Monday, January 17, 2022



Ethereum creator predicts cryptocurrencies will eventually be swallowed up by system they were built to reject

by Kenneth Schortgen, Daily Economist:

In an interesting and perhaps shocking admission from last week, one of the co-creators of the Ethereum platform and cryptocurrency professed that nearly all the cryptos currently out there will eventually be swallowed up in the very same financial system they were originally built to reject and oppose.

Blockchain tech entrepreneur and innovator Vitalik Buterin says that the current wave of cryptocurrencies may eventually become a part of the centralized financial systems that they were supposed to be protesting in the first place. 

Buterin, who created the first Blockchain-based computing platform Ethereum, was at a local meeting of tech startups and tech individuals in Tel Aviv, Israel when he made the statement. 

Buterin, who also supports the Blockchain startup OmiseGO, said that even if there will come a time when support for cryptocurrency will eventually be a part of the system, it will still not be replacing traditional money anytime soon. He also acknowledged that the Blockchain-based innovations may face the usual problems that also affect traditional money like big price oscillations. 

Buterin says: 

“Are they [tokens] going to replace fiat? I believe no”. 

There are several reasons why governments would want to keep traditional fiat such as dollars as euros, even if the nations also adopts cryptocurrency. 

Buterin also said that institutionalized Blockchain networks may hinder the growth of decentralized Blockchain projects all over the world. This may mean that technical struggles like over-regulation and the digital currency “bubble” bursting could happen. 

He, however, remains hopeful that the Blockchain industry will not be limited by setbacks. – Coin Telegraph

Read More @

Keiser Report: Modi’s ‘demonetization’ (E1122)

from RT:

In the second half, Max continues his interview with Michael Pento of on gold returning to a bull market amidst the emerging market meltdowns.

Rep. Franks Predicts Awans Will Get Immunity For “Significant, Disturbing Story” About Wasserman Schultz


from ZeroHedge:

Last week the Washington Examiner reported that Hina Alvi, the wife of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s now-infamous former IT staffer Imran Awan, had struck a deal with federal prosecutors to return to the U.S. where she currently faces charges of conspiracy and bank fraud.  The deal with prosecutors mandates a return to the U.S. during the “last week of September 2017” and is structured so that she will not be arrested in front of her children. 

Now, if you’re the cynical type, then it might have struck you as somewhat odd that Alvi would agree to return from Pakistan, the place to which she successfully fled specifically to avoid the charges she now seems to be embracing.

But, at least according to Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) who appeared on Fox News recently, there may be more to Alvi’s return than meets the eye as he predicts that the Awans could be working on a broader immunity deal with prosecutors in return for a “significant” and “pretty disturbing” story about Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“I don’t want to talk out of school here but I think you’re going to see some revelations that are going to be pretty profound.  The fact that this wife is coming back from Pakistan and is willing to face charges, as it were, I think there is a good chance she is going to reach some type of immunity to tell a larger story here that is going to be pretty disturbing to the American people.”

“I would just predict that this is going to be a very significant story and people should fasten their seat belts on this one.”

Of course, this follows speculation that surfaced last week suggesting that even if the Awans were originally acting to protect/extort Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that may have all changed on April 6, 2017 when Imran seemingly led U.S. Capitol Police directly to her laptop.  Per The Daily Caller:

A laptop that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has frantically fought to keep prosecutors from examining may have been planted for police to find by her since-indicted staffer, Imran Awan, along with a letter to the U.S. Attorney.

U.S. Capitol Police found the laptop after midnight April 6, 2017, in a tiny room that formerly served as a phone booth in the Rayburn House Office Building, according to a Capitol Police report reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group. Alongside the laptop were a Pakistani ID card, copies of Awan’s driver’s license and congressional ID badge, and letters to the U.S. attorney. Police also found notes in a composition notebook marked “attorney-client privilege.”

The laptop had the username “RepDWS,” even though the Florida Democrat and former Democratic National Committee chairman previously said it was Awan’s computer and that she had never even seen it.

The laptop was found on the second floor of the Rayburn building — a place Awan would have had no reason to go because Wasserman Schultz’s office is in the Longworth building and the other members who employed him had fired him.

