Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Craig McKee: How can ‘journalists' dismiss everything they are supposed to stand for when it comes to 9/11?



Anything that doesn’t fit with the official narrative will be attacked.

Dishonest attacks on Griffin like a blueprint for how the uninformed and intolerant defend the official story

Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. The state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking… – Leo Tolstoy

By Craig McKee

For the most part, I’m getting better at staying out of Facebook fights with idiots, trolls, and those who think the word “conspiracy” is their go-ahead to try stand-up comedy.
Better, not perfect.
On the 16th anniversary of 9/11 last week, I decided to spend the day sharing articles and memes I’d created about this massive and devastating false flag deception. I also dared to comment on a friend’s tongue-in-cheek Facebook post about 9/11, leading me into a somewhat predictable marathon confrontation with three journalists, one I know personally and the other two I know by reputation. Oddly enough, I do think it was worth it. The three, whose arrogance and non-existent knowledge of 9/11 were exposed, went beyond having bad attitudes; they thumbed their noses and everything journalists are supposed to believe in.
The three fancy themselves as intelligent and well-informed but they have fallen for the indefensible idea that anyone who questions the official account of any important event must be a nut case. They actually seem to believe that it doesn’t matter about evidence if the word “conspiracy” is involved. They would deny this, but their words give them away.
And by the way, just because I focus here on three journalists does not mean I couldn’t have added a bunch more from past “discussions.” I’ve gotten “face palm” as a response to one of my points, I’ve been told that I live in a “conspiracy bubble” and, only slightly facetiously, that I had made up my mind about 9/11 even before it happened. (In fact, I didn’t seriously begin to doubt the official story until 2007 when I first learned what the heck Building 7 was. While I’m embarrassed that I was so gullible for so long, I did at least approach the new information by investigating further.)
The first member of the typing triumvirate in this case was Julien Feldman, co-founder of the now defunct Montreal alt-weekly The Mirror and currently a school board commissioner in the city. He unsuccessfully sought the New Democratic Party nomination in the federal riding where I live, NDG-Westmount. He is described in a CBC article on the nomination as a “former journalist.”
Batting second was David Lieber, who writes some freelance articles (we’ve had our work appear in the same magazine more than once) but describes himself as a communications/marketing writer and translator. His intolerance for ideas that don’t conform to his own seems almost absolute.  At least on Facebook it is.
And behind door number three we have Matthew Hays, who wrote about cinema for The Mirrorand teaches cinema, journalism, and communications at Concordia University (where I studied journalism). Hays didn’t get into the discussion as deeply nor stay as long as the other two, but in his few comments he made it clear that he shares their cartoonish and condescending views on topics not deemed acceptable by the mainstream.
Unfortunately, these attitudes aren’t unusual as every truth-seeking activist knows too well. Media reports on 9/11 and other false flags—when the subjects are covered at all—feature snarky and dismissive comments that focus on the psychological state of those who dissent along with questions about why these darned theories “persist” after so many years. I have a thought: maybe they persist because the media refuse to address them and refuse to help us to learn the truth about them. Just a thought.
What struck me about all three know-it-alls in this discussion was that they would not, or could not, offer any specifics about 9/11, the topic they were using to justify their insinuations about my mental health. They came up with many ways to say that 9/11 truth activists are lunatics but no ways to refute anything we say. They actually seem to believe this is not necessary.
Feldman particularly thought it would be great to attack the 9/11 Truth Movement’s most respected and prolific researcher, David Ray Griffin, and accuse him of inventing facts. Either Feldman didn’t think anyone would challenge him on this assertion, or he didn’t care because he thought that the accusation alone would be enough to malign Griffin’s scholarship. But I was more than prepared to call his bluff. I demanded even one example of something Griffin had invented, and Feldman could not comply.
The fun all started with a post by my good friend Frederic Serre, another journalist, who shared this: “What’s the difference between a cow and 9/11? Americans can’t milk a cow for 16 years.” Fred can be a you-know-what disturber but in the best sense of the term. He is a free thinker, and he expresses support for my position, something that takes real courage. His post provided an opportunity for me to insert a different perspective into what I was sure would be predictable 9/11 anniversary hand-wringing. One person (yes, it was yet another journalist) said Fred’s joke was “cruel” and “too soon” and that he had friends who were killed that day. I offered this:
“I think the cruel thing is the bogus war on terror that this event has led to. Millions have died because of this deception. Those people—and the families of the victims from that day who continue to fight for answers—deserve more than maudlin tributes. They deserve the truth.”
I prepared myself for the inevitable vitriol, and it didn’t take long for Lieber to bring “psychology” into the discussion. He wrote: “Even if 9/11 were the conspiracy that a handful of nut bars believe it was, there’s no cause for hilarity at the commemoration of the event. And the families of the victims are NOT ‘fighting for answers.’ They already have it.”
I love it when people who haven’t taken five minutes to investigate 9/11 promise us that they know what the families of those killed on 9/11 want and deserve. I pointed this out, linked to a video of Bob McIlvaine speaking, and added: “There would never have been a 9/11 Commission had the families not demanded an investigation. It took more than 440 days for their demand to be met. And then the commission was a sham and a cover-up as even members of the commission admitted.”



