Sunday, March 7, 2021

Tag: Joseph P. Farrell



by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:

Mr. F.L.M. and Mr. M.B. found this story and passed it along, and it’s worth pausing to ponder the implications of this one for a while. It seems a U.S. government hacker working for the Reichsicherheithauptamt….er…. the Department of Homeland  (In)security hacked into a Boeing 757 on the runway:

Boeing 757 controls hacked remotely while on the runway, officials reveal

Now, why is this story worth mentioning at all?

Well, for one thing, there is the strange case of the missing Malaysia Air Flight 370, which still remains very strange. For one thing, in spite of years of searches for the missing aircraft, the crash site has still not been found, and the “debris” that has been washing up in the western Indian Ocean has been, at best, suspect, as a number of readers here who are pilots have informed me. In any case, one theory that was advanced quite early on after Flight 370’s disappearance is that the airplane was taken over remotely and flown – or crashed – to “wherever.” This hack is, of course, being spun in the usual and predictable way:

Mr Hickey said that following testing, experts advised that “it was no big deal”.

But in March 2017 he was shocked to learn that seven airline pilot captains from American Airlines and Delta Air Lines had no idea that their aircraft could be hacked.

A Boeing spokesman said: “The Boeing Company has worked closely for many years with DHS, the FAA, other government agencies, our suppliers and customers to ensure the cybersecurity of our aircraft and will continue to do so.

“Boeing observed the test referenced in the Aviation Today article, and we were briefed on the results. We firmly believe that the test did not identify any cyber vulnerabilities in the 757, or any other Boeing aircraft.”

Reading between the lines a bit, what appears to be being said here is “don’t worry, nothing to see here; the pilots remained in control of the aircraft, move along.” But if my memory serves me correctly, a number of years ago, after 9/11, Lufthansa  did an overhaul of their fleet for precisely the purpose of removing potential backdoors that would allow their aircraft to be “hacked’ and presumably flown from “outside the aircraft.” But whether my memory on this score is the case or not, the potential of this article is rather obvious, for the implication is that control of the planes could be wrestled away from the cockpit crew and done remotely.

Which brings us of course to 9/11. Many 9/11 researchers, myself among them, have pointed out the difficulty of Hani Hanjour’s maneuver of allegedly flying a Boeing commercial aircraft into the Pentagon, after having executed a difficult down-ward spiraling turn. As many 9/11 researchers have pointed out, Hanjour’s flight instructors indicated that he could barely fly a Cessna, much less a commercial airliner in such a difficult maneuver through the high-rises of Arlington Virgnia, which one former pilot described as “an obstacle course.”

That former pilot, incidentally, was former Egyptian President Hosni Moubarek, a former pilot for Egypt’s commercial airline and former military pilot. Moubarek made his statements shortly after the events of 9.11 during interviews on American television.

All these considerations led some individuals to propose that Hanjour’s flight was coopted remotely, and that narrative was extended to the hijackers who allegedly flew the planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade center.

Read More @



by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:

Yesterday, you’ll recall, I blogged about the recent Deutsche Bank study that said two things were at the heart of the current financial system’s instability: fiat money (monetized debt), and the absence of a gold standard. The solution being pushed in that study was, of course, a cashless “blockchain” system.

Now, the fact that a major bank like Deutsche Bank – a bank that allegedly carries massive amounts of bad paper and derivatives on its books – would be advocating the serious consideration of blockchain technologies as a serious alternative, should at least raise some concern and suspicions among those who are uncertain about such cryptocurrencies, and should serve to dent some of the enthusiasm certain circles have been showing for them.

Or to put all of that “country simple”, something about them has never passed my “smell test.” It has that mildewy mildly unpleasant stink of rotting money that one encounters in the physical presence of such banking establishments and the dynasties running them.

But anyway, back to the main point: gold. What I find somewhat interesting, and perhaps even something a little more than “coincidental,” is that in more or less the same “time frame” of this ongoing financial mess, the following story also appeared(this was shared by many regular readers here: thanks to all of you):

“This Could Be Huge”: Gold Bar Certified By Royal Canadian Mint Exposed As Fake

Well, I seldom take issue with the title of a story, but in this case, yes, it’s huge: the Royal Canadian Mint apparently certified a gold bar’s purity when the gold bar was not gold.

And it’s difficult to imagine that simply being the result of a “mistake” or “bureaucratic oversight” on the part of the mint. Given all the other strange stories about gold in the past few years, including cases of fake tungsten-filled bars being sold to China, and the difficulty Germany had initially in repatriating its gold (and its subsequent reticence to allow real independent audit of the purity of that gold), it raises questions.

And the questions being pointed to all end in one word: fraud:

According to CBC, the Royal Canadian Mint is investigating how a sealed, “pure gold” wafer with proper mint stampings has emerged as a fake. According to the Canadian press, the one-ounce gold piece, which was supposed to be 99.99{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} pure, was purchased by an Ottawa jeweller on Oct. 18 at a Royal Bank of Canada branch. The problem emerged when tests of the bar showed it may contain no gold at all. And, when neither the mint nor RBC would take the bar back, jeweler Samuel Tang contacted CBC news.

Now the problem is of course that perhaps someone else simply stamped the bar with the Canadian Royal Mint’s seal. The problem here is that the purchaser of the bar, as noted above, purchased it at a Royal Bank of Canada branch, which would seem to imply that that bank is part of a “distribution” network for something far-less-than-kosher, notwithstanding that

The Royal Canadian Mint said in a statement to CBC it is in process of testing the bar, “although the appearance of the wafer and its packaging already suggests that it is not a genuine Royal Canadian Mint product.”

Well, if that’s the case, then why did the Royal Bank of Canada not detect the problems with the packaging?

And as the article itself notes, a counterfeiter doesn’t produce just one example (consider only the allegedly suspect packaging referred to above. Why go to all that trouble for just one bit of product?). So, in short, we’re back to the implication that the bank which sold the bar may be part of a distribution network – perhaps unwittingly, since it appears it cannot tell the difference between genuine packaging and “fake packaging.”

And all that is assuming, of course, that we’re being told the complete story, and that the counterfeit didn’t originate with the Royal Canadian Mint itself.

The bottom line? Well, in a world where blockchain technologies and cryptocurrencies are being advocated in conjunction with gold for a restructuring of the financial system, it would appear that the gold component isn’t perhaps such a stable component.

Read More @