
Almost incredible.
The most powerful military technological country in the world, albeit under a terrifying attack, was not able to put planes into the air, which actually could probably have stopped at least the second and third hits.
And we've got to ask why George Bush sat there with a group of school children for 16 minutes after he'd been alerted to a plane going into the second tower.
The President's in Sarasota.
He's told that the second plane has hit the World Trade Center.
And the Secret Service guy immediately says, we're out of here.
The president stays for 30 minutes, folks, for 30 minutes.
Now, how do you explain that?
I've talked to all manner of Secret Service people.
They say, we're out of here was exactly the right reaction.
Everyone knew where the president was.
If not the president, you might have had some concern for these little kids.
Why did he stay for 30 minutes?
Why was he countermanded?
The implication, of course, is he knew exactly what was going on, but he knew that he wasn't under attack.
I think all of this needs to be explained.
It wasn't in the Congressional Report.
There was no serious examination of it.
And there is the amazing statement made in the official Congressional Report.
That the American authorities have not managed to trace the source of the funding.
And then the most amazingly disingenuous statement ultimately is that it has little consequence.
It is a massive consequence.
The head of Pakistani intelligence at the ISI, Lieutenant Mahmoud Ahmed, requested Omar Sheikh.
Who is a well-known Islamic extremist who is now actually in prison in Pakistan, to wire $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker.
It is absolutely astonishing.
That that lead has never been followed up.
For people to dismiss these questioners as conspiratorial advocates or conspiratorial theorists, that's completely out of line because the questions remain because the president, who should be able to answer them, will not.
We have plenty of evidence that the attack on Afghanistan was planned.
Because after the negotiations with the Taliban broke down in the United States I think they went to Houston in Texas in about July and there were later discussions at about this time in Berlin where US officials made absolutely clear to the Taliban representatives in this famous phrase either we will provide you with a carpet of gold in other words if you supply a pipeline across Afghanistan you ensure the security of the country you guard In
the years since 9-11, scores of highly regarded individuals have gone public to express their serious doubts about 9-11.
These include former presidential advisor and CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the father of Reaganomics and former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, BYU physics professor Stephen Jones, former German defense minister Andres von Bulow, former MI5 former German defense minister Andres von Bulow, former MI5 officer David Shaler, former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher, former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, Dr. Morgan Reynolds, and many more.
In early June of 2006, we traveled to Chicago to meet with fellow 9-11 truth seekers and expose the official story as a fraud.
You cannot hide the truth.
You will not hide the truth.
It's coming out.
You're crying.
These times are coming out.
Ladies and gentlemen, 9-11 is an inside job.
It's a so-defected word.
It's a government false flag.
Terror operation.
Research it.
More people are waking up every single day.
More people realize what the states are.
They love their families, and they understand that the government is carrying out terrorist attacks as a pretext to re-engineer America into a police state.
Why?
To capture us to be their political slaves.
To use us as an engine of global empire to invade the planet.
While in Chicago, we had a chance to again speak with former MI5 agent Andy Michon.
I'm convinced that 9-11 was an inside job.
There are a number of compelling reasons why I think it was an inside job.
Primarily, the collapse of the Twin Towers, which looked to me to be controlled demolitions.
Also, the collapse of Building 7 to the World Trade Center complex.
Also, the fact that the air defences were stood down that day, who benefited from the attacks, of course.
There were a lot of put options put on the airlines that suffered during those attacks.
There's a whole range of different evidence that adds up to something very, very suspicious about 9-11.
I feel passionately that we need to expose the government involvement in 9-11, because if we don't, they will keep doing this in future.
There will be another attack in order to justify another unjustifiable war.
We also spoke with Dr. Morgan Reynolds.
No matter how much our inner public wants to avoid this, it's eating away.
It's willful denial, willful ignorance.
It's eating away at the underbelly of America.
And we aren't going to solve our problems by ignoring 9-11.
The biggest smoking gun then and now is WTC-7.
How can anyone watch it?
Without some kind of a psy-op or verbiage accompanying it and not look at that and say, hey, that building was just demolished.
