A conspiracy theory offers an explanation of past, ongoing, or future events or circumstances that cites as the main casual factor a small group of powerful persons, the conspirators, acting in secret for their own benefit and against the common good.

Prof. Brian Wagner

Philosophy Professor Brian Wagner of Rock Valley College, in Rockford, Illinois, has given a remarkable lecture that deserves wider attention. His First Tuesday lecture, “Dissecting 9/11 Conspriacy Theories,” delivered 15 September 2021, represents a serious challenge to 9/11 Truther claims. Wagner has done a lot of homework. Here is the most comprehensive treatment of the subject in video form. Because Truther claims continually come up on this website, this video is the perfect eye-opening look at how analysis of such things should be done. Please watch this carefully, with an open mind.

to

The Imposter Phenomenon

Yesterday, on the John Moore show the subject of Scott Bennett came up. Last week’s article on Bennett was referenced. Some minutes later, Bennett called the show to say I was slandering him. As might be expected, he suggested I was some kind of CIA agent. He then spouted the usual 9/11 Truther nonsense that a “missile hit the Pentagon,” etc. (So I have posted the presentation of Prof. Wagner, above). Bennett did clarify a misunderstanding I had from listening to several of his talks. I had assumed he had traveled to Russia, and perhaps he gave that impression. But no, he had only gone to Russia digitally, appearing on Russian media. He once again affirmed that he traveled to Iran, asserting that Iran is a “Christian country.” He glibly offered an angry rant on our society’s permissiveness when it comes to trangenders, etc., as a way to win over the audience to the other nonsense he sells. It seems to be the seasoning for an otherwise rotten dish.

It is not unexpected that Bennett — talkative as he is — would try and defend himself. However, a man of his background and character should not be regarded as credible by anyone. The past is prologue, and Bennett has a well-documented past. There is an article on Bennett from the Tampa Bay Times. The title of the article is, “MacDill Imposter Headed to Prison: A self-described ‘independent thinker’ full of ‘moxie’ makes a wordy plea to the judge.” The article relates how Scott Allan Bennett posed as an aide to Admiral Eric Olson, Chief of U.S. Special Forces Command in 2010, how he tricked his way onto the admiral’s plane (for a free ride), how he tricked MacDill Air Force Base into giving him an apartment, and how “he stashed 10 guns and 9.389 rounds of ammunition there….”

Bennet was brought up on charges, of course. The judge was baffled as to Bennett’s motivation for persuading “housing officials into giving him an apartment without showing them written orders.” He basically lived at the base for three months and was only caught because, on 23 April 2010, he was stopped at the MacDill gate at 2 a.m. apparently drunk. The Tampa Bay Times said, “He had a loaded gun in his pocket and another in the car.” When caught, Bennett insisted the whole thing was a giant misunderstanding. He claimed to be working as a civilian analyst assigned to MacDill by private defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. He was also a reserve army officer who innocently (he said) “passed himself off as an active-duty officer….” The judge was puzzled by Bennett, saying that he was “too smart, too educated, to be confused by the clear MacDill rules on housing and guns.” The judge said,

I don’t know as I sit here if you are one of those individuals who just don’t have regard for the truth. Maybe you don’t realize you’re being dishonest and you believe your own stories. You say these were little mistakes. You knew what you were doing. You did it on purpose.

According to the Judge, Bennett had “embarrassed and mortified” the MacDill housing staff who got him the apartment. The scam he pulled resulted in a tightening of base rules, making it harder for military personnel to get on-base housing. Bennett was keen on starting a prison ministry after he was sentenced to three years in prison. According to the Tampa Bay Times, “a federal jury convicted Bennett of lying to the government, wearing a uniform without authorization, and two counts of violating security regulations by keeping guns without registering them on the base.”

There are several markers here suggestive of Lobaczewski’s description of ideologically active psychopaths in his book, Political Ponerology. The words of the judge in Bennett’s criminal case apply also to his political rhetoric; that is, he knows what he is doing, and he does it on purpose. Lobaczewski’s text comes naturally to mind:

… characteropathic individuals adopt ideologies created by doctrinaire, often schizoidal people, recast them into an active propaganda form, and disseminate it with their characteristic pathological egotism and paranoid intolerance….

Political Ponerology, Loc 3156 (Kindle ed)

Quarterly Subscription (to support the site)

JRNyquist.blog

$13.00

Buy Jeff’s Books at Amazon.com

187 thoughts on “A Lecture on 9/11 Truth”

  1. Is it slander or libel to call you some sort of CIA agent, Jeff? Why don’t you sue him and see what the Court, says? Of course you would have to testify under penalty of perjury.

  2. If I am not mistaken the last chapter of Lobaczewski’s book, or one of the last, talks about how there is a danger in, as it were, socially stigmatizing the psychopaths (such as Mr. Bennett is purported to probably be); for the kind of political threat they pose can best be dealt with by retrospectively explaining their illusionist presence, and punishing them in certain ways may potentially represent some kind of not-up-to-the-task tackling with ponerological outcomes. Thus, it looks like you may have put yourself in a somewhat delicate position, one which requires walking on eggs, with regard to etiquette/rhetoric adequacy by denouncing Bennett. There is still the fact that Lobaczewski proposed psycopaths essentially have a brain lesion in a determinate region of their nervous tissue, and this might be confirmed or not in court.

      1. I believe in Origins of the Fourth World War you granted, in the context of the Golitsyn-inspired civil was within the American State, witches needed hunting, although doing it had a bad reputation. I don’t think Lobaczweski meant that the danger had anything to do directly with investigating subversion or exposing it, rather I think he meant to say a by-product of a socially recognized expectation regarding psycopaths/their threat might lead to an uncalibrated response to this threat.

        Robert Greene would say that, for example, since emotion is somewhat infectious, and one tends to smile among lively individuals; one should prefer not being close to those who are unhappy, in order not to become oneself unhappy/miserable. Thus, just with regards to temptation sometimes shunning one is not as much weakness as wisdom, so also at least in some circumstamces or to some extent shunning monsters may not be a sign of weakness and emptiness, e.g. insofar as you are shunning someone whose scandalous emotions are harmful. I agree, nevertheless, being able to witness evil is in many ways a sign of strength, including intellectual strength.

        I too found Lobaczweski something of a secular/profane thinker objectionably unaware of spiritual considerations, in some respects; and this may have been the tragic “ponerological” effect of his life experience dealing close to communism. To his credit, Lobaczweski was concerned with the lack of public prominence of gifted individuals (who would be, in his psychiatric language, kind of the polar opposite of psychopaths in their respective effects), particularly in America; which means he somehow saw coming the lack of an aristocracy problem you are describing regarding the US, decades before today; his book, it seems, is from 1984, and is the outward sign of a life-long research.

    2. Pedro, to put it in simple terms, it is good for those who lie to the public to be called out, brain lesions or no.

      1. When Lobaczewski warned about negative effects stemming from a less-than-perfectly-thought-out setting asunder or witch-hunt against psychopaths I assume he was more or less addressing a reality expressed by a famous Nietzsche quote: “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster . . . when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you”.

        The threat posed by a psychopath has also to do with one not knowing what to do with him, or how to minimize his past and future influence in a way that is intellectual and moral rather than palpable, it is not only about spotting him and imposing on him a resignation from whatever office or public role he is in. I did not think I am experienced in this matter.

      2. That all makes sense to a degree, but sometimes, I think you just have to deal with people in a “palpable” way, and let the results be what they will. I believe things can be “over-philosophied”, or “over-intellectualized”. Sometimes, they just have to be dealt with. Even though you may run a risk of becoming a monster in the course of dealing with them, they still must be dealt with. But, I wouldn’t think that would apply in this situation at any rate. Of course, I’m not experienced in calling people out on this level either, though I have had to call people out in public settings before. It can open a can of worms, but for the sake of others, or even just for the sake of truth (which is still in service to others), it must be done.

      3. Likening investigations of communist agents and subversives to a “witch hunt” is not helpful, if that is Lobaczweski’s meaning (and perhaps it is). One becomes a monster fighting monsters, only if one’s soul is weak and one’s intellect is empty. Then monstrousness comes natural.

        To some extent, the problem of the psychopath in society is intractable. There is no solution. We are always going to have this problem. While Lobaczewski makes some valuable observations, as a psychologist, his materialism and scientism is far too naive to credit all his conclusions. Man has a soul. Healing the human personality, as he suggests, is nonsense. The personality is a mask. It is not the soul.

        Lobaczewski is neither a political scientist nor a historian. One needs an aristocracy, made up of healthy individuals oriented to defending society, and to following a code of honor. Warrior aristocracies of the past, from Sparta through the Middle Ages, called on their members to develop their intellectual and physical capacities to the utmost; to be, in effect, excellent human beings. The great enemy of tyranny was, in antiquity, found in the aristocrats — from Timoleon to Cato and Brutus. The Magna Carta vs. King John shows the same picture. George Washingon was criticized as a “high flying aristocrat.” But they are all gone. None are left. This is in itself, part of the explanation for so many psychopaths and characteropathic individuals rising in our midst. A bourgeois soceity, led by businessmen and advertisers, has come to involve a degree of falsification that aristocratic society would not have tolerated. Bureaucracy as well, since it consists of clerks and otherwise unvalorous people, presents no bar to bad characters (especially cowards). The same can now be said of electoral politics and the men of straw who are drawn there. Pathocracy comes into its own when aristocracy has been eliminated as a spoke in the political wheel. Good people do not come automatically. It takes a tremendous effort to breed and educate such people. Today, it seems, we are doing everything to make people into monsters.

  3. Hello Mr. Nyquist. Have you ever read the prophecies related to Europe and World War 3? They stated that the Russians will suddenly invade Europe. So don’t you think that actually the Russians pretend weakness and all the videos of Prighozin are just “shows”?

    1. Prigozhin’s monologues certainly contain disinformation. And yes, when you’re the underdog, and you have some strength left, you want to be underestimated. So it is possible Russia has a trap planned. I think we are going to find out by the end of July.

      1. What sort of a trap do you imagine might be planned, or are you afraid of ruining it by saying?

  4. THE, go find somewhere else where you can be appreciated. Your comments underwhelm us. This forum is for serious truth seekers. As said in A Separate Peace, “Sarcasm is the protest of the weak.”

    1. I sincerely ask a serious question. Either Jeff has an imaginative idea, or he has inside information about Russia that he neglects to share with us. Perhaps now Lady, that you speak for Jeff, perhaps you can tell us if he has informed the CIA or not?

      2. “that he neglects to share with us”

        He owes you nothing!

      3. Actually I made a commonplace remark and they sought to mock me over it. I only said that we will find out what happens in Ukraine by the end of July. For by then, at the latest, we will see whether a Ukrainian offensive actual materializes, and whether the Russians are laying a trap. Maybe Russia will collapse. It will be interesting to see what happens. Basically, nobody knows the future when it comes to war. Too much chance involved. Too many potential mishaps.

      4. What “CIA” are we talking about? The CIA that created the Taleban now showing they always were allied with Russia/Soviets since before the fall of the Berlin Wall? That CIA? Or the other CIA of Angleton?

        You are a fool, just the same fool who cannot see that communists would leverage a class warfare between new muslims against old established muslims and other religions… Conspiracy? It is in the communist manifesto, stupid,

      5. I deleted the comment you responded to Mic+Mada. He misrepresents what I say, then he attacks the straw man he has set up. And that is not honest. I have nothing to say to dishonest people. They can play their games elsewhere.

  5. Your words of sophistry and cunning do not fool us, THE. Perhaps, you accuse Jeff of what you yourself are doing. BE GONE!

  6. Something is very ironic of late in the media, and it is this gloating or mocking Putin for punishing his own people if they call it a war. In a way the media denouncing conspiracy theories in your face keep fueling them in the back rooms via this value influence that communists have waged for a long time, and which is to deny they are at war, let alone commit aggressions, and that they just seek “justice or no peace”.

    Fact of the matter the left is waging a war on us, it even mobilizes corporations to mobilize the transsexual Trojan-Canard, corporations which in the past have done those kinds of things such as advocating dangerous smoking for women as healthy and mobilizing people thus to be ready to buy what a big factory would produce. The same can be said about the pseudo-health mobilization for covid vaccines as a means to hide that China was waging biowarfare on the world.

    How can these scumbag communists get away with it in every country is for the simple language reason that when you mock Putin calling it a not-war special operation, you in fact deny that Putin has de-facto declared war on you. The war in Ukraine is yet another big psyop by Russia allowing them at the subconscious or near-unconscious level to say: “I am at war with you all, I am coming for you all, one at a time, and what are you going to do about us declaring war on you? You goin to retaliate?”

    And thus the 911 truthers can only “naturally” and sociologically come out the woodwork saying America is bombing the world that has not declared war on it, and that it is a provocator. And so we end up in the position of being called warmongers by our very own fear of admitting a war, a hot war, is declared and prosecuted on us, but one under the guise of “Special Operation” in Ukraine, “anti-terrosim” in Georgia and “Social Justice” for transvestites in America seeking to mobilize future victims of cancer just as was done for cigarettes under different auspices which at the time were grey terror like.

    The Police in America cannot be accused of working for bankers, yet sociologically it is obvious that they would see any American taking up arms to fight back as a militia man the hordes of leftists and illegals waging unofficial war on us as vigilante. Yet vigilante is extra judicial killing that does not apply when we are fighting an actual war, and I do not care if Putin calls it “Special Operation”, or if the media forbids to call protestors rioters and terrorists, war it is.

    This sociology was fabricated very cleverly, because as Putin shows one hand fighting in Ukraine, no one dares make a claim about the other hidden hand underneath, hidden and molesting the minds with criminal creepy gaslighting the west. It seems to me that the sociology of stealth pedophile transgender agenda matches exactly in language that of Putin in Ukraine, as it is a process of normalization of a gaslighting that is actually successful; and despite the catastrophic losses in Ukraine, the apparatchiks still view it as viable, if not even more viable than if they were actually winning! Because the damage is already virtually been done: successful boycott or not, the criminally sexual schizophrenic transvestite is here to stay and never be denounced as a terrorist having declared war on America much in scissor like strategy of connivance with a Putin who benefits from the same while denouncing the transvestite behavior. I am 100% sure they will one clench fist it eventually just the way the Talebans and ISIs eventually one clench fisted it with Russia later on despite all the 911 truther conspiracy theories stating the CIA created the Talebans.

