Archive for September, 2011


The Battle for Libya is FAR from Over!!

Thursday, 29 September 2011 20:12:52
A Nationwide Counter Offensive Against NATO-Al Qaeda-Rebels Is Building Across Oil-Rich Libya PDF Print
Wednesday, 28 September 2011 11:22
The easiest solution was to say to the colonial powers in the beginning to come and take the oil from our people and stop the aggression: Muammar Ghaddafi
Hamsayeh.net –  A nationwide pro-Ghaddafi resistance movement is slowly gaining momentum as NATO-Al Qaeda and Rebel forces desperately pound southern Libyan cities loyal to Ghaddafi.
US-NATO have dispatched around 1500 foreign Al Qaeda mercenaries from Afghanistan to Libya when several hundreds of rebels were killed during recent offensive on Sirte, bani-Walid, Sabha and other towns loyal to Muamar Ghaddafi.  Also the all important oil town of Ras Lanuf has been liberated by Ghaddafi forces and that oil exports by the National Transitional Council (NTC) – initially destined for western  colonial masters – should now come to a standstill.
In addition thousand of tribal fighters from Southern Sahara region are joining Ghaddafi forces and the beginning of a fierce counterattack against NATO-Al Qaeda-Rebel positions is reportedly taking shape with counterattacks to commence in the next few days..
Meanwhile Muammar Ghaddafi  has just delivered his latest radio message on Bani-Walid radio in which he promised to launch massive counteroffensive to liberate all of Libya.
The following is Muamar Ghaddafi’s latest speech posted on Mathaba website on Wednesday September 28, 2011.
Gaddafi’s Speech: Zero Hour will Inevitably Come
To Libya and its free people:
“Glory to you, greatest heroes of the Libyan people! You carry a proud blood of your ancestors!  They  were telling lies that Gaddafi is in Venezuela, and than in Niger, but I’m here with you. There are also servants of the colonialists among our people, which I’m ashamed of.
Hold on and be prepared on a daily basis. I’m receiving calls from all the cities of our Jamahiriya territory, and the zero hour will inevitably come. People who were martyred are eternal. They fought and died for their country to be free of colonialism and chains. Just as their fathers wished for in 1969. Forward! Forward!
The easiest solution was to say to the colonial powers in the beginning to come and take the oil from our people and stop the aggression. But the blood of my ancestors and my father and my children and my grandchildren and all the young children and Libyan women and Libyan men and Sheiks, blood of all who were martyred by the bombs in this aggression, pushed us to the path of defiance and rejection of colonialism.
We have said and continue to say: This is the oil of the Libyan people, not French or British. This food belongs to people. It is not my property nor theirs, it belongs to the people!
The resistors await the martyrdom of the heroes, a martyrdom which is true to the verse. To some of you who are waiting, do not be sad, because that will make you weak.  Be patient for victory. Libya is not the first country in the world to be attacked by the planes and fleets of the largest coalition in the history of the world.  But they overlooked the fact that Libya has a history and that Libyans are the greatest nation on earth in their resistance, persistence and defiance of the aggression! Libya will never be for traitors. Libya will be a hell for them, and a hell for NATO, the west and its agents!
LIBYA: DAVID CAMERON’S 2 BILLION POUND NIGHTMARE
By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

What do you get when a wannabe imperialist invents a war to get out of trouble at home, straying into deep waters that he neither controls nor understands, getting embroiled in an internecine tribal conflict that spins out of control? The answer to this question is the place where the UK’s David Cameron finds himself now: a 2-bn. pound nightmare.

Not so many months ago, we had David Cameron and William Hague declaring that the Libya Question was “not about removing Gaddafi” and that all it would take would be an immediate ceasefire from the Libyan Armed Forces. Not so many months ago we had David Cameron and William Hague declaring that the war would cost in the region of 200 million pounds, that there would be no NATO boots on the ground and that NATO would not arm the “rebels”.

What they did not tell us was that the French and Americans had been planning this imperialist little adventure for years–

What they did not tell us was that the rebel flags had been ordered well in advance from a British company–

What they did not tell us was that the entire operation was indeed to remove Colonel Gaddafi, not because he posed any threat to his “rebels” (after all, what do you do when tens of thousands of marauding thugs armed with machine guns take to the streets, decapitating Negroes, chanting racist slogans, promising to ethnically cleanse Libya of Negroes, torching government buildings, raping and killing women and children and destroying public and private property?)

They knew that the decision “to go in” had been taken long before the rebels strafed their own position to blame Colonel Gaddafi, they knew that their own media had been spreading lies about the Libyan Air Force bombing civilians – the one bombing civilians is NATO.

We saw the British reaction draconian measures – when a few hundred bored schoolkids ran amok in August. One wonders whether Cameron would simply have given up and walked away from Number Ten Downing Street if they had been armed, or if someone had done to his youth what he did to Libya’s.

What they did not tell us was that this entire charade is about removing Colonel Gaddafi from power because his humanitarian and developmental projects in Africa and his plan to launch a gold-based currency, the Gold Dinar, would be too costly for selfish western interests.

What Cameron and Hague did not tell you is that their forces are to spend seven times more of the British tax-payers’ money than they originally admitted – nearly two billion, or two thousand million or 2,000,000,000 pounds… on what?

I will tell you.
* They have strafed the Libyan water supply (war crime) to “break the back of the population”
* They have targeted the electricity grid (war crime)
* They have targeted private homes (war crime)
* They have taken out civilian structures with military equipment (war crime)
* They have murdered children (war crime, and they did not even apologise)
* They have targeted civilians (war crime).
* They then held a conference in Paris to divide up Libya’s assets.

What they have also not told you is that the Libyan Armed Forces are largely intact.

What they have not told you is that parts of Tripoli still fly the Green Flag (symbol of the Jamahiriya, the democratic government which Muammar al-Qathafi advises). What they do not tell you is that there are still green Marches in Benghazi.

What they do not tell you is that Mahmoud Jibril dare not enter Tripoli.

They do not tell you where Jalil (the number 2) came from.
They do not tell you the background of the TNC.
They do not tell you the tribes have voted for Gaddafi.
They do not tell you that the crack desert fighters.the Tuareg, who decide who crosses the desert and who does not, have sided with Muammar Gaddafi against the TNC,

They do not tell you that the Loyalists in Libya include the hearts and minds of the Libyan population whether or not they are taking up arms against the terrorists.
The NATO special forces and this scourge have frightened many into cowering in their homes – but this does not spell support, even tacitly.

They do not tell you they indeed have NATO boots on the ground, breaching UNSC resolutions. They have indeed armed the “rebels” (another breach of UNSC resolutions), and they have indeed employed mercenaries – hundreds of thousands of them (a huge breach of UNSC resolutions).

They have not told you that NATO and its terrorists have suffered defeat after defeat in recent weeks, are unable to enter Bani Walid, are unable to enter Sirte and the only tactic that remains open is by carpet-bombing any areas of resistance, including homes, hospitals and schools to bomb the terrorists in.

Is that noble? It is a war crime.

It is an act of terrorism and David Cameron and William Hague, along with their French friend Sarkozy and that American in the White House, are using YOUR hard-earned money to perpetrate this outrage, which is sure to cost the UK thousands of jobs as retaliatory measures kick in across Africa.

Sorry Mr. Templeton, we do not have any money for your mother’s cancer treatment, I am afraid she will have to die; sorry Mr. Johnson, there is no more funding for your son’s leukaemia treatment, we do have palliative care, do you know what that is? And as for your now hospital wing, new school, new clinic, a raspberry in your faces as Cameron and Hague stick the middle finger to their own people.

How long does David Cameron think the British population will accept it all with their heads bowed, like a sickening herd of sheep?

The British People will tell you…

“THE PLAN” Exposed Back in 1969!! A MUST READ!!


NWO Plans Exposed By Insider In 1969
8-26-11

New World System
 
This is a transcript of two out of three tapes on the “New World System.” Tapes one and two were recorded in 1988 and are the recollections of Dr. Lawrence Dunegan regarding a lecture he attended on March 20, 1969 at a meeting of the Pittsburgh Paediatric Society. The lecturer at that gathering of paediatricians (identified in tape three recorded in 1991) was a Dr. Richard Day (who died in 1989). At the time, Dr. Day was Professor of Paediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. Previously he had served as Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Dr. Dunegan was formerly a student of Dr. Day at the University of Pittsburgh and was well acquainted with him, though not intimately. He describes Dr. Day as an insider of the “Order” and although Dr. Dunegan’s memory was somewhat dimmed by the intervening years, he is able to provide enough details of the lecture to enable any enlightened person to discern the real purposes behind the trends of our time. This is a transcript of a loose, conversational monologue that makes for better listening than reading.
 
The transcripts of Tape 1 and Tape 2 have been very slightly edited to remove verbal mannerisms and to improve readability. 
The original unedited transcript may be found using the following link <http://100777.com/node/19>http://100777.com/node/19
Tape 3 is an interview by Randy Engel, Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life, with Dr. Larry Dunegan and was recorded on Oct. 10, 1991 in Pittsburgh, Penn.
This set of three audio tapes may be ordered from the Florida Pro-family Forum, P.O. Box 1059, Highland City, FL 33846-1059 ($20.00).
 
CONTENTS
 
IS THERE A POWER, A FORCE OR A GROUP OF MEN ORGANIZING AND REDIRECTING CHANGE?
 
EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE AND NOBODY CAN STOP US NOW
 
PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO CHANGE
 
THE REAL AND THE STATED GOALS
 
POPULATION CONTROL 
 
PERMISSION TO HAVE BABIES
 
REDIRECTING THE PURPOSE OF SEX 
 
CONTRACEPTION UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE TO ALL
 
SEX EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF WORLD GOVERNMENT
 
TAX FUNDED ABORTION AS POPULATION CONTROL
 
ENCOURAGING HOMOSEXUALITY 
 
TECHNOLOGY
 
FAMILIES TO DIMINISH IN IMPORTANCE
 
EUTHANASIA AND THE ‘DEMISE PILL’
 
LIMITING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE MEDICAL 
 
PLANNING THE CONTROL OVER MEDICINE
 
ELIMINATION OF PRIVATE DOCTORS
 
NEW DIFFICULT TO DIAGNOSE AND UNTREATABLE DISEASES
 
SUPPRESSING CANCER CURES AS A MEANS OF POPULATION CONTROL
 
INDUCING HEART ATTACKS AS A FORM OF ASSASSINATION
 
EDUCATION AS A TOOL FOR ACCELERATING ONSET OF PUBERTY AND EVOLUTION
 
BLENDING ALL RELIGIONS, THE OLD RELIGIONS WILL HAVE TO GO
 
CHANGING THE BIBLE THROUGH REVISIONS OF KEY WORDS
 
THE CHURCHES WILL HELP US
 
RESTRUCTURING EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF INDOCTRINATION
 
MORE TIME IN SCHOOLS, BUT THEY WOULDN’T LEARN ANYTHING
 
CONTROLLING WHO HAS ACCESS TO INFORMATION
 
SCHOOLS AS THE HUB OF THE COMMUNITY
 
BOOKS WOULD JUST DISAPPEAR FROM THE LIBRARIES
 
CHANGING LAWS
 
THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF DRUG ABUSE TO CREATE A JUNGLE ATMOSPHERE
 
ALCOHOL ABUSE
 
RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL
 
THE NEED FOR MORE JAILS, AND USING HOSPITALS AS JAILS
 
NO MORE SECURITY
 
CRIME USED TO MANAGE SOCIETY
 
CURTAILMENT OF AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL PRE-EMINENCE
 
SHIFTING POPULATIONS AND ECONOMIES – TEARING THE SOCIAL ROOTS
 
SPORTS AS A TOOL OF SOCIAL CHANGE
 
SEX AND VIOLENCE INCULCATED THROUGH ENTERTAINMENT
 
TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS AND IMPLANTED ID
 
FOOD CONTROL
 
WEATHER CONTROL
 
KNOW HOW PEOPLE RESPOND – MAKING THEM DO WHAT YOU WANT
 
FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
 
TERRORISM
 
FINANCIAL CONTROL
 
SURVEILLANCE, IMPLANTS, AND TELEVISIONS THAT WATCH YOU
 
HOME OWNERSHIP A THING OF THE PAST
 
THE ARRIVAL OF THE TOTALITARIAN GLOBAL SYSTEM
 
 
IS THERE A POWER, A FORCE OR A GROUP OF MEN ORGANIZING AND REDIRECTING CHANGE?
 
There has been much written, and much said, by some people who have looked at all the changes that have occurred in American society in the past 20 years or so, and who have looked retrospectively to earlier history of the United States, and indeed, of the world, and come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy of sorts which influences, indeed controls. major historical events, not only in the United States, but also around the world. This conspiratorial interpretation of history is based on people making observations from the outside, gathering evidence and concluding that from the outside they see a conspiracy. Their evidence and conclusions are based on evidence gathered in retrospect. I want to now describe what I heard from a speaker in 1969, which in several weeks will now be 20 years ago. The speaker did not speak in terms of retrospect, but rather predicting changes that would be brought about in the future. The speaker was not looking from the outside in, thinking that he saw conspiracy, rather, he was on the inside, admitting that, indeed, there was an organised power, force, group of men, who wielded enough influence to determine major events involving countries around the world. In addition, he predicted, or rather expounded on, changes that were planned for the remainder of this century. As you listen, if you can recall the situation, at least in the United States in 1969 and the few years there after, and then recall the kinds of changes which have occurred between then and now, almost 20 years later, I believe you will be impressed with the degree to which the things that were planned to be brought about have already been accomplished. Some of the things that were discussed were not intended to be accomplished yet by 1988. [Note: the year of this recording] but are intended to be accomplished before the end of this century. There is a timetable; and it was during this session that some of the elements of the timetable were brought out. Anyone who recalls early in the days of the Kennedy campaign when he spoke of progress in the decade of the 60’s”: That was kind of a cliché in those days – “the decade of the 60’s.” Well, by 1969 our speaker was talking about the decade of the 70’s, the decade of the 80’s, and the decade of the 90’s. Prior to that time, I don’t remember anybody saying “the decade of the 40’s and the decade of the 50’s. So I think this overall plan and timetable had taken important shape with more predictability to those who control it, sometime in the late 50’s. That’s speculation on my part. In any event, the speaker said that his purpose was to tell us about changes which would be brought about in the next 30 years or so, so that an entirely new world-wide system would be in operation before the turn of the century. As he put it, “We plan to enter the 21st Century with a running start.” [emphasis supplied]
 
EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE AND NOBODY CAN STOP US NOW
 
He said, as we listened to what he was about to present, “Some of you will think I’m talking about Communism. Well, what I’m talking about is much bigger than Communism!” At that time he indicated that there is much more co-operation between East and West than most people realise. In his introductory remarks, he commented that he was free to speak at this time. He would not have been able to say what he was about to say, even a few years earlier. But he was free to speak at this time because now, and I’m quoting here, “everything is in place and nobody can stop us now.” He went on to say that most people don’t understand how governments operate and even people in high positions in governments, including our own, don’t really understand how and where decisions are made. He went on to say that people who really influence decisions are names that for the most part would be familiar to most of us, but he would not use individuals’ names or names of any specific organisation. But that, if he did, most of the people would be names that were recognised by most of his audience. He went on to say that they were not primarily people in public office, but people of prominence who were primarily known in their private occupations or private positions. The speaker was Dr. Richard Day, a doctor of medicine and a former professor at a large Eastern university, and he was addressing a group of doctors of medicine, about 80 in number. His name would not be widely recognised by anybody likely to hear this. The only purpose in recording this is that it may give a perspective to those who hear it regarding the changes which have already been accomplished in the past 20 years or so, and a bit of a preview to what at least some people are planning for the remainder of this century, so that they would enter the 21st Century with a flying start. Some of us may not enter that Century. His purpose in telling our group about these changes that were to be brought about was to make it easier for us to adapt to these changes. Indeed, as he quite accurately said, “they would be changes that would be very surprising, and in some ways difficult for people to accept,” and he hoped that we, as sort of his friends, would make the adaptation more easily if we knew somewhat beforehand what to expect.
 
PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO CHANGE
 
Somewhere in the introductory remarks he insisted that nobody have a tape recorder and that nobody take notes, which for a professor was a very remarkable kind of thing to expect from an audience. Something in his remarks suggested that there could be negative repercussions against him if it became widely known that indeed he had spilled the beans, so to speak. When I first heard that, I thought maybe that was sort of an ego trip, somebody enhancing his own importance. But as the revelations unfolded, I began to understand why he might have had some concern about not having it widely known what was said although this was a fairly public forum where he was speaking. Nonetheless, he asked that no notes be taken, no tape recording be used. This was suggesting there might be some personal danger to himself if these revelations were widely publicised. Again, as the remarks began to unfold, and heard the rather outrageous things that were said, I made it a point to try to remember as much of what he said as I could and to connect my recollections to simple events around me to aid my memory for the future, in case I wanted to do what I’m doing now – recording this. I also wanted to try to maintain a perspective on what would be developing, if indeed, it followed the predicted pattern – which it has! At this point, so that I don’t forget to include it later, I’ll just include some statements that were made from time to time throughout the presentation. One of the statements was having to do with change. The statement was, “People will have to get used to the idea of change, so used to change, that they’ll be expecting change. Nothing will be permanent.” This often came out in the context of a society where people seemed to have no roots or moorings, but would be passively willing to accept change simply because it was all they had ever known. This was sort of in contrast to generations of people up until this time where certain things you expected to be, and remain in place as reference points for your life. So change was to be brought about, change was to be anticipated and expected, and accepted, no questions asked. Another comment that was made from time to time during the presentation was. “People are too trusting, people don’t ask the right questions.” Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb. But sometimes when he would say that “People don’t ask the right questions,” it was almost with a sense of regret as if he were uneasy with what he was part of, and wished that people would challenge it and maybe not be so trusting.
 
