Thursday, April 6, 2017

BBC: Sandy Hook to Donald Trump: "Help us stop conspiracy theorists"


Jim Fetzer

The BBC has burnished its credentials for opposing freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry in the search for truth by presupposing that the official story of the alleged school shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, on 14 December 2012 is accurate and true, even though there is a mount of evidence to oppose it. The BBC begs the question by taking for granted that 20 children and 6 adults died there at the hands of Adam Lanza--and demanding the suppression of "conspiracy theorists" who deny it, without bothering to consider the proof they adduce in support. 

It's not a "conspiracy theory" when you can prove that the school had been closed since 2008 (because it was loaded with asbestos and other bio-hazards and damaged by hurricanes), which would have made it prohibitively expensive to remodel to conform with state and federal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. So they school was abandoned and there were no students there. Notice that there are none of the familiar blue-and-white parking spaces and signage for handicapped drivers, which means it could not have been legally operating as a public school on 14 December 2012:


Moreover, it was a 28*F ground temperature day, where the school would have to have been heated to be open for students to attend classes. Notice there is no steam or heat rising from the building. The boilers were dysfunctional from years of non-use and could not be fired up for the occasion. The rows of cars facing the school also give the staging away, because the driving instructions would have you come in and turn right, then curl around and park facing away from the building. But it was easier to bring them in in a single file and park them two-by-two, since they were only serving as props.


What better way to overwhelm reason with emotion than by playing up the impact of the purported deaths of 20 six-year old children! The most famous was Noah Pozner, who was a most unusual little boy, who was not only reported to have died in Connecticut on 14 December 2012 but again in Pakistan on 16 December 2014! His purported father, Lenny, gave Kelley Watt his death certificate, but it turned out to be a fabrication. And we know now that "Noah Pozer" was a fictional character who was created by using photographs of his alleged older step-brother, Michael Vabner, as a child:

The BBC has it's mind made up and doesn't want to be bothered with facts. But we also have the manual for the two-day FEMA drill at Sandy Hook, with a rehearsal on the 13th, going LIVE on the 14th, which explains why there was a portable neon sign, "EVERYONE MUST CHECK IN", Porta-Potties were already in place, pizza cartons and stacks of bottled water at the Firehouse. Many were wearing name tags on lanyards. The manual specifies that everyone must register, where restrooms and refreshments are standard for FEMA drills. Parents were even bringing children to the scene, absurd if it had been a child-shooting massacre:

Some participants became confused about the dates and put up donation sites on the 13th. Even Adam Lanza's date of death was originally recorded in the Social Security Death Index as having occurred on the 13th, making his feat in shooting 20 children and 6 adults the following day all the more remarkable. That there was no surge of EMTs into the building and no string of ambulances was called to rush their little bodies off to hospitals where doctors could pronounce them "dead" or "alive" now becomes all the more explicable. The parents were not allowed to see their bodies, because there were no bodies for them to see.


We have 50 photos of an empty house being furnished to serve as "the Lanza home" and another 50 refurbishing the school to serve as the stage. Here is the piece de resistance taken the evening of the 13th, where the SWAT team is already at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Notice the four windows of Classroom 10 just above the front roof of the vehicle, which are undamaged. Near the base of the flagpole, Wayne Carver, M.D., Medical Examiner, inclines against a wall with his arms folded as he awaits the arrival of his portable morgue tent. Crime scene tape is up for a crime that has yet to be committed.


As though that were not proof enough, here you can see the windows before and after the fake event, where we even have captured the perps drilling simulated bullet holes in the window frame. Does any of this matter to the BBC? Will Trump ride to the rescue? Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Connecticut officials, including the State Police, staged this elaborate charade to promote a political objective. Acts of terrorism are designed to instill fear into a target population to make it more amenable to political manipulation. Sandy Hook was a classic (but feigned) act of terrorism to manipulate the public emotionally to support the Obama's administration's gun control agenda. The proof is overwhelming. 

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps commissioned officer, is McKnight  Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.



Robert Parry: Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria


Exclusive: The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry.