    This subconscious method they go about dates back from a tradition of the ghetto and underground religions or cults which promoted the way of their gods without ever expliciting the name of their god or religion, without expliciting that a proselytism of certain values was going on toward that unofficial cult until it would later unveil its true identity in officiality,

    It is not conspiracy, but it is the sad sociology of how evil crawls and grows and seeks to thrive underground and comes about. The Revelation of it comes not into our lives in a final spectacular bang for all to see, but in a whimper normalized matter of fact relation between the underground Soviet communists and the Talebans, with the proof being that the Talebans perfectly know and have known they were dealing with communists since the beginning before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    Meanwhile Bush and the media sociological of antiwar and Finlandisation program of our minds will fecklessly deny there is an actual war, will tell us to keep shopping, that people defending against illegals are vigilante protectionists (all the while Bush himself is protectioning his own business that way) and bizarrely that Islam is peace without pointing which islam he was talking about – the one of the envious islamic terrorists angry at rich established Saudii muslims allied with communists?

    Calling Bush the establishment when he embraces the unofficial communist cult in words he repeats because he is too afraid of admitting Russia/Soviets have now declared war on us when we all are on a program of submissive Finlandization might be one of those biggest last jokes of this turn of schizophrenic modern century of ethnic mental illness of double binds.

      1. He did it unwittingly, in a double bind fashion presented to him. Values that promoted the revolution of seeing low double digit IQ people running the show and telling how 3 digit IQ people should live was fully embraced by himself with the slipping of the term “Compassionate Conservatism”… as if it were not compassionate to have a 3 digit IQ…

      2. The double bind of Marx is, if you are dumb and smoke the “opium of the people” in religion, you are despisable and deserving death, but if you have a high IQ then you cannot be compassionate and nice lower IQ people, and thus you deserve to be put to death too. Besides, getting the workers riled up in the process like fools is the bonus.

    2. * meaning poorer liberal and envious Johny Jihads are the communists seeking to overthrow established muslims and gaslight them with the takfirist canard that they do not practice the right form of islam…

  7. I watched the lecture, didn’t wait around for the Q & A session.

    One of the problems with that video is that it focused on the psychological formation of conspiracy theories, only later dealing with some of the physical evidence pro and con.

    At about 37 minutes into the video, he made the factual error that molten aluminum and molten steel look the same. I have worked with both. When dealing with molten aluminum, it comes out silvery color. Molten steel, on the other hand, is red.

    His other physical claims are questioned by engineers, architects and scientists.

    The speaker accuses the “truthers” of cherry-picking their data, but then he himself does the same, leaving out data that the “truthers” claim are central to their evidence.

    The speaker is a philosopher, not a scientist nor engineer. Yet in about the 55 minute area he presents the hearers with the false dilemma logical fallacy. He should have known better. False dilemma because both theories could be wrong. He then followed that false dilemma question with a few other theories, none of which are provable, including the official theory which he espouses, a theory that can be called into question based on evidences which he omitted. He also made some other claims that are disputed.

    One big problem is that people have the psychological desire “to close the books” i.e. have closure. Psychologically we don’t like seeing something important, then leaving loose ends. But we as humans are too limited to have exhaustive knowledge of even a small part of reality. The Bible is a good example, as it gives true knowledge, but not exhaustive knowledge. People, not liking those loose threads, try to fill in the gaps, and that’s where the trouble starts with all conspiracy theories. As a Christian, that “filling in the gaps” is where a lot of false teachings about the Bible come in.

      2. I have seen United Airlines planes leave La Guardia on multiple occasions (with varying weather conditions), as I was driving on the parkway a few miles from the airport. The planes do look grey-like exactly like the one pictured and shown to hit the towers. My wife said the same exact thing as we were leaving the airport. I believe that planes did hit the towers. My main issue is with tower 3, I have not been able to wrap my head around how that collapsed; this was a class 1 building. I’m kind of with RO on this, I respect your insight on this and the discussions here. This seems to be one of the most controversial topics for NY’ers too.

    2. Exactly, this is not how molten aluminum looks like.

      https://youtu.be/gPu9IqBfMIw

      It is how product of thermitic reaction looks like. You can determine temperature from color. Aluminum would burn before reaching this temperature.

      1. Notice the “debunkers” never show actual videos unlike the truthers.

    3. He didn’t seem to be philosophizing or filling in gaps to me. It was pretty straightforward. I find it very suspicious that the guy who has the four samples that he claims are thermite will not allow anyone else to analyze them.

      1. “will not allow anyone else to analyze them.”

        Source? You asked him for sample?

      2. Wagner said that the guy will not allow anyone to test them as the guy doesn’t trust anyone else eith them.

        My question, is why is an open Communist like yourself, who despises America and defends Russian aggression, so adamantly in support of the “truther” narrative(s)?

        That’s pretty suspicious too. What disinformation are you trying to sow or nurture? Are you trying to demoralize us, making us think the U.S. government killed thousands of it’s own citizens? Is there something you might be trying to deflect from?

        Ymdo you see a difference of opinion between R.O., and Jeff on the issue and are trying to exploit it like a good Communist does to those he hates and wants to destroy?

      4. Perhaps the most decisive argument, is the number of people who would have participated in a conspiracy to fake a terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. It runs into the hundreds. And not a single guilty conscious. “Hey guys, we are going to kill three thousand people and make it look like a terror attack. You on board?” It’s too improbable to credit.

      5. Keep in mind, thermite is easy to make, the claim was that it was special “nano-thermite”. All one would need is a ball mill to make thermite. I’m not going to give the details on how to make it here, that can easily be found online. It’s easy to make though, the materials are probably already in most homes too. However, we have zero evidence of “nano-thermite” found.

      6. Right. And that’s what I was trying to say, though I’m not always great at communicating clearly. According to Wagner, the guy who claims to have samples of thermite which he claims to have found on the site, won’t let anybody analyze them. Therefore, no proof.

  10. He debunks nothing when he doesn’t answer concrete questions. The truth can be found via dialogue, not a monologue. It is all “truthers say this”, here it is why is it wrong. Except most of the statements are made up and to make his answers look good.

    I recommend

    1. you to listen actual 9/11 researchers like Laurent Guyenot. Before making conclusion.

      1. Given the factual evidence presented by Prof. Wagner, I am not sure what objection anyone could make to the story that hijackers drove planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. What other story could there be? There is no persuasive evidence for another explanation. I am dumbfounded at the idea that reasonable people could come to another conclusion. SPECULATION is not EVIDENCE. And it certainly is not proof.

  11. I’ve noticed a common theme with our open Communist Commit, and the Commie trolls, THE, Petunia, etc.

    They say we should put our heads together to figure out the things Jeff posts, and that we should have dialogue, not monologue.

    They would love to guide us to the “truth” of things, wouldn’t they?

    1. They remind me of how Satan guided Eve to certain conclusions via their dialogue.

      You don’t dialogue with the Devil and come out on top.

    2. Of course, you cannot dialogue with them because they are not honest participants in a discussion. Dialogue means both parties are seeking the truth. Both parties are honest, and engaged in a good will effort. But as we have seen, again and again, these folks take cheap shots. They misrepresent what I say or write, and respond to the misrepresentation. This is called a straw man argument. And they never answer questions. They are not here to dialogue. They are here to disrupt, distract, and discredit.

      1. Is is possible they misrepresent your arguments because they do not fully understand them? You think, speak and write on a high intellectual plane that not everyone is capable of grasping.

      2. If you read some of the replies from trolls, on this site, you nearly always find them reframing my arguments to make them appear ridiculous. This is a technique called “the straw man argument.” You make the other person look like a straw man, then you knock him down. I see this method used frequently. I doubt it is done unwittingly. But then, maybe some people are unconsciously drilled in such techniques and always argue unfairly.

  12. RBN is a hotbed of crazy and anit semitism. The only reason i listen to John Moore’s show is because of the segments with Jeff who brings some sanity to the discourse. Its surreal to hear some of the guests like Steven Ben Nun who last week suggested the Tower of Babel was space ship or that Moore’s who suggests that dead bodies are broadcasting IP addresses from the grave. When Jeff brings reason arguments to table, he is answered by idiots, shills and plants. Its exhausting to listen to. Everyone these days want to believe everything and anything other than what’s starring them in the face. I ish either Moore would tighten up or Jeff find a better outlet where he can articulate FACTS and truth without being rebuffed by conspiracy crazy.

    1. Naturally, the message of this site encounters the ignorance and irrationality of the fringe media milieu to which it has been exiled. One would prefer to be acknowledged by intellectually serious people in the media; but such people are only isolated individuals, like the readers here. Our media culture is hollow. It prefers sophisticated lunacy of CNN or Fox News. In terms of communism, and the philosophy taking over the culture and government, none of our serious intellectuals or “rational” voices can make the connection between a continuing communist movement and an actual communist bloc of countries led by Russia and China. Such a conception is out of bounds. Because of successful Russian and Chinese active measures, anyone who attempts to paint an accurate picture of the communist threat as a coordinated external and internal totalitarian movement is lumped in with the lunatic fringe of conspiracy theorists and antisemites. I believe the prevailing or ruling philosophies of right and left cannot acknowledge the actual situation. The market and the rich who live off it do not dare second-guess themselves as they have embraced the China trade. Those like Art Bell, who gave me a larger platform years ago, suffered for it. The trolls here are mere skirmishers. If I had gained any level of fame I would have suffered the same treatment as Politkovskaya and Litvinenko — who exposed the linkages between the Moscow-controlled “Islamic threat” and the revival of the USSR under Putin in 1999-2001 (which included 9/11). Behind our persistent trolls, who are remarkably fixated, are the gatekeepers with strict instructions to keep this message out of the public domain. Note how they favor conspiracy themes that clash with the points I make. Notice how angry conspiracy theorists get when I am allowed to speak. The communists never attack me directly. I am attacked from the right. Always. And the attacks from that quarter will grow as the right falls into line with Russian active measures. As a Russian writer once told me, “You fall between two stools.”

      1. Agreeded. It appears all media is compromised either by useful idiots or sellouts. Thank you for being a light of truth in this dark sea of lies.

      2. It seems that when someone might be the kind of person to reveal all this, like Tucker Carlson, they manage to feed him a false narrative that he picks up — and he is then derailed. One holds out hope, but everyone likes to sound good, and very few of them actually read or think things through.

    2. I listen to RBN primarily to hear Jeff’s comments and responses and also Dave Hodges, who I believe contributes positively to the discussion. I too have serious reservations about other elements of the broadcasts. However, I would like to address Moore’s suggestion “that dead bodies are broadcasting IP addresses from the grave.” I didn’t hear it, and perhaps his formulation was a bit mangled, but I would invite commenters to view this documentary, which I believe is sober, objective, and honest. If you wish, you can FF through the interpolated sections that are speculative (narrated by a digital voice) and simply watch and listen to the experiment which is recorded. I found it troubling to say the least, and I would be delighted to see it persuasively debunked.

      https://odysee.com/@dharmabear:2/BlueTRUTH-Andree-Lealle-2022-English:4

      1. That is what Mr. Moore is suggesting, that vaxxed people alive or dead, are broadcasting bluetooth mac addresses. Even if the voltage was there, how would a human body generate a hexanumaric code? People allow themselves to be tracked and traced and they pay monthly for it, it’s called a cell phone. Im sorry but it simply is not true. It’s like saying a missile hit the Pentagon. It’s a diverson from the truth.

        Funny how the discussion re the vaccine has departed away from the Phizer – CCP/PLA connection and has morphed into the bluetooth narrative or the DoD unleashing the virus and the vaccine for the NWO banksters. Im afraid we, the US and West, are being set up to take the fall re covid and the vaxx.Like the 9/11 narrative, people are focussing on rumour and speculation instead of truth and facts. Meanwhile our enemies are using our blindness and naivety against us.

      3. I am replying to Shipwreck, below. I repeat my invitation to watch the documentary, Mr. Moore aside. Simply dismissing its contents as mere rumor and speculation is wrong. I assign no motives; in other words, I am focused on truth and facts, not on interpretation. I believe the video presents the former, and I am troubled by it. Should we, particularly on this blog, be concentrating on the fundamental, root problem, Communism? Of course. But that emphasis should not lead us to suppress or dismiss the evidence of secondary issues, particularly one that came up in discussion and that I did not raise but simply responded to.

      4. Deborah: Thank you. i watched the video and researched the group who produced it, Comusav. I find both to be suspect. Again, no real discussion re covid, the vaccine, the damage to immune systems, to womens reproductive health, etc. They even have a Telegram account. Interesting.

        I think they are just another disinformation site posing as conservatives.

        https://www.comusav.com/usa/#

  13. I’m generally inclined to the view that 911 was a psyop perpetrated by the Deep State (especially due to the particulars surrounding the collapse of WTC 7) and that it is dangerous to attribute to bungling incompetence that which could, in fact, be nefarious action.

    That said, some of the Truther arguments are suspect, most notably that it would have been impossible for novice pilots of light aircraft to commandeer and steer commercial jet liners into buildings; I recall seeing a documentary not that long ago about a non-pilot ground crew worker at an airport in the Pacific NW calmly towing a short-range passenger turboprop onto the runway, climbing aboard and then taking off on his own for a joyride which ended with him plunging it into the ground. Sure, it was not a commercial jet, but it was still a beast of a plane for a totally untrained and unhinged person to fly off in; people with no fear of death can take on all manner of outlandish feats, I believe.

    1. A couple of years after 9/11, Mr. Nyquist gave an absolutely superb public lecture, that included a lengthy Q&A session, about Al Qaida’s Russian connections and that the attacks were effectively a Russian (read: Soviet-communist) false flag operation. The video recordings of this talk are still on YouTube, in one case split into altogether 9 clips of quite different duration. For those who haven’t listened to this yet, here is Part 1/9 (if the follow-up parts don’t pop up automatically, you can find them in that YouTube user’s video list):

      2. Thanks for sharing the information on this lecture and where to find it.

      3. This speech was before a group in LA. I spoke before this group every year. After delivering this talk, I was never asked back. I had gone against the prevailing conspiracy narrative.

      5. Contemplative Observer: Thank you for posting the older lecture video above. It really helped settle in more puzzle pieces for me.

        Mr Nyquist: In that above lecture, the information on Moscow’s influence over and training of key radical Islamic terrorist was so helpful. Could you share more why and how Moscow has wanted to train terror groups? Is their main motivation against Israel, or is it just to use them for their usual global control ambitions?

        I’m asking this because I recently watched this by Loudon.
        https://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/exposing-rise-jew-hatred

        I had never heard about Russia trying to be the main influencer at the founding of Israel in 1948, when Israel instead turned to America/West in partnership. Loudon feels that is the root to the Left’s long standing anti-Israel posture (even other leftist Jews) and for the growing, wicked antisemetic rhetoric/conspiracies globally. Could you give any more insight to all that founding period? How emmeshed was Russia with Jews trying to regain their ancient homeland and how did it come about they spurned Russia and turned to Truman, etc, instead? Just that whole founding period and also communists tentacles in Israel today.

