911

Update 2 Oct 14: Nick Kollerstrom takes the 'Hand Yourself In' challenge at Scotland Yard video embedded. This story is also published on StoryLeak.

A 9/11 British activist hands himself in to UK's counter terrorism police following British Prime Minister David Cameron's speech at the UN General Assembly last week, Press TV reports. In response to Cameron's remarks equating people, who question 9/11 and 7/7 attacks in the US and UK as well as the West's policy towards the Middle East, with Takfiri preachers who radicalize extremists, Nick Kollerstrom handed himself in. "As the evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it. And we know what this world view is, the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or the 7/7 London attacks were staged; the idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy," 1 Cameron said while addressing the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 25.

Explaining his actions to the Press TV correspondent in London, Kollerstrom said, "David Cameron has redefined terrorism at the UN to include people, who believe that the London bombings involve government complicity, were to some degree arranged, which I certainly do believe, and I've published a book on the subject and also I believe the 9/11 was an inside job. I do think Islamic nations are being selectively targeted, it's perfectly obvious, and if the police force are going by his directive what constitutes terrorism, it seems to me that they need to arrest me."

The Press TV correspondent was present while Colestrom handed himself in.

"We want to report a possible terror threat, we've got a bit of evidence and wonder if we could come in and report it," Kollerstrom said at Scotland Yard headquarters in London.

The British police refused to arrest Colestrom, but he said that Cameron's definition of nonviolent extremism will lead to the arrest of many Muslims, who share his views, and described it as another example of racial profiling.

SRK/MHB/AS

Above article Republished from PressTV, 1 Oct 2014;related articles: ISIL and social media: Fear and more (27/6/14), US, UK, France, Israel seeking to overthrow Syrian government: Lendman (17/6/14) and Saudi Arabia, key obstacle to Syria's peace: Edward Spannaus (1/10/14) on PressTV

#KollerstromVideo">Nick Kollerstrom takes the 'Hand Yourself In' challenge at Scotland Yard

Thank you, Paul Craig Roberts for notifying me of this video. - Ed

Appendix 1: #Wtc7CoverBlown">9/11 Firefighter blows WTC 7 cover-up wide open

Published on 11 Sep 11 2014 on the the Alex Jones Channel. Also published hereon candobetter.net

Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo talks to Rudy Dent, 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD, about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7._{#fnAhhi2" id="txtAhhi2">2}

Appendix 2: #CameronSpeech">David Cameron: We must act on IS terror – but act differently

This speech has been copied from the Yorkshire Post of 25 Sep 2014.

THE world faces a mortal threat from the rise of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) in Syria and Iraq.

Deir al-Zor is a province in Eastern Syria. Home to the al-Sheitaat tribe, it was captured by ISIL last month. Seven hundred tribesmen were executed, many were beheaded.

The vast majority were civilians - Muslims - who refused to take an oath of allegiance to ISIL's sick extremist world view – and who paid for this with their lives.

They are not alone.

Across Syria and Northern Iraq thousands have suffered the same fate. Muslims – both Sunni and Shia. Christians, Yazidis, people of every faith and none. ISIL is not a problem restricted to just one region.

It has murderous plans to expand its borders well beyond Iraq and Syria, and to carry out terrorist atrocities right across the world.

It is recruiting new fighters from all over the world. Five hundred have gone there from my country Britain, and one of them almost certainly brutally murdered two American journalists and a British aid worker.

This is a problem that affects us all. And we must tackle it together.

Now there is not one person who will view this challenge without reference to the past. Now of course it is absolutely right that we should learn the lessons of the past, especially of what happened in Iraq a decade ago.

But we have to learn the right lessons. Yes to careful preparation; no to rushing to join a conflict without a clear plan. But we must not be so frozen with fear that we don't do anything at all.

Isolation and withdrawing from a problem like ISIL will only make matters worse. We must not allow past mistakes to become an excuse for indifference or inaction.

The right lesson is that we should act – but act differently. We should be:

• comprehensive – defeating the ideology of extremism that is the root cause of this terrorism - so that we win the battle of ideas, not just the battle of military might.

• intelligent – supporting representative and accountable governments and working with them at their requests, not going in over their heads.

• inclusive – working with partners in the region who are prepared to be part of the solution, potentially including Iran.

• uncompromising – using all the means at our disposal – including military force – to hunt down these extremists.

The root cause of this terrorist threat is a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism. This is nothing to do with Islam, which is a peaceful religion which inspires countless acts of generosity every day. Islamist extremism on the other hand believes in using the most brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a warped world view and to live in a quasi-mediaeval state.

To defeat ISIL – and organisations like it - we must defeat this ideology in all its forms.

As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it. We know this world view.(My boldface - Ed)

#Peddled911Lies">The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy. The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations.

We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism.

For governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must proscribe organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad. We must work together to take down illegal online material like the recent videos of ISIL murdering hostages. And we must stop the so called non-violent extremists from inciting hatred and intolerance in our schools, our universities and yes, even our prisons.

Of course there are some who will argue that this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry.

But I say: would we sit back and allow right-wing extremists, Nazis or Klu Klux Klansmen to recruit on our university campuses? No.

