THE 9/11 PSY-OPERA: Jeb Bush’s 9/11 problem – By Daniel Hopsicker

THE 9/11 PSY-OPERA: Jeb Bush’s 9/11 problem – By Daniel Hopsicker

Source – madcowprod.com

–  ” …The files pertaining to 9/11 hijacker pilots Marwan Al-Shehhi and Mohamed Atta from Huffman Aviation Flight School in Venice Florida were loaded onto two Ryder trucks and driven onto a C-130 cargo plane which left Sarasota the day after 9/11, the FBI never got them – the files never got there.”

***

Jeb Bush will never admit that he was complicit in a George H.W. Bush/ George W. Bush/ Dick Cheney / CIA/ Mossad/ Israeli false flag operation now known as 911, a capital crime against the American people.

Be Prepared to Discern Them in 2016: 11 Signs of a False Flag

11 Signs of a False Flag

Dees Illustration

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

1. High Profile Event: The first question to ask would be “Is this a high profile incident?” The answer, of course, is fairly obvious. If an attack takes place at the World Trade Center complex causing the buildings to explode and collapse, or if it takes place at the White House, or Pentagon, it is clearly high profile. Thus, the location can be factored in. In other circumstances, however, the act itself may be the major factor such as the case in Sandy Hook Elementary School, a nationally unimportant location but a horrific act that made national news nonetheless. The most important factor, of course, is media attention. Regardless of location or the act, if the media picks up the story and runs it simultaneously on all major mainstream channels, the incident can be considered a “high profile event.”

2. Changing Stories: In informed researching circles, it is well-known that the information that comes out shortly after the event is usually the most reliable. This is not to discount the existence of confusion related to panicked reports coming from eyewitnesses and the like. However, the information coming out early on has not yet been subjected to the top-down media revision that will inevitably take place as the story becomes molded to fit the narrative pushed by the individuals who either directed the attack at the higher levels or at least have connections with those who are able to control the manner in which various media outlets report the event.

For instance, in times of false flag attacks, the initial reports may point to 5 gunmen. Very shortly after, reports may only mention two. Only a few hours after the attack, however, all references to more than one gunmen are removed entirely, with only the “lone gunman” story remaining. Any other mention of additional gunmen after this point is ridiculed as “conspiracy theory.”

3. Simultaneous Drills: One hallmark of the false flag operation is the running of drills shortly before or during the actual attack. Many times, these drills will involve the actual sequence of events that takes place during the real life attack . These drills have been present on large scale false flags such as 9/11 as well as smaller scale attacks like the Aurora shooting.

For instance, as Webster Tarpley documents in his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA, at least 46 drills were underway in the months leading up to 9/11 and on the morning of the attack. These 46 drills were all directly related to the events which took place on 9/11 in some way or other.[1] Likewise, the 7/7 bombings in London were running drills of exactly the same scenario that was occurring at exactly the same times and locations.

Although one reason may take precedence over the other depending on the nature and purpose of the operation drills are used by false flag operators for at least two reasons. One such purpose is the creation of intentional confusion if the drill is taking place during the actual attack. The other, more effective aspect, however, is using the drill as a cloak to plan the attack or even “go live” when it comes time to launch the event. Even more so, it gives the individuals who are involved in the planning of the event an element of cover, especially with the military/intelligence agency’s tight chain of command structure and need-to-know basis. If a loyal military officer or intelligence agent stumbles upon the planning of the attack, that individual can always be told that what he has witnessed is nothing more than the planning of a training exercise. This deniability continues all the way through to the actual “going live” of the drill. After the completion of the false flag attack, Coincidence Theory is used to explain away the tragic results.[2]

4. Cui Bono? The most important question to ask immediately after any high profile incident is “cui bono?” or “Who benefits?” If one is able to see a clear benefit to any government, corporation, or bank, then the observer becomes capable of seeing through the false flag attack immediately. Many of these questions can be answered by taking a closer look at the behavior of these organizations prior to the attack and shortly thereafter.[3]

For instance, the presence of legislation which would stand little chance of being passed before the attack but which is quickly passed (or at least heavily pushed) afterwards is one clue that the conveniently timed attack was actually a false flag. Patriot Act style legislation was actually written before 9/11 but stood little chance of passing in Congress due to the political climate in the United States at the time. After 9/11, however, the Patriot Act was fast-tracked through both Houses of Congress with virtually no debate and with the blessing of the American people.