With the latest hasty judgment about Tuesday’s poison-gas deaths in a rebel-held area of northern Syria, the mainstream U.S. news media once more reveals itself to be a threat to responsible journalism and to the future of humanity. Again, we see the troubling pattern of verdict first, investigation later, even when that behavior can lead to a dangerous war escalation and many more deaths.


Before a careful evaluation of the evidence about Tuesday’s tragedy was possible, The New York Times and other major U.S. news outlets had pinned the blame for the scores of dead on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. That revived demands that the U.S. and other nations establish a “no-fly zone” over Syria, which would amount to launching another “regime change” war and would put America into a likely hot war with nuclear-armed Russia.

Even as basic facts were still being assembled about Tuesday’s incident, we, the public, were prepped to disbelieve the Syrian government’s response that the poison gas may have come from rebel stockpiles that could have been released either accidentally or intentionally causing the civilian deaths in a town in Idlib Province.

One possible scenario was that Syrian warplanes bombed a rebel weapons depot where the poison gas was stored, causing the containers to rupture. Another possibility was a staged event by increasingly desperate Al Qaeda jihadists who are known for their disregard for innocent human life.

While it’s hard to know at this early stage what’s true and what’s not, these alternative explanations, I’m told, are being seriously examined by U.S. intelligence. One source cited the possibility that Turkey had supplied the rebels with the poison gas (the exact type still not determined) for potential use against Kurdish forces operating in northern Syria near the Turkish border or for a terror attack in a government-controlled city like the capital of Damascus.

Reporting by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh and statements by some Turkish police and opposition politicians linked Turkish intelligence and Al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists to the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack outside Damascus that killed hundreds, although the Times and other major U.S. news outlets continue to blame that incident on Assad’s regime.

Seasoned Propagandists

On Tuesday, the Times assigned two of its most committed anti-Syrian-government propagandists to cover the Syrian poison-gas story, Michael B. Gordon and Anne Barnard.


The controversial map developed by Human Rights Watch and embraced by the New York Times, supposedly showing the flight paths of two missiles from the Aug. 21 Sarin attack intersecting at a Syrian military base.

Gordon has been at the front lines of the neocon “regime change” strategies for years. He co-authored the Times’ infamous aluminum tube story of Sept. 8, 2002, which relied on U.S. government sources and Iraqi defectors to frighten Americans with images of “mushroom clouds” if they didn’t support President George W. Bush’s upcoming invasion of Iraq. The timing played perfectly into the administration’s advertising “rollout” for the Iraq War.

Of course, the story turned out to be false and to have unfairly downplayed skeptics of the claim that the aluminum tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, when the aluminum tubes actually were meant for artillery. But the article provided a great impetus toward the Iraq War, which ended up killing nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Gordon’s co-author, Judith Miller, became the only U.S. journalist known to have lost a job over the reckless and shoddy reporting that contributed to the Iraq disaster. For his part, Gordon continued serving as a respected Pentagon correspondent.

Gordon’s name also showed up in a supporting role on the Times’ botched “vector analysis,” which supposedly proved that the Syrian military was responsible for the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin-gas attack. The “vector analysis” story of Sept. 17, 2013, traced the flight paths of two rockets, recovered in suburbs of Damascus back to a Syrian military base 9.5 kilometers away.

The article became the “slam-dunk” evidence that the Syrian government was lying when it denied launching the sarin attack. However, like the aluminum tube story, the Times’ ”vector analysis” ignored contrary evidence, such as the unreliability of one azimuth from a rocket that landed in Moadamiya because it had struck a building in its descent. That rocket also was found to contain no sarin, so it’s inclusion in the vectoring of two sarin-laden rockets made no sense.

But the Times’ story ultimately fell apart when rocket scientists analyzed the one sarin-laden rocket that had landed in the Zamalka area and determined that it had a maximum range of about two kilometers, meaning that it could not have originated from the Syrian military base. C.J. Chivers, one of the co-authors of the article, waited until Dec. 28, 2013, to publish a halfhearted semi-retraction. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Backs Off Its Syria-Sarin Analysis.”]

