Expanding the Stealth Terror Thesis: Hurricane management
By James R. Hanson
The following Atlantic hurricanes, of those exceeding $10 billion in damage, are the costliest to date. Dollars are approximate, Sandy’s estimates still in flux. Those in bold occurred after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) took responsibility for the weather-control program beginning in 2003.
Katrina $108 billion 2005 Bush 43
Sandy $72 billion 2012 Obama
Ike $38 billion 2008 Bush 43
Wilma $29 billion 2005 Bush 43
Andrew $27 billion 1992 Bush 41
Ivan $23 billion 2004 Bush 43
Irene $17 billion 2011 Obama
Charley $16 billion 2004 Bush 43
Rita $12 billion 2005 Bush 43
Gilbert $10 billion 1988 Reagan
Of the next ten in rank (less than $10 billion in damage but more than $5 billion) Bush 43 had five, thus the majority of the “top 20” hurricanes were during the presidency of George W. Bush. Only one of these, Tropical Storm Allison in 2001, was prior to DARPA’s jurisdiction. Before Obama’s entry with Irene and Sandy, George W. (Bush 43) could claim 69% of the dollar cost of this list. Following from this, those hopeful that Obama would not continue the Bush excesses may find little reassurance.
Another means of comparison of all 32 hurricanes costing more than $1 billion is by the percentage of total cost of all 32. Bush 43 had 62%, Obama had 19%, Clinton 8%, Bush 41 8%, Reagan 3%, Carter a third of 1%
Editor’s Note: Hurricane Florence is scheduled to make landfall in the US Carolinas on September 14 with likely major destruction. There is consequently broad media coverage of the pending calamity. Absent in this sensationalist reportage is the acknowledgement that scientific advancements in weather manipulation are several decades old. Indeed, political and monied interests have long possessed the capability to harness and even weaponize something as seemingly “natural” as the weather itself.
In fact, weather control is but one corollary alongside government and banker-led manufacture of war and war-evoking terror events that date at least to the 1913 establishment of the Federal Reserve. Along these lines it is notable that in late 2008 when the US presidential election season was well underway and the Western financial system was teetering on the edge, America experienced one of the busiest hurricane season in recent memory.
With the above in mind MHB below reproduces the first part of a provocative four-part series authored by Ohio-based attorney James Hanson, Stealth Terror I: Weather Warfare and the End of America, originally published here in 2013.
By James R. Hanson
Mother Nature does not engage in terrorism. Her ravages are integral to the natural world in which mankind must adapt or die. Insofar as we know, Mother Nature has no motive to induce terror. That’s where human beings come in.
The following report is about aspects of weather and environmental modification which are not presented in the corporate media but can be found at alternative news and analysis websites offering explanations of weather phenomena caused by human beings. For example, in an introductory note of an article found at Global Research, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky states:
Environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) for military use constitute, in the present context of global warfare, the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. Rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use.
We sense a growing movement that will call on President Donald Trump to sign an executive order forbidding all false flag operations by US government elements at taxpayer expense, while demanding that the FBI honestly investigate all false flag operations by private military contractors and agents of a foreign power, Zionist Israel being the primary actor.
We also expect, eventually, legislation that explicitly makes lying to the court or the public a high crime and misdemeanor (treason) — this deceit was legalized by the Obama Administration — it is now LEGAL to lie to the US public and to the Court, a good reason for firing every Member of Congress that voted for the legalization of that unconstitutional behavior. What this means in the Alex Jones case is that the local, state, and federal officials can all be ordered to lie to the Court including the jury about Sandy Hook — while Jones will still win this case if his lawyers are not being blackmailed or bribed to throw the case, this is a new kind of threat to the average citizen seeking to live by the truth.
Editor’s Note: In this entertaining and informative vignette independent researcher and truth activist Harold Saive explains his unique encounter with the Colorado-based VisionBox Crisis Actors Guild, where he applied for and was briefly granted membership in early 2013. The Crisis Actors organization cancelled Saive’s membership after he made several online remarks questioning the December 2012 Sandy Hook massacre event.
