Thursday, August 22, 2019

No Plane Crashes on 911 -- Exposing the Illusion

 I am pleased to announce that my essay collection entitled, No Plane Crashes on 9/11—Exposing the Illusion is available for purchase:
-- as an Amazon/Kindle ebook, $4.99
-- as an Amazon paperback, $11.49
See below the book’s description.
Readers may also be interested in my January 2019 ebook – “LBJ, the Six-Day War, and the Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty


 No Plane Crashes on 9/11—Exposing the Illusion

by Ronald Bleier
The nine essays in this volume written between 2005 and 2015—and two in 2019—trace the arc of evidence exposing the myth that Arab hijackers, led by Osama bin Laden, were responsible for the terror attacks of 9/11. The essays by editor Ronald Bleier and four contributing authors, contend that 9/11 was a false flag operation, an inside job, planned and executed by the George W. Bush White House.
Two essays by Ronald Bleier summarize evidence presented by the late Gerard Holmgren, Morgan Reynolds and others that no planes crashed on 9/11: the so-called No Planes Theory (NPT). The central implication of the NPT is that there were no Arab or Muslim hijackers, nor were any planes hijacked, and that no planes crashed on 9/11. Unsurprisingly, Osama bin Laden correctly protested his total innocence. The NPT asserts that the 9/11 terror attack was a homemade U.S. operation conducted by elements of the security services, overseen largely by Vice President Dick Cheney. The shock and awe of 9/11 did not require outside assistance although it seems likely the Israeli government had prior knowledge.
9/11 was to be seen as a new Pearl Harbor, conceived to jump-start permanent Global War, employing terror to advance its imperialist and nihilistic war plan, intending destruction, destabilization and mass suffering as collateral damage. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, the U.S. sought a replacement bogeyman—and created one in the Muslim nation. The new enemy facilitated the U.S. agenda of permanent war to maintain and enlarge its security budgets and to support Israel’s agenda of destroying its enemies.
The claim that no planes were involved on 9/11 is sustained by the controlled demolition of three World Trade Center towers, the refusal or inability of the government to produce evidence of hijackings and hijackers, of plane crashes, or of plane wreckage. Also addressed is the question of how the cell phone calls were made and what happened to the airline passengers.
The volume’s last essay by Ronald Bleier, “Did Dick Cheney Plan to Assassinate President Bush?,” ventures into speculation arising largely from the  unsuccessful attempt to assassinate President Bush in Florida on the early morning of 9/11, and the suppression of news of this foiled plot.

Sunday, April 14, 2019

Snowden archives memory-holed !! -- As alarming as Assange's arrest!! --Cat McGuire

Cat McGuire writes:

Virtually nothing is being said about how billionaire Pierre Omidyar, essentially the owner of the Snowden docs, has shut down the release, analysis and custodial care of the archives claiming lack of funds. This decision was made just this past March, 2019 with the full participation and agreement of Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill.  

Understanding the historical significance of the Snowden cache, Laura Poitras screamed bloody murder that this important treasure trove has been summarily shuttered, particularly since only 10% of the documents have ever been released. 

The raison d'etre of the new company Poitras, Greenwald and Scahill created in partnership with Omidyar called The Intercept (First Look) was for Omidyar to finance the herculean effort of responsibly releasing the Snowden documents. 

To date, however, once Omidyar got control of the goods around October 2014, only a trickle of the Snowden archives has seen the light of day. The remainder of the digital documents are in dire danger of never being released -- or worse, being destroyed, accidentally or otherwise.

Remember, from June of 2013 when the Snowden event happened to late 2014, for weeks on end all we heard about were the Snowden docs, with one side saying they're a violation of national security, and the Greenwald/Poitras side championing the right to whistleblow state secrets.

So now that the famous Snowden archives have been unilaterally shut down by Omidyar, Greenwald, and Scahill, why is hardly anyone from the left, right, or center raising red-flag alarms?  Even Snowden himself has been suspiciously silent. 