DWS’s story on the now-infamous laptop has ‘evolved’ over the months…originally it was apparently her laptop back when she decided to threaten the U.S. Capitol Police Chief but later, after he stood his ground, DWS backtracked saying she had never seen the laptop and it never belonged to her.

Wasserman Schultz used a televised May 18, 2017 congressional hearing on the Capitol Police budget to threaten “consequences” if Chief Matthew Verderosa did not give her the laptop. “If a member loses equipment,” it should be given back, she said.

Verderosa told her the laptop couldn’t be returned because it was tied to a criminal suspect. Wasserman Schultz reiterated that, while Awan was a suspect, the computer should be returned because it is “a member’s … if the member is not under investigation.”

She changed her story two months later, claiming it was Awan’s laptop — bought with taxpayer funds from her office — and she had never seen it. She said she only sought to protect Awan’s rights. “This was not my laptop,” she said August 3. “I have never seen that laptop. I don’t know what’s on the laptop.”

Read More @

Reality of the Dollar


by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics:

QUESTION: Hello Mr Armstrong.

I understand the logic of the weakness / strength of currency that you outline from time to time in your modelling of the global crisis.

You omit to explain the importance in the pace of change in the value of a currency; for instance Venezuela and Argentina according to your explanation of the dollar weakness ought to have benefited from a free falling currency. They are both exporters of natural resources that receive foreign exchange for their exports. Can you please elaborate on this difference? The US dollar is of course not free-falling, but for the global reserve currency, it has fallen precipitously year to date.

My second question concerns the groundhog mentality of a lot of commentators about the dollar and its safe haven status. I wonder why it is that when a group of large countries decide to exclude the dollar from their transactions, it would have nothing to do with that currency’s weakness?

You say the US is an oil exporter; well it does export oil, and it also imports oil of the a different grade to the one it exports. In addition, is it just a coincidence that countless countries with oil assets have been invaded and/or sanctioned in the last 70 years? Persia, Iraq, Libya to name but a handful of energy nations, and let’s also throw in the case of the opium trade coming out of Afghanistan and which has the fingerprints of the US all over it.

I would appreciate not hearing an explanation about the need to spread democracy, human rights and being the honest broker as the reason the US holds 800 bases around the world and is currently the process of agitating to cause harm to the middle east, eastern europe and the south china seas.

Many thanks for your voluntary service to readers, especially the historic aspect of your memos, which are quite fascinating.

Best regards

CAL from Switzerland

ANSWER: Your proposition that the “pace of change” in the value of a currency when it collapses in such places as Venezuela and Argentina ought to have benefited from a free falling currency, is an interesting question that truly reveals the importance of CONFIDENCE. True, Trump and his predecessors since Ronald Reagan have preferred a weaker currency to stimulate foreign sales and thus the theory is such a policy will increase jobs. This is seriously flawed as always because of this one-dimensional analysis attempt to always reduce everything to a single cause and effect.

The value of a currency at its base is constructed upon CONFIDENCE in the government. If you do not TRUST the government, you simply will not accept their currency. This has been the case throughout history. I have pointed out how the Emperor of Japan lost the CONFIDENCE of the people and as such they would no longer accept his coinage. Japan stopped issuing coins for nearly 600 years because each emperor devalued the outstanding coinage to be 10{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of his new coins. Thus, people would not accept Japanese coins for they could become worthless  on the whim of an emperor. They reverted to bags of rice and Chinese coins – not Japanese.

Therefore, a weak currency will stimulate foreign sales provided you TRUST the government. Lacking that, the currency simply goes into a free fall and becomes worthless. This was the fate of the hyperinflation in Germany. It was NOT the Quantity of Money theory, it was the fact that there was a 1918 Communist Revolution in Germany where they had even asked the Communist Russians to take over Germany. It was the collapse in CONFIDENCE that led to the hyperinflation. We saw the same thing in every instance of hyperinflation for that is the free-fall when people not longer trust government. It has never been the Quantity of Money and this is also why the Quantitative Easingpolicy of the ECB has failed.