THE REAL AND THE STATED GOALS
 
Another comment that was repeated from time to time, particularly in relation to changing laws and customs was, “Everything has two purposes. One is the ostensible purpose which will make it acceptable to people and second is the real purpose which would further the goals of establishing the new system. Frequently he would say, “There is just no other way, there’s just no other way!” This seemed to come as a sort of an apology, particularly at the conclusion of describing some particularly offensive changes. For example, the promotion of drug addiction which we’ll get into later.
 
POPULATION CONTROL
 
He was very active with population control groups, the population control movement, and population control was really the entry point into specifics following the introduction. He said the population is growing too fast. Numbers of people living at any one time on the planet must be limited or we will run out of space to live. We will outgrow our food supply and will pollute the world with our waste.
 
PERMISSION TO HAVE BABIES
 
People won’t be allowed to have babies just because they want to or because they are careless. Most families would be limited to two. Some people would be allowed only one, however outstanding people might be selected and allowed to have three. But most people would be allowed to have only two babies. That’s because the zero population growth rate is 2.1 children per completed family. So something like every 10th family might be allowed the privilege of the third baby. To me, up to this point, the words ‘population control’ primarily connoted limiting the number of babies to be born. But this remark about what people would be ‘allowed’ and then what followed, made it quite clear that when you hear ‘population control’ that means more than just controlling births. It means control of every endeavour of an entire world population; a much broader meaning to that term than I had ever attached to it before hearing this. As you listen and reflect back on some of the things you hear, you will begin to recognise how one aspect dovetails with other aspects in terms of controlling human endeavours.
 
REDIRECTING THE PURPOSE OF SEX
 
Well, from population control, the natural next step then was sex. He said sex must be separated from reproduction. Sex is too pleasurable, and the urges are too strong, to expect people to give it up. Chemicals in food and in the water supply to reduce the sex drive are not practical. The strategy then would be not to diminish sex activity, but to increase sex activity, but in such a way, that people won’t be having babies.
 
CONTRACEPTION UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE TO ALL
 
The first consideration here was contraception. Contraception would be very strongly encouraged, and it would be connected closely in people’s minds with sex. They would automatically think contraception when they were thinking or preparing for sex, and contraception would be made universally available. Contraceptives would be displayed much more prominently in drug stores, right up with the cigarettes and chewing gum. Out in the open rather than hidden under the counter where people would have to ask for them and maybe be embarrassed. This kind of openness was a way of suggesting that contraceptives are just as much a part of life as any other items sold in the store. Contraceptives would be advertised and also dispensed in the schools in association with sex education!
 
SEX EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF WORLD GOVERNMENT
 
The sex education was to get kids interested early, making the connection between sex and the need for contraception early in their lives, even before they became very active. At this point I was recalling some of my teachers, particularly in high school and found it totally unbelievable to think of them agreeing, much less participating in, and distributing of contraceptives to students. But, that only reflected my lack of understanding of how these people operate. That was before the school-based clinic programs got started. Many cities in the United States by this time have already set up school-based clinics, which are primarily contraception, birth control, population control clinics. The idea then is that the connection between sex and contraception introduced and reinforced in school would carry over into marriage. Indeed, if young people when they matured decided to get married, marriage itself would be diminished in importance. He indicated some recognition that most people probably would want to be married, but this certainly would not be any longer considered necessary for sexual activity.
 
TAX FUNDED ABORTION AS POPULATION CONTROL
 
No surprise then that the next item was abortion. And this, now back in 1969, four years before Roe vs. Wade, he said, “Abortion will no longer be a crime.” Abortion will be accepted as normal, and would be paid for by taxes for people who could not pay for their own abortions. Contraceptives would be made available by tax money so that nobody would have to do without contraceptives. If school sex programs would lead to more pregnancies in children, that was really seen as no problem. Parents who think they are opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds will change their minds when it is their own child who is pregnant. So this will help overcome opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards will still refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they won’t matter anymore.
 
 
ENCOURAGING HOMOSEXUALITY 
 
“People will be given permission to be homosexual,” that’s the way it was stated. They won’t have to hide it. In addition, elderly people will be encouraged to continue to have active sex lives into the very old ages, just as long as they can. Everyone will be given permission to have sex, to enjoy however they want. Anything goes. This is the way it was put. In addition, I remember thinking, “How arrogant for this individual, or whoever he represents, to feel that they can give or withhold permission for people to do things!” But that was the terminology that was used. In this regard, clothing was mentioned. Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative. Back in 1969 was the time of the mini skirt, when those mini-skirts were very, very high and very revealing. He said, “It is not just the amount of skin that is exposed that makes clothing sexually seductive, but other, more subtle things are often suggestive.” Things like movement, and the cut of clothing, and the kind of fabric, the positioning of accessories on the clothing. “If a woman has an attractive body, why should she not show it?” was one of the statements. There was no detail on what was meant by ‘provocative clothing’, but since that time if you watched the change in clothing styles, blue jeans are cut in a way that they’re more tight-fitting in the crotch. They form wrinkles. Wrinkles are essentially arrows. Lines which direct one’s vision to certain anatomic areas. This was around the time of the ‘burn your bra’ activity. He indicated that a lot of women should not go without a bra. They need a bra to be attractive, so instead of banning bras and burning them, bras would come back. But they would be thinner and softer allowing more natural movement. It was not specifically stated, but certainly, a very thin bra is much more revealing of the nipple and what else is underneath, than the heavier bras that were in style up to that time.
 
TECHNOLOGY
 
Earlier he said that sex and reproduction would be separated. You would have sex without reproduction and then technology was reproduction without sex. This would be done in the laboratory. He indicated that already much, much research was underway about making babies in the laboratory. There was some elaboration on that, but I don’t remember the details. How much of that technology has come to my attention since that time. I don’t remember in a way that I can distinguish what was said from what I subsequently have learned as general medical information.
 
FAMILIES TO DIMINISH IN IMPORTANCE
 
Families would be limited in size. We already alluded to not being allowed more than two children. Divorce would be made easier and more prevalent. Most people who marry will marry more than once. More people will not marry. Unmarried people would stay in hotels and even live together. That would be very common – nobody would even ask questions about it. It would be widely accepted as no different from married people being together. More women will work outside the home. More men will be transferred to other cities and in their jobs, more men would travel. Therefore, it would be harder for families to stay together. This would tend to make the marriage relationship less stable and, therefore, tend to make people less willing to have babies. The extended families would be smaller, and more remote. Travel would be easier, less expensive, for a while, so that people who did have to travel would feel they could get back to their families, not that they were abruptly being made remote from their families. But one of the net effects of easier divorce laws combined with the promotion of travel, and transferring families from one city to another, was to create instability in the families. If both husband and wife are working and one partner is transferred, the other one may not be easily transferred. Soon, either gives up his or her job and stays behind while the other leaves, or else gives up the job and risks not finding employment in the new location. Rather a diabolical approach to this whole thing!
 
EUTHANASIA AND THE ‘DEMISE PILL’
 
Everybody has a right to live only so long. The old are no longer useful. They become a burden. You should be ready to accept death. Most people are. An arbitrary age limit could be established. After all, you have a right to only so many steak dinners, so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in life. After you have had enough of them and you’re no longer productive, working, and contributing, then you should be ready to step aside for the next generation. Some things that would help people realise that they had lived long enough, he mentioned several of these. I don’t remember them all but here are a few, the use of very pale printing ink on forms that people are necessary to fill out. Older people wouldn’t be able to read the pale ink as easily and would need to go to younger people for help. Automobile traffic patterns, there would be more high-speed traffic lanes that older people with their slower reflexes would have trouble dealing with and thus, loses some of their independence.
 
LIMITING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE MEDICAL 
 
A big item that was elaborated on at some length was the cost of medical care would be made burdensomely high. Medical care would be connected very closely with one’s work but also would be made very, very high in cost so that it would simply be unavailable to people beyond a certain time. Unless they had a remarkably rich, supporting family, they would just have to do without care. And the idea was that if everybody says, “Enough! What a burden it is on the young to try to maintain the old people,” then the young would become agreeable to helping Mom and Dad along the way, provided this was done humanely and with dignity. Then the example was – there could be a nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good job. Then after the party’s over they take the ‘demise pill’.
 
PLANNING THE CONTROL OVER MEDICINE
 
The next topic is Medicine. There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled. The observation that was made in 1969 that, “Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance, is now, abundantly evident. But it’s not necessary, we have other ways to control health care”. These would come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work. If you don’t work or can’t work, you won’t have access to medical care. The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where it was virtually non-existent. Costs would be forced up so that people won’t be able to afford to go without insurance. People pay for it, you’re entitled to it. It was only subsequently that I began to realise the extent to which you would not be paying for it. Your medical care would be paid for by others. Therefore, you would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was offered to you as a privilege. Your role being responsible for your own care would be diminished. As an aside here, this is not something that was developed at that time; I didn’t understand it at the time that it was an aside.
 
The way this works, everybody has made dependent on insurance and if you don’t have insurance then you pay directly; the cost of your care is enormous. The insurance company, however, paying for your care, does not pay that same amount. If you are charged, say, $600 for the use of an operating room, the insurance company does not pay $600; they only pay $300 or $400. That differential in billing has the desired effect: It enables the insurance company to pay for that which you could never pay for. They get a discount that’s unavailable to you. When you see your bill you’re grateful that the insurance company could do that. And in this way you are dependent, and virtually required to have insurance. The whole billing is fraudulent. Access to hospitals would be tightly controlled and identification would be needed to get into the building. The security in and around hospitals would be established and gradually increased so that nobody without identification could get in or move around inside the building. Theft of hospital equipment, things like typewriters and microscopes and so forth would be ‘allowed’ and exaggerated; reports of it would be exaggerated so that this would be the excuse needed to establish the need for strict security until people got used to it. Anybody moving about the hospital would be required to wear an identification badge with a photograph and telling why he was there, employee or lab technician or visitor or whatever. This is to be brought in gradually, getting everybody used to the idea of identifying themselves – until it was just accepted. This need for ID to move about would start in small ways: hospitals, some businesses, but gradually expand to include everybody in all places! It was observed that hospitals can be used to confine people and for the treatment of criminals. This did not mean, necessarily, medical treatment. At that time I did not know the term ‘Psycho-Prison’ ­ they are in the Soviet Union, but, without trying to recall all the details, basically, he was describing the use of hospitals both for treating the sick, and for confinement of criminals for reasons other than the medical well-being of the criminal. The definition of criminal was not given.
 
ELIMINATION OF PRIVATE DOCTORS
 
The image of the doctor would change. No longer would he be seen as an individual professional in service to individual patients. But the doctor would be gradually recognized as a highly skilled technician – and his job would change. The job is to include things like executions by lethal injection. The image of the doctor being a powerful, independent person would have to be changed. He went on to say, “Doctors are making entirely too much money. They should advertise like any other product.” Lawyers would be advertising too. Keep in mind, this was an audience of doctors; being addressed by a doctor. And it was interesting that he would make some rather insulting statements to his audience without fear of antagonizing us. The solo practitioner would become a thing of the past. A few die-hards might try to hold out, but most doctors would be employed by an institution of one kind or another. Group practice would be encouraged, corporations would be encouraged, and then once the corporate image of medical care gradually became more and more acceptable, doctors would more and more become employees rather than independent contractors. Along with that, of course, unstated but necessary, is the employee serves his employer, not his patient. So we’ve already seen quite a lot of that in the last 20 years. And apparently more on the horizon. The term HMO was not used at that time, but as you look at HMO’s you see this is the way that medical care is being taken over since the National Health Insurance approach did not get through the Congress. A few die-hard doctors may try to make a go of it, remaining in solo practice, remaining independent, which, parenthetically, is me but they would suffer a great loss of income. They’d be able to scrape by, maybe, but never really live comfortably as would those who were willing to become employees of the system. Ultimately, there would be no room at all for the solo practitioner after the system is entrenched.
 
NEW DIFFICULT TO DIAGNOSE AND UNTREATABLE DISEASES
 
The next heading to talk about is Health and Disease. He said there would be new diseases to appear which had not ever been seen before. Would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable – at least for along time. No elaboration was made on this, but I remember, not long after hearing this presentation, when I had a puzzling diagnosis to make, I would be wondering, “Is this a case of what he was talking about?” Some years later AIDS developed. I think AIDS was at least one example of what he was talking about. I now think that AIDS probably was a manufactured disease.
 
SUPPRESSING CANCER CURES AS A MEANS OF POPULATION CONTROL
 
Cancer. He said. “We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it’s ever decided that it should be released. But consider – if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as of something else.” Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more toward comfort than toward cure. There was some statement that ultimately the cancer cures which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to light because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these efforts to suppress them. But at least for the time being, letting people die of cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of overpopulation.
 
INDUCING HEART ATTACKS AS A FORM OF ASSASSINATION
 
Another very interesting thing was heart attacks. He said, “There is now a way to simulate a real heart attack. It can be used as a means of assassination.” Only a very skilled pathologist who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish this from the real thing. I thought that was a very surprising and shocking thing to hear from this particular man at that particular time. This, and the business of the cancer cure, really still stand out sharply in my memory, because they were so shocking and, at that time, seemed to me out of character. He then went on to talk about nutrition and exercise sort of in the same framework. People would have to eat right and exercise right to live as long as before. Most won’t. This in the connection of nutrition, there was no specific statement that I can recall as to particular nutrients that would be either inadequate or in excess. In retrospect, I tend to think he meant high salt diets and high fat diets would predispose toward high blood pressure and premature arteriosclerotic heart disease. And that if people who were too dumb or too lazy to exercise as they should then their circulating fats go up and predispose to disease. He also said something about diet information would be widely available, but most people, particularly stupid people, who had no right to continue living anyway, would ignore the advice and just go on and eat what was convenient and tasted good. There were some other unpleasant things said about food. I just can’t recall what they were. But I do remember having reflections about wanting to plant a garden in the backyard to get around whatever these contaminated foods would be. I regret I don’t remember the details about nutrition and hazardous nutrition.
 
With regard to exercise, he went on to say that more people would be exercising more, especially running, because everybody can run. You don’t need any special equipment or place. You can run wherever you are. As he put it. “people will be running all over the place.” And in this vein, he pointed out how supply produces demand. And this was in reference to athletic clothing and equipment. As this would be made more widely available and glamorised, particularly as regards running shoes, this would stimulate people to develop an interest in running as part of a whole sort of public propaganda campaign. People would be encouraged then to buy the attractive sports equipment and to get into exercise. In connection with nutrition he also mentioned that public eating places would rapidly increase. That this had a connection with the family too. As more and more people eat out, eating at home would become less important. People would be less dependent on their kitchens at home. And then this also connected to convenience foods being made widely available – things like you could pop into the microwave. Whole meals would be available pre-fixed. And of course we’ve now seen this. But this whole different approach to eating out and to previously prepared meals being eaten in the home was predicted at that time to be brought about. The convenience foods would be part of the hazards. Anybody who was lazy enough to want the convenience foods rather than fixing his own also had better be energetic enough to exercise. Because if he was too lazy to exercise and too lazy to fix his own food, then he didn’t deserve to live very long. This was all presented as sort of a moral judgement about people and what they should do with their energies. People who are smart, who would learn about nutrition, and who are disciplined enough to eat right and exercise right are better people – and the kind you want to live longer.
 
EDUCATION AS A TOOL FOR ACCELERATING ONSET OF PUBERTY AND EVOLUTION
 
Somewhere along in here there was also something about accelerating the onset of puberty. And this was said in connection with health, and later in connection with education, and connecting to accelerating the process of evolutionary change. There was a statement that “we think that we can push evolution faster and in the direction we want it to go.” I remember this only as a general statement. I don’t recall if any details were given beyond that.
 
BLENDING ALL RELIGIONS
 
Another area of discussion was Religion. This is an avowed atheist speaking. He said, “Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it’s mysteries and rituals – so they will have religion. But the major religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down, the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept , and feel at home. Most people won’t be too concerned with religion. They will realise that they don’t need it.”
 
CHANGING THE BIBLE THROUGH REVISIONS OF KEY WORDS
 
In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word – and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasised. and then gradually that word replaced with another word.” I don’t know if I’m making that clear, but the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. The variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won’t know the difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, “the few who do notice the difference won’t be enough to matter.”
 
THE CHURCHES WILL HELP US
 
Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, “Some of you probably think the Churches won’t stand for this,” and he went on to say, “the churches will help us!” There was no elaboration on this, it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said, “the churches will help us!” In retrospect I think some of us now can understand what he might have meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, “no they won’t!” and remembering our Lord’s words where he said to Peter, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” So yes, some people in the Churches might help and in the subsequent 20 years we’ve seen how some people in Churches have helped. But we also know that our Lord’s Words will stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail.
 
RESTRUCTURING EDUCATION AS A TOOL OF INDOCTRINATION
 
Another area of discussion was Education. In connection with education and remembering what he said about religion, was in addition to changing the Bible he said that the classics in Literature would be changed. I seem to recall Mark Twain’s writings was given as one example. But he said that the casual reader reading a revised version of a classic would never even suspect that there was any change. Somebody would have to go through word by word to even recognise that any change was made in these classics, the changes would be so subtle. But the changes would be such as to promote the acceptability of the new system.
 
