Jar2

Interviews WIth Dr. Kevin Barret

by John Robles 

US Ukraine coverage: an Orwellian theater of hate – Prof Kevin Barret

barret

 

Part One: US Ukraine coverage: an Orwellian theater of hate

14 March, 2014 18:00

Download audio file

The outright lies being printed and broadcast in the western press regarding the situation in Ukraine is just the next level from a war on truth begun with the events of 9-11. Since that time the US Government and its subservient media has been pounding the American people with extreme Orwellian propaganda, that pays no attention to the reality of anything, According to Professor Kevin Barret in an interview for the Voice of Russia. 

Dr. Barret says that now, for the first time in his lifetime, we are seeing that applied to a non-Muslim country. He calls the demonization of Muslims: Orwellian theater of hate style of propaganda which has now gone completely over-the-top, is hateful, is totally unconcerned with facts and has been turned against Russia.

Hello, this is John Robles. You are listening to an interview with Dr Kevin Barrett, he is a Doctor and a Professor in Arabic and Islamic Studies, and the co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth. He is also the owner and manager of truthjihad.com. This is part 1 of a longer interview, you can find the rest of this interview on our website atvoiceofrussia.com

Robles: Hello Sir, how are you this evening? 

Barrett: Doing very well, thank you. 

Robles: It is a pleasure to be speaking with you again. I would like to get your opinion on what is going on in Ukraine. In particular this a scenario we've seen over and over and over and over again, except a little change here - this is not as in recent past history an Islamic or Muslim country. But can you tell us the similarities and the correlations you see between what is going on in Ukraine and what happened in Libya and Syria, and Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc? 

Barrett Well Sir, these regime change efforts, the destabilization campaigns that have been going on, all over the world really since World War II, the US has been running around the world with its CIA, overthrowing countries, intervening almost always, I can actually I think I could say pretty much always on the side of the worst forces in whichever country it is propping up goons, fascists, thugs, mass murderers. 

Chomsky and Vltchek in their latest book on western terrorism, and up about 55 million people murdered by these US CIA in military interventions around the world since World War II. So, that is an old story. Since 9/11 we've seen a real acceleration of attacks on mostly the Muslim world and we've seen also an acceleration of the propaganda war. 

Americans and westerners have been brutally propagandized since 9/11 in a truly Orwellian fashion that has no respect whatsoever for their intelligence. It is very shocking. Even, the US has never been all that sophisticated or even all that free in terms of its official discourse what you hear in the media, but it wasn't this bad before 9/11, but with 9/11 in comes Bush with his 'you are either with us or against us', and they just dumbed people down. Susan Sontag talked about the infentilation of the American people.

They hit us with this extreme Orwellian propaganda, that pays no attention to the reality of anything, and now for the first time in my lifetime, we are seeing that applied to a non-Muslim country. We have been demonizing Muslims with this Orwellian theatre of hate style of propaganda since 9/11, but now they are using this over-the-top, just totally mendacious and hateful and totally unconcerned with facts kind of propaganda, turning it against Russia.

And in a way that is scary, because none of the Muslim countries they've gone after have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, none of the Muslim countries they've gone after really can fight back. And Russia does have the means to defend itself. So, the whole situation is just completely disgusting, and I am really ashamed to be a citizen of the US right now.

Robles: I am sure there is many people who would not support what is going on if were allowed to know what is going on.

Barrett: No, they just support it anyway. This propaganda is so extreme, it is just not working. They couldn't get their war on Syria with their false flag gas attack last August, and they just couldn't mobilize people at all. They show horrible pictures and nobody really believes it anymore, and I think the same things happening with Ukraine.

I don't see any mobilization of American public opinion that wants war in Ukraine; that even wants to be involved in Ukraine. The American people thinks it's to stay home and mind our own business and rebuild our infrastructure and let the world take care of itself. And I don't see them succeeding in changing that. So, I think it is all a big sort of puppet theatre that's been put on by these lunatics. 

If you believe media, then you might think that Americans actually buy all this interventionism. But I don't think they do. They are going to have hard time keeping Rand Paul down in the next presidential elections, mainly because the people tend to agree with that sort of perceived non-interventionism of Ron and Rand Paul. So I don't really know if American people are eager for continued intervention in Ukraine. 

Robles: I see, I see. The way Obama gets up there it seems like everybody is behind him, although he gave a press-conference with the little Neo-Nazi guy, Yatsenyuk, and Obama looked really nervous. He looked like he was out of his element, a little bit. 

Barrett: Well things might be spinning a little bit out of their control in Ukraine right now. I just did a radio interview with a professor named Kevin McDonalds, who specializes in politically incorrect looks at ethnic conflicts, and he pointed out that we have a real strange marriage of convenience in Ukraine that was set up by this US-led destabilization of the Ukrainian government, they used Jewish Zionist billionaire oligarchs to finance mobs of Nazis. 

We have the Zionist Jews and the Nazis kind of working together to overthrow a constitutionally elected government and it seems that the people trying to do this, at least the Europeans are hoping that Ukraine will become a European style multi-ethnic society that will just integrate into Europe. But doing that by having the Nazis and the Zionist extremist oligarchs working together to overthrow democratic constitutional government seems perverse and it seems that these fascist Nazi style elements in western Ukraine maybe getting out of control, and Obama and his people maybe starting to get nervous about that. 

Robles: Well they are. They had their little triumvirate, except that one of them was one of these Nazi leaders, Klitschko, who I would say is a nothing, and then they had Yatsenyuk, who the Nazis and in their internal propaganda, they say he will never be president because he's a … they use a derogatory word for Jews in their internal Udar party propaganda. 

So, sure, Nuland didn't want Klitschko at the top. That was revealed in that telephone conversation when they were deciding on the makeup of the future Ukrainian government. But they wanted Yatsenyuk, but the people of Ukraine don't want the Right Sector, literally neo-Nazi extremists, the people don't want Yatsenyuk, they don't want Klitschko, and they don't want Tyahnybok, he is a Nazi too. These people would never win in any kind of election. 

Like you said, they support the worst forces, and who else is going to overthrow their governments militarily, usually? Who is going to go to war with their own civilian population, but probably the worst elements in any society? So, I would say out of control is probably a very good description. 

Barrett: I see so many echoes of these same methods in these earlier coups, here in the US people on the left are aware of overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953, the overthrow of Allende in Chile in 1973, and there have been a whole lot of other similar coups all over the world. And the playbook they use is pretty much the same each time. 

I went back to that 1953 coup which was sort of a historic turning point in a lot of ways, I just was reading this great new book called "Coup" by Ervand Abrahamian, that really gets I think a much more accurate set of facts out about that 1953 coup, and what we see is exactly what they did in Ukraine, they work with the scum of the earth. They find fascists, venal types who are willing to take bribes in the military, and then they paid "rent-a-mobs" to create the illusion of popular support for the coup in the streets. 

