Was Brussels 3/22 Another Staged Event?

James Robertson
 Crimes of Empire 

Screen Shot 2016-03-25 at 10.53.10 PM

Drill casualties: spot the difference. (Source)

Cribgeworthy shot of faux bomb victim in Brussels. Logically fake victims can mean only one thing-no real attack has happened.

A drill of a subway bombing took place three weeks before the 3/22 Brussels attacks. Drill casualties have better wounds! (Source)

This classic shot sums up the farcical nature of what we are currently expected to believe. Fake wounded victim writhes randomly and laughably as people walk past ignoring the ridiculous spectacle. This is definitely not the aftermath of an attack.

“We need to try to understand the extraordinary evolution this phenomenon has gone through that…when it first started it was, the deaths were real but the story was bogus and in around about 2012 we had this amazing transformation whereby actors could apparently do it without needing real–you know- you’ve got ketchup all over the place instead of real blood and that was a real change I think.” -Dr. Nick Kollerstrom on the Kevin Barrett radio show, January 2016.

On a satanic holiday a grand deception.

Since the year 2012 almost all of the supposed terror attacks in Western nations are confirmed and proven hoax events. This is the new model. The early indications are that the Brussels attacks were of the same genre. Fiction. Joining the entire wave of Euroterror that has taken place over the past 14 months at Charlie Hebdo and the Kosher Delicatessen, in Copenhagen, in Paris on Black Friday and in the genuinely hilarious French train psyop.

Gladio was the cold war synthetic terror/ strategy of tension, Gladio B as coined by Sibel Edmonds was similar to the original but with Muslims replacing communists as the enemy.

Gladio C is very similar to Gladio B but instead of false flag terror attacks such as 911, Bali and London 7/7 the events are entirely staged. These are drills that are enacted, filmed and sold to the public as authentic terror attacks.

Whether or not it is tactically intelligent to make the hoax argument when people are likely to be more receptive to a false flag narrative is a completely separate issue. The false flag attack narrative is no longer the truth when it comes to modern psyops and those who cling to the false flag narrative and pretend that these events are real, are not telling the truth.

It can be rather tricky positively proving that these events were feigned, faux and fraudulent and from a tactical point of view it may well be unwise to attempt to convince everyday people of this as the truth is so far beyond the reality they occupy that this hypothesis may only alienate them and cause them to see you as insane.

Nonetheless, the truth does matter; it is important even when to all intents and purposes the event might as well have taken place. The response to these things is such that it might as well have happened. Those who have swallowed the “terror” narrative and felt the real emotions that this narrative caused them to feel will never believe the whole thing was a fraud, but none of this changes the fact that this is the case.

It is astonishing the way so many intelligent people will respond like automatons whenever something like this happens. The whole political/media gang play their roles mindlessly like wind up robots with their pathetic attempts to blame their political opponents for the faux tragedy.

Everything that people are saying about this event,that is predicated upon the authenticity of the attack is nonsense.

ISIS Claims attacks were revenge for Belgium’s mighty 6 plane anti ISIS campaign that ended last July!

One of the more amusing things about the Brussles attack was the attempt to create a motive where none exists. Thus when “ISIS” made their claim of responsibility via a social media account that could be run by absolutely anyone,the group tried to say that the attack was in revenge for Belgium’s participation in fighting the “brothers” in Iraq as part of the “International Coalition”.

There are two funny things there, one being that Belgium ceased its involvement in Iraq last July having stationed six F16 jets in Jordan for less than a year, the other being that even when they were purportedly coalition members they did absolutely nothing, like most of the members of the US led coalition who generally make one or two attacks for PR purposes and then disappear into oblivion.

Belgium’s Exit From Anti-ISIL Coalition’s Bombing Campaign in Syria and Iraq | Global Research

The British and French campaigns are perfect cases in point, a big political noise followed by one or two “pageant” attacks and then nothing.

2009 photo of the section of Zavantem airport where the incident of March 22nd took place.


Given that the attack took place only days ago the evidence is still to be developed but it can be stated with confidence that the Brussels airport attack was not an authentic event based upon the footage that has been released.

There are several videos that purport to show the immediate aftermath of the Brussels attack. There are two major anomalies in these videos that immediately strike the critical viewer. There are no bodies inside the terminal that has supposedly just been attacked, nor any wounded. Some people, appear to be wounded as you watch the start of the video but as you watch they get up and walk away, dazed at worst.

Mayhem in Brussels airport: Immediate aftermath of Zaventem bombings

The absence of wounded and dead people at the scene of the event is a core problem. When you add to that the many videos of the outside of the building at approximately the same time that also show no people with any significant wounds, it becomes pretty clear what has happened, although the authors of the Brussels psyop deserve a lot of credit for the innovation of apparently bombing the empty building before moving in the cast to conduct the psyop.

This is a clunky hypothesis but does seem to be the best explanation for the fact that the building has been damaged yet there are no victims of any veracity to be seen.

Fake Wounded People Mean the Event Cannot Possibly be an authentic attack

A tremendous effort has been made with the Brussels operation, and in the days since the event a massive amount of evidence of an “ISIS terror attack” in Brussels has been amassed by the establishment media in an attemtp to sear the Brussels narrative into the mind of the credulous audience. Some of it is superficially convincing such as the much used photo below, but even here critical scrutiny makes it clear that these are fake victims. We are told that the lady in the yellow top and black bra had her clothes blown off by the force of the blast yet she has not suffered any cuts, abrasions or other injuries to these areas. This is not credible and neither is the woman with the paint blood n her hands blithely talking on the phone beside her. Look at the woman on the phone’s face. Does she look like someone who has recently been witness even to a traumatic incident? Or does she appear to be having another mundane run of the mill day?

Survivors of the airport attack in the aftermath.
Has this woman been even in the same city as an actual terror attack? Of course not.
Here is an empty stretcher, with a little blood smeared for verisimilitude. A tactical that was also used in Sydney.
Here we have the same steetcher, the empty stretcher PIXELATED to avoid the poor viewer being upset by the fact that they are looking at an empty stretcher with some blood spattered upon it. This hilarious, dirty little tactic was very prominent with the Charlie Hebdo hoax when people were told they could not look at the fake shooting of the policeman in the street because it was too graphic. It actually showed the entire event was a fraud 100%. A pixelated empty stretcher is a strong marker of a faux event.
Empty stretcher with a portion of fake blood at the Sydney siege, December 2014.

Trouser bombs strike again

A classic reprise of the trouser bomb first experienced in Boston in Brussels.
Props mismatch idicates the truth. The clothes are shredded by shrapnel that failed to break the skin. This is impossible. This is costume shredding.


It is too early to state definitively that what happened in a Brussels was a completely fake event but it is obvious that it was. The evidence and lack of evidence over succeeding months will make this claim a hard provable fact in my opinion, just as it is today hard proven that Boston and Sandy Hook were faux events like all of the other major incidents in Western nations in recent years with the apparent exception of the plane incidents such as German Wings 9525 and MH17 where genuine mass death appears to have occurred. Outside the West the violence is very real with very occasional theatrics thrown in at the behest of the BBC or CNN.

Leave a Reply

163 thought on “The Dark Truth Behind the Brussels Attacks”
  1. Curiously, in her latest broadcast Sybel Edmonds on the Corbett Report castigated those who refer to events like Sandy Hook as drills i.e. hoaxes.

    Perhaps, she had this blog in mind when she accused drill/hoax theorists of undermining the Truth Movement.

    For the record, I’m pretty sure Sandy Hook and other mass shootings you’ve covered were fake.

    Corbett seemed to agree with Edmonds, who guests there regularly. He’s a good researcher but if he believes Sandy Hook was real-he’s either disinfo or not as bright as I thought!

    1. Absolute balderdash. This blog is unaware of any research or reportage Sibel Edmonds, James Corbett or anyone else from their camp have done on Sandy Hook or other mass shootings.

      Edmonds, Corbett and their associates recently raised $160K for their “alternative” news project called “Newsbud.” Yet is this project to merely carve a niche for themselves where they may simply use their credentials and labor to reinforce government and corporate propaganda? With such money at play they are perhaps now as sensitive to “funding issues’ as Pacifica and softball NGO operations that must walk on eggshells while poking the eyeballs of any commentators and journalists who elect to tell it like it is.