        I am thinking of the recent protests and divisions in Israel, regarding their Supreme Court’s corruption/lack of accountability, in part. Do you know if that has been communist driven at all — doing their usual infiltration, stirring of strife, and subversion to destabilize? How much is Russia specifically working to control Israel vs they r merely supporting their Islamic comrades thru providing weapons? Of course, the troublings between Israel and Islamic neighbors is an ancient spiritual one that effects the whole world, and will do so on an increasing basis here. But, just trying to figure out the truth of the earthly geopolitical framework thru which that spiritual battle is being played out.

      6. Socialist Zionism was a major part of Zionism, and many of the Israeli settlements were socialist, like the Kibbutzim (communal farms). Communist influence within the Zionist movement is hard to estimate, but there was a certain ideologicaly sympathy at one time. Stalin was initially excited that Israel would become part of the Communist Bloc. He recognized Israel as a state. But then he realized his mistake, that he could not entirely trust the Zionists, as he could not coopt Israel as a satellite (though he undoubtedly had spies within Israeli politics). Stalin, toward the end of his life, turned against the Jews, concocted a Jewish doctors’ plot and planned to start a world war in its wake. It is unclear how Israel fit into this, but Stalin died before he could carry out his plan. There is also the Soviet control of the main part of the Nazi diaspora, and the importance of the KGB’s hold on various surviving Nazi elements in Europe and South America. A pro-Jewish policy would have complicated this long-term red-brown alliance strategy, which Moscow has always been kept on a backburner and is now brought into the open in places like Greece and Argentina — and with the Alt Right in Germany, Austria, etc.

        There is another complicating factor for Moscow: Since Lenin had advocated close alliance with Muslims, from the first days of the Soviet Union, and since the Arabs were more numerous than the Jews, Moscow naturally turned to arming and aligning with Syria and Egypt (the largest Arab country by population) — while Jordan and Saudi Arabia prefered to ally with the United States. Sadat famously took Egypt out of the Soviet alliance and realigned with the U.S., an act which led to many assassination attempts and, finally, a successful assassination.

        In post-Soviet times Moscow has tried to get closer to Israel, and has flooded Israel with Russians who may or may not be Jewish. I know of cases where Russians have claimed to be Jewish when they are not. You do not need a visa to travel from Russia to Israel last I checked. You can just board a plane in Moscow and fly directly to Tel Aviv. Putin has also maintained a friendly personal relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu. But the relationship is complicated, especially as Russia has been instrumental in training Iranian nuclear engineers and scientsts.

      7. Mr Nyquist: Thank you for the thoughtful response. Plenty for me to chew on there and wrap my brain around. As always, things r never as “neat, sweet and tidy” as I would like. Multi-layered. Again, thank you.

  14. “Given the factual evidence presented by Prof. Wagner, I am not sure what objection anyone could make to the story that hijackers drove planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. What other story could there be? There is no persuasive evidence for another explanation. I am dumbfounded at the idea that reasonable people could come to another conclusion. SPECULATION is not EVIDENCE. And it certainly is not proof.”

    Impossible to know what exactly happened, but the official story definitely did not happen. As outsiders, speculation is all we have.

    The alleged hijackers couldn’t fly even a Cesna, lived together with Mossad agents in Hollywood Florida, drunk alcohol and visited strip bars.

    There were no hijackers. The planes were drones or possibly there were no planes at all. The only pictures of planes come from mainstream media.

    1. Commit: “There were no hijackers”? The planes were drones? Such nonsense! There were hundreds of witnesses to the planes, and there is video footage of the planes hitting both towers — from non-government sources. There was the French documentary film crew on street level that caught the first plane hitting the tower. The mountain of evidence you ignore, that you pretend is not there, makes a liar or ignoramus out of you. Your readiness to believe false stories comes from your communist worldview. Your ideas force you to deny facts, because your ideas require a narrative where capitalism and the Republic are malefactors. Always. Your conspiracy theory is the usual communist one. What people on the right do not understand is that the communist conspiracy theory is the same as the one they have embraced; namely, that there are evil capitalists, and they need to be overthrown in a revolution. All these “theories” lead us to the Communist Manifesto. They have merely packaged it for disgruntled people on the right instead of disgruntled “workers.”

      2. He is a self-confessed communist. He admits it, with can be helpful for those who want to understand the mentality. Furthermore, he is pro-Russia. Want to ask him why he supports a good Christian nationalist like Putin?

      3. I thought he had admitted to being a Communist before. I take him to be the open, lying ignoramus, and THE, Petunia, and Lanyard to be the lying, ignoramus Communists who try to appear to be patriotic Americans.

  15. “Perhaps the most decisive argument, is the number of people who would have participated in a conspiracy to fake a terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. It runs into the hundreds. And not a single guilty conscious. “Hey guys, we are going to kill three thousand people and make it look like a terror attack. You on board?” It’s too improbable to credit.”

    The practical realization was likely done by Jews (google Urban Moving Systems, Israeli art students). It is against their beliefs to think about non-jews with empathy.

    1. Antisemitism and communism all in one post! How very Marxist of you. Are you going to quote from Marx’s essay on the Jewish question?

      1. I don’t believe this “Jews are semites” fairytale. I can’t be an anti-Semite.

      3. Commit believes fairy tales. Frankly, anyone that thinks Jews are not semites is an idiot.

        Humorous aside: I was scanning the thread above and came across your response about Commit being a “self confused communist.” Of course that was not what you said, just my eye being a bit confused by the scan, but it isn’t off base either.

  16. Concerning conspiracy theories, I don’t trust any of them. That includes the “official” explanation. The moment I sense a whiff of speculation, red warning flags start flying. That includes the “official” story that we have been fed, it too has speculation as part of its explanation.

    ****** WARNING, SPECULATION FOLLOWS ******

    • If there were a conspiracy, there would have had to have been hundreds involved in it.

    Not true. The people actually involved in the conspiracy could have been as few as 50, or even 20. Others who were involved may not have known about the conspiracy. There are probably more KGB moles in the upper levels of the CIA than that.

    • For example, let’s say that there were thermite bombs installed in the buildings, the truckers who delivered the thermite may have been told that they were delivering maintenance supplies.

    • Of those who actually placed the thermite, how many lived afterwards? After all, those who planned to murder thousands, what are a few more bodies?

    ****** END SPECULATION ******

    I could go on with more speculation after more speculation. But I prefer to stay with what I can verify. What I can verify (if the videos are still available) shows one weird event after another, weird events that scream conspiracy, but zero evidence of who or why it was done. I refuse to speculate beyond saying that there were weird events.

    What I don’t like is how these weird events feed right into communist disinformation. A KGB agent whispering into the ear of a person receptive of unhinged conspiracy theories can start a chain reaction. Meanwhile, the truth is further obfuscated.

    I don’t trust any of the stories. Which means I KNOW very little about what happened. I prefer it that way rather than to speculate, or listen to speculations posted by others.

    Getting back to the featured lecture, I stand by my initial criticisms of it posted above.

    This is not meant as an attack against Jeff, just my personal reflections on the issue. I view Jeff as a valuable resource in his field of political science and the communist actions against the U.S. over the last decades. My main field of study is elsewhere, which is why I depend on trustworthy sources such as Jeff for information from outside my field of study.

  17. Here is an animated video reconstruction of American Airlines Flight 11, coupled with the complete ATC audio (!), from take-off at Boston’s Logan Airport at 7:59 EDT till impact on the World Trade Center’s North Tower at 8:46 EDT. The plane was hijacked at 8:14 EDT and redirected south along the line of the Hudson River, right down to New York City.

  18. There is more authentic audio from all four hijacked flights of Sept. 11, 2001, in this documentary, “9/11: Voices From the Air”:

    1. How does one get through to such people? To flood our media with false messages is, in itself, an act of sabotage. I beleive there is a method in it, though many of the particupants do not fully understand what they are participating in. You get people addicted to this “resentment” ideology. Then you keep repeating it. They become blind to everything else.

      1. “How does one get through to such people?”

        By not giving into their lies.

        “The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. “One word of truth outweighs the world.”

        ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

      3. If you censor free speech, then you accede to the mechanizations of the totalitarian infiltrators who have subverted all levels of US Government. This is a perfect example of why so many of the few people that know about you, say that you are Deep State.

      4. TO MR THE: This website is my home, and if you are rude, if you are dishonest, then I do not want you in my home. I have not censored anything of substance you might want to say, because you do not say anything of substance (as in the present instance). In fact, your malicious nature comes out now — quite clearly — in saying that many people think I am Deep State. Oh? Did you take a survey? How could you possibly know what “so many” people think? And you cares what shallow people think; for only shallow people would think that (knowing nothing, as they do, about me). In effect, you are the one trying to blot me out by smearing me. Your opinions, if they are honestly held, are not well considered. Deep thought or learning never shows in your discours. When I have tried to discuss things with you I see the usual troll games. You never answer my questions honestly. You never try to follow the logic or facts to a conclusion. You always divert. And you always slip invective or innuendo into the mix. Dialogue means reasoning TOGETHER. It is a work we would do together. But you do not know how to do this. It’s just one insult or illogical comment, or poorly digested fact, after another. You are not fit for discussion. You do not know how to conduct a discussion. When I see the ill will, and the arrogance, and the data dumping, and the posturing, I ask myself why you are coming here? To waste my time? What about your time? Is this your job or something? It doesn’t make sense. So few people know about me. I am so very unimportant. So why bother? Why the deep concern for someone so off the beaten track?

      5. THE, are you stomping your feet and squalling as you have your little temper tantrum for not getting your way??

      6. For not getting the attention you crave? No sincere person cares about anything you say. Not one honest person cares. The rest are just like you, and you know all too well what you are.

      7. Pavlov’s famous dog experiments on conditioning were not limited to salivating at the ring of a bell. He went much further beyond that. One type of experiment used shapes, such as circle and square. On one shape the dogs would be rewarded, on the other they would be punished. Over time, Pavlov slowly morphed the shapes so that the dogs could no longer tell if they were a circle or square, hence no longer knew if they would I be rewarded or punished. The dogs went insane and were unable to be rehabilitated. They could no longer tell friend from foe or know what to believe or who to trust. Even when the lab, which was in a basement, was flooded, the dogs attacked the researchers who attempted to rescue them, unable to discern intent or meaning to their actions.

        When the general populace has been subjected to this type of conditioning for generations now, is it any wonder that they attack friends who attempt to rescue them intellectually?

      8. Thirteenkidslater: What you describe is a frightening experiment. And the point you are making, with regard to conspiracy theory, is a brilliant one. Perhaps the people who believe in conspiracy theories are like the dogs that have gone mad from mixed signaling. I fear you are onto something, though there is undoubtedly more to work out. May I ask where you got this story about Pavlov from? It is marvellously suggestive.

  20. Responding once again to Shipwreck. The only grounds on which the video can be invalidated, it seems to me, is to show that it documents a staged, fraudulent enactment showing “results” that are faked. The assertion that the organization does not focus on covid, women’s reproductive health, and other matters you mention, even if true, does not disprove the results shown on the video, if the experiment is legitimate and authentic. (A quick perusal of the numerous videos posted on their website would seem to challenge the assertion that they do not address a range of covid-related matters. Apparently the organization exists primarily to promote a certain protocol to neutralize the effects of the jab, so that issue predominates on their website. This is not a hanging offense.)

      1. ‘Tis I, but I tend to be philosophical about delays or deletions. Jeff, it’s your show.

    2. “The only grounds on which the video can be invalidated, it seems to me, is to show that it documents a staged, fraudulent enactment showing “results” that are faked.”

      It’s hard to dissprove something that doesn’t exist. To understand how and why the human body cannot emit bluetooth, one must understand the technology. Bluetooth technology is the ability to transmit low level frequencies without wires.(RFID) For this to work one must have, a battery(power supply), micro processors, and sensors. It would be impossible to inject these things into the human body because of the size of the devices, they simply would not fit in a needle or the human veins.

      Furthermore, it is on Comusav to prove their theory as the burden of proof rests on them. Again looking at the video. one only sees people walking up to table and suddenly the bluetooth mac address appears on a computer. But what about the people off camera? Are they in fact producing the signal with a phone or some other device. Also, anyone can spoof the name of bluetooth ore wifi SSID, the SSID For example my wifi ‘name is ‘Babel’. Back to the video, there is no legitmate scientific testing. i see no controls, no peer reviews, no one (other than different members of the same group) replicating the experiment. I find this to be suspect.

      For the human body to transmit a radio signal there must be a power source, something to broadcast the signal and sensors to detect other transmissions. Here is an excellent link explaining the tech. https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howbluetoothworks.html
      also this link explaining how humans cannot produce bluetooth signals.

  21. “The hijackers learned to fly jet airliners on a flight simulator, in Florida. ”

    They were patsies sent to the school to make the story believable, Mossad agents. The planes were empty if there were any planes.

    Listen to 9/11: The Planes and the Hijackers – Laurent Guyenot, #445 by Guns and Butter on #SoundCloud
    https://on.soundcloud.com/9SL98

    1. Guyenot’s, antisemitism undermines any interesting coincidence he relates.

  22. He is the opposite.to anti-Semite, he is an anti-Zionist. Anti-Semites are Zionists, they see Jews as a distinct special people.

    1. I see, did you copy this directly from Voltaire’s site? Even the links you posted show in the comments from other reviewers explain that it’s Russian agitprop.

  24. History is riddled with conspiracies. They are happening all the time and are not mere theories. However, what I’ve learned from Jeff and others is that a huge portion of the conspiracy theories we ubiquitously hear of today are designed to push people into the arms of Putin the Saviour. Knowing what I know now, I can see the agenda every day. The article below, for example, appeared in the Moscow Times today. Russia is opening up their country to American and Canadian conservatives. They are constructing a village, paid for by North Americans, who have had enough of the liberalism and want to live in Russia. These people aren’t traitors. These are people who have genuinely had enough of living in the US or Canada and genuinely believe they will have a better life under Putin. See how it works? Subvert the universities and schools, infiltrate the institutions, create a huge divide, get people demoralised, and then have them turn to the Communist countries, who they will view as heroes. And these people are Conservatives remember. They are also, most probably well educated and wealthy, considering they have the funds to lay out piles of cash to help build a village in Russia. That’s how effective the deception is. I see more and more people in Western countries been led into Putin’s lair with each passing day. Many are not stupid. They have just being bombarded with anti-West propaganda. Frightening to watch. Here’s the article. Note how they use the transgender topic again to villify the West. A favourite topic of Tucker Carlson, Henry Makow and others. Connect the dots.

    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/05/11/russia-to-build-migrant-village-for-conservative-american-expats-a81101

    1. Who specifically is financing the housing developments in Russia, who are the people moving there? You make assertion with facts not in evidence, as does the article. Why are you repeating propaganda? The article is an attempt to brand conservatives as domestic terrorists. This on the face substantiates to some measure, that Russia backs those who have hijacked the Democratic and Republican political parties in the United States.

    2. Gary, so can you do an executive summary on why Russia wins by having Americans move there? What is the propoganda value? I do know similar things happened right after the revolution where many misinformed Americans moved to Russia to ‘better themselves’–most never returned alive and most found out the hard way, it wasn’t what was promised. (there is a book about a woman or family that moved there but the title escapes me–it was a sad book to read though)

      1. It’s just one more device to make people distrust one another more.

        Get the sex change. Just wash down these downers with vodka, slap on those purple Nikes, chop off your nuts, and wait to beam up to the Comet’s companion craft.

        The difference between the moving to Russia hoax and Heaven’s Gate, is that all you are meant to do, is believe that others are actually doing that. This to induce confusion and anxiety, which is a highly suggestible state of so-called, waking hypnosis.

        Then you will believe whatever you’re told, just to relive the psychological stress. After that, you might as well be living in Russia, no matter where you are.

  25. Bennett’s appearance on that radio show was pretty funny, when he called Iran a Christian country it was as that saying that it’s better to keep your mouth shut than to open it and let everyone know that you’re a fool. The guy claims he’s a patriot in one sentence and seconds after he’s blaming multiple issues of the world on his own country. But then this glorification of treasonous behavior is becoming the latest fashion in America. There’s an internet celebrity called Nick Fuentes, who calls himself “America First” constantly, then proceeds to claim he wishes Putin nuked America, and that Putin was his president. I guess after Vlad strategically nukes all the evil people, he rolls the red carpet for the patriots to take their country back, not before kissing some babies and doing a victory sign for the cameras.

    1. Iran does tolerate Christians and Jews, but taxes them disproportionately.

      2. Mntgal: Very good links. The outrageous argument was made by Scott Bennett, when he confronted me on Moore’s radio show, that Iran is a “Christian country,” so I thank you for this clarification.

      1. Yeah, Fuentes loves to go on about Jews this and that. I don’t know if Tucker Carlson is on this Zionist conspiracy boat, but the Communists have done this demoralization routine where people really sell the idea that betraying their country is a brave thing to do.

        I was looking for the name of a certain Orthodox Patriarch who was against a reunification of the Orthodox Church of a certain place with Russia’s Orthodox Church, he was fiercely opposed to a merger, stood against the KGB and the Communist infiltration, and he was then found dead in odd circumstances, then this reunification happened. Do you know the name of this individual and this whole Orthodox Church power struggle episode?

      2. I heard about some suspicious deaths in the Russian Orthodox Church abroad, but it’s been many years and I do not recall the details.

  26. Jeff: I think you need to be more careful about the videos that you endorse. Especially those from outside your field of expertise.

    An example was when we were discussing another event where there are conspiracy theories (I don’t want to mention which event, as it’s a whole ’nother can of worms), you asked me to watch two short videos. I watched them. Both of them provided evidence that contradicted what you were trying to say. But before I could respond, you had closed the discussion.

    Now we come to this video by Prof. Wagner. Just as in the previous discussion, I wanted first to deal with the physical evidence. Where the physical evidence is not possible, I want first person eyewitness evidence of the sort that can stand up in a court of law. I try to limit myself to these two requirements. Those two requirements are violated by almost all conspiracy theories that I have seen, which is why I stopped looking at conspiracy theories. Prof. Wagner’s lecture violated those two standards. He focused on the untrustworthiness of certain conspiracy theories. But when it came to the physical evidence, he cherry-picked which evidence he would discuss. He made at least one demonstrably false statement about part of the physical evidence as well as questionable claims about other physical evidences. He treated speculation as evidence. By his actions, he basically made a straw man of conspiracy theories (a logical fallacy). He seems to put everyone who questions the official narrative into the same conspiracy theorist camp (seems to be another logical fallacy). His lecture is basically an extended false dilemma logical fallacy. I found his lecture no more convincing than the conspiracy theories which I had already rejected.

    So, instead of endorsing videos like these from outside of your field of expertise, would it not be better to say in effect ”This guy has something to say which I find interesting, what do you all think?”?

    But when you speak from within your field of expertise, I find it an important source of information that is trustworthy.

      1. Jeff — I don’t think that you mean “open mind” = “gullible”. At the same time don’t reject it out of hand because of being closed minded. I know I tried to strike that balance. I agreed with Prof. Wagner for much of the first part of the lecture. It was when he wandered outside of his area of expertise and more into mine that I started having questions.

      3. RO, no offense, but you’ve got me curious as to this theme you regularly allude to, i.e. that people have a certain “area of expertise” and if they “get outside of it”, it’s as if you think nothing they say is credible.

        Do you think that if a person has a master’s degree in a certain area of study, or has a certain trade, or writes extensively on a certain topic, that that means they can’t be competent in other areas?

        Many times, the skills and knowledge you attain in one area make it easier to become proficient in other areas you didn’t originally specialize in.

        And common sense is common sense, regardless of one’s area of expertise. Common sense allows one to see that Wagner has done a tremendous amount of looking into the supposed support for the conspiracy theories, and he has applied common sense to much of the supposed evidence, and clearly showed that it doesn’t hold water.

      4. A good example to me, is what I do fir a living. I remodel, repair, add on to houses. I do almost anything that pertains to a house.

        When I first started, my “area of expertise” was more limited than it is now. But I was constantly reading, asking older contractors, and doing things I wasn’t very familiar with (after making my customer aware of that, and having their permission to do it.)

        My competence in one area, made it easier to attain competence in other areas. Plus the time I put in talking with other more experienced guys on how to do things, and the time I spent reading good literature on different trades, got me to being competent in other areas.

        Also, when I hire a guy with little to no experience, I understand that I have much more experience than he does in my field. I also know that if he is observant and has good sense, he is going to sometimes have a good idea, or even see something I might miss on a job. And I am always open to listen to them, because I regard their common sense (if they have it).

        I also know that as I train him, and he learns, and he does side work sometimes, or works on his own place, and does his own studying, that he is going to eventually become an expert in certain areas. So, I don’t limit him as to the knowledge and skill he can gain in different areas, and disregard anything he might say if it has good judgment behind it.

      5. Jeff: I never said that this was an inside job, rather that the evidence is lacking.

        However, there are physical and eyewitness anomalies that the official narrative does not answer. Or in the case of the same appearance of molten aluminum and steel, lies about. But those anomalies don’t give an answer as to who was behind it. I don’t want to get into all the details here on this blog, first because it has been years since I looked into the issue, and secondly I don’t want to bore other readers with all the minutiae. Here’s where I stop. Anything beyond the physical evidence and eyewitness accounts is speculation. I have been burned by speculation in the past, so I refuse to do it now.

        As far as an “inside job” is concerned, and here I speculate, could it have been an international conspiracy between KGB moles in high places in our government and other international actors? Was the FBI allowing a truck bomb designed to bring down one of the Twin Towers where we were spared a tragedy because of the truck driver’s incompetence a similar action? The number of actors on this side of the pond involved in such a conspiracy can be quite small, even fewer than ten, with all the other domestic actors outside the loop as far as knowing the conspiracy is concerned. I don’t have answers to these questions, and any answer that I provide is speculation.

        According to defector testimony, the CIA, FBI and other U.S. government agencies are infected with KGB moles and traitors, some of whom have attained high ranking within those agencies. That is not speculation. Those people are capable of actions contrary to the policies of our government and society as a whole.

        I do recognize the connection between the KGB and Al Qaeda, which is behind the first question in the speculation paragraph above.

        You do me wrong to accuse me of being “demoralized and cynical”. Where have I blamed the U.S. government in 9-11? I repeatedly reject conspiracy theories based on speculation, much of which blames the U.S. government.

        I do not claim that “Bush lied and people died” when he asserted that there were WMDs in Iraq. Decades ago I heard an American, who was then a missionary in Iraq, tell how Spetznatz troops came in and removed the chemical and biological weapons that Saddam had, and that he personally knew Iraqis who had been killed by some of those WMDs leaking during the transport. I haven’t heard of that missionary since, he has been disinvited from all the major talk shows, and I don’t remember his name. His was not the only claim of WMD removal that I heard, only the most detailed.

        I know you trust your engineer friend, but did he answer all the physical questions brought up by other engineers and architects? Such as that the buildings collapsed at free fall speed—that’s recorded on video? That there was molten steel cascading down away from the fires, again recorded on video? How about the claim by the official narrative that the internal braces from the central core to the exterior letting go, a claim that is speculation? And other physical anomalies both recorded and reported? Even honest people can be fooled, which is why I try to look at all sides, not depend on one person alone.

        Prof. Wagner did not blow the Truthers’ arguments out the water, at least not the physical facts behind their speculations. He omitted too many physical facts, and misrepresented at least one. Those omissions and misrepresentations belie his claims. It is a false dilemma argument that because he failed to disprove the physical facts that therefore the Truthers’ speculations are correct, and visa versa.

        One reason Prof. Wagner failed to impress me because he basically preached to the choir—me—concerning Truther speculations.

        “And if Wagner made a minor mistake of fact, it does not prove the Truthers right. If I make a mistake, it does not prove that communism is right. This is the wrong approach.” That is a perfect example of the false dilemma logical fallacy. That is also why I say that the Truthers’ speculations are not right.

        Do you still call me a Truther in spite of the fact that I reject their speculations? That I reject the political views that many of them espouse? That I agree that we were attacked, not only by Al Qaeda, but also by the KGB behind them? That there were WMDs in Iraq, that that was not a Bush lie? Or am I still a wild-eyed Truther because I question the official narrative based on the physical facts that I know? How is it that the physical facts don’t strengthen the conclusion that the KGB, in concert with Al Qaeda and a small cadre of KGB moles/traitors collaborated to bring down the Twin Towers?

        I’m sorry, I did not want this response to be so long. I felt coerced into going into greater detail than what I originally thought was necessary.

      6. Forgive me, but I took you to be defending the Truther narrative. As you were vague, and you had nothing positive to say about Wagner’s lecture, I was led to assume you believe 9/11 was an inside job. Otherwsie, what were you arguing for? At least everyone reading your posts must have thought you were a Truther. What I object to is the entire Truther narrative as TRUTHER NARRATIVE. Could there by KGB operatives inside the government helping terrorists? Of course. But that is not the Truther narrative. And Truther “evidence” is never used to make this case. Truthers would call the idea of KGB involvement in 9/11 a Russophobic “neo-con” disinformation narrative.

        My concern all these years has been the security of the United States, which (by the way) cannot survive against Russia and China in splendid isolation. In this context, I do not understand why you question the government narrative on 9/11, or why you chastize me for posting a perfectly respectable lecture that clarifies many of the factual misunderstandings advanced by 9/11 Truthers. The Truther narrative undermines our security and divides our people. You cannot combat communist lies (which include the Truther narrative) by embracing some part of them. And you cannot combat lies with another set of lies.

        For many years I have read Truther materials and watched their videos. I find the Truther narratives obtuse, tangential, niggly, untrustworthy. Why do some people embrace this material? Because they are alienated. What I come away with is the sense that those advancing the Truther claims already have strong beliefs about the government and its criminal nature, and they are using a template to reaffirm their views. That the government is corrupt is certainly true. And there are Marxists in the government. Yes. But this situation in this country is extremely complicated and difficult to read in full. The are counterveiling forces, and countless cliques. The issue of 9/11 takes us to the heart of grand strategy, to the friend/enemy distinction, and to the relationship between communism and Islam. Nothing here is easy.

        But here is the punchline: Either 19 Muslim hijackers crashed the planes into the buildings or not. The physics of what happened after the planes hit is only of interest to building engineers who might want to make buildings stronger in the future. I cannot believe there were charges placed on the buildings to make them fall. This involves too many people in a conspiracy, and there would be some evidence for it. Given that nearly all conspriacies are detected, and witnesses to them almost always emerge, I wonder why anyone would propose such a bizarre conspiracy theory about such an important event when there is no real evidence for it. Maybe Martians brought the Twin Towers down. Shall we look for inconsistencies in the evidence and build a case for that? If someone believes in the “reptilian deception,” they might throw themselves into the case and produce surprising results. However, such alternative theories are so improbable that it is not worth our time. We cannot go through life arbitrarily raising objections to perfectly obvious explanations because we are trying to validate a point of view. Unless there is real testimony or evidence that something else is going on, we need to leave it alone.

        There are claims, and there always will be claims of a Dealey Lama under Dealey Plaza, orchestrating a firing squad against JFK. There are always going to be questions about “magic” bullets and patsies. But you have to analyze the evidence, and then synthesize it to form a larger picture that is consistent with all other known facts. It is in the consistency or inconsistency with the larger story that you run into problems with conspiracy theories; for here, a cartoonish worldview has already been inserted in place of real historical knowledge (e.g., a cartoon featuring nefarious cabalists controlling the world through the banks and the Masonic lodges). And this is where conspiracy theory proves faulty, in the fixed faith that the Devil controls history instead of God. Epsitemologically, you do not begin with a premise and work your way to the preferred explanation. The facts are either there, or they are not. They either fit like puzzle pieces with the larger historical mosaic, or they do not. If you want everything to fit the conspiracy theory, no amount of nitpicking the historians will prove anything (except that historians make mistakes). With larger world events we have the history of intelligence services and nations and ruling philosophies. There is so much to know and so much to integrate. Physical facts about the collapse of the Twin Towers are not likely to tell us whether the KGB was involved in 9/11. For that we must turn to the testimony of BIS Captiain Vladimir Hucin, in the Czech Republic, who spoke of the Czech communist connections to Mohammed Atta, who was allegedly trained in a communist terrorist training camp in Czcehoslovakia in 1988. It also goes to the testimony of Alexander Litvinenko, who said top al Qaeda leaders were trained in Russia, by the Russian intelligence services, in 1996. It goes to the foreknowledge of Kremlin advisor Tatyana Koryagina. These are the important suggestive testimonies of Russian involvement, together with the writings of Victor Suvorov on “grey terror,” which aligned remarkably with 9/11 and the diversion of Western security resources to a terrorist enemy with no apparent ties to Moscow. We must be careful, of course, because none of these testimonies prove KGB involvement in 9/11. They are merely suggestive of this, and raise it to the level of a probability. How probable? That is hard to say. Given what else the Russians and their communist friends are doing, we need to keep it in mind. The questions we must look at, regarding the hijackers, are whether they were in any way inspired to do the 9/11 attack by clandestine Russian operators like Ayman al Zawahri, named as a longtime KGB agent by Litvenenko. I would much rather talk about these details than about the color of molten aluminum or thermite, which leaves me irritated that time is being wasted on irrelevencies.

        If this makes me a Deep State operative in the eyes of many, so be it. But I will continue to insist that we must unite the country and not divide it by embracing false narratives that encourage further division. When someone attacks the official government narrative on 9/11, I inwardly cringe and think, “Here we go again.” I am glad you are not an wild-eyed Truther. In my view, however, I’d prefer to steer clear of irrelevent facts where more relevant ones might provide a better understanding.

      7. Greynight: I see your point on expertise. But would you say that your expertise in building construction / remodeling makes you competent to do brain surgery? Or even GP? I thought not.

