“9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip” – A Participant’s Perspective

“9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip” – A Participant’s Perspective

September 8, 2011
Author: Emily Louise Church
Source: 9/11 Truth News

Hello, my name is Emily Church and I am a mute.

Well, according to the masters of propaganda at the BBC/Renegade Productions.

This summer I participated in a BBC hit piece on 9/11, entitled “Conspiracy Roadtrip”. The premise is simple: five non-believers of the official story journey across the east coast of the USA in search of the truth. On the way we meet “experts” and victims of the attacks, guided by “comedian” Andrew Maxwell who believes the 9/11 commission report was the be all and end all of the 9/11 story.

The show aired a few hours ago and I felt compelled to write my version of what happened on that 8 day roadtrip, to give you the perspective you were not shown by BBC 3.

Firstly, I must tip my hat to them. They did a wonderful editing job. Anyone who has ever had a conversation with me or knows me personally will be very much aware of my opinions re: 9/11, and how outspoken I am about them. However, on this show I appear to be pretty much silent the entire way through.

I wasn’t. Continue reading ‘“9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip” – A Participant’s Perspective’

The Rothschilds and the Civil War

Excerpted From ‘Descent Into Slavery’
By Des Griffin
Chapter Five

It would be extraordinarily naive to even consider the possibility that a family as ambitious, as cunning and as monopolistically minded as the Rothschilds could resist the temptation of becoming heavily involved on the American front.

Following their conquest of Europe early in the 1800s, the Rothschilds cast their covetous eyes on the most precious gem of them all — the United States.

America was unique in modern history. It was only the second nation in history that had ever been formed with the Bible as its law book. Its uniquely magnificent Constitution was specifically designed to limit the power of government and to keep its citizens free and prosperous. Its citizens were basically industrious immigrants who ‘yearned to breath free’ and who asked nothing more than to be given the opportunity to live and work in such a wonderfully stimulating environment.

The results — the ‘fruit’ — of such a unique experiment were so indescribably brilliant that America became a legend around the globe. Many millions across the far flung continents of the world viewed America the Beautiful as the promised land.

The Big Bankers in Europe — the Rothschilds and their cohorts — viewed the wonderful results borne by this unique experiment from an entirely different perspective; they looked upon it as a major threat to their future plans.

The establishment Times of London stated: “If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic [i.e. honest Constitutionally authorized no debt money] should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without a debt [to the international bankers]. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

The Rothschilds and their friends sent in their financial termites to destroy America because it was becoming “prosperous beyond precedent.”

The first documentable evidence of Rothschild involvement in the financial affairs of the United States came in the late 1820s and early 1830s when the family, through their agent Nicholas Biddie, fought to defeat Andrew Jackson’s move to curtail the international bankers. The Rothschilds lost the first round when in 1832, President Jackson vetoed the move to renew the charter of the ‘Bank of the United States’ (a central bank controlled by the international bankers). In 1836 the bank went out of business.

PLAN OF DESTRUCTION

In the years following Independence, a close business relationship had developed between the cotton growing aristocracy in the South and the cotton manufacturers in England. The European bankers decided that this business connection was America’s Achilles Heel, the door through which the young American Republic could be successfully attacked and overcome.

The Illustrated University History, 1878, p. 504, tells us that the southern states swarmed with British agents. These conspired with local politicians to work against the best interests of the United States. Their carefully sown and nurtured propaganda developed into open rebellion and resulted in the secession of South Carolina on December 29, 1860. Within weeks another six states joined the conspiracy against the Union, and broke away to form the Confederate States of America, with Jefferson Davis as President.

The plotters raided armies, seized forts, arsenals, mints and other Union property. Even members of President Buchanan’s Cabinet conspired to destroy the Union by damaging the public credit and working to bankrupt the nation. Buchanan claimed to deplore secession but took no steps to check it, even when a U.S. ship was fired upon by South Carolina shore batteries.

Shortly thereafter Abraham Lincoln became President, being inaugurated on March 4, 1861. Lincoln immediately ordered a blockade on Southern ports, to cut off supplies that were pouring in from Europe. The ‘official’ date for the start of the Civil War is given as April 12, 1861, when Fort Sumter in South Carolina was bombarded by the Confederates, but it obviously began at a much earlier date.