      The Nobody Died at Sandy Hook volume provides copious evidence confirming the event was a drill. In fact, it’s so damning that Amazon.com removed it from its virtual shelves. Do Edmonds and Corbett have evidence that would support a set of countervailing claims? If not, why are they being so thoroughly disingenuous?

      If Edmonds and Corbett truly assert that Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, and like events were authentic, which is identical to the propaganda line corporate outlets vigorously push, they either need to back up their claims with substantive proof, perhaps in book form or in a live debate for all concerned parties to witness, or admit that they themselves are the ones “undermining the Truth movement.”

      Along these lines perhaps “Newsbud” can use a portion of its formidable resources to join James Tracy and/or Wolfgang Halbig on a trip to Newtown to reexamine the SH massacre story. BTW, that’s something Anderson Cooper has yet to do.


        1. Here here to your Hear Hear!
          My comments about the deep connections didn’t make it on.
          I love you all and want to stay part of the conversation. Are there certain words that disappear? Like “sc@!ia,” “rent b*y ranch” or p#d0ph!le network?
          How about K#she and his recent expose on the k!ng of b#lgium? That was March 3,
          We can join to save children, people. Time to step out and step up!
          A. Angel Seattle

      1. I used to be a subscriber to boiling frogs, back when I thought that the cute and perky Sibel was giving us breaking news about such things and Gladio B, the Gulanist movement in Turkey, Dennis Hastert, etc. When she started insisting that the Sandy Hook Shooting and the Boston bombing were real events, I put links to the contrary proof in her comment section. (Something she discouraged, by the way.) Specifically, I provided links to the very persuasive Dave McGowan, and to Plasma Burns’ excellent youtube videos, as well as to the “We need to talk about Sandy Hook” video. She refused to acknowledge any of these and claimed that such assertions did more damage to the truth than any government propaganda. Trolls on her forum attacked this very good evidence, and she ran round table discussions with James Corbet and Guillermo Himmenez talking about the “crazy lines” in our perception of reality that the saner amongst us ought to refuse to cross. I am glad that I was able to confront her with the truth, (it demonstrates the power of a good youtube video) as it proved to me, and likely to many others, that both she and Corbet are classic “controlled opposition”. In short, they are both frauds. I don’t wast time with them anymore.

      2. So much for boiled frogs. The Deep state has considerable control of the alternate media. Funding comes likely with a caveat or disclaimer regarding SH. Sibel Edmonds spent to much time in the deep state for my liking. Her confederation with anyone does not support authenticity. Corbett has moved recently and had new debt with his growing family. I suppose it is very possible he has been compromised.

      3. Here’s an enlightening MHB post from 2013 in which Tracy analyzes this very subject:

        He even quotes Sibel Edmonds herself, describing the process of journalistic self-censorship. She should know.

        “Edmonds notes how she received special guidance from foundation gatekeepers after she accepted money from a George Soros-financed foundation as she was assembling a body of like-minded government insiders and whistleblowers. ‘Very quickly I realized that this money – these carrots they were dangling before our nose[s] – came with a bunch of string attachments.'”

        It’s a very good essay. Worth re-reading, especially in light of the defection of Edmonds and Corbett, et al from the ranks of truth tellers.

      4. Good questions, Professor…also very disheartening. Was looking forward to a future interview as a “follow up” to your last one where you spoke about the Anderson Cooper ordeal regarding…the very subject both Corbett & Edmonds demonized. Amazing irony there; on another podcast with the 2, she blatantly called out Dr. Paul Craig Roberts for his commentaries on Russian foreign policy, saying that she couldn’t post his recent blogposts because he’s(paraphrasing) engaging in Putin adulation…for which Roberts responded by labeling them “the latest recruited presstitutes”(also paraphrase). So, there you go; you aren’t alone.

    2. “Perhaps, she had this blog in mind when she accused drill/hoax theorists of undermining the Truth Movement.”. The very fact that “Truth” should be regarded as a “movement” is ITSELF an OP. I watched that too, and well hey…why do we need to accept Sybel’s conclusions to begin with(false appeal to authority fallacy)? If she sounds suspect, then SUSPECT HER. I’m similarly sceptical of James’s analysis & position on this, but as he IMO has done decent work on other subjects, we can just throw this one out, as it appears to me his analysis is being guided by…Sybel Edmonds. Just my take.

  2. This is exactly what I’ve been talking about the last several days, the meta-program of “fear & terror”, the deep behaviourism inherent within it, & that a “terror attack” need NOT be real to be an effective terror attack. That’s because TERROR isn’t the attack, it’s what the attack CAUSES…the EFFECT is terror.

    Like the horror movie genre: Jason & Freddy Cruger weren’t real either, but if the girl was scared nonetheless, she held onto you to “save her”…so the DATE was effective. The same goes for these “terror” attacks, & it also homes in on why HOLLYWOOD Special Effects expertise are employed in these “Special Operations: Income, Production, Outcome. A simple equation, really.

    1. You’re one of the sharper tacks in this hardware store,
      what do you think of the comment that Corbett and Sibel Edmonds report that Sandy Hook was a real event? I haven’t verified this either way yet, but Corbett is firmly entrenched as one of the more reliable alternate news sources

      1. There was a Corbett Report podcast (with Sybel) in which she spoke of the connections between The Tsarnaev brothers, their uncle Ruslan, Russian Intel FSB, Jamestown Foundation, and “former” CIA Graham Fuller.

        Now, since we know that BOSTON MARATHON wasn’t real(terror doesn’t have to be real to be terror), even if all of that were ironclad true(like Todashev murdered, 2 FBI Counterterror guys dropping during training), it still doesn’t change the fact that it was a HOAX. Also, she relied on “intelligence sources” that were seemingly “alternative” from the official story, yet also reinforcing the narrative. We call that DISINFO.
        See sunaj57, we don’t have to chase the truth when it’s staring us RIGHT IN THE FACE!

        1. Unfortunately, you’re correct dublinsmick. One look at that video clearly exposes this fact(if trained in formal logic). The jokes on the “truth community”. The logical fallacies just jump out at you.

      1. That’s what I like about this blog community: the level of discourse serves as a self-policing mechanism that almost immediately “outs” the trolls as they show up in real time. Fantastic!

  3. Admiral Peter Neffinger, who is the Administrator of the TSA, was in the Brussels Airport during the bombing.

    The suspect’s apartment was raided by police within 90 minutes, where they found 33 pounds of TATP explosives
    The suspect was detained after being discovered sitting in a car in front of the Belgian Prosecutor’s office.

    One of the wounded was a 19 yr old man from Utah, who was also at the Boston bombing.

    The shattered glass looks like art work.

    The State Department told the Kentucky family that the missing couple had been found. They celebrated. Later they reported the couple as dead.

    Then, the two American victims became Dutch National siblings from New York.

    One apparently dead body is carried out over a shoulder with a tarp over the body. No wheelchair or stretchers?

    Between 8 and 9 am is when the drills usually begin.

    The CCTV video footage, which was used by multiple press agencies, was actually from the 2011 Domodedovo Airport bombing in Russia.


  4. Fascinating is how media tries to hype “terror”. I read on antiwar.com every day or two approx. 100-150 victims of daily terror (mainly Iraq).
    Somehow speculative event that took place in Europe is multiplied by fear factory which tries to “make it look bigger than it is”.
    Just today on news, victims here, victims there (I mean in another parts of the world), like the PsyOp people making news somehow care that TODAY it is happening and it is important when every day it is happening.

  5. It could be fake and real at the same time.

    November 13 had many real victims for sure, you find them on webpages of French universities whose students and even professors died, and with many other organisations.

    Then again, why not have some actors ready nearby for some nice photo ops? After all, the whole event is pointless without impressive photos in the mass media and on TV. Simply POINTLESS.

    Problem is, you usually can’t show real deadly wounded victims in mass media, that’s simply too graphic (even children are watching & reading!). So why not have some torn trousers and fake blood, looks scary without having to show a crushed skull or whatever.

