Princess Diana: 15 Years Of Lies, Spies And Cover-Ups

By Jon King

Henri Paul’s Blood And A ‘Drink-Drive Accident’

This year marks the 15th anniversary of Princess Diana’s death, and despite two separate investigations – both of which manipulated evidence in support of the ‘drink-drive accident’ theory – and a Royal Inquest which at least found that Diana’s death was the result of ‘unlawful killing’ (but which fell woefully short of properly investigating allegations of ‘conspiracy to murder’), the evidence, when examined, still massively suggests the princess was assassinated.

Questions still remain regarding the veracity of Henri Paul’s blood test, for example – the very test on which the original ‘drink-drive’ verdict was based.

Why was the blood taken from the wrong part of the body? Why was it stored in a vial marked “unknown male”? Who was this “unknown male”? Why was it never DNA-tested to prove it belonged to Henri Paul?

And why was evidence given by Professor Peter Vanezis, Regis Professor of Forensic Medicine at Glasgow University, completely overlooked by the Royal Coroner?

Due to the excessive levels of carbon monoxide found in Henri Paul’s blood, Professor Vanezis, together with five other equally eminent forensic experts, concluded that: “The blood tested was not that of Henri Paul”. [Operation Paget Report, Page 323].

The 20.7% carbon monoxide level, they concurred, simply could not be explained, and suggested the blood must have been taken from another body at the morgue  – most likely someone who committed suicide by inhaling car exhaust fumes.

Indeed, it is the only logical explanation as to how such excessive levels of carbon monoxide were found in the mystery blood sample.

The question is: Was the sample switched deliberately?

Princess Diana: 15 Years Of Lies, Spies And Cover-Ups

Henri Paul’s Autopsy – Evidence Brushed Aside

There are many questions surrounding Henri Paul’s autopsy – questions which were simply brushed aside by the Royal Inquest.

This coupled with a level of incompetence equaled only by the antics of Inspector Clouseau tend to raise suspicions even further.

In the first instance Professor Dominique Lecomte, who conducted the autopsy, wrongly identified Henri Paul’s body, confusing it with that of Dodi Fayed. Paul’s body was numbered with Dodi Fayed’s ID tag, and was then incorrectly measured and labeled, causing doubt as to whether the samples tested were actually taken from his body, or not.

“There was no explanation for the different weights and heights of Henri Paul referred to by Professor Lecomte,” the inquest noted. “There was no explanation for some of the sample labels being handwritten and some being pre-printed.” [Operation Paget Report, Page 285 and 286]

The report also notes that Professor Lecomte’s assistant, Commandant Mule, “accepted that he made an error in mixing body numbers 2146 and 2147.” [Operation Paget Report, Page 260]

But perhaps the biggest mystery surrounds the discovery of an autopsy document signed by someone known only as ‘Andrieux’. The name of this still-unidentified person appears on a document where figures had been mysteriously altered, prompting the inquest to note:

“There was no explanation for the different figures on documents D789/1 and D1322, for example ’4 viscera’ on ’31/8/97’ and ’5+5 viscera’ on ’1/9/97’. There was no explanation of the word ‘Andrieux’ handwritten on Document D789/1.” [Operation Paget Report, Page 285 and 286].

And these weren’t the only figures to have been tampered with. As the coroner’s report clearly highlights: “There was no apparently logical/reasonable explanation for the change in the number of blood samples taken on 31 August 1997 to be changed from ‘5’ to ‘3’.” [Operation Paget Report, Page 285 and 286].

A clear admission that the original entry stating that 5 blood samples had been taken from Henri Paul’s body for testing had at some point been altered to 3. So what happened to the other 2 samples? Only 3 were ever tested, all of which produced widely differing results. Is this because they were taken from different bodies?

If there were 5 blood samples being passed around, and only 3 had been taken from Henri Paul’s body, where did the other 2 come from?

When questioned on this matter, Professor Lecomte was unable to “recall” how many samples had been taken, or indeed, precisely where they had been taken from. As the coroner’s report concludes:

“It was not possible to say with any certainty how many blood samples were taken on 31 August 1997. The evidence in the French dossier accounted for three blood samples – one went to Professor Ricordel and two to Dr Pepin for analysis. If there were two other blood samples taken on 31 August 1997 they were not referred to anywhere in the French dossier in terms of toxicological analysis or destruction.” [Operation Paget Report, Page 285 and 286]

All in all the autopsy procedure was a complete farce, a fact which not only beggars belief. Given the high-profile nature of the incident, it also begs the question: Was all the confusion surrounding Henri Paul’s autopsy due solely to French incompetence?

Or was the confusion a smoke-screen thrown up to obscure vital evidence?

Princess Diana: 15 Years Of Lies, Spies And Cover-Ups

Henri Paul: Secret Agent – A Sizeable Fortune

There are other aspects to consider, particularly in relation to who and what Henri Paul actually was. He was, after all, the key player in Princess Diana’s death, but was he a witting participant?

What is known about Henri Paul (left) is that he was a part-time and seemingly well-paid intelligence agent. The telephone number of his French intelligence (DST) handler was found in his address book on the night he died, as detailed in the coroner’s report:

“Henri Paul had two telephone numbers alongside ‘DST’ in his telephone contact lists. The DST has confirmed that Henri Paul was known to them and was tasked with ‘enquiries in hotel circles’. They denied being with him on Saturday 30 August 1997.” [Operation Paget Report, Page 191]

Henri Paul’s ties to MI6 are also well documented, which should come as little surprise; his position as Deputy Head of Security at the Ritz Hotel in Paris made him an obvious target for the intelligence services, to whom he supplied miscellaneous information on a cash-for-services basis.

The Ritz was, and remains, a regular haunt for the world’s top movers and shakers – businessmen, bankers, diplomats etc. – and Henri Paul was ideally placed to glean information on his clients for which his intelligence handlers were only too pleased to pay handsomely.

Indeed, a cursory glance at Henri Paul’s personal finances betrays this fact clearly enough.

On the night of Diana’s death, Paul met with his French intelligence contact during the hours leading up to the fatal crash. Though the DST deny the meeting, Paul was found later that night with around $2,000 in cash tucked inside his wallet.

Further evidence of Paul’s secret work as an intelligence agent emerged when it was discovered that he had amassed around $350,000 in fifteen separate bank accounts, $90,000 of which had been deposited during the final eight months of his life – that’s about $11,000 a month, or $130,000 a year, around four times his annual salary. So where did this money come from?

Unbelievably, the Royal Inquest concluded that Paul’s sizeable fortune was the result of tips he must have received from wealthy Ritz clients. And the only thing to be said about that is they must have really, really liked him.

Princess Diana: 15 Years Of Lies, Spies And Cover-Ups

James Andanson – Godfather And Paparazzo

James Andanson (below) was another part-time spy whose cover was blown in the wake of Princess Diana’s death.

Known as the ‘Godfather’ of the paparazzi, Andanson was a French photojournalist who made his name – and his fortune – snapping British Royals on their European travels.

It was Andanson, a self-confessed Anglophile and low-level MI6 agent, who took the now famous photograph of Prince Charles kissing royal nanny, Tiggy Legge-Bourke, while on a skiing holiday in the Swiss Alps. The snap landed Prince Charles in a heap of trouble, and Andanson a heap of cash. Reportedly he earned around $200,000 from the sale of the photograph. Not bad a for a morning’s sight-seeing.