So we shouldn't stand by and just allow any form of non-violent extremism. We need to argue that prophecies of a global war of religion pitting Muslims against the rest of the world. These things are nonsense. We need Muslims and their governments around the world to reclaim their religion from these sick terrorists as so many are doing and quite rightly doing today. We all need to help them with programmes that channel young people away from these poisonous ideologues. And we need the strongest possible international focus on tackling this ideology.

Communism wasn't defeated simply by pointing out its flaws – but by showing that the alternative of economic freedoms, democracy and the rule of law, these things could build a better society and a better world. Young people need to see the power of a different, better, more open, more democratic path. The twentieth century taught us the vital role of representative and accountable governments in offering their people opportunity, hope and dignity.

Of course we should not be naive: not every country can move at the same speed or even reach the same destination. And we should respect different cultures and traditions and histories. But, let's be clear: the failure to meet people's aspirations can create a breeding ground where extremist and even terrorist insurgency can take root.

What about the role of our military?

I don't believe this threat of Islamist extremism will best be solved by Western ground troops directly trying to pacify or reconstruct Middle Eastern or African countries, but pursing an intelligent and comprehensive approach should include a place for our military.

Our military can support the enormous humanitarian efforts that are necessary - as our Royal Air Force did helping the millions of people who have fled from ISIL. And we should – together – do more to build the capability of the legitimate authorities fighting the extremists.

We now have a substantial international coalition in place, including Arab nations, committed to confronting and defeating ISIL. We have a comprehensive strategy to do that – with the political, diplomatic, humanitarian and military components that it needs to succeed over time.

The UN Security Council has now received a clear request from the Iraqi government to support it in its military action against ISIL. So we have a clear basis in international law for action. And we have a need to act in our own national interest to protect our people and our society.

So it is right that Britain should now move to a new phase of action. I am therefore recalling the British Parliament to secure approval for the United Kingdom to take part in international air strikes against ISIL in Iraq.

My message today is simple. We are facing an evil against which the whole of the world should unite. And, as ever in the cause of freedom, democracy and justice, Britain will play its part.

• This is an edited version of David Cameron's speech to the United Nations

Footnote[s]

1. ↑ These claims are to be found #Peddled911Lies">here in David Camerons's speech. The transcribed words differ slightly from what is written different by Nick Kollerstrom, but their substance is identical.

2. ↑ Perhaps Rudy Dent should also turn himself in to the police for "the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged."

Subtle and Deceptive Tactics to Discredit Truth in Media and Research

"Conspiracy theory" is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.

By James F. Tracy. Originally published on Global Research on 21 January 2013. Please also refer to the Editorial Comment following this artcle,

Conspiracy theory's acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter's well-known fusillades against the "New Right." Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively "weaponizing" the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled "Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report," the dispatch played a definitive role in making the "conspiracy theory" term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government's increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.

This important memorandum and its broad implications for American politics and public discourse are detailed in a forthcoming book by Florida State University political scientist Lance de-Haven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr. de-Haven-Smith devised the state crimes against democracy concept to interpret and explain potential government complicity in events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major political assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11.

"CIA Document 1035-960" was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA's concern regarding "the whole reputation of the American government" vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it "contributed information to the [Warren] investigation."

The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for "countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries." For example, approaching "friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)" to remind them of the Warren Commission's integrity and soundness should be prioritized. "[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation," the document reads, and "further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition."

The agency also directed its members "[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose."

1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering "conspiratorial" arguments centering on the Warren Commission's findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label have been routinely wheeled out in various guises by corporate media outlets, commentators and political leaders to this day against those demanding truth and accountability about momentous public events.

• No significant new evidence has emerged which the [Warren] Commission did not consider.
• Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others.
• Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.
• Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it.
• Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator.
• Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" [during the Warren Commission's inquiry] can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes.

Today more so than ever news media personalities and commentators occupy powerful positions for initiating propaganda activities closely resembling those set out in 1035-960 against anyone who might question state-sanctioned narratives of controversial and poorly understood occurrences. Indeed, as the motives and methods encompassed in the document have become fully internalized by intellectual workers and operationalized through such media, the almost uniform public acceptance of official accounts concerning unresolved events such as the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing, 9/11, and most recently the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, is largely guaranteed.

The effect on academic and journalistic inquiry into ambiguous and unexplained events that may in turn mobilize public inquiry, debate and action has been dramatic and far-reaching. One need only look to the rising police state and evisceration of civil liberties and constitutional protections as evidence of how this set of subtle and deceptive intimidation tactics has profoundly encumbered the potential for future independent self-determination and civic empowerment.

#EdComment" id="EdComment">Editorial comment: James F. Tracy's article is no less vital to Australians than it is to Americans. As many politically conscious Australians, including myself, began to see through the fraud of 9/11 in the latter part of the last decade, many on the supposed anti-war 'left' were quick to label such people "conspiracy theorists" and to use that rhetorical trick to prevent serious consideration of the gaping flaws in the official narrative of the 9/11 terror attacks. Recorded examples of such supposed progressives, on the World Wide Web, include:

• Larvatus Prodeo (http://larvatusprodeo.net/) - was discontinued in 2012, but has been revived for the 2013 Federal elections
• Web Diary (http://webdiary.com.au/cms/) - discontinued in 2012
• John Quiggin (http://johnquiggin.com/)

All of these web-sites' publishers have claimed to be opposed to war. This included Margot Kingston.