        So how expert should we expect a professor of religion, a branch of philosophy, to be in engineering? I find this question especially ironic in that that professor bases some of his arguments on logical fallacies, which should be ground floor in his speciality of philosophy. I studied logic because I had to deal with scientific arguments that were based on logical fallacies, and science was my first area of study. As a result, I found his engineering arguments less than convincing. Or another way of saying it, as he made his scientific claims, I found myself asking “Is that true?” or saying “That doesn’t seem to fit with what I have learned before” even those claims I didn’t outright reject, and one of his claims I recognized immediately to be false. He’s not an engineer, therefore made several questionable calls concerning engineering. But it is a logical fallacy to claim that his questionable calls prove the Truthers’ claims to be correct, and I don’t make that fallacy.

        My father always wanted to remodel the houses we live in. He insisted on doing the work himself. Growing up, I had to help him, so I have done everything from laying foundations to putting shingles on the roof, and everything between. I even did one thing that my father failed, namely sweat pipes. But I don’t consider myself an expert in construction / remodeling. We still had to call a plumber for a faucet that we replaced.

      8. R.O., that scenario would be an unrealistic stretch. (My remodeling skills enabling me to do brain surgery).

        Maybe my analogy or example wasn’t so great.

        But what I was trying to say, is that certain areas of expertise overlap or mesh with other areas of expertise. Right? And it behooves people who are skilled and competent in certain areas to at least have a good understanding of things that overlap or are in the same sphere as their main expertise.

        So maybe a better example would be, Jeff is a skilled political analyst. He has said before that his strength lies in analysis.

        Well, overlapping and mixing with political analysis are history, strategy, philosophy, logic. So, since his chief skill lies in political analysis, does that mean he isn’t competent to understand logic? It seems to me that you are saying that since you studied logic, that makes you the preeminent one to notice a logical flaw in Wagner’s presentation.

        Also, just because Wagner’s field is religion, or whatever it is, how do we know he hasn’t studied logic? Maybe it’s a passion of his.

        I had a history professor at the conservative Christian college I graduated from, who must have known Golitsyn’s, or Jeff’s, or other similar people’s work well, because he would tell us some of the same things Jeff brings out.

        This professor also owned and operated a farm, and was quite skilled in it. He also was a very good carpenter, and had a strong mechanical mind, as he would draw diagrams on the chalkboard of things such as the mechanical reaper, or the cotton gin, or any kind of domestic or agricultural advancement we would be covering. He was also skilled in acting out roles, and would sometimes dress as a character out of history and teach about that person as if he were him.

        So, this man, though his specialty was that of a history professor, was very qualified to expertly judge and speak on a wide variety of topics.

        Also, as you pointed out, your father made you help do certain aspects of building your family’s home when you were young, and that you sweat the pipes, but you still call a plumber when you have plumbing problems.

        But this example misses my point.

        Helping do or doing something only once (one job anyway), or isn’t sufficient to make you skilled in that area.

        However, if you had done it regularly for a couple of years, wouldn’t you be able to say you were skilled in that area, and could speak with authority on it?

        It seems to me, that this is the case with Wagner. He has been studying the issue for years, has been studying and discussing conspiracy theories, and weighing evidence for and against, and so, I would say he is an authority on the subject.

        I’m not talking about who all was behind it, involved, etc but the facts of what did and didn’t happen. He made a very good, sound case, and I don’t see how one could not see the value in what he brought out.

      9. Jeff: ever since Benedict Arnold, there have been traitors who have sought to destroy this country. That’s why when we make that oath (yes, I have made it), we swear “to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.” Unfortunately, the Constitution’s domestic foes as of late have become especially numerous, attaining even to the highest offices in the land. But this country is still worth fighting for—as long as we can do so peaceably through education, elections, and courts, let’s do the fight peaceably.

        This country is still the most honorable, honest, and moral country in the world. That includes the majority of people working in government, from the city, county, state and federal. Therefore, when we see a governmental employee acting contrary to what’s good for the country, we blame the individual, not the government as a whole. At least, that’s the way it should be.

        As for the Twin Towers, the physical evidence strongly suggests bombs, most likely thermite. The towers were designed to survive a direct hit from a 707. The planes that hit the towers, despite their greater size, had about the same mass as a 707, thanks to advances in metallurgy and plastics. Therefore it’s very unlikely that the planes alone brought the towers down.

        If there were bombs, who planted them? Workers in the towers reported strange noises after hours and unknown trucks delivering packages at all hours of the night. Who were the mystery workers? Nary a clue. Because we don’t have a clue, we can’t rule out smuggled in KGB experts who were smuggled out when their job was finished. Or in the tradition of Captain Kidd, “accidents” could have been arranged so they couldn’t talk. It’s wrong to assume that the installers were connected to the U.S. government. The number of installers working over a few weeks could have been as few as two to four, with just a couple more as truck drivers. The drivers needn’t be informed as to what they were delivering. It’s speculation to claim that more were needed. And there was evidence for thermite besides the four samples that one person refuses to share. And what looks like squibs didn’t act like puffs of air compressed by the falling debris being blown out of windows.

        “We cannot go through life arbitrarily raising objections to perfectly obvious explanations because we are trying to validate a point of view. Unless there is real testimony or evidence that something else is going on, we need to leave it alone.” I don’t have a point of view to validate. I just start with the physical evidence that I can find to see where it leads. The “perfectly obvious explanation” is not perfectly obvious when one starts with the physical evidence. And it becomes less obvious the more one studies the evidence. What the physical evidence does not show is the who and the motive for the action. That’s where I part ways with the conspiracy theorists, because they want the who and motive.

        I didn’t want to bring up the Kennedy assassination, but since you brought it up, I’ll repeat what I said before—you recommended two videos that you claimed validated the claim that Oswald shot Kennedy. I watched both. Both of the videos contained evidence that Oswald did NOT shoot Kennedy. Do you want me to go into details as to why?

        In closing, because I didn’t have a motive, other than a vague connection with Islam, I viewed 9/11 as an unsolved mystery. Now you brought in evidence from a source that I didn’t have, and it all seems to fit together. And as you said, the resulting conclusion is heresy to the conspiracy theorists.

      10. People who tend to believe one conspiracy theory, tend to believe them all. That is an observation that Prof. Wagner makes, and it is a good one. It is my impression that you are not really judging evidence, since the evidence is very technical, and subject to interpretation. You favor a certain interpretation. And you not knowledgeable regarding defector and other sources on KGB disinformation involving the Kennedy assassination. If you would read Ion Pacepa’s book, “Programmed to Kill,” or the writings of Edward Jay Eptsein, or watch the documentary on Oswald’s trip to Mexico City to interface with KGB and DGI officials, you would find the assassination story has two sides. Angleton knew of Oswald’s contact with KGB Officer Kostikov, of KGB Directorate 13, involved with assassinations. Angleton informed President Johnson and Earl Warren, who were frightened that World War III might result if these facts were known. Oswald met with DGI officials in Mexico city before he assassinated Kennedy. It is known that Kennedy had authorized the assassination of Castro and the CIA had hired a gun mam to kill Castro with a rifle, with a telescopic site. Castro found out because the assassin informed the Cubans. Castro made a famous scene about it, during a visit to the Brazilian Embassy (if I am remembering correctly), and Castro threatened Kennedy in return. The falsification of narratives in the Kennedy assassination, to turn it into a CIA conspiracy, has been a major information operation of the Russian special services. See the Mitrokhin Archive on the Kennedy assassination.

      11. Graynight: First of all, I am not the greatest expert in logic. But that even I should notice three logical fallacies in Prof. Wagner’s presentation is not a good sign. Logic is first year undergraduate philosophy course.

        What I was looking for was something that I didn’t know before. When he discussed the theories themselves apart from the physical evidence, I didn’t hear anything that I didn’t already know. When he tried to debunk the physical evidence, he failed. As a result, I was disappointed in his lecture.

        Maybe I should have said a bit more about when we called a plumber—it was an unusual faucet that needed replacement that required a specialized tool that we didn’t have. Secondly, the plumber needed almost all his physical strength to get it out, strength that I don’t have. One needs to recognize his limits, and I recognized that this is a job too big for me. I’ve done a lot of other plumbing, but this was a job beyond my limits.

      12. Not sure if that last statement was a jab at me, or if it is how you see Wagner. But either way, it’s ok. I’m not in your league anyway, but I believe we’re on the same team. Have a good weekend.

      13. Wagner is a Professor of Philosophy. And I do not see, immediately, these so-called “fallacies” in his presentation. So I am going to challenge you on that. What were the professor’s fallacies. Let’s be fair to him, and have it exactly. Please be specific and use quotes. Let us be careful not to misconstrue what he said.

      14. Jeff: As I repeatedly say, start with the physical evidence before making any theories about what cannot be seen.

        One conspiracy theory posits that Oswald was a dissatisfied loner who fired from the fourth floor of the book depository, shooting Kennedy from behind. Through your sources, you show that the loner part of the conspiracy theory is false. I have no problem with that.

        Where I have problem with that conspiracy theory is the shooting from the fourth floor from behind. I have seen zero physical evidence to back up that part of the theory. The two videos that you recommended give physical evidence against that part of the conspiracy theory.

        The first video was from a father and son shooting into ballistic gel. Once their bullets hit the ballistic gel, they followed a straight path. For me, that part was expected as I’ve seen the same pattern every other time I’ve seen of people shooting into ballistic gel. For your conspiracy theory, the bullet that hit Kennedy’s back had to have followed an “S” pattern within Kennedy’s body to come out at his throat, while still traveling at a lethal speed to wound Governor Connolly.

        The experienced trauma doctors at the hospital said that the throat wound was an entrance wound, not an exit wound.

        The second video shows where people made a dummy to simulate a skull to show how a bullet fired from the theorized direction of Oswald could make the head wound that was observed. But those who made the dummy made the neck part of the dummy as stiff as a 4×4 beam. When the dummy was hit by the bullet, the whole dummy jerked forward, slightly but noticeably. That means that if the neck part of the dummy had been a spring, like a human neck instead of stiff like a 4×4, the head would have swung forward. The physical evidence as recorded in the Zapruder film, show the head violently swinging backward, consistent with the fatal shot being fired from in front of the body.

        The experienced trauma doctors at the hospital said that there was an entrance wound at Kennedy’s upper forehead at the hairline on the right side of the body.

        Combine that physical evidence with your sources, and that suggests that the KGB and Castro assembled a team to ambush and kill Kennedy, not relying on a single individual alone. But it doesn’t answer why they went to the effort and expense to have Oswald present there at that time.

      15. I do not know where you got all this evidence from. Have you read the Warren Commission’s Report? I think they were pretty thorough with all this testimony. There are so many false stories passed around, since I was a kid, that I’d want the signed testimony of the doctors you say called the throat wound an entry wound. It’s impossible the Warren Report would have covered that up, or that the later Senate hearings would have missed such testimony. Isn’t it? What doctors? Names? What source are you using? Books? Extraordinary claims require validation.

    2. RO — From the point of view of larger analysis, the “9/11 is an inside job thesis” has no support in any political science I know. Your idea of the U.S. government does not describe the likely actions of a republic, or of the government under George W. Bush. It would only fit a totalitarian police state, like Putin’s Russia, as in the false flag apartment bombings of September 1999. Such does not describe the USA at the time. To make an equivalence here is a mistake of interpretation — a misreading of character.

      You forget that social systems and governments do possess character traits. So we are talking about two very different systems. Notice that the Russians orchestrated an attack on themselves in 1999. They blamed the Chechen’s, then blamed us; then their surrogates (as testified to by Litvinenko) attacked us on 9/11. But you do not see how Russia was involved with Al Qaeda, or how we did not blame Russia as Russia blamed us for Beslan. There is no symmetry here. Do you see? And yet, 9/11 led demoralized and cynical Americans like yourself to regard America in 2001 as if it were Russia in 1999 — believing we have the same kind of state they have, using the same false flag tactics for the same ends. Doubtless you think they faked their excuse for a war on terror in 1999 and think we did the same in 2001. But that is unlikely given the asymmetries of the two systems. In fact, the one system routinely hoaxes the other — continuously. The one system built the terror networks.

      Our societal weaknesses are those of a shopping mall regime — not of a totalitarian state that fakes terror attacks that kill thousands of our own. George Bush told Americans to “go out and shop.” Remember? Furthermore, the inside job thesis entirely feeds into “the one grand all encompassing conspiracy,” which I have researched in great detail, and which I found to be falsified by the facts. It’s not true. And I won’t budge on that.

      In the political aftermath of 9/11, the left wanted to say “Bush lied and people died.” They needed to demoralize the American side even as 9/11 had strengthened us temporarily. We were United, remember? And Iraq was a problem. But the Russians moved the WMDs out just before we invaded. General Sada wrote a book on this. The Israeli PM stated it on TV. But no. This foul propaganda infected nearly everyone and is especially believed by the Truthers. My own church, taken over by communists at the national level, was accusing Bush of waging an unjust imperialist war against Saddam. My own pastor, from the pulpit, basically called Bush an evil warmonger. But wait. How was it morally evil to stop Saddam? I do not understand. The problem was not moral. It was strategical — because we did not have the wherewithal to hold down the region. And nobody saw how Russia and China took advantage.

      Russia and China clearly benefitted from the terror attacks of 9/11, which exactly modeled Suvorov’s description of the overture, which exactly mirrored what Lunev told me, and what other defectors were saying (Pacepa, Preobrazhenskiy, Litvinenko, etc). Everything matched the Russian template described in the defector literature. The West was diverted by 9/11, and then divided when we got bogged down. And the way was then paved for Obama.

      You say otherwise, then? But it makes no sense that we did all this to ourselves in purpose. Who benefitted? How? Think of the cost. A building engineer who went to my church spent hours with me explaining why the 9/11 Truther claims were untrue. And yes, he built skyscrapers!

      Wagner has done a lot of homework. Truly. But you don’t seem to acknowledged any of his points. Nothing he says impressed you. How can that be? Did we watch the same lecture? Did you review his notes? Where exactly is he wrong about building Seven? Proof please? Many witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Do you deny this? Come on. Let’s not talk around the edges. You want to say I picked an inappropriate video where the guy does not know what he is talking about. Please. I only asked you to watch with an open mind. How exactly is Wagner wrong about planes hitting the buildings? Please make an argument that is clear with proofs that everyone will agree on.

      And if Wagner made a minor mistake of fact, it does not prove the Truthers right. If I make a mistake, it does not prove that communism is right. This is the wrong approach.

      Wagner shows so many key facts — in photos and with documents — that blow the Truther narrative completely out of the water. How can you deny it? Please be reasonable and explain. I cannot imagine what leg you have to stand on. Do you seriously believe the hijacked planes did not hit those buildings? Do you seriously think a missile hit the Pentagon, or that building Seven was not damaged by a 110 story building collapsing across the street? Why do you assume so many things — without proof — that are so damning of the Bush Administration?