In December, 1861, large numbers of European Troops (British, French and Spanish) poured into Mexico in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine. This, together with widespread European aid to the Confederacy strongly indicated that the Crown was preparing to enter the war. The outlook for the North, and the future of the Union, was bleak indeed.

CZAR ALEXANDER II

In this hour of extreme crisis, Lincoln appealed to the Crown’s perennial enemy, Russia, for assistance. When the envelope containing Lincoln’s urgent appeal was given to Czar Alexander II, he weighed it unopened in his hand and stated: “Before we open this paper or know its contents, we grant any request it may contain.”

Unannounced, a Russian fleet under Admiral Liviski, steamed into New York harbor on September 24, 1863, and anchored there, The Russian Pacific fleet, under Admiral Popov, arrived in San Francisco on October 12. Of this Russian act, Gideon Wells said: “They arrived at the high tide of the Confederacy and the low tide of the North, causing England and France to hesitate long enough to turn the tide for the North” (Empire of “The City,” p. 90).

History reveals that the Rothschilds were heavily involved in financing both sides in the Civil War.

Lincoln put a damper on their activities when, in 1862 and 1863, he refused to pay the exorbitant rates of interest demanded by the Rothschilds and issued constitutionally-authorized, interest free United States notes.

For this and other acts of patriotism Lincoln was shot down in cold-blood by John Wilkes Booth on April 14, 1865, just five days after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/slavery.htm

PRINCESS DIANA POLICE FACE ARREST

Daily Express, Friday July 22,2011
By Cyril Dixon, Padraic Flanagan and Mark Reynolds

TWO of Britain’s leading former police officers are wanted for questioning over allegations that they withheld crucial evidence about the car crash which killed Princess Diana.

A French judge wants to ask ex-Yard chief Lord Condon and Sir David Veness why they failed to disclose the existence of a note in which she predicted her assassination.

They could face international arrest warrants as suspects should they refuse to attend interviews in Paris, sources close to the investigation indicated last night.

More here…

Related Story:

Unresolved Issues of the Diana and Dodi Inquest by John Morgan

Cover-up of a Royal Murder: Hundreds of Errors in the Paget Report

Product Description

Cover-up of a Royal Murder is a thorough investigation of the British inquiry – the Paget report – into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed. It uses eye-witness, documentary and other evidence to prove that the conclusions drawn in the Paget report are fundamentally flawed — yet it is the Paget report that is set to form the basis for the upcoming British inquest. This is the book that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Princess Diana was murdered and that there is a lot more to the Paris crash than the French and British investigations have revealed. “Cover-up” provides credibility to the lingering doubts of a large section of the British and international public — doubts that remain even 10 years after the crash. This book lays down a huge challenge to those who believe the death of Diana Princess of Wales was just a tragic accident. Cover-up of a Royal Murder exposes one of the greatest cover-ups of our time.

Review

A brilliant piece of research and writing which will play an important role in uncovering the truth about how Princess Diana came to die. — Sue Reid, Daily Mail, London

An intriguing thought provoking read that is hard to put down….I found Cover-up of a Royal Murder a highly accomplished work. — Zeus Publications, September 25 2007

Chapter after chapter, I was astounded at the volume of evidence pointing to criminal involvement rather then an accident. — Margaretha de Vries, September 5 2007

I read this book as a complete skeptic….After reading it I am completely convinced that the death of Diana was not an accident…. — Sarah Thornton,September 4 2007

Not just another Diana book….Cover-up of a Royal Murder leaves me in no doubt that the Paget Report is indeed a cover-up of the facts. — Davina Dyne, September 18 2007

Originally I did not think that Diana and Dodi were murdered, but after reading the book I have grave doubts that it was just an accident. — Jos Deters, September 5 2007

The most compelling book yet published about the circumstances surrounding Diana’s death. — Paul Sparks, Writer & Journalist, UK

This is a first class piece of investigative journalism that exposes the Scotland Yard report into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed as an utter sham. The book demonstrates that the cover up went right to the top. — Mohamed Al Fayed, Owner of Harrads, London

This is a masterful piece of investigative journalism which has quite properly exposed areas of the Paget inquiry which were either overlooked or not properly investigated. It needs to be read by anyone seeking the truth. — John Macnamara, former Detective Chief Superintendent at New Scotland Yard

Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?

