PrisonPlanet Forum
May 18, 2013, 10:29:43 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Tarpley-4th HR AJ Today-False Flag Internet Cyber Attack Coming  (Read 1482 times)
larsonstdoc
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 19,512



« on: March 16, 2010, 12:15:08 PM »

http://tarpley.net/2010/03/15/us-readies-cyberwar-virtual-flag-terrorism/#more-1387

HE WILL TALK ABOUT THIS ARTICLE HE WROTE.


US Readies Cyberwar, Virtual Flag Terrorism
[Translate]
By Webster G. Tarpley
TARPLEY.net
March 15, 2010


Google is now preparing to leave China as a result of this company’s stubborn refusal to obey Chinese laws. Google is in effect demanding extraterritoriality and immunity to the legal norms of the host nation, a claim which goes back to the unequal treaties imposed by foreign imperialists, notably the British, on China starting in the 19th century. It is not surprising that the Chinese response to this arrogant interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state has been stern.

We must also recall that Google was founded with the help of the US intelligence community, and is now acting as a virtual arm of the US National Security Agency, the electronic espionage department of the US government. Google-NSA’s arrogance and hypocrisy are unbearable, especially when we bear in mind the countless times that Google search engines have been used to suppress exposés of the US governments false flag operations, most notably 9/11, and other sensitive topics.

There are two sides to the conflict between Google-NSA and China. One is the Great Cyberwall erected by the Chinese government against attempts by the US-UK to capitalize on ethnic and social tensions inside China to launch a color revolution, CIA people power coup, or postmodern putsch. The other aspect is Google’s claim that hackers working for the Chinese government raided Google’s e-mail servers. The second charge has been formally denied by the Chinese.

Even as Google prepares to shut down its Chinese operations, something larger and more sinister is looming. The US Wall Street-controlled media are gearing up to educate the public about imminent cyberwarfare and cyber-conflict. We can sense that Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon’s infamous octogenarian Yoda of the Office of Net Assessment, is playing a key role behind the scenes. This effort was formally launched in May 2009 by none other than Obama, who announced a buildup of US cyberwar assets, illustrating his project with the claim that his own campaign websites had been hacked during the 2008 campaign, prompting him to seek the assistance of FBI, CIA, NSA and the rest.

One highlight of this US propaganda campaign has been a two-hour docudrama special recently repeated several times on CNN on Feb. 20-21, simulating a massive cyber attack on the United States, starting with cell phones and then taking over into computers.[1] The impact of this attack is to shut down telephone communications, followed by airports and rail services, and finally to knock out most of the US electrical power grid, causing panic and chaos. The simulation is presented in the form of a meeting of the National Security Council while the US is under attack. Several protagonists of the 9/11 cover-up were among the starring players, including Jamie Gorelick (playing the US Attorney General), John Negroponte (playing the Secretary of State), and Michael Chertoff (in the role of the National Security Council Director).

Another important sign of the times is a Feb. 28 op-ed in the Washington Post by Admiral Mike McConnell, who headed up the NSA under Clinton, and is now a top executive for Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the military consulting firms which claims to have the greatest expertise in matters of cyber warfare.[2] Admiral McConnell’s basic idea is that cyber war is now upon us, and that the US must respond using the experience of the Cold War as the relevant model.

The results of this campaign of preparatory propaganda can be summed up under four basic points.

One is the relentless exaggeration of what cyber warfare can actually do in its present state. The public is now expected to believe that computer viruses and denial of service attacks can be used to shut down phone service, cripple airports, prevent trains from running, sabotage nuclear reactors, and paralyze power grids over the quasi-totality of the United States. Many of these claims were launched in relatively obscure articles by CIA officials or Wall Street Journal writers. It is not at all clear that cyber warfare can do what these interested parties are alleging. Rather, the best intelligence estimate right now is that we are in the presence of a new wave of cynical and demagogic fear mongering, similar to the weapons of mass distraction charges made by the neocons against Iraq during the buildup of war hysteria in 2002-2003. The idea that cyber warfare can shut down electrical grids very likely belongs in the same category with Tony Blair’s ludicrous charge that Saddam Hussein had the ability to strike London in 45 minutes. It was a fantastic lie.