Here are some revealing highlights of the discussion with every effort made to maintain context. For the purposes of this article, I’ve removed comments from other contributors, although some were pertinent (a gentleman named Murray Pearson jumped into the fray and offered excellent points to rebut Feldman).
Lieber: Of nearly three thousand victims, the chances of finding of a few crazies like you, Craig, is virtually guaranteed.
And we’re off…
McKee: I gave you a question, which you were afraid to even attempt to answer.
Lieber: What was that question again?
McKee: How did Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, come straight down into its own footprint at virtually free fall acceleration? As if it were falling through air. Without damaging adjacent buildings that were just a few feet away. And considering that the official NIST report conceded that the fires were isolated on just a few floors and that they were out by 4 p.m. The report also said that falling debris did not play a part in the collapse. So how did the 82 support columns all manage to fail within a millisecond of each other to make a symmetrical collapse possible?
At that point, Lieber hit me with the dreaded link to Popular Mechanics – an article about Building 7 (“World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest”). The piece features a link to the magazine’s disinformation book called Debunking 9/11 Myths: How Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts. You can almost set a clock by these people posting PM. And you can almost picture their smug faces as they’re doing it.
McKee: I didn’t ask for a link. I know all about PM‘s whitewash. You pretend you know all about 9/11, so just tell me the answer. Or admit you don’t know. I would respect that, if you just stated honestly that you have not done any research.
I responded with my own link, to Griffin’s book Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.
McKee: Written by David Ray Griffin, who has written a dozen books on the subject. His new one is called Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. I recommend it.
Lieber: He has appeared on Alex Jones’ show and has also stated that 9/11 is a religious issue. That’s enough for me.
McKee: Ah, the old guilt by association thing. Griffin also appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show, and nobody is a bigger douche than that guy. Someone appearing on a show is the weakest possible argument. As for it being a religious issue, a lot of people would see a lot of things as having religious implications. Do you mock anti-war activists whose activism is influenced by their faith? You are exposing yourself as someone who has nothing to offer but snarky quips and a couple of links. Not impressive.
Then Hays enters the fray with this: “I have to side with David here. I’m shocked at the number of otherwise-sane people who believe the inside job theories around 9/11. It’s nonsense (yes – I’ve seen the “documentaries” on the issue and read the statements of some engineers). Please see Chomsky’s assessment of the inside job theory. This theory ranks up there with fluoride in the water, vaccinations causing autism and gluten-free diets. Bunk.”
I love it how they always hasten to inform others how thoroughly they’ve reviewed the evidence, but when you ask them a question…
McKee: I can see why you agree with David. Neither of you addresses any of the evidence. Just generalities and insults. And Chomsky doesn’t address any of the evidence either, so I see why you like his take.
Hays: Craig: I’ve seen and read about the “evidence.” None of it is convincing at all. You’ve been had.
McKee: Matthew, I don’t know what you mean by “seen and read about” the evidence. I can’t imagine that you have given the evidence fair consideration, particularly if you find “none of it” convincing. It’s the totality of the evidence that is convincing.
I then posted a link to my article on the documented weaponization of the “conspiracy theory” term by the CIA in the 1960s.
Hays: Craig: by the looks of things, this conspiracy theory is a fixation of yours. Good luck with that. Holy fuck, the things the Internet have spawned……..
McKee: Matthew: Given that this deception has led to numerous wars and a serious assault on privacy and civil liberties, then I think it is appropriate to be very concerned about people understanding the truth. When I was a teenager I was doing a great deal of research on the Kennedy assassination, so the Internet did not spawn my views. Research did. I’m sorry you feel the need to be dismissive and condescending about this, but I’m used to it. Tell me, what in the official conspiracy theory do you find compelling? Or did you just assume that the media and government wouldn’t ever tell us a lie?




McKee: I’m sure there were “patriotic” Americans in the 1960s who claimed that peace protesters had a “fixation” on opposing the Vietnam War. But it was a good fixation to have. By the way, that war started with a massive government lie called the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Hays: David makes valid points. This is a ludicrous conspiracy theory which stops us from focussing on what we need to know and act on.
McKee: Matthew, David didn’t make ANY POINTS. And neither have you. Can you address any of the evidence specifically, or do you just rely on broad and unspecific put-downs? I’d be embarrassed to endorse the comments of someone who says there is “no issue” because “there is nothing left to learn.”
LieberO! You brave, courageous souls! Here’s something I dragged off the internet (the same place you drag your bullshit from, Craig).
A self-satisfied Lieber plopped down a link to a horrible Psychology Today article (“The theories are powerful because they promise to manage fear of death. Instead of feeling poisonous worry, you name the threat and feel heroic for uncovering the secret truth. Since the theories are false, anxiety comes back as obsession with the theory and efforts to convert others to believe.” Anything to distract and misdirect…)
McKee: The refuge of those who are closed-minded and arrogant is to point to the “psychology” of those who dissent. It’s so much easier to slap down a link to a mainstream propaganda piece than it is to actually address the topic. But it makes sense: to address the topic requires knowing something about the topic, which you don’t.
Lieber: How did YOU become such a goddam expert, Craig? Whoever pronounced you to be an expert? You?
McKee: I did a ton of research, Dave. Even though I bought the official story for six years, I reacted to new information and began looking at the evidence. Anyone can do it.
Lieber: I know, Craig. “Anyone” can also be a doctor or a lawyer or a nuclear physics expert or a student of dead languages. “Anyone” can be a conspiracy theorist, too, except he doesn’t need any qualifications for that.
Huh?



McKee: That’s what I just said. Anyone can do it. Unless they think they already know it all. Those people cannot learn anything.
Lieber: If “anyone” can do it, I’m not impressed, Craig. It’s many, many years that conspiracy theorists have failed come up with anything resembling proof to the contrary of the intensively researched conclusions of experts.
McKee: That’s a laughable statement. We have tons of proof, but you would never know because you brush it off without even looking at it. What I notice about people like you is that you love to talk in generalities and insults, but you won’t take me on on the actual facts. If I were you, I wouldn’t either.
Lieber: What on earth do you mean by an “actual fact” Craig? And what constitutes a “ton” of proof?
McKee: You’d have to look at it to know that. I have, you haven’t. I don’t know why you expect broad questions like that to have short answers. Still waiting for you to set me straight on Building 7. Or we could go to other aspects of the crime. I’m easy either way.
Mr. Lieber then hit me with a Google search that he seemed to think would deal me a death blow. I responded with a search of my own. (See graphic.)
Lieber: … Craig looks WAY beyond the “usual sources.” I don’t find that at all virtuous.
Lieber: I invite anyone interested to visit Craig McKee’s FB page. It contains nothing but conspiracy theories, one after the other, and many memes from a site called “Truth and Shadows.” Craig also draws heavily on material from the Centre for Global Research, which contains, among other nonsense, filthy anti-Semitic articles disguised as anti-Zionist. I just read a fascinating article asserting that Israel instigated the Six Day War. Did I say “nut bar”?
McKee: Dave you seem to get nastier and more pompous as the day goes on. My page is indeed full of 9/11 posts over the past couple of days because it is the anniversary of 9/11. See how that works? Truth and Shadows is my site. Global Research does not contain “filthy anti-Semitic” articles. It sometimes dares to criticize Israel and Zionism, yes. Is that not allowed? Only nut bars do that? And you should do some research on the Six Day War.
Lieber then introduced a common disinformation tactic by suggesting that I was making money from my web site (I’m not) and that I am fooling people into thinking that Truth and Shadows the web site is unrelated to Truth and Shadows the Facebook page (pretty sneaky of me).
Enter Feldman (sounds like the worst Metallica song ever), who proved even more obnoxious and ignorant than the other two. As you’ll see, he accuses me and other “conspiracy theorists” of doing exactly what he does – ignoring facts and abandoning reason. Irony abounds.
Feldman: I studied the JFK conspiracy movement in depth for a story I wrote in the London Tely Magazine. The conspiracy nutbars stalked me for years afterwards and claimed I worked for the CIA!
I was tempted to ask, “So, do you?” but I resisted, mainly because I didn’t think he’d see the humor in the question. I also could not help wondering how truly bad that article must have been.
McKee: Did you ever study the actual evidence, or was the story just to mock “conspiracy nutbars”? For some reason, mainstream journalism only seems interested in doing the latter.
Feldman: The most interesting aspect of any conspiracy theory is how facts are systematically re-organized – always in service of the conspiracy.
McKee: It’s funny: I always evaluate situations on a case-by-case basis. It’s neither always a conspiracy nor is it never a conspiracy. I have to say I don’t respect the endless generalizations used to attack those who question official accounts. You’ve just made a generalization: why don’t you relate it to something specific, and I’d be happy to comment?
Feldman: You need to learn how to evaluate situations on a fact-by-fact basis!
McKee: By all means, Julien, tell me how I’m not doing that. If you can.
Feldman: I think you’re studious avoiding the facts. Your head is in the sand – a common look for conspiracy theorists.
He then posted the same dreaded Popular Mechanics link, which I doubt he has even read. What would these people do without it?
McKee: I’ve already addressed this link, Julien. If you want to tell me I’m wrong about 9/11, make an argument. Tell me why you believe the official account. Challenge something I’ve said. Slapping a link down doesn’t cut it. Popular Mechanics was refuted by David Ray Griffin in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking. Did you know PM [actually it was PM’s editor-in-chief James Meigs] claims the wings of the Pentagon plane were sheared off? Odd since they were never seen again.