But there was a darker side to James Andanson, who was known to mix in somewhat shady, often high-powered circles. That he would come to be implicated in Princess Diana’s death was not entirely surprising.

When former French Prime Minister, Pierre Beregovoy, died ‘in mysterious circumstances’ in May 1993, Andanson was named as the last man to have seen him alive. Evidently Beregovoy had shot himself in the head, twice. His death was ruled as suicide.

Princess Diana: 15 Years Of Lies, Spies And Cover-Ups

James Andanson – A White Fiat Uno

The name ‘James Andanson’ came to light with regard to Diana’s death when it was discovered he owned a white Fiat Uno identical to the one known to have been involved in the crash.

In February 1998, five months after the princess’s death, Andanson was questioned by French police about his ownership of the Uno and about his whereabouts on the night Diana died. But on the strength of a highly dubious alibi, he was later released without charge.

Andanson’s story, however, does not end there. He was by his own confession in Paris the night Diana died. He had followed the couple across the Mediterranean during the weeks leading up to the crash, and was among the first of the paparazzi to arrive in Paris ahead of the couple as they touched down at Le Bourget airport, only to be greeted by the waiting ‘rat pack’ of paparazzi.

Andanson would tail the couple for the remainder of the day, relaying information to his MI6 handlers on their whereabouts and movements, providing vital intelligence which allowed the assassins to remain one step ahead at every turn.

Indeed, Andanson would be the first paparazzo to arrive at the crash scene later that evening, little knowing that the photographs he took there would cost him his life.

Princess Diana: 15 Years Of Lies, Spies And Cover-Ups

James Andanson – Compromising Photographs

James Andanson had spent the summer of 1997 photographing Diana and Dodi in the Mediterranean – in Monaco, St Tropez and Sardinia.

At one point he hired a helicopter to snap the couple from the air as they sunbathed on board the Fayed’s million-dollar yacht, the Jonikal. Remarkably, he would later be invited aboard to take even more intimate shots.

This unrivalled access to the world’s most famous couple made him MI6’s ideal mole, and despite his later denials to the French police, we now know Andanson was close up and personal with them all the way to Paris – to the airport, to the Ritz Hotel, to Dodi’s apartment and back again to the Ritz…

…And finally to the crash tunnel, where he took the compromising photographs we now know he was planning to publish in a book. Indeed, France’s best-known crime writer, Francois Dard, had agreed to write the text, but before the book could be completed the ageing Dard fell ill and died.

A few months later Andanson would also be dead – he was found burnt to a crisp, seated in his car, 400 miles from where he was supposed to be with a bullet-sized hole in his head. The car was locked from the inside. The keys were never found. The verdict was suicide.

Whether Andanson was supposed to have shot himself in the head before he set himself alight was never made clear.

What is clear, though, is that the photographs he took in the crash tunnel immediately following the ‘accident’ and prior to the arrival of the emergency services were of great interest to someone. Within days of his death being announced in the French press, Andanson’s offices at the world-renowned Sipa Press Agency in Paris were broken into by an armed gang who shot the security guard before making off with his entire photographic archive.

The photographs were never seen or heard of again.

Princess Diana: 15 Years Of Lies, Spies And Cover-Ups

MI6 – Denials And Cover-Ups

At the Royal Inquest in 2008, both Henri Paul’s and James Andanson’s associations with MI6 were denied.

To add to this, former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson, having seemingly cut a deal with his former employers, took the stand and effectively debunked every shred of evidence he had previously given implicating MI6 in Diana’s death. As a result, Tomlinson is once again free to return to Britain without fear of prosecution (see Richard Tomlinson’s Deal With MI6).

Other MI6 officers called to the stand, including the high-ranking Richard Spearman, who was stationed in Paris on the night Diana died, simply denied any involvement, and indeed, denied they or anyone else at the ‘Embassy’ even knew the princess was in town.

It seems half the world’s paparazzi plus their pet poodles knew precisely where Diana and Dodi were. But MI6 didn’t.

In any event, Richard Spearman’s story, like that of any other witness supporting the ‘accident’ theory, was all too eagerly believed. Though the evidence stacks up massively in favour of political assassination, the verdict history will record is that Princess Diana died in an innocent though tragic ‘drink-drive’ road smash.

15 years of lies, spies and cover-ups have seen to that…

For a more in-depth explanation watch author Jon King’s interview here:

• See also: MI6 Were Ordered To Assassinate Princess Diana: New Evidence Revealed
• See also: New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6
• See also: Princess Diana Police Face Arrest
• See also: Princess Diana: Is Her Memory Being Airbrushed Out?
• See also: William Suspects Conspiracy, Dodi Fayed’s Father Claims
• See also: Diana Inquest – The Documents The Jury Never Saw
• See also: Princess Diana: A People’s Inquiry
• See also: Princess Diana Death Spy In Deal With MI6
• See also: Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By ‘Boston Brakes’

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Did The CIA Murder John Lennon?

By Jon King

A Marked Man

According to the official story, on December 8th 1980 John Lennon was mercilessly gunned down outside his famous Manhattan apartment block, the Dakota Building, by ‘deranged fan’ Mark David Chapman.

Lennon was returning home from a recording session with wife Yoko when Chapman pounced. He was 40 years old.

Nine years earlier, in December 1971, White Panther leader and counter-culture spokesman John Sinclair was languishing in a New York jail, having been busted for possessing marijuana and subsequently framed as a ‘dope ring’ drugs dealer.

Sinclair had served 2 years of his 10-year sentence when John Lennon agreed to headline a benefit concert in his name. Within three days of the concert, as a direct consequence of Lennon’s intervention, John Sinclair walked free, an event noted by then-FBI Director J Edgar Hoover, as well as other right-wing government spooks and agencies in America.

From that day on John Lennon was a marked man.

Did The CIA Murder John Lennon?

Who Killed John Lennon

In his book Who Killed John Lennon? author Fenton Bresler presents evidence that the former Beatle’s death was not the work of a ‘lone nut’, but that Mark David Chapman was a CIA asset and that the CIA itself – or a faction within it – was behind the assassination.

Bresler cites Lennon’s political activism as a primary motive.

In support of his claim, Bresler quotes late radio host, Mae Brussell, who broke the Watergate scandal along with Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

“It was a conspiracy,“ Brussell affirmed. “Reagan had just won the election. They knew what kind of president he was going to be. There was only one man who could bring out a million people on demonstration in protest at his policies – and that was Lennon.”

Indeed, a year after Lennon’s death, CIA-backed forces famously massacred more than a thousand civilians in El Salvador, where America was busy fighting a particularly dirty war.

Lennon was opposed to that war, and word is the White House feared he may have spoilt the party had he remained alive and resumed his role as a political activist – which, according to those closest to him, he was planning to do.

Half a million and more marching down Main Street singing Give Peace A Chance is a very loud voice indeed…

Did The CIA Murder John Lennon?

A Grade ‘A’ Threat

No one can argue that the US government feared greatly Lennon’s ability to galvanize public opinion against the status quo. Indeed, it made him a Grade ‘A’ threat, as evidenced by FBI Director J Edgar Hoover’s decision to begin deportation proceedings against him in the wake of his successful campaign to free John Sinclair.

His subsequent and highly publicized involvement in other civil and political ‘flashpoint’ issues, not least his massively effective campaign to pressure the White House into bringing the Vietnam War to a premature close, costing the US arms industry billions in lost revenue, served only to cement his status as America’s number one ‘enemy of the state’.