And in 1953 in Iran it was hilarious, the way they did this, their rent-a-mob was a bunch of gangsters. The two leading gangsters in, I think it was part of South Teheran, were named "Icy Ramadan"and "Brainless Shaban". Icy and Brainless, and these were the two guys that the CIA paid off to round up a whole bunch of mobsters and goons and thugs and march on Mosaddegh to show that the people of Iran hated Mosaddegh. 

And even the western media correspondents who were … the western media was lying about this, in the same way they are lying today maybe, yeah almost as egregiously, but even the western correspondents there were almost rolling in the aisles laughing at the grotesque procession of this supposed popular support for overthrowing Mosaddegh. 

And we see something like that in all these places. Some places they manage to create a more convincing illusion of popular support these days, because of the way they get their rent-a-mobs now is they're not all paid off, they manage to propagandize some folks who should know better, like in Cairo when they overthrew Mohammed Morsi, the first democratically elected president in the history of Egypt and put in this horrible thug Al-Sisi in his place, they did manage to scare up a fair percentage of the sort of anti-Islamist population of the wealthier parts of Cairo to be their rent-a-mob. 

So, they have sophisticated propaganda techniques today that allow them to create a slightly more realistic illusion of popular support for these coups that they stir up. 

Robles: I would argue with you about the word "sophisticated", I mean because if someone like me can figure them out, I don't think they are that sophisticated. I don't consider myself to be extremely overly sophisticated but it is so obvious. 

If you looked at the crowds in Kiev, young men about maybe 20-25, maybe Aryan nation would be the best way to describe them, and they were like the skinhead training brigade or something, I don't know. They showed some protests in Crimea and women were coming out, the veterans were coming out, old people, children, families, some Muslim-looking people, and all kinds of people were coming out, right. As far as the rent-a-mob goes, it was completely just one face in Kiev. 

Barrett: Yes, it was interesting that they were leaning so heavily on the skinhead element to create their illusion of popular support. I guess that would be the Ukrainian version of a Brainless Shaban and Icy Ramadan, the local thug element. 

Robles: Well they've been training for about 10 years. This guy Yarosh, he was fighting with Chechen terrorists, and he actually called for terrorist attacks in Ukraine. Have you heard about that? 

Barrett: No. 

Robles: Now he doesn't seem to know that Dokka Umarov was, as they say here, liquidated. He published a plea for Dokka Umarov to launch terrorist attacks in Ukraine against Russia. He was saying it was a good time to attack. 

Barrett: Now this was all kind of puzzling to me because I don't really see the strategic necessity from this US empire point of view. 

Robles: If I could. What I see there about a strategic necessity, it is NATO. Now I don't know if it is NATO controlling the US anymore, or the US controlling NATO, of course it has always been the US controlling NATO and the Pentagon controlling NATO, but NATO wants a base in Crimea. They want to get rid of Russian influence in Crimea. They have continued even since the end of the Soviet Union to fight this great secret war, which is not so secret, against the Soviet Union. They haven't stopped. 

Barrett: Right. Yes, I guess that must be it. And they are probably sort of trying to give Putin some payback for his very successful diplomatic maneuvers in Syria, and one way that would be to try to go after the fleet that can support the Syrian government. Still it is a very dangerous and I think short-sighted game to play. 

I think the neo-cons could be playing an outsized role in this, and part of what drives the neo-cons is I think a love of mischief, for the sake of mischief, and also they love creating enemies and their philosophy is that politics is based on enmity. So, if you don't have good enough enemy, you'd better create one. And maybe they decided that the Muslim world isn't a big enough enemy right now, so they need to have Russia as an enemy du jour as well. 

And they thrive on this, and of course they get money for it, it is a business for so many people. Victoria Nuland and these people are drawing nice salaries, and living in posh parts of DC, and hobnobbing with the elite, and jet setting around, and trying to create these new puppet governments, and things like that. I guess that is just what they do. They don't want to get a real job. 

Robles: You know about Nuland, right? I mean her husband is a Bilderberg. 

Barrett: Her husband is that arch neo-con. What's her husband's name? 

Robles: Robert Kagan. 

Barrett: That is right. Yes. PNACer. 

Robles: So, to the neo-conservatives, and we have to bring up I think, since you brought up that word in this group of people, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Wolfowitz told Wesley Clark that they were in the business of destroying nations. Do you remember that? 

Barrett: Yes, that was a post 9/11. They, apparently, immediately after 9/11 Wesley Clark was told that they were going to get ready for Iraq, and then a little later he was told 'Oh it's even worse that', they are going to overthrow 7 countries in 5 years. 

Robles: In 5 years, right. They said that before the next world power rises up to challenge us. 

Barrett: Right, and it's interesting that the most likely prospect for the next big world power is China, and though there is some strategic encirclement of China. It seems that they are facing towards the Islamic world and they are facing towards Russia, demonizing these other countries even though the likely challenger is China. 

You were listening to an interview with Dr Kevin Barrett. That was part 1 of a longer interview. Thank you very much for listening and I wish you the best wherever you may be.

Part Two: Neocons Hastened Demise of US Empire

21 March, 15:25

Download audio file

As the US attempts to rule the world from Washington through the use of force and a policy of aggressive war the neocon architects have overlooked the fact that the military depends on the economy and the US economy is hallowed out and on the verge of collapse. Countries such as Russia and China with strong economies will rise while the US neocons who came into power in the 9-11 coup d'état have only hastened the demise of the very empire that they were intended to prop up. This was stated in an interview with Professor Kevin Barrett, who characterized Zbignew Brzezinski and the neocons as complete fanatical militarists zio-nazis that want to attack anybody and are even happy to attack Russia and threaten the world with WWIII.

Hello! This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett. He is a Doctor and a Professor in Arabic and Islamic studies, and the cofounder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth. He is also the owner and manager of truthjihad.com. This is part 2 of an interview in progress.

PART 1 

Barrett: The most likely prospect for the next big world power is China. So, there is some strategic encirclement of China. It seems that they are facing towards the Islamic world and they are facing towards Russia demonizing these other countries, even though the likely challenger is China. And you have to sort of wonder why that would be. I suppose, in a sense they are keeping in practice, you know, trying to keep their big military beefed-up. Always have an enemy, you know, convince the people that there is always a big threat and that way you can keep that huge imperial force out there.

But the irony of this is that the military depends on the economy. And actually, it also hurts the economy, to spend too much on the military. One of the reasons why China is rising so fast, is that China spends a much smaller amount of its GDP on its military than the US does.