MORE TIME IN SCHOOLS, BUT THEY WOULDN’T LEARN ANYTHING
 
As regards education, he indicated that kids would spend more time in schools, but in many schools they wouldn’t learn anything. They’ll learn some things, but not as much as formerly. Better schools in better areas with better people, their kids will learn more. In the better schools Iearning would be accelerated. This is another time where he said, “We think we can push evolution.” By pushing kids to learn more he seemed to be suggesting that their brains would evolve, that their offspring would evolve; sort of pushing evolution where kids would learn and be more intelligent at a younger age. As if this pushing would alter their physiology. Overall, schooling would be prolonged. This meant prolonged through the school year. I’m not sure what he said about a long school day, I do remember he said that school was planned to go all summer, that the summer school vacation would become a thing of the past. Not only for schools, but for other reasons. People would begin to think of vacation times year round, not just in the summer. For most people it would take longer to complete their education. To get what originally had been in a bachelor’s program would now require advanced degrees and more schooling. So that a lot of school time would be just wasted time. Good schools would become more competitive. I inferred when he said that, that he was including all schools – elementary up through college – but I don’t recall if he actually said that. Students would have to decide at a younger age what they would want to study and get onto their track early. It would be harder to change to another field of study once you get started. Studies would be concentrated in much greater depth, but narrowed. You wouldn’t have access to material in other fields, outside your own area of study, without approval. This seem to be more where he talked about limited access to other fields. I seem to recall this as being more at the college level perhaps. People would be very specialised in their own area of expertise. But they won’t be able to get a broad education and won’t be able to understand what is going on overall.
 
CONTROLLING WHO HAS ACCESS TO INFORMATION
 
He was already talking about computers in education, and at that time he said anybody who
wanted computer access, or access to books that were not directly related to their field of study would have to have a very good reason for so doing. Otherwise, access would be denied.
 
SCHOOLS AS THE HUB OF THE COMMUNITY
 
Another angle was that the schools would become more important in people’s overall life. Kids in addition to their academics would have to get into school activities unless they wanted to feel completely out of it. But spontaneous activities among kids; the thing that came to my mind when I heard this was – sand lot football and sand lot baseball teams that we worked up as kids growing up. I said the kids wanting any activities outside of school would be almost forced to get them through the school. There would be few opportunities outside. Now the pressures of the accelerated academic program, the accelerated demands where kids would feel they had to be part of something – one or another athletic club or some school activity – these pressures he recognized would cause some students to burn out. He said. “The smartest ones will learn how to cope with pressures and to survive. There will be some help available to students in handling stress, but the unfit won’t be able to make it. They will then move on to other things.” In this connection and later on with drug abuse and alcohol abuse he indicated that psychiatric services to help would be increased dramatically. In all the pushing for achievement, it was recognized that many people would need help, and the people worth keeping around would be able to accept and benefit from that help, and still be super achievers. Those who could not would fall by the wayside and therefore were sort of dispensable ­ ‘expendable’ I guess is the word I want. Education would be lifelong and adults would be going to school. There’ll always be new information that adults must have to keep up. When you can’t keep up anymore, you’re too old. This was another way of letting older people know that the time had come for them to move on and take the demise pill. If you got too tired to keep up with your education, or you got too old to learn new information, then this was a signal – you begin to prepare to get ready to step aside.
 
SOME BOOKS WOULD JUST DISAPPEAR FROM THE LIBRARIES
 
In addition to revising the classics, which I alluded to awhile ago and with revising the Bible, he said, “Some books would just disappear from the libraries.” This was in the vein that some books contain information or contain ideas that should not be kept around. Therefore, those books would disappear. I don’t remember exactly if he said how this was to be accomplished. But I seem to recall carrying away this idea that this would include thefts. That certain people would be designated to go to certain libraries and pick up certain books and just get rid of them. Not necessarily as a matter of policy – just simply steal it. Further down the line, not everybody will be allowed to own books. And some books nobody will be allowed to own.
 
CHANGING LAWS
 
Another area of discussion was laws that would be changed. At that time a lot of States had blue laws about Sunday sales, certain Sunday activities. He said the blue laws [Sunday laws] would all be repealed. Gambling laws would be repeated or relaxed, so that gambling would be increased. He indicated then that governments would get into gambling. We’ve had a lot of state lotteries pop up around the country since then. And, at the time, we were already being told that would be the case. “Why should all that gambling money be kept in private hands when the State would benefit from it?” was the rational behind it. But people should be able to gamble if they want to. So it would become a civil activity, rather than a private, or illegal activity. Bankruptcy laws would be changed. I don’t remember the details, but just that they would be. And I know subsequent to that time they have been. Antitrust laws would be changed, or be interpreted differently, or both. In connection with the changing anti-trust laws, there was some statement that in a sense competition would be increased. But this would be increased competition within otherwise controlled circumstances. So it’s not a free competition. I recall of having the impression that it was like competition but within members of a club. There would be nobody outside the club who would be able to compete. Like teams competing within a professional sports league; if you’re the NFL or the American or National Baseball Leagues – you compete within the league but the league is all in agreement on what the rules of competition are – not a really free competition.
 
THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF DRUG ABUSE TO CREATE A JUNGLE ATMOSPHERE
 
Drug use would he increased. Alcohol use would be increased. Law enforcement efforts against drugs would be increased. On first hearing that it sounded like a contradiction. Why increase drug abuse and simultaneously increase law enforcement against drug abuse? But the idea is that, in part, the increased availability of drugs would provide a sort of law of the jungle whereby the weak and the unfit would be selected out. There was a statement made at the time: “Before the earth was overpopulated, there was a law of the jungle where only the fittest survived. You had to be able to protect yourself against the elements and wild animals and disease, but if you were fit you survived. But now we’ve become so civilised – we’re over civilised – and the unfit are enabled to survive only at the expense of those who are more fit.” The abuse of drugs would restore, in a certain sense, the law of the jungle and selection of the fittest for survival. News about drug abuse and law enforcement efforts would tend to keep drugs in the public consciousness. And would also tend to reduce this unwarranted American complacency that the world is a safe place, and a nice place.
 
ALCOHOL ABUSE
 
The same thing would happen with alcohol. Alcohol abuse would be both promoted and demoted at the same time. The vulnerable and the weak would respond to the promotions and therefore use and abuse more alcohol. Drunk driving would become more of a problem; and stricter rules about driving under the influence would be established so that more and more people would lose their privilege to drive. Again, much more in the way of psychological services would be made available to help those who got hooked on drugs and alcohol. The idea being, that in order to promote this – drug and alcohol are used to screen out some of the unfit – people who otherwise are pretty good would also be subject to getting hooked. And if they were really worth their salt they would have enough sense to seek psychological counselling and to benefit from it. So this was presented as sort of a redeeming value on the part of the planners. It was as if he was saying, “You think we’re bad in promoting these evil things – but look how nice we are – we’re also providing a way out!”
 
RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL
 
This also had connection with something we’ll get to later about overall restrictions on travel. Not everybody should be free to travel the way they do now in the United States. People don’t have a need to travel that way. It’s a privilege! It was kind of the high-handed the way it was put.
 
THE NEED FOR MORE JAILS, AND USING HOSPITALS AS JAILS
More jails would be needed. Hospitals could serve as jails. Some new hospital construction would be designed so as to make them adaptable to jail-like use.
 
End of Tape 1
 
TAPE 2
 
NO MORE SECURITY
 
Nothing is permanent. Streets would be re-routed and renamed. Areas you had not seen in a while would become unfamiliar. Among other things, this would contribute to older people feeling that it was time to move on, they feel they couldn’t even keep up with the changes in areas that were once familiar. Buildings would be allowed to stand empty and deteriorate, and streets would be allowed to deteriorate in certain localities. The purpose of this was to provide the jungle, the depressed atmosphere for the unfit. Somewhere in this same connection he mentioned that buildings and bridges would be made so that they would collapse after a while, there would be more accidents involving aeroplanes and railroads and automobiles. All of this to contribute to the feeling of insecurity, that nothing was safe. Not too long after this presentation, and I think one or two even before in the area where I live, we had a newly constructed bridge break. Another newly constructed bridge defect was discovered before it too broke. I remember reading just scattered incidents around the country where shopping malls would fall in right where they were filled with shoppers. I also remember that one of the shopping malls in our area, the first building I’d ever been in where you could feel this vibration throughout the entire building when there were a lot of people in there. I remember wondering at that time whether this shopping mall was one of the buildings he was talking about. Talking to construction people and architects about it they would say, “Oh no, that’s good when the building vibrates like that, that means it’s flexible not rigid.” Well, maybe so, we’ll wait and see. Other areas there would be well maintained. Not every part of the city would be slums.
 
CRIME USED TO MANAGE SOCIETY
 
There would be the created slums and other areas well maintained. Those people able to leave the slums for better areas then would learn to better appreciate the importance of human accomplishment. This meant that if they left the jungle and came to civilisation, so to speak, they could be proud of their own accomplishments that they made it. There was no related sympathy for those who were left behind in the jungle of drugs and deteriorating neighbourhoods. Then a statement that was kind of surprising, “We think we can effectively limit crime to the slum areas, so it won’t be spread heavily into better areas”. I should maybe point out here that these are obviously not word for word quotations after 20 years, but where I say that I am quoting, I am giving the general drift of what was said close to word for word, perhaps not precisely so. I remember wondering, how can he be so confident that the criminal element is going to stay where he wants it to stay? But he went on to say that increased security would be needed in the better areas. That would mean more police, better co-ordinated police efforts. He did not say so, but I wondered at that time about the moves that were afoot to consolidate all the police departments of suburbs around the major cities. I think the John Birch Society was one that was saying “Support your local police, don’t let them be consolidated.” I remember wondering if that was one of the things he had in mind about security. It was not explicitly stated. Anyhow he went on to say there would be a whole new industry of residential security systems to develop with alarms and locks and alarms going into the police department so that people could protect their wealth and their well being. Because some of the criminal activity would spill out of the slums into better, more affluent looking areas that looked like they would be worth burglarizing. And again it was stated like it was a redeeming quality: See we’re generating all this more crime but look how good we are – we’re also generating the means for you to protect yourself against the crime. A sort of repeated thing throughout this presentation was the recognised evil and then the self forgiveness thing, “See we’ve given you a way out.”
 
CURTAILMENT OF AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL PRE-EMINENCE
 
American industry came under discussion – it was the first that I’d heard the term global interdependence or that notion. The stated plan was that different parts of the world would be assigned different roles of industry and commerce in a unified global system. The continued pre-eminence of the United States and the relative independence and self-sufficiency of the United States would have to be changed. This was one of the several times that he said in order to create a new structure, you first have to tear down the old, and American industry was one example of that. Our system would have to be curtailed in order to give other countries a chance to build their industries, because otherwise they would not be able to compete against the United States. This was especially true of our heavy industries that would be cut back while the same industries were being developed in other countries, notably Japan. At this point there was some discussion of steel and particularly automobiles – I remember saying that automobiles would be imported from Japan on an equal footing with our own domestically produced automobiles, but the Japanese product would be better. Things would be made so they would break and fall apart, that is in the United States. so that people would tend to prefer the imported variety and this would give a bit of a boost to foreign competitors.
 
One example was the Japanese. In 1969 Japanese automobiles, if they were sold here at all I don’t remember, but they certainly weren’t very popular. But the idea was you could get a little bit disgusted with your Ford, GM or Chrysler product or whatever because little things like window handles would fall off more and plastic parts would break which had they been made of metal would hold up. Your patriotism about buying American would soon give way to practicality that if you bought Japanese, German or imported that it would last longer and you would be better off. Patriotism would go down the drain. It was mentioned elsewhere things being made to fall apart too. I don’t remember specific items or if they were even stated other than automobiles, but I do recall of having the impression, sort of in my imagination, of a surgeon having something fall apart in his hands in the operating room at a critical time. Was he including this sort of thing in his discussion? But somewhere in this discussion about things being made deliberately defective and unreliable not only was to tear down patriotism but to be just a little source of irritation to people who would use such things. Again the idea that you not feel terribly secure, promoting the notion that the world isn’t a terribly reliable place. The United States was to be kept strong in information, communications, high technology, education and agriculture. The United States was seen as continuing to be sort of the keystone of this global system. But heavy industry would be transported out. One of the comments made about heavy industry was that we had had enough environmental damage from smoke stacks and industrial waste. Other people could put up with that for a while. This again was supposed to be a redeeming quality for Americans to accept. You took away our industry but you saved our environment. So we really didn’t lose on it.
 
SHIFTING POPULATIONS AND ECONOMIES – TEARING THE SOCIAL ROOTS
 
And along this line there were talks about people losing their jobs as a result of industry and opportunities for retraining, and particularly population shifts would be brought about. This is sort of an aside. I think I’ll explore the aside before I forget it. Population shifts were to be brought about so that people would be tending to move into the Sun Belt. They would be the sort of people without roots in their new locations, and traditions are easier to change in a place where there are a lot of transplanted people, as compared to trying to change traditions in a place where people grew up and had an extended family, and had roots. Things like new medical care systems, if you pick up from a Northeast industrial city and you transplant yourself to the South Sunbelt or Southwest, you’ll be more accepting of whatever kind of, for example, controlled medical care you find there than you would accept a change in the medical care system where you had roots and the support of your family. Also in this vein was mentioned (he used the plural personal pronoun we) we take control first of the port cities – New York, San Francisco, Seattle – the idea being that this is a piece of strategy, the idea being that if you control the port cities with your philosophy and your way of life, the heartland in between has to yield. I can’t elaborate more on that but it is interesting. The heartland, the Midwest, does seem to have maintained its conservatism. But as you take away industry and jobs and relocate people then this is a strategy to break down conservatism. When you take away industry and people are unemployed and poor they will accept whatever change seems, to offer them survival, and their morals and their commitment to things will all give way to survival. That’s not my philosophy, that’s the speaker’s philosophy. Anyhow, going back to industry, some heavy industry would remain, just enough to maintain a sort of a seed bed of industrial skills which could be expanded if the plan didn’t work out as it was intended. So the country would not be devoid of assets and skills. But this was just sort of a contingency plan. It was hoped and expected that the world-wide specialisation would be carried on. But, perhaps repeating myself, one of the upshots of all of this is that with this ‘global interdependence’ the national identities would tend to be de-emphasised. Each area depended on every other area for one or another elements of its life. We would all become citizens of the world rather than citizens of any one country.
 
SPORTS AS A TOOL OF SOCIAL CHANGE
 
And along these lines then we can talk about sports. Sports in the United States was to be changed, in part as a way of de-emphasising nationalism. Soccer, a world-wide sport, was to be emphasised and pushed in the United States. This was of interest because in this area the game of soccer was virtually unknown at that time. I had a few friends who attended an elementary school other than the one I attended where they played soccer and they were a real novelty. This was back in the 50’s. So to hear this man speak of soccer in this area was kind of surprising. Anyhow, soccer is seen as an international sport and would be promoted and the traditional sport of American baseball would be de-emphasised and possibly eliminated because it might be seen as too American. And he discussed eliminating this. One’s first reaction would be – well, they pay the players poorly and they don’t want to play for poor pay so they give up baseball and go into some other sport or some other activity. But he said that’s really not how it works. Actually, the way to break down baseball would be to make the salaries go very high. The idea behind this was that as the salaries got ridiculously high there would be a certain amount of discontent and antagonism as people resented the athletes being paid so much, and the athletes would begin more and more to resent among themselves what other players were paid and would tend to abandon the sport. And these high salaries also could break the owners and alienate the fans. And then the fans would support soccer and the baseball fields could be used as soccer fields. It wasn’t said definitely this would have to happen, but if the international flavour didn’t come around rapidly enough this could be done.
 
There was some comment along the same lines about football, although I seem to recall he said football would be harder to dismantle because it was so widely played in colleges as well as in the professional leagues and would be harder to tear down. There was something else also about the violence in football that met a psychological need that was perceived, and people have a need for this vicarious violence. So football, for that reason, might be left around to meet that need. The same thing is true of hockey. Hockey had more of an international flavour and would be emphasised. There was some foreseeable international competition about hockey and particularly soccer. At that time hockey was international between the United States and Canada. I was kind of surprised because I thought the speaker just never impressed me as being a hockey fan, and I am. And it turns out he was not. He just knew about the game and what it would do to this changing sports program. But in any event soccer was to be the keystone of athletics because it is already a world wide sport in South America, Europe, and parts of Asia and the United States should get on the bandwagon. All this would foster international competition so that we would all become citizens of the world to a greater extent than citizens of our own narrow nations.
 
There was some discussion about hunting, not surprisingly. Hunting requires guns and gun control is a big element in these plans. I don’t remember the details much, but the idea is that gun ownership is a privilege and not everybody should have guns. Hunting was an inadequate excuse for owning guns and everybody should be restricted in gun ownership. The few privileged people who should be allowed to hunt could maybe rent or borrow a gun from official quarters rather than own their own. After all, everybody doesn’t have a need for a gun, is the way it was put. Very important in sports was sports for girls. Athletics would be pushed for girls. This was intended to replace dolls. Baby dolls would still be around, a few of them, but you would not see the number and variety of dolls. Dolls would not be pushed because girls should not be thinking about babies and reproduction. Girls should be out on the athletic field just as the boys are. Girls and boys really don’t need to be all that different. Tea sets were to go the way of dolls, and all these things that traditionally were thought of as feminine would be de-emphasised as girls got into more masculine pursuits. Just one other thing I recall was that the sports pages would be full of the scores of girls teams just right along- there with the boys teams. And that’s recently begun to appear after 20 years in our local papers. The girls sports scores are right along with the boys sports scores. So all of this is to change the role model of what young girls should look to be. While she’s growing up she should look to be an athlete rather than to look forward to being a mother.
 