But it wasn’t only Lennon’s political activism that caught the eye of the CIA. They knew him from several years before, when the irreverent Beatle dared to ‘blaspheme’ in the face of God-fearing America – an incident which led to the CIA-backed Ku Klux Klan burning Beatles records en masse. Threats on Lennon’s life were also received at this time.

“We’re more popular than Jesus now,“ the Beatle innocently remarked to British journalist, Maureen Cleave, in an interview for London’s Evening Standard.

The reply from Langley was immediate. “Oh yeah? Well you know what happened to Jesus, boy. Now pick up your cross and start walking!”

Indeed, for many the question is not so much: Did the CIA Murder John Lennon? But rather: How Come It Took Them So Long?

Did The CIA Murder John Lennon?

Mind-Controlled Sleeper Agent

Back in the mid-1990s I was working on a story about ‘black-budget’ programs carried out by government agencies in deep-underground facilities in Britain and the United States.

My main source for this story was a deep-throat CIA runner whom I have always referred to as Stealth (see Cosmic Top Secret: The Unseen Agenda).

For the record, it was Stealth who informed me of an illegal nuclear reactor being run in an underground facility operated by the Royal Dutch Shell Group near Aldermaston in Berkshire, England.

It was also Stealth who informed me of a plot to assassinate a high-profile figure a week before the death of Princess Diana (see Princess Diana: The Evidence), information which ultimately led to me writing the book with my co-author, John Beveridge.

And more pertinent to the matter in hand, it was also Stealth who first told me about ‘mind-control sleeper agents’ – agents programmed to carry out covert operations in their ‘sleep’: a state of mind induced, not so much by ‘hypnosis’, but by a neural implant known as a stimoceiver – effectively a biochip transceiver implanted in the brain via which audio and visual ‘commands’ could be sent. And received.

According to Stealth, Mark David Chapman was a CIA ‘sleeper agent’ who had been mind-controlled to assassinate John Lennon.

Did The CIA Murder John Lennon?

Catcher In The Rye

The official story, of course, is very different. But then it always is. Chapman was mentally ill, we were told, psychotic, a ‘deranged fan’ obsessed with killing his hero.

Having emptied his .38 calibre pistol into John Lennon’s back, he let the weapon fall to the ground, pulled out a copy of JD Salinger’s Catcher In The Rye and started to read it. Evidently Chapman had come to perceive his ‘idol’ as phony, and the ‘phony’, of course, is a major theme running through the book.

We should note at this point that Catcher In The Rye has long been associated with the CIA’s MK-Ultra mind-control program, and more specifically, with creating a ‘Manchurian Candidate’-style assassin via CIA-developed mind-control techniques.

Bobby Kennedy’s alleged assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, was the first to be associated with a ‘Manchurian Candidate’-style assassination, although so far as is known, he had never read Catcher In The Rye.

Not so with John Hinckley, who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan in 1981, less than four months after Chapman killed Lennon.

A copy of the book was found in Hinckley’s apartment following his arrest.

Not that this is smoking gun, of course; Catcher In The Rye is a popular book, having sold in excess of 250 million copies.

Even so, the idea that a certain phrase from the book, or possibly the book’s ‘phony’ theme, may have been used as a trigger, is something Bresler suggests in Who Killed John Lennon?.

It’s a possibility that should not altogether be discounted.

Did The CIA Murder John Lennon?

The CIA Doorman

More recent evidence, suggesting Chapman may not have been Lennon’s murderer at all, or at least that didn’t act alone, should not be discounted either.

Jose Perdomo, doorman on duty at the Dakota Building on the night Lennon was shot, has recently emerged as a possible ‘prime suspect’.

It turns out Perdomo was an anti-Castro Cuban exile who worked for the CIA as long ago as 1961, and was actively involved in the CIA’s failed Bay of Pigs operation.

Using the pseudonym Joaquin Sanjenis, Perdomo worked closely with convicted Watergate burglar and known CIA agent, Frank Sturgis, who trained Cuban exiles in preparation for the Bay of Pigs operation in 1961, and was also cited in connection with the JFK assassination. Perdomo worked with Sturgis for more than ten years.

It also emerged that Perdomo conversed with Chapman outside the Dakota Building as the latter waited for Lennon to return home on the night of his murder.

According to police records their conversation centred on the Bay of Pigs operation and one other notorious CIA operation: the assassination of JFK.

Is it merely coincidence that such a hardcore CIA agent was on duty as John Lennon’s ‘doorman’ on the night he was assassinated?

No, I don’t think so, either.

Did The CIA Murder John Lennon?

A Mind-Controlled Patsy

Journalist Salvador Astucia takes the theory a step further: according to him, it was Perdomo, and not Chapman, who fired the fatal shots that killed John Lennon.

Astucia asserts that Chapman was little more than a mind-controlled stooge, a patsy who’s ‘induced model psychosis’ and ‘audio-hallucinations’ convinced him to take the rap.

“He walked past me and then I heard in my head, Do it, do it, do it,’ over and over again, saying ‘Do it, do it, do it,’” Chapman later confessed.

“I don’t remember aiming. I must have done, but I don’t remember drawing a bead or whatever you call it. And I just pulled the trigger steady five times.”

He added that he felt “no emotion” as he squeezed the trigger, “no anger, [just] dead silence in the brain,“ a fact seized upon by author Fenton Bresler, who describes Chapman as a programmed ‘victim‘ in his book, “as much the victim of those who wanted to kill John Lennon as Lennon himself”.

For the record, it was Perdomo who informed arresting police officer, Pat Cullen, that Chapman had fired the gun, and not himself.

Cullen later revealed that he didn’t believe Chapman was the killer, saying he “looked like a guy who worked in a bank“.

Even so, Chapman reportedly confessed to the killing.

“Do you know what you just did?” Perdomo asked him at the scene.

“I just shot John Lennon,” Chapman calmly replied, then promptly sat back down and started reading Catcher In The Rye.

Did The CIA Murder John Lennon?

Voices In His Head

According to Chapman, he shot John Lennon in response to ‘voices in his head’ which told him to “Do it, do it, do it”.

This is a consistent theme in Chapman’s testimony; it was also ‘voices in his head’ which later convinced him to change his plea from ‘Not Guilty’ to ‘Guilty’, in consequence of which no trial was ever held.

Perdomo was never summoned to the witness stand. Allegations of CIA involvement were never investigated. The official story remains legally unchallenged to this day.

And all because Chapman changed his plea at the last minute.

So what could possibly have prompted Chapman to change his plea? Why would a murderer suddenly change his plea to ‘Guilty’ and thus give up any chance at all of walking free?

Well according to Chapman, the answer was simple: it was because a “small male voice“ in his head told him to change his plea, and of course he interpreted the voice to be the “voice of God”.

A more rational explanation, however, would probably be that the “small male voice“ was due to Chapman’s mental health, and it’s notable in this regard that he has never undergone any specialist mental health treatment since his incarceration, for schizophrenia or anything else.

As Salvador Astucia writes: “Chapman even now has never had more than routine psychiatric care since entering his guilty plea. He was not sent to a mental hospital, but to Attica State Prison. He was judged legally ‘rational’.”

Which leaves us one further, very real possibility.

Induced audio-hallucinations are a very well documented part of the CIA’s MK-Ultra mind-control programming, in particular in conjunction with a stimoceiver neural implant chip.