We would not know about any of this were it not for Poitras who released the private emails explaining how she was excluded from this momentous decision. She exposed how alleged budget concerns were a smokescreen since a mere 1.5% of the Intercept budget was allocated to the Snowden archives team anyway.

Since the very beginning, my sister Colleen and I have wondered what manner of subterfuge has been going on with Greenwald et al. For a long time now, a few brave critics have raised serious questions about Snowden, Poitras, Greenwald, Scahill, and Omidyar to the ire of indignant leftists who deem them all sacred cows immune to criticism. 

Over the years, a multitude of dubious actions surrounding Omidyar beg massive exposure. To wit:
  • His many connections to the NSA
  • Cutting WikiLeaks' PayPal account, and supporting the criminal prosecution of Anonymous when they hacked PayPal
  • Attempting to steal Craigslist for which in an unusual move against a corporate principle, a Delaware judge all but called Omidyar a thief
  • Helping fund the neo-nazi coup d'etat in Ukraine 
  • Detrimentally undermining women's microfinancing in India
  • After taking over Intercept and poaching star reporters, barely allowing anyone to publish their whistleblowing articles (e.g., Ken Silverstein, Matt Taibbi)
  • And much more
Past duplicity notwithstanding, this recent development of the shuttering of the Snowden docs is an unprecedented violation of the public trust. Those documents belong to the American people, no matter how deftly Omidyar purloined them -- or whatever deals-with-the-devil Greenwald et al signed on to.  As Greenwald purportedly said in December 2014 when asked why he joined forces with Omidyar, "What billionaire do you expect me to go with?" 

Why is the press silent on such a momentous issue? Why has Greenwald colluded in this outrageous new development, including the ousting of Poitras? 

With the arrest of Julian Assange, Greenwald has rightfully spoken out in strong opposition to the extradition. Nonetheless, it is the height of unseemly opportunism when Greenwald sent the attached email on April 11 to The Intercept's readers bemoaning Assage's arrest. . . and then asking readers to support free speech by donating -- not to Assange's legal defense! -- but rather to the already richly-endowed Intercept, the very organization that is abandoning the valuable assets entrusted to them by Edward Snowden, another besieged whistleblower.

Further worth noting is Greenwald's interview with NPR on April 11, the day of Assange's arrest in which in a tweet Greenwald claims the interview "became contentious" when NPR characterized him as a "colleague of Julian Assange."  Why on earth would being a colleague of Julian Assange offend Greenwald?

Although Glenn Greenwald does a lot of superb work, his handling of the Snowden docs and his alliance with Pierre Omidyar should ring alarm bells.

Below are some starter articles.  Pass them on to journalists and beseech them to publicize the memory-holing of the Snowden archives.

Medium: Why The Intercept Really Closed the Snowden Archive, March 27, 2019 (Poitras' emails)
Attachment(s) from Marcy J. Gordon | View attachments on the web 
Post from Cat McGuire
Links from
Marcy J. Gordon My friend Cat McGuire’s commentary and analysis may be of interest to readers on this list.

1 of 1 File(s)

Friday, March 15, 2019

What Caused the Boeing 737 Crashes? Corruption at Boeing and the FAA. Duh!

As of March 14, 2019, Democracy Now,  the NYT, the NY Daily News, the NY Post, the Wall St Journal, chose not to explain that Boeing, instead of redesigning  a new fuselage for its new and larger MAX engines, introduced instead faulty software which has now resulted in two terrible crashes this year.

An informed comment by Lochearn appeared in Bernhard's  Moon of Alabama blog entitled
"Boeing, The FAA, And Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed
" (3.12.19) which goes into more detail.  
Lochearn wrote: 

