Category Archives: False Flag

James Tracy Answers Questions About Conspiracy Theories

Posted on by
Reply

conspiracy-theory-definition

By Jaime Ortega

Source: The Daily Journalist

James Tracy teaches courses at Florida Atlantic University examining the relationship between commercial and alternative news media and socio-political issues and events.

1. There is a certain danger in the way conspiracy theories have eroded social media, especially on such platforms as YouTube.  Do people distrust mainstream television, radio, and print media?

First of all, we have to seriously think about what we mean by “conspiracy theories” before delving into such a discussion. What are the term’s origins?  How and why is it used?  Without nailing these things down at the outset any discussion of such communicative and sociopolitical dynamics tends toward the nonsensical and comes to eventually become absorbed in the discourse it is seeking the examine or critique.

A cursory look at reportage and commentary in major US news media from the late 1800s through the 1950s indicates that the term “conspiracy theory” is used sporadically in stories on criminal and court proceedings.  In the late 1960s, however, there is a major spike in usage of the term, specifically in items discussing criticism of the Warren Commission Report—President Lyndon Johnson’s commission mandated to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.  On January 4, 1967 the Central Intelligence Agency issued a memorandum that became known as Document 1035-960.  The communique was directed at the Agency’s foreign bureaus recommending the deployment of the term by “media assets” to counter critics of the Warren Commission.  The main strategy involved suggestion that such individuals and their inquiries were flawed by slipshod methods and ulterior motives.  The then-foremost Warren Commission critic and JFK assassination researcher Mark Lane was even referenced in the document.

This document was indicative of an apparent strategy via press and public relations maneuvers to undermine New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s then-fledgling investigation of the assassination.  1035-960 explained quite rightly that the CIA had a substantial investment in the credibility of the Warren Report.  Press reportage of Garrison’s ongoing probe revealed a heavy bias from the very outlets that had been long-compromised by Agency-friendly owners, editors, and reporters.  These included NBC and CBS networks, in addition to Time and Newsweek magazines, where the disparaging coverage of Garrison and his inquiry reached truly farcical proportions.

Though he was repeatedly and vociferously decried as a “conspiracy theorist,” a corrupt and opportunistic politician, and even mentally deranged by such outlets, Garrison has been vindicated by the historical record.  For example, we now know, through copious records released as a result of the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board, that the CIA was intimately involved in the assassination and cover-up, as were other US government agencies.  Yet the same news media that denounced Garrison almost fifty years ago still tout the legitimacy of the Warren Commission Report.

Since the Garrison episode, but in an especially pronounced fashion over the past twenty years, the conspiracy theory label is routinely mobilized by major corporate media to denigrate honest and intelligent individuals who bring forth important questions on vital events and issues.  Keep in mind that most major media still have often strong ties to the US intelligence and military communities.  With this in mind, a rational citizenry has an obligation to scrutinize what is reported and analyzed in corporate media, and balance their observations and conclusions by considering reportage of foreign and independent alternative media. In this regard the Internet provides a wealth of opportunity.  One needs only exercise the fundamental principles of logic to locate and assess quality information and research.

At the end of the day what we have in the “Conspiracy theory/ist” label is a psychological warfare weapon that has from the perspective of its creators been overwhelmingly effective.  Here is a set of words that is used to threaten, discipline and punish the intellectual class—mainly journalists and academics—who might question or otherwise refuse to tow the party line.  Using the term to designate pedestrian skeptics and researchers is redundant.  After all, as Orwell said, “The proles don’t count.”

Thus, unless we forthrightly interrogate the phrase and its unfortunate history we will be prone to the same confusion and misdirection that its originators
intended.

2. We did a poll here at The Daily Journalist a few weeks back, and the results indicated that 60% of people believed there was US government involvement in the Boston Marathon bombings, in addition to the events of September 11.  When people suspect their own government is involved on these attacks in US soil, what comes to mind?

It is cause for optimism because the US government was almost without question involved in the Boston Marathon bombing and the events of September 11, 2001.  Major media were also complicit in wide-scale public acceptance of the official narrative put forth concerning each incident.

For example, with the Boston bombing the New York Times played a key role in persuading the nation’s professional class and intelligentsia that a terror drill using actors, complete with a multitude of gaffes and outright blunders, was genuine.  In reality there were no severed limbs, no deaths, no injuries from shrapnel—only pyrotechnics and actors responding on cue. This is not only my view, but also that of multiple independent researchers and even former CIA officer Robert David Steele.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is well-known for entrapping and otherwise orchestrating such events to justify its own existence.  With the Boston bombing there were numerous federal, state and local agencies involved in an exercise that had been taking place in the city annually over the past few years with a similar scenario.  A plan for what would become the Boston Marathon bombing was authored by Director of Boston’s Emergency Medical Services Richard Serino in 2008.  Serino was tapped by President Obama in 2009 to become Deputy Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and there are photos of him directing the aftermath of the April 15, 2013 “bombing.”

The public is being asked to believe that two Chechen immigrants expertly devised extremely sophisticated and deadly explosives with consumer fireworks, scrap metal and pressure cookers.  No such refractory ordnance was found at the scene because no thorough forensic investigation ever took place.  The entire affair was a photo shoot and an opportunity for federal authorities to gauge public response to a military-style lockdown in a major metropolitan region.

With such a transparently phony event being proffered as “real” one needs to ask what the other 40% in your poll are actually thinking.  One can fool some of the people some of the time, and there’s still a significant portion of the population—including those who are highly educated, who can’t imagine it’s own government could be so corrupt.   This is a testament to the continued effectiveness of our educational and media apparatuses, each of which emphasize an unhistorical worldview and unquestioning deference to authority figures.

3. Modern media seems to have commercialized and sold its soul to sponsors, and media giants that profit from investments.  Is modern day news a fictional representation of reality?  Are journalists allowed to do their job of investigating serious cases?  Is there an agenda to not report on stories with higher impact?

If a news media outlet gets most of its revenue from advertising it is to a significant degree compromised.  If its main revenue source is advertising and its owned by a transnational corporate conglomerate, “compromised” is not sufficiently powerful enough of a term to describe the given outlet’s probable journalistic vulnerabilities.  It should be barred from tying the term “journalism” to any of its information-related activities.