As crazy as this sounds, there is good evidence that the CIA has developed its mind-control capability to a very advanced level, that Chapman may well have undergone some form of advanced mind-control programming, and that, as a result, he may have shot John Lennon ‘under orders’.

According to Stealth, remember, Chapman was a CIA mind-control ‘sleeper agent’. According to Bresler, he was a long-term CIA asset via his connections to the CIA-connected organization World Vision and had almost certainly undergone some form of mental ‘programming’ during his time with the agency.

And according to Detective Arthur O’Connor, who interrogated Chapman on the night of the murder:

“It’s possible [Chapman] could have been used by somebody. I saw him the night of the murder. I studied him intensely. He looked as if he could have been programmed.”

Did The CIA Murder John Lennon?

A Similar Motive

Unlike Princess Diana’s death, of course, there’s no debate as to whether John Lennon was murdered. There’s equally no debate as to motive: quite simply, they were both too dangerous to remain alive.

That the British used a car crash, and the Americans a gun, says a lot about the two nations and their respective mentalities – they say Britain and America are separated by the same language, and I guess this goes some way to underlining that paradox.

But despite the different methods used to murder them, the deaths of John Lennon and Princess Diana in my opinion shared a similar, if not identical, motive – that their popularity simply could not be checked, and that they used that popularity to such unstoppable effect in swaying public opinion in favour of their causes, and against the status quo.

Imagine for one moment what might have happened had Princess Diana and John Lennon stood up and spoken out against the dirty oil wars behind the invasion of Iraq, the ongoing war in Afghanistan or the occupation of the Palestinian territories by Israel.

If Diana had lived to carry out her threat to expose British establishment arms-trade czars, or if John Lennon had lived to galvanize opposition to the war on terror.

Or if both had combined to whip up support for an independent inquiry into 911.

In this light, it is easy to understand why neither are still alive. And indeed, why the CIA and the American government are quietly relieved John Lennon is no longer around.

• See also: Was John Lennon’s Murderer A CIA Hitman?
• See also: Intelligence In The Media: Reading Between The Lies
• See also: New MK-Ultra Allegations Levelled At CIA
• See also: Did The CIA Hijack Wikileaks Mirror?

Plus:

• See also: CIA Killed Lennon
• See also: John Lennon Assassination
• See also: The CIA Assassination Of John Lennon
• See also: Wiki Answers – Did The CIA Kill John Lennon

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

John Lennon Demonstration Photo: Ron Frehm/AP

911: Security Lapse Or The CIA’s Greatest Hit?

By Jon King
(repost from Sept 2011)

A Madman In A Cave

It’s at this time of year, as we approach the 10th anniversary of perhaps the biggest false flag operation ever to have been conducted, that the corporate media put out their cover stories on 911 – on how America once came under fire from Islamic extremists directed by a madman from a cave in Afghanistan.

This year being the tenth anniversary, of course, the media stories are even more emotive, reminding us all of the heartbreak and the heroism of that fateful day, while the mainstream TV programmes – in particular National Geographic’s vomit-inducing 911 Interview with George W and the BBC’s banal (if not bizarre) The Twins of the Twin Towers (sounds like an 80s Soap Opera, doesn’t it?) – could have been written by Hollywood’s finest scriptwriters. Probably were.

But be that as it may, anyone who has even so much as glanced at the facts knows too only well that the abovementioned ‘madman in a cave’ was not mad at all.

His name was Osama Bin Laden and he was a long-term CIA agent with powerful allies in the US banking and oil industries.

Even a conservative evaluation of the facts surrounding 911 reveals that, if Osama Bin Laden had anything at all to do with 911, it was that he was set up as the patsy in an operation fated to become the CIA’s greatest hit.

One reason, perhaps, that this son of a Saudi Sheikh and construction magnate remained alive and on the run (allegedly) for the best part of ten years, before being tracked down and murdered in a walled-off country house just a few miles from Islamabad, Pakistan – where (allegedly) he’d been living with his wife and kids.

And more’s the point: perhaps this is also why, in January 2001, then-President George W Bush ordered that CIA investigations into the Bin Laden family’s alleged connections to terrorism should cease forthwith.

George W knew well enough, of course, that Osama Bin Laden’s connection to terrorism began and ended with his family’s business relationship with the Bush family and their stake in the Washington DC-based Carlyle Group.

The Bin Laden’s were, lest we forget, guests of the Carlyle Group in the US on the day of 911.

911: Security Lapse Or The CIA’s Greatest Hit?

Science And Conspiracy And New Momentum

But does this prove 911 was an inside job?

Perhaps not. But it does go a long way in convincing me to scrutinize the evidence for myself rather than accept the bullshit explanations regurgitated each year by the CIA and its corporate media outlets, this year even more so.

Last year we were treated to National Geographic’s propaganda piece, 911: Science And Conspiracy, a pseudo-scientific whitewash of any evidence implicating the CIA and the US government in the 911 conspiracy.

And as mentioned above, this year’s special offering is a ‘candid’ interview with George W Bush, no less. Having had a full decade to learn his lines it’s a chance for Dubbya to finally silence the doubters and at the same time whip up nationalistic fervour sufficient to lend new momentum to the ‘war on terror’ – which, after all, is what 911 was all about in the first place, wasn’t it?

No doubt there will be other, equally propagandist offerings in the lead up to this week’s anniversary of the event – an event which must surely go down in history as, not only the CIA’s greatest hit, but perhaps the most pernicious and deadly conspiracy ever perpetrated on the American people, bar none.

911: Security Lapse Or The CIA’s Greatest Hit?

The Top Twenty Questions

So much has been written about 911 it seems there really is little more to be said, at least until the following questions are met with satisfactory answers:

• 1. Why did the towers collapse as though brought down in a controlled demolition?

• 2. Why weren’t military jets scrambled to intercept the hijacked aircraft before they could reach their target?

• 3. Why are there no images of the ‘plane’ said to have crashed into the Pentagon? What really hit the Pentagon?

• 4. What caused Building 7 to collapse on the afternoon of September 11th, 2001, again as though by controlled demolition?

• 5. How could George Bush have seen the first plane hit, as he later claimed?

• 6. On being informed of the attacks, why wasn’t George Bush ushered from the classroom immediately by his secret service men? Did they not think an attack on the World Trade Center was sufficient to disrupt the president’s schedule?

• 7. What was George Bush doing in a classroom in Florida anyway? When was the trip organized and who organized it?

• 8. How did Mohammed Atta’s passport survive the fireball, and then fall from the sky and land conveniently amongst the rubble, perfectly in tact? Was it really Atta’s passport? If not, whose was it and who found it?

• 9. How is it Mohammed Atta’s passport was recovered from the aftermath when the ‘black box’ flight recorders were not? How is it the mysterious ‘passport’ survived a fireball so intensely hot that the towers’ steel structures were allegedly melted by it, along with the ‘black box’ flight recorders?

• 10. Why was Mohammed Atta’s bag the only bag not to have been loaded onto the aircraft?

• 11. Why would he have left such incriminating evidence in the bag, including a video on “how to fly planes”? Why would he have left his driving licence in a rental car? Was Mohammed Atta a CIA asset? Was he set up?

• 12. How were all 19 ‘hijackers’ identified and named within 2 days of the event? How were their cars and other personal effects discovered so quickly? Why weren’t any of their names on the passenger lists? Were the hijackers part of a CIA cell?

• 13. What really happened to United Flight 93?