Using the McChrystal Moment to Raise a Forbidden Question

by Prof. David Ray Griffin
Global Research, June 25, 2010

There are many questions to ask about the war in Afghanistan. One that has been widely asked is whether it will turn out to be “Obama’s Vietnam.”1 This question implies another: Is this war winnable, or is it destined to be a quagmire, like Vietnam? These questions are motivated in part by the widespread agreement that the Afghan government, under Hamid Karzai, is at least as corrupt and incompetent as the government the United States tried to prop up in South Vietnam for 20 years.

Although there are many similarities between these two wars, there is also a big difference: This time, there is no draft. If there were a draft, so that college students and their friends back home were being sent to Afghanistan, there would be huge demonstrations against this war on campuses all across this country. If the sons and daughters of wealthy and middle-class parents were coming home in boxes, or with permanent injuries or post-traumatic stress syndrome, this war would have surely been stopped long ago. People have often asked: Did we learn any of the “lessons of Vietnam”? The US government learned one: If you’re going to fight unpopular wars, don’t have a draft – hire mercenaries!

There are many other questions that have been, and should be, asked about this war, but in this essay, I focus on only one: Did the 9/11 attacks justify the war in Afghanistan?

Read more…

Mohamed Atta loved pork chops, and 49 other things you may not know

about the 9/11 Florida connection.

An Interview With Atta’s American Girlfriend Amanda`Nichols` Keller Part 1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×1433886

I just finished Daniel Hopsicker’s Welcome to Terrorland. He exposes the cover story of the Florida flight schools, and the ongoing cover-up. The whole thing stinks of Iran/Contra and CIA drugs. It’s the same, bloody game.

Though his style can be annoyingly breezy, I highly recommend the book. There’s original research you won’t find anywhere else but here and on his website: http://www.madcowprod.com /.

Here are some archived threads that touch on similar material:

“Jeb Bush seized flight school records at 2 AM on September 12″
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph…

“Heroin, Al Qaeda and the Florida Flight School”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph…

And FYI, here are some notes I kept while reading the book:

1. In Venice Florida, Mohamed Atta lived for two months with an American stripper/lingerie model named Amanda Keller.

2. Atta loved to party. He was out with Keller nearly every night they were together. He was a heavy drinker, snorted coke, was a stylish dresser and wore expensive jewelry.

3. According to Keller, Atta loved pork chops.

4. Keller dumped him after he embarrassed her at a night club by dancing, poorly, atop a speaker (“doing that old ‘Roxbury head bob’ thing, you know”?)

5. Atta revenged himself later on Keller by returning to the apartment they’d shared and killing her cat and kittens, disemboweling and dismembering them in her apartment for her to find. Continue reading ‘Mohamed Atta loved pork chops, and 49 other things you may not know’

Rethinking Iran-Contra: A Much Darker Story?

The Iran-Contra/ October Surprise was the missing link in a larger American political narrative

by Robert Parry,
Global Research, July 1, 2010

The conventional view of the Iran-Contra scandal is that it covered the period 1985-86, when President Ronald Reagan became concerned about the fate of American hostages in Lebanon and agreed to secretly sell weapons to Iran’s Islamist government to gain its help in freeing the captives.

Supposedly, the scheme went awry when White House aide Oliver North and other participants got carried away, including North’s decision to divert profits from the arms sales to another one of Reagan’s priorities, the Nicaraguan contra rebels whose CIA assistance had been cut off by Congress.

The Iran-Contra scandal was exposed in fall of 1986 after the shooting down of a North supply plane over Nicaragua and revelations in Lebanon of Reagan’s arms sales to Iran. A White House staff shake-up, including North’s firing, and some wrist-slaps from Congress for Reagan’s alleged inattention to details resolved the scandal, at least that was how Official Washington saw it.

The few dissenters who wouldn’t accept that tidy conclusion – such as Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh – were mocked and marginalized by the news media, including the Washington Post (which ran an article concluding that Walsh’s consistency in pursuing the scandal was “so un-Washington” and that he would depart as “a perceived loser”).

Continue reading ‘Rethinking Iran-Contra: A Much Darker Story?’


How you can support this blog

Come boomtime or downturn, we all have to make purchases, and one way many of us do so is online. Please make all your online purchases through our Online Store below and that way you will be supporting this blog...and, at the same time, saving yourself a bit of money.

A Nation Rising

The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7

William Engdahl: A Century of War

JFK and the Unspeakable

13 Bankers

The Big Ripoff

Hamilton’s Curse

Churchill, Hitler, and…

Pages


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers