Tuesday, 19 August 2014

Shut up, Wesley - Michael Moore & Jesse Jackson's 2004 Presidential Pick


"Do you ever ask why it is that these people in these other countries can't solve their own problems without the United States sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask why it is the Europeans, the people that make the Mercedes and the BMW's that got so much money can't put some of that money in their own defense programs and they need us to do their defense for them?

"And I'll tell you what I've learned from Europe is that are a lot of people out in the world who really, really love and admire the United States. Don't you ever believe it when you hear foreign leaders making nasty comments about us. That's them playing to their domestic politics as they misread it. Because when you talk to the people out there, they love us. They love our values. They love what we stand for in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."



Why was General Clark fired?

Was Wesley Clark removed from his job Supreme Allied Commander, Europe for lack of integrity and character issues? I denied it. Randy Black says: "Retired General Hugh Shelton was asked the same question after giving a talk at a college in California. Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was Clark’s boss in 1999 when Clark was unceremoniously told that he was being removed from his position as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. “I’ve known Wes for a long time,” Shelton said. “I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. . . ."

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031117fa_fact


Another view, supporting your statement: Clark was fired by Secretary of Defense William Cohen shortly after the war ended and, just to make sure Clark didn't try to make an end-run, the chiefs leaked the firing to the Washington Post. The reasons for his dismissal seem clear: Clark had pushed a policy that Cohen and the chiefs had opposed (and, even after the war, continued to oppose); he went around them in his advocacy; he was too close, for the chiefs' taste, to Clinton (in signing Clark's release papers, Clinton was led to believe the move was a normal succession, not a dismissal); and, toward the end of the war, he pushed for a ground-invasion option that none of the Pentagon's top officials supported in the slightest.

Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/

I wonder what General Sullivan thinks about this matter?"

RH: Until I receive convincing evidence that Clark was fired for lack of integrity, I will refuse to believe it, since it is immoral to throw such accusations around without basis. It is bearing false witness. General Shelton was a product of the past, when soldiers were expected to obey their superiors without question. That changed after World War II when soldiers accused of war crimes gave as an excuse that they were simply obeying orders. Clinton was commander in chief. All the evidence I have is that General Clark is an honorable man, and that the present campaign to smear him is part of the present disgraceful political battle.

Why was General Wesley Clark fired? 


General Robert Gard says: 

"General Joe Ralston, Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs, was the favored candidate for Chairman (apologies to the ladies), when Shelton eventually was appointed. When it was disclosed that Ralston had an affair much earlier with a fellow student at the National War College, even though he then was separated from his wife, the existing political climate precluded his nomination as Chairman. Ralston agreed to accept a second term as Vice Chair. Ralston, a very capable officer with political savvy, earned the friendship and support of Secretary of Defrndr Cohen. When Ralston's second term as Vice Chair was up, he was prepared to retire. Cohen wanted him to stay on. Ralston said that the only position that would keep him on active duty was SACEUR. This required the departure of Wesley Clark earlier than the scheduled completion of his term.

Shelton is not in a position to to hurl moral thunderbolts at Clark for deficiencies in character. Shelton, a special warfare specialist, probably didn't appreciate the dual hat of SACEUR that required his involvement politically as well as militarily. Moreover, the record is clear that Shelton supported his political superiors concerning the readiness of the US military when it was evident that there were serious deficiencies. Clark was caught in the same situation that caused the removal of General Andrew Goodpaster from the SACEUR position when President Gerald Ford needed to get Al Haig out of the White House". RH: This sounds just like a university.

Was Wesley Clark removed from his job Supreme Allied Commander, Europe for lack of integrity and character issues? I denied it. Randy Black says: "I am not saying that you are wrong, or that I am right. You are certainly in a better position due to your experience and friends on the inside to make such a determination. We, of course, do have the photo of General Clark exchanging hats with a Serb general. 



[RH: This reminds me of the photos of John Kerry and Jane Fonda. I do not know what it proves, RH].

Here is another quote from the New York Times that supports your position: "One lingering question about General Clark's résumé is why his NATO tour came to an abrupt end in 2000. He was not fired by the White House, as some accounts have suggested. Rather, former officials of the Clinton administration say, his tour was cut short by Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and Gen. H. Hugh Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were still smarting over their differences with the NATO commander."


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/politics/03CND-GORD.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=5e2418d2faa65e86&ex=1083384000

I suppose that my principal objection to Clark the Presidential candidate is that he declared as a Democratic candidate ONLY because the Republicans didn’t pay him enough homage. He was a Democrat of convenience. I recall General Clark stating that if Carl Rove had returned his calls, he would have been on the side of President Bush. 

And another that supports your position: "After Clark entered the presidential race, Shelton publicly attacked Clark's "integrity and character." Shelton has since refused to explain his choice of words, but his opinion has been endorsed by several retired generals. Clark defenders, including Albright and retired Army Gen. Don Kerrick, say Shelton's attack is "ridiculous" and untrue. Clark "stood for personal integrity," said Chris Hernandez, a retired Army warrant officer who led Clark's security detail at NATO. "There were generals out there who really abused the system. If a general left his gloves some place, he would send a helicopter crew to get them. That wasn't Clark." "I have known him almost his entire adult life," said retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a former head of the Drug Enforcement Agency. "And he is one of the most extraordinarily talented persons I have ever known. He is a man of enormous integrity and good judgment.">>

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clarkprofile15jan15,1,7074760.story

And then this: Newsweek magazine's Howard Fineman reports that in January, 2003, Wesley Clark told associates that, "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls." 


Carl Rove is one of President Bush's top political advisors.

Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every call received since G. W. Bush took office in January, 2001. The logs prove that Clark never called Carl Rove.

And this: A few memorable -- even unforgettable -- words of Wesley Clark: 


1. On May 11, 2001, speaking to the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas:


"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well -- our president George W. Bush. We need them there."