One of the reasons the US is collapsing is that it is adapting its policy that is not geared towards real economic growth at home. It is letting its corporations exploit workers all over the world and flee. And so we've got crumbling factories here in the US. The real economy is hollowed out here. And in the long run the place with the real economy, which of course is China right now, is going to rise. And the US will not be able to support its gargantuan military forever as its economy crumbles.

So, there is a real irony here. I think that the neocons have brainwashed themselves by reading too many stories of glorious victories in WW II and so on. They are really so tied into this ideology of militarism and tribalism, and politics as a science of enmity, that they miss the way that real power is mainly about the economy and the technology that goes hand in hand with the economy.

So, I think it is ironic that the rise of the neocons in 9-11, which was a neocon coup d'état, has in a sense hastened the demise of the very empire that they were intended to prop up.

Robles: I think they also missed the chapter in the book on the WW II, that it was actually the Soviet Union that won the war on the Eastern Front.

Barrett: That's right! Yes, the myth of the WW II that we get here in the US is this black versus white, good versus evil myth. And for some reason the US and England are tied together, and the Jews, are tied together as the good guys. And the Nazis are the main bad guys. And somehow the Russian contribution doesn't get mentioned very much.

And it wasn't just a contribution, as you suggest. What was it? Three quarters plus of the German troops and military equipment was on the Eastern Front. It was really the Russians that defeated Hitler. And that was the war which really primarily was a war between Russia and Germany.

Robles: They say up to 40 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in WWII. So, it was the single biggest loss to any people in that war.

Barrett: Right! And all we hear about here really is the sacred story of the holocaust. I mean, the reason for the American dominant discourse that the WWII was good versus evil is because Hitler was the ultimate evil because he murdered 6 million Jews in the gas chambers. That's what we are told here. And it's become a kind of a sacred myth.

Personally, I think the historical facts are that indeed the Nazis bore the responsibility for a very large number of deaths in their work camps. Some of those work camps were horrific and people were worked to death. And then, they starved at the end of the war due to the economic collapse.

But the reality of these things, and the reality of allied war crimes as well, is that Germans intentionally firebombed populated German cities, or rather the British, had a policy of mass-murdering civilians with firebombs. They thought that that would somehow cause the German people to lose their morale.

The Americans joined in and then started firebombing Japanese cities, and then dropped two nuclear bombs as well. Eisenhower supposedly starved as many as a million or more German POWs after the war behind barbed wire with nothing to eat or drink. A million died. We can talk about mass murders in concentration camps. And then, another million or two plus Germans died in these so-called relocations after the war under allied occupation.

I believe the Russians were not exactly kind and gentle with Germany after the war either. But here in the West we get this propaganda line of good versus evil, which seems to be designed to obfuscate a lot of the allied war crimes of that war, which was an evil, ugly war in which everyone suffered. And we have this phony, sanitized version of it, which is used to motivate continued aggression.

And today they are casting Putin as a new Hitler, which is a joke, you know. But that's just the vocabulary that they use here to try to mobilize the public opinion. Fortunately, it is not working very well. I don't see anybody who is the least bit excited about trying to go to war in Ukraine.

People, I think are reading what they see in the media, reading the papers and watching TV and seeing this stuff, and maybe not actively disputing as much as we would wish, but I don't think they are being energized by that. I really don't think the American people are buying into this neocon propaganda myth that: "we must go and stand up for the Ukrainian people against the evil monster Russian Hitler" and that kind of nonsense.

Robles: 400,000 Nazis found refuge in the US after WW II. They started all the MK-Ultra programs and all that stuff. That's one thing I'd like you to comment on. It shows the hypocrisy.

Another thing, you may not have heard and I would like to get this out there as much as possible, one of the first things, other than banning the Russian language in Ukraine, that these Nazis did, they went to the UN. Their so-called UN Ambassador, which was somebody they picked from the mob on Maidan Square when they chose their government. They go in there and he says – the Nuremberg trials were illegitimate. Basically, this amounts to Holocaust denial, which I thought would have resonated in the US with all the stories of the Holocaust. Have you heard about that at all?

Barrett: They really haven't been reporting that here. It is just like in Syria. They don't report that we are supporting not just al-Qaeda, but we are supporting this group ISIL, that is even too radical for al-Qaeda, it is too extreme. They got kicked out of al-Qaeda for being too extreme.

Robles: These were the guys who executed 12 Al-Qaeda guys for being too soft two or three days ago, right?

Barrett: That's right! And that's our side in Syria. And the media doesn't really talk about that very much. And likewise, they don't talk very much about these upsurges of these Nazis in Ukraine. And it is weird, because here in America, if you question 9-11, they'll immediately start slandering you as a Holocaust denier.

It happened to me. I couldn't get this thing off my Wikipeadia page. Some guy, a blogger just made up this story that I supported three Holocaust deniers – David Irving and two other people. And I never even heard of the other two people, they were just totally made up. And yet I couldn't get it off the Wikipeadia page. And this is when I became well-known as a 9-11 activist.

So, they are using this Holocaust denial thing to try to police the thoughts of anybody who is at all dangerous to the power structure, but when it comes to actual Nazis and real Holocaust deniers in Ukraine, who are on the side of the US destabilization effort, apparently that is not a problem and we don't even need to notice it.

If somebody who disputes Nuremberg… I mean there are ways to dispute Nuremberg that I wouldn't have a problem with. Obviously, Nuremberg was victors justice, let's be honest about that. But, at the same time, it did set some good precedents, such as aggression being the supreme war crime. And it kept the peace reasonably well, prevented the world from being blown up right up through 9-11. And then the 9-11 changed the game, at least here in the US.

No longer were we going to respect the Nuremberg tribunal, ruling that aggression was the supreme war crime, and from now on we were going to feel free to engage in the so-called preemptive wars and wars of regime change. So, I guess when some Nazi is railing against Nuremberg…

Robles: I'd like to get you to say this. I mean, you said wars of regime change, humanitarian interventions, preemptive wars – these are all just acts of aggressive war, aren't they?

Barrett: Yes, they are not even pretending to be defensive anymore. That's what I'm saying. Now, when you say preemptive, it doesn't mean that there is any actual threat now, you are just preempting some imaginary future threat.

Robles: Yes, sure! Like I say – you might pick a gun up and you might get on an airplane, come over to Moscow and kill me, so I'm going to drone you.

Barret: Right! Exactly! And these neocons have said that this is what the empire has to do. You know, the empire has to make sure that no challenger could ever possibly arise and threaten US power. And so, 50 years before somebody is going to arise, you are going to shoot them. It is really an argument for killing babies, because they might grow up to be adults who would resist you. Which is what the Israelis do. But it seems like it's become the US foreign policy on a large scale.

Robles: Wait a minute! You said this is what the Israelis do?