At this point, Feldman thought it would be good strategy to toss out a lot of ridiculous and easily-refuted attacks on Griffin.
Feldman: Craig, Griffin wrote the book, but debunking he did not do. The book was ridiculous and the debunking an abject failure.
McKee: Give me a specific, Julien.
Feldman: How about, who is this hack polemicist – without being chemist or structural engineer, nevertheless feels entitled to go beyond hypotheses and make authoritative judgements about the events of 9/11 being at odds with the official story?!
McKee: Are you a chemist or a structural engineer, Julien? And yet you have an opinion…
Feldman: I’m not making any judgments other than to observe that your retired religion prof pretends to “debunk” serious investigations. None of the facts raised in the technical report appear to be any use to your man of little faith.
McKee: For example? What did he say that isn’t right?
Feldman: In a way it’s not surprising that a man of faith is comfortable denying science while attacking scientists as politically motivated and venal. That’s standard operating procedure on the American right.
McKee: Stop, Julien. Jesus. He’s not part of the right and he is not denying science. His books are meticulous about the evidence, including the science. Do you know anything about this man? His new book is called Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. Sound like a right winger to you?
McKee: I’m still waiting for one person on this post to offer even one specific point on 9/11. But no one can. All distractions and innuendos.
Feldman: Craig, your reaction to the Bldg. 7 report reveals you as completely alienated from the scientific idea — the notion that objective assessment of evidence is the way to understand the world.
You have to hand it to this guy. He has the balls to accuse ME of being alienated from science and objective evidence while being completely incapable of offering a single coherent thought on either one.
McKee: How so? Give me a specific, Julien. I’ve asked you to do that several times now, and all I get is empty accusations with no substance.
Feldman: A serious investigation such as the one your conspiracy leader allegedly debunks – should be taken seriously and its findings analyzed. Griffin, on the other hand, focuses on opinion polls!
McKee: That’s false, Julien. He mentions polls but he does not focus on them. Have you read his book? Do you have EVEN ONE specific point to make about Griffin’s analysis? You obviously don’t or you would have made it by now.
Feldman: History reveals a general consensus that Bush & Cheney exploited 9/11 to support their political agenda, start disastrous wars, etc., but Griffin’s actual (and wholly unnecessary) claim – in fact, referencing the same historical events – is that they *masterminded* 9/11. He launches into a search for physical clues to support the ludicrous claims of the 9/11 Truther movement – as if his pedestrian political theories need a dramatic theory to jazz ’em up.
McKee: Claims are not necessary or unnecessary, they are true or false. He does not “launch into a search for physical clues,” he looks at the official story in detail and shows where the evidence is contradictory and where government claims are simply impossible. But I guess that if you stay away from specifics – like you do – then it’s easy to take shots because you don’t have to support anything you’re saying. But I think people see through that.
Feldman: The specifics are in the Bldg 7 report. Griffin’s fake news is irrelevant invention and fabrication. A nice retirement hobby, perhaps.
McKee: That is fucking bullshit. Griffin does not peddle fake news. You throw words around very recklessly. What has he fabricated? What has he invented? What has he said that is irrelevant? Either back up your bogus claims or pack it in.
Sorry for the language but it reflects exactly how I felt about these charges. I bet you can’t wait to hear what proof Feldman offered…
Feldman: I’m not making a claim at all, merely suggesting that the Bldg 7 report sticks to facts, while Griffin’s ambitious inquiry – designed to underpin a cult-like ideology, – is more suited to the concept of “bogus”.
The concept of bogus?



McKee: The building 7 NIST report is completely unscientific. It was even disavowed by a former NIST engineer named Peter Michael Ketcham, who now supports the 9/11 Truth Movement. So you’re wrong about that. And you have just added more empty assertions that you can’t back up about Griffin’s work. “Designed to underpin a cult-like ideology”? That sounds like gibberish to me. Again, you offer no specific point where Griffin is “bogus.” But no worries; I’ve adjusted my expectations so low now that you are guaranteed to meet them every time.
McKee: I’ll ask again: What has he invented? What has he fabricated?
A gentleman named Tim Rideout interjected a comment at this point that I got a smile out of: “Omg. Best. Thread. Ever. The Internets thank you all for your contributions.”
Feldman: The WTC 7 NIST report resulted in more than 20 changes in the U.S. model building and fire codes which have already been adopted based on the findings and recommendations from the investigation. I suppose Griffin would recommend that future tenants forego any safety concerns and measures other than arrest of the government conspirators.
McKee: Julien, no one is going to have a problem with improved safety codes, but in this case any changes are based on a false premise that fire and faulty construction brought Building 7 down. The buildings were brought down with explosives, which your precious NIST admitted they never investigated. (By the way, how do you explain the presence of molten metal under all three towers for three months after 9/11, along with the presence of unignited thermite and tons of iron microspheres in the dust that are a bi-product of a thermite reaction? In the Deutsche Bank Building, almost 6% of the dust that entered from the towers’ destruction was iron microspheres.) Your supposition about Griffin is once again both false and irrelevant. Too bad you have to attack him for words you put in his mouth instead of addressing what he actually has said. You seem incapable of dealing with actual facts. And your claim that Griffin invents and fabricates evidence is clearly invented and/or fabricated itself. I’m still waiting for you to provide an example of something he has fabricated.
Feldman: There’s no actual evidence of any kind government conspiracy. Plenty of evidence was found of the hijackers’ conspiracy – and subsequently, the crude effort to fabricate a case for war involving claims of Iraq’s alleged WMD program.
McKee: And the claim that there is no evidence of a government conspiracy is laughable. To take one example of hundreds, we know that the surveillance video from the Pentagon was doctored because two synchronized camera views from almost identical angles show exactly the same thing EXCEPT in the frame where the alleged “plane” appears. In every other frame we know they are synchronized because the smoke cloud is precisely the same shape. As to the hijackers, their identities changed multiple times, and we cannot look at who was on the plane because the official flight manifests have been kept secret. In fact, there is no proof that any of the 19 accused ever boarded any of the planes.
Feldman: That’s not evidence, just more speculation!
McKee: Doctored video is speculation? How so? As for the “hijackers”: these 19 men have been accused of mass murder. Don’t you think there should be proof they were on the planes? If you were accused of mass murder, wouldn’t you expect someone to prove you were even at the scene of the crime?
Feldman: It’s speculation that it’s “doctored”. As detectives, conspiracy theorists are notoriously lazy. Where there’s no evidence you just make it up. No problem, as the entire theory of the case is a fabrication anyways.
We’re notoriously lazy says the man who hasn’t done enough research to be able to make a single specific point about 9/11 or about Griffin’s work.
McKee: Again, Julien, you prove that it is YOU who is lazy and you who simply fabricates. In fact, you just lie. Tell me what evidence I have ever made up! Tell me what evidence Griffin has made up. Show some integrity. Here is my article discussing the evidence for doctored video.
McKee: And how can a theory be a fabrication? Never mind. Tell us one example of evidence that I, or Griffin, or Murray, has “made up.” Just one example.
Feldman: Virtually everything underpinning the “theory” is a fabrication. It’s a theory looking for evidence. Where it finds none, it’s made up from whole cloth! The “doctored” video, for example – or Dr. Jones’ WTC dust.
McKee: If virtually everything is a fabrication, then you should be able to give examples and tell us why they are fabrications. Why is the video a fabrication? And please back up your new unsubstantiated claim that Steven Jones’s evidence is made up. Can you? No, I didn’t think so.
McKee: Watching you flail away with broad attacks that have no meaning is embarrassing. I’m embarrassed for you.
Feldman: Asking the sane world to disprove inane absurdities is as ridiculous as it sounds.
McKee: Thank you, Julien, for continuing to illustrate my points so well. But all you and the other “sane” people have to do is prove your own story. But you can’t, so you rely on silly sentences like the one you just posted. You are twisting yourself in knots to avoid addressing any of the hundreds of legitimate questions about 9/11. Is it an inane absurdity to ask how Building 7 came down when it wasn’t hit by a plane? We can’t even ask the question without being called names? But I understand: if my knowledge was as poor as yours, I’d look for distractions too.
Feldman came back the next day, showing that Google searching is among his skills. He started with a link to the pointless video of a guy showing how he can bend steel rods by heating them up. (Here is Richard Gage’s take-off on that video.)
Feldman: Here’s a detail that shows how flimsy most conspiracies really are: a waste of time.
He then posted a long quote that he called “moronic” from Griffin that addressed the issue of whether steel melted or just weakened. But again he would not, or could not, say why it is moronic.
Feldman (quoting Griffin): “There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: “steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.” Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted” (Barter, 2001).[7]
These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene—which is what jet fuel is—can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.[10]
Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300˚F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.”
At the time I responded to the use of this quote, I didn’t know where it was from or what the context was. But I tracked it down and found it in an essay of Griffin’s called “The destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the official account cannot be true” that appeared in the Paul Zarembka edited volume The Hidden History of 9-11. When I read the passage in the essay, in context, I realized why Feldman stopped quoting where he did.




Here is the paragraph that immediately followed “But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot”:
“But they were not. Claims have been made as we have seen, about the jet fuel. Much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and the rest was gone within 10 minutes, after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eager, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300 degrees F.”
Did Feldman just grab a random chunk of one of Griffin’s essays, or did he choose this one and end it where he did to deliberately mislead? [Griffin’s footnote here points out that Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the NIST report, said that the jet fuel fires “probably burned out in less than 10 minutes,” and that the NIST report itself noted on page 179 that, “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.”] Anyway, back to my real time response:
McKee: Ah, Julien, you’re back! And after being incapable of making a single actual point the other day, you’ve done some frantic Googling, and now, armed with a quote from David Ray Griffin and the word “moronic” you’re ready to salvage your non-existent arguments. But this attempt just further confirms that you don’t know anything about the evidence. First of all, it was 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton who told [the CBC’s] Evan Solomon in 2006 that the steel in the towers melted and didn’t just lose strength.
Second, there is the problem of the molten metal seen pouring from one of the towers (lots of video available on that) and also reported by many sources under all three towers. The fires under the buildings were so hot that it took firefighters three months to extinguish them. They were in fact vastly hotter than anything that could be produced by jet fuel and burning office materials. And keep in mind that Building 7 was not hit by a plane and so molten metal there was not even helped along by jet fuel. The other day I mentioned the billions of iron microspheres that could only be produced by the cooling in air of molten iron. I also mentioned the presence in the dust of traces of thermite (nanothermite, actually). What do your Googling skills tells you caused all of that? And how did damage near the top of the building lead to the top section crushing the bottom four-fifths of the building?
There have been many high-rise fires that have engulfed buildings and burned for many hours without collapsing. And yet it took the South Tower just 56 minutes for its steel to “lose strength.” The only three skyscrapers in history to collapse because of fire happened on that day. And it is the official account, by the way, that says that the plane impacts did not play a significant role. And did I mention that Building 7 was not hit by a plane?
Feldman: Lol. The report on Bldg. 7 mentions in passing what happens when when [sic] steel structural members failed!
McKee: Not only is your sentence unclear, but your use of an exclamation point is a mystery. As is the reason for you laughing out loud.
Feldman: As in, the building collapsed. Lol, as in, your conspiratorial refutations are as delusional as they are absurd.
McKee: …  Tell me, what in my refutations was either delusional or absurd? Can you respond to the points with actual arguments? What created molten metal that remained molten for three months? How did the building fall as quickly as if it were falling through air? Did you know that NIST, authors of your precious Building 7 report, admitted that the building fell at free fall for the first 2.25 seconds? How can that happen without something removing the structural support? If my arguments are “absurd” then it shouldn’t be hard for you to refute them…
He did not refute them. He did not make any points about 9/11. He offered no analysis, no evidence of his own. Nothing.
And that is the usual pattern. Those who aggressively support the official narrative—like many journalists, academics, and others—will very rarely discuss actual evidence. First of all, they’re usually unfamiliar with it. They will replace knowledge with “attitude.” They will try to get others to believe that they are responding to theories that are so outlandish they do not merit serious responses. So instead, they condescend and mock and ridicule.
In this discussion, I raised the free-fall of the towers; the symmetrical “collapse” of Building 7, along with its isolated and short-lived fires; the molten metal under all three towers that remained that way for three months; the doctored Pentagon video; the disappearing wings of “Flight 77”; the alleged hijackers who can’t be proven to have boarded any planes; and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. And I was prepared to go into any number of other elements of the bogus 9/11 official story. (How about the incredible plane that buried itself in a field in Shanksville while creating a debris field eight miles away?) But I would not have received a straight answer to any of those either.
On the other side the ledger we heard that conspiracy theorists are fixated obsessed nut bar crazies who make ludicrous arguments, are notoriously lazy, commonly bury their heads in the sand, reorganize facts to serve the conspiracy, and make up their whole case “out of whole cloth.” What scares me isn’t that people even make these kinds of empty accusations, what scares me are those who think this is all you have to do to dismiss questions about 9/11 and other false flags.
It would be bad enough if Feldman made these simple-minded non-arguments because he just had to distract people from the fact that he was getting his ass kicked. But I’m not convinced he isn’t pleased as punch about how he set me, and David Ray Griffin, straight. That’s the really disturbing part.
I’m reminded of Al Franken’s old Saturday Night Live impression of Senator Paul Simon who thought to himself during a debate of Democratic presidential hopefuls, “I think I scored big with the bow tie.”
I rarely hear journalists mocking 9/11 “conspiracy kooks” who don’t think they scored big with the bow tie.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Dr. Eowyn: D.C. satanists: Sally Quinn of Washington Post tried hexes to kill her enemies


