Category Archives: False Flag Operations

Same Ukraine Snipers Shot Cops and Protesters, EU Call Suggests

The New American
by Alex Newman

During a hacked phone call that sparked an uproar and confusion worldwide after being leaked to the media, Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet told European Union foreign policy boss Catherine Ashton that evidence suggests that the same snipers, allegedly hired by opposition forces, may have shot dead both police and protesters amid the Maidan uprising. An estimated 100 people were killed amid the turmoil, with close to 1,000 wounded.

While Paet has confirmed that his conversation with the senior EU official was genuine, numerous crucial questions remain unanswered as calls for a formal investigation into the allegations grow louder.

“All evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers — both policemen and people from the streets — that it was the same snipers killing people from both sides,” Paet, the Estonian foreign minister, can be heard telling the EU’s Ashton during the leaked February 26 call, citing pictures and a conversation he had with a doctor named Olga in Ukraine. “There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition.” He also said the developments “already discreditates [sic] this new coalition” and that Ukrainians believe their new rulers, like the old, all have a “dirty past.”

Based on the leaked phone call and other evidence, analysts following developments in Ukraine have suggested that elements or factions within the opposition movement may have actually employed the gunmen accused of massacring dozens of people from rooftops. The purpose, supposedly, was to further inflame the foreign-backed revolutionary fervor that recently swept the regime of deposed Ukrainian “President” Viktor Yanukovich out of power. Some analysts even referred to the shootings as a potential “false-flag” attack. However, without any real investigations so far, and in the midst of conflicting propaganda wars, hard evidence confirming the major allegations remains elusive.   

Calling the comments and evidence from the Ukrainian doctor “quite disturbing,” Paet said Olga, whom he reportedly met during a February 25 visit to Ukraine, had explained that it was “the same handwriting” and “the same type of bullets” involved in the killings of police and protesters. Russian media reports have identified the doctor in question as Olga Bogomolets, the chief medical coordinator for the primary protest camp in Kiev’s Independence Square. Western news agencies, however, while familiar with the doctor, have reportedly been unable to confirm her claims.

Especially troubling to Paet was what he suggested was the new government’s reluctance to launch a formal investigation into the murders. “And it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition that — they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened,” he said during the call. Responding to his comments, EU foreign affairs chief Ashton sounded surprised, but not incredulous. “I think we do want to investigate,” she told the Estonian official. “I didn’t pick that up. That’s interesting. Gosh.” In a dispassionate tone of voice, Ashton also said “that’s terrible” upon hearing the news. 

Ashton’s office has refused to comment on the leaked phone call, with her spokesperson saying, “we don’t comment on leaked phone conversations.” The Estonian Foreign Ministry did confirm that the call and its contents were genuine. However, it cautioned against interpreting Paet’s remarks as his own views about what may have happened in the infamous Kiev murders, which arguably represented the key turning point in the uprising that eventually toppled the existing regime.

“Foreign Minister Paet was giving an overview of what he had heard the previous day in Kiev and expressed concern over the situation on the ground,” the official Estonian statement explained. “We reject the claim that Paet was giving an assessment of the opposition’s involvement in the violence.” Paet himself said it was “extremely regrettable that phone calls are being intercepted” and that “the fact that this phone call has been leaked is not a coincidence.”

According to news reports, the phone call between the two European officials was hacked and leaked by elements of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) that are still loyal to deposed Ukrainian “President” Viktor Yanukovich. The operatives from the intelligence agency, a former subsidiary of the Soviet KGB, apparently posted the conversation on YouTube. From there, it was promptly picked up by the Kremlin-funded RT network and other Russian state-controlled media outlets. Shortly before the call was leaked, meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin had also suggested the killings in Kiev were perpetrated by “provocateurs.”    

It is the second time in recent weeks that a leaked phone call about the Ukrainian chaos between senior Western officials has raised major questions about what is really going on in the embattled nation. Early last month, another explosive conversation was leaked that shed light on the Obama administration’s barely concealed role in helping to foment and guide the chaos. In the hacked phone call, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt were caught plotting what sounded suspiciously like a “regime-change” operation — even presuming to decide what politicians would be most suitable for the post-uprising Ukrainian government. 

“I think Yats [Yatsenyuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience,” Nuland said during the leaked call. “What he needs is Klitsch [Klitschko] and [Oleh] Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in, he’s going to be at that level, working for Yatsenyuk, it’s just not going to work.” Pyatt responded, saying: “Let me work on Klitschko … and I think we should get a Western personality to come out here [to Ukraine] and midwife this thing.”

The U.S. State Department, which has been vocally supporting the protest movement while threatening members of the former regime, refused to comment on either of the leaked phone calls. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, however, while claiming to have no comment about the developments, was quoted accusing authorities in Moscow of being behind the hacks and leaks of phone calls. “This was another example of how the Russians work,” she said. Russian officials have also remained relatively quiet on the calls as well.

If nothing else, the latest developments in Ukraine confirm once again that the public should take all claims made by Russian, Ukrainian, and Western politicians — in fact, any and all politicians — with a grain of salt, at least until real proof emerges to confirm them. In the real world, as The New American has been documenting, despite the public posturing for the masses, the international establishment is still working on what it calls “convergence” and “integration” between so-called “East” and “West.” The new interim government also includes plenty of “familiar faces.” 

The uprising in Ukraine, which began as a protest movement late last year following the government’s decision to back out of talks with the EU, eventually morphed into a full-blown revolution with foreign support. As violence soared and demonstrators seized control of government offices, the regime of former Soviet Communist Party operative Yanukovich, widely viewed as a corrupt, Putin-backed criminal, was deposed. In its place, controversial opposition figures seized control. 

In the establishment press, at least, the Ukrainian conflict has been portrayed as largely a battle between supporters of Moscow and the Kremlin against proponents of “integration” with the increasingly totalitarian super-state in Brussels. At the moment, Kiev’s new rulers are leaning “West,” working with the EU, the IMF, and other institutions. Behind the scenes, though, as always, there is a lot more going on than meets the eye. And as usual, the people will almost certainly end up on the losing end.