When we use the term, “transnational corporate conglomerate,” which is often used to denote companies like News Corp and Viacom, we should include the US and British governments, each of which are in the practice of imperial expansion while either subsidizing or forthrightly funding news media.  All such powerful entities understand the importance of concealing, disseminating, and using information to shape public opinion in ways that will be favorable to its corporate and policy interests.  Walter Lippmann describes how this dynamic played out in World War One.  Such powerful corporations and governments shouldn’t even be involved in journalism, unless of course they describe what they are doing in honest and appropriate terms, which is often, as your question suggests, entertainment and public relations masquerading as journalism.

The best journalism today is being produced by independent writers and news media.  At present there is a renaissance taking place in this regard because of the internet.  Corporate news media don’t want to invest the money in true journalism because for them it’s a net loss anyway they figure.  If major outlets fund investigative journalistic ventures and there’s little impact on readership (and thus advertising/revenue) then there’s no return on investment.  On the other hand, if such investigative work is genuine and worthwhile, it’s often delving into areas that reveal how political or economic power operate, which can bring complaints or retaliation from influential entities.  Real investigative journalism from mainstream outlets has been subdued for decades because of this very dynamic.

4. It’s hard not to distrust the government in some cases.  Take for example, the assassination of John F. Kennedy or CIA involvement in the Watergate scandal, to name a few.  Has the government have to change its ways for people not to believe in conspiracies?

The US government doesn’t have to care a great deal about what the public thinks so long as it has major news media that’s committed to producing a steady stream of non-journalism and infotainment to distract the people from considering the things that really impact on their lives.  Events such as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing aren’t questioned by such media because those media are more or less part of the operations.  As was the case almost 50 years ago with figures such as Mark Lane and Jim Garrison, those asking serious questions and conducting potentially meaningful research are dismissed within the parameters of permissible dissent as “conspiracy theorists,” at least long enough for a majority of the public to stop caring and forget.

What is somewhat new is how the government and psychiatry are now involved in psychologizing the practice or tendency of asking questions about or interrogating disputed events.  In other words, certain interests want to deem “conspiracy theorizing” as mental illness, or otherwise associate it with aberrant and perhaps violent behavior.  In other words, ponder ideas that certain forces deem beyond question and one runs the risk of being institutionalized, losing their job, and so on.

We saw this take place in the case of upstate New York school teacher Adam Heller, who, under the direction of the FBI, was involuntarily institutionalized and later fired from his tenured teaching position simply because of private exchanges where he discussed his views on the Sandy Hook massacre and probable government involvement in weather modification.  We have to keep in mind that the punitive use of psychiatry to punish thought crimes was common practice in the darkest days of the Soviet Union.  Now it’s emerging here.  In this way, government is changing its ways in order to force its own versions of reality on the public.

5. Looking at this from a logical perspective, overall, is it harder to trust the government over the conspiracy theorist?

The US government is responsible for devising and publicizing some of the most outrageous conspiracy theories in modern history while it accuses independent journalists and authors of being conspiracy theorists.  The major political assassinations of the 1960s (JFK, RFK, MLK) were all government operations, and “patsies” were produced with untenable scenarios accompanying the overall events.  The Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, and the Boston Marathon bombing were all “false flag” terror events that were intentionally misrepresented to the American public.  One need look no further than the plans for Operation Northwoods, or the attack on the USS Liberty, to develop a distinct understanding of how certain forces within government regard the public and those who fight their wars.

6. Conspiracy theories through the use of social media could cause irreparable effects on the future of mainstream news media because they report on stories, where journalists might not have done a good job or gone deep enough reporting.  When there is distrust, what follows next for the future and credibility of most media outlets, particularly if people believe media such as YouTube?

Again, we need to be precise.  YouTube is a medium with a multitude of “channels,” information, interpretations, and perspectives.  Some are potentially reliable and others may be dubious. This is, again, where education and, more specifically, the ability to employ logic and reasoning come to the fore.  How can we distinguish between good information and analysis versus that which is unhelpful or even purposefully misleading.

Many researchers who use YouTube or blogs are sincere in what they are seeking to do, which is relate ideas and information to broader public.

They may not be professionally-trained journalists, yet they are also subject to often profuse commentary and criticism from peers in a given research community examining a particular issue or event.  This process of scrutiny frequently yields fruitful exchanges where new information and insights are collectively revealed.  The participants may not have gone to graduate school to study politics or the media, and yet many of these exchanges are much more intense than that which takes place between a journalist and her editor as they vet a potential story.  There’s something going on there.  Of course, this assumes that those involved are serious in their participation, which is usually the case.  This depends on the quality and sincerity of participants.  The comments sections of many mainstream online news outlets can be bereft of serious exchanges.

In my view, certain YouTube channels or blogs are successful and worth checking out as forms of citizen journalism because they have something of substance along the lines described above to offer.

Mainstream commercial journalism has been challenged by counter forces since at least the early 1990s.  An initial challenge came from Hollywood in Oliver Stone’s JFK film.  That project incensed many establishment journalists and their institutions because it contested their fundamental investment and propagation of the flawed “lone gunman/magic bullet” explanation of the event ensconced in the Warren Report.

If truth be told, Stone’s screenplay is among the most accurate renderings of the Garrison investigation and the events surrounding the murder itself.  This is because it was based on key works by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, journalist Jim Marrs, and Garrison himself.  JFK was in retrospect the initial last rights of mainstream journalism proper, which sold its soul to protect John Kennedy’s executioners.  The advent of the internet and Gary Webb’s brilliant exposé of the role played by the CIA in the crack cocaine epidemic vis-à-vis Webb’s excoriation by his own journalistic peers confirmed corporate journalism’s absolute demise.

7. Do conspiracy theorists have a solid opinion of the problems they observe when interpreting raw data, or is such data made to create propaganda to feed their belief systems?

There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis.  Again, this is where one must use careful discretion to interpret between worthwhile information and evaluation versus misguided and poorly-conceived study.

Because conspiracy research communities have no institutional bearings or specific research theories and traditions, as do academic schools of thought that take the shape of “disciplines” or “fields” with often considerable organizational and financial resources, there is a tendency toward infighting and fractiousness.  This is much more so the case than in academe where such disagreements, in the rare event they are exhibited, are often subsumed in other actions that enforce ideological conformity.  These include the refusal by scholarly organizations and their publications to entertain countervailing analyses and, ultimately, the denial of employment, promotion, tenure, and meaningful professional relationships.  Compulsory toleration of peers is entirely absent given the voluntary nature of conspiracy research collectives.  At the same time, a critical sense that comes with researching government conspiracies, combined with known attempts by government to “cognitively infiltrate” such research communities, can sometimes lead to unwarranted suspicion of colleagues or public figures and their motives.

8. Since the rise of conspiracies is higher than ever before, and un-education accompanies this, how do you think it will affect the government’s relationship with its citizens, particularly if government credibility vanished?  Could there be a future uprising of people who will oppose the government?

As my above responses suggest, I am unconvinced that interest or acceptance of “conspiracy theories” has any correlation with a lack of intelligence or education.  In fact, some recent research suggests that entertaining conspiratorial explanations of reality—meaning that one does not take what their political leaders offer as explanations of policies or events—is likely indicative of a higher intelligence and simply good citizenship.

I’m not sure if there is any more credibility left for the government to lose, at least among those inclined to rebel in the first place.  I think it’s important for us to keep in mind that the government is regarded by some as paternal or maternal protectors.  President Franklin Roosevelt was emblematic of the welfare state—a savior of the common man—even though he further established the banking sector’s control over the country and laid the groundwork for the present technocracy.  Since the Roosevelt administration and the aggressive expansion of the government in the post-World War Two era we have largely had a government by cult of personality.  For example, Barack Obama is the equivalent of a rock star, nevermind his family’s ties to the intelligence community and otherwise opaque background.  Like other recent presidents, his personality and charisma supersede public realization of the actual policies and trade deals he is enacting on the behalf of his sponsors—mostly powerful, anti-democratic interests.

As this response is written, the United States is arguably being undermined by the Obama administration’s politicization and exploitation of the nation’s immigration policies.  The notion that such maneuvers will ultimately change the overall constitution of the American polity is subsumed by Obama’s simple rejoinder, “Let’s give these people a break.”  Enough of the population is trusting enough of Obama to dismiss his critics.  Many of those who know better are too afraid of either being called “racists” or “conspiracy theorists.”  And so it goes.

War is Our Business and Business Looks Good

Posted on by
Reply

6a01053596fb28970c01348365f7e1970c-450wi

By Edward S. Herman

Source: Z Magazine

It is enlightening to see how pugnacious the U.S. establishment, led by a Peace Laureate, has been in dealing with the Ukraine crisis. The crisis arguably began when the Yanukovich government rejected an EU bailout program in favor of one offered by Russia. The mainstream media (MSM) have virtually suppressed the fact that the EU proposal was not only less generous than the one offered by Russia, but that, whereas the Russian plan did not preclude further Ukrainian deals with the EU, the EU plan would have required a cut-off of further Russian arrangements. And whereas the Russian deal had no military clauses, that of the EU required that Ukraine affiliate with NATO. Insofar as the MSM dealt with this set of offers, they not only suppressed the exclusionary and militarized character of the EU offer, they tended to view the Russian deal as an improper use of economic leverage, “bludgeoning,” but the EU proposal was “constructive and reasonable” (Ed., NYT, November 20, 2014). Double standards seem to be fully internalized within the U.S. establishment. The protests that ensued in Ukraine were surely based in part on real grievances against a corrupt government, but they were also pushed along by right-wing groups and by U.S. and allied encouragement and support that increasingly had an anti-Russian and pro-accelerated regime change flavor. They also increased in level of violence. The sniper killings of police and protesters in Maidan on February 21, 2014 brought the crisis to a new head. This violence overlapped with, and eventually terminated, a negotiated settlement of the struggle brokered by EU members that would have ended the violence, created an interim government, and required elections by December. The accelerated violence ended this transitional plan, which was replaced by a coup takeover along with the forced flight of Victor Yanukovich.

There is credible evidence that the sniper shootings of both protesters and police were carried out by a segment of the protesters in a false-flag operation that worked exceedingly well, “government” violence serving as one ground for the ouster of Yanukovich. Most telling was the intercepted phone message between Estonia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Urmas Paet, and EU Foreign Policy chief Catherine Upton, in which Paet regretfully reported compelling evidence that the shots killing both police and protesters came from a segment of the protesters. This account was almost entirely suppressed in the MSM. For example, the New York Times never mentioned it once through the following two months. It is also enlightening that the protesters at Maidan were never called “militants” in the MSM, although a major and effective segment was armed and violent—that term was reserved for protesters in Eastern Ukraine, who were commonly designated “pro-Russian” as well as militants (for details see the tabulation in Herman and Peterson, “The Ukraine Crisis and the Propaganda System in Overdrive,” in Stephen Lendman, ed,, Flashpoint in Ukraine). There is also every reason to believe that the coup and establishment of a right-wing and anti-Russian government were encouraged and actively supported by U.S. officials.

Victoria Nuland’s intercepted “fuck the EU” words express her hostility to a group that, while generally compliant and subservient, departed from neocon plans for a proper government in Kiev headed by somebody like “Yats.” So she would surely have been pleased when the EU-supported February compromise plan was ended by the violence and coup. The U.S. support of the coup government has been enthusiastic and unqualified. Whereas Kerry and company delayed recognition of the elected government of Maduro in Venezuela,and have strongly urged him to dialogue and negotiate with the Venezuelan protesters—in fact, threatening him if he doesn’t—Kerry and company have not done the same in Ukraine where the Kiev government forces have slowly escalated their attacks on the Eastern Ukraine, but not on “protesters,” only on “militants.”

The Kiev government’s military is now using jets and helicopters to bomb targets in the East and heavy artillery and mortars in its ground operations. Its targets have included hospitals and schools. As of June 8, civilian casualties have been in the hundreds. A dramatic massacre of 40 or more pro-Russian protesters in Odessa on May 2 by a well-organized cadre of neo-Nazi supporters, possibly agents of the Kiev government, was an early high point in this pacification campaign. No investigation of this slaughter has been mounted by the Kiev government or “international community” and it has not interfered in the slightest with Western support of Kiev. In parallel, the MSM have treated it in very low key. (The New York Times buried this incident in a back page continuation of a story on “Deadly Clashes Erupt in Ukraine,” May 5, which succeeds in covering up the affiliation of the killers). Kerry has been silent, though we may imagine his certain frenzy if Maduro’s agents had carried out a similar action in Venezuela. Recall the “Racak massacre,” where the deaths of 40 alleged victims of the Serb military created an international frenzy. But in that case the United States needed a casus belli, whereas in the Odessa case there is a pacification war already in process by a U.S. client, so MSM silence is in order.

It is an interesting feature of media coverage of the Ukraine crisis that there is a regular focus on alleged or possible Russian aid, control of and participation in the actions of the protesters/militants/insurgents in Eastern Ukraine. This was evident in the Times’s gullible acceptance of a claim that photos of insurgents included a Russian pictured in Russia, later acknowledged to be problematic (Andrew Higgins, Michael Gordon, and Andrew Kramer, “Photos Link Masked Men in East Ukraine to Russia,” NYT, April 20, 2014) and another lead article, which was almost entirely speculation (Sabrina Tavernise, “In Ukraine Kremlin Leaves No Fingerprints,” NYT, June 1, 2014). But this interest in foreign intrusion in Ukraine affairs, with the implication of wrongdoing, does not extend to evidence of U.S. and other NATO power aid and control. Visits by Biden, Cain, Nuland and intelligence and Pentagon figures are sometimes mentioned, but the scope and character of aid and advice, of U.S. “fingerprints,” is not discussed and seems to be of little interest. It is in fact normalized so that, as with the aid plans in which Russian, proposals are “bludgeons” but U.S.- EU plans are “constructive and reasonable” the double standard is in good working order here as well.

Isn’t there a danger that Russia will enter this war on behalf of the pro-Russian majority of the eastern part of Ukraine now under assault? Possibly, but not likely, as Putin is well aware that the Obama-neocon-military-industrial complex crowd would welcome this and would use it, at minimum, as a means of further dividing Russia from the EU powers, further militarizing U.S. clients and allies, and firming up the MIC’s command of the U.S. national budget. Certainly there are important forces in this country that would love to see a war with Russia and it is notable how common are political comments, criticisms, and regrets at Obama’s weak response to Russian “aggression” (e.g., David Sanger, “Obama Policy Is put to Test: Global Crises Challenge a Strategy of Caution,” NYT, March 17, 2014). But so far Putin refuses to bite.

In response to this pressure from the powerful war-loving and war-making U.S. constituencies, Obama has been furiously denouncing Russia and has hastened to exclude it from the G-8, impose sanctions and penalties on the villain state, increase U.S. troops and press military aid on the near-Russia states allegedly terrified at the Russian threat, carry out training exercises, and maneuvers with these allies and clients, assure them of the sacredness of our commitment to their security, and press these states and major allies to increase their military budgets. One thing he hasn’t done is to restrain his Kiev client in dealing with the insurgents in eastern Ukraine. Another is engaging Putin in an attempt at a settlement. Putin has stressed the importance of a constitutional formation of a Ukraine federation in which a still intact Ukraine would allow significant autonomy to the Eastern provinces. There was a Geneva meeting and joint statement on April 17 in which all sides pledged a de-escalation effort, disarming irregulars, and constitutional reform. But it was weak, without enforcement mechanisms, and had no effect. The most important requirement for de-escalation would be the termination of what is clearly a Kiev pacification program for Eastern Ukraine. That is not happening, because Obama doesn’t want it to happen. In fact, he takes the position that it is up to Russia to curb the separatists in East Ukraine and he has gotten his G-7 puppies to agree to give Russia one month to do this or face more severe penalties.

This situation calls to mind Gareth Porter’s analysis of the “perils of dominance,” where he argued that the Vietnam war occurred and became a very large one because U.S. officials thought that, with their overwhelming military superiority North Vietnam and its allies in the south would surrender and accept U.S. terms—most importantly a U.S.-controlled South Vietnam—as military escalation took place and a growing toll was imposed on the Vietnamese (see his Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam). It didn’t work. In the Ukraine context, the United States once again has a militarily dominant position. On its own and through its NATO arm it has encircled Russia with satellites established in violation of the 1990 promise of James Baker and Hans-Dietrch Genscher to Mikhail Gorbachev to not move eastward “one inch,” and it has placed anti-missile weapons right on Russia’s borders. And now it has engineered a coup in Ukraine that empowered a government openly hostile to Russia, threatening both the well-being of Russian-speaking Ukrainians and the control of the major Russian naval base in Crimea. Putin’s action in reincorporating Crimea into Russia was an inevitable defensive reaction to a serious threat to Russian national security. But it may have surprised the Obama team, just as the Vietnamese refusal to accept surrender terms may have surprised the Johnson administration. Continuing to push the Vietnamese by escalation didn’t work, although it did kill and injure millions and ended the Vietnamese alternative way. Continuing and escalating actions against Russia in 2014 may involve a higher risk for the real aggressor and for the world, but there are real spinoff benefits to Lockheed and other members of the MIC.

Processing Distortion with Peter B. Collins: Big Data Shows Only 5% of FBI Domestic Terrorism Cases Are Untainted

Posted on by
Reply

TerronoiaUSA

By Peter B. Collins

Source: Boiling Frogs

Peter B. Collins Presents Attorney Stephen Downs

As a retired lawyer, Steve Downs volunteered to represent a local Muslim who was entrapped in an FBI sting. From that, he learned of other similar cases, and he co-founded Project Salam. Their new report, Inventing Terrorists: The Lawfare of Preemptive Prosecution, analyzes about 400 domestic terrorism prosecutions since 2001 and finds that 72% of the cases involved preemptive investigations that included paid informants and provocateurs who often supplied the idea and the means for plots that were then exposed to fawning media outlets. Another 22% of the cases involved minor, non-terrorist crimes that were manipulated and amplified by the FBI. The numbers show a clear pattern of abuse, mostly of Muslim suspects.

*Stephen Downs spent most of his career as an attorney for New York State’s judicial oversight commission. You can read the report and browse the database here

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/wp-content/uploads/PD.clip.0039.Downs.mp3

Understanding the Tyranny of Terrorism

Posted on by
Reply

Boeing_777-200ER_Malaysia_AL_(MAS)_9M-MRO_-_MSN_28420_404_(9272090094)

By Andrew S. MacGregor

Source: Memory Hole

In Dedication to Michael Hastings, Jan. 28, 1980 – June 18, 2013

The Rolling Stone journalist who was murdered after discovering this story

Terrorism: systematic intimidation as a method of governing or securing political or other ends

To properly understand the events surrounding Malaysian Airlines ‘flight MH370’ on the 8th of March 2014, a person firstly has to realise that it was a ‘terrorist’ attack’.  Now ‘terrorists’ do not hi-jack an aircraft simply to fly it around until it runs out of fuel and crashes; the hi-jacking has to have a ‘political’ agenda’. 

To understand what this ‘political agenda’ was, one has to consider why the aircraft was hi-jacked, and what the target was to have been.  General Wesley Clarke gave us the ‘agenda’ in 2001, which was for America to attack certain nations starting with Iraq and ending with Iran.  However there was a ‘further’ agenda, and that agenda involved Russia and to be more specific, the Ukraine.

The main impediment for any American attack on Iran, is that Iran has treaties with two major world players; China and Russia.  There is another problem; Iran has been aware of the impending attacks for over a decade and has built defences to her front.  She has, however, been dependent on Russia to defend her back door.

Russia has been finding its ‘superpower’ status again, and America has been endeavouring to stifle Russia’s growth, especially in the military arena.  Russia’s best known naval base is Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula on the Black Sea, which was part of the Ukraine.  The American political agenda has been to win the Ukraine away from Russia, into the European Union.  This would have removed the Russian naval base from the Russians and turned it over to the EU. 

However, Russia would not have stood idly by and permitted such political actions to go unheeded, so an ‘excuse’ would be required to place European and American forces in the Ukraine.  Those forces would naturally be designated NATO. What was needed was a ‘suitable’ terrorist target which was not American, but of a NATO member, that would permit an immediate retaliatory reaction from that country and NATO.  The only possible ‘terrorist’ targets for this agenda at this time were the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, honeymooning in the Maldives.

Thus we have the motives for two political agendas, attacking Iran and weakening Russia.  There is also a third agenda, and that is to separate China from Iran and Russia.  This third agenda was highlighted by ‘Air Force 1’ being booked on the 3rd of March 2014, five days prior to the ‘Terrorist attack’ which claimed the lives of 153 Chinese nationals to fly to China on the 19th of March, 2014.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michelle-obama-china-visit-march

The ‘Terrorist agenda’ of MH370

The ‘terrorist’ agenda was set when it was announced on the 8th of March 2014, that two ‘false’ passports were detected within the group of passengers that boarded ‘flight MH370’.  It was also initially stated that there were ‘other’ suspects who had also boarded ‘flight MH370’.

Now ‘terrorist’ attacks involving aircraft are not new, they date back to at least the 1960’s when one remembers the hi-jacked passenger airliner that was landed at the Entebbe Airport in Uganda, and subsequently rescued by Israeli commandos, of whom the only casualty they suffered was ‘Jonathon Netanyahu’, the older brother of Benjamin Netanyahu.  Then in the 1980’s, there was a new form of terrorism and aircraft, that being the ‘bomb’ planted within the luggage area and exploding in mid-flight and the most recognised was the crash at Lockerbie in Scotland, of which the ‘Americans’ were extremely quick on the scene and took total control of the investigation. 

And then in 2001 there was the ultimate ‘terror’ event that was even given direct media coverage as ‘hi-jacked’ passenger aircraft were flown into the two towers of the World Trade Centre, and Benjamin Netanyahu was there to say that ‘this was good for Israel’!  Of course there is little coverage of the fact that Dick Cheney was ‘in charge’ of American ‘Military exercises’ that supplied ‘cover’ for this event.

This very same scenario was again in operation as the Malaysian Airlines ‘flight MH370 left KL International Airport on the 8th of March 2014 and then flew northeast over Malaysia and into the South China Sea, into an area where America and Thailand were holding ‘Military Exercises’, and then vanished!

Flight MH370 is the latest 911 terrorist attack

Matthias Chang, the former top political advisor to Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia, noted that the bizarre disappearance of MH370 coincided with the US-run Cobra Gold and Cape Tiger military exercises – just as previous “disasters” have mirrored suspiciously-timed drills and exercises:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/04/04/mh370chang/

Whatever happened with the ‘commercial’ radar that the Malaysian Air Traffic Control were using to monitor ‘flight MH370’ entry into Vietnamese Air Traffic Control at 0121 hours, the Vietnamese Air Traffic Control in Ho Chi Minh City waited 17 minutes before they inquired from Malaysian Air Traffic Control as to the whereabouts of flight MH370. Malaysia then claimed that the Malaysian Air Traffic Control then requested another Malaysian Airlines aircraft in the vicinity to try and contact flight MH370, and that contact was raised at 0138 hours Malaysian time. 

http://rt.com/news/156208-missing-plane-malaysia-report/

This is the media report from the 10th March 2014:

According to Malaysia’s New Straits Times newspaper, contact was briefly made with the aircraft before it vanished. It was being flown by Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, a highly experienced pilot, and first officer Fariq ab Hamid.  “We managed to establish contact with MH370 just after 1.30am and asked them if they have transferred into Vietnamese airspace,” a pilot on another Malaysia Airlines flight told the New Straits Times.”

“The voice on the other side could have been either Captain Zaharie or Fariq, but I was sure it was the co-pilot.  “There were a lot of interference … static … but I heard mumbling from the other end. That was the last time we heard from them, as we lost the connection,” he said.

So sometime after 0119 hours, Malaysian Air Traffic Control has asked another aircraft in the region where flight MH370 had vanished off their radar screen, to try and contact via radio MH370, and there was some contact, sufficient for the pilot of that aircraft to identify the voice of the 1st Officer, Fariq ab Hamid.  Thus the supposed actual last radio contact with flight MH370 was at 0138 hours!

There is something very wrong with this story.  If everything had been normal, then flight MH370 would have contacted the Vietnamese Air Traffic Control, once they had moved out of the Malaysian Air Traffic Controls area.  This has not happened for at least 17 minutes.  Again, with the supposed contact between the two Malaysian Airliners, the contact was not clear and precise.  Something is extremely wrong.  If flight MH370 did have radio communication, then it should have logged in with the Vietnamese Air Traffic Control.

So at 0138 hours the Malaysians know something is very wrong, but what are they doing about it?  Absolutely nothing!  Why!  Is this the same scenario that occurred in America with 911?

Initial reports were that flight MH370 had crashed in the South China Sea

The initial reports of ‘flight MH370’ were that it had crashed in the South China Sea.  This is why the first couple of days search for the ‘missing’ aircraft was north of Malaysia.  However local fishermen on the north side of Malaysia reported seeing a low-flying aircraft, which simply means the authorities were informed and well aware that flight MH370 had not crashed in the South China Sea.

Authorities are also investigating several reports of locals claiming to have seen the lights of a low-flying aircraft in an area off the Malaysian coast, just below the Malay-Thai border.  It is this area which is now included in the widened search area for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.

A fisherman who was in his boat at sea, says that at about 1.30am he saw the lights of a low-flying aircraft in the area of Kuala Besar.  Azid Ibrahim told The Star newspaper in Malaysia that the plane was flying so low that the lights were “as big as coconuts”.  And another man, about 30km south of Kota Bharu, is reported to have seen “bright white lights” from what he thought was a fast-descending aircraft at about 1.45am on Saturday morning.  He has since reported what he saw to authorities after seeing the lights from his home that evening.

In this search, both the Australian Sydney Morning Herald and the ‘New Strait Times’ reported on the 10th of March that the Malaysian Government was being ‘assisted by the FBI, the American ‘Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Boeing has joined an official US team investigating the disappearance, saying it would act as technical adviser to the US National Transportation Safety Board team already in South-East Asia to offer assistance.

http://www.news.com.au/world/playboy-pilot-at-controls-of-mh370-had-a-track-record-of-inviting-pretty-passengers-into-his-cockpit-where-he-smoked-and-posed-for-snaps/story-fndir2ev-1226850952131

In other words, the ‘search for the missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370’ is not a Malaysian government investigation but a full on American investigation orchestrated by the FBI’s CIRG!

The FBI members ‘assisting’ the Malaysian Government would have to have expertise in both ‘terrorism’ and ‘hijacking’.  This means they would belong to the FBI’s “Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG)”.  To understand exactly what type of person these FBI members are, let me refresh what I had written about James F Yacone and his involvement in the Aurora Theatre massacre in Colorado in the article; ‘Fitzpatrick’s Law’

Read the full article here: http://memoryholeblog.com/2014/06/18/understanding-the-tyranny-of-terrorism-2/#more-11463

Andrew S. MacGregor is an experienced military and law enforcement officer. Born in 1947 in Yarraville, Melbourne, Australia, Mr. MacGregor served in the Citizens Military Forces of the Victoria Scottish Regiment and as Senior Constable with the Victoria Police. Since 1998 he has conducted extensive research on the Port Arthur Massacre and other Australian ‘lone-nut’ shootings. MacGregor began playing the Bagpipes at age ten, and was active for 14 years as a member of the Victoria Police Highland Pipe Band.

The Odessa Massacre was a Carefully Staged Covert Intelligence Operation

Posted on by
Reply

By Joe Giambrone

Source GlobalResearch.ca

odessa-molotov

What happened on May 2nd of this year in Odessa, Ukraine, was a complex event that has been glossed over by most news sources. The US corporate coverage has been criminal in its demonization of anti-Maidan/anti-coup activists. The propaganda narrative has even attempted to blame the victims for starting the fires that allegedly killed them. This is two levels removed from reality, and perhaps even three.

Much more information is available than has been reported in America’s criminally-complicit mainstream news. But even alternative journals have failed to pursue the most damning, morally repugnant aspect to this story: who started the violence, and why?

When a massacre happens the horrors of the atrocities tend to distract the public’s attention from the details of how it came to be in the first place. This is known to provocateurs, be they in Kiev, Moscow or in Langley Virginia. Langley is the home base of the Central Intelligence Agency, of course. The CIA director visited Kiev, confirmed by the White House on April 15th, and “dozens” of CIA agents are reported to be in Ukraine “advising” the unelected coup regime as I type this.

On May 2nd a series of events occurred that can be pieced together from the numerous videos and photographs. These show undercover police provocateurs dressed up as anti-Maidan/pro-Russian activists, but these are coordinated by a uniformed officer. The officer is identified, at Oriental Review, as “Odessa Interior ministry branch Colonel Dmitry Fucheji.”

 

odessa21

cca0fa76668c35c7ec4f0fe9ef1442c4.i600x405x475 (1)

ukraine-provocateur-officer (1)

Confirmation and analysis is provided by Russian news anchor Pavel Pchelkin at Channel One Russia. The gunmen, allegedly from the “pro-Russian” side were undercover agents coordinated by the Ukrainian interior ministry. A platoon of approximately 30 armed undercover agents fired numerous rounds at the football crowds, who were known to be “pro unity” or “pro Ukraine” and aligned with the Maidan coup government. The undercover/gunmen started a street battle from behind police lines, hiding behind a wall of officers and instigating the football crowd to attack them.

The neo-Nazi Right Sector joined the enraged football crowd, and together they pursued these provocateurs – who were dressed similarly to “pro-Russian” protesters – pursuing them all the way back to the Union hall, where the actual non-violent anti-Maidan activists had set up camp. Once this violence had begun it was easily turned against the real anti-Maidan activists, and the police provocateurs disappeared back into the police brigades.

Further confirmation comes from a Ukrainian official, acting Prosecutor General Oleh Makhnitsky:

“This action [in Odessa] was not prepared at some internal level, it was a well-planned and coordinated action in which some authorities’ representatives have taken part.”

This is a false flag event.

Undercover provocateurs shot at the football crowds to initiate the violence.

The violence was led and drawn back toward the political targets: the anti-Maidan activists.

Mass murder followed.

The next level of reality that intrudes upon and discredits Western media reporting is the idea that the fires did the killing. This is also false. The victims inside the union hall were mostly murdered with gunshots, as well as strangled to death by the neo-Nazi Right Sector storm troopers, who also were seen inside the building waving flags and cheering.

874312_original

Most of the bodies seen in photographs were burned in order to hide evidence of gunshot wounds (warning: graphic photographs). This is also not reported across the media spectrum, as if it were of no importance. If the fire is to blame, this is akin to an act of nature, rather than a series of cold-blooded murders by rampaging neo-Nazi thugs allied with our supposed good buddies in Kiev.

Western media, therefore, has become a complicit propaganda organ in spinning narratives for the US State Department and its Nazi partners in the Ukraine. It truly sickens me the depravity and gall of these psychopaths (in both nations) who, in broad daylight, support the worst of the worst, war criminals, mass murderers, racist violent lunatics. This has been true of Syria and Libya prior, and now it is true in the Ukraine.

These imperial games do not amuse the Russians, of course. Russia has an intimate history with Naziism in World War Two. More Russians died in that war than did Americans, Brits, Japanese or Germans. The US/EU empowerment of the most violent, sadistic and murderous forces in Ukraine has driven the world to a true crisis point.

Already $3.2Bn has been dumped on the neo-Nazi unelected coup government, and Obama has knowingly and deceitfully called them “duly elected.”

Since when is gaining power through Molotov cocktails, snipers and bludgeoning the police considered “duly elected?”

This neo-Nazi power seizure has been a US project for quite a while now. Obama’s neo-con strategist, Victoria Nuland, has bragged that $5Bn of US tax money has been poured into Ukraine since the fall of the Soviet Union in order to influence the political system there. Nuland was caught on tape choosing “Yats” to be the frontman for US/NATO interests.

Arseniy Yatsenuk’s own foundation website prominently lists, as William Blum noted:

NATO, the National Endowment for Democracy, the US State Department, Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs in the UK), the German Marshall Fund (a think tank founded by the German government in honor of the US Marshall Plan), as well as a couple of international banks. Is any comment needed?

US meddling in the 2004 Ukrainian elections was already exposed. The US corporate usual suspects are salivating on setting up shop in their new Nazi utopia.

This latest manifestation of covert US foreign policy should shock the entire world to its core and cause them to question just about every assumption they may have had about the US. Actual voting – democracy – is demonized in Crimea and in the other eastern provinces of Ukraine, while firebomb tossing Nazi psychopaths, who gleefully rape and strangle to death pregnant women, are promised $27Bn in IMF graft and loan guarantees to help cement their power over Kiev.

That message couldn’t be clearer.

The Alleged Assassination of Osama Bin Laden

Posted on by
Reply

400px-Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden

Today marks the 3rd anniversary of the alleged assassination of Osama Bin Laden. I emphasize the word “alleged” because claims from medical experts such as Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik assert he died in 2001 from Marfan syndrome. Others such as Pakistan President Benazir Bhutto (who was later assassinated) claimed Bin Laden was assassinated in 2002 by Omar Sheikh. Though it remains inconclusive exactly how Bin Laden died, what we may conclude with certainty is that the official story of his death is a lie. Ample evidence dismantling the official story of how Bin Laden died as well as some of the evidence “proving” Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11 are contained in the following articles from WhatReallyHappened.com:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bin_laden_death.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/galleryoffakebinladens.php

Saturday Matinee: Memorial Triple Feature

Posted on by
1

Today happens to be the day of two pivotal events in American history: the WACO massacre (1993) and the Oklahoma City bombing (1995). In both cases there’s much evidence pointing towards state terrorism and cover-up. Two of the best documentaries which build convincing cases in support of this are “WACO: Rules of Engagement” and “A Noble Lie: Oklahoma City 1995”, both presented here in their entirety.

Lastly, I have recently and belatedly heard the news that whistleblower, investigative journalist and author of “Crossing the Rubicon” Michael C. Ruppert is dead. He reportedly killed himself last Sunday shortly after his final broadcast. Given the nature of Ruppert’s research it would be natural to suspect foul play, but the story is supported by the following statement from a close friend:

Sunday night following Mike’s Lifeboat Hour radio show, he was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. This was not a “fake” suicide. It was very well planned by Mike who gave us few clues but elaborate instructions for how to proceed without him. His wishes were to be cremated, and as of this moment, there are no plans for a memorial service. However, I will be taking his show this coming Sunday night, April 20, and the entire show will be an In Memoriam show for Mike with opportunities for listeners to call in. It was my privilege to have known Mike for 14 years, to have worked with him, to have been mentored by him, and to have supported him in some of his darkest hours, including the more recent ones. I am posting this announcement with the blessing of his partner Jesse Re and his landlord, Jack Martin. Thank you Mike for all of the truth you courageously exposed and for the legacy of truth-telling you left us. Goodbye my friend. Your memory will live in hour hearts forever. I have no more details to share than I am posting here. We should have much more information by Sunday night.

Carolyn Baker

Many including myself discovered Ruppert’s work through his early independent 9/11 research on his From the Wilderness website. A few years ago his work on Peak Oil was brought to a larger audience through the critically acclaimed documentery “Collapse” (2009). Rest in peace, Mike Ruppert.

The Boston Marathon Bombing’s Constructed Reality

Posted on by
Reply

By James F. Tracy

Source: Memory Hole

“The only feeling that anyone can have about an event he does not experience is the feeling aroused by his mental image of that event … For it is clear enough that under certain conditions men respond as powerfully to fictions as they do to realities.” Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, 1922.

The careful coordination of information and visual representations governs the mass mind. The conditions for such are accentuated in times of perceived crisis. For a relatively brief period following the Boston Marathon bombing two sets of photographs emerged that actually depicted what appeared to have taken place at “ground zero,” where the first explosive device detonated. Each series of photos strongly suggests the execution of a mass casualty exercise.

The first set of photographs was taken by amateur sports photographer Benjamin Thorndike, whose employment as a financial advisor at FOC Partners on Boylston provided him with an ideal position. The second set was taken by graphic designer Aaron Tang, whose office is several doors down Boylston Street from FOC. In fact, Tang’s photos are especially revealing as they chronicle the unusual law enforcement and first responder reactions to the incident.

While Tang’s photos and personage are almost entirely absent from corporate news reportage and commentary, Thorndike and a handful of his more than two dozen photos receive sporadic consideration in the short-lived news cycle preceding 5:00PM on April 18, when the FBI revealed images of Tamarlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the vicinity of the finish line.

The federal government and its major media appendages would then employ this dubious evidence vis-á-vis the Tsarnaevs’ non-American otherness to essentially indict the brothers in the court of public opinion. The spectre of Muslim terrorism–an important propaganda element of the “war on terror”–further legitimated the declaration of martial law in the greater Boston area, culminating in the extrajudicial killing of Tamarlan and the near-murder (so far as the public is lead to believe) of Dzhokhar.

The Boston bombing’s “forgotten” photographs are worthy of further consideration as they suggest the ways in which major news media operate in a de facto censorial fashion with the federal government to highlight certain phenomena while simultaneously rendering important artifacts down the memory hole. The images’ misuse or sheer absence arguably contributed to a major tragedy and miscarriage of justice.

Thorndike’s credentials alongside his bird’s eye perspective of America’s most horrendous terrorist attack since September 11 are of tremendous significance. With this in mind one would think major media would have been clamoring to disseminate his eyewitness account and series of photographs worldwide. Indeed, following the event Mr. Thorndike made himself readily available to the media for interviews.

Although the Associated Press circulating a select few of Thorndike’s photos, LexisNexis and Start Page web searches for “Ben Thorndike” and “Boston Marathon bombing” between the dates April 15, 2013 to May 15, 2013 reveal photo credits in only three US print publications within two weeks of the incident–the New York Daily News (April 17) the Boston Globe (April 18) and the New York Times (April 27)[1] each of which used the photo below; one European paper, the Scottish Express, also used the photos in two pieces.[2] The Globe was the sole outlet to publish remarks from Thorndike extending beyond a soundbite.[3]

As for broadcast outlets, the same search for transcripts reveals only four stories referencing Thorndike, none of which extend beyond a reference or brief interview excerpt. CNN published seven of Thorndike’s photos on its website, yet referenced them only once in subsequent broadcasts.[4]

Mr. Thorndike asserts that he was at his office building on Boylston almost directly above where the first explosion erupted on April 15, 2013. “Almost momentarily when I got there, directly in front of me, right in my sight-line, the explosion went off,” he said. “Just out of reflex, I had the camera on, had it in sports mode, which means I can shoot rapid-fire.” As CBS Boston reported,

“Thorndike shot a sequence of 25 photos right after the blast that shows injured and stunned victims on the ground below. But it was the behavior of one man — seen running from the scene — that prompted Thorndike to contact the FBI.”

“His reflex is to sprint away that really caught my eye [sic]” Thorndike recalls. “Everyone else in the photo is stunned, shocked and frozen,” he said. “It’s either someone who is badly burned, panicked and running, or they’re running for another reason.”[5]

The important fact overlooked, however, that the observed man is running with all limbs intact from the epicenter of a harrowing blast and its purportedly lethal wave of shrapnel.

Thorndike turned the photos over to FBI investigators, who repeatedly interviewed him concerning what he observed. The FBI was tight-lipped concerning the investigation, and what some media termed the “running away man” depicted in the photographs who remains unidentified.

Thorndike’s photographs of what transpired at “ground zero” of the Boston Marathon bombing event contrast sharply with the widely-circulated video footage from the Boston Globe, where the videographer appears to purposely arch the camera away from alleged bombing victims and activity on the sidewalk.

Although more than 260 individuals supposedly suffered injuries as a result of the bombings,[6] the high resolution photographs of both Thorndike and Tang indicate no more than three-to-four dozen persons in the immediate vicinity of the initial explosion, most of whom remain mobile in the immediate aftermath and are soon eclipsed in number by law enforcement and medical responders.

According to the CBS Boston report, “Thorndike and his co-workers fled soon after the photos were taken.” This is perhaps an unusual observation since journalists given that within seconds of the detonations the Boston Police locked down surrounding buildings in order to strictly control media access to the unfolding event. [See, for example, video here at 0:07-2:24].[7] CBS also curiously reports, “All the other bay windows in the office were blown out except the one where Thorndike stood.”[8]

img_8722

{Photo Credit: Benjamin Thorndike]

In terms of broadcast, with the exception of the more detailed interview highlighted above by CBS Boston, the novice photographer is given a soundbite on ABC and NBC newscasts, as the photos are presented and lightly touched upon.[9] For example, like Thorndike, NBC’s Pete Williams similarly references the man emerging from the center of the initial blast. “[Y]ou can see the impact of the blast has partially ripped his clothes away,” Williams remarks.[10]

Thorndike’s photos are also brought up twice on one specific CNN program by the cable channel’s “law enforcement analyst” Mike Brooks, who explains how the visual evidence from a typical crime investigation is handled. “What [federal law enforcement] have done,” Brooks remarks, is that

they will take this picture, any video that is along that route, and they will try to put together a timeline. Going back before, during and after and what they’ll do is they’ll take this video, and they will send it to Quantico. The FBI lab at Quantico has an engineering section. I have used them on a number of my cases to help enhance video and the technology has increased so much, you know, over the years–”[11]

What the FBI in fact proceeded to do with the assistance of major media was almost the exact opposite–focusing on the Tsarnaevs to the exclusion of all other agents and phenomena–and foregrounding these images alongside those of purported evidence and the injured to forthrightly incriminate the Tsarnaevs. The overall effect of this gross manipulation was evident in the jubilation exhibited by Boston residents upon Tamarlan’s murder and Dzhokhar’s capture; mass ecstasy eerily akin to the effect of a public lynching.

Events such as momentous political assassinations, the Tonkin Gulf, Oklahoma City, and 9/11 have suggested that government-corporate manipulation of the public for broader political ends is not difficult to achieve. Control over an event and the select use of stimuli elicits certain desired responses. This is particularly the case in a society that exercises almost unquestioning allegiance toward what Erich Fromm termed “anonymous authority.” The Boston Marathon bombing event suggests the end result of this blind faith; how such finely tuned stagecraft can mobilize a mass mentality to the degree that it misinterprets the implementation of martial law as a genuine representation of a public will.

Notes:

[1] Bev Ford, Greg B. Smith, and Larry McShane, “Police Narrow in on Two Suspects in Boston Marathon Bombing,” New York Daily News, April 17, 2013; Brian MacQuarrie, “Spectator’s Picture [sic] of Scene Draws Attention,” Boston Globe, April 18, 2013; Katharinie Q. Steelye and Ian Lovett, “After Attack, Suspects Returned to Routines, Raising No Suspicions,” New York Times, April 28, 2013.

[2] “Boston Terror Link to N-bomb at Olympics,” Scottish Express, April 21, 2013; “Did Hamza [sic] Inspire Boston Bombers?” Scottish Express, April 28, 2013.

[3] Sera Congi, “Photographer Discusses Images of Boston Marathon Bombing Blast,” CBS WBZ TV Boston, April 17, 2013.

[4] “After the Explosion: Moment by Moment,” CNN, April 17, 2013.

[4] Congi, “Photographer Discusses Images of Boston Marathon Bombing Blast.”

[5] Ibid.

[6] James F. Tracy, “The Boston Marathon Bombing’s Inflated Injury Tallies,” Global Research, May 11, 2013.

[7] PlasmaBurns, “Heroes Are Scripted – Boston Lies,” YouTube, January 11, 2014.

[8] Congi, “Photographer Discusses Images of Boston Marathon Bombing Blast.”

[9] Brian Williams, Anne Thompson, et al., “NBC News for April 16, 2013,” NBC; “Images of Bomb and Torn Backpack, Pressure Cooker with Ball Bearings,” ABC News Transcript, April 17, 2013; Anderson Cooper, Tom Fuentes, et al., “Reports On Bombing Arrest; Justice Department: No Arrest Made,” CNN, April 17, 2013; Mark Lauer, Savannah Guthrie, et al., “NBC News for April 17, 2013.”

[10] Lauer, Guthrie, et al., “NBC News for April 17, 2013.”

[11] Cooper, Fuentes, et al., “Reports On Bombing Arrest; Justice Department: No Arrest Made,” CNN, April 17, 2013.

For more information, read The Boston Marathon Bombing: A Compendium of Research and Analysis 4/13/14