Likewise, you will see the same impact in interest rates, which are the reflection of future inflation. Rising interest rates will attract capital inflows but only to a point where CONFIDENCE is maintained. If CONFIDENCE in government collapses, then interest rates soar reflecting the risk factor in the Survivability  of government.

Consequently, all of these theories are not linear. They operate on a BELL CURVE. It is like my mother always said – too much of a good thing can be bad. A cookie or ice cream may taste great. But you cannot eat only cookies and ice cream. There is a limit to all things before the BELL CURVE comes into play.

Read More @

BREAKING: Decision Makers Have Been Informed Of Evidence Against Russia Hack


by Elizabeth Vos, Disobedient Media:

Adam Carter has published a new article which states that important authorities including Robert Mueller and Jeff Sessions have been personally informed of the latest information debunking the Russian Hacking narrative. Pretended ignorance on the matter would be unacceptable.

Disobedient Media has previously reported on the extensive work conducted by the independent analyst known as Adam Carter. For months, Carter has been on the forefront of debunking the Russian hacking narrative by dismantling the Guccifer 2.0 persona and its contradictory claims. Carter’s work has been instrumental in creating the impetus and grounds for the analysis of the Forensicator, and in corroborating the efforts of Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity (VIPS).

Robert Mueller

Carter published a new article earlier today, which indicated that authorities including Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod. J. Rosenstein have been informed of the latest findings and evidence which may dismantle the Russian hacking narrative by VIPS associate Skip Folden.

Carter stated in his report: “Since the original report was sent out, Skip Folden, one of the co-authors of the VIPS report, has sent a far more detailed report to the Office of Special Counsel (Robert Mueller), Office of the Attorney-General (Jeff Sessions) and, I believe more recently, to additional parties that will be disclosed in the week ahead (along with further details about the contents of that report). The new report covers more than any of the previous reports (going beyond what Forensicator and myself even have the means to assess).”

This latest news indicates that key figures in the ‘Russiagate’ investigation have been made aware of the latest evidence on the issue; silence and protracted inaction on their part would be at minimum a direct indictment against their neutrality on this subject.

If the Russian hacking narrative is revealed to be fictional, it would be extremely important not only in terms of foreign policy but also in terms of domestic politics. Carter estimates: “There are billions of dollars and the reputations of many at stake.” These include the reputations of intelligence agencies, private businesses like Crowdstrike, and political figures who could potentially be exposed for involvement in a massive and intentional coverup.

In this light, it is hardly surprising that, as Carter recognizes, establishment media, many politicians, and figures within the intelligence community would aggressively oppose such findings. Carter adds that he believes Mueller will likely be especially resistant to information that may reveal Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch in a negative light. Carter explains that Shawn Henry has had: “close ties with Mueller in the past.” Disobedient Media has also reported on links between Crowdstrike and the Atlantic Council, which is financially associated with financier George Soros.

Carter points out in his latest work that despite their best efforts, “critics have not debunked the research and analysis” on this issue. He explained that critics had principally focused on transfer speeds as the paramount piece of evidence, using it as a “straw man” argument to discount the entirety of the findings. Carter then describes “circumstantial and verifiable evidence” which is usually ignored by critics. These include:

These issues have been discussed at length in the course of the last few months by Carter via his website. His findings indicate on multiple fronts that it is far more logical that the Guccifer 2.0 persona was a creation of the DNC with the assistance of Crowdstrike than the work of a Russian hacker.

Disobedient Media previously reported on numerous facets of Carter’s work, including his findings implicating Crowdstrike in the creation of the Guccifer 2.0 persona as a ‘Russian hacker’ in order to preemptively smear Wikileaks’ publication of the DNC leaks. He has also documented efforts to conflate Seth Rich with Guccifer 2.0.

Read More @

Moscow Plans to Strip US Diplomats of ‘Additional Bonuses’


from Sputnik News:

The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister spoke about the prospects of the US returning seized Russian diplomatic property and Russia’s response to the controversial move following talks with a US State Department high-ranking official more than a week after the US law enforcement conducted searches inside the diplomatic facilities.