Dr. Eowyn
For some time now, the Alternative Media have been saying Washington, D.C., is a nest of satanists.
Given the fact that D.C. is where the politically powerful congregate, it stands to reason that the city would be a special target of satanists. What better way than to corrupt and bring down the United States, still the most powerful country in the world?
Last year, we learnt that John Podesta, a longtime Clinton associate who chaired Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, partook of a satanic ritual called spirit cooking dinner — a “sacrament” in Thelema founded by British satanist Aleister Crowley whose motto was “Do As Thou Wilt,” in which menstrual blood, breast milk, urine and sperm are ingested. (See “Evidence that Hillary Clinton and her associates are satanists“)
Yesterday, we learnt that Hillary Clinton who, were it not for the grace of God, would be the U.S. president now, admitted she had wanted to make and stick pins into voodoo dolls of her critics.
Today, you’ll find out about a very powerful D.C. woman who put hexes on her enemies.
A curse is an expressed wish that some form of adversity or misfortune will befall another (or a place or object). A hex is more than a curse: To hex someone is to call upon a supernatural power, by means of “magic” or witchcraft, to bring ill on another. According to Wikipedia, the word “hexing” comes from the German word for witchcraft.
Sally Quinn, now 76, is a former Washington Post (WP) reporter who became the third (and last) wife of the late WP executive editor and later, vice president, Benjamin Bradlee. Bradlee became a celebrated and national figure during the presidency of Richard Nixon when he challenged the federal government over the right to publish the Pentagon Papers and oversaw the publication of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s stories documenting the Watergate scandal.
Together, from their marriage in 1978 until Bradlee’s death in 2014, the couple were among D.C.’s most powerful, dominating the city’s social scene as its gatekeepers.
In 2006, Quinn wrote that her parents were religious “but didn’t go to church,” and that she was an atheist since the time she was a small child because she could not believe in a God who allowed evil and bad things to happen to people, including her (unnamed) sickness when she was ten years old.
John Nolte reports for Breitbart, Sept 12, 2017:
“For nearly 50 years, the entire social and political world of DC revolved around this couple. Bradlee and Quinn were the New Camelot (his career took off in large part because of his friendship with John F. Kennedy), the Gatekeepers of who was in and who was out, the Elite Deciders among our Ruling Class with the extraordinary power of the Washington Post, and by extension the rest of the mainstream media, to abuse and weaponize their will against the rest of us.
Well, to put it as bluntly as possible, we are now learning that the Queen of Camelot is an occultist, a witch of sorts who honestly believes (according to her own new memoir) that she murdered three innocent people through the dark art of the hex: a young woman who committed suicide after flirting with Quinn’s boyfriend; a magazine editor who published an unflattering profile of her, who decades later died of cancer; a psychic who died of a cerebral hemorrhage before the end of the year after telling Quinn something she did not want to hear. […]
Quinn’s other acts of admitted wickedness include plotting to break up Bradlee’s marriage (which she did) and using the threat of adultery to bend Bradlee to her will.”
Quinn “practiced the occult in the most demonic ways imaginable well into adulthood.” She finally stopped hexing others, not out of a sense of remorse, but because she thought she was karmically responsible for the unusual illness of her and Bradlee’s only son, Quinn.
Quinn Bradlee was born in 1982 (when Sally Quinn was 41 and Ben Bradlee was 61) with a rare and incurable disease called velo-cardio-facial syndrome, aka DiGeorge syndrome, 22q11.2 deletion or Shprintzen syndrome. Caused by the deletion of a small segment (30-40 genes) of chromosome 22, the syndrome occurs in only 1 in 4,000 people with afflictions that can include congenital heart problems, specific facial features, frequent infections, developmental delay, learning problems, cleft palate, kidney problems, hearing loss, and autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis and Graves disease.
Nolte points out that what is almost as troubling as Sally Quinn’s witchcraft is “the matter-of-fact way in which the Washington Post informs us of this bombshell” under the chatty headline, ‘‘Sally Quinn’s hexes, marital ultimatums and visceral love of her son”. Nolte writes:
“We have just discovered that one of the primary movers and shakers of the last half-century is a practicing occultist, and…
Nothing.
Nobody cares.
The information is dropped as though Quinn’s tell-all is the usual-usual about plastic surgeries and sex.
Worse still, our Ruling Class is now joking about Quinn putting a deadly hex on President Trump. […]
Let’s just say it out loud… The most powerful people in our country are either outright occultists, are comfortable with witchcraft and Satanism, or are moving and shaking among those who are.
Whether or not you believe in the power of the occult, that does not matter. Also beside the point is whether or not the Podestas and Quinn and those calling to have Trump hexed believe.
What we do know is that these people have completely rejected any notion of a loving God, and moved towards darkness.
Furthermore, we also know that this darkness is not about consenting adults behaving badly amongst themselves. Rather, this is about them attempting to harness a power to control others, to manipulate events to their will, to hurt or outright kill those who offend or insult them.
What is remarkable is that, although he was born with a hole in his heart and underwent heart surgery when he was three months old, after which he spent many years in and out of hospital and attended special schools for severe learning problems, and although he never received a religious education, Quinn Bradlee is a believing but non-church going Christian.
In 2006 when Quinn was 24 years old, he told his mother that he believes in God. He said:
“My image of God is what Michaelangelo painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. God is a man stronger and more powerful than everybody else. I also believe that if you think about God, if you say his name all the time, then you will believe in him. It will be in your subconscious. . . .
I knew you and Dad were not very religious people . . . . I didn’t really understand that you didn’t believe in God until a few years ago. I didn’t know what ‘atheist’ meant. It’s a very harsh word, very ugly word. It’s like calling a black person the “N” word. . . .
Everything happens for a reason. Maybe it’s God’s plan for me to go through this because I can handle it. . . .
In a way, believing in God is like having a girlfriend that you love and care about. You feel safe with her. You feel safe with God, the way you would with your girlfriend. When you get married she will be with you in sickness and in health. That’s what I believe God will do when I’m going through the hard times of life.”
Now 35 years old, Josiah Quinn Bradlee is a filmmaker, author and advocate for the disabled.
See also:
~Eowyn