Over the space of a few months 2 almost new Boeing 737 MAX aircraft have crashed. Rather than going to the expense of designing an entirely new fuselage and normal length landing gear for its larger and much more powerful 737 MAX engines Boeing stuck with the now ancient 737 fuselage design that sits only 17 inches from the ground – necessitating changes to the positioning of the engines on the wing, which together with the vast increase in power, created aerodynamic instability in the design that Boeing tried to correct with software, while not alerting pilots to the changes.
 Through the 1980s and early 1990s Boeing executives had largely resisted pressure from Wall Street to cut staff numbers, move plant to non-union states and outsource. The 777 was the last real Boeing, though significant outsourcing did take place – but under the strict control and guidance of Boeing engineers. After the “reverse” takeover of MacDonnell Douglas in 1997 the MDD neoliberal culture swamped Boeing and its HQ was moved from the firm’s home near Seattle to Chicago so executives could hobnob with speculators. Wall Street had taken down another giant.
Bernhard argues that the crashes are largely the responsibility of the  FAA which was aware of the danger and allowed the planes to fly with faulty software and without properly alerting pilots.

Friday, February 08, 2019

Bleier: “On the Brink of Armageddon: LBJ, the Six-Day War, and the Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty” Amazon and B&N ebook

I’m pleased to announce that “On the Brink of Armageddon: LBJ, the Six-Day War, and the Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty” is now available as an ebook on Amazon’s Kindle and B&N’s Nook for $2.99.

Amazon also offers the first few pages on its “Look Inside” link.

 “On the Brink” is also posted on my DESIP website and on

"On the Brink of Armageddon" highlights the theory outlined in a  book by BBC documentarian, Peter Hounam:  "Operation Cyanide: Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III." From Hounam and others it can be inferred that President Johnson masterminded both the Six-Day War of 1967 and the Israeli attack on the Liberty. The latter operation was planned as a false flag attack, not unlike Johnson’s Gulf of Tonkin hoax, this time to be blamed on Egypt. It seems that President Johnson hoped the sinking of the Liberty would serve as a pretext to join Israel’s war.

The work of Stephen Green in the 1980s, principally his book, "Living By the Sword: America and Israel in the Middle East," revealed that the U.S. was deeply involved in Israel's  war and must have been colluding with Tel Aviv for many months before June 1967.

“On the Brink” details some of the evidence supporting Hounam’s incredible theory that LBJ planned to initiate  World War III with the bombing of a Soviet air base near Cairo with a nuclear-tipped weapon. In the end, Cairo  was spared the intended nuclear attack when the USS Liberty miraculously somehow escaped from its intended fate.

Wednesday, February 06, 2019

Support for ISIS Comes From the U.S. and Israel -- Bernhard Curates the Evidence

How did ISIS get started? Who has been supporting them all these years? The U.S. and Israel. Duh.

The Russians indirectly shamed the U.S. into finally attacking ISIS oil tankers in 2015. See "Caught On Tape: Russian Air Force Destroys Dozens Of ISIS Oil Trucks."

After initially making a show of finally following the Russian example and destroying some ISIS tankers, the U.S. found excuses not to continue. See for example, "US Planes Left ISIS Fuel Tankers Unharmed Because 'They Ran Out of Ammunition'"

The interesting question is whether Trump knows or wants to know of U.S. support for ISIS. If, for example, he really wanted to put an end to the ISIS threat, all he would have to do, as Bernhard explains, is leave Syria and allow Assad to do the job. Which Damascus would be only too glad to do including ISIS sleeper cells which, once again are supported by the U.S. and Israel because they serve their interest in continuing the war indefinitely.

For years, Bernhard has been citing documentation of U.S. attacks on Syrian forces in coordination with ISIS.

Here’s a brief reference in his blog of 2.4.19 (Search for "Trump Says U.S. Will Leave But Pentagon Keeps Adding Forces.)

On Saturday a U.S. air attack targeted a Syrian army position south of the Euphrates near the border town al-Bukamal:
A military source told SANA that the U.S.-led coalition warplanes carried out an air strike overnight Saturday on Syrian artillery position in Sokkariyeh village, west of al-Bukamal city.
The source added that the attack resulted in destroying the artillery and injuring two soldiers.
SANA reporter said that, in parallel with the coalition’s aggression, Daesh terrorists attacked military points in the area, but the army units repelled the attack and killed and wounded most of the attacking terrorists.