A second Leitmotiv is the transposition of the terminology and mindset of the Cold War and nuclear confrontation into the modern cyber arena. The CNN simulation works towards refurbishing notions of deterrence, retaliation, and first strike, dressing them up in the trendy jargon of the computer age. Notions of preventive attack and preemptive attack are also being revamped. One big difference which the propagandists do not point out is that, while nuclear war was considered an unthinkable last resort by most government officials, the new propaganda portrays cyberwarfare as not unthinkable at all, but something that can be indulged in with relative impunity.

Very important legal questions arise in this context. Does a cyber attack constitute an armed attack? Can a cyber attack be casus belli, grounds for issuing a declaration of war? Is escalation from computers to bombs legal? Can a cyber attack represent a threat to international peace and security for the purposes of the United Nations charter? Can a cyber attack be used to invoke article V of the NATO treaty, which calls for common defense?

A third aspect of the current media blitz is that a new cast of enemies is being groomed and brought onstage, even as the shadowy adversaries of yesterday are relegated to a less prominent position – at least as far as cyber-aggression is concerned. In the CNN simulation, there is some discussion of a possible role of “Al Qaeda” and “bin Laden” in the ongoing attack. But this idea is brusquely and almost scornfully dismissed with the reply that those guys are known to live in caves, and therefore could hardly have the equipment necessary to carry on cyber warfare, even though they might desire to do so. For the CNN producers and their intelligence community consultants, the targets are clear: Russia (specifically the city of Irkutsk), China, and Sudan are the three countries mentioned as sources of the cyber attacks shutting down the US economy. With this, we have gone far beyond the narrow confines of the Middle East to target the largest country in the world, the largest country in Asia, and the largest country in Africa. The new target list involves two great powers, and not simply Iraq or Iran. We can see bigger and more lunatic adventures being prepared by the US scenario writers.

The fourth unmistakable overtone of the current propaganda barrage is the danger we can sum up under the heading of virtual flag terrorism. The world of cyber warfare is so opaque and recondite for the average person, and solid confirmation of claims so hard to come by, that rogue bureaucrats in the US and British governments will be able to a surge virtually anything with little fear of being refuted. Google accuses China of hacking without offering any convincing proof, and China denies the charge. What is the average person to believe? What prevents hackers in league with invisible government rogue moles at the NSA from deliberately attacking US facilities, and then blaming it on China, thus ginning up a major international provocation with little risk of being caught?

If millions of people are plunged into the dark, if trains and airliners crash, if other disasters occur, it is child’s play to issue a communiqué blaming hackers in the service of the Russian, Chinese, Sudanese, the Iranians, or other governments. The governments accused can certainly issue denials, but it is not clear how such a charge could be convincingly refuted.

The CNN simulation includes a discussion of the difference between location and attribution, meaning that the mere fact that an attack is launched from the country’s territory does not mean that the government is responsible. “Location is not attribution,” intones Secretary of State Negroponte at one point. But we can already hear the voice of the inevitable neocon warmonger asserting à la Bush that no distinction must be made between the servers spreading a destructive virus and the government whose territory harbors those servers. For the neocon, location and attribution are sure to be the same. This opens the possibility of starting a conflict by infiltrating physical provocateurs onto the territory of the targeted nation, and letting them launch a cyber attack from there. Even easier, so-called botnets of captive computers commandeered by trojans and related viruses can be used to launch the attack.

It goes without saying that the beltway bandits and Pentagon contractors are eager to cash in on the lucrative contracts that are now in the offing. More broadly, cyber warfare can be used as a great alibi for purposes of avoiding civil liability in the age of underfunding and asset stripping. When we have the next crash in the Washington DC metro, the management and the National Transportation Safety Board can ignore decades of underfunding and simply blame everything on Russia, China, and the Sudan, and tell the families of the victims to go and sue those governments. It is therefore time to begin a campaign of counter-inoculation of international public opinion against this new set of ominous lies which is being foisted off on the world.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDWEM2jM7qY&feature=related – the entire program is available in 9 parts on youtube.
[2]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022502493.html

Logged
Anti_Illuminati
Guest
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2010, 12:34:56 PM »

These are excellent observations he makes: 
Quote
The fourth unmistakable overtone of the current propaganda barrage is the danger we can sum up under the heading of virtual flag terrorism. The world of cyber warfare is so opaque and recondite for the average person, and solid confirmation of claims so hard to come by, that rogue bureaucrats in the US and British governments will be able to a surge virtually anything with little fear of being refuted. Google accuses China of hacking without offering any convincing proof, and China denies the charge. What is the average person to believe? What prevents hackers in league with invisible government rogue moles at the NSA from deliberately attacking US facilities, and then blaming it on China, thus ginning up a major international provocation with little risk of being caught?