How a Talk Show Host Can Help Defeat the First Amendment
By James F. Tracy
Beginning in April the parents of children said to have perished in the December 2012 Sandy Hook School massacre have filed defamation lawsuits against Alex Jones (e.g. here, here and here) and others claiming the radio talk show host defamed them by repeatedly stating to his audience that the incident was staged. The plaintiffs are requesting an unspecified monetary sum from the defendant, claiming he caused them to be harassed and threatened by parties who share Jones belief that the event was a hoax.
In the event these actions are tried they will in all probability not function as a venue where the veracity of the Sandy Hook event itself can be verified or disproven. Nor will the plaintiffs likely have to provide much if any evidence of harassment or pain and suffering.
The parents’ attorneys assert in one suit that “overwhelming–and indisputable–evidence exists showing what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.” This claim is unanimously (though erroneously) supported by Connecticut State authorities and national news media, and has been accepted as settled fact by a federal judge in Lucyv.Richards.
An open question remains whether the suing parties would need to suppress any countervailing evidence. This is largely because over five years after the Sandy Hook massacre event Jones still routinely exhibits uncertainty on whether or not the shooting was real. It is with this suggestion of “actual malice” that he is setting himself up for an untenable position before a jury.
Sullivanv.NewYorkTimes defined actual malice as a primary requisite for a plaintiff to prevail in bringing a defamation suit. In that famous episode the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an advertisement with factual inaccuracies produced by 1960s civil rights advocates and carried in the Times had not been published with actual malice. The court ruled that under the given circumstances the newspaper’s staff did not run the ad either 1) knowing it was false, or 2) with reckless disregard for the truth.
In the cases at hand Jones’ would-be confusion about Sandy Hook began just hours after the alleged shooting itself, when Jones, perhaps anticipating the mixed orientation of his audience toward the incident, expressed confusion over exactly what took place in Newtown. At the same time, and without any real evidence, he used anonymous callers’ observations to label the event a probable “false flag.” This ambiguity would continue for more than five years.
In the months and years thereafter substantial evidence emerged suggesting the “massacre” was probably a FEMA drill overseen by the Obama administration and presented as an actual attack to lay the groundwork for strengthening gun control legislation. Some of this data was compiled in the book edited by Professor Jim Fetzer, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
Instead of inviting Fetzer on to his radio program following the book’s publication and subsequent censorship by Amazon.com in late 2015, Jones ran in the other direction, actually deleting a story by Infowars writer Adan Salazar from his website and thus in effect joining forces with Amazon to suppress that title’s revelations.
Jones conflicted stance toward Sandy Hook is now even mirrored in his attorney Marc Randazza’s public remarks. “We are going to be mounting a strong First Amendment defense and look forward to this being resolved in a civil and collegial manner,” Jones’ counsel Randazza explained to the New York Times, where he continues to note “that Mr. Jones has ‘a great deal of compassion for these parents.'”
Such a statement suggests how the Sandy Hook official narrative as defined by the media (and in the minds of any potential jury member) is shared by the defendant himself and his own legal team.
University of Texas law professor David Anderson contends that Jones’ repeated waffling on Sandy Hook makes him especially vulnerable.
What I understand is that he’ll say these things at one point, and then later on, he’ll say, “Of course I know that wasn’t true.” If he says things, and then says he knows it wasn’t true, he’s in trouble. If he consistently says, “I never claimed that to be true,” then he’s probably on more solid ground.
Because Jones’ confusing array of broadcast utterances on Sandy Hook are all a matter of public record it will not be difficult for the “prosecution” to demonstrate Jones’ confusion amounts to a “reckless disregard for truth.”