The New American

The Most Boring Superbowl Ever … Until 9/11 Truth Proponent Interrupts MVP Interview

Washington’s Blog

This clip has gotten a lot of media attention … almost as much as Peyton Manning explaining why the football hit his helmet on the very first play (leading to a safety, and the fastest score in superbowl history).

Winning Seahawks coach Pete Carroll also questions 9/11. As do some old-timers, like 5-time NFL Pro Bowl center Mark Stepnoski (Dallas Cowboys and Houston Oilers) and former NFL running back Bill Enyart (Buffalo Bills and Oakland Raiders).

What do you think? How many of you think:

(1) The government couldn’t have foreseen 9/11, and did everything it could to minimize the damage (while perhaps being negligent in its foresight, coordination, communication, priorities or execution)?

(2) 9/11 was an inside job carried out by rogue elements of the U.S. government as a “false flag attack“?

(3) The government knew the attack was coming, but allowed it to succeed to justify the launching of the war for oil – er, I mean the “War on Terror” – and to consolidate power and crackdown on liberties at home?

Washington’s Blog

Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11

Global Research
By Kevin Ryan


In response to a question at the University of Florida recently, Noam Chomsky claimedthat there were only “a miniscule number of architects and engineers” who felt that the official account of WTC Building 7 should be treated with skepticism.  Chomsky followed-up by saying, “a tiny number—a couple of them—are perfectly serious.”

If signing your name and credentials to a public petition on the subject means being serious, then Noam Chomsky’s tiny number begins at 2,100, not counting scientists and other professionals. Why would Chomsky make such an obvious exaggeration when he has been presented with contradictory facts many times?

I’ve personally had over thirty email exchanges with Chomsky. In those exchanges, he has agreed that it is “conceivable” that explosives might have been used at the WTC. But, he wrote, if that were the case it would have had to be Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden who had made it so.

Of course, it doesn’t matter how many professionals or intellectuals are willing to to admit it. The facts remain that the U.S. government’s account for the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 is purely false.  There is no science behind the government’s explanation for WTC7 or forthe Twin Towers and everyone, including the government, admits that WTC Building 7 experienced free fall on 9/11. There is no explanation for that other than the use of explosives.

The obviously bogus “tiny number” statement from Chomsky is only one of several such absurdities the man uttered in his lecture response. Here are a few of the others.

“[Scientists seeking the truth about 9/11] are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something. What you do, when you think you have discovered something, is you write articles in scientific journals [he admits to “one or two minor articles”], give talks at the professional societies, and go to the Civil Engineering Department at MIT, or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results.”

I’ve copied Chomsky on more than two peer-reviewed scientific articles in mainstream journals that describe evidence for demolition at the WTC. Therefore he knows that this statement is not true. And I’ve given dozens of talks around the U.S. and Canada that focused on the WTC demolition theory, many of which were at universities.

I’ve also pointed out that MIT’s civil engineering professor Eduardo Kausel made elementary mistakes in his public comments about the WTC disaster. Kausel claimed inScientific American that the WTC towers were “never designed for the the intense jet fuel fires—a key design omission.”  Kausel also claimed that jet fuel from the aircraft “softened or melted the structural elements—floor trusses and columns—so that they became like chewing gum.”  At the risk of making a Chomsky-like exaggeration, I’ll venture that nearly everyone today knows that these statements are false.

Chomsky went on in an attempt to belittle, and downplay the sacrifices of, people seeking the truth.

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the internet who think they know a lot of physics but it doesn’t work like that.”

“Anyone who has any record of, any familiarity, with political activism knows that this is one of the safest things you can do. It’s almost riskless. People take risks far beyond this constantly, including scientists and engineers. I could, have run through, and can run through many examples. Maybe people will laugh at you but that’s about it. It’s almost a riskless position.”

Chomsky knows that I was fired from my job as Site Manager at Underwriters Laboratories for publicly challenging the government’s investigation into the WTC tragedy.  He knows that many others have suffered similar responses as well, including Brigham Young University physicist Steven Jones and University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit, who were forced into retirement for speaking out. And although everyone knows that researchers and universities today depend on billions of grant dollars from the government, Chomsky implies that such funding could never be impacted in any way by questioning of the government’s most sensitive political positions.

The “hour on the internet” nonsense is ludicrous, of course, and Chomsky knows it well. Jones and Harrit have better scientific credentials than some MIT professors and we have all spent many years studying the events of 9/11. I’ve spent over a decade, and have contributed to many books and scientific articles, on the subject.

Pandering to the hecklers in the crowd, Chomsky summarized his simplistic (public) position on the events of 9/11.

“However, there’s a much more deeper issue which has been brought up repeatedly and I have yet to hear a response to it. There is just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved—very elementary evidence. You don’t have to be a physicist to understand it, you just have to think for a minute. There’s a couple of facts which are uncontroversial:

#1—The Bush Administration desperately wanted to invade Iraq. (He goes on to say that there were good reasons, including that Iraq was “right in the middle if the world’s energy producing region.)

#2—They didn’t blame 9/11 on Iraqis, they blamed it on Saudis—that’s their major ally.

#3—Unless they’re total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis if they were involved in any way.” He continues to say that “there was no reason to invade Afghanistan” which “has been mostly a waste of time.”

Basically, these three “overwhelming” reasons boil down to one reason—Chomsky assumes that if the Bush Administration was involved it would have immediately blamed Iraq for 9/11. Of course, Bush Administration leaders did immediately blame Iraq for 9/11 and they did so repeatedly. That was one of the two original justifications given by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq.

Moreover, Chomsky most definitely received a response to his “deeper issue” when he received a copy of my new book Another Nineteen several months before his comments.  The book gives ample reasons—meaning actual overwhelming evidence—to suspect that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and nineteen of their colleagues were behind the 9/11 attacks. After writing that he was “glad to learn about the new book,” he sent his mailing address for a free copy. Chomsky acknowledged receiving the book in August and wrote to me that he was “pleased to have a copy of the book, and hope to be able to get to it before too long.”