    (Remember the famous “ISIS” “beheadings” without the actual beheading? That’s the stuff you can show on CNN at 8pm.)

    Plus, rather than fake the whole event (which might be difficult at public places like airports), it’s much easier to simply run a “real” event, and simultaneously plant a few fake victims and some fake witnesses (don’t forget the fake witnesses!). VERY easy.

    Of course, ‘real’ event doesn’t mean “ISIS” planned that event. The planners probably were at NATO, Langley and whatever. The Arab folks did or did not intend to blow themselves up, at any rate they may have been used as tools to run this event…

    So, it may not be either-or, it could be BOTH.

  6. https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=B4ZJoEEBCr8 . “We need more Centralized Power to counteract the incompetence of…CENTRALIZED POWER”!!! Or: we need more UNITY in the EUROPEAN UNION to counter DISUNITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION. Notice none of these media characters are referring to Europe as NATIONS…instead as one SUPRANATIONAL, SUPRAGOVERNMENTAL MASS CALLED EUROPE? The countries they do mention are power centres & regions WITHIN Europe? Woah, how the lexicon has been shifted.

  7. Results of google image search: bit.ly/1SpetA2

    See, one shot, multiplied thousands of times. But you HAVE to get this ONE shot. Otherwise, the whole event would be totally pointless. But the shot also needs some context, so in general you need a real bombing.

    Bombing + Actors/Operatives is the recipe…

  8. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 made propaganda legal in the USA. The law was introduced in the House in May and passed into law in July – a very rapid trip thru the US Congress – 6 months later, Sandy Hook, Boston followed in the Sring and the string of fakes since.

    I think the law was passed to protect the media and the Hollywood producers from prosecutions by some Dist. Atty. that did see this as “fun”, or politics, or a law suit because of someone being hurt by the fraud.

  9. Dr. Per Magnus Ranstorp, a Swedish specialist in terrorism and counterterrorism, had this to say after Brussels. Quoted from the paper Dagens Næringsliv:

    “We have to live with terror. What becomes important is how we, who are the victims, respond to the terror. We have to stand together and under no circumstances make a connection between the flood of refugees and terrorism.”


    If we have to live with terror then Dr. Ranstorp needs to be more forthcoming about where this kind of terror originates. He ought to know.

    1. “We have to live with terror. What becomes important is how we, who are the victims, respond to the terror. We have to stand together and under no circumstances make a connection between the flood of refugees and terrorism.” Another way of saying this is: “you are getting very sleepy, sleeepy…live with terroooor, live with feeaaar, buy into the official stooorrry, never make connections, never question the authoriiittiiees, etc”. What a complete clown!

      I’ve been harping on this PAVLOVIAN aspect to the terror metaprogram all week, and it’s the same crap…”respond to the terror”(never actually preventing it, just salivate dogs when I ring this bell), be a victim, hold on as we celebrate & build effigies to Victimhood, and the “terror” that caused it…thereby getting the masses of people to celebrate the very terror they’re in fear of!! Amazing, truly amazing, because they know that nothing unites the people more deeply or completely than a tragedy(which was why Greek tragedies were created).

  10. Just one thing I disagree with.. “It can be rather tricky positively proving that these events were feigned, faux and fraudulent and from a tactical point of view it may well be unwise to attempt to convince everyday people of this as the truth”

    I believe it’s easier to prove fakery than to claim government involvement in a real false flag through connecting the dots and even prior knowledge that is regularly swept under the carpet and I think the masses would be more receptive to it considering they can maintain their belief that their government wouldn’t do anything to harm them.

  11. News has been entertainment for longer than I can remember. Wag the dog was the introduction to the dumbed-down masses. I believe this as phony as the Bataclan. No doubt we know the war on terror is a reality show and that Brussels Belgium is the haven of the Gladio NATO-OTAN crisis team.

    We will see one in Germany as well before Merkel is lynched by the German people. The strategy of tension is at play 24/7 now. I think that the MSM has their fraud but that most of this is the creation of ‘freelance’ groups’

    NATO has CyberBerkut. Legit? Who knows anymore? The real psyop is creating so much conspiracy one can never really know the truth or trust the source. I have to go on gut only. My gut says that the entire world, political system and all nations leaders are working together. The war on truth is real and everything else is a limited hangout disclosure for an eventual synthesis.

    Look back to the Kuwaiti (first Gulf War) and CNN green screen antics. You’d think by now they would have gotten better at this.


    1. Are you certain this is a green screen? There seems to be debate on this, is he in front of a Saudi hotel, or is he in LA?
      I know the answer, but it is a mistake to be taken in, unless you are sure this i s a fake

  12. “[From] a tactical point of view it may well be unwise to attempt to convince everyday people of this as the truth is so far beyond the reality they occupy that this hypothesis may only alienate them and cause them to see you as insane.” Indeed. Accordingly, activists who wish to inform the general public of the massive, cross-disciplinary and global misinformation they live under ought to use some other event. Picking the right one may be difficult, but there is–fortunately–a very rich trove of instances of organized obfuscation to choose from!


    1. I learned this valuable lesson myself this week when I made the mistake of thinking I would try to discuss the Brussels incident with my mom. I have been burned in the past so I should have known better, but she is glued to msm every time a new “attack” occurs, and has become very fearful as a result.

      My husband, who is partially awake, has told me he feels like Cypher in the Matrix. He doesn’t want to know
      anymore or think about it because as bad as the “big, bad Muslim terrorist around every corner” story is, the truth is much worse.

    2. Daniel…I like to have people google “David Wheeler Played Two Roles” and find the video of Wheeler marching around as a swat team member on the day of the episode. And when he isn’t carrying his rifles, it may well be the day before. That is usually enough to make the lights go on.

    1. Karen Hudes worked as chief counsel for the World Bank for 20 years. If you know anything about the Bank, you realize they are shark-like in their lending practices.
      Hudes works for sharks for 20 years, then turns tail on them and becomes a whistleblower and we are supposed to buy her story?

      Tell me, please, why you are more accepting of Hudes as time goes on. I have exactly the opposite reaction to her.

      1. Well I am currently studying her videos,
        but I have not accepted her as a legitimate source yet,
        you hafta realize no matter who your sources are, some people reject them, I was surprised to hear Livingstone attack Eustace Mullins, and James Corbett denies Sandy Hook was a hoax-does this mean they are schills? No, but it is difficult to find a source that is %100 trustworthy-I’m still working on that

  13. Corbett and Edmonds have been phonies for a very long time. They completely muddied the waters about 9/11 with Edmonds complaining that no one paid attention to her warnings and translations about the terrorists coming to get us. Sure! As if they had anything to do with the events in real time.

    1. I’m very skeptical of all 9/11-terror whistleblowers. There are so many of them: Sibel Edmonds, Indira Singh, “ex” CIA asset Susan Lindauer, John O’Neill, to name a few. I know O’Neill is alleged to have died at the WTC, but their accounts all support the official 9/11 story: planes in the towers, muslim hijackers, 3000 deaths.

      1. Richard Grove is another one deserving of suspicion. According to his own testimony in court (related to another matter but related to his “whistleblower” status), his whole backstory (as well as his whereabouts and employment status on 9/11) doesn’t add up.

        1. The Grand Daddy of all Zio turncoats is Limbaugh. Some observers say he was bought by the Zios around ’94. I know for sure he is a champion of Islamophobia, he buys the 911 story lock/stock/barrel, and he bends over backwards trying to avoid answering any questions about Israeli transgressions as well as MSM distortions. Any radio host that brags about having a call screener, as Limbaugh does, is bought and paid for. You don’t get to engage Limbaugh with hard truths, he loves the smell and feel of Israeli money and will never doublecross them.

        2. I would like any hard facts on Israeli/Zionist capitulation, money, etc,
          Anyone with good common sense rejected his blowhard propaganda years ago,
          I still can’t believe after his fiasco with drugs that anyone, even those asleep give him any credibility, for all practical purposes he is a 5th column provocateur

        3. Interesting that you point that out: Clint Richardson issued an open letter on Richard Grove’s whistleblower status sometime last year, and in a Gnostic media podcast. I still think Richard Grove’s “Tragedy and Hope” community puts out some great research, but like everything else, we must put our “critical thinking caps” on regarding ANYBODY producing media or blog content. That’s usually the major hurdle “truthers” go through as they develop a certain consciousness: finding another shepherd versus finding YOURSELF.