Margot Kingston's book Not Happy, John[1] of 2004 contains a compelling case against Australia's participation in the Iraq war from pages 34 to 63.

Not Happy, John also includes impassioned arguments against the War in Afghanistan[2] (pages 34-35, 68-69 and 214-30).

After I became a "9/11 Truth" activist, I tried to argue my case on the web, including on the three sites mentioned above. On all three, my posts were censored on the grounds that they claimed I was promoting a "conspiracy theory".

Curiously, all of those sites have since transformed into sites which are no longer opposed to war. None even raised the invasion of Libya in 2011 and none have questioned the mass media lies against Syria. Their claimed oppostion to the war in Afghanistan has become increasingly muted, principally because of their refusal to question the pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan, namely the false-flag terrorist attack of 9/11. A recent attempt by a contributor to post a comment about the Syrian conflict to johnquiggin.com resulted in his post being censored. He justified his censorship as as follows:

As previously advised, I don't propose to entertain this kind of thing on my blog. All comments should be directed to the candobetter site -- JQ

What John Quiggin meant by "this kind of thing" was not explained. Presumably, it refers to discussion of wars currently going on that we still stand a chance of being able to end, rather than an academic retrospective discussion about a war that has already been fought and the terrible outcome of which we cannot hope to change by our actions.

Footnote[s]

[1] 'John' refers to the right-wing neo-liberal Prime Minister, John Howard, who (mis)ruled Australia from 1996 until 2007.

[2] In fact, contrary to Margot Kingston's views, many people, who were normally opposed to war, including myself and a good many others who marched against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, believing the official account of 9/11, actually supported the "good war" in Afghanistan against those they believed had perpetrated the atrocity of 9/11. It was only in 2007, after I realised the impossibility of the official account of 9/11 that I came to oppose the so-called "War on Terror".

Tony Rooke has persuaded the courts that the BBC must answer the allegation that, in covering up information on the 9/11 attacks, they are colluding with terrorism. Many truth activists are planning to attend the three hour hearing in front of a judge at Horsham magistrates court this Monday 25 February at 9.00am.

Originally published as 9/11 Court Case in Horsham Today: BBC Must Answer Allegation Regarding the Covering up of Information, 25 February 2013 on Global Research. See also: Historic Court Hearings: The BBC in the Dock for Manipulating Evidence and Providing Biased Coverage of the September 11, 2001 Attacks by Professor Michel Chossudovsky, 22 February 2013, "9/11: The Conspiracy Files," The BBC Joins the Ranks of the Untrustworthy United States Media by Debbie Lewis, 24 February 2013.

Update, Tue, 26 Feb, 11:00AM UTC+10: Moral Victory for Protestor who says BBC 9/11 Coverage was False
Campaigner and film maker Tony Rooke claimed a moral victory today after a UK court gave him a conditional discharge even though he has refused to pay his BBC license fee. Over 100 supporters from as far away as Denmark and Norway cheered in front of the court house as independent media people conducted interviews and photographed the crowd. Court officials had booked their largest room for the case but were at a loss to find that well over 50 people could not be fitted in. ...

There are only 30 seats available in the court room and they will be on a first come first serve basis. Some activists will be flying long distance. The hearing will be at The Law Courts, Hurst Road, Horsham West Sussex England RH12 2ET. At least one mainstream media crew will be present but Tony is asking activists not to talk to them and not to hold up placards which do not represent his views.

Please go to bottom to see his message in full. The message to the mainstream media is that Tony will be making a statement after the hearing and they should wait for that. Campaigners are concerned that the media will seek out and interview whoever they can find pedalling a radical 9/11 theory and use them to attempt to discredit months of hard work. This has been a common tactic, for instance from the BBC in their Conspiracy Files programmes. To prevent this happening, organisers intend to physically obstruct interviews with mainstream media outside the court if necessary. Activists attending the hearing are asked to make sure any signs represent the message of this campaign: that the BBC has covered up the truth on 9/11.

BBC reporter Jane Standley's infamous report of the 'collapse' of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) with WTC7 still seen standing behind her. Only after the collapse was 'reported' did WTC7 collapse in the style of a controlled demolition.

Those with signs saying anything that would appear speculative to a general audience (eg 9/11 was an inside job) will be seen as undermining the court case and Tony's campaign. On the factual side Tony is most concerned to highlight the symmetrical collapse of WTC Building 7, a large portion of which fell at free fall speed and which was announced by the BBC some half hour before it happened. He says the Jimmy Saville scandal shows that the BBC were unable to investigate a child molester in their midst, so it is hardly surprising that they do not have the courage to impartially investigate the crime of the century. 'Despite recent offers from mainstream sources, Tony Rooke and his defence team feel that this has come all too late and is not consistent with far too many years of indifference towards the scientific facts that incontrovertibly disprove the official account of 9/11.

Illegal wars have come and continue to be fought under the pretext of that day. Civil liberties have been erased along with the countless lives of troops, civilians and children abroad. These overtures of 'friendly' interest are not to be trusted. This court case has happened only BECAUSE of mainstream media's indifference, antipathy and often ridicule towards those who have researched and found the truth of 9/11, in tandem with a conspicuous silence in the face of such overwhelming evidence that disproves the official version. The mainstream press are to be treated with the contempt they deserve. This case is being fought by those whose ONLY interest is in seeing the science of the 9/11 event analysed by a court, a scrutiny of FACTS that SHOULD have been undertaken by the commercial press and the BBC a long time ago.

Any individual who engages in conversation with a demonstrably deceptive mainstream media at Horsham, does NOT speak for myself or the defence team and we disassociate ourselves from those who cannot resist such insincere overtures. Win, lose or draw, we hope that this court case prompts all those who mistrust our media, to engage in similar, peaceful action, until such numbers become impossible to ignore.

The time for 'research' is long over. The obvious suspects, complicit in the orchestration and cover-up of 9/11, now need to be questioned by uncorrupted police officers. This will NOT be achieved sat in front of your PC. Ignore ITN, ignore ANY mainstream journalist. They have earned your suspicion.' Thank you to all who have supported this stand for progress.

Tony Rooke

www.reinvestigate911.org

info [AT] reinvestigate911.org

http://www.youtube.com/user/reinvestigate911org

We will support any new investigation of the 9/11 attacks so long as:

• it is run by uncompromised people with a range of opinion including those inclined to disbelieve the official 9/11 story,
• it follows the evidence wherever it leads if it takes place in the US to be credible.

It will need full legal authority to demand immediate access to any evidence and any witness it chooses.

The resources it requires to carry out its investigation Reinvestigate 911 is supported by Coffee Plant (www.coffee.uk.com) suppliers of organic and Fairtrade coffees to caterers and retail customers.

See also: 9/11 activist hands himself in to British police for "peddling lies" that 9/11 and 7/7 were staged (1/10/14).

I knew there had to an answer to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists that would make the facts clear to non-experts. This 5 minute video (Also at YouTube) demolishes the fantasies peddled by extreme right and looney left paranoids.

It is unfortunate that ABC Local Radio Melbourne 774 presenter Jon Faine neglected to make use of the evidence contained in the above video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE3pMPObcGU) in his altercation with Kevin Bracken in October 2011.

In this video on February 16, 2012, Lord James of Blackheath, member of Britain’s House of Lords presents what he sees as evidence of an illegal scheme begun in 2009. His documents include originals signed by Alan Greenspan and Timothy Geithner. They show the illegal “off the books” transfer by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of $15 trillion to, initially, HSBC (Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation) London and then to the Bank of Scotland. Lord James claims this has been censored or ignored by the mainstream press. There is little in the alternative media either. The same Lord James attracted headlines about a mysterious Foundation X in 2010.On February 16, 2012, Lord James of Blackheath, member of Britain’s House of Lords presents what he sees as evidence of an illegal scheme which began in 2009. His documents include originals signed by Alan Greenspan and Timothy Geithner. They show the illegal “off the books” transfer by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of $15 trillion to, initially, HSBC (Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation) London and then to the Bank of Scotland. Lord James claims that he has been censored or ignored by the mainstream press. There is little in the alternative media either. The same Lord James attracted headlines about a mysterious Foundation X in 2010.

Click on the larger picture to see video of lord's speech in British parliament. Video originally promoted by US Veterans Today military and foreign affairs journal.

In 2010 the same Lord announced that he had been contacted by a mysterious "Foundation X" which offered to bail out the British Government. Wikipedia:"On Saturday November 6, 2010; the UK Treasury issued a statement which contradicted James' earlier claims; denying that any meeting took place between Lords James & Sassoon and a representative of the group which had being referred to as 'Foundation-X'." So what's up? We publish this article out of curiosity to see if we get any more information. Please write in and comment.

Official inquiry sought by Lord in British Upper House

On February 16, 2012, industrialist Lord James of Blackheath, in the House of Lords sought support for an official inquiry into financial mischief around a mysterious $15 trillion dollars (US) which began in April/May 2009 with alleged transfer to UK of HSBC Private Bank of 5 trillion dollars, then 7 days later another, then another in another 3 weeks - a total of 15 trillion dollars for onward transfer to the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Three possible conclusions

Lord James begins his speech by outlining what he believes would be "three possible conclusions" about the purpose and effect of these transfers:

1. A massive piece of money laundering committed by a government which ought to know better and that this has effectively undermined the integrity of the royal bank of Scotland
2. A major US department has an agency that has gone broke and wound up and has created a structure out of which they are seeking to get at least 50 billion euros as a pay off
3. That this is an extraordinarily elaborate fraud which has not been carried out but which has been prepared in order to provide a threat to one government or more if they don't pay them off

"Two decades of crimes involving dozens of governments"

"The Bank of Scotland, under royal charter but restricted from involvement in any such transactions, simply “gave” the money to 20 European banks to use in a highly profitable scheme of co-trading “fresh cut” MTN’s (mid-term notes), generating trillions of dollars in profits over 3 years, none of which is shown on books, none has been taxed or has benefited shareholders in those banks.