Deanna Spingola: Barack Obama, Former CIA Agent

Deanna Spingola
3/13/2010Revised 5/18/2013
[Editor's note: Deanna Spingola and I have been on opposite sides regarding Sandy Hook, which I am at a loss to explain. We both have books, where her Screening Sandy Hook (2015), is available at amazon.com; while my collection of studies with 13 contributors, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook (2015), was banned by amazon.com but can be downloaded for free as a pdf. Our respective views have been partially displayed in comments on the CBS "60 Minutes", Return to Sandy Hook, 4 Years Later, where an exchange thread was allowed to take place with less censorship than usual in relation to the managed media of today. Winfield Abbe discovered this study by Spingola, which I regard as completely brilliant. It makes by far the most sense of this man of anything I have ever read. I gladly republish it here.]

I recently had the great pleasure of talking with Dr. James David Manning who has been ministering to the people of Harlem since 1981. He is now the Senior Pastor at ATLAH which stands for All the Land Anointed Holy, Manning’s inspired name for Harlem as of September 14, 1991.
Dr. Manning heads the Columbia Obama Treason Trial which he has scheduled for May 14-19, 2010 at the ATLAH building at 38 West 123rd Street in ATLAH, New York, 10027. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court have failed in their duties to uphold the Constitution and address the legitimacy and other questionable issues surrounding the White House’s current resident. Therefore, Dr. Manning, being a longtime resident of the Columbia University area, the school that Obama allegedly attended, began an intense investigation into Obama’s educational background and discovered some profound discrepancies.
According to Dr. Manning, Obama (born in 1961) enrolled at the very pricey Occidental College in Los Angeles, California in 1979 where the CIA recruited him in 1980. Since its inception, the CIA regularly recruits college students. He was, by his own admission, a “C” student, a dope smoker and a member of the Marxist Club at Occidental, a co-educational liberal arts college. In 1981, Obama allegedly transferred from Occidental to Columbia University to major in Political Science with a specialization in international relations. It is atypical for a student to begin their education in one four-year school and then transfer to another school. Columbia University requires that incoming students pass certain academic requirements which Obama obviously lacked. However, Columbia had a foreign student program and the CIA has major connections and influence with Columbia and some of the nation’s other educational facilities. Interestingly, Zbigniew Brzezinski, known to have ties to the CIA as early as 1959, was on the Columbia University faculty (1960-1989) and was in charge of the Institute on Communist Affairs. He was also Obama's mentor. Brzezinski was President Carter's National Security Advisor (1977-1981) and recently admitted that his objective was to entice the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan in December 1979.

The CIA needed Muslims or others who could easily blend into the Muslim environment in the Middle East. The CIA persuaded Columbia University to extend their foreign student program to Obama, now a Columbia student, so that he might travel to Pakistan and enroll in the universities around Karachi in addition to the Patrice Lumumba School in Moscow.[1] The school, one of Russia’s most prestigious universities was founded on February 5, 1960 as The Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (PFUR). It was renamed the Patrice Lumumba School on February 22, 1961. On February 5, 1992 the university re-adopted its former name. According to their web site, “The main aim was to give young people from Asia, Africa and Latin America, especially from poor families, an opportunity to get University education and to become highly qualified specialists. The students were admitted through non-governmental organizations, governmental establishments, and the USSR embassies and consulates.” [2]

Obama, perhaps as an undercover agent, may have been the lead agent in the arms and money supply for the CIA-trained Taliban Army against the Soviet Army war machine. His actions were integral to the Taliban’s success in their opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Officials have publicly acknowledged that Obama went to Pakistan in 1981. There is no way of knowing how often Obama traveled between Pakistan and Russia. According to Dr. Manning, Obama was an interpreter for the CIA during the war in Afghanistan. When Obama completed his CIA operations in the mid-1980s he returned to the United States. Apparently, the State Department then maneuvered his entrance into Harvard Law School. The CIA has always functioned as the president’s personal agency for black operations throughout the world. It also has connections to federal and state politicians. It managed to arrange Obama’s entrance to yet another elite school in 1988.

Percy Ellis Sutton, a civil-rights activist and lawyer, was the Manhattan Borough President (1966-1977). He was an intelligence officer with the Tuskegee Airmen, the name of a group of African American pilots who were part of the 332nd Fighter Group of the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II. Sutton entered Harlem politics and became a leader of the Harlem Clubhouse, known as the “Gang of Four” which has controlled Democratic politics in Harlem for at least fifty years. His Clubhouse allies were New York City Mayor David Dinkins, Representative Charles Rangel, and New York Secretary of State Basil Paterson, father of David Paterson who replaced Spitzer as New York Governor in 2008. Percy Sutton wrote a letter to Harvard officials requesting that they admit Obama as a student after a hiatus of five years (from 1983 when he allegedly left Columbia to 1988).
Despite a five-year absence from the rigors of college activity Harvard accepted Obama where he allegedly excelled. On February 5, 1990, students elected Obama as president of the venerable celebrated Harvard Law Review, the highest student position at Harvard Law School, a term that lasts for one year. [3] After graduation he could have worked in any leading law firm except that he lacked the proper citizenship qualifications which would have come to light during the interview and normal background checks pursued by major law firms. Moreover, his academic deficiencies at Occidental College would have disqualified him from the top law firms. Furthermore, he was a CIA operative in the Middle East during the time that he was supposed to be attending Columbia University. Therefore, despite his supposed Harvard achievements, Obama became a Saul Alinsky-style community organizer in South Chicago which alleviated the necessity of providing a legitimate background check. [4] 

In 1990, Obama accepted a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a law firm which represented civil rights cases but also represented Rezmar Corporation, owned by Chicago slumlord, Tony Rezko. The law firm helped Rezmar get more than $43 million in government funding. As early as 1995, Rezko started contributing to Obama who had high political aspirations. In 2003, Rezko was a fundraiser for Obama’s Senatorial campaign as part of a group that raised over $14 million. In 2006, the authorities found Rezko guilty of sixteen out of twenty-four charges filed against him.