      2. Agree on Lindauer and certainly Rebekah Roth. After several years, I cannot ascertain what Gordon Duff is all about. The idea of an independent, self funded “intelligence agency simply boggles me. How and why would our government sanction such an agency???

        1. Gil…regarding Gordon Duff(or Bob Foote according to Stew Webb & Jim Fetzer), he admitted years ago that 40% of what Veterans Today puts out is DISINFO, and stated(paraphrasing) that if he didn’t do so that he’d be dead. So, an admitted “Disinfo Agent”.

        2. Not sure what to make of Stew Web, has some sensational reports that seem to have merit but I have to ask myself, how did he just accidentally MARRY into this crime family?
          Duff, on the other hand, after I read his take on LaVoy Finicum, (who I am convinced is a crisis actor, still alive) lost ALL credibility with me, after stating this was a “suicide by cop,”
          if I can see Oregon was a sham then so much the more Mr. Intelligence should have some insight

      3. That said, you should tell us why you are skeptical of ALL 911 whistleblowers. Perfectly OK to ask you why you paint everybody with the same brush. Do you question their motives, their factual content, their manner of interaction? Do you insist they are all wrong about everything? Are you sure you are coherent in your skepticism? Do you have methods to separate wheat from chaff, so to say? Or, are you vague regarding positives and negatives? Have you done due diligence in evaluating their offerings? Why should we believe you if you are so vague as you appear to be? You don’t agree but you don’t know why?

        1. I’m skeptical of the 9/11 whistleblowers that I’m familiar with because, as I said, they all support the government version of 9/11 that we were “attacked” by foreign terrorists.

          I’m not as familiar with some of the other whistleblowers mentioned so I can’t speak specifically to their stories. I remain skeptical of all of them because there is so much confusion and disinformation in relation to the 9/11 event. I’m not accusing all 9/11 whistleblowers of being liars or disinformation, but I’m suspicious of those that insist there were planes, for instance. Hopefully that clarifies my comments.

      4. Incorrect about John O’Neill. He was killed elsewhere and his body dumped intact on the pile so people would know he was dead. Then Richard Clarke and others went on TV to say Osama did it. O’Neill was the expert who would have said it wasn’t Osama.

    2. Not to mention Marzi that Osama bin Laden wasn’t responsible for 9/11…from a hospital bed TAKING DIALYSIS, and he’d be deceased from his disease a mere 3 months later. See, if the info you’re translating is in fact DISINFO, then all you’ve done is make that disinfo easier to digest in English, which would make you…A DISINFO AGENT. All this “limited hangouts”, “muddying the trail”, “poisoning the well” stuff with her, huh? And, as an aside, she once mentioned that she was to be recruited by the CIA while attending George Washington (I think) University…apparently she turned the CIA down, to…work for the FBI. Ha ha ha ha, jokes on the “truth community”!!!

  14. How is showing photos of a drill in London a month earlier evidence of a faux event in Brussels? How is a photo of someone walking past “a victim,” real or not, evidence of anything except someone walking past a victim?

    I am not comfortable drawing conclusions as serious as this based on reading someone’s expression while on a phone call. We need to do better, friends.

    Our suspicion is strong, because the pattern is consistent with earlier events that were certainly staged, but nothing in this article seems like proof to me yet.

      1. Well, I find this in the article:

        “… it can be stated with confidence that the Brussels airport attack was not an authentic event based upon the footage that has been released.”

        and this:

        “… critical scrutiny makes it clear that these are fake victims.”

        I am saying that for me, the evidence presented in the article does not support those conclusions. We are not there, yet.

        It is still early days, though — I want to believe. I agree that there is reason to be suspicious of official accounts and reason to investigate further. I am hoping citizen-investigation of the Brussels event will reach the same level of faux-ness certainty as have the Sandy Hook & San Bernadino investigations, for example.

        1. Manny,Here is my method of ascertaining the “truth” of any and all of these events: Everything we are told on TeeVee and other mass media outlets are LIES….ALL OF IT! They lie constantly, ferociously,and unendingly,with the irreversible certitude and wiring of robots,because that is what they are. They feed an unending supply of propaganda for the consumption of we the mass of people;stop wasting time on finding “truth” as none is to be found there. Once you accept that one grain of truth,your life will become much simpler…Liars Lie! Personally,I feel no such compunction to “educate” anyone else as to the folly of believing their lies…the truth alone is sufficient for me. I’m selfish that way.

  15. On a related note, has anyone been able to “wake up” a friend or relative to the reality of these events, and how did you do it? I have been trying for the last 2 years, with very little success. I don’t think I’m being too overbearing nor do I sound like a lunatic (in my opinion) but it’s like coming up against a brick wall each time.

    1. I have been successful twice. I make them come over for dinner and agree to make my amazing chicken, baked potato and asparagus salad if they will watch a video afterwards. I have shown Sophia Snowstorms presentation: Unraveling Sandy Hook. They last conquest was an outraged Dr. who tried to call Tom Romano, and has since supplied me with FOIA forms. My family thinks Im nuts.

    2. The question of the ages!

      Trying to “wake people up” is like proselytising: you can plant seeds, but the only fish you’ll catch are the ones looking to be fed. (Forgive the poor metaphor-mixing.)

      People, generally, don’t want to be told stuff, and they’re not usually interested in long, drawn-out answers to questions. I’ve had the best luck, say, with the chemtrails issue, by just looking up at them and groaning about them in the presence of others. I did just that yesterday. In response, my mother-in-law said that planes have always left contrails. I agreed, but pointed out that contrails evaporate quickly, not stick around for hours only fan out and create clouds. She hadn’t thought about that before, she said.

      I also try not to offer conclusions (or, if I do, I say something like, “I think they’re messing with the weather, but who knows?), just point out the obvious, contradictions or possible motives.

      The next time my MIL sees a plane leaving a long, white trail, she’ll actually SEE it.

      Word of advice: take it easy. You don’t want to be “that guy”. There’s a process to waking up (see Kuhler-Ross’s “7 Stages of Grief”). The “anger phase” is hard on EVERYONE. 😉

      1. Thanks for the tips! I definitely don’t want to be THAT guy. I try not to lecture anyone or launch into monologues at family dinners, but I find its hard to hold my tongue sometimes.

        The worst is when my relatives argue over “politics” and different candidates. Most of its just such meaningless nonsense!! I have a hard time feigning interest and remembering something I would have said before i took the red pill.

        Recently my dad was complaining about one of the candidates and mentioned the “9/11 hijackers.” I said “What hijackers? On what plane?!” He just rolled his eyes and said “Oh, we’re back to this again?” LOL, maybe I should just give it a rest.

    3. In regard to “waking up” others, I, too, have to tread lightly. A good friend thinks she is “awake” and has been for “years” about all the corruption in Washington, and I didn’t “have to tell her…” about what’s going on (said in a huff). Problem is she is still stuck on the same superficial “corruption” centered around D.C. and politics, and fails to always see a bigger picture.

      When I suggest that she dig deeper and that it’s far worse than she can imagine, and I lightly offer how some events may have been manipulated in order to further control us, she accuses me of talking “down” to her, because, but of course, she knows “exactly” what is going on. Well, no, of course, she doesn’t.

      I would be thought “crazy” if I attempted to suggest alternative scenarios for 9/11 or Sandy Hook – or any other staged public event to this friend. I have finally left it with “you’re almost there, just dig deeper, but you have to find this out for yourself. I can’t tell you.”

      And really, I can’t. I woke up around 2003, on my own, based on creeping suspicions I had about 9/11 and managed to read and see various things on the web that completely opened my eyes. Once opened, there’s no going back. So, as Recynd77 says, we can only drop hints – the rest is up to them. I try not to worry about it – either they get it or they don’t.

    4. Hey, Haley

      Maybe if you try to convince someone starting with just one event, you’ll be more successful. I think Newtown is an easy one. I’ve been able to convince friends and family that Sandy Hook was fake.