Just the way the Las Vegas Sands was or the Seattle Stadium, etc.
There's no way around that.
Here we are in so-called broad daylight.
It's 5.20 p.m.
and we've got cameras on it.
And what other explanation can there be for this very conventional-looking collapse in under seven seconds?
That just has crime, inside job written all over it.
We need real convictions.
We need arrests.
We need prosecutions.
We also had a chance to speak to Professor Stephen Jones, who was a doctor of physics, concerning new bombshell evidence that conclusively proves that thermite was used to cut the main pillars in the World Trade Center towers.
There is this molten metal, molten material flowing out of the South Tower just before its collapse.
It has a large quantity of yellow hot metal.
And then I read about these pools of molten metal underneath both towers and Building 7 after their collapses.
Now that fits like a glove with a thermite reaction which produces molten iron.
You also see in these videos of this molten metal coming up, you see this white ash, this dust that comes off.
Now that combination, yellow hot molten metal, white ash floating away.
That's his signature characteristic for thermite.
And then finally, we got some samples of this metal, the previously molten metal.
Using advanced techniques like proton-induced X-ray emission and an electron microprobe, we found out what's in these samples.
We're finding iron, also sulfur, potassium, and manganese.
Characteristic of a variation of thermite, which is used to cut through steel very rapidly.
It's called thermate.
It's like, sure, you can take a knife, you take the butter out of the fridge, and you cut through that butter.
Now, adding sulfur to thermite and also potassium permanganate, these chemicals, it's like heating up your knife to a very high temperature.
Slices right through the butter.
Even if the butter is cold, it slices right through.
Same way here, by adding sulfur and potassium permanganate to thermite, it'll now slice through structural steel very rapidly.
But the end products then, you'll have sulfur, potassium, manganese, and iron.
And that's what we see.
Thermite had to be planted in the building, which of course implies directly an inside job.
Someone had to have access into the building.
Then in mid-March of 2006, actor Charlie Sheen went public on my syndicated radio show and simply called for a new, independent investigation and questioned the official story.
Sheen knew that the establishment lapdogs would attack his personal past, whether real or manufactured, instead of challenging him on the facts.
So Charles Sheen preemptively challenged them to challenge him on the facts, something they steadfastly refused to do.
Literally hundreds of vicious hit pieces were written in newspapers worldwide.
Every old rumor was dredged up and thrown at Sheen and a fresh raft of allegations was launched at him.
The only national television program that was fair in its presentation was Showbiz Tonight with A.J. Hammer on CNN. On Showbiz Tonight, Charlie Sheen speaks out on a controversial theory that the government covered up what really happened on 9-11.
Taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets.
That feels like a conspiracy theory.
Tonight, we dig even deeper.
The host of the radio show on which Sheen leveled his startling allegations joins us live right here on Showbiz Tonight.
The radio host who interviewed Sheen is Alex Jones of the Genesis Communications Network.
Alex joins me live from Austin, Texas to talk about Sheen's riveting comments.
Alex, as I mentioned, the response that we got from doing this story last night, absolutely shocking.
So I want to know how it actually all came about.
How did the interview with Charlie Sheen actually happen?
Did you guys reach out to him?
Did he call you?
What was the deal?
Well, just to make something clear, Mr. Sheen has amazing courage to do what he's done, and he contacted me.
He's been watching my documentaries for years.
He's one of the most informed people that I've talked to in Hollywood on this subject.
Listen, for years, Hollywood's been on fire with people knowing the truth about 9-11, and I was the first to expose 9-11 on the day.
In fact, two months before, I had intel that...
Elements of the military-industrial complex were going to carry out the attack.
I said they'll use bin Laden, the known CIA asset, as their patsy to take the blame for attacking the towers.
So Mr. Sheen is only exceptional in that he has courage in going public, courage that no one else in Hollywood had.
I mean, here's a CNN poll from Anderson Cooper a year and a half ago where they said, is the government covering up 9-11?
Could they be involved 90% when the poll closed on CNN said this.
So listen, I have my own syndicated show.
I've done...
4,000 radio interviews in the last four and a half years.