• 14. What was the true extent of Osama Bin Laden’s relationship with the CIA?

• 15. What was – is – the true extent of the Bin Laden family’s relationship with the Bush family?

• 16. What was – is – the true extent of the relationship between Haliburton, UNOCAL, the Carlyle Group, the Bush-Cheney syndicate and the Bin Laden Group Inc?

• 17. What was – is – the true extent of the relationship between the above-named partners and the CIA, the Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI) and the Taliban in this context?

• 18. How much have US oil and gas companies profited from 911?

• 19. How much have US arms companies profited from 911?

• 20. Who was responsible for purchasing unprecedented quantities of put options in the companies most adversely affected by the attacks? Which US banks and corporations profited from 911?

And perhaps the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question: Was 911 an inside job – a false flag operation designed to win public support for the pre-planned war on terror?

Was 911 a security lapse or the CIA’s greatest hit?

Sadly, I think the evidence speaks for itself.

• See also: FBI: 911 Controlled Demolition Theory Proved Beyond Shadow Of Doubt
• *See also”: 7/7 A Monstrous Lie, Says Police Intelligence Analyst
• See also: 911 An Inside Job
• See also: Explosive News: 1000 Architects Call For Inquiry Into 911 Attacks
• See also: 911: Has Osama Bin Laden Been Dead For Seven Years?
• See also: Osama Bin Laden Body Search
• See also: Osama Bin Laden: Dead Man Talking
• See also: Iran’s Ahmadinejad Calls Sept 11 Big Fabrication
• See also: Mossad Linked To 9/11 Attacks
• See also: 7/7 London Bombings: Britain’s 911?

More here: 911 Truth ● Pilots For 911 Truth ● Scholars For 911 Truth ● Scholars For 911 Truth 2 ● Veterans For 911 Truth ● Firefighters For 911 Truth.

Image: Pakalert Press

Jorge Gestoso: Julian, do you believe that this interview is being heard or spied on by the London police that is surrounding this Embassy?

Julian Assange: Just a few days ago, it came out that SS10, a covert operations group, was involved in the policing around the Embassy, and also the counter-terrorism command. Quite interesting story where there was a police officer outside and a photographer from the Press Association used his zoom lens to zoom up on the piece of paper he was holding and could read all the details about what the police were doing around here. So, yes, we assume that.

Gestoso: The UK was threatening the Ecuadorian Government through a memorandum saying that they would be ready to storm the Embassy in order to arrest you. That happened the night before the Ecuadorian Government announces that you were having their diplomatic asylum. Tell us a little bit about that night.

Assange: Since I came to the Embassy two months ago, there was a policing presence; we had two policemen outside the front door most of the time. However, leading up to that night—with a formal threat made by the United Kingdom to Ecuador, saying that they had the right to go into the Embassy and take me—the number of police increased to fifty. So it was a really quite dramatic situation. We could hear police running up and down the stairs of the interior fire escape, big police vans being pulled around here. When we put out a notification that this was happening, many of our supporters turned up, some hundred people—over a hundred people—turned up outside the front, and they were live-streaming what was happening on their phones and so on, video taping constantly what was happening.

Gestoso: The press, they are criticising you, or criticising Ecuador, it’s… According to what you read, you can read that Julian Assange is Ecuador for its personal agenda, and Ecuador is using Julian Assange for political purposes for President Correa. Are you using Ecuador, or you feel that Ecuador is using you?

Assange: I don’t feel that we have been used at all. There’s a mutuality in values. There’s a mutuality also in the groups that are negatively affecting us and are negatively affecting Ecuador. So, this is… And I suppose we can even go beyond that. Let’s go straight down to the personal: that I am a person that, it has been established, is under a political persecution by the United States and its allies. That’s a fact. And that fact was recognised… We had to put a lot of work into giving the Ecuadorian Government evidence after evidence after evidence about that fact, and they created an assessment, and they’re right. They’re right that political persecution of me and our organisation is ongoing. So that’s enough. But if we then look into the broader context, Ecuador has been right to demonstrate its values in this case in, not just giving me asylum, but also then publicly. It should give every one asylum who deserves asylum and where it has the economic capacity to do so, but in going the extra mile to defending my rights in public. Because, my rights correlate to some of the values that Ecuador would like to project. And I think it does actually believe in those values.

Source: Before It’s News

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

By Richard Coleman

The ‘Boston Brakes’

Fifteen years after her death, new evidence has emerged that Princess Diana was murdered in an MI6-organized ‘Boston brakes’ operation.

Following the 2008 Royal Inquest debacle, which ruled out MI6 involvement in Diana’s death, new evidence has come to light which challenges the ‘official verdict’.

In their book, Princess Diana: The Evidence , authors Jon King and John Beveridge present evidence that a highly sophisticated assassination technique was used to cause the princess’s vehicle to crash as it drove through the Alma tunnel, Paris, in the early hours of August 31st, 1997.

The ‘Boston brakes’, they reveal, is the most favoured assassination technique employed by the West’s intelligence services due to its deniability.

The authors were able to compile such a detailed and compelling case due to information gleaned from their well-placed intelligence and security contacts-mostly former special and elite forces members, mercenaries, royal bodyguards, and on occasion, hired assassins.

Some of these crack military contractors disclosed details of prior operations in which the ‘Boston brakes’ had been successfully used. Others, who fought in Angola, site of Diana’s landmines campaign, threw light on the secret oil and diamond wars still raging in central Africa, and in particular the dirty arms-for-oil deals carried out by MI6, French DGSE, the CIA and the Bush-Cheney oil syndicate.

By focusing the light of the world’s media on Angola, the authors were told, the princess was in danger of exposing these deals, and was thus placing herself “in grave danger”. The fact that she was compiling a dossier containing the names of high-powered British politicians and businessmen involved in the deals, ditto.

It should be noted that, for obvious reasons, some of the sources quoted in the book remain anonymous. But many are named.

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

The SAS And The Clinic

Speaking of the ‘Boston brakes’ operation which he believed killed Princess Diana, former SAS sergeant, Dave Cornish, exclusively revealed:

“From the minute the decoy car left the Ritz to the moment the tail car closed in … it was obvious what was going down. Anyone who knows what they’re talking about’ll tell you the same.”

And former Royal bodyguard, Mike Grey, added:

“The operation bore all the classic hallmarks of a security service assassination …. I have no doubts whatsoever, given my twenty years experience in various sections of the security industry, that Diana was assassinated. The security service hallmarks are plain to see.”

But it was former SAS officer and world-famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who offered perhaps the most telling revelation of all.

The ‘Boston brakes’ method of assassination, Fiennes reveals, has been in use since at least the 1980s, and deploys a microchip transceiver which takes over the target vehicle’s steering and brakes at the critical moment.

The method, he says, was first deployed by the CIA in Boston, hence the name. But it has since been adopted by intelligence and security forces the world over, as well as by private security firms and their hit squads.

Fiennes also confirms that the death by ‘road traffic accident’ of SAS Major Michael Marman in England in 1986 was the result of a Boston brakes operation carried out by a private hit squad known as The Clinic.

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

The Attempt To Assassinate Camilla

Further instances of the Boston brakes in action are also cited in the book, including the death by ‘road traffic accident’ of Diana’s former lover and bodyguard, Barry Mannakee, in 1987, and – staggeringly – the attempted assassination by ‘road traffic accident’ of Camilla Parker Bowles just two months prior to Diana’s own fatal crash.

The story of this never-before-disclosed incident is recounted in some detail in the book.

According to sources quoted by the authors, the attempt on Camilla Parker Bowles’s life was the result of a “constitutional crisis” engendered by Prince Charles’s desire to marry his long-term lover while Diana was still alive.

According to Tony Wright, then parliamentary aide to the Lord Chancellor, the crisis was so severe it almost resulted in the disestablishment of the Church (see The Independent).

As the authors point out, such a move would have amounted to the biggest, most far-reaching constitutional reforms since Henry VIII. And we all know what happened to his wives…

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

Seat Belt “Jammed In The Retracted Position”

Other revelations in the book include an interview with a well-known Harley Street specialist [named in the book] who became Diana’s nutritional guru.

Fearing she might have been pregnant, the authors reveal, Diana visited her nutritional guru for dietary advice prior to her final holiday with Dodi Fayed. Following her visit the specialist’s Harley Street clinic was broken into and his computer stolen.

And there are many other fresh concerns raised in this uncompromising cross-examination of the ‘accident theory’, in which the authors assume the roles of prosecuting counsels in what is effectively a ‘people’s inquiry’.

Not least among these concerns is the anomaly surrounding Diana’s seat-belt, which, the authors reveal, was found by the Operation Paget team to have been “jammed in the retracted position” and thus unusable – a fact, like so many others, brushed aside by the Royal Inquest.

Other challenges to the ‘accident theory’ include:

• Grave concerns over the coroner’s decision to ignore crucial evidence regarding landmines;

• The true identity of certain members of the paparazzi;

• The Metropolitan Police cover-up of Diana’s recorded statements about perceived threats on her life;

• Recorded communications between Diana, Prince Charles and Prince Philip;

• Concerns about Diana’s illegal embalming, which the authors discover was carried out on the orders of a very high-ranking British ‘diplomat’ [named in the book] who was stationed at the British Embassy in Paris on the night of the crash;

• The ‘bullet hole’ found in paparazzo James Andanson’s head, discovered and reported by Police Chief Jean-Michel Lauzun at the scene of the MI6 agent’s mysterious ‘suicide’;

• And Henri Paul’s spurious blood sample – on which the inquest’s verdict was ultimately based – which, the authors reveal, was never DNA-identified, was taken from a vial labelled “unknown male” and contained a level of carbon monoxide so excessive six of the world’s most eminent forensic pathologists stated under oath that it could not possibly have belonged to Henri Paul.

New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6

Also In ‘Princess Diana – The Evidence’

• An unforgiving expose on the “wholly flawed and contrived” Royal Inquest;

• A comprehensive, 60,000-word critique of Lord Stevens’ Operation Paget investigation;

• An extensive dossier on the mismanagement of the French Inquiry;

• Plus compelling evidence of a plot to assassinate Diana dating back to November 1995.

Incredibly, Princess Diana: The Evidence also reveals foreknowledge of a prime-target assassination being planned by MI6 one week prior to Diana’s fatal crash.

For more on ‘The Book the British Government Tried To Ban!’ watch author Jon King’s interview here:

• See also: MI6 Were Ordered To Assassinate Princess Diana: New Evidence Revealed
• See also: Princess Diana: Is Her Memory Being Airbrushed Out?
• See also: Princess Diana Police Face Arrest
• See also: Princess Diana: 14 Years Of Lies, Spies And Cover-Ups
• See also: Unlawful Killing
• See also: William Suspects Conspiracy, Dodi Fayed’s Father Claims
• See also: Diana Inquest – The Documents The Jury Never Saw
• See also: Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By ‘Boston Brakes’

• Princess Diana: The Evidence on Amazon

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

image sources: Prison Planet Royal Inquest Website Cremation Of Care

This explosive, evidence-based book is the most shocking, revealing, yet factual work written on the 1997 Paris car crash that took the lives of Princess Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed.

In Diana Inquest: Who Killed Princess Diana? investigative writer John Morgan reveals that the assassination of Princess Diana was carried out by the British intelligence agency, MI6, on orders from senior members of the British royal family.

Morgan has spent six years investigating the evidence relating to the crash in the Alma Tunnel, and the subsequent cover-up by the British and French authorities. The Diana Inquest series of books are based on forensic analysis of the testimony heard during the 2007-08 inquest, and also on evidence from the British police investigation that was withheld from the inquest jury.

Shocking revelations in this latest volume include:

- evidence which demonstrates that the top three MI6 officers in Paris were replaced by more senior officers in the days immediately prior to the Paris crash

- evidence of MI6 involvement in assassination plots against two high-profile world leaders in the 18 month period leading up to the Diana assassination

- evidence exposing Rosa Monckton – wife of former newspaper editor, Dominic Lawson – as an MI6 agent who spied on Princess Diana

- evidence that the royal Way Ahead Group – chaired by the Queen – played a significant role in the assassination of Princess Diana

- evidence revealing that British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had prior knowledge of the assassination.

John Morgan says that “at the 2007-08 inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed, the judge, Lord Justice Scott Baker, went to great lengths to prevent the jury from being able to piece together all the evidence that could have allowed them to understand the roles played by MI6 and the royal family in the deaths”.

The author adds that the evidence he has uncovered in Who Killed Princess Diana? shows that “MI6 officers lied repeatedly under oath during their cross-examinations at the inquest. And the royal private secretaries – Robert Fellowes for the Queen and Miles Hunt-Davis for Prince Philip – also lied to cover up the role of the senior members of the royal family in the assassination.”

Morgan continues: “Given the many lies told by the MI6 officers, and the efforts by the royal private secretaries and Scott Baker to suppress and cover-up vital evidence, the jury really had no hope of understanding the role played by both the Secret Intelligence Service and the royal family in the 1997 assassination”.

A leading UK QC, Michael Mansfield, who served throughout the six months of the London inquest, stated in 2010: “I have no doubt that the volumes written by John Morgan will come to be regarded as the ‘Magnum Opus’ on the crash … that resulted in the unlawful killing of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed and the cover-up that followed.

Diana Inquest: Who Killed Princess Diana? is available at Amazon HERE…

• See also:Princess Diana: 15 Years Of Lies, Spies And Cover-Ups
• See also:New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6
• See also:Princess Diana: Is Her Memory Being Airbrushed Out?
• See also:Princess Diana Police Face Arrest
• See also:Unlawful Killing
• See also:William Suspects Conspiracy, Dodi Fayed’s Father Claims
• See also:Diana Inquest – The Documents The Jury Never Saw
• See also:Princess Diana And Jorg Haider Assassinated By ‘Boston Brakes’

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

image: Conspiracy Planet

Sources have revealed that the mastermind behind the 7/7 London Bombings was ‘working for British Intelligence’. A recent government report revealed that at least two of the bombers had a relationship with MI5. Seven years on this article asks: were the 7/7 London Bombings Britain’s 911? Was 7/7 an inside job?

7/7 London Bombings

Terror Attack Or Inside Job?

According to Sky News, the mastermind behind the July 7 London Bombings in 2005 was Haroon Rashid Aswat. Which is significant.

Because according to former Justice Department prosecutor and terror expert, John Loftus, at the time of the 7/7 London bombings Haroon Rashid Aswat was “working for British Intelligence”.

Surprised? No, me neither.

And neither am I surprised to learn that Aswat’s co-conspirator and alleged leader of the 7/7 bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan, was an MI5 contact. According to a government report published in May 2009, in fact, at least two of the bombers had a relationship with MI5.