SEX AND VIOLENCE INCULCATED THROUGH ENTERTAINMENT
 
Entertainment. Movies would gradually be made more explicit as regards sex and language. After all, sex and rough language are real and why pretend that they are not? There would be pornographic movies in the theatres and on television. VCR’s were not around at that time, but he had indicated that these cassettes would be available, and video cassette players would be available for use in the home and pornographic movies would be available for use on these as well as in the neighbourhood theatre and on your television. He said something like: “you’ll see people in the movies doing everything you can think of.” He went on to say that all of this is intended to bring sex out in the open. That was another comment that was made several times- the term “sex out in the open.” Violence would be made more graphic. This was intended to desensitise people to violence. There might need to be a time when people would witness real violence and be a part of it. Later on it will become clear where this is headed. So there would be more realistic violence in entertainment which would make it easier for people to adjust. People’s attitudes toward death would change. People would not be so fearful of it but more accepting of it, and they would not be so aghast at the sight of dead people or injured people. We don’t need to have a genteel population paralysed by what they might see. People would just learn to say, well I don’t want that to happen to me. This was the first statement suggesting that the plan includes numerous human casualties which the survivors would see. This particular aspect of the presentation came back in my memory very sharply a few years later when a movie about the Lone Ranger came out and I took my very young son to see it and early in the movie were some very violent scenes. One of the victims was shot in the forehead and there was sort of a splat where the bullet entered his forehead and blood and I remember regretting that I took my son and feeling anger toward the doctor who spoke. Not that he made the movie, but he agreed to be part of this movement, and I was repelled by the movie and it brought back this aspect of his presentation very sharply in my memory.
 
As regards music, he made a rather straightforward statement like: Music will get worse. In 1969 Rock music was getting more and more unpleasant. It was interesting the way he expressed it, “it would get worse” acknowledging that it was already bad. Lyrics would become more openly sexual. No new sugary romantic music would be publicised like that which had been written before that time. All of the old music would be brought back on certain radio stations and records for older people to hear, and older folks would have sort of their own radio stations to hear and for younger people, their music as it got worse and worse would be on their stations. He seemed to indicate that one group would not hear the other group’s music. Older folks would just refuse to hear the junk that was offered to young people, and the young people would accept the junk because it identified them as their generation and helped them feel distinct from the older generation. I remember at the time thinking that would not last very long because even young kids wouldn’t like the junk when they got a chance to hear the older music that was prettier they would gravitate toward it. Unfortunately I was wrong about that, when the kids get through their teens and into their 20’s some of them improve their taste in music, but unfortunately he was right. They get used to this junk and that’s all they want. A lot of them can’t stand really pretty music. He went on to say that the music would carry a message to the young and nobody would even know the message was there they would just think it was loud music. At the time I didn’t understand quite what he meant by that, but in retrospect I think we know now what the messages are in the music for the young.
 
And again he was right. This aspect was sort of summarised with the notion that entertainment would be a tool to influence young people. It won’t change the older people, they are already set in their ways, but the changes would all be aimed at the young who are in their formative years and the older generation would be passing. Not only could you not change them but they are relatively unimportant anyhow. Once they live out their lives and are gone the younger generation being formed are the ones that would be important for the future in the 21st century. He also indicated all the old movies would be brought back again and I remember on hearing that through my mind ran quickly the memory of a number of old movies. I wondered if they would be included, the ones that I thought I would like to see again. Along with bringing back old music and movies for older people there were other privileges that would also be accorded older folks: free transportation, breaks on purchases, discounts, tax discounts, – a number of privileges just because they were older. This was stated to be sort of a reward for the generation which had grown up through the depression and had survived the rigors of World War II. They had deserved it and they were going to be rewarded with all these goodies, and the bringing back of the good old music and the good old movies was going to help ease them through their final years in comfort. Then the presentation began to get rather grim, because once that generation passed, and that would be in the late 80’s and early 90’s where we are now, most of that group would be gone and then gradually things would tighten up and the tightening up would be accelerated. The old movies and old songs would be withdrawn, the gentler entertainment would be withdrawn.
 
TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS AND IMPLANTED I.D.
 
Travel, instead of being easy for old folks, travel then would become very restricted. People would need permission to travel and they would need a good reason to travel. If you didn’t have a good reason for your travel you would not be allowed to travel, and everyone would need ID. This would at first be an ID card you would carry on your person and you must show when you are asked for it. It was already planned that later on some sort of device would be developed to be implanted under the skin that would be coded specifically to identify the individual. This would eliminate the possibility of false ID and also eliminate the possibility of people saying “Well, I lost my ID.” The difficulty about these skin implant that ID was stated to be getting material that would stay in or under the skin without causing foreign body reaction whereby the body would reject it or cause infection, and that this would have to be material on which information could be recorded and retrieved by some sort of scanner while it was not rejected by the body. Silicon was mentioned. Silicon at that time was thought to be well tolerated. It was used to augment breasts. Women who felt their breasts were too small would get silicon implants, and I guess that still goes on. At any rate silicon was seen at that time as the promising material to do both: to be retained in the body without rejection and to be able to retain information retrievable by electronic means.
 
FOOD CONTROL
 
Food supplies would come under tight control. If population growth didn’t slow down, food shortages could be created in a hurry and people would realise the dangers of overpopulation. Ultimately, whether the population slows down or not the food supply is to be brought under centralised control so that people would have enough to be well-nourished but they would not have enough to support any fugitive from the new system. In other words, if you had a friend or relative who didn’t sign on, and growing ones own food would be outlawed. This would be done under some sort of pretext. In the beginning I mentioned there were two purposes for everything – one the ostensible purpose and one the real purpose, and the ostensible purpose here would be that growing your own vegetables was unsafe, it would spread disease or something like that. So the acceptable idea was to protect the consumer but the real idea was to limit the food supply and growing your own food would be illegal. And if you persist in illegal activities like growing your own food, then you’re a criminal.
 
WEATHER CONTROL
 
There was a mention then of weather. This was another really striking statement. He said, “We can or soon will be able to control the weather.” He said, “I’m not merely referring to dropping iodide crystals into the clouds to precipitate rain that’s already there, but REAL control.” And weather was seen as a weapon of war, a weapon of influencing public policy. It could make rain or withhold rain in order to influence certain areas and bring them under your control. There were two sides to this that were rather striking. He said, “On the one hand you can make drought during the growing season so that nothing will grow, and on the other hand you can make for very heavy rains during harvest season so the fields are too muddy to bring in the harvest, and indeed one might be able to do both.” There was no statement how this would be done. It was stated that either it was already possible or very, very close to being possible. Politics. He said that very few people really know how government works. Something to the effect that elected officials are influenced in ways that they don’t even realise and they carry out plans that have been made for them and they think that they are authors of the plans. But actually they are manipulated in ways they don’t understand.
 
KNOW HOW PEOPLE RESPOND – MAKING THEM DO WHAT YOU WANT
 
Somewhere in the presentation he made two statements that I want to insert at this time. I don’t remember just where they were made, but they’re valid in terms of the general overall view. One statement is, “People can carry in their minds and act upon two contradictory ideas at one time, provided that these two contradictory ideas are kept far enough apart.” The other statement is, “You can know pretty well how rational people are going to respond to certain circumstances or to certain information that they encounter. So, to determine the response you want you need only control the kind of data or information that they’re presented or the kinds of circumstance that they’re in; and being rational people they’ll do what you want them to do. They may not fully understand what they’re doing or why.”
 
FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
 
Somewhere in this connection, then, was the statement admitting that some scientific research data could be, and indeed has been, falsified in order to bring about desired results. Here he said, “People don’t ask the right questions. Some people are too trusting.” Now this was an interesting statement because the speaker and the audience all being doctors of medicine and supposedly very objective, dispassionately scientific and science being the be all and end-all. To falsify scientific research data in that setting is like blasphemy in the church, you just don’t do that. Anyhow, out of all of this was to come the New International Governing Body, probably to come through the U.N. and with a World Court, but not necessarily through those structures. It could be brought about in other ways. Acceptance of the U.N . at that time was seen as not being as wide as was hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations increasing importance. People would be more and more used to the idea of relinquishing some national sovereignty. Economic interdependence would foster this goal from a peaceful standpoint. Avoidance of war would foster it from the standpoint of worrying about hostilities. It was recognised that doing it peaceably was better than doing it by war. It was stated at this point that war was “obsolete.”
 
I thought that was an interesting phrase because obsolete means something that once was seen as useful is no longer useful. But war is obsolete, because of nuclear bombs, war is no longer controllable. Formerly wars could be controlled, but if nuclear weapons would fall into the wrong hands there could be an unintended nuclear disaster. It was not stated who the “wrong hands” are. We were free to infer that maybe this meant terrorists, but in more recent years I’m wondering whether the wrong hands might also include people that we’ve assumed they’ve had nuclear weapons all along, maybe they don’t have them. Just as it was stated that industry would be preserved in the United States – a little bit just in case the world wide plans didn’t work out; just in case some country or some other powerful person decided to bolt from the pack and go his own way, one wonders whether this might also be true with nuclear weapons. When he said they might fall into the wrong hands, there was some statement that the possession of nuclear weapons had been tightly controlled, sort of implying that anybody who had nuclear weapons was intended to have them. That would necessarily have included the Soviet Union, if indeed they have them. But I recall wondering at the time, “Are you telling us, or are you implying that this country willingly gave weapons to the Soviets?.”
 
At that time that seemed like a terribly unthinkable thing to do, much less to admit. The leaders of the Soviet Union seem to be so dependent on the West though, one wonders whether there may have been some fear that they would try to assert independence if they indeed had these weapons. So, I don’t know. It’s something to speculate about perhaps. Who did he mean when he said, “If these weapons fall into the wrong hands”? Maybe just terrorists. Anyhow, the new system would be brought in, if not by peaceful co-operation with everybody willingly yielding national sovereignty and then by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war. Everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public peace and people would willingly give up national sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in the ‘New International Political System.’ This was stated and a very impressive thing to hear then, “If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two or possibly more nuclear weapons.” As it was put this would be possibly needed to convince people that, “We mean business.” That was followed by the statement that, “By the time one or two of those went off then everybody, even the most reluctant, would yield.” He said something about, “This negotiated peace would be very convincing”, as in a framework or in a context that the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it.
 
People hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between hostile enemies who finally had come to the realisation that peace was better than war. In this context discussing war, and war is obsolete, a statement was made that there were some good things about war. One was you’re going to die anyway and people sometimes in war get a chance to display great courage and heroism. If they die they’ve died well and if they survive they get recognition. So that in any case, the hardships of war on soldiers are worth it because that’s the reward they get out of their warring. Another justification expressed for war was, if you think of the many millions of casualties in WWI and WWII had not died but had continued to live and continued to have babies then there would be millions upon millions and we would already be overpopulated. So those two great wars served a benign purpose in delaying over-population. But now there are technological means for the individual and governments to control over-population so in this regard war is obsolete. It’s no longer needed. And then again it’s obsolete because nuclear weapons could destroy the whole universe. War, which once was controllable, could get out of control and so for these two reasons it’s now obsolete.
 
TERRORISM
 
There was a discussion of terrorism. Terrorism would be used widely in Europe and in other parts of the world. Terrorism at that time was thought would not be necessary in the United States. It could become necessary in the United States if the United States did not move rapidly enough into accepting the system. But at least in the foreseeable future it was not planned. And very benignly on their part. Maybe terrorism would not be required here, but the implication being that it would be indeed used if it was necessary. Along with this came a bit of a scolding that Americans had had it too good anyway and just a little bit of terrorism would help convince Americans that the world is indeed a dangerous place, or can be if we don’t relinquish control to the proper authorities.
 
FINANCIAL CONTROL
 
There was discussion of money and banking. One statement was, “Inflation is infinite. You can put an infinite number of zeros after any number and put the decimals points wherever you want”, as an indication that inflation is a tool of the controllers. Money would become predominately credit. It was already. Money is primarily a credit thing but exchange of money would be not cash or palpable things but electronic credit signal. People would carry money only in very small amounts for things like chewing gum and candy bars. Any purchase of any significant amount would be done electronically. Earnings would be electronically entered into your account. It would be a single banking system. It may have the appearance of being more than one but ultimately and basically it would be one single banking system, so that when you got paid your pay would be entered for you into your account balance and then when you purchased anything at the point of purchase it would be deducted from your account balance and you would actually carry nothing with you. Also computer records can be kept on whatever it was you purchased so that if you were purchasing too much of any particular item and some official wanted to know what you were doing with your money they could go back and review your purchases and determine what you were buying.
 
There was a statement that any purchase of significant size like an automobile, bicycle, a refrigerator, a radio or television or whatever might have some sort of identification on it so it could be traced, so that very quickly anything which was either given away or stolen – whatever – authorities would be able to establish who purchased it and when. Computers would allow this to happen. The ability to save would be greatly curtailed. People would just not be able to save any considerable degree of wealth. There was some statement of recognition that wealth represents power and wealth in the hands of a lot of people is not good for the people in charge so if you save too much you might be taxed. The more you save the higher rate of tax on your savings so your savings really could never get very far. And also if you began to show a pattern of saving too much you might have your pay cut. We would say, “Well, your saving instead of spending. You really don’t need all that money.”
 
That basically the idea being to prevent people from accumulating any wealth which might have long range disruptive influence on the system. People would be encouraged to use credit to borrow and then also be encouraged to renege on their debt so they would destroy their own credit. The idea here is that, again, if you’re too stupid to handle credit wisely, this gives the authorities the opportunity to come down hard on you once you’ve shot your credit. Electronic payments initially would all be based on different kinds of credit cards which were already in use in 1969 to some extent. Not as much as now, but people would have credit cards with the electronic strip on it and once they got used to that then it would be pointed out the advantage of having all of that combined into a single credit card, serving a single monetary system and then they won’t have to carry around all that plastic.
 
SURVEILLANCE, IMPLANTS, AND TELEVISIONS THAT WATCH YOU
 
So, the next step would be the single card and then the next step would be to replace the single card with a skin implant. The single card could be lost or stolen, give rise to problems; could be exchanged with somebody else to confuse identify. The skin implant on the other hand could not be not lost or counterfeited or transferable to another person so you and your accounts would be identified without any possibility of error. And the skin implants would have to be put some place that would be convenient to the skin; for example your right hand or your forehead. At that time when I heard this I was unfamiliar with the statements in the Book of Revelation. The speaker went on to say, “Now some of you people who read the Bible will attach significance to this to the Bible,” but he went on to disclaim any Biblical significance at all. This is just common sense of how the system could work and should work and there’s no need to read any superstitious Biblical principals into it. As I say, at the time I was not very familiar with the words of Revelations.
 
Shortly after I became familiar with it and the significance of what he said really was striking. I’ll never forget it. There was some mention, also, of implants that would lend themselves to surveillance by providing radio signals. This could be under the skin or a dental implant, put in like a filling so that either fugitives or possibly other citizens could be identified by a certain frequency from his personal transmitter and could be located at any time or any place by any authority who wanted to find him. This would be particularly useful for somebody who broke out of prison. There was more discussion of personal surveillance. One more thing was said, “You’ll be watching television and somebody will be watching you at the same time at a central monitoring station.” Television sets would have a device to enable this. The T.V. set would not have to be on in order for this to be operative. Also, the television set can be used to monitor what you are watching. People can tell what you’re watching on TV and how you’re reacting to what you’re watching. And you would not know that you were being watched while you were watching your television. How would we get people to accept these things into their homes? Well, people would buy them when they buy their own television. They won’t know that they’re on there at first.
 
This was described by being what we now know as Cable TV to replace the antenna TV. When you buy a TV set this monitor would just be part of the set and most people would not have enough knowledge to know it was there in the beginning. And then the cable would be the means of carrying the surveillance message to the monitor. By the time people found out that this monitoring was going on, they would also be very dependent upon television for a number of things. Just the way people are dependent upon the telephone today. One thing the television would be used for would be purchases. You wouldn’t have to leave your home to purchase. You just turn on your TV and there would be a way of interacting with your television channel to the store that you wanted to purchase. And you could flip the switch from place to place to choose a refrigerator or clothing. This would be both convenient, but it would also make you dependent on your television so the built-in monitor would be something you could not do without.
 
There was some discussion of audio monitors too, just in case the authorities wanted to hear what was going on in rooms other than where the television monitor was. In regard to this the statement was made, “Any wire that went into your house, for example your telephone wire, could be used this way”. I remember this in particular because it was fairly near the end of the presentation and as we were leaving the meeting place I said something to one of my colleagues about going home and pulling all of the wires out of my house, except I knew I couldn’t get by without the telephone. And the colleague I spoke to just seemed numb. To this day I don’t think he even remembers what we talked about or what we hear that time, cause I’ve asked him. But at that time he seemed stunned. Before all these changes would take place with electronic monitoring, it was mentioned that there would be service trucks all over the place, working on the wires and putting in new cables. This is how people who were on the inside would know how things were progressing.
 
HOME OWNERSHIP A THING OF THE PAST
 
Privately owned housing would become a thing of the past. The cost of housing and financing housing would gradually be made so high that most people couldn’t afford it. People who already owned their houses would be allowed to keep them but as years go by it would be more and more difficult for young people to buy a house. Young people would more and more become renters, particularly in apartments or condominiums. More and more unsold houses would stand vacant. People just couldn’t buy them. But the cost of housing would not come down. You’d right away think, well the vacant house, the price would come down, the people would buy it. But there was some statement to the effect that the price would be held high even though there were many available so that free market places would not operate. People would not be able to buy these and gradually more and more of the population would be forced into small apartments. Small apartments which would not accommodate very many children. Then as the number of real home-owners diminished they would become a minority. There would be no sympathy for them from the majority who dwelled in the apartments and then these homes could be taken by increased taxes or other regulations that would be detrimental to home ownership and would be acceptable to the majority. Ultimately, people would be assigned where they would live and it would be common to have non-family members living with you. This by way of your not knowing just how far you could trust anybody. This would all be under the control of a central housing authority. Have this in mind in 1990 when they ask, “How many bedrooms in your house? How many bathrooms in your house? Do you have a finished game room? “This information is personal and is of no national interest to government under our existing Constitution. But you’ll be asked those questions and decide how you want to respond to them.
 