If millions of people are plunged into the dark, if trains and airliners crash, if other disasters occur, it is child’s play to issue a communiqué blaming hackers in the service of the Russian, Chinese, Sudanese, the Iranians, or other governments. The governments accused can certainly issue denials, but it is not clear how such a charge could be convincingly refuted.

However...

Quote
It is not at all clear that cyber warfare can do what these interested parties are alleging.
He needs to review the research on this site to find out.

Quote
The idea that cyber warfare can shut down electrical grids very likely belongs in the same category with Tony Blair’s ludicrous charge that Saddam Hussein had the ability to strike London in 45 minutes. It was a fantastic lie.
It is only a lie in the context that such a thing could occur without the involvement of the elite.  It is NOT a lie that they themselves CAN do this at their discretion--or choose to just hammer fearmongering and use lower level false flags to pummel everyone's brain into submission.
 

Logged
larsonstdoc
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 19,512



« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2010, 01:20:42 PM »


  "GOOGLE an arm of NSA"--Tarpley
Logged
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2010, 01:40:09 PM »

Required Reading:


THE SECRET TEAM

The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World

L. FLETCHER PROUTY Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret. & Donald Southerland's charachter in Oliver Stone's JFK)

http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/ST/



The book exposes how the Secret Team, Illuminati Cabal can control massive operations like a 9/11 or a war with Iran, or the annexation of Haiti in total and complete deniability.

Now add Ptech interoperability and AI's research and there is the entire blueprint for the next 10,000 false flags.

This is the greatest threat to national security ever. All government workers, I beg you to read The Secret Team and listen to the interviews of Indira Singh and AI. There is incontrovertible evidence that these attacks against our country have happened and will continue to happen with more intensity duue to the increased power The Secret Team has acquired. Never obey blindly orders that you do not understand and suspect to be illegal. An illegal order is not an order, it is a crime, just like stealing something from Wal-Mart. Wake up and see this force behind the scenes destroying us all.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Qevo
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2010, 02:13:26 PM »

It was a good hour, but needlessly frantic imo. The reason it always gets like this when Tarpley is on the AJ show is that Alex interrupts and talks too much, then realizes that the time is burning away and becomes frantic about covering points.

Anyway, people should visit www.tarpley.net and read the article in this thread if not already, but also the others such as the one about the "Robin Hood Tax" as Tarpley mentioned before the show ended, although I think it's too late to stop the switch play to the tories in the UK.

Also, remember World Crisis Radio which is Tarpley's own weekly show and essential listening, the podcasts are linked from here

http://tarpley.net/world-crisis-radio/



Logged
squarepusher
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,013



« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2010, 06:07:07 PM »

Kudos to Tarpley for covering it, but I have to say this - the only reason why Tarpley is 'breaking' this on the Alex Jones Show instead of, say, someone like Anti_Illuminati who has actually been spearheading the research into the up-and-coming false flag for over a year, is because of name recognition. Alex should look beyond celebrities and big-name truth movement figures and recognize the breadth of knowledge that a relatively unknown but committed individual can bring to this movement.

What I like about Tarpley is how he coins these new slogans and terms - such as 'hedge fund hyenas', 'virtual flag', 'quackademics', and so on. Engineering new terms and slogans - memetic engineering - should be focused upon more often - because IMO the general vocabulary of the average person today is too severely lacking to accurately convey to someone who doesn't know jack about the 'control grid' exactly what it is, and why you should care. You could point them to a movie and say: "Well, it's just like this", but then you run the risk of them attacking you, saying: "Ah, I see, you got all this shit from a movie - you overimaginative nut" - when in truth most of these movies are nothing more than predictive programming.