HELSINKI (Sputnik) — Moscow is planning to strip US diplomats of some “additional bonuses” they enjoyed while working in Russia, but means just to even the working conditions of the US and Russian diplomats in both countries rather than to further escalate the situation, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said on Tuesday.

“It is rather normalizing the situation in terms of the US diplomats losing some additional bonuses or some preferences they enjoyed for some time. But after their harsh steps, harsh measures against our overseas missions it became impossible to maintain such a situation,” Ryabkov told reporters.

He added that he had explained the situation to US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Shannon during their meeting in the Finland’s capital of Helsinki earlier in the day.

“We do not wish to turn this into a reason for another outbreak of emotions and arguments,” Ryabkov stressed.

When commenting on the issue of seized Russian property, Ryabkov said that Moscow regrets the lack of prospects of Washington returning Russian diplomatic buildings seized on US soil.

“Unfortunately, I do not see any prospects of settling the problem with the return of the diplomatic property to us,” Ryabkov said.

Russia could file a lawsuit against the United States over seizure of its diplomatic property within the coming weeks, he said, commenting on the decision made by Russian President Vladimir Putin last week.

“We will try to literally make it in hot pursuit. But there is no specific schedule of action yet. Generally speaking, we are still on a starting point in terms of choosing the arguments and analyzing which way we should better move, but we will not delay this process in any way,” Ryabkov said.

Read More @

Hurricanes Harvey and Irma May Lend Helping Hand to Economy, but Hurricane Iniki and Katrina Tell More Complex Longterm Tales


by David Haggith, The Great Recession Blog:

It is widely believed that World War II gave us the end of the Great Depression. As a result, people have said for decades there is nothing like a wartime economy to bring recovery from economic recession. War blows apart a lot of things, so you have to make a lot of things, which puts a lot of people to work building a lot of things, which puts a lot of other people to work digging a lot of things from the ground in order to build those things. Hurricanes blow apart a lot of things, too.

If that logic held completely true, however, the best thing we could do whenever we are trying to come out of economic collapse would be to blow up every city in the nation so we could build it all over again. While WWII did end the Great Depression, logic tells us there is a more complex tale to tell.

There is a difference between an increase in economic activity, which improves economic statistics and puts people to work, and wealth accumulation. Wars (and hurricanes) create a flurry of economic activity, which may juice the economy as WWII did, but you eventually have to pay for all of that so it doesn’t build wealth for a nation overall because of the debit side of the accounting sheet … unless, of course, one nation takes spoils of war from the nations it defeats, which then bear the burden of doing worse for decades to follow while the victorious nation is better off; but we didn’t do that in WWII. We built up the nations we ravaged. So, how did we wind up better after WWII?

What gets left out of the wartime economic recovery equation is debt. WWII proved stimulus spending works, but what is not considered it that the US had very little debt before that and enormous debt at the end. What a wartime economy or a hurricane reconstruction economy really do is move spending forward. They force infrastructure spending now, accelerating deficit spending and total debt.

We have just seen how easily that works with Trump’s rapid successful lifting of the US debt ceiling. Prior to Harvey, nearly everyone believed the debt ceiling would be the next major battle in congress. Harvey whisked us immediately past that battle … for the time being.

And, of course, all of that spending juices the economy while it is happening; but the story is much more complex.

Hurricane Harvey aids Trump’s infrastructure spending program

Harvey created a more important concern than the debt ceiling. Few politicians (and, indeed, few American taxpayers) want to be the ones to tell American communities that are clobbered by something horrible they cannot control, “Sorry, we are not about to help you.”

It’s just not what we do. No matter how much we disagree, Americans have always been good about pitching in to help communities that faced calamity. While we often complain that people should not build in those areas, I have to think we all know it is not practical to say that the entire east coast and gulf coast should remain unpopulated within a hundred miles of the coastline in order to keep from having catastrophic hurricane damage. That would, in fact, be a recipe for chronic economic failure because those coastlines with their port cities and vibrant tourist economies are during normal times a huge economic engine for the national economy.