2. On President Reagan: Words of Wesley Clark: 


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan. That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

3. On President George Bush: Words of Wesley Clark:


"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

4. American military involvement overseas: Words of Wesley Clark: 


"Do you ever ask why it is that these people in these other countries can't solve their own problems without the United States sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask why it is the Europeans, the people that make the Mercedes and the BMW's that got so much money can't put some of that money in their own defense programs and they need us to do their defense for them?"

"And I'll tell you what I've learned from Europe is that are a lot of people out in the world who really, really love and admire the United States. Don't you ever believe it when you hear foreign leaders making nasty comments about us. That's them playing to their domestic politics as they misread it. Because when you talk to the people out there, they love us. They love our values. They love what we stand for in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."




RH: These quotes were clearly selected to harm Wesley Clark's standing. There is little to commend in being a lifelong Republican or Democrat. The sensible thing is to compare policies and individuals and choose the better ones, even though one may harbor no ill feelings toward the others. This is what Clark did. As for the telephone call, government records are notoriously poor, and I would not make too much of it. However, I have as usual an open mind and will change my opinion if presented with convincing evidence.

NATO Lies.



"We have worked very hard in this campaign. It is not a campaign against the Serb people, as we have said from the outset, it is directed specifically to cause President Milosevic to change his mind, to change his pattern of behaviour, to achieve some well articulated political aims and we don't want to hurt innocent people, innocent civilians in this campaign, so we are working very, very hard to prevent collateral damage. One of the things we are doing is we are using precision weaponry. This campaign has the highest proportion of precision weaponry that has ever been used in any air operation anywhere. We are going after militarily significant targets and we are avoiding, taking all possible measures to avoid civilian damage.

I wanted to show you the tape of the cockpit view of the missile that hit the railroad bridge and the train yesterday. It is hung up in a computer problem in my computer at Shape, we are trying to get it up here and if I can get it up here during the time we have the press briefing, if I can get it up here we will show it to you. But I want to describe it because this was a case where a pilot was assigned to strike a railroad bridge that is part of the integrated communications supply network in Serbia. He launched his missile from his aircraft that was many miles away, he was not able to put his eyes on the bridge, it was a remotely directed attack.

And as he stared intently at the desired target point on the bridge, and I talked to the team at Aviano who was directly engaged in this operation, as the pilot stared intently at the desired aim point on the bridge and worked it, and worked it, and worked it, and all of a sudden at the very last instant with less than a second to go he caught a flash of movement that came into the screen and it was the train coming in. Unfortunately he couldn't dump the bomb at that point, it was locked, it was going into the target and it was an unfortunate incident which he, and the crew, and all of us very much regret. We certainly don't want to do collateral damage.

The mission was to take out the bridge. He realised when it had happened that he had not hit the bridge, but what he had hit was the train. He had another aim point on the bridge, it was a relatively long bridge and he believed he still had to accomplish his mission, the pilot circled back around. He put his aim point on the other end of the bridge from where the train had come, by the time the bomb got close the bridge was covered with smoke and clouds and at the last minute again in an uncanny accident, the train had slid forward from the original impact and parts of the train had moved across the bridge, and so that by striking the other end of the bridge he actually caused additional damage to the train.

I don't know what the extent of the second strike was, but two bombs were put into that bridge and in both cases there was an effort made to avoid collateral damage. He couldn't, he saw what had happened, it is one of those regrettable things that happen in a campaign like this and we are all very sorry for it, but we are doing the absolute best we can do to avoid collateral damage, I can assure you of that."


NATO Lies from Spike EP on Vimeo.

Another Kosovo lie exposed: 

NATO used doctored video to justify bombing of passenger train

By Ute Reissner 
8 January 2000
In the Frankfurter Rundschau of January 6 reporter Arnd Festerling documented how NATO used falsified video recordings to justify its conduct of the war in Kosovo.
At least 14 people died on April 12, 1999 when a US Airforce bomber fired on a railway bridge near the Serbian village of Grdenicka just as a passenger train was crossing the bridge. Following the initial strike of the train, the pilot returned to make a second sweep of the burning bridge and dropped a bomb on a carriage that had not been hit by the first assault.
At the time NATO described the bombing of the commuter train as a tragic accident. NATO's presentation of events, it now emerges, was based on doctored video recordings and misleading descriptions of what took place aboard the fighter plane.
One day after the strike, in an effort to demonstrate that the attack was a case of inadvertent “collateral damage”, General Wesley Clark, the Supreme Commander of NATO forces, called a press conference and showed two video films taken by cameras located in the noses of the remote control-guided bombs. According to Clark, the films made clear that the passenger train was approaching too fast for the pilot, who was concentrating on the difficult business of guiding the bombs, to react. The pilot had “less than a second” to abort the strike, Clark asserted.
Of course, this version of events did not explain why the plane turned round and dropped a second bomb. But the official NATO account given by Clark was misleading in two further respects.
First, the video film sped up the actual sequence by a factor of at least three. Second, the fighter plane used in the attack—type F15E—had a crew of two, a pilot and a weapons systems officer. The pilot played no role in directing the bombs and could not have been diverted by that task. In this type of plane the bombs find their own way to the target as soon as the target co-ordinates have been set by the weapons systems officer, who can, however, intervene to stop or divert them.
Festerling pointed out that status signals giving technical information and a running clock normally shown on such videos did not appear on the videos shown to the press public by Clark. Festerling explained:
“According to the video 2.3 seconds elapse from the time the train clearly enters the field of vision to the time the bomb strikes home. This implies the train was travelling at 300 kilometres per hour. If one assumes, for the purpose of making calculations, that the train was actually travelling at 100 kilometres per hour (a figure which is probably far too high, bearing in mind the antiquated state of the Serbian rail system) the video [shown by Clarke] is running at least three times faster than real time. This means the weapons systems officer had at least 6.9 seconds to react, instead of 2.3 seconds—which Clark, in his presentation, had reduced to ‘less than a second'.
“NATO therefore showed a film which was totally unreliable with regard to the crucial question of when the attack took place. On the basis of these unreliable videos and a misleading choice of words, the NATO Supreme commander in Europe led the public to believe that the attack on the train was unavoidable because of time pressure.”
NATO has now largely conceded that this is, in fact, what happened.
Festerling quoted an official of Shape, the central NATO command in Europe, who said, “Yes, the video ran considerably faster.” The headquarters of the US Air Force in Europe, located in Ramstein, Germany, also confirmed this fact, but then went on to speak of a regrettable hardware error, which they attributed to the firm of Sun Microsystems.
According to their account, the speeding up of the film took place unnoticed as the video was being transformed into mpeg-format. The main concern was to make the material available to the public as soon as possible, and therefore a supposedly arduous stage in the conversion of the film was neglected. The status signals did not appear on the video because, for some unexplained reason, the film taken came from the accompanying plane and not the plane responsible for the attack. The bombing videos from the attack plane itself are no longer available.
This whole explanation is extremely dubious. One can only assume that anybody with experience working with of this type of weapons technology would have been able to immediately identify the speeding up of the tape. Furthermore, the technology necessary for the supposedly arduous conversion of the film into mpeg-format takes, in fact, just a few minutes. At a cost of a few hundred dollars it can be loaded onto any standard personal computer. NATO's explanation assumes that it possesses technology inferior to that at the disposal of the average video amateur.
The revelations concerning the bombing of the passenger train are only the latest exposure of NATO lies and distortions in connection with the Kosovo War. Last October the British newspaper Observer published reports detailing the NATO bombardment of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. The reports made clear that, contrary to NATO's version of events, the bombing was deliberate.

Sunday, 17 August 2014

Does HIV Exist?

“There are times, however, and this is one of them, when even being right feels wrong. What do you say, for instance, about a generation that has been taught that rain is poison and sex is death? If making love might be fatal and if a cool spring breeze on any summer afternoon can turn a crystal blue lake into a puddle of black poison right in front of your eyes, there is not much left except TV and relentless masturbation. It's a strange world. Some people get rich and others eat shit and die.”

― Hunter S. Thompson, Generation of Swine: Tales of Shame and Degradation in the '80's






Factors Known to Cause The alledged HIV Test to show Positive

Anti-carbohydrate antibodies (52, 19, 13)

Naturally-occurring antibodies (5, 19)

Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies)(18, 26, 60, 4, 22, 42, 43, 13)

Leprosy (2, 25)

Tuberculosis (25)

Mycobacterium avium (25)

Systemic lupus erythematosus (15, 23)

Renal (kidney) failure (48, 23, 13)

Hemodialysis/renal failure (56, 16, 41, 10, 49)

Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients (54)

Flu (36)

Flu vaccination (30, 11, 3, 20, 13, 43)

Herpes simplex I (27)

Herpes simplex II (11)

Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu)(11)

Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines (11)

Pregnancy in multiparous women (58, 53, 13, 43, 36)

Malaria (6, 12)

High levels of circulating immune complexes (6, 33)

Hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies) (40, 33)

False positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma reagent) test for syphilis (17, 48, 33, 10, 49)

Rheumatoid arthritis (36)

Hepatitis B vaccination (28, 21, 40, 43)

Tetanus vaccination (40)

Organ transplantation (1, 36)

Renal transplantation (35, 9, 48, 13, 56)

Anti-lymphocyte antibodies (56, 31)

Anti-collagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of both sexes and people with leprosy)(31)

Serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (both found in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies)(14, 62, 53)

Autoimmune diseases (44, 29, 10, 40, 49, 43): Systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis
Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections (59, 48, 43, 53, 40, 13)

Malignant neoplasms (cancers)(40)

Alcoholic hepatitis/alcoholic liver disease (32, 48, 40,10,13, 49, 43, 53)

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (48, 53)

Hepatitis (54)

"Sticky" blood (in Africans) (38, 34, 40)

Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits)(62, 40, 3)

Blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions (63, 36,13, 49, 43, 41)

Multiple myeloma (10, 43, 53)

HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens)(7, 46, 63, 48, 10, 13, 49, 43, 53)

Anti-smooth muscle antibody (48)

Anti-parietal cell antibody (48)

Anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody)(48)

Anti-Hbc IgM (48)

Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985 (10)

Haemophilia (10, 49)

Haematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma (43, 53, 9, 48, 13)

Primary biliary cirrhosis (43, 53, 13, 48)

Stevens-Johnson syndrome9, (48, 13)

Q-fever with associated hepatitis (61)

Heat-treated specimens (51, 57, 24, 49, 48)

Lipemic serum (blood with high levels of fat or lipids)(49)

Haemolyzed serum (blood where haemoglobin is separated from the red cells)(49)

Hyperbilirubinemia (10, 13)

Globulins produced during polyclonal gammopathies (which are seen in AIDS risk groups)(10, 13, 48)

Healthy individuals as a result of poorly-understood cross-reactions (10)

Normal human ribonucleoproteins (48,13)

Other retroviruses (8, 55, 14, 48, 13)

Anti-mitochondrial antibodies (48, 13)

Anti-nuclear antibodies (48, 13, 53)

Anti-microsomal antibodies (34)

T-cell leukocyte antigen antibodies (48, 13)

Proteins on the filter paper (13)

Epstein-Barr virus (37)

Visceral leishmaniasis (45)

Receptive anal sex (39, 64)


THE HIV FRAUD
Dr. Robert Gallo
by Janine Roberts

It seems that it has been whitewashed out of history that in 1990 a powerful Congressional Investigative Sub-Committee under Representative John Dingell launched a major inquiry into Dr. Robert Gallo’s research on HIV to see if he had proved his virus caused AIDS – or had stolen a French virus as alleged by the Institut Pasteur – with the final result that Gallo’s own HIV research was trashed and he officially lost his credit for having discovered HIV, only escaping on a technicality being indicted for criminal fraud in his patent application for the HIV Test.

Gallo had documented his claim to have found HIV in several scientific papers. These are 4 in number, all published in early May 1984 in the same issue of the Science journal. All were co-authored by Dr. Robert Gallo and his team. These document his claim to have found and isolated the AIDS virus first in 1982.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the employers of Dr. Gallo, then immediately followed suite by launching its own Inquiry under its Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI), supervised by the Richards Panel of scientists nominated by the US National Academy of Science and Institute of Medicine.

In 1991 the Inspector General of the Department of Health began a separate investigation into whether Gallo should be indicted for lying in his application for patent rights to the HIV Blood Test, and the Department of Health replaced the OSI inquiry, after allegations that the NIH had been shredding key evidence, with one of its own, run by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

The ORI was the first to report. It found Gallo guilty of multiple deceptions. In 1993 it drew up a powerful indictment (Offer of Proof) that it presented to the Department of Health’s ’Research Integrity Adjudication Panel’.

This noted:

§        ‘Research process can proceed with confidence only if scientists can assume that the previously reported facts on which their work is based are correct. If the bricks are in fact false…then the scientific wall of truth may crumble…Such actions threaten the very integrity of the scientific process.’

§        ‘In light of the groundbreaking nature of this research and its profound public health implications, ORI believes that the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records…reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken. ‘

§        [This] ‘put the public health at risk and, at the minimum, severely undermined the ability of the scientific community to reproduce and/or verify the efforts of the LTCB [Gallo's 'Laboratory for Tumor Cell Biology'] in isolating and growing the AIDS virus.’

§        ‘Gallo’s failings as a Lab Chief are evidenced in the Popovic Science paper, a paper conspicuously lacking in significant primary data and fraught with false and erroneous statements.’ (This is the paper on which the HIV Test patent was based.)

§        Gallo ‘repeatedly misrepresents distorts and suppresses data in such a way as to enhance his own claim to priority and primacy in AIDS research.’

§        ‘The [lead] Science paper contains numerous falsifications… the paper was replete with at least 22 incorrect statements concerning LTCB research, at least 11 of which were falsifications amounting to serious deviations from accepted standards for conducting and reporting evidence.’

§        ‘The absence of virtually any assay data for the parent cell line is simply unbelievable. [Especially since this was] used to develop and patent the HIV antibody blood test.’

§   Gallo, ‘in violation of all research protocols, impeded scientists wanting to follow up on his research … imposed on others the condition that they did not try to repeat his work.’

But despite the ORI supporting this with the testimony of over 100 scientists, the Panel (made up by lawyers, not scientists) decided that Popovic and Gallo were innocent since the ‘intent to deceive’ was not proved. 

(Dr. Mikulos Popovic was Gallo’s chief investigative scientist and had co-signed all the science papers.)   



"HIV does not cause AIDS.... The point that everyone is missing is that all of those original papers Gallo wrote on HIV have been found fraudulent.... The HIV hypothesis was based on those papers"

— Peter Duesberg

In 1980, Dr. Robert Gallo, a retrovirologist with the National Cancer Institute, discovered the first human retrovirus (HTLV-I). A retrovirus is distinguished from an ordinary virus by virtue of the fact that its RNA is converted to DNA by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. Its replication and survival is totally dependent on the viability of the host cell. If the host cell dies, the virus is finished. Dr. Gallo knew this basic fact; however, he would soon purposely ignore this fact in order to serve his own needs by claiming that the virus was very "mysterious". Somehow it would mysteriously survive while mysteriously slaughtering T-cells by the millions (this has never been observed). He had contended in the past, but failed to prove, that the very same retrovirus (HTLV-I) caused a specific type of leukemia which was occuring in Japan. The power of position, that of being a top government official and scientist, has allowed the erroneous label of "leukemia virus" to remain intact even though it was rejected by the scientific community.

In 1981, it was proposed that an acquired immune deficiency was the basis for a new syndrome of diseases (AIDS) that appeared to be surfacing amongst promiscuous male homosexuals and intravenous drug users. Dr. David Durack, of Duke University, a recognized expert on infectious diseases and the immune system, though admitting the prevalence of drug use (particular "poppers" or amyl nitrites) and repeated multiple infections, ignored these well-known causes of immune deficiency and announced that this "truly new syndrome" must be due to "some new factor". Continuously this group of scientists has resorted to theory, not fact, as to how the AIDS virus supposedly accomplishes its dirty deeds. The words, "it is thought", are constantly used in casual conversations or in the non-scientific articles and popular magazines and books. In the scientific journals or at lectures the theory is presented as established fact although there are no facts involved. It is portrayed as an established truth and therefore is accepted as such by most scientists, including physicians. The so-called HIV virus is still referred to as a "new" virus in spite of the indisputable evidence to the contrary. Incorrectly, the virus has been characterized as "attacking" or "infiltrating" the immune system, when in reality this is impossible because it is not alive and does not invade. Retroviruses are engulfed by the cells and incorporated into the cell's life processes.

In 1983, Dr. Gallo embarked on a mission to convince his fellow scientists, in the absence of any scientific experimental proof whatsoever, that another virus he had discovered caused AIDS. At a widely publicized press conference held in Washington, D.C. on April 23, 1984, Dr. Gallo announced that he had discovered the cause of AIDS. He claimed the unearthing of a new retrovirus which he had named HTLV-III, thus inferring that it was a member of the family of retroviruses he had previously discovered. His claim was bolstered by Margaret Heckler, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, who was under great pressure to come up with some answer to the looming "epidemic". Heckler announced, "Today we add another miracle to the long honor roll of American medicine and science." She also promised that we would have a vaccine within two years, undoubtedly as a result of Dr. Gallo's grandiose urgings. That very day, Dr. Gallo filed a U.S. patent for an HIV test kit which was destined to make him very wealthy. Dr. Gallo, unquestionably very knowledgeable in retrovirology, chose to set aside the facts and became the quintessential intellectual whore. 

The benefits to Dr. Gallo are money and power; but the costs to humanity are suffering and countless unnecessary deaths. 

In contrast, street prostitutes are honest – you know what you're getting and you know the risks – and, by the way, AIDS is not one of them.

Margaret Heckler very quickly awarded the lucrative contract for AZT to Burroughs-Wellcome Pharmaceutical Company before the first scientific paper ever appeared in any U.S. journal. AZT was a drug in search of a disease. It had been sitting on the shelves of the National Institutes of Health since the 1960's. It was an experimental drug that had failed as a cancer remedy and had been declared too toxic to use. Retrovirology had gained importance because of Nixon's "War on Cancer" and the belief that a retrovirus might be the cause of cancer in humans. 

This approach seemed logical at the time, because retroviruses typically prompted cells to multiply – a characteristic of the cancer process. 




This is directly opposite to the cell destruction that normally occurs in viral infections.



Putin's Policy of War Avoidance and Sovereign National Interdependence





It's not a supposition. It's history, and extremely well-documented.



Maddeline Albright wanted a military confrontation with Russia (and possibly China) over Serbia, while Putin was Prime Minister - the world came right to the brink on June 20th 1999. Putin outwitted NATO, and backed off the Zionists and NeoCons in Clinton's rogue cabinet by having Yeltsin publicly had Bill Clinton Lee Harvey Oswald's complete KGB File at the start of the G8 meeting the following week.



The USS Missouri fired on, and sank the flagship of the Russian Submarine fleet, the Kursk, in Russian territorial waters in August 2000 - that was a blatant act of war. Putin put his own reputation on the line and lied to his own people to exonerate the US and prevent a punitive war no-one wanted which would quickly have escalated to a thermonuclear exchange.



Putin allowed the US into Afghanistan and Central Asia on 9/11/2001, a tactical reversal and seeming repudiation of the last 500 years of Russian foreign policy.

This was NOT popular - Russians had shed much blood and 10-20,000 young lives to keep Afghanistan non-aligned and neutral, and his former enemy, Commander Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Lion of the Pansheer, Leader of the Northern Alliance, had been assassinated by CIA killers in Northern Pakistan on September 10th 2001.

But this was an incredibly wise decision - the longer the US was in Afghanistan and Iraq, the weaker they become, he reasoned, and he was absolutely correct in this.



September 11th 2001 - The Third Occasion when Vladamir Putin PreventedWorld War III


September 11th 2001 - The Third Occasion when Vladamir Putin Prevented World War III
from Spike EP on Vimeo.



BUSH AND PUTIN ON 9/11
The potential for a thermonuclear confrontation or even of an all-out thermonuclear exchange growing out of 9/11 has generally been ignored by the US controlled media, but such a potential was clearly present. It was inherently present because of the tense relations among the US, Russia, and China in the wake of the bombing of Serbia and the Kursk incident. It was made explicit when a flying object, probably a cruise missile, hit the Pentagon. As the 9/11 commission report notes, one fighter pilot who saw the damage to the Pentagon immediately thought of Russia as the most likely adversary. This innate mental reaction must have been repeated thousands of times in the minds of non-witting military personnel on the day of 9/11. Clarke points out that the US proclamation of Defcon Delta, the level of readiness just below actual war, was inevitably immediately noticed by Russia, and came near causing immediate countermeasures of readiness on the Russian side. This was the first Defcon Delta since Henry Kissinger had ordered a world- wide alert to deter possible Soviet intervention into the Yom Kippur War in the Middle East in October 1973. Defcon Delta posed the danger of an escalation of mobilization between the two leading nuclear powers:

Frank Miller reported that DOD had gone on a global alert, DEFCON 3: "This hasn't happened since the '73 Arab-Israeli War."

"State, State, go." Armitage acknowledged the call. "Rich, DOD has gone to DEFCON 3 and yoi know what that means." Armitage knew; he had been an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the first Bush administration.

"It means I better go tell the Russkies before they shit a brick." Armitage activated the Nuclear Risk Reduction Center, down the hall from the State Department Operations Center. The NRRC was connected directly to the Russian Ministry of Defense just outside of the Kremlin. It was designed to exchange information in crisis to prevent misunderstanding and miscalculation.

Armitage reappeared. "Damn good thing I did that. Guess who was about to start an exercise of all their strategic nuclear forces?" He had persuaded his Russian counterpart to defer the operation. (Clarke 15-16)

Most US 9/11 commentators have virtually nothing to say about Bush's famous telephone conversation with Russian President Putin; Bamford, Thompson, and others exhibit elaborate disinterest in this matter. And yet, this is another one of the central moments of 9/11. In order to avoid a possible thermonuclear exchange, Putin needed to be reassured that the US Defcon Delta was not a cover for a thermonuclear sneak attack upon his country, something perfectly within the realm of possibility from the Russian view. Putin also needed to be told that thermonuclear launches from the US toward the Middle East or other areas were the work of a rogue network, not of the constituted government. Putin, in short, had to be asked for cooperation and restraint.

During the hours after the 9/11 attacks, Putin became the first world leader to place a call to Bush. Officially, this was done so that Putin could offer his condolences. But in the course of this conversation, Putin told Bush that he had ordered a stand down of Russian strategic forces, meaning that the maneuvers planned for the Arctic Region were cancelled. Putin also sent an official telegram to Washington DC conveying "anger and indignation" against the "series of barbaric terrorist acts directed against innocent people." (See "On Russian President Vladimir Putin's Telegram of Condolence to US President George Bush, 11 September 2001, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, www.In.mid.ru ) [4] Bush later noted his appreciation for Putin's gesture and for Putin's strategic stand down of the Russian strategic rocket troops in deference to the US Defcon Delta. "It was a moment where it clearly said to me that he understands the Cold War is over." (Washington Post, October 4, 2004)

In a national television address later that day, Putin vehemently condemned the 9/11 attacks as "an unprecedented act of aggression on the part of international terrorism." These attacks, he claimed, were not a localized American issue but an event that "goes beyond national borders." Terrorism, Putin declared, is the "plague of the twenty first century" and "Russia knows first hand what terrorism is. So, we understand as well as anyone the feelings of the American people." Putin described 9/11 as "a brazen challenge to the whole of humanity, at least to civilized humanity." Resonating with Bush, Putin set up his own Manichean dichotomy between terrorist barbarism and 'civilized humanity.' Putin assured Bush that "we entirely and fully share and experience your pain. We support you." ("Statement by President Putin of Russia on the Terrorist Acts in the US, Moscow, September 11, 2001," www.In.mid.ru ) Putin later declared a national minute of silence in commemoration of the victims of the attacks.

Putin's actions on 9/11 can be seen as a successful attempt at war avoidance in extremis. Putin, as a KGB veteran, would have had no doubt that the official US version was hogwash, something a number of prominent Russian military officers expressed in the wake of 9/11. Putin could also see that the rogue network responsible for the bombing of Serbia and the sinking of the Kursk momentarily had the upper hand, and with them negotiation would be fruitless. 

Putin was determined not to play into the hands of the unhinged US rogue network behind 9/11. At a deeper level, his policy was therefore one of strategic deception or of maskirovka -- to gain time in the wake of the catastrophe. Putin must have seen that secret government madmen ferociously hostile to Russia had now taken over the US regime to an unprecedented degree. He could also see that the neocons, with their obsession with Israel's strategic predicament, might well attack various countries in the Middle East before they got around to attempting to deal with Russia. 

Such Middle East tar baby scenarios could only weaken, overextend, discredit, and isolate the United States, thus offering Russia some advantage. Putin was also busily working on the follow-on to the very formidable Topol missile, a weapons system that was probably superior to anything in the US arsenal, which would very likely allow Russia to defeat the US side's primitive off-the-shelf missile defense system. All these considerations suggested that Putin should camouflage himself for the time being as Bush's bosom buddy.

On September 24, 2001 Putin made a major television address, which grew out of a weekend of strategizing with his top advisors and a forty-minute phone call with President Bush. In this speech Putin accepted the establishment of US bases in the former Soviet republics of central Asia, which the US wanted to set up as staging areas for the imminent invasion of Afghanistan. On the surface this was capitulation, but underneath was still strategic deception. For a time, it appeared that a great US-Russian alliance was in the making, but this was more appearance than substance. Bush joined with Putin at a school in Crawford, Texas on November 15, 2001. The Bush-Putin honeymoon lasted into 2002. By the time Bush began seeking UN carte blanche for his war on Iraq, Russia had been attracted into the French-German continental bloc.

The existence of Russian strategic maneuvers on 9/11 involving bombers had been known to the Pentagon, since it was the explicit premise for the maneuver Northern Vigilance. In this case, it would have been known to the plotters as well. Therefore, the planners of 9/11 were well aware that their incendiary actions would take place against a backdrop of simultaneous US and Russian aircraft maneuvers.

BAMFORD: THE US INTELLIGENCE VERSION

Bamford compares Bush's actions on 9/11 with the behavior of President Lyndon B. Johnson on the day of the Kennedy assassination. Despite worries that the killing of the president might have been just the beginning of the strategic decapitation of the US under conditions of Cold War confrontation with the USSR, Johnson flew directly back to Washington and gave a short television address just after leaving his airplane. According to the usual procedure, Cheney should have gone to Site R on the Maryland-Pennsylvania border. But he refused to go. Why? 

"Bush could have easily ordered Vice President Cheney to a secure location outside Washington to preserve the continuity of government and then flown back to Andrews Air Force Base and given a defiant, Johnson-like speech. Then, with the public -- and the rest of the world -- feeling confident that despite the terrorist actions the US government remained stable and firm, he could have gone back either to the White House or to one of the other highly protected, secure locations. That would have been the courageous thing to do." (Bamford 2004 70)

"Instead, the decision was made to leave Vice President Cheney in the White House while President Bush hopscotched around the country. Though reporters were told of a supposed call to the White House threatening Air Force One -- the reason for the President's odyssey -- later it was concluded that no such call or threat ever took place. 'They've been unsuccessful in trying to track down whether there was such a call,' one administration official told the Associated Press. CBS News reported the call 'simply never happened,' and the Washington Post headlined its article on the subject: 'White House Drops Claim of Threat to Bush.' (Bamford 2004 70) 

Bamford thus avoids most of the really essential questions about 9/11.

THE ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE VIEW

One of the most detailed accounts of the high-level state secrets possessed by the 9/11 conspirators was provided by the internet journal Debka, which often reflects the views of the Israeli Mossad. This Israeli analysis stresses the extent of the top-secret information controlled by the plotters, and the extensive network that would be necessary to have gathered such information. According to Debka, the message "Air Force One is next" was received by the U.S. Secret Service at 9 AM. For Debka, Cheney was hustled into the bunker three minutes later.

Debka suggests that the code name of Air Force One is changed daily, and that "the terrorists' message threatening Air Force One was transmitted in that day's top-secret White House code words." At the heart of Debka's account is the estimate that
...the terrorists had obtained the White House code and a whole set of top-secret signals. This made it possible for a hostile force to pinpoint the exact position of Air Force One, its destination and its classified procedures. In fact, the hijackers were picking up and deciphering the presidential plane's incoming and outgoing transmissions. The discovery shocked everyone in the president's emergency operations center -- Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. Their first question was; How did the terrorists access top-secret White House codes and procedures? Is there a mole, or more than one enemy spy in the White House, the Secret Service, the FB1, the CIA or the Federal Aviation Administration?

Nor was this all; the reach of the conspirators was even greater: "In the week after the attacks in New York and Washington, more hair- raising facts emerged. The terrorists had also obtained the code groups of the National Security Agency and were able to penetrate the NSA' s state-of-the-art electronic surveillance systems. Indeed, they seemed to have at their disposal an electronic capability that was more sophisticated than that of the NSA."

According to Debka's information, the US intelligence community also believed "that terrorists are in possession of all or part of the codes used by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the National Reconnaissance Office, Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Naval Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence and the intelligence offices of the State Department and Department of Energy."

According to Debka, the plotters had even mastered steganography, a technology which "enables users to bypass electronic monitoring by hiding messages randomly in seemingly innocent digital files, such as music files, those of the popular online marketplace eBay, pornographic files or even e-mail headers."

Here were the sure-fire premises for an incontrovertible argument that the 9/11 attacks were the work of a rogue network of dissident moles inside the US government and military. But after having made precisely this case, Debka attempted to lead its audience back to the myth of al Qaeda, this time presented as possessing scientific and technological capabilities superior to those of the US government! As one of the parties guilty of having given al Qaeda the codes, Debka fingered World Space Communication, described as "one of the known bin Laden assets," which the US counter-terrorism agencies, including the NSA, had supposedly been tracking. Debka also alleged that "Bin Laden also has the NSA beat on the employment front," since the wily Saudi had supposedly hired "the best computer experts on the market. One such is Nabil Khan Kani, a Syrian who lived in Barcelona with his Spanish wife, Jenna Florine, in the late 1980s and early 1990s."

Through one salto mortale after another, Debka clawed its way to the astounding conclusion that the only agency which could have secured access to all those code words was -- Iraq!! Debka wrote:

The nagging question of a mole in the highest reaches of the U.S. government and intelligence community -- with direct or indirect links with bin Laden -- remains. Since no single individual has access to every top-level code at any given time -- a single mole would not answer the case; it would have to be a large, widely spread number. U.S. experts do not believe bin Laden was capable of infiltrating double agents into the heart of the U.S. administration on a large scale. They are looking elsewhere, instead, at a country with a very well-oiled intelligence apparatus -- Iraq. (Debka, "Digital moles in White House? Terrorists had top-secret presidential codes." WorldNetDaily.com, September 22, 2001)

While this conclusion was absurd in the extreme, Debka had provided a valuable estimate of how high up in the US command structure the rogue network reached.

A CRITICAL FRENCH ACCOUNT

During the weeks after 9/11, the Reseau Voltaire of Paris represented one of the strongest voices calling the official version into question. Reseau Voltaire's most prominent writer was Thierry Meyssan, the well-known civil rights activist. His book on 9/11, L'effroyable imposture, was primarily a demonstration that the official thesis of a large commercial airliner striking the Pentagon was absurd and impossible. But Meyssan also focused on the central political-institutional questions posed by 9/11, and especially the "angels" question. For Meyssan, the plotters' use of top-secret code words suggested that they had access to other codes, including the US nuclear missile launch codes. At the heart of 9/11 was therefore a blackmail threat to the Bush regime that, if he refused to launch the war of civilizations, the plotters were in a position to do it on their own in a much more sweeping manner, by launching a US nuclear strike against a series of Arab and Islamic capitals. Whatever the Russian and Chinese attitude to such a launch might have been was not specified. Meyssan's thesis was that "from 10:00 AM to approximately 8:00 PM (on Sept. 11), US government officials were not thinking that this was the work of Arab terrorists, but rather that it was an expression of a military coup being carried out by U.S.-based extremists who were capable of provoking a nuclear war." ( www.reseauvoltaire.net , September 27, 2001)

On his website, and in his later books The Big Lie and Pentagate, Meyssan offered a detailed analysis of the events of the day, with special stress on the insurrectionary behavior of the US rogue network. He narrates that

About 10:05, the Secret Service, in charge of protecting top personalities, reportedly received an encoded telephone call from the assailants. They thus would have had at their disposal transmission and authentication codes for the White House and Air Force One. In other words, the security of the top American leaders is no longer guaranteed and the enemies of America are able to usurp the identity of President Bush, including to order a nuclear launch. According to Brian L. Stafford, director of the Secret Service, it is not a matter of the United States' facing terrorist actions, but facing a situation of war. He orders the implementation of the COG (Continuity of Government) plan. This ultra-secret procedure is orchestrated by FEMA ... which has already been supervising the rescue operations and working in coordination with the FBI. From this moment, FEMA steps ahead of the FBI and becomes the highest civilian authority of the administration. This agency, which cultivates opacity, is directed by Joe M. Allbaugh, a former campaign treasurer for the Bush family. (www.reseauvoltaire.net )

The keystone of this aspect of Meyssan's analysis is the "angel" call:

According to sources close to George W. Bush, the Secret Service received during the course of the morning a telephone call from the authors of the attacks, probably to make demands. In order to accredit their call, the assailants revealed presidential transmission and authentication codes. Only a few trusted persons at the apex of the state apparatus could have access to these codes. It therefore follows that at least one of the authors of the September 11 attacks is one of the civilian or military leaders of the United States of America.(www.reseauvoltaire.net)

For Meyssan, the "angel" call definitely came from the "sponsors of the terror attacks in New York and Washington." He argues that "from 10 AM to 8 PM approximately, American officials did not think that those strikes were the result of Middle Eastern terrorists, but that they manifested an attempted military coup by American extremists capable of provoking nuclear war." The content of the call had been not so much to claim responsibility for the attacks, but to "pose an ultimatum, to force the hand of the President of the United States." The trump card of the plotters was their possible possession of nuclear launch codes, and to counteract that, "during some 10 hours, President Bush was forced to run away from Washington and to go personally to the US Strategic Command (Offut, Nebraska) both to take direct control of the armed forces; and especially so that no one could usurp his identity and unleash nuclear war." In Meyssan's view, in the wake of the "angel" call, "No member of the National Security Council thinks any longer about terrorist attacks, all think about a military putsch which is ongoing. Calm will only be restored at 8:30 PM." (Reseau Voltaire, Information Note 235-236, September 27, 2001)

The call was followed by the descent of Cheney and Rice into the White House bunker. Meyssan sees the defense preparations around the White House as directed against a possible attack by insurrectionary US troops:

Simultaneously, the Secret Service has the Presidential areas evacuated, and deploys special agents and sharpshooters armed with machine guns and rocket-launchers in the surrounding area. It prepares to repel a possible assault by airborne troops. The Secret Service also informs President Bush of the situation; he is on board Air Force One, en route to Washington.

Within this context, Meyssan sees the pattern of threats to Bush and to Air Force One:

The U.S. Strategic Air Command indicates to the President that it has detected a signal, moving towards Air Force One. Considering the velocity, it is probably a missile. To protect the President, the military demand that Air Force One, despite its profile, continue its flight at tree- top level and follow an evasive course, while the F- 5 and F-16 join it and escort it. But the military do not shut off its weather apparatus on board the Presidential plane, such that it continues to emit a signal allowing the international meteorological network to know its position continuously ... Over a scrambled phone line, Bush consults the Vice President. He decides to go to Offutt Air Force Base (Nebraska), headquarters of the U.S. Strategic Air Command. If his identity can be usurped by the perpetrators, the only possibility to prevent them from giving orders to the U.S. army in his place, is for him to be physically where all the weapons of mass destruction are controlled, including nuclear bombs. But Air Force One consumes too much fuel flying at low altitude, and its refueling in flight is impossible for safety reasons. A stop is therefore planned for the military base at Barksdale. (www.reseauvoltaire.net )

Meyssan reported that his research team attempted to determine what network might have been behind the 9/11 attacks. His prime suspect was a group he called the "special forces underground," a terrorist network associated with US-controlled stay-behind networks of the Gladio type which in his opinion maintained close ties to Bin Laden among others. (Reseau Voltaire, Information Note 235-236, September 27, 2001)

Meyssan sums up the world-historical significance of 9/11 in these terms: "The attacks were thus not ordered by a fanatic who believed he was delivering divine punishment, but by a group present within the American state apparatus, which succeeded in dictating policy to President Bush. Rather than a coup d'etat aimed at overthrowing existing institutions, might it not involve instead the seizure of power by a particular group hidden within those institutions?" (Meyssan 202 48) This means that the September criminals are still at large, and capable of striking again.

THE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE VIEW: NAMAKON

The Russian opposition weekly newspaper Zaftra, edited by the maverick Russophile Aleksandr Prokhanov, published on July 16, 2002 excerpts from a German-language EIR news agency report on the background of the attempted internal U.S. coup of 9/11. EIR's thesis was that "the New York and Washington attacks could not have occurred without the witting complicity of high-level rogue elements within the US military-intelligence command structures." Together with this material, Zaftra included some comments on the 9/11 issue from "Namakon" -- the pen-name used by a group of top-level former Soviet intelligence officers. Namakon agreed that the events of September 11 could not have occurred without high-level complicity by a network or faction within the U.S. military. Namakon also emphasized that the decision by President Bush, urged on by Tony Blair and others, on the evening of September 11 to endorse and embrace the Bin Laden cover story "meant a de facto capitulation of the U.S. Presidency to the real organizers of the attack, and the adoption of their policy of confrontation with the Islamic world, according to Huntington's formula for a 'Clash of Civilizations."'

Namakon also called attention to the much-neglected fact that the attempted orchestration of an escalating nuclear alert between the U.S. and Russia was a crucial part of the 9/11 coup plot. Namakon explicitly linked this potential for thermonuclear confrontation with the August 2000 sinking of the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk, the full story of which has yet to be told. Namakon wrote that this "hypothesis leads us to ask whether the Kursk catastrophe might not also have been an included facet of the operations of the US putsch group, since an attack of such dimensions would necessarily lead to a large-scale reaction by the Russian military and population, creating an atmosphere favorable to provoking nuclear escalation." The escalation of the Kursk incident, which high ranking Russian military officials repeatedly blamed on the presence of NATO submarines near the site of the sinking in the Barents Sea, came perilously close to succeeding. A serious confrontation was avoided only by a direct hot line consultation between Russian President Putin and then-U.S. President Clinton. This telephone call was followed within 48 hours by a highly unusual visit to Moscow by CIA Director George Tenet. (Zaftra, July 16, 2002; EIR, July 22, 2004) In the case of 9/11, the immediate parallel was the telephone conversation between Bush and Putin, which, strangely enough, is never mentioned by an otherwise well-informed author like Bamford.

Many features of the analysis developed here with the help of lsraeli, French, and Russian sources in particular have become current among well-informed European circles. On August 23, 2002, at a moment when the neocon drive for war with Iraq appeared stalled, an influential British political figure made the following comments to the late investigative journalist Mark Burdman of EIR:

I have been noticing, as you have, the growing opposition, in Britain, in the United States, to this Iraq war. Last night, something occurred to me that I think is very relevant. I think the crowd that wants this Iraq war may well do something drastic in the coming days to regain the momentum. Some very big terrorism, perhaps. It is all very well that there are these challenges to the Iraq war. But we should not lose sight of the fact that there are powerful people in Washington, who pulled off this September 11 last year. They have their Plan A, which is now in trouble. But they also have their Plan B, Plan C, Plan D. They may well have been thinking until very recently that their coup that began on September 11 was going very well. But suddenly, they have to re-think. And I think they are desperate, and capable of a lot. (EIR, August 23, 2002)

Friday, 15 August 2014

A Helpful Wave of National Indignation : MH17 - The Full & Independent Investigation


A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:

We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Eastern Ukraine. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Donesk as a spectacular result of Russian attack from the air or land, or both.

The presence of pro-Russian separatists merely investigating the wreckage could be fairly compelling evidence that the plane was taken under attack.

The nearness to Donesk would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire.

The US could follow with an air/sea rescue operation to "evacuate" remaining remains of the non-existant crew.

Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of pro-Russian agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Russian involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

Use of SU-25 type aircraft by Kiev mercenaries could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Russian BUK, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying a launching system. However, exact copies of the BUK are currently part of the inventory of the Kiev Criminals..

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Russian Separatist BUK has attacked and shot down a civil airliner enroute from Western Europe to Malaysia,,India or the Philipines. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Eastern Ukraine.

An aircraft acquired by Mossad or another Third Country would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous East of Belin. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Rammstein AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status.

The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Free Ukraine, the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Separatist Anti-Aircraft Fire. The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.

This will allow OSCE observers in the conflict zone to tell the US and world community what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

Thursday, 14 August 2014

ISIS Does Not Exist - More Proof


“According to the U. S. Terrorist Screening Database, or TSDB , 
watchlisting guidelines, published by The Intercept in July 2014, officials don’t need
‘concrete facts’ or ‘irrefutable evidence’  to secretly place someone on the list —
 only a vague and elastic standard of ‘reasonable suspicion.’’’

The Intercept, August 5, 2014