Gordon was a co-author of another bogus Times’ front-page story on April 21, 2014, when the State Department and the Ukrainian government fed the Times two photographs that supposedly proved that a group of Russian soldiers – first photographed in Russia – had entered Ukraine, where they were photographed again.

However, two days later, Gordon was forced to pen a retraction because it turned out that both photos had been shot inside Ukraine, destroying the story’s premise. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Retracts Russian-Photo Scoop.”]

Gordon perhaps personifies better than anyone how mainstream journalism works. If you publish false stories that fit with the Establishment’s narratives, your job is safe even if the stories blow up in your face. However, if you go against the grain – and if someone important raises a question about your story – you can easily find yourself out on the street even if your story is correct.

No Skepticism Allowed

Anne Barnard, Gordon’s co-author on Tuesday’s Syrian poison-gas story, has consistently reported on the Syrian conflict as if she were a press agent for the rebels, playing up their anti-government claims even when there’s no evidence.


A heart-rending propaganda image designed to justify a major U.S. military operation inside Syria against the Syrian military.

For instance, on June 2, 2015, Barnard, who is based in Beirut, Lebanon, authored a front-page story that pushed the rebels’ propaganda theme that the Syrian government was somehow in cahoots with the Islamic Statethough even the U.S. State Department acknowledged that it had no confirmation of the rebels’ claims.

When Gordon and Barnard teamed up to report on the latest Syrian tragedy, they again showed no skepticism about early U.S. government and Syrian rebel claims that the Syrian military was responsible for intentionally deploying poison gas.

Perhaps for the first time, The New York Times cited President Trump as a reliable source because he and his press secretary were saying what the Times wanted to hear – that Assad must be guilty.

Gordon and Barnard also cited the controversial White Helmets, the rebels’ Western-financed civil defense group that has worked in close proximity with Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and has come under suspicion of staging heroic “rescues” but is nevertheless treated as a fount of truth-telling by the mainstream U.S. news media.

In early online versions of the Times’ story, a reaction from the Syrian military was buried deep in the article around the 27thparagraph, noting: “The government denies that it has used chemical weapons, arguing that insurgents and Islamic State fighters use toxins to frame the government or that the attacks are staged.”

The following paragraph mentioned the possibility that a Syrian bombing raid had struck a rebel warehouse where poison-gas was stored, thus releasing it unintentionally.

But the placement of the response was a clear message that the Times disbelieved whatever the Assad government said. At least in the version of the story that appeared in the morning newspaper, a government statement was moved up to the sixth paragraph although still surrounded by comments meant to signal the Times’ acceptance of the rebel version.

After noting the Assad government’s denial, Gordon and Barnard added, “But only the Syrian military had the ability and the motive to carry out an aerial attack like the one that struck the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.”

But they again ignored the alternative possibilities. One was that a bombing raid ruptured containers for chemicals that the rebels were planning to use in some future attack, and the other was that Al Qaeda’s jihadists staged the incident to elicit precisely the international outrage directed at Assad as has occurred.

Gordon and Barnard also could be wrong about Assad being the only one with a motive to deploy poison gas. Since Assad’s forces have gained a decisive upper-hand over the rebels, why would he risk stirring up international outrage at this juncture? On the other hand, the desperate rebels might view the horrific scenes from the chemical-weapons deployment as a last-minute game-changer.

Pressure to Prejudge

None of this means that Assad’s forces are innocent, but a serious investigation ascertains the facts and then reaches a conclusion, not the other way around.


Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

However, to suggest these other possibilities will, I suppose, draw the usual accusations about “Assad apologist,” but refusing to prejudge an investigation is what journalism is supposed to be about.

The Times, however, apparently has no concern anymore for letting the facts be assembled and then letting them speak for themselves. The Times weighed in on Wednesday with an editorial entitled “A New Level of Depravity From Mr. Assad.”

Another problem with the behavior of the Times and the mainstream media is that by jumping to a conclusion they pressure other important people to join in the condemnations and that, in turn, can prejudice the investigation while also generating a dangerous momentum toward war.

Once the political leadership pronounces judgment, it becomes career-threatening for lower-level officials to disagree with those conclusions. We’ve seen that already with how United Nations investigators accepted rebel claims about the Syrian government’s use of chlorine gas, a set of accusations that the Times and other media now report simply as flat-fact.