As Blackheath outlines, the “deception and cover” for this transfer is the imaginary seizure of 750,000 tons of gold by agents of an unspoken entity (confirmed by the highest official sources as the Bush family and CIA), the listed “source” of the money.

The government of Indonesia confirms this to be an utter fabrication and that the individual named had 700 tons of gold (about half of what Gaddafi was holding), not 750,000. It is noted that only 1,500 tons of gold have ever been traded in world history, as stated in the House of Lords." US Veterans Today military and foreign affairs journal

Cold War currency trading that destroyed Soviet Union

"These funds are the mysterious “Wanta” funds, monies earned through years of currency trading aimed at collapsing the Soviet Union, a plan originated by President Ronald Reagan, then White House Intelligence Coordinator Lee Wanta and CIA Director William Casey. I have been told that, while this operation went forward under President Reagan, he had ordered that his successor, George H. W. Bush not be “briefed” out of “mistrust” for Bush.

The funds themselves were earned through a scheme of trading Soviet roubles at enormous profit, a practice that eventually collapsed their government. A portion of the profits are subject to current litigation in the Federal Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Lee presiding. I have over 2,000 pages of documents on this case which shows a remainder of the original funds had been transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond by the Bank of China, a party to the rouble trading practice, in 2006 and is claimed as totally owned by Ameritrust Corporation. That amount was $4.5 trillion of which we hold the SWIFT transfer documents."

$15 Trillion Bond Fraud to Prop up the U.S. Dollar?

The article below is from http://www.goldstockbull.com/articles/15-trillion-bond-fraud-to-prop-up-the-u-s-dollar/

I have no idea the truth behind this $15 trillion scandal, but it will be interesting to follow where it goes. Even if the portion about Mr. Riyadi is untrue, that still does not explain where such a large sum of money came from or why senior executives at two different banks accepted the money. Something seems fishy here, although hopefully we will learn more in the coming days.
•At no time has the Federal Reserve Bank of New York been authorized to hold the funds indicated

•However, documents held by Lord Blackheath prove, conclusively that they did hold such funds and transfer them in a manner as to obscure their origin by using HSBC and the Bank of Scotland. This process, seemingly involving Alan Greenspan, Timothy Geithner and others would appear to be “money laundering” until some other explanation were found. None has been offered.

•The “collateralization” of these funds, being 750,000 tons of gold, is proven to be fantasy. These funds then, in no way or manner, are related to Brunei. The presentation of this false transaction has been conclusively proven to be a “cover and deception” project such as an intelligence organization would use.

•The transfer of these funds, all done without any authorizations, governmental or otherwise, particularly without agreements, payment of interest to the United States and without knowledge and approval of congress makes every aspect of this criminal in nature, a violation of innumerable statues.

•The receipt and use of these funds by the 20 banks, two of which are Wall Street’s largest, and the use of these funds to generate profits while the funds themselves are held “off the books” and the profits hidden and laundered, themselves the earnings of funds received through criminal acts makes any and all involved part of a criminal enterprise.

This potential fraud highlights the vast amounts of paper fiat that can be printed out of thin air and that are floating around the financial system. This story comes just days after Italian authorities found $6 Trillion worth of fake U.S. bonds. It is not clear if these two stories are somehow related, but the timing is certainly peculiar.

No matter the truth regarding these TRILLIONS in US Treasury bonds, stories like this only serve to reinforce my view that only gold and silver, which cannot be printed out of thin air and carry zero risk of default, should be used as money or trusted to hold their value. This story should also give pause to anyone with the bulk of their wealth tied up in fiat dollars, U.S. bonds or anywhere else within the toxic banking system. "

Read more here.

Burial at sea?
Osama bin Laden's body should never have been disposed of without extensive evidence of death and identity being made available to the public. How is anyone to believe reports of his death? Cui bono?

Dialysis in the desert

I agree with Paul Craig Roberts in his article, "Osama bin Laden’s Second Death." Reports on Osama bin Laden's death do sound like an April Fool's joke. I don't have the same problem as Roberts does with the idea of bin Laden having renal dialysis in the desert or having problems transferring funds. Portable renal dialysis machines exist and rich people move money around in many forms, including as drugs, all over the world.

Poor taste

I don't pretend to know how Osama bin Laden lived or moved his money nor when he died. I don't find the media reports of 2nd May 2011 very believable and I didn't enjoy watching the President of the United States saying how great it was they had killed someone. I could have written that speech better, maybe starting with, "Regretfully, we announce that we found we had no alternative ..." But, can we believe anything the U.S. government says about international politics these days?

Where's the body?

What really gets me is the lack of a body. Burial at sea? How is anyone to accept that?

Surely with such an important corpus delecti - well, deceased person - the world is entitled to the most careful handling, with forensic examination, identification and finally a formal ceremony agreed to by world leaders, perhaps even with consultation with his family. The outcome of such a ceremony could have agreed to any form of disposal of the body, but the body should never have been disposed of without extensive evidence of death and identity being made available to the public.

It might help if we were to hear the accounts of the witnesses involved. Were there any independent journalists involved at the actual event of disposal of the body? Truly the whole thing strikes me as dreamlike and unbelievable, but it did from the beginning, anyway, when I woke up one day after working a nightshift and saw an incredible Hollywood-like production of aeroplanes sailing into skyscrapers. I waited and waited for King Kong to appear and stop them, but he never did. Instead we got that wil'o'the-wispy mastermind with renal failure, Osama bin Laden.