Returning to 9/11, it is a fact that a number of individuals who were in positions of power within the US government during the time the attack occurred had desperately wanted to invade several Middle Eastern countries.[4] After the attacks, a war psychosis gripped the ruling class of the United States and the American public followed right along.

After the Underwear Bombing, we saw the rollout of the TSA full-body scanners, a technology which would not have been readily accepted prior to the incident and subsequent propaganda campaign. However, the scanners had been purchased one year earlier by a firm owned by Michael Chertoff, the former head of Homeland Security.

Likewise, in terms of the LAX shooting, TSA purchased 3.5 million dollars worth of ammunition in August. Yet, in August, TSA was not an armed agency. After the LAX shooting, however, talk has turned to arming the agency, thus indicating possible foreknowledge on the part of someone higher up in the governmental structure.

Of course, the same can be said for the explosion of crazed lone-gunman shooting sprees that took place all across the United States amid propaganda pushes for increased gun control measures.

5. Unanswered Questions: Another hallmark of the false flag operation is relatively obvious – the presence of unanswered questions regarding the details of the attack, the perpetrators, the motive and so on. Although the media narrative that takes shape soon after the attack will ignore these questions, they will inevitably remain if observers are able to think for themselves and focus only on the information. An example of such questions would be Building 7 on 9/11 or the questions of additional shooters at Aurora and Sandy Hook.

6. Case is quickly closed: Once an acceptable patsy and cover story is chosen by the media, all other opinions and questions are refused air time. Nothing that even slightly contradicts the official story is acknowledged as legitimate. Once this happens, the patsy, if still alive (in rare circumstances) is charged, prosecuted, and convicted in a largely secret or shadowy proceeding. In most cases, the suspect is killed in the process or shortly after the fact thus negating any first hand contradiction of the official narrative. Either way, the case is closed very soon after the event.

7. Suspects’ Connection to CIA, FBI, or Other Intelligence Agencies: One key aspect suggesting a false flag that should be looked for soon after the attack is any possible connection the suspect or group of suspects may have had with intelligence agencies. A connection to any one of these organizations and institutions may go some length in explaining how the attack was coordinated, the motivation of the perpetrators, the actual involvement (or not) of the suspects, and who actually directed the operation. For instance, on 9/11, many of the alleged hijackers had previously had close contact with the FBI, CIA, and other high-level intelligence agencies (both home and abroad).[5] Likewise, the Tsarnaev brothers who have been accused of masterminding and carrying out the Boston Bombing had ties to the FBI before the attack.

In many instances, connections to certain military agencies and communities should serve as the same red flag as connections to intelligence agencies since these institutions have largely been blended together.

8. Convenient Scapegoat: One clue leading an informed observer to suspect a false flag attack is the existence of the convenient scapegoat. Any false flag operation will have a carefully crafted narrative complete with a group of individuals set up for demonization. The OKC bombing had McVeigh and thus, “right-wing extremists” and “militias.” On 9/11, the group was Muslims. In many of the domestic shooting sprees, the demonization was set for gun owners. With the recent LAX shooting, the “perpetrator” was an “anti-government conspiracy theorist.” In the instance of the false flag, a readily identified pasty will exhibit all or most of the aspects of the group and social demographic set to be demonized.

9. Media Promotes A Narrative Against Scapegoat Groups and/or An Agenda To Take Liberties: One clue suggesting a false flag is that, immediately after the attack and after the perpetrators have been “identified” by “officials” and the media, corporate media outlets begin not only demonizing the demographic group to which the “perpetrator” belongs, but begins promoting “solutions” in order to prevent such an attack from ever happening again. This narrative will always involve the erosion of liberties, the greater implementation of a police state, a specific economic policy, or a march to war.

Simply put, the media promotes the PROBLEM, allows for and guides the REACTION, and then provides the pre-determined SOLUTION.