Almost no one calls in and disagrees now.
We have the majority view and we have the evidence.
Bottom line, there are declassified U.S. government documents like Operation Northwoods that ABC News reported on back in 2000. Operation Northwoods, Google it.
And in there, the U.S. government, an element of it, said we want to hijack jets by remote control, crash them, and blame it on the Soviet Union in Cuba.
Now, that was decades ago.
This is why we believe this.
Then you look at the official story, the firefighters, the police, hundreds of them saying there were bombs in the buildings.
They were told to shut up.
You look at Building 7, detonators are going off.
You can see the explosions.
This is what Charlie Sheen was covering.
I'm actually just curious, did he reach out to you guys?
Is he the one who put the call into you?
Sure, sure.
Is that how he wound up on your show?
Sure.
He called me a few weeks ago and said that he loves this country.
He has nothing to gain from this.
In fact, it's dangerous for him to do.
Sure, sure.
But he said, I love this country and my kids so much that I'm going to do this, Alex.
And I said, God bless you, because now it may spur other Hollywood people who've got major pull, who know the truth, to start going public.
Look, it's really simple.
Let's understand this, okay?
9-11 was an inside job.
It was a self-inflicted wound.
And what Charlie Sheen is doing is just amazing.
And he can only be commended for it.
And all he's calling for is a real investigation.
I go further at Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com.
We lay out how it happened, what took place.
And it's not just Charlie Sheen.
I've interviewed.
CNN has interviewed some of these people, the only network that I've seen doing it.
You guys have interviewed.
There have been physics professors that have gone public.
There have been the heads of mining colleges that have gone public.
George Bush Sr.'s top CIA advisor who briefed him and briefed Ronald Reagan, one of the highest level guys at the CIA, says our government is clearly involved in carrying out terror to blame it on foreign enemies.
Did you know that on CIA.gov they admit that they carried out terror attacks in 1953 to blame it on Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran as a pretext to overthrow Iran?
All good stuff and all stuff that needs to be talked about.
But the question is why?
Why have so many of the major media outlets not talked about these alternatives?
Mark Twain said that in the beginning, a patriot is a scarce man, hated and feared and scorned.
But in time when his cause succeeds, the timid joined him because then it cost nothing to be a patriot.
A lot of people don't have the courage that you have, A.J. A lot of people don't have the courage of Charlie Sheen.
They don't have the courage of the German defense minister, Andres von Bülow, who two years ago went public.
What do you think they're afraid of that's going to happen to them?
They're afraid of being beaten up by the hordes of neocon intimidators who try to go out there with their Gestapo Nazi tactics to try to bludgeon everybody with their blogs and radio shows to shut up.
But they've lost power because people have learned that they're a bunch of liars.
They lied about the WMDs.
They've lied about everything, and now their credibility is totally blown.
The new White House memo just came out where Bush was talking about staging the shoot-down of American planes to blame it on Saddam.
That's public.
That's admitted.
We have been getting an overwhelming response to our showbiz tonight's question of the day.
Charlie Sheen speaks out.
Do you agree with his assertion that there is a government cover-up of 9-11?
Let's take a look at how the vote is going so far.
82% of you say yes.
Only 18% of you say no.
I had a sense that...
If this thing was going to get hot, I didn't realize that, as you say, it was going to go supernova.
That if they continue to attack me personally, it only gives credence to our side of the argument.
People want the truth.
They want the truth.
and what's been offered to us resembles nothing of the source.
He says this, don't believe me, check out the facts.
Go look at the evidence.
Don't believe the attack dogs.
It isn't about Charlie Sheen or Alex Jones or A.J. Hammer.
It's about NORAD standing down.
It's about bombs in the buildings.
It's about Pentagon documents saying they wanted to carry out these attacks and blame it on foreign enemies.
This is all public.
That's why all these physicists and politicians and people and congresswomen, ideas are bulletproof.
And the New World Order better stop carrying out terror attacks.
We've caught them over 200 times in the last 100 years.
Western government's doing this.
Hitler does it.
The British do it.
The Russians did it.
Governments do this.