What we can do is build things much better to reduce the costs of these disasters when they happen. We have actually applied that lesson in many places so that hurricanes have brought about infrastructure and building improvements. In the aftermath of a hurricane, reconstruction can become a short-term economic boon by putting hundreds of thousands of people to work in reconstruction (both to replace and to improve what was already there) but they can also get us to position ourselves for a better economic future because the quality of the infrastructure is better in those areas and holds up better when the next storm hits, helping keep those economies running better next time disaster hits.

That’s what happens when we’re smart and disallow cheap construction that will not handle 150-mile-per hour winds. The improvement of building codes is why we already see many beautiful buildings in Florida and homes on stilts that withstood Irma.

Where we are dumb and continue to allow mobile homes in order to be nice to those that cannot afford the better quality housing, we see total devastation because we refused to accept reality, which is that those structures cannot exist in those areas. Nature won’t allow it. Reality always wins over what we want or think should be in a fair world.

So, the short of it is that we WILL rebuild after Harvey and Irma because that’s what we do. We cannot leave hundred-mile strips of a seventeen hurricane-prone states uninhabited and see any economic gain from that. And rebuilding WILL create economic stimulus.

What is hard to equate is whether the economic stimulus will outweigh the losses in other areas of business.

The story of hurricane economic impact is complicated

Initially, there will also be some economic decline. Many places of work will be closed for a few weeks. Unemployment in those areas will rise. Some businesses will be destroyed for good because they were underinsured. Those that served the tourist industry will be clobbered for a long time. Tourists will be scared off short-term because tourists don’t want to have their vacation wrecked  by the next 2017 hurricane. They will be scared off longterm even after the hurricane season because they know the area will be ugly and filled with reconstruction noise for a long time, and none of that sounds like a vacation plan to anyone.

So, the broader story is that some business, such as construction, will see a large boost from these hurricanes while others suffer decline.

After Harvey, some articles I read stated that auto industry, which was already starting down a major decline, would be harmed further. I thought that was ridiculous and that just the opposite is likely to be true. Sure, dealers are out of business for a few weeks as clean-up begins and until inventory gets replaced, so they are experiencing short-term losses right now; but most of their inventory was insured and will be replaced, and their parking lots for the most part are not likely to be hugely damaged by the storms. So, in a month or two, their businesses will boom as individuals who lost hundreds of thousands of cars seek to replace them.

I am certain we will find that Harvey (and now Irma) actually did the declining auto industry a huge favor. By wiping out a million automobiles, it insures that a million more automobiles will be manufactured and sold. This will undoubtedly be a boon to used-car prices, too, as wholesalers are already bidding on used cars all over the nation to move them into Texas.

Exactly how that shakes out depends, of course, on how well insured businesses and individuals were and how well insurance companies are able to fulfill their obligations. The balancing equation to the auto industry’s gains (and there always is a balancing debit) comes in the form of the insurance industry’s losses. Banks should be fairly well protected because they require everyone insure the cars they make loans on; but they, too, may get hit by some people walking away from their auto loans.

What hurricanes fundamentally do is simply stir things up into chaos, mixing hot air with cold air and land with water. The same is true of what they do economically. Hurricanes shift the economic losses and economic gains. Automakers will certainly be making more autos as a result, so those regions of the country with economies partially based on auto manufacturing should see some reprieve to their recent troubles. (It won’t be enough to end their secular downturn; but it should buy them a little more time.)

On the other side of the equation, some insurance companies may die off due to the double-whammy of Harvey and Irma or, a least, close off parts of their business in some states. Some investors in those companies will lose, and those parts of the country like Hartford, Connecticut, that have economies based on insurance, could see a loss of jobs. If auto dealers had inventory that wasn’t insured, they may go bankrupt and walk away from their “flooring” loans (the dealer-banker term for loans used to buy inventory). So, banks may take a hit from this if they didn’t keep close enough track of inventory insurance.

The same thing will happen to banks with respect to the real estate industry. Building construction will gain, but many who are underinsured will walk away from their mortgages. So, wherever insurance companies don’t bear the burden, banks are likely to. Thus, all of this ripples in c0mplex gains and losses throughout the US economy, and only time will tell where it all settles out.