Barrett: In the sense that the Israelis are notorious for killing Palestinian children. Chris Hedges wrote the article Gaza Diary observing Israeli soldiers luring Palestinian children into the range of their guns with insults so they could shoot them for sport. And around the same time the British Medical Journal documented more than 600 such killings. And more recently, we've seen these IDF T-shirts saying "One shot, two kills", showing the belly of a pregnant Palestinian woman.

Robles: Oh my god!

Barrett: And apparently they are very popular in the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), and other T-shirts with targets on Palestinian children. And there is a whole sort of weird ideology of going after the children. And there are quotes from Israeli leaders who've said that the children are going to grow up to be fighting against us, so they are the enemy too. And of course they are facing a demographic threat that ties in with that.

Robles: The eugenics failed, so they go after the children before they can grow up.

Barrett: Yes. And that is in a way kind of a model for this notion of preempting any potential challenger. It is like you can't allow countries or civilizations to grow up because some day they might become more powerful than you and it is really a prescription for a brutally aggressive policy.

And I think that the mistake that it makes, I mean, it is obviously morally wrong, but even strategically, it is going to provoke opposition and ultimately lead to its own demise.

The Israelis and Zionists have thrives on provoking opposition, and then casting themselves as the good guys against that opposition. But there is a limit to how far you can push that.

Right now the US and the Zionists are not very popular around the world and there is a lot of resistance, both below the surface and rising up above the surface. So, I don't think they are going to be able to keep this level of aggression going for all that long.

Robles: Now, a couple of things. A few minutes ago you've mentioned the rising power, that the threat to the US is China. What about Russia? You don't count on that? Russia is leading the world right now economically. It is forming alliances – the BRICS countries, the Eurasian Union which is coming up, more European-Russian integration.

Barrett: Brzezinski's strategic doctrine at least is to try to prevent the rise of any kind of united front in the Eurasian heartland. He recognizes that his project is trying to rule the world from a base in North America. And the problem with that is that the grand chessboard of the world has as a center of the chessboard the heart of Eurasia. And that is kind of in there between Russia, China and the Islamic world and India.

And so, that's where the majority of the world's people and resources, and wealth are. The English used this as their rule-the-world-technique as well. Divide and conquer the continental powers and this gives you the opportunity to divide and conquer the Eurasian heartland powers.

So, the rise of China as a very-very powerful single nation state that is going to have GNP way beyond the US GNP pretty soon and a much greater population and so on, that is one thing. But I think that the coalition of these Eurasian entities is also what threatens this project of trying to rule the world from North America or from Britain another island. They want to divide and conquer basically.

Robles: Brzezinski's plan for Russia was 68 autonomous regions.

Barrett: Something like that, yes. He is a fanatic about smashing up every country into little pieces and especially Russia that seems to be his biggest target.

Robles: Do you know that the entire upper echelon of the US foreign policy establishment, including Obama's advisors, they are all Brzezinski acolytes.

Barrett: Yes, I think Brzezinski is kind of the dean of the "realists' school" an heir to Kissinger, in a lot of ways. And in some respects Brzezinski and his people have split from the neocons. But the neocon element is much more Zionist and I think kind of more ideologically fanatical, whereas Brzezinski is basically sort of a pragmatic realist everywhere, except for when it comes to Russia, which he hates.

So, they've actually been disagreeing about Middle East policy and especially Iran. The neocons wanted to smash every Muslim country, destroy all the enemies of Israel and, ultimately, Iran is the biggest target. Whereas Brzezinski says in his book the Grand Chessboard that the single biggest US strategic imperative is to be friends with Iran. So, there's been a conflict around that.

But now it seems that the neocons and Brzezinski are on the same side, because the neocons are just complete fanatical militarists zio-nazis, they want to attack anybody. So, they are happy to attack Russia. And Brzezinski hates Russia because of his background, as you suggested. So, now we have Brzezinski teaming up with the neocons.

You were listening to an interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett. That was part 2 of a longer interview. 

Part Three: US Wars Continuation of Indian Genocide

21 March, 2014 21:16

US wars continuation of Indian genocide – Prof Kevin Barrett

Download audio file

The differences between Christianity, Islam and Judaism are things few talk about or understand but ones which Professor Kevin Barrett was kind enough to partially explain in part 3 of an interview with the Voice of Russia. Dr. Barrett also said that neocon Zionists and the likes of Zbignew Brzezinski do not represent the American people. Dr. Barrett says the US is overthrowing democracies all over the world including in Egypt, Thailand, Venezuela and now in Ukraine. All of these places have/had constitutional democratically elected governments and fairer elections than the US with its programmed Diebold voting machines.

Hello, this is John Robles. You are listening to an interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett, he is a Doctor and a Professor in Arabic and Islamic Studies, and the cofounder of the Muslim Jewish Christian Alliance for Truth. He is also the owner and manager of truthjihad.com. This is part 3 of a longer interview, you can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com.

PART 1PART 2

Barrett: And the whole media marching in lock-step with this anti Russia talk. It is really pathetic that the US is allowing these people with these kind of ethnic grudges, you know these Zionists, and Brzezinski, this Polish Catholic who hates Russia, to run their foreign policy. These people don't represent America, neocon-Zionists represent Israel and Brzezinski is an angry exile from Polish nobility. What does this have to do with American interests?

Robles: If you could explain what is the difference between a Zionist and the normal Jewish person?

Barrett: Judaism is first and foremost a religion, in a lot of ways it is like any other religion and in the West religions have been losing some of their hold on the minds, especially of the elites, since the Enlightenment and since then Judaism has made a transition from religion to ethnicity for a lot of people.

Probably about half Jewish population today is not very religious but they still feel Jewish and they feel very strongly attached to their ethnic group and that’s fine. My friend Dr. Alan Sabrosky says that he relates to his Jewish ethnicity through cuisine and not foreign policy.

Unfortunately though there are Zionists who relate to their ethnicity through a fanatical love of this genocidal settler colony over in occupied Palestine. It doesn't mean that they are all bad people, they've been brain washed like everybody else only more so, but Zionism is this project of invading, occupying and ethnically cleansing Palestine. It is an act ofaggression.

Zionism is a form of aggression which Nuremberg said was the supreme war crime so I'm forthrightly anti Zionists but certainly not anti-Jewish, I have all sorts of Jewish friends, radio guests who present different perspectives ranging from Rabbi (Yisroel Dovid) Weiss of Neturei Karta the who is a very conservative Orthodox Jew and an anti Zionist, that is on one side to all sorts of liberal and left and critical minded intellectual people of Jewish ethnicity who are a very important part of the whole intellectual ferment in the world.

