Shahid said (September 21, 2006):

Henry,
If you can count so many good and sensible things about burka [See "Burkha Vs Bikini: Debauchery of American Women"] then why you are afraid of advocating it. May be you don't want to sound like advocating something, which is not approved by the society you are living. I really appreciate your writings but do not approve of this intellectual hypocracy.
Regards.
Shahid Alvi
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

----

Alex said (September 19, 2006):

The strongest piece of evidence is the pulling of tower 7 by Larry Silverstein who just happens to be a close friend of mass murderer Ariel Sharon. According to Silverstein he had to pull tower 7 which was barely touched for safety reasons. Not a week later, not a day later after all the dust had settled but rather 4 hours after the twins came down. As if a demolition crew would even take on the job under the circumstances.

Now, here's the kicker. Talk to any demolotion expert and he will tell you that to pull a building like Tower 7 or a hotel etc. takes at least ten days to two weeks of preperation. So, exactly when were the explosives put in place in tower 7 ? The obvious question to a smoking gun, yet no one pushes the button.

Mo said (September 18, 2006):

Just read your latest piece about Soros. I think we have a case of good-cop bad-cop being played out. The connections between the Rothschilds
and Soros are too many and too deep for him not be in their pockets. See the attached article. And Soros meddling in Eastern Europe and South
America is well known -- on par with Kissinger, just more elegantly done so it looks innocent.

Gerry said (September 18, 2006):

Yesterday, September, 17 06, the discovery channel had on a movie about AA flight 93, called "The Flight that fought back". It contained many impossible acts of airmanship performed by flight school failures. I couldn't watch it all because I was afraid I would vomit.
I try to read all your stuff you put on Jeff Rense site and thankfully your logic and reasoning helps me to realize that maybe I'm not a pathetic conspirety theorist as described by journalist Paul Schneidereit, president, Canadian Assoc. of Journalists. Even though I am a 74 year old invalid, I am still able to manipulate my trusty computer to search the internet for truth.
Once I was a pilot but had to give it up because of physical disability. So any areonautical nonsense jumps out at me.
Well, keep on treating us few true skeptics with your great missives.

Christine said (September 18, 2006):

Regarding your comment on the "Pope," I have a question for you. When is the Pope not the Pope?

When he:

a) has not been consecrated Bishop according to the rite and rules of the Catholic Church, as Fr. Benedict Ratzinger has not

b) denies the truths of the Catholic religion, as Fr. Benedict Ratzinger has done (he has denied the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and transubstantiation)

c) refuses to be crowned as Catholic Popes have been crowned (the Papacy is an elected monarchy)

d) refuses to use the Royal "we" as Catholic Popes do

e) refuses to use the Papal Throne

f) refuses to offer the Traditional Latin Mass

One could go on, but you get my point. Every organization must have some method of removing its errant leadership, or else it will not survive. In the Catholic Church, this is known as automatic excommunication (expulsion) and tacit resignation. Obviously, a man cannot hold office in an organization that has expelled him. Therefore, clerics who leave the Catholic Church by denying the True Faith lose their offices. If they persist in them, they are FRAUDS and ought to be denounced as such.

Mr. Wilson said (September 18, 2006):

I've read your site for over a year now with much interest. A few friends and I think that there truly IS a conspiracy concerning the acceptance of lesser as the baseline norm (in many many facets of our lives), starting in the early 60's. My question to you is this. What is an everyday, normal, working, common man to do? It is obvious, at least to me, that "we" are under a many pronged-many tiered attack from 360 degrees each and every waking day of our lives.

How does one handle that aside from teaching your children right from wrong and sharing information with those who will listen? Most, think people like us are just crackpots waaaay out there on the fringe anyway. What do you think will wake up the psyches of Americans? I feel as if most people are truly sheeple and are sleepwalking with blinders on.

In your educated opinion, is it exposure that will bring this evilness to the forefront where only the very stupid will not be able to see it for what it is? Or are we on a runaway rollercoaster death spiraling straight into Hell? Thank you for any insight. We enjoy your site.
------

Mr. Wilson,

This is the age old battle for man's soul between God and the Devil, only we didn't realize how well organized the Devil is. This battle will never end.

Only the Devil's disciples have been very sloppy with 9-11 and have given us a unique opportunity to expose them and their agenda. As time goes on, more and more people will come over to our persepective. We must be patient and persevere in getting the truth out. This is serving God who is truth. The real truth will make us free.

Henry

W said (September 18, 2006):

Read your latest on Rense - yes, indeed, we all need to seek truth on 9-11. I happened to join the US State Department after 9-11, worked with Colin Powell, saw the lead up to this trumped war, and knew once Colin was dumped and Condi placed in his place, it would only get worse, and I'm afraid much worse to come. Many of us left in disgust, knowing the evil that has taken
over the last bastion of diplomacy and efforts toward peace in our government, the State Department. If you get any fellow truthseekers in the Palm Springs, CA area, I would enjoy meeting up with them - we are in dangerous times my friend, and we do really need each other.