Cinema

But Osama bin Laden was never physically connected with the acts against the World Trade Center tower himself. Almost immediately after the event, on a cinematographic time-frame, it seemed, the US came up with pictures of the 18 men who were supposed to have executed the attack on the New York CBD under the orchestration of Osama bin Laden. Four of those men have since claimed still to be alive. It never seemed clear who was supposed to be the leader in this raid.

In the absence of a full investigation

One waited for a full investigation.
It never came.

For me, that was the clincher.[1] I initially simply accepted what I was told on the news, but when the inadequacy of the inquiry into 9/11 was put to me, I could not argue it away. Why didn't the USA seriously engage in a full investigation, demonstrating for all to see, why those 18 men were implicated and why we should believe Osama bin Laden's claim to be responsible?

Later many people identified the United States Government itself as a suspect in this tragedy of 9/11. A lot of the arguments for that were somewhat circumstantial, but so were the arguments implicating Osama bin Laden, even if he had claimed responsibility. There were many possible motives on both sides, involving big business in the United States on the one hand, and victims of big business in the Arab world, on the other.

Motives

Some of the accusations against the US Government allege that the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings served big-business interests that wanted to make money out of war, businesses collecting on insurance on the buildings, and CIA secrets that might have been destroyed conveniently in the buildings. Huge corporations like Halliburton and KPMG certainly made billions out of the war on Iraq, which was more or less contracted out to them by the US Government[2] - to the extent that the U.S.government has been unable to regulate corrupt financial practices and conduct of elections during the war, since it was found that it had abrogated its powers to oversee military conduct in one related hearing. [3] Halliburton is also involved in Afghanistan. KPMG has offices in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[4] Corporations do business everywhere, but we should not entrust them with war.

On the other side, the continuous exploitation of the Arab World by European industrial colonial forces, then by corporate colonial forces after the independence of those countries in the 1970s, furnishes an undeniable motive.

The current democratic struggles in the Arab world to get rid of governments (Bahrain, Egypt, ...) backed by the same international hegemonies looks like a reflection of this motive although that doesn't make it linked to 9/11. (Where to put Libya in this group is not easy. To this writer it still looks as if most Libyans consider Gadafi to be better than the internationally backed alternatives, or it would be easy to extract him. One therefore suspects the whole movement against him. I thought this article from Global Research about Libya was good.)

Conspiracy theory, motive and opportunity

How much in control of the US is the US Government? Part of the political and forensic mystery of 9/11 is the apparent bemusement of government leaders who look as if they are reading from incomplete scripts. I am not much of a conspiracy theorist. My preferred methodology is "Cui bono?" In order to explain the continuation of trends that make life unpleasant for many people, you can generally find parties, companies and economic sectors that actually derive focused benefit from the continuation of such trends. Dig deeper and you will find them lobbying on their behalf, using questionable arguments.

In this case, however, because the beneficiaries of 9/11 are also the beneficiaries of an immense crime, for the destruction of the towers was not a legal business operation, you are going to have to admit that a conspiracy must exist somewhere. Either you accept that Osama bin Laden -- or some other outsider or outsiders to the Western World -- benefited from 9/11 and orchestrated it for political reasons, or you suspect an "inside job."

Like good detectives, or world jury-members, we obviously seek to understand "who benefits" from 9/11 and we have two excellent theories: big business and its friends in government vs the victims of big business and its friends in government.

Whichever case seems more likely to you, unless you personally know something that I don't, without a proper investigation, neither case may be proven.

In the absence of suspects being brought to trial, you and I can only advance theories and argue them more or less persuasively. Governments and international bodies can, however, capture suspects, collect evidence, and do forensic tests. They can bring people and corporations to trial.

The fact that the US government has never done this in relation to the events of 9/11 is suspicious. Frankly, it makes me favour the theory of the "inside job" on the basis of cui bono. I have to ask myself, is the US Government protecting some influential 'friends' by not investigating 9/11 properly?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, author of "Osama bin Laden's second death," suggests that a motive for finding Osama bin Laden lies in the likelihood that the US is running out of money to keep the war in Afghanistan going.

Disposing of the evidence

Why, however, did the soldiers who claim to have killed bin Laden dispose of the body?

I'm afraid that it makes me more suspicious. Call me imaginative, if you like, but surely a proper world-policing task-force would have seized the evidence, along with the body, to bring them back for the long awaited investigation and trial, in good faith, to demonstrate to the world, once and for all, what really happened.

Getting rid of the body and blowing up bin Laden's alleged headquarters look to me like getting rid of the evidence. Cui bono?

Well, exactly.

This seems to bring us all back to where we started.

Ready for the next episode.

Enter the minotaur. Or the prophet. Or the son of God.
They are still looking for his body, too.

Will Obama bin Laden come back from the dead?
(Again?) [5]

It's that time of year. (Easter just past.)

How will the two sides of this quasi-mythical Hollywood-Corporate Press production continue to harness the power of the masses, with the help of mainstream press manufacture of consensus, presumably to protect the interests of the world's elites?