Overall I respect Jewish ethnicity quite a lot and I think they've had great accomplishments and some incredible sense of humor, my favorite aspect of Jewish ethnicity here in the US. And I'm willing to be friends even with Jewish people who are very boneheadedly supportive of the genocide in Palestine. Everybody is wrong about something. So they are wrong about that and it doesn’t mean they are evil but I keep telling them truth about that and I hope that a few of them wake up to it.

Robles: What is the difference in your opinion, the core key differences between the Islamic faith, the Christian faith and Judaism?

Barrett: Interesting question. Well, I guess my perspective is formed by me being a Muslim and the reason I became a Muslim is that I agreed with that perspective, it made sense to me, so that said: to me Judaism seems to have been warped by a sort of struggle against God. You see that with the persecution of Job, you see it with Jacob becoming Israel when he wrestles with God, or with God's angel but maybe he was actually wrestling with God in the original story.

The Tora is great literature, to me it doesn’t make sense as scripture. Too much in the Tora that just… if you really believe this is God's word and the God that it is describing is the supreme one and only Creator of the Universe you are going to have to engage in some very wild and crazy leaps of faith to say the least.

With Christianity there it makes a lot more sense to me as scripture. There is this emphasis on mercy, forgiveness, love, identification with the victim Jesus, the guy that they crucified and scapegoated, and turns out to be God or divinely endowed with these beautiful teachings – turn the other cheek.

So I like the basic essence of Christianity but the Trinity doesn't make any sense, three guys in one doesn’t make any sense to me, and also it seems to me that Christianity was infected by hatred of the female principal and hatred of the body. Ord the early Christian castrated himself for that reason and people like Alan Dundes have suggested that the trinity in Christianity the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost or Spirit – 'spirit' being a word for semen is basically a fantasy of all male reproduction that gets rid of the woman. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and where is the woman? Mother Virgin Mary comes back as this image of the divine feminine and we have people like Dan Brown and others discovering that.

But in Islam, which is the faith that I have embraced, solves these problems or it rather corrects these misunderstandings. There is only one, God is oneness, absolute oneness, it is all mystics, whether there monotheists or not, Buddhists, American Indians all say that the most profound experience, faith based experience you have is one of absolute oneness.

So God is one, God is absolute oneness, not three. And the first two descriptions of God that we have are the merciful, the compassionate (Mono-Rahim?) which comes from the word for womb, it’s like mother love, the first characteristic of God is mother love, a kind of love mother has for her children. That just corrects misunderstandings very quickly. I could go on and on about how I see Islam and getting monotheism right but I'm sure you have other fish to fry.

Robles: As far as I know everything comes from the same book or the same basic teachings but Muslims don't believe that God could kill his son and the Jews think that the Jesus figure was just an average Jewish man.

Barrett: Muslims think that Jesus was an inspired prophet of God like Moses and Mohamed and all these other prophets. And that indeed God didn't kill his son – one of the big corrections that the Koran makes – it basically says that they thought they were crucifying Jesus but they were crucifying an illusion and we don't know what that means. But what it definitely does mean is that we shouldn't idolize the crucifixion we shouldn't be running around putting all of our energy in this horrible torture death and claiming that God tortured his son to death. That doesn't make any sense.

Robles: I don't guess the Nazis have a religious angle to them, do they? In Ukraine..

Barrett: They are sort of pagans/anti-religious. They are post Nietzsche. The modern West has been breaking free of Christianity so these are some sort of almost Satanic, or at least Faustian breakings free from Christianity and rediscovering this kind of pagan glory and dominance and mastery and hitler showed us that that leads to some bad stuff.

Robles: They are talking about destroying Orthodox Churches and hanging Jews and hanging Russians and hanging black people. It was really strange to watch how uncomfortable Obama was sitting next to this little nazi when they were speaking.

Barrett: We live in strange times.

Robles: Obama didn't even look at him. Obama I'm sure with all his CIA intelligence he knows exactly who was sitting next to him. What else can we say about Ukraine? Your opinion on where that is going if we could..

Barrett: I don't know exactly where it is going but it seems to me that I don't see how the West is going to keep this thing, destabilized. I don't see how they are going to chase Russia out of Crimea, Ukraine in general. They just don't have the power to do that. So it looks like the West is digging its own grave through these kind of extremist provocations that were not very well though out.

Robles: Imagine this happening in the US. Let's pick, I don’t know, Toronto, Canada or Ontario or something and lots of Americans there, maybe busloads have been killed, nazis start up, they say they are going to kill all Americans like they are doing in Crimea. Can you imagine the US not doing anything about it?

Barrett: Well, right, it shows this extreme double standard hypocrisy. There are two sets of rules: one for the rest of the world and one for us. That's been the attitude for a long time. The Zionists are like that, maybe even more so.

It seems there is a kind of a pathological inability for Americans. Even average Americans have shared this failing, to see the other person's point of view. It is really hard to sit down with Americans and say: “Look, this is how it looks from say Pakistan where American drones are blowing up wedding parties. Can you really imagine how you would feel if you go to a wedding and suddenly your kids and your friends get blown up by some foreign country that just sent this bomb to come and blow you up.” Like you would go bananas, right? But people don’t think that way.

And at the top leadership level it is even worse. There is some weird naïve quality to Americans that the world ends at America's shores, since we are an isolated continent and the strange inability to see things from the other point of view and we are seeing that all over the world today.

Robles: I speak a lot with native Americans and they say all of you are delusional, because you are never taught the real history of the country. Everybody who is calling themselves Americans now, they’reliving on stolen lands, everybody is denying the greatest genocide in the history of mankind which was the genocide of the American Indians. Do you think that plays into American psychology?

Barrett: Yeah, sure. My friend Tony Hall who is a Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge talks about this all the time – how there is a kind of a continuum between the genocide against native Americans who were cast within even the Declaration of Independence, which is a magnificent document in some ways, as the merciless Indian savages.

They charged King George with coddling the merciless Indian savages who we wanted to chase off their land and exterminate, that is why we fought the American Revolution. That is one of the reasons.

So Tony Hall sees a continuum between that and the wars that have followed as taking our full Manifest Destiny from sea to shining sea and we’ve declared the Monroe Doctrine and we've got the Western Hemisphere to ourselves and then we start going in and grabbing colonies, stealing Spain's colonies in Spanish American War and on and on and on.

These wars that have been fought since WWII were really American colonial imperial wars which Tony Hall says are kind of continuations of the genocide against the native Americans. Which is why we have Black Hawk helicopters, Black Hawk and his people including most of the women and children were just shot down like animals, pretty close to where I live.

They are doing the same thing to people around the world and especially the Islamic world right now that they were done to a Black Hawk and so many other native Americans. It has to do with that strange psychology that we talked about.

Robles: You see the resources, you wipe out the people. That is what's been going on for 300 years now. I just see a continuation of it myself.