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, the same law firm that Harvard graduate Michelle Robinson worked hired Barack Obama for a short summer stint then as an associate from 1988 to 1991. Robinson became his trainer and supervisor and, as such, may have handled any background information. Robinson, through the efforts of Valerie Jarrett, then-deputy chief of staff for Mayor Richard Daley, became an assistant to the mayor. Robinson later became an economic development coordinator. Obama married the politically connected Robinson in October 1992 in the Trinity United Church of Christ, giving him green-card style citizenship and needed credibility. [5] In 1993, according to the Records at the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, attorney Michelle Obama became “voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law” per her request. After she relinquished her hard-won law license, Michelle Obama worked for the University of Chicago Medical Center where she received a very generous annual salary of $317,000. [6]

Michelle Obama helped to improvise a scheme to shift low-income charity cases to other area hospitals in order to make room for insurance-carrying patients to enhance the hospital’s profitability. She did this under the guise of improving the health care of the Southside residents. In 2006, in conjunction with this scheme, Obama persuaded the hospital to hire lawyer and extremely skillful public relations mastermind, David Axelrod, to conjure up a publicity campaign to market this fallacious program to the poor black community, and make it not only palatable but highly desirable. [7] Axelrod became Barack Obama’s Senior Advisor and undoubtedly masterminded the publicity behind the current healthcare scam the Obamas have hoisted on the rest of the country after its test run in Chicago, a city tarnished by its long-term corrupt political shenanigans.

Dr. Manning, an African American, has called Obama a “good House Negro” and a “long-legged Mack daddy,” and an “emissary of the devil.” When Dr. Manning gave an interview on Fox News, he said, “We also have to talk about his character.” Dr. Manning has also questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve as U.S. President due to the fact that Obama has not complied with numerous requests to reveal his birth records. In fact, Obama has spent thousands of dollars in an attempt to conceal those records.
Dr. Manning, using information from hired investigators declares that Obama never attended Columbia University. He asserts the following:

1) “Columbia University will not divulge whether the “alleged” diploma issued was in the name of Barry Soetoro or Barack Hussein Obama. No public record exists regarding the diploma.”
2) “Obama alleges he attended Columbia in 1982, 1983. But, the investigators have been UNABLE to turn up a single shred of written documentation for the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 that show where Obama appeared on a school roster, register, faculty memo, bulletin board, school awards, dean’s list; where Obama’s name appeared in a yearbook, club record, fraternity record, extra-curricular activity member roster, student newspaper, student radio or TV activity; where Obama appeared in any records as a worker, employee, laborer in or about Columbia University; where Obama enrolled in any sports activity or program.”
3) “As a graduating senior in 1983 he does not appear in any Political Science (his major) or Graduating Class yearbook or invitation records.”
4) “There is absolutely no documentation of any kind to show Obama attended, lived, worked or played at Columbia University during the investigated 4 years.”
5) “Interviewed professors, college employees, students (who were at Columbia during the years in question) have failed to turn up a single person that can remember Obama. This is irrefutable evidence. Think about your own situation if Obama had attended your college? A “now-famous” person went to your school? Many would be able to say, “Of course I remember.” At Columbia, not a single person has been able to say he or she remembers Obama.” [8]

Obama’s background would have been relatively insignificant if the bankers had not selected him as a presidential candidate. However, with funding from George Soros and other international bankers who wish to establish global governance, he ran for office. Obviously there would be records that revealed some very personal details of his life. Passport records are particularly revealing. The CIA recruited John O. Brennan, who speaks fluent Arabic, after his college graduation. Brennan became deputy executive director of the CIA in March 2001. In about 2005, about the time that the bankers were interviewing Obama as presidential material, Brennan left government service and became the Chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) and the CEO of The Analysis Corporation (TAC) now known as Sotera Defense Solutions, quite conceivably a CIA front. At the same time, Brennan began working with the Obama 2008 presidential campaign as Obama’s top intelligence adviser.

In March 2008, officials cited The Analysis Corporation for penetrating the files of presidential candidates Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain in the State Department’s passport office. Investigators maintain that the target of this illegal activity was Obama’s passport file for the sole purpose of cleansing the records of information that would jeopardize his candidacy. The breach of the passport records of the other candidates was to create confusion. Passport files include an applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number. Additional information may include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for American-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee oversees the State Department. Joseph Biden, now Obama’s Vice President, was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time of the breach. [9]

A State Department employee, Lt. Quarle Harris, Jr., per his supervisors, had access to those records and scrubbed the passport records to erase any mention of Obama’s CIA activities and his personal information. Thereafter, Harris decided to cooperate with the FBI about the unusual break-in. Soon thereafter, someone killed Harris. [10] People discovered his body in his parked car. Someone had shot him in the head, execution style. [11] Obama used the Indonesian passport, originally issued in the name of Barry Soetoro, to travel to Pakistan to assist the Afghan Mujahedeen during the American military buildup.[12]

After his election, in late 2008, Obama attempted unsuccessfully to appoint John O. Brennan as the Director of the CIA, perhaps as a reward for his service? Brennan, who supported torture and the transfer of terrorist suspects (extraordinary rendition) to Diego Garcia or other areas where interrogators could torture them, withdrew his nomination. Then, Obama appointed him as his counterterrorism advisor, a position that did not require Senate confirmation. In April 2012, Brennan admitted that the CIA engaged in drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. He maintained that these activities should be legal and that they were moral and effective. [13] [14]Brennan also helped to reorganize the process under which officials, via the Disposition Matrix database, added people outside of war zones to the list of drone targets. This reorganization helped to Obama’s power over the life and death of American citizens.

Obama again nominated John O. Brennan as the Director of the CIA. The Senate scheduled a vote on Brennan’s nomination for March 6, 2013. Despite Senator Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster defining the Obama administration’s immoral use of drones, the Senate confirmed Brennan for the office. Paul said, “No one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt, to charge an individual, to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything that we fundamentally believe in our country.” [15] Official swore Brennan into the office of CIA Director on March 8, 2013.

The CIA is not an intelligence-gathering agency. The Truman Administration authorized “psychological warfare” by the newly established National Security Council in NSC 4-A of December 1947 which allowed covert operations during peacetime. This document made the CIA Director responsible for psychological warfare and placed it under the exclusive direction of the Executive Branch. The CIA has un-vouchered funds which allow the agency to operate without exposure or Congressional oversight. [16]

With pressure from the Departments of State and Defense, officials issued a new NSC directive, NSC 10/2 on June 18, 1948. It stipulated that the CIA could conduct “covert” and “psychological” operations both of which the US Government sponsors against foreign states or groups. However, these activities should be “planned and executed in such a way as to provide plausible deniability if revealed. Approved CIA clandestine activities, according to the directive, include “propaganda; economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world. Such operations should not include armed conflict byrecognized military forces, espionage, counter-espionage, and cover and deception for military operations.” [17]

During the 2008 presidential change-promising campaign Obama avoided detailed questions about his alleged years at Columbia by saying that he was very anti-social and totally uninvolved with the academic community. Further, he claimed that he lived off campus. For someone who loves the limelight and never misses an opportunity to engage in rhetoric, it is an enigma that he would isolate himself from typical college activities unless, of course, that is simply justification to account for his absence during the time that he was supposed to be attending Columbia.