Therefore, Chomsky has either ignored the response to his one major concern for several months or he knows that his concern is no longer valid. What would make him feign ignorance in such a way?  Perhaps it is the fact that he would lose a great deal of face if he were to finally admit that there is much more to the story of 9/11.

Regardless, when a tiny number begins at 2,100 and “just overwhelming evidence” to exonerate the Bush Administration boils down to one bad assumption, we are again reminded of the power that 9/11 holds. When presented with substantial evidence for complicity on the part of corporate and government leaders, the obvious becomes either undeniable or an emotional cue to dissemble.

Global Research

Did NIST Fraudulently Omit A Key Component Related to Collapse Theory From WTC Building 7?

| WTF News |
Baran Hines & Ralph Morelli

#911Truth WTFact #5: Building 7
WTFRLY’s 9/11 Truth Top 50 WTFacts

Can you spot the difference?

That is the question generating the most discussion of new analysis in the 9/11 Truth community. For those that are less studied on the 9/11 “investigation”, the collapse of Building 7 remains a mystery, however many still think it’s “all junk” and has been “disproven” despite the clear lack of investigation.

As it relates to Building 7, National Institute of Standards and Technology ultimately produced a report which didn’t actually investigate the collapse in accordance with nationally recognized procedures, but simply did their supposed best to simulate various fire scenarios and agreed on the most likely outcome. That is not an adequate investigation and it has been passed off as if it is in order to stifle debate.
The diagrams above point out a key discrepancy in the report which until the middle of 2012, went unnoticed. A January 2012 Freedom of Information Act suit, by a structural engineer working with Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, yielded sets of original construction drawings that show a different version of what is represented in Figure 8-21.
Comparing the two diagrams above, the original drawings from Frankel Steel Limited point out the omission of a critical component called flange stiffeners, also called stiffener plates, from Figure 8-21 in the report.

Definition of stiffeners: Stiffeners are secondary plates or sections which are attached to beam webs or flanges to stiffen them against out of plane deformations.

R19 Fig7.png

R19 Fig8.PNG

This is a significant discrepancy because the figure at issue illustrates the suggested reason for the failure of Column 79 which is cited as the initiation of the collapse sequence the NIST report claims is most likely responsible for the collapse of Building 7.

NIST finally released the structural and shop drawings in January 2012, pursuant to a FOIA request. They can be downloaded here:

WTC 7 Blueprints Exposed Via FOIA Request: Building Plans Allow for Deeper Analysis of Skyscraper’s Destruction

9/11 researcher David Cole went through the hundreds of drawings and found drawing 1091 which shows the girder seat was 12 inches wide (as noted above), not the 11 inches claimed in the final report. He also found drawing 9114, which shows flange stiffeners at the column 79 end of the girder between column 44 and 79.

NIST omitted these flange stiffeners that would have prevented the bottom flange from folding as required for their collapse to begin. The girder would have to be pushed almost all the way off the seat, not just half way, before the bottom flange would buckle.

“Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when … the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. … the beam was assumed to have lost support, as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for transferring the gravity loads.” NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 p. 488 [pdf p. 150]

The flange stiffeners are on the Frankel drawings, but not on the NIST drawings in the final report.

Drawing 9114 clearly shows instructions for stiffener plates at the connection poorly represented by Figure 8-21 of the NIST report.

Can you spot the difference now?

Looking at the correct original Frankel drawings again after seeing Drawing 9114, it is patently obvious that the drawing represented in Figure 8-21 of the NIST report is missing the the plates. The reason this subtle difference escaped detection for so long is because to the untrained eye, it looks like nothing is missing. At a minimum, this omission, however it happened, is a serious oversight which leads to a significantly altered outcome as it relates to the fire simulations NIST generated.

What difference does it make?

The inclusion of these plates during construction and the omission thereof in the NIST report is a factor that would significantly alter the fire simulations used to explain Building 7′s collapse.
…the omission of these stiffener plates from the analysis of the WTC 7 collapse initiation analysis is the most solid evidence for a new investigation there has been to date. It is irrefutable that the stiffeners were omitted and that their inclusion in any analysis would render the NIST collapse initiation claim thoroughly impossible. Without their alleged natural initiation due to thermal expansion there can be no natural collapse of the building.

Why the stiffeners are so important:

Via 911 Blogger
They allow a girder to transfer loads to a wider footprint (bearing surface) and increase its ability to resist failure.

The stiffeners not only allow the load to be spread wider, but if the girder could shift (walk-off) as NIST alleges, they strengthen the web and bottom flanges. So if the girder web could somehow reach the edge of the 12” seat, the flanges would not fold under an offset load. NIST claims only 5.5” was necessary. They later revised this to 6.25”, but with the stiffeners the distance required would be approximately 10” before the girder could leave the seat.

The stiffeners would make the type of failure that NIST supposed in their thermal expansion hypothesis completely impossible because the beams could not expand more than 4.75″ no matter how hot they got. The reason the expansion is limited is because at just above 600°C the beams shorten due to sagging more than they expand.

The stiffener plates as shown in the WTC7 drawings were installed on the key girder that NIST claims initiated an unprecedented global progressive collapse of the building. NIST did not include them in their analysis.

Thus if the girder can’t walk-off the seat it does not fall onto floor 12 and likewise floor 12 doesn’t collapse. The whole progressive collapse scenario evaporates without an initiating event. The stiffeners are the Achilles Heel of the NIST conclusion. They are truly the “game changers” described by mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti. Many other engineers agree.  This walk-off is a pure, unadulterated fantasy.

As shown below, the plates strengthen the connection and limit the movement of the beam.

Specifically in the case of Figure 8-21

The omission of the stiffeners from the NIST report drawings is possibly evidence of efforts to conceal the truth of the collapse behind speculative fire simulations and cover up the lack of real investigation.

Obviously the design, detailing, fabrication and erection of WTC 7 took several years from start to finish. It is not obvious how NIST can claim that fires fueled by office furnishings could have compromised this steel structure in a matter of hours and destroyed it in a matter of seconds. Hopefully these design and fabrication drawings will shed light on the third worst structural failure in modern history.

