five minutes of amazing 'coincidences' at the pentagon on 911;


http://itaintholywater.blogspot.com/2018/09/911-pentagon-info.html

 there's a video and a transcript. 911 isn't what the 'official story' tells you. the video has been seen before and is quite clear in its descriptions;


Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.
TRANSCRIPT: On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.
These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst officewhere DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.
Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.
The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover upfrom start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds,OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.


http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/9-11-a-conspiracy-theory/232903

 in this article the writer tells us why the empire is mad at russia and china for controlling their own territory and is headed towards war as a result;

Perhaps they had a chance back during the Obama days when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed her amusing “Reset” in USA-Russia relations to the new Medvedew Presidency following Putin’s rotation to the seat of Prime Minister in March 2009. Had Washington been a bit more perceptive and offered serious alternatives, it is conceivable that Washington would today have a geopolitical isolation of their second major problem on the Eurasian Continent, namely, the Peoples’ Republic of China. Recently the US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, Wess Mitchell, testified to the Senate where he candidly revealed the true reasons for current Washington and London campaigns and sanctions against Russia. It has nothing to do with faked allegations of US election interference; it has nothing to do with poorly-staged false flag poisoning of the Russian Skripals. It’s far more fundamental and takes us back to the era before the First World War more than a century ago.
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 21 August, Wess Mitchell, the successor to Victoria Nuland, gave an extraordinarily honest statement of real US geopolitical strategy towards Russia. It revealed a bit more honesty apparently than the US State Department wanted, because they quickly sanitized their published version on the department website.

Censored!…

In his opening remarks to the Senate committee members Mitchell stated:

“The starting point of the National Security Strategy is the recognition that America has entered a period of big-power competition, and that past US policies have neither sufficiently grasped the scope of this emerging trend nor adequately equipped our nation to succeed in it.

Then he continues with the following extraordinary admission:

“Contrary to the hopeful assumptions of previous administrations, Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest US primacy and leadership in the 21st Century. It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration’s foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American power.”

In the State Department’s later sanitized version, the original text, “It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers.” And the sentence, “The central aim of the administration’s foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American power,” mysteriously were deleted. Because it was formal testimony presented to the Senate, however, the Senate version remains true to his original text, at least of 7 September, 2018. The State Department has been caught in a huge blunder.



http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO11Sep2018.php

there are too many pics at this link to begin to show them here. best go to the site and see what is being presented;

The photograph below demonstrates that the WTC beams were not cut by welders.

Because of fuel and time constraints welders would have used a cutting torch to cut the shortest distance possible - straight across the beams. Also, cutting torches cut by forced oxidation, therefore the large amount of once liquid metal congealed on the beam would not be present.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_charges.html

building seven collapses and bbc tells you thirty minutes before it happens;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=677i43QfYpQ

i go to this site every tuesday when it comes out. much of what he presents is quite sensible to my eyes and experience. the article below will certainly be outside of what we're told is mainstream however it makes a good bit of sense in an area where you can find many 'acceptable' ideas. link at the bottom is where the writer can be found;

A few years ago I wrote a guest article entitled "Frankly my dear" for Francis Porretto's indispensable Liberty's Torch. As long-time readers are aware, I knew the segregated South first hand and spoke against it when it was neither popular nor completely safe. Alas, in the years that followed I learned a hard lesson, to wit: there's nothing quite like being played and betrayed to see things as they really are. Although this essay continues to have some small level of currency, some readers may not have seen it, so I'll repost it here.

Frankly my dear

With all the recent troubles we're again being invited to an honest and open conversation about race, or said differently, the browbeatings will be resumed. Try this for honest and open: many of us, probably most of us, are tired of your whining, your so-called grievances, your violence and crime, your insults and threats, your witless blather and pornographic demeanor—all of it.

You're not quite 13% of the population yet everything has to be about you, all day, every day. With you, facts aren't facts, everything's a kozmik krisis, and abusive confrontations are your go-to.

Here's the thing: some of us despise you, although fewer than you believe, but most of us plain don't care about you or your doings. There was a time when we did care, but you betrayed our good will and played us for fools. We laugh about it now, but we actually believed you wanted equal opportunity and mutual respect and to live in harmony—all that stuff. Ain't it a hoot? Imagine our embarrassment.

We talk among ourselves just like you do. It's true, we have "frank and open discussions" when you're not around. Why? Partly because it's exhausting to tippy-toe around you. Partly because you think it's your celestial right to tell us what we can say. And partly because you're alarmingly aggressive or painfully dim-witted by turns. We never know which "you" will pop out of the box, or when. But mainly because you've revealed yourself as grasping opportunists without honor or principle. There's your deal-breaker. There's more.

During the recent riots you expected us to believe heisting snack food then torching the place was "standing up for justice". When we didn't buy it, you told us the looting and arson wasn't done by the rioters after all, no, all the bad stuff was done by rioters from out of town. Apparently you think it makes a difference to us. And if we don't fall for that one, you tell us you're the real victims, you're the ones "hit hardest" because the neighborhoods you looted and burned are, um, looted and burned.

We've never stood in your way but we don't really care if you have good neighborhoods or not. The evidence says you don't care either, unless we build and maintain them for you, what your enablers call "investments in urban communities". They don't mention the return on our past "investments". Our former neighborhoods weren't improved by your arrival. Your contempt for ordinary civility tells us no level of "investment" would make a difference.