Little wonder ‘conspiracy theorists’ believe the 7/7 London bombings were an inside job.

Indeed, that 7/7 was Britain’s 911…

7/7 London Bombings

The CIA and the FBI

There is further evidence to this end, including reports that the CIA and FBI, as well as Mossad, had foreknowledge of the attacks.

Meir Dagan, Head of Mossad at the time of the bombings, revealed that the Israeli spy agency had been warned of the attacks 6 minutes before the first bomb exploded.

Which would explain how the Israeli Foreign Office was able to give prior warning of the attacks to the British police. Which it did.

And the anomalies do not end there.

French Interior Minister at the time of the bombings and former French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, told the press that at least two of the bombers had been arrested and released by the UK authorities in 2002. An embarrassed Charles Clarke, then British Home Secretary, shrunk back in his ill-fitting suit claiming he was not “personally aware” of the arrests.

But perhaps the most startling giveaway was revealed in an interview with Peter Power, Managing Director of security firm, Visor Consultants, on the day of the 7/7 bombings, when he told BBC Radio 5:

“At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning. So I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.”

Me, too. The odds of this being sheer coincidence must surely be incalculable.

With regard to Peter Power … it is perhaps notable that former New York Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, head of operations in New York City on 911, was in London “on business” at the time of the 7/7 bombings. Evidently he was eating breakfast at a hotel less than a block away from Liverpool Street Station, where the first bomb went off and where Peter Power was busy preparing his mysterious “exercise”.

It is perhaps also notable that Peter Power shares some pretty notorious connections with Giuliani, in particular former high-ranking CIA officer Bob Kiley, who for some mysterious reason is is now Commissioner of Transport in London, and Richard Sheirer, Giulani’s right-hand man on 911.

Wheels within wheels…

But there is an even more notable point to be made with regard to Peter Power.

In 1993 his glittering career as one of Britain’s top police officers became mysteriously tarnished when he was suspended on full pay and effectively booted out of the police force, only to reincarnate some years later as a top government advisor on security matters and, significantly, surface on July 7 2005 as the man hired to carry out the above-mentioned and most curiously-timed ‘security exercise’.

Reasons for Peter Power’s suspension and dismissal have always been kept a closely guarded secret. I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

7/7 London Bombings

Further Anomalies

And there are yet further anomalies worth noting.

At least one of the alleged bombers, having driven down to London from Yorkshire on his ‘suicide bombing’ mission, elected to purchase a ‘pay and display’ car parking ticket when he parked his car at Luton Station.

According to initial reports, he then bought a “return ticket” for his train journey into London, as did his three accomplices. Curious.

Also of note is that, uncharacteristically for ‘suicide bombers’, the four men elected to carry their explosives in rucksacks, rather than strapping them to their bodies.

Which makes it all the more mystifying that they then elected to blow themselves up instead of leaving the explosive-filled rucksacks on the trains/bus.

And there are still further contrarieties.

According to the official Home Office report, the ‘bombers’ entered Luton train station at wildly differing times before boarding a train the report states left Luton station at both 7.25 am and 7.40 am. The report also states that the suspects put their explosive-filled rucksacks on at 6.49 am, and again at 7.14 am, having checked the train departure board at 5.07 am and again almost 2 hours later.

In a lame response to FOI requests made by July 7th Truth Campaign, the Home Office claimed these contrarieties were the result of  “human error“, refusing to elaborate further.

In any event, the above points, plus concerns regarding the integrity of CCTV footage used in the case against the four suspects, serve rather to raise questions than provide answers.

Questions like: Did these guys really act alone? Were they part of a larger, more complex conspiracy? Were they set up?

One theory, of course, suggests the 7/7 London bombings were a ‘false flag’ operation orchestrated by Western intelligence agencies to garner continued support for the ‘war on terror’, similar to 911.

In which case there should be a full and independent inquiry into the 7/7 London bombings with a remit to investigate the role played by government agencies in the atrocity.

Was 7/7 Britain’s 911? I think it probably was.

More on the 7/7 London Bombings at: July Seventh.Co.Uk

See also: 911 – US Security Lapse Or The CIA’s Greatest Hit?

____________________________________________________________

Massive European Pyramids Discovered

By Article Safari

The existence of an original civilization on the continent of Europe which predates the civilizations in the Middle East, has to a large degree been ignored by traditional history writers, particularly those who wrote during the dominant Christian era in Europe.

This was largely because of a biblical Judeo-Christian bias which held that all civilization started exclusively in the Near East (the biblical Old Testament deals exclusively with events in the Middle East).

This is not an accurate reflection of the facts, as in many parts of northern and western Europe relatively advanced societies were in existence either before or simultaneously with the Mesopotamian or Egyptian civilizations.

While it is most certainly true that the great cities and states in the near and Middle East were towering achievements, it is incorrect to regard them as the only flowering of civilization in the world at that time.

There are many huge buildings – called megaliths – and early Neolithic settlements, artifacts and burial sites and even writing, which show that the inhabitants of Europe were advanced in the evolution of their societies and culture.

Cereal grain farms were (re)established in central Europe by 8000 BC (almost simultaneous with the Mesopotamian ‘Fertile Crescent‘ River Valley crop cultivation) with some of the best preserved farming settlements in France and Britain having been positively dated as existing prior to 4000 BC.

Significantly, copper working had been established in the Balkans by the year 5000 BC—some 2000 years before the first civilization in the Mesopotamian River Valley.

In Neolithic Europe, where wood was abundant, rectangular timber houses were constructed. Some had two rooms and even gabled roofs. Remains found in Switzerland dating from around 5000 BC show that even on soft, swampy ground, the builders were able to erect houses by first laying down wooden foundations or on piles going deep into the ground.

By the year 5000 BC, Neolithic settlements had taken on the form of established villages, towns and in a few cases, even cities, scattered throughout Europe, western and southern Russia.

These early Neolithic farmers cultivated cereals, and kept domesticated animals such as pigs, cattle and dogs. Farms were established across the European continent, with some of the best preserved sites being found in Ireland.

Their tools and hunting weapons were mostly made of flint, and their houses of timber. Clothes were made of leather, and there is also evidence of weaving. Other small implements were made of antler and bone, and they have left many examples of fairly sophisticated pottery.

In many parts of Europe, the longest lasting remnants of this era are the megaliths (‘large stones‘) which may have had some religious or recreational purpose. Massive blocks of stone, and sometimes wood, were moved great distances and erected in chosen areas throughout Europe, from Britain right across the continent, some even as far as the Black Sea – in Southern Russia – a stupendous achievement. The most famous of these megalith sites is Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England.

The ‘Lux et Orient’ or ‘All light comes from the East‘ dogma which Christianity introduced, held that all progress and civilization came from the Middle East. With accurate dating methods and intensified archeological research, it has now been shown that advanced civilizations flourished in Europe, sometimes thousands of years before similar technological advances were made in the Middle East.

The Bosnian Pyramid, Visocica Hill, is the first European pyramid to be discovered and is located in the heart of Bosnia, in the town of Visoko. The pyramid has all the elements: four perfectly shaped slopes pointing toward the cardinal points, a flat top and an entrance complex.

Because of its similarities to the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan, Mexico, it has been named the ‘Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun‘. There are also a four more ancient structures on the site, the Bosnian Pyramid of the Moon, Bosnian Pyramid of the Dragon, Bosnian Pyramid of the Love and Temple of the Earth, with a paved entrance plateau and discovered underground tunnels.

image: Article Safari

Climate Weapons: HAARP More Than Just a Conspiracy Theory?