NIST announces revisions to the final WTC 7 report

The facts above are made more suspicious when the relevant timeline is considered. The new info uncovered by the FOIA request in January 2012 appears to have set off a chain of events leading to efforts to hide critical flaws in the accepted final collapse explanation.
NIST announced changes to the report in erratum documents in April and June of 2012 but made the adjustments seem insignificant, and the discrepancies were ignored. The changes noted in the adjustment were explained away as errors of innocent oversight, and were thus taken to be innocuous, however what it looks like happened is that the changes have covered up the omissions described in this article as well as a possibly fabricated set of dimensions around the critical area of structural failure at Column 79.

April 2012

A revision was made in April 2012 to change the source references in the descriptions of Footnote 2, page 342, Chapter 8 and Figure 8-16 to say they were from the “Structural Design Drawings” of Irwin G. Cantor P.C., Structural Engineers. The figures originally referenced the source as more descriptive Frankel Steel “Erection Drawings”, the same ones that were the target of the January 2012 FOIA request, which contain additional instructions for on-site work.
Someone had to have known that with the Frankel drawings open to public view, anyone curious to investigate could discover the presence of instructions for stiffeners and may have found that Figure 8-21 in the report had omitted them. By revising the source references from Frankel to Cantor, it could have provided a distraction to keep an inquiry from being answered.

April 2012 Text Changes to the NIST Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, NIST NCSTAR 1-9 NIST has made the following changes to the report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:

1. In Chapter 8, page 342, Footnote 2, text changed as follows:

Taken from Erection Drawings, sheet E12/13, 12th & 13th Floor Framing Plan.
Taken from Structural Drawing S-8, Typical floor framing plan 8th to 20th & 24th to 45th Floors

2. In Chapter 8, page 343, Figure 8-16, note, text changed as follows:

Based on erection drawing of Floors 12/13 (Frankel Steel 1985)
Based on structural drawing of Floors 8 to 20 and 24 to 45(Cantor 1985)

June 2012

After making the initial changes to the report in April, miraculously, someone at NIST discovered numerical errors in the dimensions at the critical point of the building’s suggested failure. These errors were represented as insignificant though they are not.

June 2012 Text Changes to the NIST Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, NIST NCSTAR 1-9 NIST has made the following changes to the report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:

1. In Chapter 11, page 482, Analytical Model for Seated Connection at Columns 79 and 81
The fourth sentence in the 3rd paragraph should be modified as follows:

The travel distance for walk off was 6.25 5.5 in. along the axis of the beam and 5.5 6.25 in. lateral to the beam.

The 5.5 in. dimension was the length of the girder bearing on the seat connection that had to slide off the seat axially to the girder. The 6.25 in. dimension accounted for the length from the flange tip to the far side of the web, so that the web was no longer supported on the bearing plate. This change corrects a typographical error which showed a lateral displacement of 5.5 in. instead of the correct value of 6.25 in., which was used in the analyses.

2. In Chapter 11, page 527, Thermal Effects on Connections for Floor Beams and Girders
The third and fourth sentences in the 3rd paragraph should be modified as follows:

The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 12 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 6.25 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.

The 16-story model of WTC 7 used a 12 in. bearing plate on the north side of Column 79, consistent with Frankel drawing 1091. The 5.5 in. dimension was incorrectly cited, as the 6.25 in. dimension accounted for the lateral walk-off distance. These changes correct typographical errors. The dimensions and lateral displacements used in the analyses were correct.

The errors outlined above basically cancel each other out and it appears to cover up the earlier estimates/assumptions/lies? miscalculations which would have called into question the dimensions used in the collapse simulations.

1. A simple one to start. Were the stiffeners included in the analysis of the collapse as dictated by the report’s fire simulations?

If not, why not? Were the stiffeners considered by the group assigned or did someone omit them from the start so the group would not see them?
This is probably the most important question because without including them in simulations, the report is incomplete at best.

2. The overlapping corrections

Is it just a coincidence that the June 2012 corrections seem to cover up the fact that based on the bearing seat being an inch wider than initially thought (12 inches), the beam would need to slide further than the 5.5 inches initially described? Coincidentally, the second change gave the lateral displacement an extra .75 inches to slide.
The problem created by the FOIA request being granted was only half solved by the renaming the sources in related references to the Cantor drawings in April. The release of the original Frankel drawings also made it inevitable that someone would discover the error of the bearing plate being listed as 11 inches when the drawings listed as 12 inches. The changes to swap the dimensions conveniently allow the explanation of the bearing plate error by saying that the beam slid horizontally 6.25 inches. The totality of these circumstances makes it look like an attempt to save the overall collapse analysis which was threatened by the 11/12 inch mistake.

3. If NIST was originally looking at the Frankel Steel drawings which were more detailed, how did they screw up and claim the bearing seat was 11 inches when the notes clearly say it was 12 inches?

4. The beam needs to move further to slide off for multiple reasons

The June 2012 changes amended the report to say that the beam slid laterally by 6.25 in, giving it another .75 inches to justify added stress on a wider seat. This was changed from 5.5 inches laterally, which would not be far enough for the load to cause the failure. Which distance was used in NIST’s final conclusion?
The stiffener plate would also force the beam to walk further to its failure point, which is a big reason they appear to be omitted.

The shifting dimensions raise new questions about the thoroughness of the simulations. Ultimately, the beam had to slide at least one inch further, and that doesn’t account for the addition of the stiffener plates. The stiffener plates are welded to the beam as per the drawings, and surely they were welded to the column, so how much extra stress and strain was necessary for the suggested failure? There are too many questions that need to be answered and a new investigation is in order.

5. How would the plate below the bearing seat affect the equation?

6. Why did NIST include analysis with shear studs initially but remove references to it in the final report?

Shear studs are a common addition to structures as they support additional load to the surface above and also as it relates to the beam sliding horizontally off the seat. It would be more difficult to slide laterally given 30+ connections down the length of the beam.

Shear Connector Studs are designed to tie the concrete slab to the steel beams and to resist shear loadings between the concrete slab and steel beam in composite construction. This enables us to load up to 1000 kg/m² instead of the usual load which is much less.
shear connectors welding studs

The Frankel drawings clearly called for field applied shear studs.