      The trick is to circumvent the emotional quicksand of the “murdered” children. Start with the unemotional fact that the school itself was closed and in no condition to be used, no internet usage, etc. Then move on to the evidence of a drill as revealed at the Firehouse, then the photos of the parking lot scene of the not-nearly-enough children being led away from the school, etc.

      Then maybe bring in the “massacre” by discussing the medical protocols that were not followed that day, as well as the Medical Examiner’s inexpert responses at his press conference.

      Finally, express your outrage about the nation-wide campaign that was waged to hound that professor out of his job at that Florida University simply because he questioned these very anomalies. Extend your outrage to the treasonous behavior of a government willing to run this kind of scam on its own citizens.

      Mainly, avoid the “murdered” children at first. People can’t reason when they’re having an emotional reaction to shot-up 1st graders.

      Everything you need to know is in this book, if you don’t have it yet:


      Good luck.

      1. The limited success I’ve had has been with mostly short YouTube clips and videos. I showed both my husband and my dad the video of “flight 175’s” nose popping out of the other side of the tower, along with the video that shows the wing appear to go behind a building it should have been in front of (cgi glitch).

        I also showed my husband the David Wheeler dual role video, and I was able to get my mom to watch Robbie Parker and Wayne Carver for a few minutes. She has no problem admitting Sandy Hook seems fake, but gets very upset, even angry, when I suggest that there may be some fakery in these terror events.

        It’s always kind of a wild card as
        to what any one person will react or respond to. My husband was really blown away by the 9/11 plane videos. He is a former navy pilot, and I could tell it was upsetting when the reality hit. He even seemed to be in shock for a while.

        My dad on the other hand, after watching the very same videos, said “I can’t explain that, but it can’t be true because someone would have said something by now.” At least that was the gist of it.

        That seems to be the big hurdle, for both of my parents at least. They can’t get past the idea that so many people could participate in such brazen deception, and then continue lying about it for years and years on end without anyone coming forward with the truth and without getting caught. To be honest, I have a hard time addressing this because I don’t understand it myself. It’s unthinkable that “they” can get away with these events and rewrite history the way they do. But they do.

        Of course, my parents, and most of the public I think, also assume we have a media that would report on these events fairly and still seeks on some level to uphold the truth.

        Basically, they’ll believe it (whatever “it” is) when it’s the lead story on the Today Show, Anderson Cooper, O’Reilly Factor. Until then it’s just a “conspiracy theory.”

        1. Well, Haley, if you are really intent on it, show them the video of the firehouse where people are circling and circling, and around we go (in re: Sandy Hook). That’s a great vid on YouTube; I assume it’s still there. And in re: 9/11: have you shown them any incarnation of “Loose Change” or “In Plane Site”? Both used to be on Netflix, not sure if they are still there. And of course there’s the Building 7 video. But really, again, there’s only so much you can do. What’s that old saying? You can lead a horse to water….

    5. It can be done, but you have to use quick hitting low hanging fruit to jar curiosity. Although dark satanic events like Sandy Hook capture those of us who are awake like a jolt, it is too convoluted for the sleepers. SH is not a starter course. Use images, and little talk. The talk should be more of ‘how can this be explained?”, or “WTF”, or “are they serious?”

      The three course “meal” I feed them is to show three short sequences. #1 is of 911 WTC 7 falling in this four angle video, and ask if an office fire did it. If they say yes, point out that in a national poll of folks who watched this, office fire is a minority view.

      Next show the infamous BBC too early clip, then throw in the infamous Lucky Larry “Pull it” Silverstein comment. DO ALL THREE, not just one. That should at minimum raise some eyebrows and open the door for you after a nice long pregnant pause. Pregnant pauses with a steely eyed look into their eyes allows the person to process that maybe it is not the messenger who is really crazy.

      Then just move on to IMAGES such as the LAX wheelchair dummies, the bizzaro world Roanoke shooting clip, or other over-the-top images we all recognize.

  16. Yes. Sorry. Rather obvious I think by now, surely.

    I looked for Dr. Steve’s utoob; no luck.

    Ask John Africa if he thinks it is about “guns”, when they can blow you up. Steve’s WRONG it is move to call everyone crazy. BTW President Kennedy stopped mandatory hospital stays for being “crazy”.

    And just one other issue that’s bugging me: Lincoln was lied to in the exact fashion as Kennedy. Generals and all. Trying to dirty him up is WRONG headed and a falsehood. Lincoln spoke out about native plights here and blacks from a very young age. It is not true and people do not do their own homework so this troubles me.

      1. I am a hundred percent with you on that one. Lincoln is definitely misrepresented.

        Abraham Lincoln And The Crisis Actors (It Seems Lincoln Knew He Was Dying Before The Election). Johnson was installed 2 months after the election.

        John Wilkes Booth (supposed murderer of Abraham Lincoln) and brothers star in Julius Ceasar. It took place in a theatre. John Wilkes jumped 18 feet with a knife in his hand and only twisted his ankle.

        The United States appropriated the Ford Theatre afterwards (No investigation) and only paid Ford $100,000. He wasn’t as lucky as Larry Silverstein.


      2. Soldiers (200) charge the scene Clear out! clear out! you sons of ——….. Such the wild scene, or a suggestion of it rather, inside the play-house that night. Why weren’t the soldiers inside? Hey fire trucks were at the pentagon before the “missile” landed, hey why not.

        O.K. why was Lincoln assassinated? Lincoln has been said to be Juice as was John Wilkes Booth noted as the son of a kosher butcher. Lincoln never professed anything resembling his association with Christianity and told his wife before he died that he wished to visit the “Holyland.” There is evidence that he was also known to be dying from 4 mainstream sources. He was suffering from Marfan disease and was too sick to run for another term.

        It is speculated they knew Andrew Johnson, a poorly spoken southerner from Tennessee could not be elected, but Lincoln could so they ran Lincoln and then Johnson was installed after the so called election. This was all some two months after the election and theatre performance. Pinkerton a British security outfit also handled Lincoln’s “security.” This is the same agency who also was pursuing Jesse James before he was “killed”

    1. Convenient…& right after a movie was released this weekend depicting the US CAPITOL exploding. Yep, the metaprogram in action. The first part of the trance is when “they” tell us they’re putting us in a trance.

        1. Did she push that Ann Hadad nonsense ? Too bad – I thought the Carlos Arredondo video was well documented though

        2. Oh apparently she debunked Ann Hadad – well that is ok by me. Nancy Lanza was real and was known in Newtown for many years. I don’t know about Ann Hadad but Nancy Lanza and both sons were real and observed by locals.

          The Ann Hadad theory just does not stand up and it really is irrelevant anyway.

        3. Betsy McGee didn’t push for the Anne Haddad thing, she was AGAINST it. PaulStal was the guy pushing it, and now he’s the one calling Betsy McGee a shill. He suspects everyone who doesn’t buy into his theory of being a shill, I think.

          I LIKE Betsy’s videos: they’re well done and entertaining. She is NOT salacious or outrageous. She backs her claims up with evidence and reason. She has a large subscriber base because she makes good videos.

          People who come to iron-clad conclusions based on clearly incomplete evidence are just falling back into their public-schooling programming. If I’ve learned ANYTHING, it’s that I’m easily tricked and that I know less than I think I do.

        4. I looked over Betsy’s other videos and she seems to be right on point from everything that I watched-

          That whole Ann Hadad theory is utterly absurd. I don’t think TPS is a shill but I think that he believes his own nonsense.

          BTW – here is one of the best Boston analysis pieces that I have ever seen – incredibly well done by Dave McGowan


        5. As I said:”Gotta LOVE Betsy McGee! (and I love Dave McGowan even MORE!!!!!) I bought two autographed copies of his book,WEIRD SCENES INSIDE THE CANYON,a must read!

    1. Whatever the debate ends up on who the schills are in alternative media one thing I am noticing,
      that just the visual of a controlled demolition becomes instantly recognizable, as in 9/11, it doesn’t look like anything else and it is impossible to fake if you know anything about demolition,
      so that is also true for these fake terrorist acts and crisis actors, I have been in medicine and trauma also, and besides looking at the detail, there is a pulse and a rhythm to a real disaster and likewise one with drills, and these are definitely drills

  17. https://youtu.be/qUFwLcT_a3k this was the Corbett Report with Sibel Edmonds podcast people have been referring to. They follow a line of reasoning which seems plausible at first, but is actually fallacious(the mutual exclusivity or false dilemma). They admit that these “attacks” follow a similar script, yet dismiss the possibility that that similar script could also include “false flag hoax staged events” simultaneously with the actual “Gladio B” scenario she coined & popularised. And they NEVER examine the “footage” of the event, even that the CCTV seems to always be “grainy” at the VERY time you most need it to be clear, nor the fact that of the constant drilling, training, exercises that seem to always follow the exact scenario…of the very event…that they NEVER SEEM TO PREVENT. But, you can’t prevent an event that you’re merely trained to RESPOND TO.

    But, how is it that the STATE responds so quickly to…an “intelligence failure”? And, how is it that the media seem to have these events in real time, “allegedly” at the moment of the supposed attacks? And, why is the footage, and thus the narrative & coverage, always focused on “the carnage” & the response, which is CHAOTIC? WHY THE PROMOTION OF CHAOS TO BEGIN WITH? Why is the narrative(script) always uniform, no matter the channel, station, press, or wire service? And, why does it immediately precede the message of reassurance by the very power structure that seemingly FAILED TO PREVENT THE VERY ATTACKS THEY’RE REASSURING US ABOUT?!!

    Seems to me that at the very least there’s a cognitive dissonance there(I’m willing to accept that after watching a 2nd time); I however think, at least on Sibel’s part, something more disingenuous…& more sinister. She could just simply be so sure of her “expertise”(meaning arrogant) due to her having “access” to info us uninitiated don’t…that’d still make her a useful idiot…or an intel asset. I’m willing to entertain that as well, since it isn’t an “either-or” scenario. It could be at least 2 of these simultaneously. Any thoughts?

    1. Unfortunately, James Corbett is doing it too: guilt by association, poisoning the well, circumstantial ad hominem attacks, the whole gamut. I said that he’s done good work in the past; I can’t make excuses for this now. Done deal. I’ll still extract from his valuable stuff tho; no one said the truth was fun. But, it is what it is. Those who’ve been trained in formal logic can see through the video presentation.

    2. Both Edmonds and Corbett doth protest too much.

      Against the so-called “hoaxers,” that is. In my opinion it’s the mocking, dismissive tone (“Pentagon Spaceship?”) in which Edmonds addresses an argument deserving of respectful consideration, that gives her game away. Corbett seemed a bit too eager to agree with her.

      Why not encourage listeners to study the Brussels photos and videos in order to decide if there is any evidence of fakery for themselves? Why haven’t THEY studied the photos and videos, I wonder?

      I’m not sure how much longer Corbett and Edmonds can continue to just dismiss all claims of fakery in this manner without destroying any credibility they may have left.

      1. Haley, even the Corbett Report blog has been displaying some dissent as of late regarding that particular podcast. People see through this; more than I previously thought.

        1. Dublinsmick…IMO: CIA Tribe, clearly(whatever that means, as the agencies at the very top are all really the same).

        2. Sibel is Turkish juice. We always have to have juice to give us the truth. the old polka dance of FBI following this great truth teller was all song and dance. The gojim will believe anything.

          She is a limited window, there to spin things in the proper manner.

  18. My theory is that this was a controlled blast overhead from the ceiling designed to pelt the people below and cover the floor with debris. The ceiling is clearly shown at considerable height in the stock photo and in this one. It was likely done during a lull when foot traffic was down.

    Assuming there were some non-actors present, it would seem that they — like the folks in the St.Louis airport tornado video — would want to make a quick exit after the ceiling tiles showered down on them and glass windows blown out. The explosive used would have been low impact. Although deaths are possible in such an event, given that the ceiling material does not appear hard or heavy, it is more likely that injuries would have been minor. Once the non-actors have left, crews can come in and do the finishing touches, such as setting a fire here and there and piling up suitcases.

    more: http://winteractionables.com/?p=31846

    1. Absolutely. It looks like a controlled remote detonation to me, designed for maximum smoke and light effect but minimum physical harm. People were a mix of actors and non-actors, plus operatives that took some of the footage.

    2. Thats exactly what happened Russ. How easy to just blow the ceiling tiles out with causing any major damage but creating a huge mess and confusion.

      Has anyone seen the blown up Star Bucks Kiosk where the first bomb went off?

      Has anyone seen the blown up American Airlines Terminal where the 2nd bomb went off at 9:11? I haven’t.

      Both ground level.

      The blown out windows is a mystery with all those large shards.

      Shouldn’t those windows be “shatter Proof” glass which would have resulted in tiny little harmless squares of glass on the ground?

  19. Brussels airport had to have been bombed empty, and then set up. It was supposed to have shrapnel, but there’s no evidence of any survivor actors including the silly missionaries yakking from the hospital and elsewhere with any such injuries. The train must have been a prop, blown out elsewhere and brought in. A friend’s relation was in Brussels the weekend before the event and heard explosions and saw terror police, so this must have been the set up getting underway.

    The airport had lots of smoke, just like Boston. Speaking of Boston, the drill reared its ugly head last night on Dancing with the Noodniks – a show that always features the latest or past false flag drill for propaganda purposes. Adrienne Haslet-Davis was panned by the camera and it was announced she’s running the marathon this year. She has a new tech prosthetic that makes her more flexible so running is a possibilty. Some time ago, it was announced that Adrienne would be a contestant on the show, dancing with the talented Derek Hough, but that never happened and he danced with another disabled person. Apparently, there was lots of internet chatter from amputees about Adrienne and the other phony Boston amputees becoming millionaires while they had no reward for their own disabilities. The show canceled Adrienne, but later on tour in 2014, Derek was forced to give her a dance lesson for the cameras to make up for the lost opportunity to have Adrienne in the public eye on TV, pushing the Boston angle. Also on the Noodniks last night, the clumsy Giraldo was kicked off, but first he gave a lousy Trump impression and brought up the Spanish immigrant issue for public consumption.

  20. Once one understands how dangerous the Truth is in this age of mass deception, then it makes sense that the Alt/Truth media would be thick with fakes. What I wrestle with is which ones are knowingly engaged in deception, and which ones have been co-opted without them realizing it.

    You’ve got to judge everything yourself, on a case by case basis, using both your mind (brain, intellect) and your spirit (heart, intuition). Authentic truthful people make mistakes. Are themselves deceived and repeat a lie as truth. And we know that many times lies are wrapped in truth. My own experience has shown that many practiced deceivers always use Truth as their hook.

    We live in deep deception. I am finding that wrapping my mind around this reality is difficult and disruptive. But it is also bringing confidence and peace as the scales slowly fall away from my eyes.

    1. I share that nuanced assessment; the problem occurs when individuals buttress their arguments with fallacious reasoning, take people down false paths, then use circumstantial ad hominem attacks on these individuals without actually studying the subject…dismissing the subject they have no intention of researching entirely. Then, to top it off: demonizing the research by including it in the same bag as the outlandish claims in order to discredit the research. Those things aren’t mistakes, they’re usually evidence of a campaign; in the case of the Corbett podcast, the campaign was used to promote their “Newsbud” venture…at legitimate researchers’ expense. That’s what I mean by DISINFO.

      1. Yet you said tyrannynews didn’t write a “bad” explanation of Corbett and Edmonds’ new venture, despite the fact it was laden with ill supported hunches, approximations, with little or no truth behind such impugned motivations. It appears that the rationale behind the criticisms of Newsbud and its progenitors suffers from misplaced modifiers at the very least. Tyrannynews plays the same strategy as does the Corbett/Edmonds duo. Vagueness in the service of disinfo. Assign the appearance of literary blame, but don’t explain just what that really means. Indie does not mean the same thing as truthful.

        1. Gil, what I didn’t explain well enough is my criticism of Newsbud from the perspective of someone with a fair understanding of indie media, pretty good marketing skills and a fair business sense. My suspicions that either or both Corbett and Edmonds might be beholden to an unspoken benefactor or ideology were not stated as fact.