THE ARRIVAL OF THE TOTALITARIAN GLOBAL SYSTEM
 
When the new system takes over people will be expected to sign allegiance to it, indicating that they don’t have any reservations or holding back to the old system. “There just won’t be any room”, he said, “for people who won’t go along. We can’t have such people cluttering up the place so such people would be taken to special places”, and here I don’t remember the exact words, but the inference I drew was that at these special places where they were taken, then they would not live very long. He may have said something like, “disposed of humanely”, but I don’t remember very precisely, just the impression the system was not going to support them when they would not go along with the system. That would leave death as the only alternative.
 
Somewhere in this vein he said there would not be any martyrs. When I first heard this I thought it meant the people would not be killed, but as the presentation developed what he meant was they would not be killed in such a way or disposed of in such a way that they could serve as inspiration to other people the way martyrs do. Rather he said something like this. “People will just disappear.” Just a few additional items sort of thrown in here in the end which I failed to include where they belong more perfectly. The bringing in of the new system he said probably would occur on a weekend in the winter. Everything would shut down on Friday evening and Monday morning when everybody wakened there would be an announcement that the New System was in place.
 
During the process in getting the United States ready for these changes everybody would be busier with less leisure time and less opportunity to really look about and see what was going on around them. Also, there would be more changes and more difficulty in keeping up as far as one’s investments. Investment instruments would be changing. Interest rates would be changing so that it would be a difficult job with keeping up with what you had already earned. Interesting about automobiles; it would look as though there were many varieties of automobiles, but when you look very closely there would be great duplication. They would be made to look different with chrome and wheel covers and this sort of thing, but looking closely one would see that the same automobile was made by more than one manufacturer.
 
This recently was brought down to me when I was in a parking lot and saw a small Ford – I forget the model – and a small Japanese automobile which were identical except for a number of things like the number of holes in the wheel cover and the chrome around the plate and the shape of the grill. But if you looked at the basic parts of the automobile, they were identical. They just happened to be parked side-by-side where I was struck with this and I was again reminded of what had been said many years ago. I’m hurrying here because I’m just about to the end of the tape. Let me just summarise here by saying, all of these things said by one individual at one time in one place relating to so many different human endeavours and then to look and see how many of these actually came about. Meaning the changes accomplished between then and now [1969 – 1988] and the things which are planned for the future. I think there is no denying that this is controlled and there is indeed a conspiracy.
 
The question then becomes what to do. I think first off, we must put our faith in God and pray and ask for his guidance. And secondly do what we can to inform other individuals as much as possible, as much as they may be interested. Some people just don’t care, because they’re preoccupied with getting along in their own personal endeavours. But as much as possible I think we should try to inform other people who may be interested, and again put our faith and trust in God and pray constantly for his guidance and for the courage to accept what we may be facing in the near future. Rather than accept peace and justice which we hear so much now. It’s a cliché! Let’s insist on liberty and justice for all.

More On Libya “Lies and Coverup”

There are two sides to every story – especially when one realizes that Israel and Mossad (and thus the U.S. Military) has targeted Libya, Iraq, and Iran for “overthrow”  (i.e. occupation via revolution) over a decade ago.

Former CIA “asset” Susan Lindauer maintains that the Lockerbie aircraft bombing was a frame-up on Libya.

Key Lockerbie Witness Admits Perjury

Posted: September 17, 2011 by slindauer2010 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

by Prof. Ludwig De Braeckeleer

They have eyes to see but do not see
and ears to hear but do not hear–Ezekiel 12:2

The Lockerbie Affair has taken yet another extraordinary twist. On Friday August 31st, I received from Edwin Bollier, head of the Zurich-based MeBo AG, a copy of a German original of an Affidavit. The document is dated July 18th 2007 and signed by who worked as an electronic engineer at MeBo from 1978 to 1994. I have scrutinized the document carefully and concluded that I have no reason to doubt its authenticity or the truthfulness of its content.
Lumpert was a key witness (N° 550) at the Camp Zeist trial, where a three Judges panel convicted a Libyan citizen of murdering 270 persons who died in the bombing of “Pan Am Flight 103″ over Lockerbie.

In his testimony, Lumpert stated that of the 3 pieces of hand-made prototypes MST-13 Timer PC-Boards, the third MST-13 PC-Board was broken and [he] had thrown it away.”In his Affidavit, certified by Officer Walter Wieland, Lumpert admits having committed perjury.

“I confirm today on July 18th 2007, that I stole the third hand-manufactured MST-13 Timer PC-Board consisting of 8 layers of fibre-glass from MEBO Ltd. and gave it without permission on June 22nd 1989 to a person officially investigating in the Lockerbie case,” Lumpert wrote. (The identity of the official is known.)

It did not escape me that the MST-13 fragment shown [at the Lockerbie trial] on the police photograph No PT/35(b) came from the non-operational MST-13 prototype PC-board that I had stolen,” Lumpert added.
“I am sorry for the consequences of my silence at that time, for the innocent Libyan Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahisentenced to life imprisonment, and for the country of Libya.“
In just seven paragraphs, the Lumpert affidavit elucidates the longstanding mysteries surrounding the infamous MST-13 timer, which allegedly triggered the bomb that exploded Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie on December 21st 1988.
In the months following the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, someone discovered a piece of a grey Slalom-brand shirt in a wooded area located about 25 miles away from the town. According to a forensics expert, the cloth contained a tiny fragment – 4 mm square – of a circuit board. The testimony of three expert witnesses allowed the prosecutors to link this circuit board, described as part of the bomb trigger, to Megrahi.
There have been different accounts concerning the discovery of the timer fragment. A police source close to the investigation reported that it had been discovered by lovers. Some have said that it was picked up by a man walking his dog. Others have claimed that it was found by a policeman “combing the ground on his hands and knees.”
At the trial, the third explanation became official. “On 13 January 1989, DC Gilchrist and DC McColm were engaged together in line searches in an area near Newcastleton. A piece of charred material was found by them which was given the police number PI/995 and which subsequently became label 168.”
The alteration of the label
The officer had initially labelled the bag ‘cloth (charred)‘ but had later overwritten the word ‘cloth’ with ‘debris’. The bag contained pieces of a shirt collar and fragments of materials said to have been extracted from it, including the tiny piece of circuit board identified as coming from an MST-13 timer made by the Swiss firm MeBo.
“The original inscription on the label, which we are satisfied, was written by DC Gilchrist, was “Cloth (charred)”. The word ‘cloth’ has been overwritten by the word ‘debris’. There was no satisfactory explanation as to why this was done.”
The judges said in their judgement that Gilchrist’s evidence had been “at worst evasive and at best confusing”.Yet the judges went on to admit the evidence. “We are, however, satisfied that this item was indeed found in the area described, and DC McColm who corroborated DC Gilchrist on the finding of the item was not cross-examined about the detail of the finding of this item.”</
It has long been rumored that a senior former Scottish officer, who has worked at the highest level of the Lockerbie inquiry, has signed a statement in which he claims that evidence has been planted.
UK media have confirmed the story. Thus, the Scottish officer has confirmed an allegation previously made by a former CIA agent. The identity of the officer remains secret and he is only known as “Golfer”.
“Golfer” has told Megrahi’s legal team that Gilchrist had told him that he had not been responsible for changing the label.
According to documents obtained by the Scotland on Sunday, the entry of the discovery is recorded at widely different times by UK and German investigators. Moreover, a new page 51 has been inserted in the record of evidence.

During the Lockerbie investigation, Dr Thomas Hayes and Allan Feraday were working at the DERA Forensic laboratory at Fort Halstead in Kent.

Dr Hayes was employed at the Royal Armament Research Development Establishment (RARDE). In 1995, RARDE was subsumed into the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). In 2001, part of DERA became the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL). Dr Hayes testified that he collected the tiny fragment of the circuit board on May 12th 1989. He testified that the fragment was green.
(The board stolen from Lumpert is brown.) His colleague, Alan Feraday, confirmed his story at the Zeist trial. The record is inserted on a loose-leaf page with the five subsequent pages re-numbered by hand. Dr Hayes could not provide a reasonable explanation for this rather strange entry, and yet the Judges concluded that: “Pagination was of no materiality, because each item that was examined had the date of examination incorporated into the notes.”
The argument of the Court is illogical as the index number Dr Hayes gave to the piece is higher than some entry he made three months later.
And there is more. In September 1989, Feraday sent a Polaroid photograph of the piece and wrote in the attached memorandum that it was “the best he could do in such short time.” So, are we supposed to believe that it takes forensic experts several months to take a Polaroid picture?
Dr Hayes could not explain this. He merely suggested that the person to ask about it would be the author of the memorandum, Mr Feraday.
This however was not done. At the young age of 43, Hayes resigned just a few months after the discovery of the timer fragment.
Based on the forensic Dr Hayes had supplied, an entire family [The Maguire seven] was sent to jail in 1976. They were acquitted in appeal in 1992. Sir john May was appointed to review Dr. Hayes forensic evidence.
“The whole scientific basis on which the prosecution in [the trial of the alleged IRA Maguire Seven] was founded was in truth so vitiated that on this basis alone, the Court of Appeal should be invited to set aside the conviction,” said Sir john May.
In the Megrahi’s case, Dr Hayes did not even perform the basic test which would have established the presence of explosive residue on the sample. During the trial, he maintained that the fragment was too small while it is factually established that his laboratory has performed such test on smaller samples.
Had he performed such test, no residue would have been found. As noted by Lumpert, the fragment shown at the Zeist trial belongs to a timer that was never connected to a relay.
In other words, that timer never triggered a bomb.
Dr Alan Feraday’s reputation is hardly better. In three separated cases,where men were convicted on the basis of his forensic evidence, the initial ruling was overturned in appeal.After one of these cases in 2005, a Lord of Justice said that Feraday should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in the field of electronics.
According to forensic scientist, Dr Michael Scott, who was interviewed in the documentary The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie, Feraday has no formal qualifications as a scientist. The identification of the MeBo timer. Thomas Thurman worked for the FBI forensics laboratory in the late 80’s and most of the 90’s. Thurman has been publicly credited for identifying the fragment as part of a MST_13 timer produced by the Swiss company Mebo.
“When that identification was made, of the timer, I knew that we had it,” Thurman told ABC in 1991. “Absolute, positively euphoria. I was on cloud nine.”
Again, his record is far from pristine. The US attorney General has accused him of having altered lab reports in a way that rendered subsequent prosecutions all but impossible. He has been transferred out the FBI forensic laboratory.
“He’s very aggressive, but I think he made some mistakes that needed to be brought to the attention of FBI management,” says Frederic Whitehurst, a former FBI chemist who filed the complaints that led to the Inspector General’s report.
“We’re not necessarily going to get the truth out of what we’re doing here,” Whitehurst concluded.
The story shed some light on his formation. The report says “Williams and Thurman merit special censure for their work. It recommends that Thurman, who has a degree in political science, be reassigned outside the lab and that only scientists work in its explosives section.”
And the legal experts were just as fake as their scientific counterparts. In late 1998, Glasgow University set up the Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit [LTBU] to provide impartial advice to the world media on the legal aspects of the complex and unique trial.
Andrew Fulton, a British diplomat, was appointed as a visiting law professor to head the Unit. Fulton has no legal experience whatsoever. Prior to his appointment as head of LTBU, Fulton was MI6 station chief in Washington DC.
The modification of the MST-13 timer fragment
Forensic analysis of the circuit board fragment allowed the investigators to identify its origin. The timer, known as MST-13, is fabricated by a Swiss Company named MeBo, which stands for Meister and Bollier.
The company has indeed sold about 20 MST-13 timers to Libyan military (machine-made 9 ply green boards), as well as a few units (hand-made 8 ply brown boards) to a Research Institute in Bernau, known to act as a front to the Stasi, the former East German secret police.
The two batches are very different but, as early as 1991, Bollier told the Scottish investigators that he could not identify the timer from a photograph alone.
Yet, the Libyans were indicted in November 1991, without ever allowing Bollier to see the actual fragment, on the ground that the integrity of the evidence had to be protected.
But in 1998, Bollier obtained a copy of a blown-up photograph that Thurman had shown on ABC in 1991. Bollier could tell from certain characteristics that the fragment was part of a board of the timers made for East Germany, and definitely not one of the timers delivered by him to Libya.
In September 1999, Bollier was finally allowed to see the fragment.</span
Unlike the one shown by Thurman on ABC, this one was machine-made, as the one sold to Libya. But, from the absence of traces of solder, it was obvious that the timer had never been used to trigger a bomb.
“As far as I’m concerned, and I told this to [Scottish Prosecutor Miriam Watson], this is a manufactured fragment,” Bollier says. “A fabricated fragment, never from a complete, functional timer“
The next day, Bollier was shown the fragment once more. You may have already guessed that it now had the soldering traces. “It was different. I’m not crazy. It was different!” says Bollier.
Finally, at the trial, Bollier was presented a fragment of a circuit board completely burnt down. Thus, it was no longer possible to identify to which country that timer had been delivered. When he asked for explanation of the significance of the issue, Lord Shuterland told him that his request was denied.
How did the Judges account for all the mysterious changes in the appearance of the fragment? They simply dismissed Bollier as an unreliable witness.
“We have assessed carefully the evidence of these three witnesses about the activities of MEBO, and in particular their evidence relating to the MST-13 timers which the company made. All three, and notably Mr Bollier, were shown to be unreliable witnesses. Earlier statements which they made to the police and judicial authorities were at times in conflict with each other, and with the evidence they gave in court. On some occasions, particularly in the case of Mr Bollier, their evidence was self contradictory.” A scenario implausible on its face
“The evidence which we have considered up to this stage satisfies us beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of the disaster was the explosion of an improvised explosive device, […] and that the initiation of the explosion was triggered by the use of an MST-13 timer,” wrote the three Judges. (§ 15)
Lockerbie experts, such as former CIA Robert Baer, have suspected that the MST-13 timer could have been given by the Stasi to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command [PFLP-GL], a terrorist group based in Syria, funded by Iran, and led by Ahmed Jibril.
The allegation deserves attention as it is well known that the two organizations had strong ties. Moreover, the archives of the Stasi reveal that agency had infiltrated the Swedish government and it is well documented that Jibril’s close collaborators were operating from Sweden. Yet, I never believed for a moment that the Lockerbie bomb had been triggered by a timer.
No terrorist would ever attempt to bomb an airliner with a timer triggered bomb, and definitely not during the winter season, let alone Christmas time, where the time tables are absolutely useless as delays are the norm rather than the exception.
Don’t take my word for it. Terrorists such Ahmed Jibril and counter-terrorists such Noel Koch have stated that much.
“Explosives linked to an air pressure gauge, which would have detonated when the plane reached a certain altitude or to a timer would have been ineffective,” Jibril said.
“I know all about the science of explosives. I am an engineer of explosives. I will argue this with any expert that the bomb went on board in London. I do not think the Libyans had anything to do with this.”
Noel Koch headed the US Defence anti-terrorism Department from 1981 to 1986. Koch ridiculed the idea that terrorists would gamble on the likelihood that an unaccompanied luggage would be successfully transferred twice, first from Malta to Frankfurt, and then from Frankfurt to London.
“I can tell you this much that I know about terrorism: it’s simple,” Koch says. “You don’t complicate life. Life’s complicated enough as it is. If you’ve got a target you want to get as close as you can to it and you don’t go through a series of permutations that provide opportunities for failure and that provide opportunities for discovery. It doesn’t work that way.“
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
On November 13th 1991, two Libyans were indicted for the murder of 270 people who died in the Lockerbie bombing. The indictment was the outcome of a three year US-UK joint investigation. Although Libya never acknowledged a responsibility in the matter, a decade long UN sanctions forced Colonel Gaddafi to handover the two men accused of the worst act of terrorism in the UK.
On April 5th 1999, they were transferred to camp Zeist in the Netherlands where they were judged under Scottish Law.On January 31st2001, a panel of three Scottish Judges acquitted one of them. They convicted the other for murder and sentenced him to life. Megrahi started serving his sentence in a prison near Glasgow, before winning a compassionate release after a diagnosis of stage 4 cancer.
Megrahi’s appeal was rejected on March 14th2002. The European Court Of Human Rights declared his application inadmissible in July 2003. In September 2003, he applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission [SCCRC] for a legal review of his conviction. His request was based on the legal test contained in section 106 (3) (b) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

The provision states that an appeal may be made against “any alleged miscarriage of justice, which may include such a miscarriage based on … the jury’s having returned a verdict which no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned.”

On June 28th2007, the SCCRC decided to grant Megrahi a second appeal and to refer his case to the High Court. An impressive 800 page document, stating the reasons for the decision, has been sent to the High Court, the applicant, his solicitor, and Crown Office. Although the document is not available to the public, the Commission has decided “to provide a fuller news release than normal.”
Is it too much to ask why the “fuller news release than normal” lists only four of the six grounds that justify the Commission conclusion that a miscarriage of justice might have occur?
As recently pointed out by Dr. Hans Koechler, who was an international observer appointed by the United Nations at the Lockerbie trial, we may also wonder “why a supposedly independent judicial review body [the SCCRC] would try to exonerate “preventively” officials in a case which is being returned to the High Court for a second appeal because of suspicions of a miscarriage of justice.“
Indeed, the SCCRC’s statement: “The Commission undertook extensive inquiries in this area but found nothing to support that allegation or to undermine the trial court’s conclusions in respect of the fragment [of the MST-13 MeBo timer]” is rather difficult to justify.