Yet, the claims about the Syrian military mixing in canisters of chlorine in supposed “barrel bombs” make little sense because chlorine deployed in that fashion is ineffective as a lethal weapon but it has become an important element of the rebels’ propaganda campaign.

U.N. investigators, who were under intense pressure from the United States and Western nations to give them something to use against Assad, did support rebel claims about the government using chlorine in a couple of cases, but the investigators also received testimony from residents in one area who described the staging of a chlorine attack for propaganda purposes.

One might have thought that the evidence of one staged attack would have increased skepticism about the other incidents, but the U.N. investigators apparently understood what was good for their careers, so they endorsed a couple of other alleged cases despite their inability to conduct a field investigation. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “UN Team Heard Claims of Staged Chemical Attacks.”]

Now, that dubious U.N. report is being leveraged into this new incident, one opportunistic finding used to justify another. But the pressing question now is: Have the American people come to understand enough about “psychological operations” and “strategic communications” that they will finally show the skepticism that no longer exists in the major U.S. news media?

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

Trump Coopted, Touts War with Syria, Becomes Zionist Pawn




WHEN IN ROME DO as the Romans do, but when in DC do what the Jews want or your political career is over.

“We need to fix America rather than nation-building abroad,” said Trump in 2015.

But that all came to an end when Trump told reporters today that his attitude toward Assad and Syria has “changed very much.”

Of course! The more things change the more things stay the same: JEWS rule DC. Trump’s just a pawn in their game.

Jews have been pressing for full-scale war against Syria ever since Putin upended the Jew-enabled US policy of toppling Assad preventing Jewmerica from crippling the “Axis of Resistance” of Syria, Iran, and Lebanon’s military arm, Hezbollah.

And Trump plays the Jewish card to the Tee.

Accusing Syria of using “chemical weapons” in the Idlib explosion, he insisted that “these heinous acts by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated….when you kill innocent children that goes beyond red lines.”

Never mind that his botched raid in Yemen murdered “innocent children.”
Somehow, REAL facts on the ground don’t come into play when warmongering for the Jews.
All the hacks on Capitol Hill are just licking it up (for the Jews, like McCain) applauding Trump’s “tough talk” on Syria.

And never mind that Tillerson said that the agenda to topple Assad was over. He flip-flopped today saying that Russia needs to “rethink” its support of Assad.

But the bear doesn’t heed threats from a man who gifted the Boy Scouts with homosexuals to lead young teens.


NEXT TIME YOU HEAR Trump complaining about “fake news” tell the traitor (or those who elected him) that he himself buys the Jew lies.

NO proof exists that Assad used chemical weapons in Syria but Jews don’t need “proof.”
Jewry’s weapon, as owners of the media, is “fake news.”

The Syrian army denies any involvement. Moscow says the ‘gas attack’ resulted from the Syrian Air Force destroying a warehouse in Idlib where chemical weapons were being produced by rebels before shipped to ISIS in Iraq.

Assad himself asserted that there are “no chemical weapons left in Syria,” making it impossible that the attack could have stemmed from the Syrian government.

But when your political career depends on doing Jewry’s bidding, who needs proof? What good are facts when Jews want war, huh Mr Trump? What happened to “America First?”

You meant “Jewry First” when telling supporters that America must “win again.”

“Win” for the Jews, but the Goys lose.

ENTER NIKKI HALEY, the brainless twit representing America at the UN, who barfed: “We are compelled to take our own action if the UN fails.”

And that “action” is being schemed by neocon Jew Congressman Adam Kinzinger telling Trump to “bomb Syria’s airstrips so as to ground its air force.”

Good idea! But since Russian planes use those Syrian “airstrips,” Kinzinger joins Haley as another brainless twit.

Does he think Russia will roll over and play dead? They’ve got bombs too that have been very effective in Syria and a few handy Surface-To-Air missiles.

Will Kinzinger’s children go to Syria to make sure “bombing airstrips” holds? No way. Jews don’t send their own to die in combat abroad.

For in wars for the Jews only the Goys die young.