What we learned longterm from Hurricane Iniki and Hurricane Katrina

While Hurricanes Harvey and Irma assure us that spending will be moved forward from the future, there is no free lunch. When we borrow against the future to rebuild now, we heap more burden on ourselves (or our children) down the road. It took decades after World War II to pay the war debt back down, and an argument can be made that this caused a long low-grade recession in later years by bearing down on money available for spending in the post-war years.

For all their flurry and the activity they cause, the net longterm effect of hurricanes has usually been economically detrimental. It took a decade to get New Orleans back on its feet, and I’m sure many individuals who left and never returned also took a decade to get their lives back on track.

Read More @



by Jamie White, Infowars:

Dozens of images showing aftermath of attacks at Pentagon and Twin Towers

To mark the tragic anniversary of 9/11, the Department of Defense has released dozens of never-before-seen images of the aftermath of the terror attacks at the Pentagon and Twin Towers.

“On this #PatriotDay, we’re sharing 20 rarely seen photos from #September11th. We will never forget those we lost,” the Defense Department tweeted on Monday.

It’s been 16 years since the horrific September 11th attacks that killed almost 3,000 people and wounded 6,000 more.

The following images and captions provided by the DoD:

President George W. Bush watches television coverage of the attacks on the World Trade Center Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, as he is briefed in a classroom at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla. Photo by Eric Draper, Courtesy of the George W. Bush Presidential Library

An aerial view of the damage at the Pentagon two days after Sept. 11, 2001. On that day, five members of al-Qaida, a group of fundamentalist Islamic Muslims, hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200, from Dulles International Airport just outside Washington and flew the aircraft and its 64 passengers into the side of the Pentagon. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Cedric H. Rudisill

Read More @

Why Did World Trade Center Building 7 Fall? New Study Claims Gov’t Story Is False


by Derrick Bronze, The Anti Media:

A two-year study has determined the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001 could not have been caused by office fires. This undermines a critical component of the “official story,” but in the age of President Trump will the painstaking investigation make a difference?

(MPN) — Last Wednesday, Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska Fairbanks presented the findings and conclusion of his team’s two-year engineering study evaluating whether fire caused the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001.

Many “9/11 Truth” researchers focus on the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) as the smoking gun evidence that Americans were lied to about the attacks. WTC7 was not hit by a plane, yet it collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the collapse was caused by office fires leading to thermal expansion of the building’s supportive columns and girders.

Dr. Hulsey’s presentation, “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7, September 2017 Progress Report”, detailed how his team eliminated fire as the cause of the collapse of the 47-story building. Hulsey explained that NIST’s report on the collapse found fires on floors 7 through 9, 11 through 14, 19, 22, 29, and 30. However, there is no evidence of fire below floor 7, Hulsey said.

Watch Hulsey’s presentation below:

“You have to ask yourself lots of questions … Where is the combustibility in this building? … Did WTC7 collapse because of fires?” Hulsey asked during his presentation. “Our study shows that it did not collapse because of fires.” This revelation matches what Hulsey told MintPress News in September 2016, when his team’s preliminary finding was “that fire did not produce the failure at this particular building,” adding “additional calculations are further substantiating the finding.”

Dr. Hulsey and his team developed an AutoCAD drawing that they then used to create a virtual geography of the building. The research team first partnered with the non-profit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in May of 2015 to study of the collapse of WTC7. They did not release their final report in April 2017 as originally planned, but Hulsey said a draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period. “I am still examining the progressive collapse. We thought we would be complete by the time announced but it is taking longer than I expected,” Hulsey told MintPress. “I simply am not going to release it until I am sure we are totally correct.”

A final report will be published in early 2018 and submitted to peer-reviewed journals. “It is my plan to provide the opportunity for public and technical input, a form of review and peer review,” Dr. Hulsey stated. “I will have it reviewed during this time frame. Once we have gone through that preliminary review; I will submit the findings to peer-reviewed journals for publication.”