Towards a criminal investigation ?
Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the tragedy, describes the ruling of Megrahi as the most disgraceful miscarriages of justice in history, blaming both the Scottish legal system and US intelligence.
“The Americans played their role in the investigation and influenced the prosecution,” Swire told the Scotsman Newspaper.
Top level UK diplomats tend to agree with him, including Oliver Miles, former British ambassador to Libya.
“No court is likely get to the truth, now that various intelligence agencies have had the opportunity to corrupt the evidence,”Miles told the BBC.
The spectacular decision of the SCCRC is certain to give a second life to the dozen of alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Nearly two decades later, the case is back to square one.
Back to square one
“Let us give Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord Maclean some credit. After hearing 230 witnesses and studying 621 exhibits during 84 days of evidence, spread over eight months, the three judges of the Lockerbie trial almost got correctly the date of the worst act of terror in the UK.
In the first line of the first paragraph of the most expensive verdict in history (₤80m)
<a href=”http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/index.asp” http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/index.asp, they wrote: “At 1903 hours on 22 December 1988 Pan Am flight 103 fell out of the sky.” As a matter of fact, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded on December 21st 1988.
Michael Scharf is an international law expert at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. Scharf joined the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser for Law Enforcement and Intelligence in April 1989. He was also responsible for drawing up the UN Security Council resolutions that imposed sanctions on Libya in 1992.
“It was a trial where everybody agreed ahead of time that they were just going to focus on these two guys, and they were the fall guys,” Sharf wrote.
“The CIA and the FBI kept the State Department in the dark.
It worked for them for us to be fully committed to the theory that Libya was responsible. I helped the counter-terrorism bureau draft documents that described why we thought Libya was responsible, but these were not based on seeing a lot of evidence, but rather on representations from the CIA and FBI and the Department of Justice about what the case would prove and did prove.:
“It was largely based on this inside guy [Libyan defector Abdul Majid Giaka].
It wasn’t until the trial that I learned this guy was a nut-job and that the CIA had absolutely no confidence in him and that they knew he was a liar.”
The magic luggage
According to the Lockerbie verdict, the bomb was hidden in a Toshiba Radio, wrapped in clothes, located in a luggage that was mysteriously boarded in Malta.
The Court has examined this allegation in depth and the matter occupies 24 paragraphs of the final verdict (§ 16 to § 34). After reviewing all the evidence and testimonies, the three judges came to the following conclusions.
“Luqa airport had a relatively elaborate security system. All items of baggage checked in were entered into the airport computer as well as being noted on the passenger’s ticket. After the baggage had passed the sniffer check, it was placed on a trolley in the baggage area to wait until the flight was ready for loading.
When the flight was ready, the baggage was taken out and loaded, and the head loader was required to count the items placed on board. The ramp dispatcher, the airport official on the tarmac responsible for the departure of the flight, was in touch by radiotelephone with the load control office. The load control had access to the computer and after the flight was closed would notify the ramp dispatcher of the number of items checked in. The ramp dispatcher would also be told by the head loader how many items had been loaded and if there was a discrepancy would take steps to resolve it.
“In addition to the baggage reconciliation procedure, there was a triple count of the number of passengers boarding a departing flight, that is there was a count of the boarding cards, a count by immigration officers of the number of immigration cards handed in, and a head count by the crew.
“The records relating to KM180 on 21 December 1988 show no discrepancy in respect of baggage. The flight log (production 930) shows that fifty-five items of baggage were loaded, corresponding to fifty-five on the load plan.
“On the face of them, these arrangements seem to make it extremely difficult for an unaccompanied and unidentified bag to be shipped on a flight out of Luqa.
“If therefore the unaccompanied bag was launched from Luqa, the method by which that was done is not established, and the Crown accepted that they could not point to any specific route by which the primary suitcase could have been loaded.
“The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 is a major difficulty for the Crown case.
A internal 1989 FBI memo indicates that there is no indication that an unaccompanied luggage was transferred from Air Malta to Pan Am.
Law authorities from Malta and Germany came to the same conclusion.
And yet, without any explanation, the judges wrote in the conclusion of the verdict that: “the absence of an explanation as to how the suitcase was taken into the system at Luqa is a major difficulty for the Crown case but after taking full account of that difficulty, we remain of the view that the primary suitcase began its journey at Luqa.” (§ 82)

The Maltese storekeeper
According to the verdict, Megrahi bought the clothes, in which the bomb was wrapped, in Sliema, a small town of Malta, including the “cloth” in which the fragment was “discovered” by Dr Hayes. At first sight, the “cloth” appears to be part of a slalom shirt, indeed sold in a little shop, Mary’s House, located on the island of the Mediterranean Sea.
However, upon closer examination, the “cloth” raises a series of issues. Firstly, the colour of the label is incorrect. A blue slalom shirt label should have blue writing, not brown. Secondly, the breast pocket size corresponds to a child shirt, not a 16 ½ sized allegedly bought by Megrahi, for the pocket would have been 2 cm wider.
Thirdly, German records show the shirt with most of the breast pocket intact while the evidence shown at Zeist has a deep triangular tear extending inside the pocket.
Fourthly, last but certainly not least, the storekeeper initially told the investigators he never sold such shirts to whoever visited him a few weeks before the Lockerbie tragedy.
Tony Gauci’s (the storekeeper) testimony was pivotal in the case against Megraghi. Gauci gave a series of 19 statements to the police which are fully inconsistent. Yet, the Judges found him trustworthy.
Allow me to disagree. On January 30th 1990, Gauci stated: “That time when the man came, I am sure I did not sell him a shirt.” Then, on September 10th1990, he told the investigators that: “I now remember that the man who bought the clothing also bought a ‘Slalom’ shirt.” And to make things worse, two of his testimonies have disappeared.

When were the clothes bought?
According to the verdict, Megrahi bought the clothes on December 7th1989. Gauci remembered that his brother had gone home earlier to watch an evening football game (Rome vs. Dresden), that the man came just before closing time (7pm), that it was raining (the man bought an umbrella) and that the Christmas lights were on.
The game allows for only two dates: November 23 or December 7. The issue is critical for there is no indication that Megrahi was in Malta on November 23rd but is known to have been on the island on December 7th.
Malta airport chief meteorologist testified that it was raining on November 23rd but not on December 7th. Yet the judges determined the date as December 7th. This rather absurd conclusion from the judges raises two other issues.
The game Rome-Dresden on December 7th was played at 1:00 pm, not in the evening. What is more, Gauci had previously testified that the Christmas lights were not up, meaning that the date had to be November. On September 19th 1989, Gauci stated that “the [Christmas] decorations were not up when the man bought the clothing.” Then, at the Lockerbie trial, Gauci told the Judges that the decoration lights were on. “Yes, they were … up.”

Who was the mysterious buyer?
“We are nevertheless satisfied that his identification, so far as it went, of the first accused as the purchaser was reliable and should be treated as a highly important element in this case,” wrote the judges.
In fact, Gauci never identified Megrahi. He merely stated that Megrahi resembles the man to whom he had sold the clothes, but only if he were much older and two inches taller.
Gauci had however identified another man: Abu Talb.

And in case you wonder, Talb was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command [PFLP-GL], the terrorist group led by Ahmed Jibril.

In late October 1988, the senior bomb maker of the PFLP-GC, Marwan Khreesat, was arrested in Frankfurt in company of Hafez Dalkamoni, the leader of the organization German cell. Dalkamoni had met Talb in Cyprus and Malta the weeks before.
In their car, police found a bomb hidden in a Toshiba radio. Khreesat told the police that he had manufactured five similar IED’s. Each device Khreesat had built was triggered by a gauge pressure that activates a timer – range from 0 to 45 minutes – when the plane reaches a cruising altitude of 11,000 meters.
The timers of all recovered bombs were set on 30 minutes. It takes about 7 minutes for a 747 to reach cruising altitude. Pan Am 103 exploded 38 minutes after take-off from London. German police eventually recovered four of the IED’s Khreesat had built. No one seems to know what ever occurred to the fifth one which was never recovered.
When police raided Talb apartment in Sweden, they found his appointment notebook. Talb had circled one date: December 21st.
Contrary to Jibril’s statement, and surely he must know better, a bomb triggered by a gauge pressure set at 11,000 meters would not have detonated during the Frankfurt to London flight as the airliner does not reach cruising altitude on such short flight.Then again, such device would not have detonated at all if it had been located in the luggage area as the hold is at the pressure of the passengers’ zone and never drops below the pressure equivalent to 2,400 meters.
This is why, when the judges were presented with the undisputable and undisputed evidence that a proper simulation of the explosion – taking proper account of the Mach stem effect would locate the explosion outside the luggage hold, they simply decided to dismiss the existence of a scientifically well established fact.
“We do not consider it necessary to go into any detail about Mach stem formation,” the judges wrote.
Had the judges deemed “necessary to go into the details regarding Mach stem formation”, they would have been forced to acknowledge that the position of the bomb was fully incompatible with the indictment. That a magic unaccompanied luggage went mysteriously three times through airport security was “plausible”.
That it jumped on its own out of the luggage hold at London airport was a little too much to believe.
In truth, a proper simulation of the explosion locates the bomb just a few inches away from the skin of the plane, a position fully consistent with the very specific damages left by the explosion.
The truth was inconvenient. The three judges had to dismiss it in order to justify a verdict that had been decided more than a decade before the first day of the Zeist trial.
Shame on those who committed this horrific act of terror.
Shame on those who have ordered the cover-up.
Shame on those who provided false testimony, and those who suppressed and fabricated the evidence needed to frame Libya. And shame on the media for their accomplice silence.
To those who seek the truth, I advise them to follow the drug trail on the road to Damascus.

Finally, friends of The Story Behind the Story ——

Please watch this video:

During the late 70’s, I was a young idealist studying “political science” at Southern Utah University.

I admit that I was effectively brainwashed by the “professors” that Moammar Al Qaddafi was a sadistic, bloodthirsty, dictator much like Adolph Hitler.  As a rabid terrorist, Qaddafi (I was told) was dedicated to revolutionary “terrorism” – and was a deadly enemy of the wonderful, peace-loving “Nation” called Israel.

I never questioned this, only accepted in subjective “faith”.   Only in later years, (after witnessing the bold-faced lies and propaganda methods used by the U.S. “Government” following 9-11, 2001) and by employing objectivity and quantitative reasoning and critical thinking, I have a MUCH DIFFERENT VIEW of not only of Moammar Al Qaddafi, but also of the hexagram-dominated “institution” known as “Israel”.  It appears that I had everything backwards.  Good was counted as Evil, and I was calling Evil, Good.

I agree with this video shown below, – except for the x-rated words in the final seconds.  For that, and that only, I take exception.  The British producer of the video is clearly very upset about what has been happening in Libya this summer.   Let’s recap briefly:

1.  “Rebels” somehow armed with the latest automatic weaponry and RPG’s begin attacking Libya’s government in February, seeking to depose and execute the “madman dictator/terrorist” Moammar Qaddafi.  The U.S. and U.K. “Press” and political “Leaders” announce this is all about a fight for a suppressed people’s “FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY” – and thus they unilaterally announce their support to the “rebels”. According to London newspapers:

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil and Mahmoud Jibril have been paving the way for NATO’s conquest since 2007

12 09 2011

A violent rebellion broke out in Benghazi, Libya on February 15th this year (1). Six days later, Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil resigned to set up an alternative government. On February 27th, the Transitional National Council was established, and on March 5th, this body had declared itself the “sole representative of all Libya”, with Abdul-Jalil at its head. France recognised the TNC as the legitimate Libyan government on March 10th and Britain offered them a diplomatic office on UK soil the same day. Nine days later, the Council set up a new Libyan Central Bank and National Oil Company (2). In barely a month from the start of the rebellion, Abdul-Jalil had positioned himself as head not only of the rebels, but of the new government in waiting, with control of Libyan resources and monetary policy and the blessing of the West. On March 19th, NATO began its mass slaughter of Libyan soldiers in order to install his regime.
Clearly, seasoned imperial powers such as Britain, France and the US, would not commit to the huge expenditure of a months-long air campaign to bring somebody to power in such a strategically important, oil rich state, unless they were already a tried and trusted asset. So who exactly is Abdul Jalil?
Abdul-Jalil gained his job in the Libyan government in January 2007, when he was named Secretary of the General People’s Committee for Justice (the equivalent of Justice Minister). He has been paving the way for NATO’s military and economic conquest of Libya ever since.

2.  Qaddafi’s military and civilian “supporters” were very successful initially – routing the “rebels” in virtually every way.  Then something very extraordinary occurred. The CIA sent in a new “Rebel” leader.

His story reads like a political thriller. Once a confidant of Moammar Gadhafi and then his sworn enemy, he led a band of Libyan exiles trying to overthrow the Libyan regime before being spirited in secrecy to the United States when things went bad. His name is Khalifa Haftar.  For over a decade, Khalifa Hafter has been living in luxury in an upscale Virginia neighborhood, (in close proximity to Langley) with no visible means of employment.  Suddenly, he becomes the Libyan Rebel Leader???  HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN???

3.  NATO JETS (MOSTLY ROYAL AIR FORCE) BEGIN CARPET BOMBING LIBYAN GOVERNMENT STRONGHOLDS – and surprise, surprise, the Rebels are suddenly nearing victory – and Qaddafi is hiding for his life.  According to some reports, over 50,000 Libyan civilians have been killed by these RAF bombs – (keep in mind the propaganda initially – the bombing was all about PROTECTING the innocent civilians.)  For a rather complete log of news stories, see the website run by “Global Civilians for Peace”:       http://globalciviliansforpeace.com/category/news/

It is likely that soon the Western Media will report that Moammar Al Qaddafi has been captured and killed.   Just like the demise of Saddam Hussein, the majority of the citizens of America, Canada, and the U.K. will just click their tongues, wag their head, and give thanks to military prowess in eliminating a madman from the world stage.   Few will ever stop to critically analyze the truth.   How tragic.

Understand this:  The first act that the “Transitional National Council” (TNC – the “Rebels”) did was to establish a LIBYAN CENTRAL BANK – controlled completely by the House of Rothschild – centered of course in the “City of London” world financial center.    It soon became quite evident that this “madman” named Qaddafi adamantly refused to let the House of Rothschild dominate his North African country.  For better or for worse, he refused the Khazar Bankers.   Three decades later, Libya is a huge success story – and INCREDIBLE success story.  As I reported earlier, Libya is rich in WATER – water than has the potential to turn Libya into the garden spot of the Middle East.

When you watch this video – look closely at a few things.  Look at the shape of the buildings and the vehicles.   Notice how new and modern they are.  Do you think Obama or Bush would ever ride down a suburban street unprotected in an open-air vehicle??  Remember the last time a U.S. President rode in the open air – in a “convertible”?  Does Dallas and Dealy Plaza come to mind?   Does this look at all like a hated dictatorial madman who fears his people?  Why should he?   Gas is 14 cents a litre in Libya.   Libyans are SHARING THE NATIONAL WEALTH EQUALLY – not giving it away to corrupt corporations and BANKSTERS like Rothschild.  In short, it looks to me as if Libya is a model of something RIGHT.  One could only imagine what would happen in America, if THE PEOPLE SHARED THE NATIONAL WEALTH – not the big oil companies!!!

I remember my PoliSci professors denigrating and mocking Qaddafi’s “Green Book” as nothing but a “bunch of crapola” – a false declaration meant to deceive the world -as they put it.  They never allowed it to be read in their classes much less analyzed objectively, or debated.   Jut recently, I downloaded a free copy and read it.  Keep in mind, this was printed and published back in 1975.   It is a blueprint of Qaddafi’s thoughts, goals and aspirations of his government philosophy.   His brand of “democracy” is in my humble opinion,  a TRUE REPUBLIC form of government and is quite brilliant, actually- something INDEED that the Corporate Fascists of the House of Rothschild would of necessity fear greatly.   Just imagine –  DISTRIBUTING THE WORLD”S WEALTH TO THE PEOPLE — not to a select few Edomite bloodlines!!!  Imagine all people equally yoked and equally WEALTHY – with very, very little “poverty”.  Yes indeed – this is the highest form of TERRORISM for such greedy elitists who desire to literally enslave the world and destroy the “working class” goyim.

Do you doubt this?  Well consider that the “Libyan Civil War” as it is now being called, “officially” began (according to the House of Rothschild) on March 19, 2011.   This just happens to be the date of the Edomite “Festival of Purim” – the date where Israel historically “destroys all of its enemies.”   Do you really think it’s a coincidence that the U.S./U.K. “Invasion of Iraq” also began on Purim??

But hey, decide for yourself.  Here is the link to download the “Green Book”.  Read it and decide for yourself if the SOVEREIGN NATION OF LIBYA deserves to be carpet-bombed by NATO back to the “stone age.”      http://911-truth.net/other-books/Muammar-Qaddafi-Green-Book-Eng.pdf

And finally – watch this video with an open mind, and ask yourself if the people are not spontaneous and truly joyful as Qaddafi drives amongst them.   Something is dreadfully wrong – when the western media can get away with such brainwashing.

 

Washington Post? WOW! This Pretty Much Sums it Up!!

After 9/11, woman who was at Pentagon remains skeptical

By , Published: September 10

“You want to play in the back yard, son?” April Gallop says to the lanky 10-year-old tailing her on the front walk of a neat frame house in a Richmond suburb. “You go around; I’ll be right there.”

Elisha Gallop wears a straw hat and flip-flops in the heat of a July afternoon. He gives his mom a smile and runs to lift a heavy padlock from a side gate. The half-finished fence, being built by volunteers, remains open at the rear; anyone could walk in. But she still craves the reassuring click of a solid padlock.

“I won’t let him outside by himself,” Gallop says in a low voice, looking down the street. A woman walks her dog across the way, not glancing over, not giving a neighborly wave. “There have been some comments.”

Gallop leans against her car, a cherry-red BMW with a license plate that reads “A OVRCMER” and a fuel door that is slightly ajar.

“Now who’s been messing with this?” she murmurs, pushing it closed, scanning the yard again.

A “No Trespassing” sign is tucked into a trellis. Another is planted by the door. A third, askew between the glass and the closed blinds of a front window, warns that the property is under video surveillance. On a tidy, sunny block, it’s a house in a defensive crouch.