Jean from Hungary said (September 17, 2006):

Don`t be fooled by Soros. He`s only smarter than many other luciferian globalists but not lesser destructive... on the contrary. He could have become a real enlightened person but he sold his soul for the sorrow illusion of eternity given by a bunch of big money... made the mistake to believe he can be smarter than the devil who crouches inside everyone of us... thinks he is a winner in a game called life and doesn`t see that he is only a loser in a life-called test.

Soros reminds me the words of Israel Shamir in his essay "Acid Test Failed" ( http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Acid_Test_Failed.htm): "(...) a vision came to me, a vision of an angel in battle-dress, chalking up on a wall three words, Mene, Tekel ufarsin. My Angel-English on-line dictionary prompts a translation: you were tested and you failed the test."

Richard said (September 17, 2006):

In the course of the past year I have had the opportunity to read every one of your postings since September 11, 2001 (along with several dozen books and scads of web-postings ~ such are the dubious "joys" of retirement). It has been interesting to follow your awakening to "what is" in terms of who runs things in the world, and to see the unfolding of this process for you in fits and starts ~ even your travelling down a few blind alleys with some disinfo mavens (like Svali, Szyzmanski, and a few others), over time.

Your blog is one I have consistently recommended to many friends, but every so often I wonder about your judgement in the things you write or which you choose to recommend. My latest objection comes with your recommendation of "911 Press for Truth." While one cannot watch it without feeling deeply moved for the loss, grief, suffering and frustration of many of the surviving families, the film itself is so namby pamby and reticent to the point of obsequiousness in failing to mention so many of the known facts about what really happened, it makes Hamlet seem like a go-getter and decisive man of action!

Just a few of the many notable missing pieces from this film are the NORAD stand-down; the demolition charges in the buildings and their rate of fall; the temperature data; the fact that the fire in the north tower (the second one hit) was just about fully extinguished, and it was cool enough for people to stand in and wave from the gaping hole in that tower ~ which is why it was brought down first; the 16 foot diameter hole in the Pentagon, lack of appropriate debris or ground scarring, etc. etc.) this film becomes truly maddening to watch. This is most especially so when the discussion turns to the various spellings of the name of the ISI head, General Ahmad.

When the film turns to Ahmad's visit to Washington DC on 9/11/01, the day after wiring $100,000 to Atta, it then fails even to mention that General Ahmad was having breakfast that morning in DC with Porter Goss, then head of the Congressional Committee on intelligence oversight, and his Senate Intelligence Committee counterpart. I mean puh-leeze, give me a break. Then it segues to the bereaved dad from Pennsylvania whose comments serve as the final coup de grace on the film's idea of the "coverup", to wit: "At least there needs to be a further investigation of Pakistan." This isn't much better than Michael Moore claiming the Saudi "royal" family were the "real killer/culprits".

Yes, of course, the Saudis and the ISI were in it neck deep, but they were nothing but useful idiots to the CIA/Skull&Bones-Mossad-MI6 Axis of Evil who pulled off the entire job for their own material gain and worldly power, and ultimately on behalf of the central banker Rothschild/Rockefeller/Warburg/Schiff et alii puppeteers [George Soros firmly among them] who pull their strings and yank their chains at will.

This film does nothing but perpetuate the myth of "incompetence" and denies the reality of the controlled press, failing to mention the CIA's own project Mockingbird, no less the much older illuminati control going back to the pamphleteers of the French Revolution in the 18th century, the Rothschild purchase of Reuters in the 19th century, the pamphleteers of the Bolsheviks in the early 20th et sequens ad nauseum.

A similar film, though more "enlightening" in its overall perspective is "One Nation Under Siege." It too has many gaps, and is not specifically just about 9/11 per se. Further I am no particular fan of Dr. Stanley Monteith, who previously blamed everything that is wrong on the British Roundtable and Cecil Rhodes, just one small but important piece of the puzzle. Yet this film is leaps and bounds more enlightening to the general novice in these matters. And it is full of eloquent speakers who are elderly professionals, by and large, and little dross. It would open many more naive eyes, and far more fully than 911 Press for Truth.

To be sure: Everyone on this path of discovery seems to fall for overly simplistic models at first. It is the nature of the beast. It's like the elephant and the four blind men ~ one perceives a rope being flicked, another thinks it a tree, another a curved spear, yet another a huge snake [the tail, a leg, tusk, and the trunk, respectively]. All miss the totality of the huge beast before them.

Such is the nature of the beast of evil with which our world has been faced for lo these many centuries now. I agree that every little bit of awakening helps for each segment of the masses. But too many of these partial pictures are intentionally salted with just enough of a partial truth of the matter in order intentially to lead the unwary down lengthy and obscure, often emotionally laden mazes that end in blind alleys, or worse, into oubliettes.