Many people in Australia likely to be suspicious too

In Australia there was a strong indication that the masses actually find the storyline a little unbelievable, going by such instances as the massive support for Australian maritime unionist Kevin Bracken's views. But politicians seem infinitely more credulous - going by Prime Minister Gillard's and her peers' response to Bracken's views. The Australian Press predictably denounced all questioning of the official bed-time story and, when if found, to its horror, that people wanted to discuss the matter, it simply stopped reporting. See "Free speech defenders 'persecute' Jon Faine"and Report on Jon Faine/Kevin Bracken interview and subsequent fall-out

Who's paying for the next production

Whose taxes are paying for this production now, if bin Laden's millions are no longer financing it? If they were ever financing it.

Do we have a choice?

One thing is for sure, if you take an extraordinary but material event out of the realms of the material and confirm it as a myth, no-one is going to expect a serious investigation. The way has been prepared for the 9/11 crime to be handed over to priests and the tourist circuits. It is a religion in the making, fit to shore up differences between muslims and christians, capitalists, communists and anarchists, for a long time to come.

If we choose to believe.

NOTES

[1] There was an almost immediate announcement of who the guilty parties were, after unbelievably speedy identification of suspects, but actual public investigation was avoided for nearly 2 and a half years, despite obvious demand. For comparison, the bombing of Pearl Harbour and President Kennedy's assassination were both investigated almost immediately. Ditto for the investigation of Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinski, which was provided with a great deal more money than the 9/11
investigation, when it eventually occurred. Against all principles of a democratic public justice system, the public were denied careful and detailed establishment of evidence and reasons for allocation of guilt. The motive, of a fanatical racist religious ideologue with unlimited funds in the desert of Afghanistan, financing alienated muslims to carry out spectacular acts against United States infrastructure and bystanders for his own purposes, did need careful evidencing, to say the least.

The investigation seemed pro forma to observers, with numerous matters left uncovered. A notable hole in the report which came from the investigation was that it said nothing about the collapse of the World trade center tower number 7. This occurred a few hours after Towers one and two (the "Twin towers"), but the main difference was that no plane flew into it and it was located about half a kilometer away from the towers hit by the planes. It was as if the sudden death with head injuries of a man standing in the next street hours after two men who were shot by guns held to their heads in another street was ascribed to the impact of bullets on the first two men. So far no theory of why Tower 7 collapsed has sustained scientific criticism. That does not say that no relationship will ever be found, but it makes it unlikely. The principle of Occams razor would suggest that a separate cause of the collapse of the 7th building is likely. Another notable hole was the lack of questions about the failure of the US Defence system to halt any of these attacks in part or in full.

There may have been an explanation, but the world has never heard it. At best it might show up the US military system as asleep on the job. At worst it might show that it was in on the job.

[2] A representative of the FBI has reportedly said there is "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden's Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden's Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." Source

Even today, after the FBI has updated its wanted poster for bin Laden as "Deceased" the crimes of 9/11 are not among those listed: Murder of U.S. Nationals outside the United States; Conspiracy to Murder U.S. Nationals Outside the United States; Attack on a Federal Facility Resulting in Death."

[3] Naomi Klein, in The Shock Doctrine, (p.355) quotes, 'Michael Fleisher, the founder of the Chicago School based Shock Doctrine', saying in 2003 of Iraq that ‘protected businesses never, never become competitive’, and she comments: “he appeared to be impervious to the irony that Halliburton, Bechtel, Parsons, KPMG, RTI, Blackwater and all the other US corporations that were in Iraq to take advantage of the reconstruction were part of a vast protectionist racket whereby the US government had created their markets with war, barred their competitors from even entering the race, then paid them to do the work, while guaranteeing them a profit to boot – all at taxpayer expense. The Chicago School crusade, which emerged with the core purpose of dismantling the welfare statism of the New Deal, had finally reached its zenith in this corporate New Deal. It was a simpler, more stripped down form of privatisation – the transfer of bulky assets wasn’t even necessary: just straight-up corporate gorging on state coffers. No investment, no accountability, astronomical profits. The double standard was explosive, as was the systematic exclusion of Iraqis from the plan.” See also pp. 362-378 for shocking stuff on conduct in Iraq.

[4] "WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney's (search) former company already has garnered more than $600 million in military work related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and potentially could earn billions more without having to compete with other companies.

As the Army's sole provider of troop support services, Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary has received work orders totaling $529.4 million related to the two wars under a 10-year contract that has no spending ceiling.

Rather than put the Iraq work up for bidding, the government has used the 2001 Halliburton contract to place the various work orders in Iraq, prompting criticism from some Democrats that Cheney's former company is receiving favored treatment.

"The amount Halliburton could receive in the future is virtually limitless," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who disclosed the troop support work orders Thursday. "It is simply remarkable that a single company could earn so much money from the war in Iraq."" Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88122,00.html

[5] Klein, Shock Doctrine, pp. 357-358. The Custer Battles corruption case: "Two former employees of the security firm launched a whistle-blower lawsuit against the company, accusing it of cheating on reconstruction-related contracts with the CPA and defrauding the U.S. government of millions of dollars ,mostly for work done at the Baghdad International Airport. The case was based on documents produced by the company that clearly showed it was keeping two sets of numbers - one for itself, one for invoicing the CPA. retired Brigadier General Hugh Tant testified that the company's performance was 'probably the worst I've evern seen in my 30 yhears in teh army." (Among custer Battles' many alleged violations, it is said to have appropriated Iraqui-owned forklifts from the airport, repainted them and billed the CPA for the cost of leasing the machines.)