The Bobby McIlvaine Act

Today, on the 16th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the organization funding Hulsey’s study, held a press conference discussing the conclusions of the study and the introduction of the “Bobby McIlvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act.” The Bobby McIlvaine Act is draft legislation that would impanel a select committee in either chamber of Congress to reinvestigate the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. The act is named after Bobby McIlvaine, who was tragically killed at the age of 26 while entering the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

Richard Gage, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, spoke today about the Bobby McIlvaine Act at the National Press Club in Washington. “The Bobby McIlvaine Act will, for the first time, put in Congress’ hands the resolution which will cause an investigation of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers’ destruction,” Gage told Mint Press. “We are putting Congress on notice and hopefully this act will be successfully legislated into law.”

Following the press conference, Mr. Gage and Bob McIlvaine, Bobby McIlvaine’s father, began the process of distributing informational packets related to the Bobby McIlvaine Act to every member of Congress. The next stage in their campaign will involve attempting to organize a bipartisan group of sponsors to introduce the resolution by September 11, 2018. Mr. McIlvaine has been independently investigating the 9/11 attacks since his son’s death and calling attention to what he says are discrepancies in the government’s narrative of the events of that day. McIlvaine has been an outspoken leader in the so-called “9/11 Truth” movement, advocating for a new investigation since the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004.

The 9/11 Truth movement includes victims, their families, and experts in a range of fields who are skeptical of the government’s official line on 9/11. Some of the groups include Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth & Unity, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, 9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism, Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, and other local activist groups and individuals from around the globe. It’s a loose-knit movement without an official position, and the opinions, theories and ideas held among its members sometimes conflict with one another. However, those working within the broader movement are bound by the belief that the official narrative promoted by the U.S. government is full of holes.

9/11 Truth in the Donald Trump era

The election of Donald Trump brought fear and paranoia to some of the American population, and hope and elation to another segment of the nation. Elements of the 9/11 Truth movement believed Trump might support their cause for a new investigation.  Although Trump never officially discussed his interest in a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, he did make vague references to the “secret papers” and to the Saudi government’s possible role in funding the 9/11 attacks. During a campaign event Trump called out former president George W. Bush for the Iraq war and referenced “very secret” papers involving the Saudi government and 9/11, elaborating:

“It wasn’t the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center; we went after Iraq, we decimated the country. Iran’s taking over, okay. But it wasn’t the Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center, ‘cause they have papers in there that are very secret, you may find it’s the Saudis, okay? But you will find out.”

Read More @



by James Perloff, James Perloff:

Since publishing “9/11 Simplified,” I’ve received emails from six pilots, none of whom accept the official 9/11 story. Two were scheduled to fly in Boeings on the morning of 9/11.

Another is a UK-born pilot with about 20 years of flight experience. He is still actively flying as a captain on Airbus A300s, and spent many years training airline pilots. He has provided me with so many technological insights into aviation and 9/11 that I felt I should publish excerpts from our exchanges. For enhancement, I have added a few graphics and embedded some of the video clips he referred me to. For clarity, my comments are in bold and his in normal font. Of course, what we originally said has been rearranged into a more orderly sequence.

To keep his identity confidential, I’ll call him “Pilot A.” Some of his remarks bear on 9/11 in general, and some are specific to my article “9/11 Simplified,” so it will be helpful to readers if they are familiar with that post, which I may eventually republish in a revised edition.

Pilot A greeted me saying:
Great shows about “9-11 simplified” and I agree with most of your analysis so far, so please keep up the good work.

He knew from personal experience that the U.S. government’s theory of how the Twin Towers collapsed is bogus.

I know, like many others do, that heavy fuel like diesel and jet fuel cannot melt steel. Even Oxy-Acetylene or Oxy-Propane cutting torches require large amounts of high pressure oxygen injected into the fuel stream to melt steel, and it takes some time to get thick steel up to a softening/melting state. I went to tech college in the 90s to qualify as a welder and gas cutting was one of the disciplines. I’ve spend countless hours cutting and fabricating steel. I had an experience with an old 600 gallon diesel tank which I was cutting the top off to convert into a storage box. In the bottom below the drain plug level was some remaining fuel and sludge, but as I got about 3/4 of the way through cutting the lid off, the molten metal ignited the fuel in the bottom. The dirty fire that poured out the top burned for about 30 minutes, but the wafer thin (3 mm) steel didn’t even glow.