Further, since Jones’ public persona precedes him and given the fact that jurors are often impressionable and will surely not be avid “Infowarriors,” plaintiffs’ counsel will likely find it easy to depict Jones as a devious and malicious actor. Unfortunately, these are all a jury needs to be fed to affirm the parents’ claims.
Jones’ uncertainty on the Sandy Hook massacre is especially unusual for a figure who is the self-proclaimed “founding father of the 9/11 truth movement,” and who for over two decades been the country’s most prominent “conspiracy theorist.”
Moreover, Jones strongly-voiced political opinions in many areas is what his fans find most appealing. In light of this the broadcaster has waffled so much on Sandy Hook that it’s difficult not to believe that he isn’t a pre-designated foil in a broader play to defeat what’s left of speech freedoms in the United States. It’s at least for certain that Jones is not any truth movement’s most desirable ally.
Editor’s Note: MHB has repeatedly explained how false flag terror plays a foremost role in contemporary history (e.g. here, here, and here). Unfortunately this very real phenomenon has been systematically unaddressed by Western governmental, educational and news media institutions. As a result the public is unable to consider or recognize the broader significance of seemingly spontaneous public events.
The most significant false flag incident in recent history has been the the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, since these provided the basis and multiple rationales for the forfeiture of civil liberties amidst a broader “strategy of tension” at home and and a perpetual “war on terror” abroad.
US President Donald Trump has been served with alegal notice [full text of document below] reminding him of his Constitutional duties with regard to the situation in the Middle East, especially his decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and warning him of an impending Israeli false flag operation likely to threaten the lives of US citizens. America’s responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council are also pointed out by the signatories to the notice, who are British journalist Sarah Jane (Lauren) Booth; former CIA Operations Officer Philip Giraldi; ex-Pentagon official Michael Maloof; Scott Bennett, a former US Army Officer and State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism; ex-US Diplomat and Attorney J. Michael Springmann; and Edward C Corrigan, a Canadian Barrister and Solicitor.
1999 Film Portending Today’s “Conspiracy-Fueled Climate”
Editor’s Note: Arlington Road was surely an uncommon Hollywood production in that it addressed “conspiratorial” subject matter, including false flag terror, blackmail by government agencies, the Patriot movement, and pedophilia, all in a not-so-thinly-veiled fashion. The film was developed in the shadow of Ruby Ridge, the Waco massacre, and the Murrah federal building bombing while also eerily anticipating the events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent culture of paranoia and conspiracy the government response to those events helped shape. Arlington Road was also an artifact examined in James Tracy’s infamous Culture of Conspiracy class, which he taught as a tenured faculty member at Florida Atlantic University prior to being terminated for not reporting his protected speech to school officials posted on this personal blog .
Calling Arlington Road an unsung summer blockbuster admittedly stretches that category’s definition. A political thriller in the Parallax View mold, the film did get a wide release (in July 1999), but it was made for a relatively low budget and boasted decidedly mid-level stars: Jeff Bridges, Tim Robbins, Joan Cusack, and Hope Davis.
Nobody likely expected a box-office bonanza. Still, it underperformed even by that metric, finishing sixth on its opening weekend (even though the only other studio film to bow that week was American Pie), and received largely mixed reviews. In today’s conspiracy-fueled climate, the commercial and critical fate of a movie as deftly engineered and deeply cynical as this one might well be very different.
Bridges plays Michael Faraday, a history professor still mourning his late wife, who’d worked for the FBI and been killed in a Waco-style standoff. Seeking a playmate for his young son, Faraday is happy to meet new neighbors Oliver and Cheryl Lang (Robbins and Cusack), as they have a boy around the same age.
Soon, however, Faraday begins to suspect that this seemingly ordinary, exceedingly friendly couple is harboring some sort of dark secret. Some of the personal information they impart doesn’t check out, and as Faraday starts snooping around and keeping tabs, he discovers more and more discrepancies and inexplicable behavior. Eventually, he concludes that the Langs are homegrown terrorists plotting an attack.