This is one of several incidents indicating the U.S. intentionally lets some ISIS fighters escape to attack the Syrian government.

Wednesday, January 02, 2019

Bleier: On the Brink of Armageddon: LBJ, the Six-Day War, and the Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty

My long essay, On the Brink of Armageddon: LBJ, the Six-Day War, and the Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty   recapitulates Part I (August 2018) and adds Part II, “The Evidence,” supporting the theory advanced in Part I. The notable change in the new Part I is that I tried to clarify my notion that President Lyndon Johnson was the mastermind of the Six-Day War and the attack on the Liberty. (See the first five paragraphs below.)

In addition, I argue that it was President Johnson who fatefully insured that Israel would capture and retain captured Arab territory. Thus Johnson bears the major responsibility for the consequences of the Greater Israel that was then born.  

President Johnson’s decision to suborn Israel into attacking the U.S.S. Liberty and start WWIII in a failed false flag operation, intending to publicly join Israel’s war with a nuclear attack on Egypt, is the most difficult element to credit. The concluding section on “World War Three?,” appended below, includes author Joan Mellen’s cogent summary of our narrow escape.

Part I РThe Expos̩

Largely through the work of one researcher, BBC documentarian and author Peter Hounam, a disquieting revisionist theory has been abroad, opening windows onto the history of the 1967 Arab-Israel war (a/k/a, the Six-Day War) as well as on the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, a spy ship. Hounam published his exposé, Operation Cyanide: Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III in 2003,[i] asserting that the U.S. and Israel colluded to provoke the war and to sink the Liberty in a false-flag attack, blaming it on Egypt. The sinking of the Liberty was to serve as President Johnson's pretext to publicly join Israel's war and to strike a Cold War blow against U.S.S.R. support for Israel's Arab neighbors.

Hounam's book revises our understanding of Israel’s otherwise inexplicable attack on its ally’s ship. Even more than a decade later, many, especially in the West, believe that Israel’s motivation for trying to sink the Liberty was to suppress its eavesdropping capabilities so as to outmaneuver U.S. objections to its planned attack on Syria the next day, the fifth day of the war. But Hounam reveals that besides the Liberty, the U.S. had alternate surveillance platforms monitoring the battlefield, making the Liberty's intelligence collection essentially redundant when it came to controlling Israel’s military movements. Furthermore Hounam insists that the Israelis were aware of U.S. surveillance capabilities, and so had no discernible rationale for its attack. 

Hounam’s revelation of President Johnson’s crucial role in conceiving of the war itself and his plan to openly join Israel’s war via the attack on the Liberty, overturns the popular understanding that both were secret, independent Israeli initiatives. Hounam reprises previously unearthed testimony from an American whistleblower who played a significant operational role in the war. In addition, Hounam uncovers a second operative who details his operational involvement on Israel’s behalf. From these testimonies, and others, and the from the wealth of circumstantial evidence Hounam lays out, it’s clear that the war was the result of long-planned U.S.-Israeli collusion and thus must have been masterminded by President Johnson, who propelled it. Only President Johnson, in complete control of his government’s military and diplomatic apparatus, had the motive, the means and the opportunity to plan such a war and execute the U.S.’s role in it.

Fatefully it was also Johnson’s decision to shield Israel from international pressure to withdraw from captured Arab territory, which opened the door to the ongoing tragedy of more than five decades of Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians. President Lyndon Johnson thus may be seen as the father of all the terrible ramifications, especially for the Palestinians and for the U.S., of the Greater Israel that he made possible.

Hounam's subtitle, Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III, references the even more inconceivable element of his theory, namely that only the unanticipated survival of the Liberty prevented President Johnson from proceeding with his plan to initiate World War III by employing nuclear weaponry to attack Egypt. 


World War Three?

What are we to make of Hounam's finding that Johnson was determined to embark on World War Three by joining Israel’s war with a nuclear attack against Egypt? The evidence suggests that had the Liberty not narrowly escaped its intended fate, President Johnson seemed intent on proceeding with a plan that may very well have put an end to civilization as we know it. 