      Are you going to make some arcane argument involving physics or chemistry when your “truth” is essentially political? I can see that it is political. For me, this is not really about physics or chemistry. It’s about political science, about how you see our government. Am I wrong?

      At any rate, you can argue about physics till you are blue in the face but you cannot prove your points unless you can show them in a repeatable experiment. Show us what buildings can and cannot do when they collapse. The experts you cite disagree with experts i cite. Forgive my skepticism, but proof is something we both should be able to see. If your eyes are magical and see what I cannot, then we are no longer able to discuss these matters.

      My confidence in my own analysis rests on my knowledge of Russian methods and actions. And the Russians clearly had advanced knowledge of the 9/11 attack. Look at Tatyana Koryagina’s testimony before the Duma in July 2001, or her Pravda interview. It’s all there. She talked about America being attacked by “shadow forces” and the dollar being destroyed. Then there is the Litvinenko testimony on Al Qaeda. And Litvinenko is not a CIA asset. The CIA refused to accept him as a defector. I say the larger puzzle pieces do not point to an inside job. I do not know how to make it any clearer to you. You believe in this for reasons I cannot fathom. I will believe what is shown to be consistent with the facts and testimony presented by defectors and by the curious foreknowledge of Koryagina. There are also important insights one finds from Anna Politkovskaya regarding Russian false flags. These are real. Where do we find an American Politkovskaya or Litvinenko? And do not say Snowden.

      1. There is a lot of conspiracy surrounding these areas because people don’t want to listen to the voices who have firsthand knowledge. Unfortunately many of those with firsthand knowledge are traumatized by events and don’t want to speak publicly and add to their trauma due to attack such as come from conspiracy theorists.

        I say this with hesitation, because I deeply respect the persons in my life that this information comes from and hope I’m not opening another can of worms here which will cause problems for them, but I have family members who 1) were in charge of Ground Zero in NY 2) worked at the Pentagon and whose office was destroyed by the plane and 3) were Special Forces serving in Iraq.

        Based on my relationships with them and what they have personally observed and told me I will state the following:
        1) planes hit towers 2) a plane hit the Pentagon 3) there WERE personally observed WMD in Iraq while our troops were there.

        I know I’m not backing this up with proof.Given the circumstances, it is what it is. Take it or leave it.

      2. I also know someone who was at the Pentagon, and have followed the WMD story in Iraq. And I believe your sources are spot on.

  27. From Isaiah 8:12:

    12 “Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. 13 But the Lord of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.

    We need to remember that America was attacked in an unprovoked manner by Al Qaeda and over 3000 lives were lost on that sad day. I felt at the time it was a terrible thing that happened and the conspiracies could be explained by the normal inefficiencies of government.

    1. There are enemies inside of our government. That is different than saying the government is the enemy. Who in the government is breaking the law? We need to be precise and we need facts we can prove.

      1. I know a Marine who was active double duty in Iraq. Now he’s an undercover rentacop who poses as a derelict. He says he love’s his government. I told him that I love the nation, the country, and the system of government, but that the Founders themselves, didn’t trust their own government, and so designed the system of government with ‘checks and balances’. There used to be a Balance Of Power. Maybe there still is?

      2. You don’t love America. If you did, you wouldn’t constantly try to sabotage the message of one of the few men trying to make people aware of our enemies and what they are doing and plan to do.

  28. Webinar | Xi’s Fifth Column: Has the CCP’s Physical Assault on America Already Begun?
    Published On: May 8, 2023

    A CPDC WEBINAR

    XI’S FIFTH COLUMN:
    Has the CCP’s Physical Assault on America Already Begun?
    Beware an Invasion by Chinese Military-age Men Combined with Students, Spies, ‘Businessmen’ and Other Potential Hostiles ‘Inside our Wire’

    The Chinese Communist Party is the United States’ mortal enemy. It explicitly seeks America’s destruction and has long pursued that goal using devastating, albeit pre-violent, “unrestricted warfare” techniques, with help from their “friends” among American “captured elites.”

    Now, the Chinese Communists appear poised to start a shooting war against Taiwan – and almost certainly U.S. assets, personnel and territory, as well. That prospect makes all the more alarming the invasion of America’s borders by an increasing number of Chinese nationals among the large numbers of unaccompanied, military-age men coming here illegally.

    This CPDC webinar addresses the evidence that elements of the People’s Liberation Army are now being insinuated into the United States alongside some 300,000 Chinese students and innumerable other PRC nationals loyal to the Chinese Communist Party and/or compelled to do its bidding. What are the chances such personnel will be tasked to engage in subversion, sabotage, assassinations and other “Fifth Column” activities in the event Xi Jinping launches kinetic operations?

    Moderator:

    Frank Gaffney, Founder and Executive Chairman, Center for Security Policy; Vice Chairman, Committee on the Present Danger: China
    Panelists:

    Michael Yon, Former Green Beret, combat correspondent, author, photographer
    • Topic: “Eyewitness to an Invasion: The PLA on the March in the Darien Gap?”

    Charles “Sam” Faddis, Former Career Clandestine Service Officer, Central Intelligence Agency; Army veteran; author, “The Decline and Fall of the CIA”; editor, AndMagazine.com at Substack
    • Topic: “Who – and What – is Coming Across Our Southern Border?”

    Oliver “Buck” Revell, Former Assistant Director of the FBI in charge of Criminal Investigations (including terrorism); Former Associate Deputy Director in charge of the Investigative, Intelligence, Counterterrorism, Training, Laboratory and International programs of the Bureau; Former Vice Chairman of the Interagency Group for Counter-Intelligence; Veteran, U.S. Marine Corps; Author, A G-Man’s Journal: A Legendary Career in the FBI – From the Kennedy Assassination to the Oklahoma City Bombing
    • Topic: “The Perils Posed to an Open Society by Chinese and Others’ Penetration and Dispersion Throughout America”

    John Guandolo, Founder, Understanding the Threat; combat veteran U.S. Marine Force Reconnaissance Officer; Former FBI Special Agent and Investigator, Counterterrorism Division
    • Topic: “What Must We Do to Protect America from ‘Enemies Within’?”

    https://presentdangerchina.org/webinar-xis-fifth-column-has-the-ccps-physical-assault-in-america-already-begun/

    WEBINAR RESOURCES:

    Map to assist migrants to cross Mexico into the U.S.
    https://presentdangerchina.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Map_Route_To-USA_Thru_Mexico_For_Migrants.pdf

  29. TULSI GABBARD:

    https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/russia/gabbard.htm

    It appears as though Moscow Center has reactivated their asset Tulsi Gabbard in the service of the Russian war on Ukraine. Tulsi is a regular on Fox, reliably spouting Moscow’s line. It is rather difficult to know what to make of her, as today we are rather at a loss of words for her apparent role.

    Mitt Romney on 13 March 2022 wrote : “Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.” Tulsi Gabbard attacked Mitt Romney on Tucker Carlson’s show, after the Utah Senator called her a traitor for querying US funding given to Ukrainian biolabs – now at the mercy of Russia. Gabbard called for Romney’s resignation for calling her a traitor.

    During the Cold War, anti-Communists had a rich vocabulary to describe the various flavors of their opponents. A fellow traveler was a person who sympathized with and often furthered the ideals and program of an organized group (such as the Communist party) without membership in the group or regular participation in its activities. In the old days there were many other terms used to describe those Americans who did the bidding of Moscow: comsymp [coined by John Birch Society founder Robert Welch from a blend of Communist + sympathizer], useful idiot [seemingly Lenin’s phrase for a person propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause’s goals, long in circulation to describe naive revolutionary tourists and other ignorant dupes of foreign powers], stooge, dupe, pink [to describe anyone perceived to have leftist or socialist sympathies, but not full blown Red Bolshevik], pinko [coined in 1925 in the United States to describe a person regarded as being sympathetic to communism], parlor pink [a not-quite-Bolshevik who acts like they don’t really mean it], left winger, red fellow, commie, comrade, red, lefto, leftist, lefty, linkydink, radical, bolshie, bolshevik, cardcarrying, radish, or knee-jerk lefty.

    Russian-American national Elena Branson a/k/a “Elena Chernykh,” was indicted 08 March 2022 for lobbying for pro-Kremlin policies while not registered as a foreign agent. She gave to one U.S. politician – whopping $59.95. Branson made two donations in 2019 to Gabbard’s presidential campaign.

    Gabbard responded that the media is blatantly lying to the American people, and responded to the accusations of her campaign receiving funds from supposed Russian agents, saying: “You saw headlines a couple of days ago: ‘Tulsi Gabbard Paid Off By Russian Agents.’

    “What the media is lying about is the fact that an American citizen gave my campaign a $59 contribution coming from a woman I’ve never met, someone I don’t know, I don’t know anything about, but somehow they feel justified in saying, ‘Tulsi Gabbard is being paid off.’”

    Gabbard highlighted the dangers that come from the media deceiving the public so blatantly, saying these “so-called journalists have a responsibility to the public,” and if they keep getting away with these lies with no accountability, it poses “a direct threat to our democratic republic… They continue to parrot and propagate these lies and they need to be held accountable. They need to be exposed,” she said.

    The “Manchurian Candidate” is available in a book and two movie versions, and remains a potent theme. The dramatic arc of the plot involves the effort of the protagonist to expose a plot by hostile foreign powers to place a stooge who will do their bidding in the Oval Office. There are many take aways here, but surely one is that such plots are hard to unravel and expose.

    The criminal justice system deals with proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, a fundamental concept that does not easily lend itself to refinement or definition. There are very few things in this world that are known with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. Although legal professionals are inclined to avoid specific values to the standards of proof, “beyond reasonable doubt” is often considered to be upwards of 98% confidence.

    The matter of Tulsi Gabbard’s relationship to Moscow Center, if any, is primarily a counter-intelligence matter, not a criminal justice question. In the realm of intelligence and counter-intelligence, statements of estimative probability range from possibly [50%], to probably [75%], to almost certainly [80-100%].

    Gabbard announced in January 2020 she would sue Hillary Clinton for suggesting she was a ‘Russian asset.’ Clinton’s conspiracy theory that Gabbard was in the employ of the Russians went something like this: somewhere deep behind the walls of the Kremlin, the Russians, trembling at the prospect of having to play 4D chess against the likes of old Joe Biden, came to the conclusion that Donald Trump would never emerge victorious in 2020 without a third-party candidate to play spoiler. Thus, as the story goes, the Russians began “grooming” one of the Democratic candidates for the role.

    “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they [the Kremlin] have got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said in an interview with the Campaign HQ podcast. “She’s the favorite of the Russians… They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her.”

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to call Tulsi Gabbard “the favorite of the Russians” in the 2020 elections race. “I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary, and they’re grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said on the “Campaign HQ” podcast that first aired on 17 October 2019. “She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

    The former US top diplomat also described 2016 Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein as “a Russian asset”. The Russians know they cannot win without a third-party candidate, Clinton added.

    A Suffolk University poll conducted for the Boston Globe in late NOvember 2019 showed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) at six percent. An Emerson University poll also released the same week showed her with six percent support.

    Gabbard said in a statement: “Our campaign is building momentum in New Hampshire and across the country because we are running an independent-minded, people-powered campaign focused on ending regime wars, the new Cold War and arms race and reinvesting in the needs of the American people. Whether it is on the debate stage or a town hall in New Hampshire, our campaign will continue speaking out so we can usher in a 21st century of peace, prosperity and national renewal, and a government that is truly of, by and for the people.”

    Trump continued to defend Democratic presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard and physician Jill Stein on 01 November 2019, telling supporters at a rally in Mississippi that his former rival Hillary Clinton was continuing to spread a “hoax” which she had originally tried to use against him. “She’s a beauty,” Trump said, commenting on Mrs. Clinton and her email server scandal. “How about last week? Did you hear? I don’t know who Tulsi Gabbard is, but I know one thing: she’s not an agent of Russia.” Trump added “And Jill Stein, she’s a greenie, that’s fine. We love the environment, everybody in this room…I don’t know Jill Stein, she ran last time. I don’t know her, but I know she’s not an agent of Russia,”.

    “When Hillary made those statements, two statements, both of them – ‘they work for Russia’, ‘they’re agents of Russia’, I said you know, when she made that statement about me three years ago, it took me two years to get out of that hoax statement! She made it about them, everybody laughed because of what we proved,” Trump said. “But I’ll tell you what, these are very bad people. These are very dishonest people, and the media is worse than all of them,” Trump noted.

    Gabbard had taken advantage of Clinton’s attack and the national media attention it brought to engage in fundraising, with a recent USA Today/Suffolk poll showing her increasing in the polls to 4 percent support, overtaking rivals Senator Kamala Harris and entrepreneur Andrew Yang but still far behind the frontrunner, former vice president Joe Biden, as well as senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

    Gabbard initially responded “You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.” Gabbard has a history of aligning herself with Russian talking points.

    During her discussion with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Gabbard framed Clinton’s opposition as being not only against her candidacy, but against “every veteran in this country, every service member, every American, anyone watching at home fighting for peace and who was calling for an end to these regime change wars.” Gabbard said “Ultimately she knows she can’t control me”. Responding to Carlson’s question about why Clinton is taking aim at her. “I stand against everything that she represents and if I’m elected president, if I’m the Democratic nominee and elected president she will not be able to control me. She won’t be able to manipulate me. She won’t be able to continue to work from behind the curtains, to continue these regime change wars that have been so costly.”

    Gabbard said the blood of her “brothers and sisters in uniform” killed in Iraq, a “war she championed,” is “on her hands.” “I am calling for an end to these regime change wars. This is why she’s speaking out strongly and smearing my character and trying to undermine my campaign,” she said. “Just as she is doing this to me, this is what will happen to anybody who is doing the same.”

    Responding to a question from the Fox News host about the massive media and political opposition from both parties to her foreign policy positions, Gabbard took a swing at the Clinton legacy: “And now we know exactly why. It’s because I am standing up and speaking out strongly against the Hillary Clinton legacy, the warmongering legacy of waging these regime change wars, continuing to escalate these tensions between the United States, nuclear armed countries like Russia, China, this nuclear arms race bringing more profits to the military-industrial complex.”

    Former George W. Bush senior adviser Karl Rove admonished Hillary Clinton for accusing Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset, saying Clinton should present proof of her claims or “go away.” Rove said on “The Story with Martha MacCallum” – “Put up or shut up”. Rove continued “She’s either got to come forward with the evidence of the bots in the platforms or the sites that are being used on behalf of Gabbard. She has to come up with the evidence of Jill Stein was a Russian asset. Tell us who proved that that was the case. Or better yet, just shut up or go away. This is just appalling.”