The right to self determination. It is a right in the UN Charter, I think it is 2.7, I don't remember the exact number. The people of Palestine have that right, the Jewish people have that right, why don't the Russian people in Crimea or Ukrainians in general have that right?

Barrett: Yeah, it is just amazing that the American power structure is making it sound like a referendum in Crimea is somehow some nazi style act of military aggression. This is mind boggling given that the US and its friends have gone around breaking up other countries, smashed Sudan into two pieces and that was a transparently phony and manipulated creation of ethnic hatreds that were used to break that country up intentionally.

And here we have people wanting a peaceful referendum after an unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government and somehow this is an active evil and aggression. It is such a joke, it is just that level of lies in high places is never… You can just never believe that it has gotten this extreme.

I don't think that the Americans care about democracy anymore we’re overthrowing democracy in Egypt, overthrowing democracy in Thailand, overthrowing democracy in Venezuela and now in Ukraine. All of these places have constitutional democratically elected governments. The have fairer elections than the US has.

US elections are determined by programmed Diebold voting machine. These countries have better elections that the US does. Now we have this simultaneous attempt to overthrow all of these constitutional democratically elected governments all over the world. It is very strange, we are now dedicated to making the world unsafe for democracy.

Robles: What else is going on?

Barrett: In Thailand the US tried to overthrow that democratically elected government, although it may not be the world's best government but none of these governments are. The US government is neither. But still the pretext of supporting democracy has really worn thin.

You were listening to an interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett. This was part 3 of a longer interview. Thank you very much for istening and I wish you the best wherever you may be.

Part Four: Malaysian MH370 may have been remotely hijacked

Malaysian MH370 may have been remotely hijacked – Prof Kevin Barrett

22 March, 2014 22:20

Download audio file

The mystery continues into the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370. Could it be that the crew and everyone on board were incapacitated by hypoxia and the aircraft flew on autopilot until it ran out of fuel or, according to Professor Kevin Barrett, the plane could have been remotely hijacked using something called the Flight Termination System developed by a company run by Dov Zakheim. Dr. Barrett believes that the same group that was involved in 9-11 and used this system may also be behind the flight's disappearance. 

Whether an assassination, an airborne kidnapping for interrogation or perhaps the fact that the spare parts of a 777 aircraft are apparently worth over $100 million, the mystery will not be solved until the plane is located, the search continues.

Hello, this is John Robles. You are listening to an interview with Dr Kevin Barrett, he is a Doctor and a Professor in Arabic and Islamic Studies, and the co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth. He is also the owner and manager of truthjihad.com. This is part 4 of a longer interview, you can find the previous parts of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com.

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

Robles: You deal with theories sometimes, I do. This Malaysian aircraft that went down, I think it was 289 Chinese citizens on board, and the CIA came out with one...they said it was 'possibly a terrorist attack'. Is that somehow as an expansion of the war on terror into the Asia-Pacific region?

Barrett: I don't really know what is behind this tragedy, with this Malaysian airline flight. We did just publish an article on this that went viral, and in my article I pointed out similarities between some of the very strange aspects of this incident and that of 9-11. Yeah, on 9-11 and with this Malaysian flight we had planes suddenly lose their transponders, there was no emergency squawk from the cockpit and that only takes about a second or two.

So there is no way that a hijacker can get into a cabin and they are not going to squawk the emergency hijack code. And there is no way that something catastrophic is going to happen and they are not going to squawk that emergency beacon. So something completely inexplicable happened there. These planes on 9-11 and this plane in Malaysia veered wildly off course, transponders went off and then basically just disappeared off the face of the Earth as far as we know.

And then there were cell phone anomalies in both cases. In the case of the Malaysian plane we had lots of family members of the passengers as well as the company people calling the crew who reported that the cell phones were ringing, well a couple of days I believe after the plane disappeared, which means that the cell phones must have been switched on and they must have been near a cell phone tower, that means that this plane cannot have gone down in the water. Now in 9-11 we had famous cell phone anomalies, there were 15 reported cell phone calls from passengers from hijacked planes, then in 2006 the FBI admitted that at least 13 of these alleged cell phone calls never happened.

Robles: It wasn't possible, I'm sorry, at that time in history it wasn't technically possible to make cell phone calls from aircraft, right?

Barrett: Well, that's right. Yes. The original story was there were 15 cell phone calls, most of them from altitudes of 30,000 feet or so, which was technically completely preposterous. So that is why in 2006 the FBI changed the story.

And in the biggest cell phone anomaly is the alleged call from Solicitor General Ted Olson to his wife Barbara Olson, who is a famous TV commentator, both of them were Bush regime members. Ted Olson was in fact the guy who argued Bush into power in 2000 before the Supreme Court.

Ted Olson on 9-11 said that his wife called him from hijacked Flight 77. He told several different stories about it, some days he said it was a cell phone, some days he said it was a seat-back phone. He said he talked to her twice, once for several minutes. It turns out that that was lie, the FBI in 2006 confirmed that there was no conversation. The FBI said there were two attempts to call Olson's phone and that both of them lasted for zero seconds. So the FBI confirmed that Ted Olsen lied when he claimed that his wife called him from aboard a hijacked plane.

And there are many other cell phone anomalies as well, but these are just of a surface level one. So we have these really interesting parallels between the two events. And ultimately I think the most likely hypothesis for what happened on 9-11 may also apply to this Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 which is that in both cases we are probably dealing with remote hijackings. It seems that on 9-11 the commercial airliners were remotely hijacked.

Robles: For listeners can you tell us exactly what you mean by 'remote hijacking'?

Barrett: Yeah, there is a system for taking over a plane from a location that is not on the plane. You can either do it from the ground or you can do it from another aircraft. And there was a system developed called The Flight Termination System developed by a company run by Dov Zakheim. Dov Zakheim is a radical Zionist who was head of the, he was the controller of the Pentagon, in charge of the Pentagon budget up through 9-11. And he managed to lose $2.3 trillion of the Pentagon's money during that period.

Zakheim's company created The Flight Termination System, which allows you to take over planes from either the ground or from another plane. So for various reasons researchers looking into 9-11 think that the most likely hypothesis about what happened that day was that commercial airliners were remotely hijacked by people using Dov Zakheim's Flight Termination System, or something like it. They were probably landed at military bases, and drones were then used to attack the targets. So the planes that we saw flying into the World Trade Center were almost certainly remote-controlled drones.

This Malaysian 370 plane also appears to have been remotely hijacked because all of the systems stopped working, the pilots were unable to squawk an emergency request for help, and as I said that only takes one second. So if anything happens a pilot always squawks that, and there is even a code for hijacking which takes a couple of seconds to squawk.