3,896 Shear Studs counted in one level as called for by the drawings.

How could NIST say there were no shear studs?

This diagram shows shear studs near Column 79

Visually illustrating shear studs

This set of videos provides excellent analysis of the concepts discussed and many of the screenshots above are from these particular videos.

It all leads to the fact that the sudden collapse of the building could not have been caused by the explosion of fuel oil tanks, debris damage and resulting office fires. That is not a statement to be made lightly and the reason that more people are researching the subject. Neither the proven damage nor the documented statistics on the sudden collapse match the explanations given in the final report.
There is a litany of evidence and eyewitness reports of explosions, like Barry Jennings who was a long time New York City employee. He reported the initial explosions which weren’t included in the NIST report between 9 and 10 am and the NIST report claimed critical fires weakened the building structure later in the afternoon. He explains in the videos below that explosions knocked him backwards. At one point, he had to pull himself up because he was hanging from a broken stair landing after a strong explosion. You can’t actually ask Barry Jennings about it because he died in early August 2008, about 2 weeks before the final version of this phony NIST report’s release on Aug. 21, 2008. If Barry Jennings was alive to find out what was in the report, there would have been a problem because the things he said in the videos below directly contradict the official explanation.

Fun fact: The reporter asks Jennings to “describe the moment of impact” as if he was in either WTC 1 or 2 as he was not aware of Building 7′s condition it seems.

Jennings explains all the explosions he heard in detail

Intergranular Melting

The key question at hand really is whether these “high intensity” fires could do this to the steel support structure…

Which even the NY Times was openly curious about in November 2001 and February 2002

The steel was whisked away to landfills as fast as possible, of the pieces that remained and could be analyzed by inquisitive minds, the beams were either shredded like Swiss cheese as seen above, or bent and twisted like pretzels with no cracks as shown below (beam may be from WTC 1/2 but it is an example).
horseshoe steel beam
Then there’s that whole meteorite looking thing from across the street under the main towers.
WTC meteorites
More on intergranular melting…

Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed,
preventing forensic analysis, FEMA’s volunteer investigators did manage to perform “limited metallurgical examination” of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study.
Prior to the release of FEMA’s report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.” The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”
WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.

The Minerals, Metals, Materials Society

A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.


Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

Severely eroded I beam cross sections, nominal composition (%) of A36 steel plate is: (0.29C max, 0.80–1.2Mn, 0.04P, 0.05S, 0.15–0.3Si bal Fe).

Oxidation and intergranular melting;

Eutectic formation (iron oxide-iron sulfide), etched 4% natal.

An EDX Analysis of eutectic region.
The microstructure of unaffected A36 steel: (a-left) white-ferrite, dark-pearlite and (b-right) pearlite region. Pearlite forms in bands due to manganese segregation and prior hot working.

The authors acknowledge the assistance of Jeremy Bernier and Marco Fontecchio in preparing this information.

J.R. Barnett is a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. are professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, 01609.

For more information, contact J.R. Barnett at or R.R. Biederman at

FEMA’s investigators inferred that a “liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” formed during a “hot corrosion attack on the steel.” The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it “susceptible to erosion.” Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.
A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.

liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

The “Official” Story That Was Just A Poor Simulation and Can’t Be Proven

The diagram and explanation below is a portion of the Building 7 collapse explanation from the NIST website.


This graphic shows how thermal expansion led to the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7). Heat from fires expanded steel beams on the east side of WTC 7, damaging the framing on multiple floors (top drawing). Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, and caused Floor 13 to collapse (bottom drawing). The cascade of floor failures that followed left Column 79 unsupported. When Column 79 buckled, it initiated the global collapse of the building.

Copyright: Loel Barr

Chris Sarns analyzed the NIST report and file photos, pointing out that fires were incapable of causing the actual damage to the building.


5-114Figure 5-114. Oblique view of the east face of WTC 7, taken at 2:08:28 p.m. +/- 1s

Fire was first seen on the 12th floor at 2:08 p.m. toward the south end of the east face. Further south on this face, the window glass was still intact, indicating that this fire had burned in the building interior as it turned the southeast corner.”
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 p. 245 [pdf p. 289]

5-117Figure 5-117. Photograph showing fires on the east face at 2:28:43 p.m. +/- 1s [34, 37 and 40 are column numbers]

“By around 2:30 p.m., the visible flames had diminished, but the fire had spread both south into the southeast corner and north, reaching two-thirds of the way to the northeast corner.”  NCSTAR 1A, p. 20 [pdf p. 62]

Fire first appears on the north face of floor 12 about 80 feet from the north-east corner:

“By 3:00 p.m., the fire had spread internally past the northeast corner and onto the north face.” NCSTAR 1A p. 20 [pdf p.62]

The fire spread internally through the offices around column 79 and under the beams which allegedly underwent enough thermal expansion to push a girder off its seat and initiate the “global collapse” at 5:20 p.m.

Figure 5-119. Photograph showing the north face of WTC 7 taken from a helicopter around 2:57 p.m. +/- 5 min

5-121Figure 5-121. Cropped photograph of the north face of WTC 7, taken from a helicopter around 3:05 p.m. +/- 5 min

“In less than 15 min, the fire simultaneously spread rapidly to the east to engulf the northeast corner of the floor and more slowly westward about one-third of the way across the north face.”  NCSTAR 1A p. 20 [pdf p. 62]

Figure 5-135. Cropped photograph showing the east edge of the north face and an oblique view of the east face. It was likely taken between 3:20 p.m. and 3:40 p.m.

“The fire continued spreading westward in starts and stops, approaching the northwest corner of the floor around 3:45 p.m.”  NCSTAR 1A p. 20 [pdf p. 62]

5-136Figure 5-136. Frame taken from a video shot from near the corner of Greenwich Street and Park Place showing the north face of WTC 7 between 3:49 p.m. and 3:54 p.m.