Pilot A agreed with my article’s 10-point proposal that small nuclear weapons had destroyed the Towers, and also agreed with the thesis that pre-planted thermite had indeed been used at the level of the “airplane strikes.” Most of us in the 9/11 community have seen the famous footage of molten steel dripping from a corner of the South Tower:

However, Pilot A had an insight about this I had not thought of:

Now I do think they used thermite as it was probably part of the structural weakening component, but could also have been part of the show to try and prove that “Look, jet fuel does melt steel!”

In my article I had discussed various evidences against jetliners striking the Towers, such as the uncontrollable speeds, and the impossible physics of an aluminum tail and wings and flying through 14-inch steel columns without breaking off. I had concluded that cloaked missiles, or possibly drones, were better explanations. I ask Pilot A what the likelihood was of commercial jetliners hitting the Towers:

Well, I have a couple of extra variables to your main idea for you to play with so here goes:

If you’re going to plan a dastardly event like a “New Pearl Harbour” to achieve all the things like more war, military spending, contracts for the corporate criminals, police state etc., then you want as much shock and horror as possible which includes, noise, fire, smoke and destruction on steroids. The planners would need this area of the operation a guaranteed certainty, no chance of foul-ups anywhere, total control, no variables, flawless. You wouldn’t use actual commercial jetliners piloted by humans to achieve this, too much to go wrong. E.g., the pilots could “chicken-out,” miss the towers, partially hit the towers, passengers could over-run the cockpit, the jet fuel might not ignite so no fire and explosion (more on that later), the damage to the building might be too little, pathetically small even, rogue military pilot ignoring orders to buzz off somewhere else might actually shoot the planes down . . . and on and on it goes.

What’s better than planes flying into buildings? The illusion of planes flying into buildings. Especially if it’s a high explosive/incendiary guided missile with some sort of holographic projection device strapped to its back. Better still let’s have 3 or 4 of them for damage consistency to really make a statement. These can be controlled by a central source, have a known and guaranteed outcome because the military has umpteen thousand examples of the destructive power of missiles, and they can be sent to a specific target with pin point accuracy and timing – perfect.

Passenger planes are very difficult to fly accurately with only external visual reference. With no electronic guidance or without heads-up display technology it’s too risky to try and fly into a specific point by line of sight. Not all pilots have the same level of skill or experience, and this sort of thing you only get to practice for real once!! Simulators have their limits as well for this sort of practice. I can almost see the pilots that have probably tried this in the simulators and predict the outcomes. An educated guess would be overcompensation to try and maintain an accurate flight path at high speed. The air that planes fly through isn’t always constant. There are pools and eddies like a river with rocks, changing currents and speeds. All these require constant adjustment which is easily achieved on approach at 140 knots, with all the control surfaces moving at their full potential and the aircraft slow enough to keep inertia to a minimum. But completely impossible for a novice pilot with only some light aircraft flight experience.

I don’t know how you could do a last-minute modification to a flight path to achieve this accuracy at the speed they were supposedly traveling. Once you get above 200 knots all the moving surfaces (Ailerons, Elevators, Rudder) are in high speed mode and become either artificially loaded or movement restricted to prevent excessive loading and structural damage. If you were slightly off course, you couldn’t make any large corrections to the trajectory at the last minute; everything is done gently. Plus eye-balling your way around a city you’ve never flown over before (if you believe the Muslim hijacker theory) is near impossible, even for a local city dweller! The city layout is different when looking down on it and the view from the flight deck is very limited, unlike a Cessna which has great views. And traveling at hundreds of knots makes this all the more idiotic to achieve.

So if the planes missed the towers, or partially struck the towers, or the jet fuel failed to ignite, then the Hollywood-style fireball scene is a flop. Jet fuel, which is basically paraffin, needs certain requirements to burn. Unlike the petrol gas (95/98) stuff that you put in your Chevy, Avtur (Aviation Turbine Fuel) won’t ignite if you pour some on the ground and throw a match or lighter into it. I know, I’ve tried it. It usually requires heat (compression chamber) and/or pressure (injector nozzle) to combust. The likelihood, though, is that it would probably ignite because the engines were hot, but not guaranteed especially if the engines sheared off on the outside of the building. Yet more variables.

Read More @