But how do we get people to take our 'memes', such as 'virtual flag', seriously when the establishment doesn't promote those same terms as part of the popular lexicon? It's the same with 'New World Order', which has become a shorthand for the entire cabal of elitists - people think this is a 'meme' that was made up by us, when it's actually referred to over and over again by the big power brokers themselves. Regrettably, the mainstream media and elitists still control reality through language and linguistics in this way - and I see no clear-cut solution to this.
Logged

Infowars Wiki - Help make this become the official wiki of Infowars.com - contribute!
Viper
Guest
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2010, 06:14:08 PM »

Well how many hours would AI need to flesh this out for everyone?
With the breaks i'd say at least five.
Logged
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2010, 10:07:14 PM »

The FBI and Ptech: A Case To Answer with Indira Singh Part 1 of 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8228336760154277932
28:46  - 3 years ago

THE PTECH STORY: Indira Singh, whistleblower, former J P Morgan Chase ‘Risk architect’. In her allotted half hour, Indira Singh, an EMT at Ground Zero on 9-11, tells how she later bumped into Ptech, thinking of hiring the high-level information spooks (PROMIS plus) for Morgan Chase. She didn’t, but took her growing suspicions and documents to the FBI and the official 911 Commission, which muzzled them. Singh takes us on a quick tour of back door banking and corporate spying and stealing and drugs and terrorism and CIA front organizations involved at every turn. 911CitizensWatch inquiry, NYC Sept. 9 http://www.911citizenswatch.org/

The FBI and Ptech: A Case To Answer with Indira Singh Part 2 of 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8063173299566696388
13:21  - 3 years ago

INDIRA SINGH: Questions, answers, clarifications and hints. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Bob McIlvanie, Faiz Khan, Michael Ruppert, Nico Haupt et al. question whistleblower Singh’s explosive revelations about Ptech and other CIA front groups. 911Citizens Watch Inquiry, NYC Sept. 9, 2004. http://www.911citizenswatch.org/

FBI’s role in 9/11 investigation needs investigation
http://www.madcowprod.com/mc4522004.html

"The project included incident investigation, law enforcement, military aviation systems, highly sensitive information, especially if you wanted to exploit the FAA’s current capabilities and holes… to jam or slow down U.S. military response to a domestic hijacking, for example.”

Just the portion of the story above the waterline and already public record is shocking enough:

Briefly, Saudi “money man” Yasin al-Qadi, named by the Bush Administration as a financial backer of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, had funded a software start-up in Boston named Ptech, reported the Boston Globe over a year ago.

 Al-Qadi, a Saudi businessman whose US assets were frozen after the Sept. 11 attacks amid allegations that he has funded terrorist groups, is from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he also headed the Saudi-based Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation.

Treasury officials allege the “charity” is an al-Qaeda front used to funnel millions of dollars to the terrorist organization, and Al-Qadi was named a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the United States on October 12, 2001. A US Treasury Department statement stated that "Muwafaq is an Al-Qaeda front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen"
"Somebody musta paid Osama for the heroin."

But it’s the unreported story that has the potential to lead to the explosive charge that the FBI’s role in the 9/11 investigation itself needs investigation.

Ptech’s customers included sensitive government and intelligence agencies such as the FBI and the Air Force. “But until last fall,” the GLOBE reported on Jan. 22, 2003, “few seemed aware an early financial backer of Ptech was Yasin al-Qadi, a Saudi businessman named as a suspected terrorist financier by the Bush Administration in October 2001.”

Reports of ineptitude at FBI headquarters have already surfaced in numerous places: in Phoenix, Chicago, and Minneapolis, for example. What makes reports of the Boston FBI’s bungled investigation into Ptech different is the unmistakably dark suggestion that this poor performance may have been intentional.

Why would the Boston FBI do such a thing? Maybe because they were shielding a money laundering vehicle, goes the allegation, that was created back in the 1980's as part of the CIA’s program of arming the Afghan mujahedeen.

Can you say BCCI? .

The tale begins almost right after the 9/11 attack, when, in October of 2001, handful of ex-Ptech employees alerted the FBI to evidence indicating that the firm had Saudi terror connections.