The photographs reveal that the fire on floor 12 had progressed from the south side of the building to the north side by 3:00 p.m. – and had engulfed the northeast corner by about 3:15 p.m. This means that the fire in the area in question (around column 79 and under the beams and girder in the northeast corner) had burned out at about 3:50, because as noted above, the fires burned for only about 20 to 30 minutes in any given location.

More research and analysis from AE911

NIST used numerous unscientific methods and fraudulent inputs to get the key girder to fail in its computer simulation..

NIST arbitrarily added 10% to the temperature results of its fire dynamics simulation (FDS).

“Case A used the temperature data as obtained from the FDS simulation. Case B increased the Case A gas temperatures by 10 percent.” NCSTAR 1A p. 32 [pdf p. 74]

“…only the fire-induced damage produced by Case B temperatures was carried forward as the initial condition for the building collapse analysis.” NCSTAR 1A p. 36 [pdf p. 78]

To get the shear studs on the floor beams to fail, NIST assumed high steel temperatures and applied the heat in 1-1/2 seconds over the entire north east part of floor 13. This method does not allow for heat dispersal or beam sagging.

NIST heated the floor beams, but not the slab. Since concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out of the calculations of the failure of the shear studs is fraudulent.

NIST failed to account for beam sag that would have prevented the floor beams from expanding lengthwise more than 4.75 inches.

“A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.” NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 527 [pdf p. 189]

“The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 12 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 6.25 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.” June 2012 Text Changes to the NIST Reports.

As shown in the graph, structural steel sags as temperature rises, decreasing its length and negating the thermal expansion that NIST blames for the collapse of WTC 7

NIST ignored its own finding:

“Temperatures were uniform (within 1°C) across the bottom flange and web, but the top flange temperature was less by up to several hundred degrees because the slab acted as a heat sink.” NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 391 [pdf p. 53]

Thermal expansion would cause the bottom flange to expand more than the top flange, forcing the beam to bow downward. The NIST hypothesis does not allow for downward bowing.

Do your own research. After reading the information in this article, one would HAVE to realize that at a minimum, re-examination of WTC Building 7′s collapse is warranted.
We recommend you start here: WTFRLY’s 9/11 Truth Top 50 WTFacts

Americans Are Finally Learning About False Flag Terror

Washington’s Blog

Painting by Anthony Freda

Governments Admit They Carry Out False Flag Terror

Governments from around the world admit they carry out false flag terror:

  • A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson
  • Soviet leader  Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939, and declared that the fire originated from Finland as a basis launching the Winter War four days later
  • Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)
  • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
  • As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
  • 2 years before, American Senator George Smathers had suggested that the U.S. make “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
  • And Official State Department documents show that – only nine months before the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan was proposed – the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The 3 plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals
  • The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing
  • An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)
  • Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion)
  • According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
  • The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings
  • As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.
  • Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
  • United Press International reported in June 2005:

    U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

  • Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians
  • Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this)
  • At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence
  • A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat
  • U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants
  • The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – admitted last the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists

So Common … There’s a Name for It

This tactic is so common that it was given a name for hundreds of years ago.

“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.

The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.

Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.

Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
- Plato

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
- U.S. President James Madison

“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
- Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
- Josef Stalin

People Are Waking Up to False Flags

People are slowly waking up to this whole con job by governments who want to justify war.

More people are talking about the phrase “false flag” than ever before.

Washington’s Blog

11 Signs Of A False Flag

by Brandon Turbeville

Goering Quote


Throughout history, versions of the false flag attack have been used successfully by governments in order to direct the force of the people toward whatever end the ruling class may be seeking. At times, that end may be war, or it may be the curtailing of domestic civil liberties and basic human rights. In others, it is an economic agenda.

Indeed, false flags are themselves capable of taking on a wide variety of forms – domestic or foreign, small or large, economic or political, and many other designations that can often blur into one another. Each may serve a specific purpose and each may be adjusted and tailored for that specific purpose as societal conditions require.

For instance, the chemical weapons attack which took place inside Syria in August, 2013 serve as an example of a foreign false flag designed to whip up American fervor for war, on the platform of Responsibility to Protect similar to the Gulf of Tonkin.

Domestically speaking, a large-scale false flag such as 9/11, can be used to whip up both a massive public support for war and a popular willingness to surrender civil liberties, constitutional procedure, and constitutional/human rights. Economic false flags may take the form of manufactured “government shutdowns” or “government defaults” designed to create a demand for austerity or other pro-Wall Street solutions. Lastly, smaller-scale domestic false flags such as Sandy Hook or Aurora, often involve the implementation of gun-control measures or a greater police state.

There are, of course, many different versions of false flag attacks and none fit into a tightly crafted classification beyond the generalized term “false flag.” As stated above, some false flags may indeed embrace an element of each of the different versions listed previously both in terms of methodology and purpose.

With that in mind, it is also true that, while massive false flag attacks are always a possibility, it has been the small-scale false flags coming in the form of “shooters” (most often of the “lone gunmen” variety), that have been used most effectively by the ruling class and its mouthpiece media outlets in recent years. While the scale of the attacks have diminished, their frequency has rapidly increased.

However, due to a growing competent alternative media and researching community, as fast as the false flag attacks are launched, a volley of deconstructions of the official narratives are being provided. While many criticisms of the official version of events are wildly incredible, bordering on paranoia and impossibility, there are capable outlets and researchers who are able to expose the false flag for what it is. Indeed, it is for this reason that the false flag has suffered serious setbacks in terms of its effectiveness as of late and why it continues to do so.

Because the false flag attack is designed to instill fear, panic, and a guided response from the general public, it is important to deconstruct the narrative of that attack as it is presented. However, we cannot simply be consumed by attempting to expose and deconstruct every false flag attack that comes our way. We cannot ignore the greater issues, the winnable battles, and the demands we must be making simply to expose each and every false flag. We cannot ignore the forest fire to extinguish the occasional burning bush. The false flag, after all, is only the symptom of the disease.

For that reason, it is important to enable the general public to recognize the false flag itself, not simply the questionable elements of a particular false flag which will soon be overtaken by a new one. We must train both ourselves and the public to recognize the signs of the false flag when it happens and thus render the attack neutral.