          I gave Edmonds the benefit of explicitly stating I had seen nothing to cause me serious suspicion. I did cite one instance of dubious information being promoted by Corbett, but was intentionally vague and didn’t name even the issue I was referring to. I didn’t want to go to the trouble of digging into his archives and looking deeper into the topic. I tried to ensure my opinion was framed as inconclusive, but I can see how I may have missed the mark.

          Although my criticisms of the Newsbud venture aren’t related to their intentions or deception of some kind, they’re worth clarifying. What I should have added with respect to Edmonds and her apparent naivete is, the venture seems to be nothing extraordinary. I did touch on the rarity of successful entrepreneurial ventures. My theory is that Edmonds experienced a Cinderella story with her existing whistle-blower’s organization. Largely because of her unique stature as the “most censored woman,” her first business venture attempt was a success, IMO.

          I suspect that, along with a pitch for Newsbud that didn’t excite me it’s that initial success that she’s operating on. I would like nothing more than for it to be “the” most successful and effective indie media venture to date. I was hoping they would hit their $1 million goal quickly. In truth, I think it might do fairly well given that she’s collected a very respectable crew. I certainly don’t think I’ll find there what I think I’ll find with that Pierre Omydiar, Greenwald operation, whatever it’s called.

          What really interests/concerns me most in this area, is the frustrating position myself and others are in watching all of these well-meaning indie outfits waffle and flounder. They do this despite knowing ultimately that the corporate media monopoly has roots as deep as hell. Therefore, the remaining options don’t include business as usual, which Newsbud unfortunately is for the most part.

          What is needed is an honest discussion and admission within ourselves that the band-aid solutions aren’t the cure. I think once the best folks in this business do this they will realize we share very similar values and possibly an identical goal. That goal being to return media to the people, not only as a talking point.

          I’ve been working as often as I can on an outline for a “single” indie media group that would form as a result of merging many small groups or individuals. The objective will be to literally muscle our way into the tiny club we’re currently banned from joining. Of course I’m aware that “partnerships” between so many cooks can’t possibly work without an absolutely brilliant plan or structural concept. And, that’s probably why this process is taking a while. It’s actually less critical what the business of the group will ultimately be or operational strategy. What is clearly most critical at this early stage is building a concept that is most inclusive and satisfies the expectations of all parties from first meeting to full operation.

          I’m talking about something of historic significance unlike anything in the history of the press. Would you agree that the majority of us in indie media WISH that this would happen? Well then, it would seem all that remains to do is to make it happen. Think about the Internet, what it has been and still is. Sure, it facilitates competition and even promotes it. But, how many Internets are there? Ah ha. Along those lines, how many Presses should there be? I wouldn’t suggest jumping to the conclusion that I’m inviting some kind of totalitarian state-run apparatus.

          Think of it more as a gentleman’s agreement. Just as in the case of the Internet, if it works it will hold. If it has fundamental flaws, it won’t. It seems to me that the Internet already functions as the platform for such a holistic body. Maybe all that needs to be done fundamentally, is to initiate a project to impeach all corporate media. I just figured that, while we were at it we’d build a more comprehensive concept to carry us through the transition and beyond. It’s definitely an issue of balance and fairness. I’m learning it also must address cynicism an pre-answer many objections. At this point, I’m operating under the assumption that some people will simply not be cut out for it; Ponarology, service to self and the ego come to mind.

        2. To be fair Gil I don’t have to completely agree with tyrannynews’s full argument to say it was a decent assessment. I’d say the same about you if I felt you added something to the discussion; let’s not split hairs here. Also, for the most part, my argument was different from tyranny news(this individual can speak for him/herself), in that tyranny’s argument was from an organizational standpoint; mine was more an exposé into the techniques of DISINFO they were using, & to top it off…I’ve most certainly posted examples all over this blog & thoroughly explained those techniques & the faulty arguments Corbett & Edmonds were making, & understanding formal logic I concluded that they clearly weren’t making mistakes; this was intentional. I have no problem with criticism, just get my positions correct.

  21. And then there is the Bahamas connection..




    Why would a Brussels University have a “controlled explosion” the day of the bombings ?

    2.Why no mention of this in the local or international press ?

    A former “news reporter” studying new media society in a masters` programme.

    And down the rabbit hole we go…

    1. The New York Times (JYTs) is the official broadcast medium for the Zionist controlled US Government, I have never felt this source could be trusted, obviously a lot of hard news does get published, but this is a real quandary, but I can’t help the suspicion that any major story has an angle to it, why would they allow something to be reported that would seriously damage their handler’s credibility?

      1. Very true assessment of the NYT but keep in mind that “the handlers ” can’t control all segments of sensitive information.

        And my reasoning behind posting the articles about the Bahamas is there may be rabbit hole in that narrative or not. And then there’s that predictive programming element. .

        The video below may add some insight.


  22. The break-out discussion in this comment thread is illustrative of why this blog is so important. How surprising it can be where personal or group revelations will emerge from. There’s great potential throughout.

    A few years ago, I noted that a guest on Corbett’s program espoused a dubious conclusion about an international affair. The very “shilly” idea was the theme for his presentation during the interview. I emailed James a couple questions about why he seemed to support the suspicious conclusions. As I wrote the message the response that didn’t come became pretty unnecessary, as it became likely in my mind that James was compromising his ethics on at least one issue or for some power-broker.

    Edmonds, on the other hand has yet to cause me any reason to be particularly suspicious. However, I haven’t follower her work of recent and haven’t learned here positions on Sandy Hook and Boston. I accept that she’s upside down on both. Could that be in error? Not very likely, but still possible.

    In both cases, Corbett and Edmonds have clearly honest and helpful information to share; 911 and establishment shenanigans with Corbett and international affairs, especially involving Turkey with Edmonds. It’s a shame to have to contemplate which items they share should require extra discernment. It’s also difficult to understand the dynamic, the paradigm they present.

    Lastly, I want to share a thought with the good readers and fellow indie journalists here about Edmond’s new, Newsbud endeavor. I remember a couple months ago listening to a podcast in which a main topic was Newsbud, essentially unveiling it and what it was intended to be. James was distinctly stoic which bordered on trepidatious as Sibell described the project with surprising naivete.

    For instance, she thought it was sufficiently unique that the organization was to be totally crowd-funded or user supported. Nearly all of my work has been SELF funded, so I wasn’t impressed. Aside from that single point, she described what anyone could imagine as a run-of-the-mill indie media portal with all the trappings; regular editorials, podcasts, vodcasts, social-media distribution, etc. What I could determine with fair certainty was that Sibell wasn’t marketing-savvy, nor an experienced buiness-person. I’ve heard before that an entrepreneur must make an average 9 startup business attempts for every 1 that achieves nominal success. An example for reference is a restaurant that can stay in business 10+ years.

    My fear now is that what Edmonds is so content with is a broader platform from which to disinform when the need arises. James’ apparent attitude may have been either that of disbelief that anyone would be impressed with her concept or that of disgust. I don’t know. It also concerns me to learn that indie media staples the likes of InfoWars, AntiWar, Corbett Report, Boiling Frogs and others might be equally suspect of having underlying agendas. More so considering that I’ve been drafting a formula for indie media consolidation for months now. In any case, the information shared here has been very interesting and helpful.

    1. Interesting assessment(not bad by any means)…I personally posted on this particular thread the recent Corbett interview with Sibel Edmonds; my contention is that she is disinfo, while James is likely a dupe ensnared in a disinfo op to collectivise researchers who aren’t on either side of the fake left/right paradigm & capitalise off of them(she used similar techniques to collectivise the whistleblowers into 1 organization also). However, I now have even more reservations of James Corbett, seeing as he interviewed a researcher of Sandy Hook on the backlash this researcher was receiving based on his research. This person was none other than…Professor James F. Tracy!

      Now, I’m also seeing the significance of “Open Source Intelligence”, as that, like “Social Network” is a specific term applied in Intel circles…open intel is literally the intelligence gathering where the source is open correspondence, like newspapers, blog posts, FACEBOOK, etc. A lot more I can add to that, but I’ll leave it there.