    Clinton’s remarks apparently weren’t significant enough for CNN and MSNBC to feature during primetime hours, known for maximized viewership. There was no mention of Clinton’s controversial statements during CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” “Cuomo Prime Time,” and the entire first hour of “CNN Tonight with Don Lemon.” There was an even lengthier blackout of the controversy on MSNBC as “The Beat with Ari Melber,” “All In with Chris Hayes,” “The Rachel Maddow Show,” “Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell,” and “The 11th Hour with Brian Williams” made no mention of the clash.

    Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden said she didn’t understand “why major media outlets aren’t more concerned about Russian bot support of Tulsi than Hillary’s statement.” Democratic presidential candidates, like Beto O’Rourke and Andrew Yang, chided Clinton for her remarks. Marianne Williamson defended Gabbard, accusing Clinton of “the character assassination of women who don’t toe the party line,” and Yang commending Gabbard’s military service (In the US military, not Russia’s). “Tulsi is not being groomed by anyone,” Texas Representative Beto O’Rourke added on Saturday, while South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg told CNN’s Jake Tapper on 20 July 2019 that “statements like that ought to be backed by evidence.” Even Tapper called Clinton’s claim an “obvious smear” and a “wild accusation.” Fellow CNN host Van Jones accused the former contender of playing “a very dangerous game,” and denounced her for giving Gabbard “payback hell” for quitting the DNC and supporting Bernie Sanders in 2016.

    Democrat presidential candidate Andrew Yang defended fellow White House contender Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI). “Tulsi Gabbard deserves much more respect and thanks than this. She literally just got back from serving our country abroad,” Yang wrote on Twitter.

    CNN contributor Van Jones told CNN anchor Erin Burnet that Clinton was “playing a very dangerous game… …If you’re concerned about disinformation, what the Russians do is spread disinformation, get people divided against each other. That is what just happened, just throw out some information, disinformation, smear somebody. She is Hillary Clinton. She’s a legend. She’s going to be in the history books, she’s a former nominee of our party, and she just came out against a sitting U.S. congresswoman, a decorated war veteran, and somebody who’s running for the nomination of our party with just a complete smear and no facts.”

    Trump defended Gabbard. “I don’t know Tulsi, but she’s not a Russian agent,” Trump said. He did not explain how he knows this but did go off on a rant. “These people are sick. There’s something wrong with them,” he said inreference to Clinton and her supporters. He also argued that Gabbard, who is at the bottom tier of the polls with 1 or 2 per cent of support, would be helped by Clinton’s charge. “I think that Tulsi Gabbard probably got helped quite a bit by this there,” Trump said. “Hillary Clinton, I don’t know if you’ve heard of her, she’s the one accusing everybody of being a Russian agent. Anybody that is opposed to her is a Russian agent,” he said. “That’s a scam that was pretty much put down.”

    Gabbard, for her part, claimed Clinton is attacking her because she endorsed Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election. In a two minute video posted to her Twitter account, that had 2 million views wihin hours, Gabbard charged a ‘corrupt elite’ with trying to ‘destroy my reputation’ because I stood up to them.’

    ‘I’m not afraid to openly express my love for our country. But if they can falsely portray me as a traitor, then they can do it to anyone. And, in fact, that is exactly the message that they want to get across to you, that if you stand up against Hillary and the party power brokers, if you stand up to the rich and powerful elite, and the war machine they will destroy you and discredit your message…’

    Tulsi dropped out of her Congressional race because she didn’t want to get beaten in the April 4th Hawaii primary. She was in New York City attending a private gathering with Wall Street executives. The executives, absolutely terrified of a Warren presidency, are gunning for a spoiler. Tulsi was on Hannity at Fox News 24 October 2019 agreeing with Matt Gaetz’ security-violating stunt, and earlier went on Tucker Carlson to bash Democrats while giving him a pass for his blantant brand of white supremacism.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin poked fun 03 October 2019 at the ongoing political crisis in the US by joking about election meddling. When asked about concerns the Russia might interfere in the 2020 US elections, he replied: “I’ll tell you a secret: Yes, we’ll definitely do it,” Putin said. “Just don’t tell anyone,” he added, in a stage whisper.

    A bipartisan panel of US Senators 08 October 2019 called for sweeping action by Congress, the White House and Silicon Valley to ensure social media sites aren’t used to interfere in the coming presidential election, delivering a sobering assessment about the weaknesses that Russian operatives exploited in the 2016 campaign. The Senate Intelligence Committee said that in the 2016 election the Russians worked to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton while bolstering Republican Donald Trump — and stated that another round of interference was likely in the 2020 vote.

    In the 2000 presidential election, Ralph Nader votes in two states — Florida and New Hampshire — to give the states to Bush rather than Gore. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which would have given the state’s 25 electoral votes to Gore. Even without Florida, Nader’s 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote made the different with Gore’s 47 percent, which would have given Gore a 270 to 267 electoral college victory.

    THE question “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” defined the decade of the 1950s. In 1950, the Communist Party USA had fewer than 50,000 members [many of who were FBI assets] out of a total US population of 150 million American. Yet in the late 1940s and early 1950s, American fears of internal communist subversion reached a nearly hysterical pitch. The postwar Red Scare is often called “McCarthyism,” derived from one of the era’s most notorious anti-Communists, Senator Joseph McCarthy. But the anti-Communist crusade of the late 1940s and 1950s extended both in time and scope well beyond the activities of the junior senator from Wisconsin.

    McCarthy discredited anti-Communism. Like many other red hunters, McCarthy vastly exaggerated the domestic communist threat. The prominent convictions of a few suspected spies fueled a frenzy by many who saw communists everywhere. By 1954 when Senator McCarthy began to investigate Communists in the Army, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to censure McCarthy and his influence evaporated. Thereafter, anti-communism – aka McCarthyism – lacked all credibility.

    Today very few Americans have direct memory of actual McCartyism. Most of what people think they know about the Red Scare is derived from films such as Tail Gunner Joe (1977 TV Movie), Reds (1981), Guilty by Suspicion (1991), Trumbo (2015). These films generally take a sympatheic view of the alleged “communists”, who are frequently portrayed as harmless liberal social activists. And the anti-Communists generally receive a rather luridly unfavorable treatment. Hence the ease with which a charge of “McCarthyism” is flung about today.

    The Soviet Union heavily subsidized the CPUSA from its earliest days; maintained an underground organization in Washington in the 1930s that reported to the CPUSA and in turn to Moscow on US government activities; and placed CPUSA members in the wartime OSS and OWI, the government’s major intelligence and propaganda agencies.

    Moscow center remains actively attempting to influence American politics. A successful clandestine influence operation should not be readily detectable. If it were a fact, it would not be intelligence. Considereation of Russian intervention in the 2020 election must deal in statements of estimative probability familiar to the intelligence worlds – such as “probably” – rather than the criminal justice ironclad “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    Meet Tulsi Gabbard
    Tulsi GabbardCongresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) was the ideal candidate for president. She is youthful, poised, energetic, a decorated war veteran, a compelling television presence, and so on down the checklist of candidate qualifications. The outspoken anti-war advocate said that she was thinking of how she can “best be of service” to the US in a meet-up in New Hampshire. Speculation had been rife that Gabbard, who backed Bernie Sanders in 2016, was contemplating a presidential bid of her own. However, the popular Hawaii Democrat was tight-lipped about the prospect, despite making a series of appearances at high-profile progressive events, firing up her base in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first and the second states to host nationwide party primary elections.

    In the “First in the Nation” New Hampshire Primary, the Emerson Poll conducted 6-9 September 2019 found Tulsi Gabbard, who did not qualify for the third Democratic debate,in sixth place with 6% in the Granite state. The poll by HarrisX was conducted Sept. 6-11 for No Labels, a nonpartisan political group committed to ending partisan gridlock, found Gabbard in fourth place at 6 percent, virtually tied with Sen. Kamala Harris and Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who received 5 percent each.

    Gabbard, along with more than 10 other Democratic 2020 hopefuls, didn’t make the cut, due to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) more stringent requirements. In order to be part of the third DNC debate broadcast by ABC News and Univision 12 September 2019, candidates had to get contributions from 130,000 donors in at least 20 states, with at least 400 contributions from each of those states. To make the cut, candidates also had to poll at 2 percent or higher in four DNC-approved polls conducted between the end of June and late August. According to the DNC, the representative from Hawaii didn’t meet the 2 percent threshold.

    Tulsi Gabbard was born in Leloaloa, American Samoa. An advocate for environmental policy, Tulsi ran for the Hawaii State Legislature in 2002 and became the youngest person ever elected. A year later, Tulsi joined the Hawaii National Guard. In 2004, Tulsi voluntarily deployed to Iraq with her fellow Soldiers of the 29th Brigade eventually serving two tours of combat duty in the Middle East. Tulsi was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal during Operation Iraqi Freedom, was the first female Distinguished Honor Graduate at Fort McClellan’s Officer Candidate School, and was the first woman to ever receive an award of appreciation from the Kuwaiti military on her second overseas tour. Tulsi is one of the first two female combat veterans and the first Hindu to ever serve as a member of the U.S. Congress.

    She is married to Abraham Williams, a cinematographer who has worked on a series of shorts in Hawaii. He filmed a few campaign videos for Gabbard. According to a New Yorker article from 2017, Williams and Gabbard enjoy paddleboarding on an unmarked beach as the sun rises. Gabbard also has a great relationship with her mother-in-law, who was brought on to work as her office manager in Washington.

    Gabbard was in New Hampshire to drum up support for her progressive cause in December 2018, when she was asked whether she had already set a date for the big announcement. Short of providing an unequivocal response, Gabbard said that she has been “seriously thinking of how I can be best of service to our country.” If she ventures to join what is expected to become a crowded field of Democratic contestants, Gabbard might have to face off with Sanders, who also recently signaled another run.

    Asked whether the Vermont Senator’s decision would influence hers, Gabbard made clear a possible clash is not on the list of her concerns. “I think you’d better ask him what his plans are, I’m thinking about how I can be best of service to our country,” she doubled down.

    Addressing a packed audience at Rockingham County on Sunday, Gabbard covered many nationwide issues, such as the dominance of big corporate money in US politics and the “counter-productive” interventionist policy of the successive US administrations. “I’ve been meeting with progressive leaders and activists who are doing the work that’s necessary on the ground to make the kind of change that we need to see across the country at the local level and the national level,” she told Honolulu Civil Beat in the wake of the meeting.

    Rumors of Gabbard’s anticipated run have been circling for several months. In September, she headlined a summit of several hundred progressive and grassroots activists in New Hampshire. In October 2018, Gabbard was one of the keynote speakers in the annual Johnson County Democrats fundraiser in Iowa, where she was reportedly cheered on by supporters to consider a presidential campaign.

    Gabbard resigned as Democratic National Committee (DNC) vice-chair in early 2016 to endorse Sanders and has long since fallen out with the Democratic establishment. She angered the mainstream left by going on a private fact-finding mission to Syria in 2017, during which she met with President Bashar Assad and other officials. Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, argues that the US’s primary goal in Syria is to topple the Assad government through terrorist proxies on the ground.

    The anti-interventionist congresswoman, known for speaking her mind, drew a massive backlash for pointing out that the Trump administration acts “as protectors of AQ [Al-Qaeda] in Syria/Idlib.” Gabbard also called Trump “Saudi Arabia’s b*tch” for his decision to stand with Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the killing of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi.

    She is viewed as one of the new wave progressives who are promising to shake up the Democratic Party establishment. Supporters rally behind Gabbard because she is not afraid to speak out against vested interests, even when that puts her on the out with party bosses. During the Obama administration, she frequently went on national TV shows to denounce his policy of military intervention in Syria and Washington’s support for anti-government militant groups. She has consistently condemned US overseas wars and regime-change intrigues.

    As a veteran of the Iraq War, twice deployed, Gabbard’s criticism of American military adventurism has an authority that few can dispute. In one congressional hearing, Gabbard schooled former NATO Commander Philip Breedlove about American hypocrisy over claims of Russian meddling in US elections. She reminded the general that the US has interfered in elections in over 80 countries, including Russia, going back several decades.

    Her calls for campaign finance reform and tougher regulation of Wall Street, as well as for slashing Washington’s gargantuan year-on-year military spending, may well rally progressives inside and outside the party. But for Democrat grandees in congress, many of them are generously financed by lobby groups tied to the military-industrial complex. Gabbard’s rising star means their setting sun as career politicians. Given the control of party machinery, as seen in the debacle over Clinton and Sanders in 2016, the scales could be tipped against Gabbard going forward as the presidential candidate in 2020.

    The Manchurian Candidate
    Gabbard poses a thorny problem for the neocon-neoliberal axis, as she checks all the identity politics boxes – the first Hindu member of Congress, a woman, a veteran – and she has undeniable populist appeal, given her anti-establishment record. But she supports Assad, she’s a Trump pal, she tried to sabotage the DNC from within in 2016, and Russia Today loves her. “Assad’s ‘mouthpiece’ in Washington” — the RNC welcomed Tulsi Gabbard to the presidential race with a moniker that many liberals probably agree with.

    Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act to prohibit the U.S. government from using American taxpayer dollars to provide funding, weapons, training, and intelligence support to groups like the Levant Front, Fursan al Ha and other allies of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, al-Qaeda and ISIS, or to countries who are providing direct or indirect support to those same groups. The legislation is cosponsored by Reps. Peter Welch (D-VT-AL), Barbara Lee (D-CA-13), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-48), and Thomas Massie (R-KY-04), and supported by the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) and the U.S. Peace Council.

    Alfred Marder, President of the U.S. Peace Council said, “The U.S. Peace Council is honored to endorse and support the ‘Stop Arming Terrorists Bill’ as a major contribution to peace. This legislation will serve to galvanize the anti-war movement and the opposition to regime change policies that characterize our present foreign policy.”

    U.S. Peace Council is a front organization of the Communist Party, U.S.A. serving as the American branch of the World Peace Council. The World Peace Council operated under the joint control of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet KGB. The WPC had two main functions: To influence public opinion and governmental policies in non-Communist countries along lines favorable to Soviet policy goals, and to provide logistical support to Soviet-supported terrorist groups.

    The US Peace Council endorsement is something of a puzzle. No conventional politician would accept such an endorsement. Gabbard’s embrace of this well known Soviet front orgnization may reflect naivete, or it may constitute an overt acknowledgment on her part of a willingness to accept the support of Moscow Center.

    On the 16 January 2019 episode of Fault Lines [a Sputnik news radio program], hosts Garland Nixon and Lee Stranahan discuss Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s announcement to run for President and how her decision is being received thus far. While the DNC and Democratic establishment may view this as a potential headache, could public grassroots support turn Gabbard into a legitimate contender? Political activist & broadcast journalist Niko House joined Garland and Lee to talk about Gabbard’s prospects as a Presidential candidate in 2020 and the treatment she can expect to receive from the DNC given their tense relationship.