10. Government Begins to “Take Action” Against the Scapegoat or Moves Along the Lines of the Media Narrative: After a healthy dose of propaganda from mainstream media outlets regurgitating the terror of the attack, the perpetrator, and the police state solutions, the Government then begins to take action. Political speeches are given in order to capitalize on the fear and anger felt by the public and in order to reinforce the idea that government is there to act as protector. Political solutions are then offered as bills, executive orders, or political mandates whether it is the curtailment of the 4th Amendment, gun control, or military strikes on a foreign country.

11. Clues in pop media: Pop media clues, more accurately described as predictive programming, is more easily identified in hindsight. This often involves the portrayal of the very incident occurring in a movie or television show. In other instances, it may involve the conspicuous or even inconspicuous placement of random details of the attack into movies and television. For instance, The Lone Gunman, a short-lived spinoff of the X-Files carried a storyline in which a passenger plane was hijacked via remote control and was being flown into the World Trade Center towers. In The Dark Knight Rises, a very curious reference was made to Sandy Hook with a map of Newtown, Connecticut on the wall.

6,000 COPS, CHECKPOINTS, SNIPERS, K-9S – WHAT CELEBRATING THE NEW YEAR IN A POLICE STATE LOOKS LIKE Published: December 31, 2015

New Yorkers’ prop,
Six thousand cops,
Will never stop
A Lynch Psy-Op.

~Day

6,000 COPS, CHECKPOINTS, SNIPERS, K-9S – WHAT CELEBRATING THE NEW YEAR IN A POLICE STATE LOOKS LIKE

Published: December 31, 2015
k9-nypd-police-state-new-year
New York City, NY — Like an Orwellian wet dream come to life, the NYPD has announced that more than 6,000 cops will be herding Times Square attendees into spectator pens this New Year’s Eve while violating their Fourth Amendment right prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. Instead of deterring further acts of violence, the excessive show of force merely reinforces the notion that the terrorists have already won by utilizing fear to turn the state against its own people. . . .

Although the NYPD and FBI claim that there are currently no threats against Times Square, the additional security measures are clearly a knee-jerk reaction to recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. With police militarization and mass surveillance both having failed to prevent a single terrorist attack, the state continues to justify using these vile weapons at home and abroad in the name of fighting terrorism.

On December 20, Lakeisha Holloway intentionally drove onto a sidewalk in Las Vegas, killing one and wounding 30 other pedestrians. On April 15, 2013, security at the Boston Marathon failed to stop two brothers from setting off bombs that resulted in 3 people killed and an estimated 264 wounded. Throughout 2015, several videos recorded Israeli soldiers failing to prevent multiple knife attacks throughout Jerusalem.

Even with Big Brother having access to over 1,000 surveillance cameras covering Times Square, the police cannot stop a psychopath armed with a gun, a car, acid, a homemade explosive device, a kitchen knife, or a Molotov cocktail from suddenly attacking the crowd. This excessive show of force is merely an illusion of safety that actually diverts resources from other parts of the city, leaving many neighborhoods virtually unprotected in areas with high crime rates. When asked about these vulnerable neighborhoods, NYPD Commission Bill Bratton replied, “The ability to protect everything all the time is not possible anywhere.”

Why Progressives Make Bad Journalists

The Government

Is their false god,

Which tells you why

They act so odd.

~Day

 

 

Why Progressives Make Bad Journalists

 

I wrote Progressivism: A Primer to explain certain anomalies in the behavior of progressives that I had noticed over a number of years.  For example, I found that progressives were rarely amenable to rational persuasion.  Facts, logic and even experience rarely changed their minds.  You couldn’t really argue with a progressive.  You would argue; they would fight.  They would get angry, insult and change the subject.  They never stopped proposing new government programs, spending and laws, though they appeared to lack a grand vision of what they were trying to accomplish.

To explain all this and more, I propounded an eight-part definition of progressivism.  Thus, “progressivism is:

  1. a mindset about politics;
  2. that has no rational basis;
  3. is utopian;
  4. favors the use of democratic government force to solve human problems;
  5. holds that government force will produce a better result than voluntary society and the market;
  6. has no theory of costs, or denies or minimizes the costs of its proposed solutions;
  7. is a form of self-help therapy against existential angst; and,
  8. has no limiting principle and therefore tends toward creeping totalitarianism.”