Please be more circumspect in what you recommend. My wife and I wasted an hour and twenty minutes watching a film that was far more disinformation than good information. In fact it contained almost none of the latter. I feel that the families involved in this project had their trust misplaced, and have been abused by it's heaping of insults to the intelligence on top of the already grievous injuries and loss they had already sustained.

All of that said, keep up the good work. Like you wrote, every little bit helps. But that is IFF, as the logicians annotate, IF and ONLY IF it doesn't hinder. And that is a very important "if", or IFF, if you will.
-----

Richard, I hardly consider "a half truth is better than none at all" and "part of the effort to blame Bush" as a compelling recommendation but I am grateful to you for laying it out here. But , I also think you are overstating some points. For example, the film has an ABC News producer who says the corporation controls the news. I don't think the film is a waste of time despite its shortcomings, and at least you weren't out $8!

Scott said (September 17, 2006):

As you mentioned, Mossad helped to finance its 9/11 operations with Ecstacy sales. (The results of the "War on Drugs" - not to mention the "War on Poverty" & "War on Crime" - should give an indication about the potential outcome for the "War on Terrorism"! ) It's well-known that drug sales have financed covert activities for a very long time. However, that is chump change, compared with the 2.3 trillion dollars, which miraculously disappeared on Dov Zakheim's watch at the Pentagon. The official announcement came from Donald Rumsfeld on September 10, 2001.

If some intrepid investigator has the wherewithal to do some forensic accounting, that would unlock a great many mysteries. Americans were expected to believe that the economy took a tumble, simply because two big, ugly buildings were no longer part of the New York skyline.

Dan said (September 17, 2006):

Soros' message against the "war on terror" strategy sounds very good, of course, since we all know the terrorism angle is a State scam. I listened very carefully to Soros, though, and he's basically focusing the responsibility and blame for the strategy exclusively on the Bush administration....he sounds like "Noam Chomsky Lite".

I think Soros knows better than that. He's speaking to the segment of the US population that is against what's going on, but that still think it's all about the 'Neocons'...so they believe that once Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld go, we'll get the old American 'swing to the left' and Democrats will go to work cleaning up all that Republican doo doo.
This myth goes back to FDR...who actually did oversee cleaning up the failed attempt of the bankers to amalgamate the world 70 years ago. But the notion that Repbulicans make things 'bad' and democrats bring back 'democracy' is, well, like believing in Santa Claus.

So I see Soros playing Santa Claus, and we're going to see a lot of that for the next two years. People I talk with on the street this week are venting about Bush, the war, and on the plus side feeling safe to talk up because they see Bush is on the way out.
But they still think it's the same system it was 50 years ago....political opposition parties.

But they are talking, they do want to break free of the stranglehold. Right now, the controllers are very fine with that and are prepared to lead the people around by the nose again the way they do in election years. Throw them a few patsys, let them think 'we' are winning.
People are motivated, but they can't break this trance on their own. This is the opportunity for the free thinkers to get to work having face to face conversations with people, and use the chance to get some of them to actually become fully aware of what's really going on.

Andrew said (September 16, 2006):

Henry--Thanks for another interesting article. George Soros is saying what everyone with half a brain is saying that "The American reaction" to 9/11 has "contributed to the empowerment of terrorist groups"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763226.html That quotation came today from Jordan's King Abdullah II, but everyone is saying the same thing and the controlled media suppresses all such statements and not just George Soros'. Although Soros was a member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, he has always been the global elite's "loose cannon."

Robin said (September 16, 2006):

By the way, your item [last week], Henry, is high-quality journalism ... getting us into the minds of the faceless leaders.
I'd like to think that your prediction is correct, that the two 'elected' members of the Admin will pull their heads in, and avoid causing further trouble in the coming two years before they are thrown out. BUT... Cheyney is a 'mad dog' and never to be trusted. And GW Bush is a paid mouthpiece, albeit a very faulty one. Both give the impression of people in power with debts to repay; I fear that they would both like to leave office with clean slates - having worked through the agendas they were paid to complete.
You, in America, still have unfilled concentration camps; and, the Admin, through Echelon, knows who the few independent thinkers are: it is not difficult, at all, to imagine the passing of a "Catch the Traitors" law, and the rounding up of said free-thinkers ... before the neocons lose their opportunity to replace 'democracy' with full-blown corporatism.
Unfortunately the responsibility of independent thinkers calls for more than just waiting - for democracy to return. Sadly, your best minds in the States do not seem to recognise that the capitalist economic system is rotten to the core. A 'cleaned-up' capitalism simply does not exist. So, I would ask: what does Post-Capitalism look like?
Where are the thinkers and writers who would paint pictures of possible, better future worlds? My only conclusion is that the vast majority of people around the First World can see capitalism's endless cycle of boom-and-bust/prosperity-and-depression, but have resigned themselves (and their children) to this fate, even if the next depression is too horrible to think about.
Henry, if you keep writing your good articles describing the thinking of the creators of our status quo, then, subsequently, others will take courage from this, and start projecting minds into future scenarios ... positive ones.