And I'm not saying the whole government.
Very small criminal black op, black world is what they're called, operators are carrying this out.
That's the facts.
Please, go investigate it, ladies and gentlemen.
You will discover the truth.
We're putting cameras in school bathrooms.
Nothing can stop the truth from coming out on 9-11, and we're in danger of the new world order carrying out more terror attacks to keep this war for everyone.
A fired-up show tonight.
It really is exciting.
We were speaking a few moments ago about Charlie Sheen coming forward this week with his notion that the government may actually have been behind September 11th and the September 11th attacks and the conspiracy theories in general surrounding 9-11.
What do you make of an actor of his stature coming out publicly like that?
I think he's a brave man.
To even question this aloud in an environment where people have been saying that anyone who questions the government is a traitor.
So Charlie Sheen has done his homework.
And he's asking questions.
He's speaking truth to power, which is a brave thing to do.
Look, the young people in my family, my nephews, for example, have been saying for the past three, four years that we are not learning everything about 9-11 that we're meant to learn.
And specifically, they've been saying that if you read all the different websites, if you're really careful, what you discover is that a lot of facts don't add up.
What is being put out there, all these conspiracy theories, even if a piece of that is true, we have a responsibility, don't you think, to be asking the questions and to be doing the investigation?
I think it's very patriotic to investigate it.
Throughout all of history, the basic...
The premise of tyrants has been dictators, shall we say, and I think it's fair to say that George W. Bush is a dictator, has been, if you tell the people they have an external enemy, they'll follow you anywhere.
That was what Goebbels told Hitler to do back in ancient history.
That's what Roman emperors did.
Charlie Sheen then appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live.
Sheen again threw down the gauntlet.
And challenge his detractors to look at the facts of Building 7 and the five frames from the Pentagon.
From Hollywood, it's Jimmy Kimmel Live!
Timmy!
Charlie Sheen!
Our first guest tonight is...
Not only a member of the world-famous Sheen family of actors, little in fact, also the genius behind the lucrative Afro-Sheen empire.
That's right.
You know him from movies like Platoon and Wall Street, and in addition to seeing him every week on Two and a Half Men, opening tonight, you can see him in Scary Movie 4.
Please welcome the indestructible Charlie Sheen.
Thank you for being here.
Happy almost Easter.
Hey, back at you.
Thank you.
You had some interesting comments.
You were on a radio show, and you talked about 9-11, and you have...
Is it a theory, or you just don't believe the government account of what happened on 9-11?
I just had questions.
Yeah?
I had a lot of questions.
And the forum I chose to voice those questions in is the Alex Jones Radio Show, just because he's a guy that I've been a fan of and followed for a lot of years.
You know, I got attacked.
I mean, there were a lot of headpieces.
The reaction was pretty severe.
People get very mad when celebrities have opinions.
No, I understand.
I understand.
I know he's not qualified.
He doesn't, you know, he's just, who the hell is he to have an opinion about something so horrible?
And, you know, it was sad because they didn't really take a look at any of the stuff I was asking them to look at, any of the evidence or any of the stuff that generated those questions, you know?
And they said, oh, he's another tinfoil hat-wearing Hollywood clown.
You know, I felt that the only real validation I needed was just being a taxpaying American that loves my country.
Yeah, and you, I mean, it's just something that you wonder about, and you would like to know more about, I assume.
And do you study the tapes?
I've done a lot of research, and it's not just me, it's the people that have come before me, the experts and the...
The engineers and the physicists and the scientists and the scholars that raised a lot of these things.
And I took a look at their research and said, yeah, it doesn't add up.
A lot of it doesn't add up.
Hence, these questions.
There's two areas.
There's Building 7 and there's the five frames from the Pentagon.
Don't listen to me.
Do your own research.
But I think that what happened to a time in this country when we were entitled, when we had a constitutional and a God-given right, to be curious about things that...
That didn't make sense.
That's all it was.
Well, because we have a lot of cable shows now.
Thank you.
And they need stuff to be mad about.
So, you know, stuff like this is like, oh, boy, we could yell about this for an entire week.