    Gabbard first became an in-demand Fox News guest in 2015 after she criticized Barack Obama’s unwillingness to use the label “radical Islamic terrorism.” Her media tour explaining that position earned her positively-tilted coverage in right-wing outlets like Breitbart and The Daily Caller—a trend that continued when she later expressed skepticism of Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.

    In May 2015, the National Review implored readers to “Meet the Beautiful, Tough Young Democrat Who’s Turning Heads by Challenging Obama’s Foreign Policy.” The conservative outlet touted Gabbard as having “endeared herself to right-wing hawks” by challenging Obama’s “rudderless” foreign policy.

    She was briefly considered as a potential member for Trump’s cabinet. White House chief strategist Steve Bannon reportedly admired Gabbard’s foreign policy, and arranged a meeting with her and Trump shortly after his election. Bannon reportedly considered Gabbard for an administration role, although no job ever materialized. Gabbard has earned substantial praise from many across the right—from Fox News star Tucker Carlson to white nationalists like David Duke. The alt-right groups are flocking to her defense.

    Gabbard may not have the national prominence to win the Democratic nomination outright, but she could be a top choice as a vice presidential pick if she can demonstrate the ability to woo pivotal Catholic voters. And a third party candidacy might woo Bernie Sanders supports, drawing votes away from the Democracts, and helping the Republican candidate.

    Gabbard (D-Hawaii) surprised her own aides when she announced on CNN that she planned to run for president. Politico reported Tuesday that Gabbard’s team was “blindsided” when she made the announcement in an interview with CNN’s Van Jones on 11 January 2019. Gabbard’s campaign website was not yet ready to go live, social media posts weren’t prepared and a launch video hadn’t been approved. By February 2019 campaign manager Rania Batrice and Gabbard’s consulting firm Revolution Messaging were set to depart after this weekend’s official kickoff in Hawaii, two sources familiar with the situation told POLITICO. Gabbard was leaning on her sister, Vrindavan, to fill the void.

    Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s (D., Hawaii) campaign criticized “media giants ruled by corporate interests” in a fundraising email sent out on 09 February 2019. The email also suggests journalism was being used against her campaign in a manner akin to 1950s-era McCarthyism. ” When journalism is deployed as a weapon against those who call for peace, it threatens our democracy as it seeks to silence debate and dissent, creates an atmosphere of fear and paranoia, and stokes the rhetoric that could lead to nuclear war…. This danger is not new – we saw it take hold of our nation during the last Cold War, as McCarthyite hysteria,” the email continues…. Russia-baiting propaganda is being deployed against our campaign along with anyone else, on the left or the right, who speaks out against regime change war or the new Cold War. The corporate media is doing everything they can to stop our campaign before it gets started – including using fraudulent journalism and discredited sources to launch their biased attacks…”

    US politicians criticizing imperialist US foreign policy interventions, this time in the Middle East, and helpfully excluding other major world powers’ own interventions, is exactly the message Russia seeks to amplify through its propaganda channels. On cue, Russia’s 24 hour English news channel, RT, serially posted Gabbard’s video clip on their YouTube channel with the headline that read: “Speeches that still matter: Rep Gabbard on bringing an end to U.S. interventionism.”

    Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard was very clear in opposing sanctions and war in Venezuela, on 04 May 2019 tweeting, “The new Cold War is getting hotter. We need leaders with foresight to see how in Venezuela, Syria & other places, potential military conflict btwn US-Russia can quickly escalate into war—nuclear war, the greatest danger we face today.”

    Shiyam Galyon, a member of the Syrian Women’s Political Movement, wrote in August 2019 that Gabbard : “… voted for restricting resettlement of Syrian refugees and against condemning the Assad regime for war crimes. She also met with Bashar al-Assad in the name of “truly caring for the Syrian people,” and has raised skepticism that the regime was behind the 2017 Khan Sheikhoun chemical weapons attack. She has supported the Syrian and Russian regimes in their bombing campaigns on multiple occasions and espouses a narrative that paints the entire armed Syrian opposition as al-Qaeda terrorists, erasing the legitimate call from Syrians for a regime change of their own, and defining the narrative as a US-driven regime-change war.”

    Neera Tanden, president of the left-leaning Center for American Progress, predicted in a July 2019 tweet that Gabbard would run as a Green Party candidate “to help Trump win.” David Rothkopf, who served in the Commerce Department during the Clinton administration and later became CEO and editor of the FP Group, responded to Tanden’s tweet by saying, “She is 100% right on this.”

    Gabbard said 29 August 2019 that she had “ruled out” the possibility of launching an independent 2020 presidential bid if she fails to secure the Democratic nomination. “I’ve ruled that out,” Gabbard said on CNN when asked about a possible third-party campaign. “I’m going to continue to focus on moving our campaign forward, continuing this grass-roots campaign, continuing to deliver our message to the American people.”

    Gabbard on 19 March 2020 said she was dropping out of the Democratic presidential primary race and will support former Vice President Joe Biden. After 25 state primary contests, Biden has opened up a nearly insurmountable lead by capturing 1,180 delegates on the road to the 1,191 needed to clinch the party nomination. Sanders has secured 885 delegates while Gabbard has won only two. “Today I am suspending my presidential campaign and offering my full support to vice president Joe Biden in his quest to bring our country together,” Gabbard said in a statement.

    Gabbard became a well-known figure among conservative figures after she announced she would be leaving the Democratic Party in 2022. Since then, Gabbard joined Fox News as a regular contributor and campaigned for several GOP candidates during the midterm elections.

    During an appearance on Watters Primetime, Gabbard compared President Joe Biden to Adolf Hitler, arguing his commitment to making diverse appointments to administration and federal posts follows “the very same geneticist core principles embodied by Nazism”. She said, “They are proud to be judging people, hiring people, selecting people based on race, and let’s be clear how serious of a problem this is. It’s based on genetics, race, based on your blood, your genes, and, where do we see that connection? Well, these are the very same geneticist core principles embodied by Nazism and Adolf Hitler. This should be something that is sickening and alarming to every single Democrat and every single American. We have seen where this, uh, philosophy can lead”. Even Watters distanced himself from Gabbard’s comparison. “I’m not sure about the German thing…”

    In a speech at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference on 04 March 2023 Gabbard accused Democrats of weaponizing identity politics in order to divide the country, claiming the party has devolved into becoming the “racists they claim to hate.” Gabbard decried the Democratic Party for its policies on race that she says promotes “anti-white racism.” Gabbard covered a topics ranging from the Second Amendment, attacks on religion, the campaign to normalize pedophilia by calling pedophiles “minor-attracted persons”.

    Tulsi Gabbard: US Taking Dangerous Path on Venezuela
    FEBRUARY 1, 2019

    1. “And naturally, the press has ignored the issue of Chinese men turning up among the migrants. Let’s be honest, shall we? Not everyone is coming here to breathe free. Some of them are coming here to destroy us and blow things up.”

      Sadly, it’s very intentional. 🙁

      1. Did you see the little Twitter page he set up? I was trying to respond directly to him, but it won’t let me. Same with THE’s latest.

      2. It’s probably one guy. Imagine all the work, all the texts I delete give me a sore finger. But he typed lots of garbage into them. All dedicated to me.

      3. I’ve long thought it was one person. As you said earlier, probably paid. In fact, I don’t see how he’s *not* paid. Yes, I would say he’s putting a tremendous amount of work into his disinformation job.

      4. The only Tweeters who can direct message are those who follow each other.

      7. You should give up. You are a failure, living a lie and spreading lies. You are one of the worst sorts of humans. You have a seared conscience, a reprobate mind. You’re soul is shriveled almost to nothing. At this point, you have no future that one would look forward too.

        Give up. I wish you would for your own sake.

  33. I’ve seen similar presentations by others and only watched portions of the presentation above.

    I am a professional Engineer ad my training is in Civil Engineering which includes steel design. The truther idiots that keep telling us that jet fuel won’t melt steel have so little knowledge of the subject, they don’t realize the assertion is irrelevant. The flame does not have to melt the steel, just heat it to weaken it.

    The structure was compromised by the strike of the aircraft which damaged the outer structure, and subsequently weakened by fire, began to collapse at the level of the main fire. The side where the aircraft entered was the weaker side, and that is the direction of the start of the collapse. Once the collapse began, it simply threw more load on the remaining structure that could not be born by that structure, and so you got the cascading collapse that can be observed.

    The fire did not have to melt the structure, and frankly, those that assert thermite was used to bring the buildings down simply have no idea what they are talking about. The collapse is consistent with the weakened structure at the entry area and weakened steel caused by the raised temperature of the steel, which also greatly lowered the yield strength of the steel. Handling thermite in a way that would result in the collapse is no easy, and is not required to bring the buildings down in the way they came down.

    By the by, anyone quoting an Architect on the collapse has no idea what an Architect does. If you wish an accurate explanation of what happened, you need an Engineer experienced in steel design. The steel was not properly fireproofed above a certain floor and both strikes took place above those levels where wet applied asbestos was used for fireproofing. It was predicted that bad things would happen if there was a fire above the level where the asbestos stopped. That’s what they got.

    1. “The flame does not have to melt the steel, just heat it to weaken it.”

      How does it explain the liquid yellow hot metal pouring from the towers?

      1. This guy proves experimentally that the thermite theory is consistent with all observations.

        https://youtu.be/5d5iIoCiI8g

        For some reason all the debunkers trying to ridicule this theory never comment the actual footage of liquid metal.

      2. If the steel was melting before the towers collapsed, then there were not bombs detonated. It was a slow process related to the intense heat of the fires. This contradicts the notion that charges were detonated to bring down the towers.

      3. Why not simply admit that the heat weakened the beams and leave the alleged “liquid yellow hot metal” for the debunkers? When a building falls a lot of heat and force is unleashed. Who the heck knows if this claim is even real?

    2. Ohengineer: How long does it take a kerosene flame to heat up a one inch thick steel beam to where it becomes soft?

      While I’’m not a structural engineer, I have done welding and blacksmithing. In blacksmithing over a coal fire hot enough to melt steel, it took several seconds to heat a quarter inch rod hot enough to be soft. In welding, at least the light duty welding that is mostly used, a white hot flame is needed to melt an eighth inch diameter rod. I have also used an oxy-acetelene torch to cut an inch thick steel plate. From experience, steel does not flash heat to where it is soft, except where it is very thin and the temperature very hot. Further, I looked up the electro-thermal properties of steel (not for this discussion, but for another project) and while steel is not the best conductor of electricity and heat, localized heating is conducted away from the heat source.

      I have also seen what is claimed to be a schematic of a Twin Tower floor plan—it had two sets of vertical support beams, heavy duty support beams. It had a perimeter set of beams, and a central set. For a pancake collapse, both sets of beams had to fail simultaneously.

      A final point, how long were the steel beams in the buildings subject to a kerosene fire? The videos of the planes crashing into the buildings show that when the fuel tanks of the planes were ruptured by the crashes, that almost all of the fuel burned up in seconds. The fuel didn’t stay around long enough to pour down the sides of the buildings. Was that long and hot enough to soften inch thick or more steel beams?

      So what evidence is there that it was a kerosene fire that brought down the Twin Towers?

      1. Just a simple thought from a humble carpenter here, who has done a bit of welding himself. Not trying to troll you. But, we haven’t repeatedly done this experiment of flying a plane weighing at least 80 tons, with around 17k to 24k gallons of fuel, into a building at 400 to 500 mph. In fact, i this is the first major experiment, so I’m going to hypothesize that there will be some things happen that we might not expect when we do our figuring on paper or work in our workshops.

      2. Yes. You do not have to explain every little unexpected thing that happens. And such things are not proof that 9/11 was “an inside job.” There is no logical connection between things you cannot explain and proofs of a conspiracy.

  35. If there are other Germans here, I would like to strongly recommend these books by the former politician Hans Graf Huyn! For example, in “The Attack” he describes in detail the invention and application of Soviet terror.
    They are written in German language. Unfortunately he died in 2011.

    Die deutsche Karte. Neue Strategie Moskaus. München: Universitas-Verlag, 1991
    Die Doppelfalle Das Risiko Gorbatschow. München: Herbig – Universitas, 1989
    Ihr werdet sein wie Gott. Der Irrtum des modernen Menschen von der Französischen Revolution bis heute. München: Universitas, 1988
    Sieg ohne Krieg. Moskaus Griff nach der Weltherrschaft. Wien: Fritz Molden Verlag, 1984
    Fünf vor Zwölf – Die Welt nach Afghanistan. Wien: Molden-Verlag, 1980
    Wir alle sind Afghanistan. Moskaus Ziel heißt Europa. Wien: Fritz Molden, 1978
    Der Angriff, der Vorstoß Moskaus zur Weltherrschaft. Wien: Fritz Molden Verlag, 1978
    Englisch:
    The German Map. Moscow’s new strategy. Munich: Universitas-Verlag, 1991
    The Double Trap The Risk of Gorbachev. Munich: Herbig – Universitas, 1989
    You Will Be Like God. The fallacy of modern man from the French Revolution to the present day. Munich: Universitas, 1988
    Victory without War. Moscow’s Grip on World Domination. Vienna: Fritz Molden Verlag, 1984
    Five to Twelve – The World after Afghanistan. Vienna: Molden-Verlag, 1980
    We are all Afghanistan. Moscow’s goal is Europe. Vienna: Fritz Molden, 1978
    The Attack, Moscow’s Advance to World Domination. Vienna: Fritz Molden Verlag, 1978

  36. I guess it was a volcano erupting under the towers, and spewing up through the buildings, and running back down. Yes, the Jews designed the buildings, and made sure they dug down just shy of the earth’s core, so -just as predicted by Nostradamus- in the year 2001, an eruption there would coincide with the illusion of large flying machines hitting the giant structures. After which time, George Soros would lead the deep state in developing adrenechrome to extend the lifespan of he and his minions, in order that they may live long enough to force everyone to eat bugs. But then, a hero would arise in Russia, a short, balding little man with a distinctive stride that made it appear as if he were pooting as he walked. He would pull a sword from a stone, with which he would force back the evil power of Soros and the West, and their Jewish overlords, beginning with the Nazis in Ukraine and their Jewish leader. The really unique thing about this hero from Russia, is that he would have a veritable army of court jesters and fools, who would go out and, as pesky gnats or flies, swarm around those who would try to expose the doings of said hero and his movement.

    When we put your question alongside these details, it looks like you are onto something there Commit.

  37. “If the steel was melting before the towers collapsed, then there were not bombs detonated. It was a slow process related to the intense heat of the fires. This contradicts the notion that charges were detonated to bring down the towers.”

    Have you watched the video I linked? The man explains and demonstrates how it could be done.

    The liquid metal is not molten steel, it is product of thermitic reaction, mostly iron with some aluminum and sulfur. Huge amount of iron microspheres was found in the dust.

    The charges were made of thermite or thermate, not an explosive.

Comments are now closed.