Saudi terrorists, Saudi money, and JP Morgan Chase

Almost a year later the Boston FBI had still done nothing about it. They had, in fact, shut down their cursory investigation and taken no action. 

Thus Ptech was still operating at the highest levels of American society in the Spring of 2002,  when the firm showed up hustling business at the door of Wall Street’s JP Morgan Chase. The question is “why?”

On its surface, the answer appears to be “money.” Lots and lots of Saudi money.

Indira Singh, who later became a whistleblower, was an unwitting eyewitness to the “train wreck.” 

 “I invited Ptech to come down and give a presentation and a customized demo to JP Morgan Chase,” states Singh, who was a consultant to the bank on “risk architecture,” an arcane software specialty which calculates enterprise risk. In one of the story’s many ironic twists, Singh was at the time designing a system to help JP Morgan Chase detect terrorist money laundering.

When Ptech showed up, Singh quickly realized that she was witnessing her worst fears about compromised security come true.  “Within half an hour on the premises, I knew something was up,” she says. “They had almost immediately raised about six of my red flags, to the point where I walked over to my desk and picked up the phone, and began making phone calls.”

She talked with a respected industry figure who had once worked at Ptech. “He was shocked to learn that I had invited Ptech on the premises. He told me the company belonged to Yasin Qadi.”

In the course of what would otherwise have been just another day at the bank, Indira Singh made the amazing discovery that the firm in front of her at the moment was owned by Saudis, including Yasin Qadi, with suspected as well as proven ties to the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attack.

All this left her feeling more than a little surprised.

'Chief Thug' at J.P. Morgan Chase

Moreover, she learned, Yasin Al-Qadi had been fingered by the Bush Administration in October 2001, over six months before.  So how was it that Ptech was still making presentations to top American companies six months later? 

The industry source Singh had consulted on Ptech had more bad news than just Yasin Qadi. “There were several people at Ptech who were targets of Operation Greenquest, a Dept of Treasury terrorism investigation,” she told us, “and that the company’s funding vehicle, BMI, was also under investigation. The list just went on and on and on. It was a spider’s web of connections.”

When Singh flew to Washington D.C. to meet some of the ex-Ptech employees to verify their allegations, she received another shock. “I met with five extraordinarily scared people. These people were scared for their lives, and for their families. Some were about to leave the country. They told me, ‘Indira, you don’t know who you’re dealing with.’

Sadly, when she told us what happened next, it came as no surprise:  When Singh alerted authorities, and her employer, what she encountered was the inexplicable wrath of a top Wall Street Bank, as well as an official wall of silence at the FBI.

“I took everything I had at that point back to my boss at JP Morgan Chase,” she states. “He didn’t want to deal with it. So I called his boss,  because at this point I realized I was sitting on dynamite.”

“The various heads of the security functions at the bank set up an interview with me, and it quickly  escalated to the bank’s General Auditor, who introduced himself to me as JP Morgan Chase’s ‘chief thug.’”


We didn’t know banks like JP Morgan had thugs, we said.

“He introduced himself as the General Auditor,” said Singh, “but he said, for the real purposes of what he does at JP Morgan Chase, I am the ‘chief thug.’”

“He basically told me to keep my mouth shut and look the other way, and enjoy a wonderful life here at JP Morgan, and if I didn’t I was out.”

Alerting the bosses at one of America’s largest banks to a terror threat had certainly produced a strange result. Singh had entered a hall of mirrors, especially after she discovered that the terrorist threat was real.
 

A 'problem' with the Boston FBI

“By that time, I had already talked with my boss’s boss, to whom I had originally gone,” she says. “He told me, it was all true. He said, ‘everything you laid out on the table was true.’”

When attempts to intimidate her into silence failed, she became another American hero speaking out despite the consequences, which will be described in a future report.

After talking to the Boston FBI, Singh said she had been ''shocked'' and ''frustrated'' to learn that the FBI had not alerted any of the government agencies using Ptech software that there were questions about the company's ties to suspected terrorist fund-raisers.

The story is just the latest in a series of embarrassments for the Boston FBI office, including the scandal over the agency's coddling of murderous organized crime informants, which led to an until-now inexplicable threat by President Bush to use “executive privilege” to cloak details about the Boston FBI from Congressional investigators.