Gallop leans against the car and pulls papers from an envelope that a Chesterfield County deputy sheriff hand-delivered a few hours earlier. It’s another threat from the landlord.

“Why is this happening?” she asks.

The lease payments are up to date, paid during the past six years by a Pentagon Sept. 11 survivors’ fund. She thought she was renting to own, but now the property owner wants the house back. Gallop has an appointment with a lawyer the next morning. A new one. Is this the sixth or the seventh? It’s hard to remember all the lawsuits filed, the claims denied, the appeals that go ’round and ’round.

“Evidently he has formed some kind of opinion about me,” she says of the owner.

Maybe he’s like the neighbor who spit on her driveway a few months ago as Gallop hustled back behind the lowered blinds, away from the growing wariness of the neighborhood, ignoring the invitation to explain her “un-American” views and this business of Gallop v. Cheney.

“I think they Googled ‘April Gallop’ and didn’t like what they saw,” she says.

Ten years ago, there was no contrail of derision attached to her name. That was before she had fought with government agencies and private charities and school systems and she hadn’t yet sued airlines and banks and Osama bin Laden and the highest officials in the United States.

Before she had formally accused her government of making up that story about an airliner crashing into her Pentagon office.

She holds up her hands.

“All I’m doing is asking questions. When you walk out barefoot and you don’t step on any plane parts. . . .”

The hands come down, tired.

“Lord, help me make sense of this.”

Things stopped making sense on that brilliant September morning just as she pushed the button on her computer to start the day. In that moment, everything secure and understandable in the world fell on her head in a deafening avalanche of ceiling tiles and body parts.

She doesn’t know how long she was out. “Oh my God, am I in hell?” she wondered as her eyes strained to decipher the jagged heaps of wallboard and office furniture, the computers spitting sparks, the legs and arms sprouting bizarrely from the debris, some waving for help, others crazy-broken and still.

The sound was as demonic as the scene, a sustained wail of agony and panic. And then beneath that, muffled and weak, she heard . . . what? . . . a baby? “Oh my God, is there a baby in hell?” she asked.

A baby. Elisha.

On her first day back from maternity leave, her boss had asked the new single mother to come straight to the office, newborn and all. Just handle a bit of urgent paperwork and then take little Elisha Zion to the Pentagon day-care center.

He had been sleeping in his stroller next to her desk.

She pushed through the crust of chairs and cabinets and the pain that felt like hammers pounding her skull and spine. Others were upright now, shouting, shoving rubble away from the loudest screams. She tried to help. The only light was a flare of gritty sun from a hole high above the mountains of debris.

Finally she found the place where the feeble cry was the clearest. She reached into the rubble, shouldered aside rocks of concrete and felt cotton on her fingertips. She pulled out her 10-week-old son by his onesie.

“Elisha,” she calls into the back yard. His hat pops over the edge of the playground set that the VFW volunteers brought a few years ago. She calls them “my angels,” folks who still think of her simply as a hallowed Sept. 11 survivor, her son as a miracle baby.

The boy comes up. “Yes, ma’am?”

“Let’s go see if they’ve picked the squash. Lock the gates now.”

They step around a pile of new gardening stuff that blocks the front walk, lying untouched where the angels left it in May: bags of mulch, some withering plants, a bottle of Roundup. Gallop doesn’t like being in the yard enough to do much work on it.

But they drive a few miles to the garden of their church, Mount Gilead Full Gospel, a fenced acre of earth free of peering neighbors.

Elisha trots ahead and opens the gate, running along the furrows.

“He’ll walk up and down here all night if I let him,” Gallop says.

There is nothing visible to mark Elisha’s early trauma. He’s lean and agile, with wide brown eyes and a smile dimpled and gleaming. He has head shots on file with a local modeling agency.

But there are subtler echoes of that day, she says. He learns slowly, his retention is soft. Repeat, repeat, repeat, or the lessons fade. Every few months, his “glitch” shows up; he’ll have trouble telling whether a door is open or the page of a book is right-side up. His teachers put him in a special education class when he was 6, but Gallop took him out halfway through the year when he began to regress. “Suddenly he didn’t want to feed himself,” she said. “I couldn’t do that to my son.”

Now she strings together a battery of private teachers, some volunteer and some paid, who teach Elisha for six hours each day at a public library. He’s reading at grade level. On Fridays, he learns piano, guitar and violin. He’s taking figure-skating lessons.

“It was just one more fight,” Gallop says of her grapples with the school system. “I never imagined in a thousand years everything would be so hard.”

They told her it wouldn’t be. From the time she woke up on the grass outside the Pentagon, people told her she and her son would be taken care of. Politicians on TV said it was the nation’s duty to care for the victims; functionaries in hotel meeting rooms across Northern Virginia assured her and other survivors that the money was coming, the systems in place.

But Gallop says those well-intentioned systems failed her and the boy she had carried over the smoking rubble to that high shaft of sunlight above. That had looked like the way to safety.

One by one, she became enmeshed in paperwork tangles, bureaucratic standoffs, exhausting delays, with the Army, the Veterans Affairs Department, the Pentagon Survivors’ Fund.

She did receive help, the housing aid and vouchers for groceries. Anonymous donors gave tens of thousands that paid for Elisha’s rehabilitation costs and other needs.

But 10 years on, Gallop says confusion about what support agencies would and wouldn’t cover has left her deeply in debt and with no income other than her pension and the spotty child-support payments she receives from Elisha’s father, a soldier. Everything else is pending: settlements from lawsuits, disputed back pay, a star-crossed application for a VA self-employment grant.

“Right now, it’s pretty close to the bone,” she says. “Thank God for coupons.”

Gallop acknowledges that she is not blameless in the bureaucratic relationships that soured one after another. She was “a yeller,” she says, before a therapist helped her learn coping skills.

And sometimes she just disappears. “If I’m feeling bad, I don’t work,” Gallop says. “I won’t call back for a few days. But I told them that in the beginning. So I’m a complainer. Aren’t you trained to deal with that?”

She watches Elisha, only his hat visible cruising along the top of the cornstalks.

“I don’t care. I’ve got my son. I am going to fight for my benefits.”

At that moment, a timer clicks and sprinklers launch twin arcs of water over the crops, and over the Gallops.

The mother shrieks and speed-walks toward the gate, giggling. The boy whoops and runs back and forth, chasing the drops.

She had assumed it was a bomb. Maybe even a bomb attached to her computer. She had pushed the button and the place had blown up.

But an airplane?

How could that be?

It was an article of Army faith to her that she was working in the most secure building in the world. They had told her that over and over when she was transferred from Germany to the Pentagon in 2000, the days of briefings about air defenses, early warning systems, impregnable security. They said it couldn’t happen.

And then it did happen, and since then she has wondered, “Where was the plane?” The scene is still vivid in her nightmares: rubble, yes, but no aircraft wreckage; smoke and flames, but no jet-fuel inferno.

“I was 50 feet from the impact zone,” Gallop says. “The engine should have been in my lap.”

But it wasn’t.

She waited for clarity that wouldn’t come, not with the lengthening trail of official statements, not with the 9/11 Commission report, the DNA matches from the passengers of American Airlines Flight 77.

She didn’t see a plane. They said it couldn’t happen. No one is taking responsibility.

She knows they call her crazy on the Internet, or an opportunist seeking attention or money.

But she says she doesn’t enjoy being a darling of 9/11 truthers, the skeptic who was there. She doesn’t spend much time on their Web sites and has rarely watched video from the twin towers or the Pentagon, either.

“It’s hard for me to look at,” she says, patting her chest with a stricken expression. “It makes me cry.”

And money? Well, she needs money. She is clipping coupons and going to midnight sales at the PX at Richmond’s Fort Lee and waiting on payoffs that are always a few more documents away.

Gallop joined a class-action lawsuit that accused Riggs Bank of laundering money for the terrorists, and another that named pages of defendants around the Muslim world, including Bin Laden. Both were dismissed.

She is in the process of settling a suit against American Airlines. On instructions from her attorney, she won’t discuss it. But she does not step around the incongruity of suing for damages over the plane that she contends did not hit the Pentagon.

“If there are claims out there that these things took place that day, the airlines are liable,” she says. “If they are liable, I’m one of the victims. I have to do that for my son.”

The two of them are waiting on orders of Mongolian beef at a Noodles and Co. across the street from the law offices where they’ve been for the past two hours. Gallop wears a black T-shirt with “Women of P.O.W.E.R.” spelled out in rhinestones.

Elisha sits quietly now, next to his mother, fiddling with chopsticks and straw wrappers and not paying much attention to the litany of doubts and frustrations he has heard hundreds of times before.

When the food arrives, they hook pinkies. “Lord Jesus, I thank you for this meal,” Elisha says.

The two are rarely apart. She used to make “Gallop Family Team” badges for their shirts. When he was 7, she began coaching him on his role: cleaning up after himself and being patient during Mommy’s long talks with bureaucrats, landlords, lawyers.

It took her months to find an attorney willing to go to the top, to try to get a vice president, a defense secretary, a Joint Chiefs chairman at the table for sworn discovery.

William Veale, a former public defender from Walnut Creek, Calif., and a founder of the Center for 9/11 Justice, agreed. They filed Gallop v. Cheney in 2008.

The suit asserted that the story about a hijacked plane hitting the Pentagon “is false,” that the defendants were “complicit” in the attacks because they wanted to create conditions that would allow them to reassert “U.S. military power abroad, particularly in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and other oil-producing areas.”

Gallop says she isn’t sure about all the claims in the suit that bears her name. The lawyers wrote them.

“I can’t say I absolutely agree with everything in the lawsuit,” she says. “But I do think the case should be allowed to get to discovery.”

The suit was thrown out as frivolous in 2010. An appeals court upheld the dismissal in April. A motion to reconsider was denied in July.

“We’re appealing,” Gallop says. The last option is the U.S. Supreme Court.

She looks at her son struggling with the chopsticks. “We’re going to be fine.”

After lunch, they walk to a comic-book store. Now Elisha is bouncing. After hours of dutiful calm, he runs ahead, then runs back to the door to hold it open for his mother, then runs off again.

He shops a bookstore the way he walks the garden, up and down every aisle, hardly stopping. In a minute, he has a handful of comic books, a minute later he has returned those and picked up some others.

Finally, he is back with the one he wants most of all. Just one. His mother looks through her purse.

“I left my money at home,” she says.

Elisha glances at the comic. “That’s okay,” he says. “I’ll get it next time.”

He skips two aisles over and returns it to the exact slot where he had found it.

On the slow, hot walk across the parking lot, Elisha says that if he could be a comic-book hero, a hero with a super power, he’d choose invisibility. Good for hide-and-seek.

His mother walks slowly, limping a bit in the heat. “Super strength,” she says.

“You want super strength?” Elisha asks.

She smiles down at him.

“I could do it all!” she says.

“You could fly!” he says, grabbing her hand, pulling her off her stride.

“I would fly to the VA office,” she says, starting to laugh. “I’d fly to the VA and I wouldn’t even sit down. I’d just float in the air.”

They are at a stoplight. Her son is holding her hand, looking up at her face.

“ ‘Won’t you have a seat, Ms. Gallop,’ ” she says in a timid voice, imagining what they would say to this woman floating in the air.

“No!” she thunders, and now both she and Elisha are laughing and hanging onto each other as they cross the street, back to the lawyer’s office, back to a world in which you can touch a computer key and a bomb goes off.

Or was it a missile?

Or was it a plane?

Back to trying to make sense of it all.

First in the series: Trying to find the new normal

Second in the series: Twin misses his other half

Third in the series: Brought together by catastrophe

Fourth in the series: After 9/11, security guard on high alert

Fifth in the series: Still feeling at home up in the sky

Sixth in the series: After loss, working to fill the void

Seventh in the series: The wounded man

Eighth in the series: Living with ‘if only’

 

9-11 Encapsulated

SIMPLY THE BEST TONGUE-IN-CHEEK TRUTH I’VE EVER SEEN.

Here’s the 5 minute transcript, as it is read very quickly on the video:

Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes, with direct links to the evidence.

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 office where 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 up from 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.

The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.

This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).

Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilities and the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength.

And finally, read the words of Gordon Duff – Veteran’s Today

Monday, September 12th, 2011 | Posted by

Savagery: 9/11’s Legacy of Crime

His Killers Run Free, His Killers Run America

Nothing Dishonors the Dead Quite Like Lies

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

Never have I been as sickened and ashamed of being an American as yesterday. In more than 6 decades of life, I have seen America ignore mass murder, put vicious dictators in office, sold its history of heroism and sacrifice to a pack of international bankers and thieves.

America, as almost every American will tell you, is a nation run by a pack of crooks and tyrants who crush a population being pushed into poverty with the help of a censored and controlled press.

This is one thing almost all Americans agree on, they just blame different people for causing it. I suggest Americans blame themselves.

Reporting on the 9/11 anniversary was the lowest point in my memory, pure censorship. The biggest reason, one few are aware of but true just the same, is that “conspiracy theorists,” according to the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) claim to have proof that Israel helped plan and execute 9/11.

This was enough, the fear those in the press have of being labeled “anti-Semites,” the threat the ADL throws around to stifle any honest discussion of American policy in the Middle East, to omit all reporting of dissent on 9/11, even the official dissent of the commissioners who investigated the incident and requested criminal prosecution for many Bush officials who they say lied to them and were covering up some kind of conspiracy.

Then there are the groups, families of victims, the first responders, police and fire, the pilots, the military, the veterans, the engineers and architects who all say 9/11 was a staged false flag terror attack that had nothing to do with hijackings.

Only one real poll has ever been held, in Australia, seeing who supported these ideas. The surprise?

77% held these beliefs, beliefs that didn’t receive a single word of mention on 9/11. That is the nature of censorship, of tyranny, of dictatorship under the guise of democracy.

America is simply a dictatorship with a controlled press, where elections are held between carefully screened candidates and even those are rigged.

How do you define a criminal? How many do they have to murder? How many crimes before someone goes to jail? If you are poor, the answer is “one.”

If you are powerful and control the press, there is no answer at all.

This is the nature of the Building 7 controversy.

On 9/11, one building was not hit, the third tower, known as Building 7. Some believe a plane that crashed somewhere in Pennsylvania was supposed to hit that building but couldn’t. A wild story was invented about passengers taking over the plane.

They made that into a movie. Nothing in that movie can be proven true, not a single fact. It is entirely fiction.

When no plane hit the building, the BBC announced that the building had fallen, announced that while standing in front of the building which was only slightly damaged. 20 minutes later, it fell, in what everyone describes as a classic controlled demolition, one that took weeks, maybe months to engineer, beams cut, explosive charges planted throughout the building, the work of skilled engineers who have made a science of bringing buildings down.

Without this science, they tend to fall over or end up half standing and half collapsed, leaving months of work.

Then we have the interview with Larry Silverstein, the “lessor” who claims he ordered the destruction of Building 7.

We have this on tape, it was broadcast around the world on CNN.

Then, further, we have the destruction itself, firemen announcing the upcoming explosions, we hear them go off.

Then, however, we have the official report that calls all this evidence “conspiracy theory” and claims that the undamaged building fell because of “office fires.”

What we have is murder.

What we can also assume, according to the work of many prominent scientists, is that the twin towers, much larger, much stronger, that were said to “pancake” after fires caused by plane crashes were, in fact, destroyed the same way, controlled demolition.

The scientific evidence for this is overwhelming.

What we have is murder.

What we don’t have is hijackers. So long ago, when a group of the 9/11 hijackers came forward claiming they weren’t really dead, we all laughed.

After all, we saw the planes, we heard the stories, all the same, passports falling from the sky, stories of flight schools, and Saudi money paying for Osama bin Laden’s vicious criminal act.

Then, year after year, bin Laden himself, came forward bragging about 9/11.

Little did we know that those videos, the audio tapes, had been proven forgeries, sold to the US government by Israeli intelligence, now a fact very much in evidence.

What is in evidence? Bin Laden said 9/11 was done by others, he named Israel, he named drug cartels and he named American extremists.

Then we are told he died, in 2001, told by CIA handlers who knew him for years, told by the ISI handlers who worked with him, told by those who claim they buried him, confirmed by newspapers across the Middle East and Pakistan that reported his death from kidney failure.

In fact, dozens of American intelligence agents have come forward with this same story, only ‘disproven’ recently when bin Laden was captured, shot for no known reason and then thrown into the ocean, a thousand miles away, also for no known reason.

Then those who did it, the SEAL team, no, not others, it was them, all died in a mysterious helicopter crash that violated every security protocol known to man.

Back in Pakistan, where bin Laden was captured or killed or whatever, TV reported a helicopter crash and dead Americans everywhere. Witnesses seemed credible and they had film of the helicopter parts strewn across the ground.

American claimed the helicopter was victim of a minor ‘mishap.’

Then again, the CIA claimed, or used to claim, that bin Laden died in 2001 and his body was recovered near Tora Bora, from a shallow grave and returned to a Navy base in the Gulf Region for storage.

I only know this because I interrogated bin Laden’s CIA handler.

I also discussed this with the then Director General of the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence services. I also discussed this with the current Director General of Pakistan’s military information services, the ISPR, whose staff confirmed bin Laden’s death. Author Jeff Gates sat next to me during this exchange.

Later we met with the current Director General of the ISI, a discussion covered by security issues involving the governments of Pakistan and the US.

What we do know is that 9/11 was a horrible crime. What we do know also is that crime is being covered up by a conspiracy, we have names of 103 involved against whom we have sufficient evidence to warrant an immediate criminal investigation.

I have certainly lost faith in the US government, no secret there. Not having faith in government is about as patriotic a thing any human can do.

American needs its own “Arab spring.” Even Israel is getting one, demonstrations last week had 500,000 in the street but our press reported little or nothing of it.