And plus, with your dad being the president and all, it puts a lot of the focus on that.
That's true.
Yeah, I should have conferred with him before I came out publicly.
Within weeks of Charlie Sheen throwing down the gauntlet on national television, the federal government released two new videos, almost identical to frames released...
Four years before by the Pentagon.
We've got to ask questions about why the Pentagon could be attacked.
This is supposed to be the most defended building in the world.
We've got to look at the stills that were released from video footage of that day, which claim that a jetliner went into the side of the Pentagon and yet appear to show some kind of guided missile going in there.
The establishment press chortled with glee, as if the new footage conclusively proved their claims.
Tonight's other big story, the Pentagon releasing the first video showing American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon on September 11th.
Well, that's a question.
Does this prove once and for all that that is where that airplane crashed?
I would have thought that over the years that that was never a question, but some folks had a question about that.
I think that question is now once and for all answered.
Since the first days of 9-11, the establishment press has only focused on the Pentagon controversy and not the hundreds of other smoking guns and serious questions that have been raised.
We have to ask ourselves, why?
As if it was by design, the new frames only intensified the debate.
No passenger plane is evident.
In the still frames.
They're more than happy to endlessly focus on the Pentagon, but they won't touch Building 7. It's amazing.
Amazing, incredible, pick your word.
For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before.
A building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.
We have the owner of the World Trade Center complex admitting on tape that he ordered the building demolished on the afternoon of 9-11.
I said, you know, we've had such a terrible loss of life.
Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.
And they made that decision to pull.
and then we watched the building collapse.
9/11 was just one salvo in an ongoing war against the free peoples of the planet.
It's all part of their terror storm.
Pentagon war planners now publicly admit that 90% of their battle plans are psychological versus physical.
The information war has taken the place of aircraft carriers, fighter bombers, and Abrams M1A tanks.
And you, the population of the planet, Are the target.
Put simply, modern warfare is all about selling the population to love its own enslavement.
The elite are waging war on the people.
Edward L. Bernays is regarded by many as the father of public relations.
He was born in Vienna, Austria.
Bernays was the nephew of Sigmund Freud.
Bernays pioneered the use of psychology and other social sciences to design public persuasion campaigns.
He published several scholarly works still used in universities worldwide today.
On page 71 of his book Propaganda, Bernays wrote, If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?
Bernays literally wrote the book on modern propaganda.
His clients included Procter& Gamble, CBS Television, the United Fruit Company, the American Tobacco Company, General Electric, Dodge Motors.
And he also spearheaded the national campaign to fluoridate the water supply of America through the fluoridationist of the Public Health Service.
He was hired by multiple presidents to engage in propaganda campaigns against the American people, as well as the U.S. Army.
Another quote from his book, Propaganda.
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our government.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels publicly praised Bernays on many occasions and stated that Bernays' work was the blueprint used by the Nazis to seize control of the Reich.
The Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels Edward Bernays advanced the science of propaganda light years.
But more than 60 years after his heyday, the science of mind control is thousands of times more sophisticated than even Bernays had envisioned.
Since the dawn of man, bullies have attempted to dominate and control the tribe.
Human history has been one long struggle of the independent free human against organized crime syndicates attempting to enslave him.
Brute force has been replaced with intimidation and propaganda.
We are manipulated into enslaving ourselves.
We are conned into believing that the establishment is our loving keeper and not our parasitic master.
The New World Order architects are a group of predatory control freaks who have enslaved humanity and are desperate to keep control of their cattle.
The elite is threatened by independent free humans who control their own destinies.
They're threatened by intelligence, by beauty, by honor, by family.
They seek to control and steer the destiny of humanity in a direction that secures their power monopoly forever.
They are sadistic.
They are callous.
They think nothing of human life.
Only control and keeping that control.
The entire world is being engineered, designed to be a prison planet, a control grid over free humanity, where no dissent is tolerated.
Once you realize that the establishment is laughing at you, you can begin to research the truth and start fighting back.
Once you understand their game plan, it's very easy to defeat.
Knowing who your enemy is is half the battle.
Taking action is the other half.
▲
Export Selection