    2. Is James, James Corbett or James Tracy. You seem to bounce back and forth on this.

      Seems to me there is woefully miniscule proof of putative disinfo in this dissertation. One thing to blame somebody of something, but where’s the meat?

      As to underlying agendas, doesn ‘t everybody have one? Even you have an underlying agenda, this diaphanous blaming and impugning of people who might have an agenda. How about you flesh out your hunches for us with clear examples and evidence of proof of shilldom and underhandedness?

      I confess, I have no idea what you are trying to say here but at least 2 people like it, whatever that means.

    1. Can’t you hear the producer? “OK, we want everything to be very hospital-y in the shot. The teacup is good, how about a coffee cup too? Don’t clear away the clutter, what do you think this is, a news story? Don’t straighten out the bedclothes, ruffled is much more hospital-y. Got the IV thingy? Stick it right there, just in frame. Wait a minute! I can’t see the little bed lifter control thing, we went to a lot of trouble to get one of those, Prop it up facing away from the patient so we can see it has actual buttons. All right, Sebby, can I call you Sebby? Be sure and get emotional, and don’t smile, and can you say there were some dead kids? I know you aren’t a good actor, so we don’t expect real tears, but pretend to wipe some away anyway. It’s what they all do. Ready, set, ACTION!”

  23. This is on The Drudge – all news is fake and funded by the CIA. The ‘big’ story of the day is that Trump’s campaign manager is charged with battery for stopping a female reporter from grabbing him, guess all these bombings are becoming too boring.



    1. I saw the whole thing on tape.
      Rally was over, Trump walking away. She run up to Trump and grabbed his arm to slow him down and get in a question.
      Trump pulls his arm away and turns to see who grabbed him.

      His manager panics, cuts through to get to her, He does grab her arm and walks past her to “cut” her off.

      It did not look vicious at all, nor did he “Pull her to the Ground” as she states.

      Some people bruise very easily. I don’t think he tried to hurt her.

  24. Speaking of drills: apparently “Boston Marathon – The Movie” is set to be shot in Boston. But The Boston Marathon event was itself a MOVIE that was SHOT in Boston. So, a MOTION PICTURE about…a MOTION PICTURE, a stage play about a real time stage play!! Hilarious!! Of course, you gotta love the shadow government; 1st they “produce” the event in question(real or hoax or combination), script the narrative, then afterwards they script the narrative based on the narrative they scripted for the event they already produced. THE META NARRATIVE!


  25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g1mA831i9Q

    “… We have a new perspective this morning on ‘iconic’ images that have become ‘symbols’ of the attacks in Belgium…”

    All the widely published airport pics came from her? No no else took a picture?

    In this Age of Surveillance, in this age of the ubiquitous phone with a camera, and social media, any real event should produce an immediate avalanche of video and image evidence from numerous sources. Social Media thrives on this stuff. A lack of this material is proof that the event is a probable fraud.

    1. this is excellent. A two-minute photo op… “Am I in the movie?” Yes, probably, Miss Ketevan Kardava, “SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT OF GEORGIAN PUBLIC BROADCASTER IN BRUSSELS”…


      “Ketevan Kardava, 36, a special correspondent in Brussels of Georgian Public Broadcaster, was in the departure hall of the Brussels Airport in Belgium headed to Geneva on an assignment when the first explosion went off a meter and a half from where she was standing.”

      “”Everyone was covered in blood. They lost their legs. All of them,” she said. “I kept looking to see my legs. With my hands, I wanted to feel them.”

      Only 1.5 meters away from the explosion but not injured…. while “everybody else lost their legs”… So where are the photos of these people without legs, Miss Kardava…???

  26. http://theinternationalforecaster.com/International_Forecaster_Weekly/The_Brussels_Attacks_in_Context once again, we have in this Corbett piece a classic bait & switch: “challenging the official narrative” with stuff we already know while simultaneously adopting the official premise…then at the last second, reinforcing the “official narrative” whilst preventing you from even questioning the premises & doing so puts you in a false dilemma. Its the “alternative route to THE SAME DESTINATION”; in other words, we’re being taken for a ride.

    He’s now officially DISINFO.

  27. http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016/03/25/corbett-report-sibel-edmonds-shines-a-light-on-the-brussels-attacks/#comments

    Hilarious!! This is proof that boiling frogs post is heavily policed: not a single commenter disagreed with the premises of the podcast…& only 7 commented. Way more commented (excluding myself) on this one blog, & this wasn’t specifically about the topic in question. Complete joke that substantiates my contention.

    1. You got it Rico. I hadn’t even seen that Corbett Report episode when I commented earlier on this post.
      In all fairness to Corbett, he does occasionally produce some interesting pieces, especially when he is interviewing an honest guest.
      His first interview with James Tracy, which eerily foreshadows Tracy’s mistreatment as a tenured professor at FSU, is a good example. Remarkably, it was posted on 12-12-12 two days before the Sandy Hook “event”. After the fraudulent shooting, Corbett has Tracy back on his show to talk about his questioning of the official narrative. Corbett makes an effort to steer Tracy away from the claim that the shooting was a hoax. This seems to be his modus operandi: throw in lots of doubt, but avoid any definitive conclusions.
      For example, take these two youtube videos about the Boston Bombing. While Corbett’s video, featuring intel from Sibel Edmonds, is intriguing and tugs at many threads, it leads us far afield from the real truth. Which one of these videos gives us a clearer picture of what was really going on?


      I rest my case.

    2. Sorry about that broken link. Here’s the missing video above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlFhBrMaMsc#t=665

      I guess I should temper my criticism of Corbett and Edmonds by saying that, while they are both articulate and interesting, we ultimately find ourselves buried in the footnotes and far from the main page that would clarify what is really happening. America, France and Belgium have experienced and unprecedented series of hoax shootings and bombings over the past two years. Many of them, Boston and Sandy Hook included, have utilized fake witnesses and crisis actors to convince the public of the veracity of these events. This is a very important story, and radically alters our view of the role that Government, law enforcement, and the media play in characterizing what has taken place. In short, we are being lied to on a grand scale. Anyone offering insight into this spree of contrived terror should include an accurate understanding of this fact in their account.

      It has been nearly four years since the Boston Bombing, plenty of time to get the story right. Many citizen journalists have demonstrated that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax. Why have Corbett and Edmonds resisted this assessment? What is the reason for this ongoing blind spot in their analysis? I hope that Corbett will address this question in one of his questions for Corbett podcasts. I do think that it is important for the honest alternative media to get on the same page with their final analysis, especially when the evidence is so overwhelming. A bald spot is fine, a blind spot, not so much.

  28. OK Mick,
    I see that most of the so called alternattive media is actually deep cover-
    i would be interested in who you think IS honest and part of the real truth movement (besides the Captain of course, we already have his link)

  29. Rather interesting all of the disinformation, misdirection and craziness just in the comments section here.

    I personally was convinced that something was wrong about this Brussels “event” as soon as I saw it attributed to ISIS – which of course is an organization created to create fake terror. So I didn’t need to see a single picture to know who was behind it. In fact, if the news is attributing something, anything, to ISIS, you can bet it’s not real.

    Now whether it was a terrorist act or not is somewhat up to your interpretation – regardless of who or whether a bombing actually occurred as depicted by the media, terror did get created across the globe. The Brussels airport did indeed close and thousands upon thousands of people’s travel plans did get interrupted.

    In regards to convincing others about the truth of these events, the biggest stumbling block seems to be trying to convince someone that they could pull something like this off, without the truth getting out. And by “getting out” what they mean is the truth coming through on TV and in the newspapers.

    Of course, by definition, this cannot happen as the news media is the propaganda arm of the terrorist network itself.

    I’m sure the news editors would take offense with that characterization, but by continuing to sell tv time and newspapers by publishing known lies – or at least by not trying to uncover the truth, they all are complicit. “The news” isn’t in the news business. They are in the business of selling TV time or newspapers and nothing sells them better than these big events.

    The good news for all of you who are enlightened is that terrorism is a figment of people’s imagination – the bogeyman who doesn’t really exist. You can carry on with your life walking right past those who are frozen with fear of terrorism.

Leave a Reply