The following is a list of some of the most common elements of the false flag attack which should immediately be looked at in the event of some other incident that pulls at the heartstrings and emotions of the general public.

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.


Although it is extremely important to educate the general public as to the nature and purpose of false flags, education cannot be a goal in and of itself. The public not only needs to know the truth surrounding specific false flag events as they appear, they need to understand the methodology of identifying them on their own and in real time.

Creating a culture in which the general public is able to recognize the false flag attack as it is happening, without the need for a massive push by alternative media sources, researchers, or activists, is the first step in not only rendering the tactic useless, but in corralling the force of the people toward true action or, at the very least, creating a culture in which that force cannot be corralled by the ruling class.

While false flag attacks must be addressed, we must not allow ourselves to be so easily diverted off a path of political action, mass mobilization, and the making of real attainable demands.


[1] Tarpley, Webster Griffin. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA. 5th Edition. Progressive Press. 2011.
[2] Tarpley, Webster Griffin. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA. 5th Edition. Progressive Press. 2011.
[3] Griffin, David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Interlink Publishing Group. 1stEdition. 2004.
[4] Griffin, David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Interlink Publishing Group. 1st Edition. 2004.
[5] Griffin, David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Interlink Publishing Group. 1st Edition. 2004.


September 11th and Pearl Harbor

Washington’s Blog

What Do You Think? With Whom Do You Agree?

This is a new film by Italian filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco.

What do you think? With whom do you agree? We know what we think and who we agree with, but we’d like to hear from you.

Via Washington’s Blog

Note from Conspiracy Analyst: I have watched this video and in my opinion, this is one of the best, if not THE best video to use to help wake up friends and family who still believe the “official story” of September 11, 2001. I urge everyone to watch this video and share!

Mainstream journalists expose 9/11 hoax

Press TV
By Kevin Barrett

The aftermath of the 9/11 attack

Several leading American mainstream journalists say that the US government is lying about 9/11 and the so-called war on terror. Unfortunately, media owners and editors won’t let them report their findings.

Recently, Seymour Hersh, America’s top mainstream investigative reporter, broke the news that the US government’s claim to have killed Osama Bin Laden on May 2nd, 2011 is “a big lie. There is not one word of truth in it.”

Hersh went on to harshly criticize his long-time employer, the New York Times, and other big media outlets: “We lie about everything, lying has become the staple.” He said all big US media outlets should be shut down for lying to the American people.

Other mainstream journalists agree that the US government’s story of Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 is a big lie. Sherwood Ross, an award-winning journalist who has worked for the City News Bureau of Chicago, the Chicago Daily News, and for Reuters and other wire services, told me in a recent radio interview:

“It’s very doubtful that Muslims were behind 9/11. Think about this for one minute: That President Bush’s family had done business with the family of the man who allegedly made the terrorist attack, Osama Bin Laden. The Bin Laden family was actually on the board of Bush’s oil company. How is it possible that of all the billions of families in the world, the one family that makes the attack on America has done business with the President of America. That sounds more like a favor than anything else. I don’t think 9/11 was an Arab conspiracy or a Muslim conspiracy. I think it’s an American conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States and install what is becoming a police state, and also to advance the imperial ambitions of the United States, to swindle the Middle East out of their energy resources.”

Ross explained that American journalists are no longer free to expose even the most outrageous official falsehoods and fabrications:

“You don’t see any serious questioning by the mainstream media. I thought one of the tip-offs that it was a put-up job was when a cameraman from a little weekly in Pennsylvania went to the site where this airliner had supposedly crashed (on 9/11). And he said, ‘I didn’t see any airliner. I saw a hole in the ground. I didn’t see any bodies. I didn’t see any luggage.’ All right, maybe that guy just made this up. But I don’t think so. I think he was just doing his job. And then at the Pentagon, you had the claim that airliner hit it. But again, there was no wreckage. Reporters who worked in the Press Room at the Pentagon went out there on the lawn, and they couldn’t see any airliner. So, over and over again, you have manufactured lies that the press largely is not reporting.”

I asked Ross whether he is allowed to express such views in his articles for the Miami Herald, the Chicago Daily News, or the wire services. He answered:

“Absolutely not. When I used to write for Reuters, covering workplace issues, for ten years, my columns were picked up from the New York Times to the L.A. Times. But if you write about ‘why did 7 World Trade Center collapse when it wasn’t hit by an airplane,’ nobody will pick it up. So, now my columns are used on the Internet by bloggers, and they’re used by Middle East wire services. I get phone calls from Press TV, and you can read my interviews there. But you won’t see me quoted by the Associated Press.”

Another leading American journalist, Paul Craig Roberts, has also been banned from US mainstream media for telling the truth about 9/11. Dr. Roberts served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, won the French Legion of Honor and other awards for his contributions to economics, and has been a regular columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and other mainstream publications. But since he spoke out about the controlled demolitions of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11, Paul Craig Roberts has been put on the mainstream media’s no-publish list.

In a recent interview on my radio show, Dr. Roberts explained why the US mainstream media, as Seymour Hersh said, lies about everything:

“One of the worst things that ever happened (to America) was when President Clinton allowed five companies to concentrate the American media. That destroyed its independence. And ever since Clinton permitted that, which was totally against all American tradition, and totally against the antitrust law … but in the United States, as we’ve seen, law doesn’t mean anything anymore. The minute these five conglomerates concentrated the media, the independence of the media disappeared. It’s no longer run by journalists, it’s run by corporate advertising executives. The value of these media conglomerates resides in their federal broadcast licenses. And so they can’t dare offend the government. Their licenses may not get renewed, and the entire multi-billion-dollar value of the companies would disappear. So, the so-called mainstream media is no longer the media. It doesn’t tell you anything. It’s a propaganda ministry – the Ministry of Propaganda. Gerald Celente calls them ‘presstitutes.’”