In mid-February 2010, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs alerted the reporters who regularly cover the White House that they were not to ask certain questions including Obama’s job with CIA front company, Business International Corporation (BIC), following his alleged attendance at Columbia University. Nor were they to ask about Obama’s school records during the time that he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles (1979-1981), and his records at Columbia. [18]

If Obama was a CIA operative who, with political connections, super funding and media puffing, made it to the White House – is he still a CIA operative bent on destroying what is left of the American economy? Harry Truman, a 33rd Degree Freemason, to implement global governance, established the CIA. Freemasonry is a front group for a certain group of people whose objectives are world governance.

Wayne Madsen claims that his Kabul sources claim that President Obama has maintained a personal correspondence with a private military company (PMC) whose senior personnel includes numerous Afghan Mujahedeen-Soviet war veterans who fought with the late Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Massoud who became Afghanistan’s Defense Minister in 1992 and who someone assassinated on September 9, 2001, allegedly by al-Qaeda agents. The firm is also involved in counter-insurgency operations in Colombia, where Obama is building seven new military bases, and in Iraq.


Henry Kissinger said, “Conflicts across the globe and an international respect for Barack Obama have created the perfect setting for the establishment of ‘a New World Order.” [19]The Satanic Illuminati, whose objective is world dominance through one-world governance, infiltrated the upper echelon of Freemasonry long ago.
 People claim that Barack Obama is a 32nd degree Prince Hall Freemason. Certainly, Prince Hall Freemasons, Jesse Jackson and Charles Rangel, supported his presidency. [20] Whether he is a Freemason or not, he might indeed be the chosen vessel of the Jewish proponents of a New World Order. There is no doubt that he is a Zionist asset who has surrounded himself with Zionists like Rahm Emanuel, a duel citizen of both Israel and America, a questionable allegiance the Supreme Court would not acquiesce to with our close neighbor, Mexico. Despite his campaign promises, Obama intends to pursue the same Neo-Con policies in the Middle East as the previous administration, as evidenced by his speech before the 2008 AIPAC Policy Conference where he was introduced by his friend, Lee Rosenberg, a fellow Chicago resident. [21]

Jerusalem's newspaper, Ha’aretz, dated November 13, 2008, reported, “In the Chicago Jewish community many people really are long-time friends" of Obama. “Some of the older people in the community say that they ‘raised him,’ while others half-jokingly call Obama ‘the first Jewish president.’” Dr. Henry Makow wrote, “The Illuminati can take a particular child and manipulate things from behind the scenes and open all the right doors for this person, and they can get them the grants and the schooling and everything they need and adding impetus to this person’s career is the mind control that is steering them in that direction too. The end product is you end up with somebody who is an engineer or a lawyer or a politician who is very highly qualified for what they are doing. Barack Obama fits this description.” [22]




[1] CIA Columbia Obama Cover Up, a You Tube video that features the Honorable James David Manning who is leading the efforts in the Obama Columbia Treason Trial, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WedxY61d60
[2] Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, PFUR History, http://www.pfu.edu.ru/en/?pagec=49
[3] First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law Review by Fox Butterfield,  The New York Times, February 6, 1990
[4] CIA Columbia Obama Cover Up, a You Tube video that features the Honorable James David Manning who is leading the efforts in the Obama Columbia Treason Trial, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WedxY61d60
[5] Ibid
[6] What happened to Michelle Obama's law license?, First lady's legal career on 'court ordered inactive status' by Chelsea Schilling, World Net Daily, August 4, 2009, http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105998
[7] The Obamacare Horror Story You Won't Hear by Michelle Malkin, June 19, 2009,  http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/michelle-obamadavid-axelrodin-it-up-to-their-ears-in-criminal-activity-of-patient-dumping-in-healt/question-443611/
[8] Investigators declare, “Obama never attended Columbia University,” February 8, 2010, http://americangrandjury.org/category/columbia-trial
[9] Obama's Intelligence Adviser Involved in Security Breach, Newsmax, January 12, 2009, http://newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/brennan-passport-breach/2009/01/12/id/337482
[10] CIA Columbia Obama Cover Up, a You Tube video that features the Honorable James David Manning who is leading the efforts in the Obama Columbia Treason Trial, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WedxY61d60
[11] Key Witness in Passport Fraud Case Fatally Shot, The Washington Times, April 19, 2008, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/
[12] WH Press Corps Forbidden to Ask Certain Questions by Wayne Madsen of the Wayne Madsen Report, The Rock Creek Press, February 17, 2010, http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/394159844/wh-press-corps-forbidden-to-ask-certain-questions
[13] John O. Brennan, The Efficacy and Ethics of U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy, April 30, 2012,http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-efficacy-and-ethics-us-counterterrorism-strategy; last viewed 5/18/2013
[14] Charlie Savage, Top U.S. Security Official Says ‘Rigorous Standards’ Are Used for Drone Strikes, The New York Times,http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/world/obamas-counterterrorism-aide-defends-drone-strikes.html?_r=2&; last viewed 5/18/2013
[15] Paul ends Senate filibuster of CIA nominee over drone concerns after nearly 13 hours, Fox News, March 7, 2013,http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/07/sen-paul-holds-floor-for-hours-in-filibuster-cia-nominee-over-drone-concerns/#ixzz2TehFtg7Y; last viewed 5/18/2013
[16] Note on U.S. Covert Actions, U.S. State Department, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxxii/44504.htm
[17] Ibid
[18] WH Press Corps Forbidden to Ask Certain Questions by Wayne Madsen of the Wayne Madsen Report, The Rock Creek Press, February 17, 2010, http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/394159844/wh-press-corps-forbidden-to-ask-certain-questions
[19] Kissinger: Obama primed to create 'New World Order', Policy Guru Says Global Upheaval Presents 'Great Opportunity' by Drew Zahn, World Net Daily, January 06, 2009
[20] Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Michigan, Prince Hall Affiliation, Notable Prince Hall Masons, http://miphgl.org/mi/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=51
[21] Barack Obama’s Speech to AIPAC’s Policy Conference, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6471073053670305892&ei=e1uaS9PyFYTWqgKblbGGDQ&q=recap+of+aipac+2009+conference&client=opera#
[22] Illuminati, the Cult that Hijacked the World by Dr. Henry Makow, Silas Green, Winnipeg, Canada, 2008, p. 72


 © Deanna Spingola 2013 - All rights reserved

Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included: http://www.spingola.com