*By Andrey Areshev — En.Rian International Affairs

This story by Andrey Areshev, political scientist, PhD (History), Strateic Culture Foundation.

The abnormally hot weather in the central regions of Russia [during the summer of 2010] has already caused serious economic damage. It has destroyed crops on roughly 20% of the country’s agricultural land lots, the result being that the food prices are clearly set to climb next fall.

On top of that, fires are raging over peat lands around Moscow.

These days, the majority of forecasts concerning the climate are alarming: droughts, hurricanes, and floods are going to be increasingly frequent and severe. Director of the climate and energy program of the Wildlife Fund, A. Kokorin, says that the current trend is not a random phenomenon and should not be expected to subside1.

In this particular context, the credibility of projections emanating from the Wildlife Fund, an influential international organization running worldwide operations styled as environment-protection programs, is beyond question2.

The reason is that the global warming which is the subject of heated academic (or, occasionally, absolutely unscholarly) debates is not necessarily an uncontrolled process. At least, the incidence of the current anomalously high temperatures exclusively in Russia and some adjacent territories invites alternative explanations.

Back in the 1970s, Z. Brzezinski invoked in his Between Two Ages the theme of weather control, which he regarded as a form of broader social regulation. No doubt, the heavyweight of the US geopolitical thinking had to take interest not only in the immediate social but also in the potential geopolitical implications of influencing the climate.

He was not the only author to probe into the issue but, due to obvious regards, information on the progress in the sphere of climate weaponry is unlikely to spill over secrecy barriers in the foreseeable future.

M. Chossudovsky, an economics professor from the Ottawa University, wrote in 2000 that in part the ongoing climate change could be triggered by the use of new-generation nonlethal weapons.

The US is certainly exploring the possibilities of controlling the climate in several regions of the world. The corresponding technology is being developed in the framework of the High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP)3, the objective being to build a potential to launch droughts, hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.

From the military standpoint, HAARP is supposed to create a novel type of weapons of mass destruction and an instrument of expansionist policy which can be used to selectively destabilize environmental and agricultural systems of target countries4.

Technically, the system is known to be a set of sources of electromagnetic radiation affecting the ionosphere. It comprises 360 sources and 180 aerials having the height of 22 meters5. Altogether the station emits 3,600 kW towards the ionosphere, being the world’s most powerful system of the kind6. The program opened in 1990, is jointly funded by the US Office of Naval Research and the US Air Force Research Laboratory, and is implemented by several university laboratories.

Far-reaching hypotheses arise naturally in the situation. Venezuelan leader H. Chavez was ridiculed for attributing the Haiti earthquake to the impact of HAARP (See US Weapons Test Caused Haiti Quake) but, for example, similar suspicions crept in following the 2008 earthquake in China’s Sichuan province.

Moreover, there is evidence that the US climate influence program not only spans a number of countries and regions, but is also partially based in space. For instance, the X-37B unmanned vehicle orbited on April 22, 2010 reportedly carries new types of laser weaponry.

According to the New York Times, the Pentagon rejects any connection between X-37B and whatever combat weapons, but recognizes that its purpose is to support ground operations and to handle a number of auxiliary tasks7. The vehicle was built 11 years ago as a part of a NASA program which was taken over by the US Air Force 6 years ago and completely classified8.

Demands to unveil details of the experimental program put into practice in Alaska are voiced both in the US and in several other countries. Russia never joined the chorus, but the impression is that efforts aimed at deliberate climate change are not a myth, and that in the nearest future Russia – together with the rest of the world – will face a new generation of threats.

At the moment the climate weapons may be reaching their target capacity and used to provoke droughts, to erase crops, and to induce various anomalous phenomena in certain countries.

1. Odnako. – 2010. – â„– 28. – p. 33.

2. For details concerning the Wildlife Foundation, see: http://www.globoscope.ru/content/articles/2892/

3. Program site: http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/. The HAARP station is located in Alaska, 250 km north-east of Ankoridge.

4. Chossudovsky M. Washington’s New World Order Weapons Can Trigger Climate Change: http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Climate-Change-Weapons.htm

5. http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/gen.html

6. http://www.kp.ru/daily/24494/648410/

7. Surveillance Suspected as Spacecraft’s Main Role. By William J. Broad: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/science/space/23secret.html?_r=1&hp

8. The Times claimed that the secret unmanned vehicle might be testing laser weapons: http://www.newsru.com/world/24may2010/kosmorazvedhtml

* See also: HAARP: Secret Sciences And High Tech Mind Control
* See also: Global Cataclysms Not A Conspiracy Theory Any Longer
* See also: European Parliament Issues Warnings On HAARP
* See also: US Weapons Test Caused Haiti Quake
* See also: Coming Of Mind Control Drugs

image: Money Teachers

Monsanto-DuPont Biotech Cartel: How Global Seed Market Is Controlled

By Tom Levitt — The Ecologist

According to an article in The Ecologist, just five biotech giants have increased their control of the global seed market, promoting monoculture farming and making it harder for farmers to find alternative sources of seeds.

Since the mid-1990s just five biotech giants – Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow and DuPont – have bought up more than 200 other companies between them to dominate our access to seeds.

Philip Howard from Michigan State university, who has produced a unique visual to illustrate this growing concentration of power in the hands of a few companies, says the takeover of the seed market has been ‘dramatic’ and that it is getting harder for farmers to find alternatives.

In the US for example, where 90 per cent of the soybeans grown are genetically-modified varieties, many conventional farmers have had difficulty obtaining non-genetically modified seeds to plant.

Howard says the increasing power of these seed companies is ‘incompatible’ with renewable agricultural practices such as saving and replanting seeds. He says one solution to restricting their control would be through banning the practice of granting patents on seeds, plants and genes.

A patent gives a company exclusive rights to sell and develop a new invention. In the case of patents on plants and genes it grants them temporary monopolies and bans farmers from saving seeds, forcing them to buy new seeds from the company each year or pay a license to use patented seeds they have saved.

Howard and others argue that ‘excessive seed patenting’ by the biotech giants is allowing them to control a large number of seeds and leading to an increase in seed prices and a decrease of seed choices for farmers.

The groundbreaking IAASTD report in 2008, conducted by 400 scientists from around the world, criticised patents for driving up costs and restricting experimentation by farmers in developing countries.

A report, Future of seeds and food, published last year by a coalition of campaign groups, including Greenpeace, called for an end to patents on seeds to halt the domination of biotech giants like Syngenta. It says only bigger seed companies can afford to apply and enforce a patent.

‘Patents exacerbate genetic erosion as they promote monoculture by hindering the development of new seed varieties. In sum, the possible, long term consequences of patents are control of the whole food chain by a few companies.

‘What is needed most is a clear legal ruling that exempts seeds and farm animals from patent protection,’ said the report.

Useful links:

• Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry – 1996-2008
• Download the graphic as a pdf

• See also: Monsanto Blocks Research On GMO Safety
• See also: Monsanto Or Monsatan? You Decide
• See also: Haitian Farmers Protest Monsanto Seed Donations
• See also: GM Crops Running Wild In The US
• See also: A Month Without Monsanto
• See also: Why Monsanto Is Paying Farmers To Spray Its Rivals Herbicides
• See also: The Codex Alimentarius Conspiracy

image: The Ecologist