Listen up. It's simple. Just like our neighborhoods are our responsibility, so are your neighborhoods your responsibility, not ours. Your clownish leaders will tell you otherwise but they've always been your responsibility and they always will be your responsibility. Accept it or don't, you're the ones who live in them. There's more.

Your air conditioned, smart phone equipped, EBT-financed "poverty" doesn't wash to begin with, yet you'd have us believe poverty causes crime. There's no payday for assault and rape and random killing. Police say 20% of your criminal violence is related to dope-dealing, okay, business disputes of a sort, but it says the rest of it is largely pro bono. We also notice you have a working knowledge of jury nullification and take pride in not "snitching", typical gang behavior.

We say "what you think, you do. What you do, you are." We know what you think—we hear it every waking minute. We know what you do. How could we not know what you are? Just so it gets said, crime causes poverty. It drives away productive people, their businesses and the opportunities you said you wanted. More bad news: you're free to accuse them of anything you wish but they're not coming back.

Schools haven't been educating our kids for a long time. They're too busy conjuring up new ways to teach yours, in fact, we're beginning to think yours are the only ones who matter. There's always some new scheme claiming dazzling success which, in the end, amounts to handing out the answers with the tests, or taking the annoying hard stuff out of the coursework, or entering unearned grades by hand.

Whatever they're doing they're doing it wrong. Your kids are telling us, in every way they know how, they have neither the interest nor the inclination for academics. Perhaps we should listen. If what they want is "out" it's worth considering and probably worth encouraging.

You tell us the schools have "failed to meet their needs." And what are their needs, pray tell? Higher standards and tougher tests? Stricter rules and a dress code? Or some alternate universe where credit is earned for putting teachers in the ER, or for a string of abortions before the tenth grade? If you'd tell us what their needs are we'd at least know what needs we're failing to meet. Until then we'll mark it down for what it is, another lame excuse. They're supposed to be schools, not day care or orphanages or theme parks.

You pester us with the "civil rights movement" of fifty years ago as though it happened last week, with tedious 1960s footage and cloying voice-overs, in an endless loop, like Groundhog Day, decade after decade. It's understandable, you haven't met any real resistance since those days. Breaking news: none of it matters any more, it all devolved into just another swindle, an extortion racket, "pay up or we'll make a stink—and the bad optics are on you".

Schools now teach something called White Privilege, which claims no overt act is necessary for us to be racist, in fact, absence of such acts is said to be direct evidence. It's the "original sin" concept in a different wrapper, meaning our putative racism is bone deep and can't be discharged by good works. Even so, they say we must atone in perpetuity for being white. They suggest we devote our lives in selfless service to you. No. Sorry. Whatever white privilege there may be, it isn't enough. In fact, being subjected to White Privilege prattle is worth a couple of privileges.

Speaking of privilege, 60% of your college grads—and 20% of all of you—are employed by government. The intent is to create an artificial middle class of course, hence the trivial positions with imaginative titles and weighty salaries. In the lower reaches it's the quota hires, typically unqualified. It's a great offer. You pretend you're doing something useful and we pretend to believe you.

The rest of your grads are largely diversity directors, window dressing, teachers of dubious "studies" and improbable "histories", and similar warehousing schemes for the otherwise unemployable. It's as good as it's ever going to get, except for those on the skinny end of the bell curve—for whom we have genuine, i.e., earned respect. You'd be a fool to leave it on the table, for as long as it lasts.

So here's the deal. If you want to know what we really think of you, the answer is we don't, unless you're making yourself unavoidable or we're cleaning up your latest mess. We can safely rely on you to make astonishingly irresponsible choices and blame us for the consequences. And you'll demand we make good on them for you.

We won't take a chance on your sincerity ever again. Take it somewhere else, you have no credibility left with us. You're a net liability, predictable to the point of surety. So we attend to our own lives and our own problems. It's as it should be. We recommend it. As for you, frankly my dear, we don't give a damn.

http://woodpilereport.com/

 buchanan will show you why syria isn't what we've been told by 'our free press' and explore other aspects of our latest 'burning issue';

Is President Donald Trump about to intervene militarily in the Syrian civil war? For that is what he and his advisers seem to be signaling.
Last week, Trump said of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s campaign to recapture the last stronghold of the rebellion, Idlib province: “If it’s a slaughter, the world is going to get very, very angry. And the United States is going to get very angry, too.”
In a front-page story Monday, “Assad is Planning Chlorine Attack, U.S. Says,” The Wall Street Journal reports that, during a recent meeting, “President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib.”
Idlib contains three million civilians and refugees and 70,000 rebels, 10,000 of whom are al-Qaida.
Friday, The Washington Post reported that Trump is changing U.S. policy. America will not be leaving Syria any time soon.
The 2,200 U.S. troops in Syria will remain until we see “the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces and the establishment of a stable, non-threatening government acceptable to all Syrians.”
“We are not in a hurry to go,” said James Jeffrey, the retired Foreign Service officer brought back to handle the Syria account. “The new policy is we’re no longer pulling out by the end of the year.”
President Obama had a red line against Syria’s use of poison gas, which Trump enforced with bombing runs. Now we have a new red line. Said Jeffrey, the U.S. “will not tolerate an attack. Period.”


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/09/patrick-j-buchanan/is-trump-going-neocon-in-syria/