In March 2006 a federal jury in Virginia ruled against the company, finding it guilty of fraud, and forced it to pay $10 million in damages. The company then asked the judge to overturn the verdict, with a revealing defense. It claimed that the CPA was not part of teh U.S.S government, and therefeore not subject to its laaws, including the False Claims act. The implications of this defense were enormous: the Bush administration had indemnified U.S. corporations working in Iraq from any liability under Iraqui laws; if the CPA wasn't subject to U.S. law either, it meant that the contractors weren't subject ot any law at all - U.S. or Iraqui. [...] In other words, the U.S. governmetn presence in Iraq during the first year of its economic experiment had beena mirage - there had been no government, just a funnel to get U.S. taxpayer and Iraqi oil dollars to foreign corporations, completely outside the law. In this way, Iraq represented the most extreme expression of the anti-state counterrevolution - a hollow state, where, as the courts finally established, there was no there, there."

[6] See film of Pakistan politician Benazir Buto interviewed by David Frost in 2007 about her survival of an assassination attempt just prior to her actual assassination, where, in passing, she says that Osama bin Laden was murdered.

John Faine refused to debate Kevin Bracken, a caller to his Melbourne ABC 'talk back' show on the September 11 terrorist atrocity, after which Faine, in seeming league with Labor and Coalition politicians and the corporate newsmedia, whipped up what almost became a national witch-hunt against Bracken. However, they got more than they bargained for when public opinion swang behind Kevin Bracken. We have transcribed in full, with comments, one of Faine's videoed "defences" of his conduct, so that readers can judge for themselves.

See also comment Jon Faine baits, refuses to debate, Kevin Bracken, Gillard, Faine, disdainful of reasonable doubt on 9/11

9/11 conspiracy theorists swamping talkback: Faine

And welcome to the Friday wrap-up. It is a bit chaotic today. We've got Di Fingleton, Bill Mc Innes and a cast of thousands.

It's been an extraordinary week , too.

(Inaudible response to Jon Faine.)

I don't want to talk about 9/11 conspiracies theorists and the like. Well, I kind of do, but I don't. I don't want to start it up again.

Editorial comment: After refusing to debate Kevin Bracken and starting what came close to becoming a national witch-hunt against Bracken for his supposedly outrageous questioning of the official account 9/11, Faine tells his listeners that he, himself "kinda do[es]" "want to talk about 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the like." Perhaps he should explain to his listeners why he thinks he should judged any less harshly than he judged Kevin Bracken for raising the taboo topic of questioning 9/11 on his 'talk-back' show.

We are clearly being targeted now after what happened on Wednesday afternoon when Kevin Bracken from the Maritime Union and the President of the Trades Hall chose to call in_{#main-22oct-fn1">1}. We didn't call him. He called us. ...

Editorial comment: It's a talk-back show, I would have thought. What is Jon Faine trying to say? That he thinks that a member of the public, such as Kevin Bracken, with a view about the principle justification for this country's, so far, nine year intervention in Afghanistan, is not entitled to ring up a talk-back show in order to put that view?

... He said you can't have a parliamentary debate about Afghanistan unless you are prepared to talk about what really happened and the truth of what happened at the World Trade Centre in New York on 11 September and off it went. ...

Editorial comment: So Jon Faine believes that the principle justification for the war in Afghanistan should not be discussed by the very same body which voted to send our soldiers to fight in that war?

...And now it's Friday and I have probably countless e-mails, text messages and phone calls. We are clearly being targetted now, by all the people who think there is more to it than we've ever been told and "the media" (with a gesture with both hands indicating quote marks) are part of the conspiracy. And having just got a little crack in the door open, we're getting phone calls from all around Australia. We're getting e-mails from around the world. People are saying "Uhh! Here is a point where we can have our claims fully explored. It's been a very intense week because of that. Ahh! On the other hand, I stuck my neck out. I've called them loonies. I've had a go.

I think this is corrosive of peoples' trust in the rule of law and democracy. I still believe that. I don't resile for a moment from anything I've said. , but in the background you can see that --- There's John Standish, one fo my producers -- dealing with all the complaints of people saying that we're arrogant, we're high-handed and we're dismissive and that's not our role here at the ABC and that will take weeks for us to deal with. Such is life!

Footnotes

#main-22oct-fn1" id="main-22oct-fn1">1. #main-22oct-fn1-txt">[back] See also PM story "Vic union leader says September 11 attacks a conspiracy" for some of the dialogue and my comment. As with the dialogue show above the actual words of a person, baiting someone for having expressed an honestly held opinion about an important issues do that person making those remarks no credit.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s3043700.htm

See also comment Jon Faine baits, refuses to debate, Kevin Bracken, Gillard, Faine, disdainful of reasonable doubt on 9/11