There was no squawking any code, there was the transponders just “boom” went off, and then the plane turned and flew off and disappeared, just like on 9-11. So I think the most likely hypothesis would be that Malaysian Flight 370 was remotely hijacked by a person or persons unknown, and the group that we know is in control of this technology and using if for nefarious purposes is the group that used it on 9-11.

Robles: What would be the purpose then here?

Barrett: Well the spare parts of a 777 aircraft are apparently worth over $100 million so that might provide some motivation, and there may have been people on that plane who somebody wanted to interrogate or get rid of. It is hard to say. I don't really know what the motive would be at this point but we know that quite often intelligence agencies cause plane crashes in order to kill targeted individuals who are on the plane.

Robles: Sure, and it could be one person, right?

Barrett: Yeah, they'll take down a whole plane for one person. I've interviewed Saint John Hunt whose father Howard Hunt was a high level CIA agent, and his mom Dorothy Hunt was killed in a staged plane crash by CIA people. Likewise I've John Perkins on my radio show, the Economic Hit Man, who's talked about how his colleagues killed many heads of state in sporadic [6: 59] plane crashes.

Robles: This is the Asteroids, or who is this?

Barrett: Yeah, he calls them the Asteroids. Or they call themselves the Asteroids.

Robles: You are only the second person I've talked to who knows anything about the Asteroids.

Barrett: Really? More people should read John Perkins' book then.

Robles: You said a $100 million for the spare parts of a 777?

Barrett: Well I'm getting that from Mike Rivero, so I don't know.

Robles: That is very interesting. Maybe you can give us your opinion? You've heard of Philip Marshall, right?

Barrett: Yeah, sure. I've worked with Wayne Madsen on that.

Robles: Oh, you worked with Wayne Manson on that. I talked to Wayne and he was telling me he was investigating the death of Mr. Marshall and the fact that he was working on a book regarding the Boneyard. As soon as you mentioned spare parts that Boneyard came to mind. Do you know anything about that?

Barrett: All I know is what I heard from Wayne about this. But yeah, Wayne Manson believes that Philip Marshall, who was an old CIA drug pilot who flew Barry Seal, the most notorious drug smuggler in history all over the place back in the day, and who then wrote a 9-11 truth book and ended up dying with his two children, and the cops ruled it murder-suicide, quite implausibly according to Wayne Madsen who flew out there and investigated. Well Wayne says that his best guess as to why they killed Philip Marshall and his kids - well they didn't mean to kill his kids – they just, when the hit men showed up the kids were there so they had to kill the kids too and make it a murder/suicide.

Robles: Yeah, we talked about this. Wayne said that the wife was … she was out of town, she wasn't supposed to have been and the kids were accidently there, along with the dog.

Barrett: Yeah just how kind and gentle these people are, but anyway, Wayne thinks that they killed Philip Marshall because Philip Marshall had been poking around the Boneyard which is a big old aircraft graveyard with high security down in New Mexico...

Robles: Arizona it is.

Barrett: Arizona, yeah. And that there may be 9-11 planes still there or other clues to what happened on 9-11.

Robles: The planes has always been a point of contention for me, two of them – their registration numbers I believe are still active today.

Barrett: They were deactivated years later after 9-11.

Robles: Oh, they are deactivated now. Two of them are still spotted occasionally, right?

Barrett: My colleague Jim Fetzer is really big on this and he says I think there were two that were still flying around for several years, but I think they did get deactivated in... Ok, here it is – 28th of September, 2005 the tale numbers that were Flights 93 and 175 were deregistered on 28th of September, 2005.

Robles: Ok, that is the two we are talking about, that was the Pentagon and the one that went down and in that, supposedly in that field in Pennsylvania, right?

Barrett: No. It was actually the South Tower Plane and the Pennsylvania plane.

Robles: Oh, it was the South Tower Plane and the Pennsylvania plane, wow. Ok, interesting. Here is what I know, this is off the record here. Just wanted to run this by you about 9-11. From what I've gathered, and this is my own thinking here, that maybe some of the people that were involved in it, in the planning and planting the explosives and the teams that were sent to rig the buildings to collapse, they may have been on that plane that was supposedly went down in Pennsylvania. I don't know if you know about the reports in Cleveland, Ohio, but that plane had landed and there was a television crew, an ABC-news crew, and they said that the plane was taxied to a NASA hanger and there was 184 people on board or something, they were evacuated, they were never seen again. My thinking was, that was like the support staff, they were taken over there and killed on that plane. But do you know anything about that?

Barrett: Yeah. I think the short answer to what happened to the passengers is that the complicit ones were handed their check and their new identity in their witness protection program and the non complicit ones were killed. And yes, this hundred and eighty plus people off loaded at Cleveland – that could have pretty much represented all of the alleged passengers, or all of the passengers.

There may have been a way that they were able to get all the passengers from these four flights onto one flight, possibly because some of the passengers were complicit, and a number of the people that developed The Flight Termination System for Dov Zakheim's company were apparently on these flights, and there were number of other suspicious people as well. Yeah, it seems quite possible that they could have killed a lot of the people who were involved in the technical end of things that way, or they could have ordered them into particular places in the doomed buildings and had them locked up somewhere in the doomed buildings and then the buildings blow up.

Robles: My thinking is that anyone that was involved was killed, everybody. We haven't seen a big leak or a revelation or anyone come forward.

Barrett: Yeah, well. I don't know if they would have to kill exactly everybody but I think they have quite sophisticated techniques for profiling people and figuring out who's trustworthy and who isn't. I'm sure they would err on the side of caution probably, but I think that is actually something that people aren't aware of, but they should be aware of, is the way profiling is done.

I'm reading about this 1953 Iran coup and one of the reasons it was successful is that they went to great lengths to profile all of the key people and know what makes them tick; that way they find out who can be corrupted and so on, and who can't be. And likewise, with 9-11, I think the reason that the NSA started turning its equipment on the American people in spring of 2001 was to get information that profiled people and make sure that nobody with any power was going to stand up against this coming coup d'état.

And when it comes to the actual people that pull off these things, I'm sure they are very carefully profiled. John Perkins says that the reason they picked him to be an economic hit man was that they caught sight of him when he lied to protect a friend, but he had done something illegal - not a huge crime. But Perkins very glibly and successfully lied to protect his friend and somehow that was noticed and so they ran him through a bunch of personality tests and hired him to be an economic hit man.

I think he believed, and I would believe to, that if somebody who had done a competent job of killing someone might very well become an Asteroid, and the military also is always looking for people like with language skills, they'll send you to their Monterey Language School and if your test is like 140 or 150 plus IQ psychopath then they will probably see you as material for being one of these special forces killers. And then I've heard that the banksters with their piles of the money who can pay a lot more than the military…

Robles: Mine was 182 and I know 5 languages, they never took me.

Barrett: Oh yeah, I know several languages too, But they don't need very much to know I'm a trouble maker.