Still, when we first heard whistleblower Indira Singh tell her story it sounded so incredible that we would have found it unbelievable…except that we had already encountered stories like it in Venice, of witnesses bullied and intimidated by authorities into silence.

For example, the FBI was all over tenants at the Sandpiper Apartments across the street from the Venice Airport, to keep them from talking about Mohamed Atta’s two-month long ‘shack-up’ with an American girlfriend named Amanda Keller.

In addition to warning Keller not to talk, a warning she took so seriously she left town and disappeared from view, FBI agents bullied and intimidated apartment residents who remembered the pair, and even the apartment manager of the complex, Charles Grapentine, an ex-marine, who told us grimly, "They called me a liar, and told me to keep my mouth shut. Nobody likes to hear that: that they didn't see something they know they saw.”

Atta and Amanda’s next door neighbor, a 50-year old housewife named Stephanie Frederickson, confirmed the apartment manager’s remarks.

"The question they asked was always the same," she told us. "You aren’t saying anything to anybody, are you?"

Now, it seems that FBI agents in Boston were engaged in equally-dubious behavior. Mistakes, malfeasance, and even missed opportunities to avert the Sept 11 attack… There’s been a regular drumbeat of depressing news about the FBI.

Singh told us that disgruntled Boston FBI agents told her privately that their hands were tied on Ptech, because, they said, “Saudis have been given a free pass for 9/11.”

“And that,” says Singh, “is when I began to get really scared.”

The Story of Indira Singh
Posted on April 27, 2009 by Boulderdash

Anyone who has studied the events of 9/11 knows that it was an inside job.  But inside jobs require a lot of effort to get things done while hiding the “job” from those that think they are doing their jobs as usual.  This woman is one of the true heroes of the 9/11 Truth movement.  While you may not have heard of her, she has pieced together how one company, P-Tech, was responsible for making sure that the “job” came off without a hitch.  This company accomplished this by managing the interface of all the complex systems of our government, coupled with the war games, so that the individuals responsible for protecting the country were fooled and confused on that fateful day.  This is great information for all Americans, indeed all world citizens…

Indira Singh has been working on Wall Street since 1975. On 9/11 she was working as a senior consultant for JPMorganChase. She was tasked with developing a next-generation, operational, risk-blueprint. Which would proactively identify exposures, including money laundering, rogue trading, and illicit financing patterns. It was in this capacity 9 months later, she became aware of the biggest threat to our country, a trans-nationally protected terrorist cartel that brought us 9/11. Indira Singh is a private pilot and a climber. Prior to 9/11, she volunteered as a civilian emergency medical technician, until she was injured at ground zero.

Indira, where were you on Sept. 11th, 2001? You were living in New York City, weren’t you?

Yes, I was living and working in lower Manhattan, a couple hundred yards away from the World Trade Center. My apartment was southwest of the site, and I worked on Wall Street for JPMorganChase.

Now, where were you on that very morning of Sept. 11th? Were you at home? Were you at work?

That morning I was at home, I was late. I was supposed to have attended a risk conference that was being held on the 106th floor of the WTC, at the North Tower, and for some reason, I woke up late and didn’t make it there. So when the first plane hit I was actually on my way out in a business suit and I turned back, changed into my EMT clothes, I was a civilian Emergency Medical Technician in New York State, and the 2nd plane hit and I basically went down to the site from that point on.

Read the full interview here: http://ourworldinbalance.blogspot.com/2005/04/story-of-indira-singh.html

Or listen to the interview here:

Audio: [Part 1] – [Part 2 ]


Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2010, 02:56:34 AM »

Tarpley is mentioning the Niixon initiated idea that we can use nukes strategically. The original purpose for nukes was to act as deterent and not as an offensive weapon.

John Pilger exposes this insanity (as Kubrik did) in his documentary: "Nixon's Secret Legacy"

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4351333/John_Pilger_-_Reporting_the_world_(2008)_
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
chris jones
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,383


« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2010, 05:21:05 PM »

Indira Singh, a hero and more. Bless her heart.

If they pull this off, there will be troops in the street. Martial law.

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!