Joan Mellen lists the steps that led to our hairsbreadth deliverance. 
Had Lyndon Johnson’s order that no rescue planes be dispatched achieved its intended result, the sinking of Liberty; had Egypt (with Soviet assistance) been blamed for the attack, as was also intended; had the United States then retaliated by bombing Cairo with those nuclear weapons at the ready on the U.S.S. America; had the Soviets then responded with a nuclear retaliation on Israel, as a Soviet submarine commander has testified that they were prepared to do; and had the Strategic Air Command then further retaliated with its  hydrogen bombs, raising the ante, Lyndon Johnson’s legacy would have been World War Three. He came close. [ii]
It's hard to imagine a more stark difference between John F. Kennedy, who stood virtually alone against his government, trying to prevent World War Three in the course of the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, and Lyndon Johnson who, five years later, planned to start the conflagration.



[i] Peter Hounam, Operation Cyanide: Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III (London, Satin Publications, Ltd., 2003).

[ii] Mellen, Faustian Bargains, p. 214.

Wednesday, November 07, 2018

The GOP Steals Another Election – The Senate 2018

 Yup, once again, the election was stolen --this time for the Senate. Jonathan Simon has already  concluded that "it does look for all the world like a masterful job of surgical rigging." He explains that it will be clear in the coming weeks -- but will not appear in the MSM.  
Evidently the Republican operatives were clever enough to allow the Democratic takeover of the House. 

The following message is from Mark Crispin Miller 11.7.18

Note the rebuke of Gillum because he conceded when he could have contested the election since AUDITUSA managed to get the ballots preserved. 

MCM wrote:
In the wee hours of this morning, Jonathan Simon wrote the following assessment of the outcome on "Election" Day,
based on his study of the (as usual) weird numbers coast to coast.
Although the numbers will be closely studied in the weeks to come (albeit not by "our free press," but by those very
few who are devoted to the premise, and the promise, of electoral democracy), I'm confident enough that they will
bolster Jonathan's interpretation that I am sending it around today, in hopes that it may shed a bit of light on what
went down last night (as usual), and, therefore, on what's going to happen for the next two years—and what will
keep on happening, until enough of us wake up to the annulment of our voting rights, and the necessity of our
reclaiming them, however we may need to do it.

For those who want a link to the scoresheets that Jonathan compiled, it's here: -- MCM

Jon wrote:
Have to wait for tomorrow and the full returns to complete my scoresheets but . . . it does look for all the world like a masterful job of surgical rigging; the pattern of red shifts seems to correlate with how I would have strategized and targeted it if I were in the GOP war room, including letting Nancy Pelosi (or her "radical left" usurper) stand there like a punching bag for Trump for two years - much better to have the Democrats running the House, but the Senate (especially with an eye to the contests in 2020) had to be beefed up, and key governorships (FL, GA, MO, WI) held. And lo and behold . . . ! We don't have a full set of EPs [exit polls] to work from (only 21 states, missing key races like Kobach) and those, we were informed, were tweaked to neuter out the red shift. Well even that tweaking didn't work - at least not in cases like Walker, McCaskill, Donnelly, Nelson - actually most of the critical contests. And the pre-election polls were even more red-shifted.

I guess what I want to say at this point is that we shouldn't let the fact that we're pretty used to this plotline numb us to what we're seeing here. This is exactly how you go about stealing a nation and then keeping it stolen without doing anything stupid enough to get caught. This is what the election fraud maintenance plan looks like. 

Candidates like Gillum [in Florida] conceding (I still can't believe it - did I hear it wrong?) aren't much help, especially after AUDITUSA managed to get the ballots images preserved. 

But given the prevailing attitude to our little election forensics cottage industry, I'm pretty sure nothing we can mutter about this election, the red shift, the tweaked exit polls, etc. will move that mountain. I think we're going to have to get ballot measures passed proactively, not reactively - though it probably won't hurt to throw in a few gentle observations about numbers that, tonight, yet again, didn't add up and call canted in the same direction. Thanks to all, especially if your still up and working on this and/or listening. - Jon