Robles: But I'm a terrible liar. I can't lie, I can't even lie to complete strangers, they know right away when I'm lying.

Robles: So like you are no good for the empire at all, you are totally useless for them. I kind of have the same problem. I can't even fudge enough to keep my wife happy.

Robles: Yeah, me neither. Oh my god. Ok, I've got a very good finish here.

Barrett: So we are both stupid and incorruptible.

Robles: OK. All right , take care. Thanks a lot.

Barrett: Thank you, bye.

Robles: Bye-bye.

You were listening to an interview with Dr Kevin Barrett. That was part 4 of a longer interview, you can find the previous parts of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com. Thank you very much for listening and I wish you the best wherever you may be.

On Who Benefitted from the Tragic Events of 9/11

14 September 2011, 21:32

Download audio file

Interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett, Doctor in Arabic and Islamic Studies, and a Co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish Christian Alliance for Truth, he is also the owner of Truthjihad.com. Today I would like to ask you some questions on 9/11. My first question is - who benefited from the tragic events of September 11 2001?

Interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett, Doctor in Arabic and Islamic Studies, and a Co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish Christian Alliance for Truth, he is also the owner of Truthjihad.com.

Today I would like to ask you some questions on 9/11. My first question is - who benefited from the tragic events of September 11 2001?

Well, it is very clear that the Muslims didn’t benefit. Why would any Arab Muslim extremist want to do something like 9/11, which tripled the American military budget and launched American wars of aggression against the Islamic countries. So the answer of course is that it was the exact enemies of the people who were blamed for 9/11, who benefited from 9/11, and that would be the neo-conservative authors of Rebuilding America’s Defenses, a documents put out by The Project for the New American Century just one year before the 9/11, calling for a massive increase in the US military budget, the launching of pre-emptive wars of aggression, especially in the Middle East, and in particular an effort to make the world safe for Israel in the Middle East. The two parties who benefited the most from 9/11 were the US military industrial complex and the hardliners in Israel.

There is a statement in the document you mentioned – that the US needed a new Pearl Harbour.

They said that to get the changes that they wanted - it wouldn’t happen without a quote: “Catalyzing event such as a new Pearl Harbor.” In the 1990s the US military did extensive psychological studies, they hired the world’s leading focus group expert to try to look at why Americans still hated the Japanese, and they found that Pearl Harbour had shattered American’s sense of invulnerability and that this had led to a sort of undying hatred, and that is what they wanted to replicate, to allow for an endless war of aggression against the Arab and Muslim peoples.

What are the key discrepancies in the official version?

Probably the most obvious one is the destruction of building 7, it came down into it’s own footprint at about 5.23 or so in the afternoon, for no discernable reason, there were only a couple of small fires in this building. There is no reason for that building to come down the way it did. There is absolutely no question that  building 7 was a controlled demolition, and yet our government and its NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, released a long-overdue report on building 7 a couple of years ago that claimed that the reason was ordinary office fires. It’s one of the most egregious cases of scientific fraud ever perpetrated. I mean anybody who takes a hard work at what happened to building 7 will have to admit that there is a huge problem in the official version of 9/11, and then they will look at the towers and discover that those too were controlled demolitions. We are talking about the most complex and sophisticated controlled demolitions that have ever been, even attempted, on this planet. So real experts did this, after a tremendous amount of planning and calculation and thought.

The plane that was supposed to have crashed in Pennsylvania, there was a television broadcast in Ohio that the plane had landed, had taxied to a NASA hangar and the people on board had been evacuated and no one has ever ever seen them again. Do you know anything about that?

There is a new member of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth who is also an experienced pilot of these large airliners, and he is currently hiding in fear for his life in Pakistan, and in his statement, he states, flat out that the passengers on these planes were unloaded at Cleveland airport and killed, that is one very plausible hypothesis.

All right…the Pentagon…

Thierry Meyssan got it right in his book; L'Effroyable Imposture (9/11: The Big Lie) which came out in early 2002, and then he put “Hunt the Boeing” on his website, looking at these pictures of the Pentagon immediately after impact and you don’t see any evidence whatsoever of any plane crash there, and there is a little tiny hole in the first floor of the building…

And there is a broken window on the first floor, and that’s it.

But around the hole, the windows are actually unbroken, and then the lawn is unscratched. Now how can a plane go into that 20 foot hole and not break all the windows around it, not even any dents where the engines would have hit the building and not leave a scratch on the lawn? This plane is 40 some feet high, and it is just ridiculous to imagine that it could have gotten into that hole and not impacted the lawn and not left any marks where the engines were. There was very likely a bomb at the Pentagon, that went off at 9.31. Other witnesses agree that what happened was probably a bombing, April Gallop, who was injured, along with her baby, while working in the Pentagon, walked out of the hole and saw no evidence whatsoever of any plane crash and was taken to the hospital, and then surrounded by military guys, brow-beating her and telling her that there had been a plane crash. She is suing the Bush administration today for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. If you look at the actual facts, they don’t add up, they don’t make sense, it was an insane idea to do this, they don’t care about any of this, because it was so shocking and terrifying that they were able to get the American people to swallow this insane story without even any evidence to back it up. We have strong evidence against them, and all we need is a subpoena-power-possessed investigation and this set of dominos will come down very, very quickly.

How has the world changed since 9/11?

It has changed for the worse, in so many ways. As I said the US military budget tripled, and that means that the amount of money that human beings are wasting on building technologies to kill each other is completely out of control and these bureaucracies of mass murder and lies have grown cancerously. So today the US economy is dead-in-the-water and it has been dead-in-the-water since September 2001, and that is the reason for the world economic crisis, the great exaggeration in military spending right here in the USA, what is changed is that we have gone from living in a reality-based world to living in an Orwellian nightmare world, of a boot-stomping-on-a-human-face-for-all-eternity, which is what we have been given post 9/11, and the only way to get back to some semblance of reality is to get to the truth of 9/11 and to establish the truth in court and for the history books.

Afghanistan, Iraq.. Would that have that all been possible without 9/11?

Absolutely not. You may recall that when Bill Clinton bombed the factory in Sudan, in retaliation for the Cole bombing he bombed the Taliban or supposedly al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, he was met with tremendous resistance, people said: Why are you killing all these innocent people in this nebulous retaliation for these nebulous events…so at that time the hands of American executive power were relatively tied. Today the President of the United States is just slaughtering people all over the world, he claims the right to murder, disappear and torture anybody including American citizens without any due process of law. So that has been the real change, I think, that they wanted to institute since 9/11.

 

Donate 

  Please help keep us going and make a donation

PayPal, Yandex, Qiwi, Сбербанк Sberbank Visa 4276 3800 4543 8756

Visit our donation page    Follow @JohnARobles  On Twitter