Even our good friends in Israel, when they stand up for freedom, are silenced.

Everyone is silenced almost as though this were Stalin’s Soviet Union with a “smiley face” stuck on it.

We are living like pigs in clover, for a while at least, Obama ready to borrowed $400 billion for jobs so American people can live a bit longer before the collapse we all see as inevitable sets in.

The talk in Washington, all of it? Theatre and lies, nothing more.

Our press? The same as we all saw yesterday when censorship reared its ugly head as never before.

Millions, tens of millions of Americans are demanding jail, execution, even overthrow of our own government because the 9/11 murders, Americans killing Americans (mostly), a crime now totally exposed for what it is has been shelved as though we were all cattle.

Some call us “sheeple.”

Yesterday, Senator McCain told us that American will fight no more wars in the Middle East. He is right.

We are no longer capable. We are broke, our military is in collapse, 500,000 of what should be our best soldiers are now disabled veterans, waiting for years to go on a lifetime of anti-psychotic medications or treatments for traumatic brain injuries or lost limbs.

They aren’t going to be replaced, no matter how much poverty American is pushed into. Ron Paul is right, the draft will have to return.

The real issue isn’t government, it is the press. Yesterday was “lie day,” lies of omission, of censorship, of deception and full criminal complicity in murder.

Even Huffington Post, the once “opposition press” showed its true colors, the worst of them all.

Fox News, the network that broke stories on bin Laden and the 9/11 deception, Geraldo Rivera and Judge Napolitano, were silenced forever.

Forever.

A year ago, they exposed it all as did others.

Then history and time were erased and dictatorship reared its ugly head.

9-11 Testimony from Susan Lindauer

please post this immediately. i have been trying to send this all morning, and something is blocking my yahoo account.

                   CIA TOLD NEW YORK TIMES ABOUT 9/11 WARNINGS,
                              COMMAND NEGLIGENCE: NY Times Lied

                              By Susan Lindauer, 9/11 Whistleblower  and                                  Former U.S. Asset covering Iraq and Libya
   9/11 denialists like to swear smugly that the official 9/11 story must be true, because the government could never keep such an important secret without getting caught.
Somebody would spill the beans, right? In fact, a number of us tried. Media watchers should savvy up, as the air waves get blitzed this weekend with 9/11 emorials. If the corporate media had done its job as a watch dog, the world would have got an earful reliable intelligence sources debunking the official 9/11 story.
Unhappily, the corporate media has been a co-conspirator in the 9/11 Cover Up from day one. They have actively abetted the government with its dirty work. Say a truth teller got arrested on the Patriot Act—like me— and locked in prison on a military base, while the public debate raged over 9/11 and Iraq without access to knowledgeable sources. The government could rely on corporate media to squash the story, while the Justice Department fought my demands for a trial, playing every dirty trick in the book to stop a New York jury from hearing testimony about 9/11 and Iraq.
My nightmare is described in Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq. It was a frightening ordeal with secret charges, secret evidence, secret grand jury testimony, and threats of indefinite detention on a Texas military base.
However the Patriot Act by itself was not enough to silence facts about the command failure before 9/11 or Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence. Over and over, friends and colleagues reached out to the corporate media, delivering independent confirmations about my 9/11 warnings, the Iraqi peace framework and my work on the Lockerbie case, which proved my status as an Asset. Supporters pleaded for the media’s help to expose the government’s manipulations, so I could get my day in court, and bring that truth to the people.
Over and over again, the corporate media in New York itself mounted a wall of silence to buttress America’s leaders.
Most New Yorkers and New Jersey residents would be appalled to discover that the worst media whore in the 9/11 Cover Up turned out to be the New York Times.
By May, 2004, the New York Times received no fewer than four confirmations of our Intelligence team’s 9/11 warnings to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Office of Counter-Terrorism at the Justice Department. Confirmation was made six months before release of the 9/11 Commission report, when public discussion could have impacted the findings. Most importantly, a discourse of the facts about 9/11 would have educated voters before the November 2004 elections, holding leaders in Washington accountable to the people. For this reason, I offered to waive my Fifth Amendment rights under indictment, so the 9/11 Commission could take my testimony under oath.
Most critically, the New York Times gained two of those all important confirmations about the 9/11 warnings from  the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Both of my handlers, Dr. Richard Fuisz and Paul Hoven men freely volunteered our 9/11 warnings and the Iraqi Peace option to the New York Times. They also explained my work as a U.S. intelligence Asset engaged in the Lockerbie negotiations with Libya, and my role spearheading talks to resume weapons inspections with Iraqi Ambassador Dr. Saeed Hasan. The journalist, David Samuels, called me excitedly, after the interviews.
You read that correctly. The CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency both gave information about the 9/11 warnings to the New York Times, expecting the newspaper to alert its readers of the command negligence before the attack. The New York Times’ readership was most personally impacted by the tragedy, after all. They made an effort to inspire discussion while the 9/11 Commission was hearing testimony.  The New York Times acquired two more confirmations of our 9/11 warnings from Dr. Parke Godfrey, a highly respected computer science professor of York University in Toronto, and my brother, John Lindauer of Los Angeles.
That took guts for the Intelligence Community. By this time, writing was on the wall that Republican Leaders would punish anyone who spoke against them.
One would expect the New York Times to rush to press with such a hot story. Think about it: a long-time U.S. Intelligence Asset, second cousin to President Bush’s Chief of Staff, Andrew Card warns about 9/11 and has full knowledge of Iraq’s cooperation with the 9/11 Investigation— then gets arrested on the Patriot Act, after requesting to testify before Congress.
Wasn’t that newsworthy?  Not according to the editors of the New York Times. Instead of objectively reporting independent confirmations of the 9/11 warnings and properly identifying me as an Asset, the New York Times engaged in gross public fraud. They abetted the government in concealing information of critical significance to the paper’s home town. They manipulated the people of New York City into believing the CIA gave no advance warnings of 9/11 at all. While the American public screamed for impeachment, the New York Times blocked information that showed President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez engaged in active public deception. The people were left believing the government had simply made mistakes before 9/11 and the Iraq War.
In other words, the New York Times acted like an old whore, clinging to GOP leaders like a last client, seeking assurances of her waning attractiveness to the public.
When one of Washington’s most stellar attorneys, Brian Shaughnessy, forced the Court to grant my request for a single, pre-trial hearing—four years after my arrest— Parke Godfrey delivered shocking testimony about my 9/11 warnings less than a thousand feet from where the World Trade Center once graced the New York skyline.
Yet again, New York Times reporter, Alan Feuer, fraudulently and libelously invented a phony lead sentence: “She stuck her tongue out at the prosecutor.”  And the New York Times parroted the Justice Department’s line that “half a dozen psychiatrists” had declared me incompetent to stand trial—a blatant deception. Ignoring a morning’s worth of testimony, Feuer suggested that I was a “religious maniac,” something  hysterically funny to everyone who knows me. There’s no reality contact in the one and only psychiatric report that postulated such claims. (That single evaluation was presented by the Justice Department’s psychiatrist and tossed by the Bureau of Prisons in the first hour of my arrival at Carswell).
If the New York Times had scratched the surface in its reporting, journalists would have recognized the Justice Department was running what’s called “a psy-op” designed to hide a major government deceptions from voters. A quick examination of the record would have revealed that half a dozen psychiatrists had challenged the Justice Department, and declared me fully competent in all areas of life. Even psychiatrists at Carswell Prison acknowledged I suffered “no evidence of hallucinations,” “no depression.” They said I socialized well, posed “zero behavioral problems.” Weekly reports stated consistently that I was “cooperative, smiling, with good eye contact.”
Notably, psychiatrists at Carswell Prison ruled out delusional disorder, citing first-hand observation, witness interviews, and diagnostic testing.
The slightest attention to witness testimonials would have exposed the whole public fraud. Yet the New York media carefully ignored evidentiary testimony that exposed the 9/11 warnings and denied symptoms of mental instability. While my attorney, Brian Shaughnessy protested for my right to a trial, the New York media assured the public that the Court finding was “gift wrapped for my defense.”
Casting journalists as “controlled opposition–” might be overly generous given these circumstances, since it implies they have any backbone at all. Alas, most of them don’t. They whine for pity for their low ratings. Then they let government officials write their news scripts in exchange for political access.
Hey, it’s a tough job defending the official story of 9/11. You have to overcome janitorial crews, fire fighters and emergency rescue teams who all reported hearing explosions pop through the towers. They had to ignore damage to the front lobby— windows that exploded before the first plane hit the building.
You have to ignore what your own eyes see—a neat, clean controlled demolition of the Towers, which dropped free-fall into a pile of thermatic dust— and fires that burned under the Towers until December, months after jet fuel would have gasped its last flame.
Airplanes crashed into the Towers that day, sure enough. However I can testify myself the U.S. had significant advance warnings about the airplane hijackings, back to April and May, 2001. The decision to go to War with Iraq, in the aftermath of the terrorist strike, was already made “at the highest levels of government above the CIA Director and Secretary of State.”  I know that firsthand, because I was instructed to deliver that message, precisely worded, to Iraqi diplomats, and to demand “any fragment of actionable intelligence that would pinpoint the attack.” And I did so.
Iraq had no intelligence. However, the CIA’s advance knowledge of the conspiracy and advance threats against Iraq created powerful motivation and opportunity for a separate orphan team, domestic or foreign, to wire the Towers with military grade explosives.
The New York media never investigated reports that security cameras in the parking garage had photographed mysterious trucks/vans arriving at the World Trade Center at about 3 a.m and departing at 5 a.m, before Type AAA personalities arrived to start their days on Wall Street. The vans were different than the janitorial trucks, in make, model and decal. They arrived at the World Trade Center from August 23 to September 3.
Those are important missing pieces of how the 9/11 tragedy unfolded. Myself, I have concluded that airplane hijackings were used as a public cover for a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7. From that point, it’s up to explosives experts to determine the sorts materials applied to the detonation.
I won my freedom when the blogs and alternative radio took up my cause. In a practical sense, 9/11 marked the changing of the media guard. And it proved the internet boasts some fine journalists of its own, like Michael Collins and radio host Bob Tuskin at The Intel Hub.
No thanks to the government’s top dogs at the New York Times. But perhaps that’s not fair. A dog would have shown more loyalty to the people of Manhattan and New Jersey.
                                                     ##END###
9/11 Whistleblower, Susan Lindauer was a U.S. Intelligence Asset covering Iraq and Libya at the United Nations from 1995 to 2003. She is the author of Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq. Her five year indictment on the Patriot Act ended without a Trial five days before President Obama’s inauguration.

Angels Among Us — An Incredible True Story

A Father, a Daughter and a Dog –
A True Story by Catherine Moore

“Watch out! You nearly broad sided that car!” My father yelled at me. “Can’t you do anything right?”

Those words hurt worse than blows. I turned my head toward the elderly man in the seat beside me, daring me to challenge him. A lump rose in my throat as I averted my eyes. I wasn’t prepared for another battle.

“I saw the car, Dad. Please don’t yell at me when I’m driving.”

My voice was measured and steady, sounding far calmer than I really felt.


Dad glared at me, then turned away and settled back. At home I left Dad in front of the television and went outside to collect my thoughts…. dark, heavy clouds hung in the air with a promise of rain. The rumble of distant thunder seemed to echo my inner turmoil. What could I do about him?

Dad had been a lumberjack in  Washington and Oregon . He had enjoyed being outdoors and had revelled in pitting his strength against the forces of nature. He had entered gruelling lumberjack competitions, and had placed often. The shelves in his house were filled with trophies that attested to his prowess.

The years marched on relentlessly. The first time he couldn’t lift a heavy log, he joked about it; but later that same day I saw him outside alone, straining to lift it. He became irritable whenever anyone teased him about his advancing age, or when he couldn’t do something he had done as a younger man.

Four days after his sixty-seventh birthday, he had a heart attack. An ambulance sped him to the hospital while a paramedic administered CPR to keep blood and oxygen flowing.

At the hospital, Dad was rushed into an operating room. He was lucky; he survived. But something inside Dad died. His zest for life was gone. He obstinately refused to follow doctor’s orders. Suggestions and offers of help were turned aside with sarcasm and insults. The number of visitors thinned, and then finally stopped altogether. Dad was left alone.

My husband, Dick, and I asked Dad to come live with us on our small farm. We hoped the fresh air and rustic atmosphere would help him adjust.

Within a week after he moved in, I regretted the invitation. It seemed nothing was satisfactory. He criticized everything I did. I became frustrated and moody. Soon I was taking my pent-up anger out on Dick. We began to bicker and argue.

Alarmed, Dick sought out our pastor and explained the situation. The clergyman set up weekly counselling appointments for us. At the close of each session he prayed, asking God to soothe Dad’s troubled mind.

But the months wore on and God was silent. Something had to be done and it was up to me to do it.

The next day I sat down with the phone book and methodically called each of the mental health clinics listed in the Yellow Pages. I explained my problem to each of the sympathetic voices that answered in vain.

Just when I was giving up hope, one of the voices suddenly exclaimed, “I just read something that might help you! Let me go get the article.”

I listened as she read. The article described a remarkable study done at a nursing home. All of the patients were under treatment for chronic depression. Yet their attitudes had improved dramatically when they were given responsibility for a dog.

I drove to the animal shelter that afternoon. After I filled out a questionnaire, a uniformed officer led me to the kennels. The odour of disinfectant stung my nostrils as I moved down the row of pens. Each contained five to seven dogs. Long-haired dogs, curly-haired dogs, black dogs, spotted dogs all jumped up, trying to reach me. I studied each one but rejected one after the other for various reasons too big, too small, too much hair. As I neared the last pen a dog in the shadows of the far corner struggled to his feet, walked to the front of the run and sat down. It was a pointer, one of the dog world’s aristocrats. But this was a caricature of the breed.

Years had etched his face and muzzle with shades of gray. His hip bones jutted out in lopsided triangles. But it was his eyes that caught and held my attention. Calm and clear, they beheld me unwaveringly.

I pointed to the dog. “Can you tell me about him?” The officer looked, and then shook his head in puzzlement. “He’s a funny one.  Appeared out of nowhere and sat in front of the gate. We brought him in, figuring someone would be right down to claim him. That was two weeks ago and we’ve heard nothing.  His time is up tomorrow.” He gestured helplessly.

As the words sank in I turned to the man in horror. “You mean you’re going to kill him?”  “Ma’am,” he said gently, “that’s our policy. We don’t have room for every unclaimed dog.”

I looked at the pointer again. The calm brown eyes awaited my decision. “I’ll take him,” I said. I drove home with the dog on the front seat beside me. When I reached the house I honked the horn twice. I was helping my prize out of the car when Dad shuffled onto the front porch. “Ta-da! Look what I got for you, Dad!” I said excitedly.

Dad looked, and then wrinkled his face in disgust. “If I had wanted a dog I would have gotten one. And I would have picked out a better specimen than that bag of bones. Keep it! I don’t want it” Dad waved his arm scornfully and turned back toward the house.

Anger rose inside me. It squeezed together my throat muscles and pounded into my temples. “You’d better get used to him, Dad. He’s staying!”
 Dad ignored me. “Did you hear me, Dad?” I screamed. At those words Dad whirled angrily, his hands clenched at his sides, his eyes narrowed and blazing with hate. We stood glaring at each other like duellists, when suddenly the pointer pulled free from my grasp. He wobbled toward my dad and sat down in front of him. Then slowly, carefully, he raised his paw.

Dad’s lower jaw trembled as he stared at the uplifted paw Confusion replaced the anger in his eyes. The pointer waited patiently. Then Dad was on his knees hugging the animal.

It was the beginning of a warm and intimate friendship. Dad named the pointer Cheyenne. Together he and Cheyenne explored the community. They spent long hours walking down dusty lanes. They spent reflective moments on the banks of streams, angling for tasty trout. They even started to attend Sunday services together, Dad sitting in a pew and Cheyenne lying quietly at his feet.

Dad and Cheyenne were inseparable throughout the next three years. Dad’s bitterness faded, and he and Cheyenne made many friends. Then late one night I was startled to feel Cheyenne’s cold nose burrowing through our bed covers. He had never before come into our bedroom at night. I woke Dick, put on my robe and ran into my father’s room. Dad lay in his bed, his face serene. But his spirit had left quietly sometime during the night.

Two days later my shock and grief deepened when I discovered Cheyenne lying dead beside Dad’s bed. I wrapped his still form in the rag rug he had slept on. As Dick and I buried him near a favorite fishing hole, I silently thanked the dog for the help he had given me in restoring Dad’s peace of mind.

The morning of Dad’s funeral dawned overcast and dreary. This day looks like the way I feel, I thought, as I walked down the aisle to the pews reserved for family. I was surprised to see the many friends Dad and Cheyenne had made filling the church. The pastor began his eulogy. It was a tribute to both Dad and the dog that had changed his life.

And then the pastor turned to Hebrews 13:2. “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing It.”

“I’ve often thanked God for sending that angel,” he said.

For me, the past dropped into place, completing a puzzle that I had not seen before:  the sympathetic voice that had just read the right article. Cheyenne’s unexpected appearance at the animal shelter. His calm acceptance and complete devotion to my father. And the proximity of their deaths. And suddenly I understood. I knew that God had answered my prayers after all..

Life is too short for drama or petty things, so laugh hard, love truly and forgive quickly. Live While You Are Alive. Forgive now those who made you cry. You might not get a second time.

Do share this with someone. Lost time can never be found.

God answers our prayers in His time……..not ours.

The STORY OF YOUR ENSLAVEMENT

“NO MAN IS MORE HOPELESSLY ENSLAVED, THAN HE WHO FALSELY BELIEVES THAT HE IS FREE”

—Goethe—

This short 13 minute video pretty much sums up the reality.  The “FARMERS” are the Khazarian Money Masters – the Edomite Jews.