Rather than writing for the mainstream media, Paul Craig Roberts is now exposing the fake killing of Osama Bin Laden and deconstructing the 9/11 false-flag operation for an independent outlet called the Institute for Political Economy. In a recent article published on the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Roberts wrote:

“The neoconservatives who advocate America’s hegemony over the world called for ‘a new Pearl Harbor’ that would allow them to launch wars of conquest … No evidence exists that supports the government’s 9/11 story … On this 12th anniversary of a false-flag event, it is unnecessary for me to report the voluminous evidence that conclusively proves that the official story is a lie. You can read it for yourself. It is available online. You can read what the architects and engineers (for 9/11 truth) have to say. You can read the scientists’ reports. You can hear from the first responders who were in the WTC towers. You can read the pilots who say that the maneuvers associated with the airliner that allegedly hit the Pentagon are beyond their skills and most certainly were not performed by inexperienced pilots. You can read David Griffin’s many books. You can watch the film produced by Richard Gage and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth. You can read the 9/11 Toronto Report, International Hearings on 9/11.”

But don’t bother reading the mainstream media. As Seymour Hersh, Sherwood Ross, Paul Craig Roberts, and a rapidly growing number of ordinary Americans realize, the mainstream media’s motto is now: “We lie about everything. Lying has become the staple.”

The government’s not demanding an investigation into an event that is the greatest embarrassment to a “superpower” in world history is a complete give-away that 9/11 was a false-flag event.

Via Press TV

Did the Saudi Intelligence Chief and Other High-Ranking Officials Trade on Inside Information Regarding 9/11?

Washington’s Blog

Did Connected Insiders Cynically Trade On Impending Attacks?

Mass surveillance by the NSA and other government agencies is not really making us safer, but is being used for other reasons.

For example:

Saudi Prince Bandar – head of Saudi intelligence – helped to arm the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and is now arming Al Qaeda in Syria. (Background).

Respected financial writer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that Prince Bandar admitted that Saudi Arabia carries out false flag terror.  Indeed,  U.S. government officials say that the Saudi government had a hand in 9/11.

Moreover, several financial and economic experts – such as Jim Rickards, Max Keiser, German central bank president Ernst Welteke, Swiss economists Remo Crameri, Marc Chesney, Loriano Mancini and Bill Bergman (senior financial markets policy analyst for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago for 13 years) – say that there were insider trades right before 9/11 by people who knew the attacks were coming … people  with “no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda” according to the 9/11 Commission.

You don’t have to believe that 9/11 was an inside job to believe that this theory is at least possible. After all, 9/11 was foreseeable to people in intelligence services worldwide … as was Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

For example, the NSA, CIA and other intelligence agencies were listening in on the hijackers’ calls, and an FBI informant rented a room to two of the hijackers in San Diego.

Now, Max Keiser alleges that this story is about to be blown wide open:

Within a few months, there’s a book coming out by a friend of mine who’s already had a very popular book which went to the top of the New York Times Bestseller list. It’s a new book, he’s shown me the gallies. Chapter 1: talks about his eyewitness accounts being in the room in the CIA discussing trading inside information days ahead of 9/11. He’s talking about [Saudi intelligence chief Prince] Bandar, he’s talking about Tony Blair, he’s talking about [then executive director of the CIA] Buzzy Krongard.

Is Keiser right? Will the book really be published, and will it really make this allegation? Is the former CIA officer and bestselling author credible?

We’ll have to wait to find out.

Via Washington’s Blog

Has questioning 9/11 become more acceptable?


FILE PHOTO – Both towers of the World Trade Center burn after being hit by planes in New York September 11, 2001. (Reuters/Sara K. Schwittek)

Despite the media’s best efforts to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theories, one in two Americans doubt the government’s narrative and skepticism is slowly seeping its way into the mainstream.

Twelve years on from the events of September 11, 2001, and a seemingly nightmarish deja vu has gripped the United States and its war-weary citizens.

Again, the public is told that destructive weapons in faraway countries pose a critical danger, and that despite wearing the clothes of humanitarianism, a military solution that will inevitably harm civilians is the only meaningful response.

The main difference today is that after an abstract decade-long ‘War on Terror’, Washington finds itself fighting in Syria on the same side as Al-Qaeda and those who are sympathetic to the alleged culprits of the 9/11 attacks.

The international relations landscape has changed dramatically over the past 12 years, and in the build-up to another US military intervention in West Asia, a handful of leaders are today more willing to ask common sense questions about the official line toed by Washington, such as: how can the Obama administration assert that Assad used chemical weapons before the UN team of experts on the ground has even published its findings?

World leaders have cast doubt on Washington’s stories before, but that the leaders of major countries have – ever so gently – insinuated that Washington may be complicit in a ‘false flag operation’ to justify military escalation in Syria is quite significant.

As the diplomatic spectacle around Syria unfolds and the anniversary of 9/11 looms, these times prompt the question, “What else could they be lying about?” The reluctance that many average Americans have shown toward questioning the events of 9/11 is manifold; for many professionals and academics, being associated with conspiracy theory puts one at risk of career suicide. For laymen and others, many feel more inclined – for emotional stability and other reasons – to maintain their world-view of American exceptionalism and that the government would never put Americans in harm’s way.

Resistance to alternative accounts of 9/11 has been steadily reinforced by mainstream media, which does its best to portray those who question the government’s version of events as loony tinfoil-hat wearing crazy people.

FILE PHOTO – This series of photographs shows hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 as it approaches (upper L) and impacts the World Trade Center’s south tower (L), bursting into flames and raining a hail of debris on lower Manhattan September 11, 2001. (Reuters/Sean Adair)

Are you one of those ‘conspiracy theorists’?

Contrary to how the US media has presented them, movements that have questioned 9/11 continue to gather momentum and are often led by increasingly vocal scientists and academics that claim the account presented in the official 9/11 Commission report could not possibly be accurate.

Take for example, the irregular rapid onset of destruction exhibited by the Twin Towers and WTC7 that collapsed at nearly free fall speed, indicating that the structural integrity of these buildings had to have been comprised, and that office fires could not have been the sole cause of the collapse. One can recall seeing the massive steel sections ejecting outwards from the building as it collapsed, indicating explosions from within; numerous witness testimonies also corroborate these claims.

Read More