Below is a series of documents that proves the FBI has withheld critical information from 9/11 families and the American people.
2002 DOJ Response to Request for Osama Bin Laden Arrest Warrant
The 2002 D.O.J. response to the 9/11 families’ legal team’s request for a copy of the arrest warrant of Osama Bin Laden. The DOJ responded to the request stating that for the legal team to access this information, they had to have Bin Laden sign a release form for his warrant. The 9/11 families want to know why the DOJ protected the privacy of a known terrorist leader?
2017 DOJ Response to Request for 9/11 Hijackers’ Passports
The 2017 DOJ response to the 9/11 families’ legal team’s request for copies of visa records for 3 of the main 9/11 hijackers: Khalid al Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, and Salem al Hazmi. DOJ responded to the request stating the legal team had to provide obituaries/death certificates for the hijackers to obtain the documents. Why, 16 years after the 9/11 attacks, did the DOJ continue to protect the privacy of the hijackers?
2012 FBI 9/11 Investigation Status Report
Heavily redacted 2012 status report from the FBI regarding the progress of the 9/11 investigation. The most vital information provided by this document appears at the end of page 3 and beginning of page 4. It states “main subjects include Fahad al-Thumairy, Omar Ahmed al-Bayoumi, [redacted]. These subjects provided the hijackers with assistance in daily activities, including procuring living quarters, financial assistance, and assistance in obtaining flight lessons”. Who is the third redacted name who worked with two known Saudi government officials, Thumairy and Bayoumi, as they assisted the 9/11 hijackers assimilate into American life unnoticed before 9/11? The document also shows the ways the DOJ has continually prevented the 9/11 families from obtaining information regarding the people behind 9/11, through redacting and hiding key information from the families and their legal teams.
Declaration of Former FBI Agent Stephen Moore
Sworn statement under oath from former FBI agent Stephen Moore regarding his time as head of the Los Angeles FBI 9/11 investigation from 2001-2008.
» Lees verder
By John Vibes
Before Bitcoin became the newest trend for silicon valley bros, it was a tool for hackers and revolutionaries who wanted to undermine the banking system. In fact, this was the original vision of the cryptocurrency’s mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto, and the group of anarchist hackers called “cypherpunks” that developed the technology.
It appears that this original vision was not missed by the US government, which has been developing plans to contend with a potential cryptocurrency rebellion. Documents obtained by The Intercept through a freedom of information act request show that the US Department of Defense has created war game scenarios in which a rebellion of Gen Z revolutionaries used cryptocurrency to undermine and evade the establishment.
In one of the war games, the Pentagon prepared for hordes of Gen Z hackers who used cyberattacks to steal money and convert it to Bitcoin. The revolutionary group in the war game was given the name “Zbellion.” This exercise happened two years ago, in 2018, but it was set in the future year of 2025. In the scenario, Gen Z was involved in protests all over the world and waged a “global cyber campaign to expose injustice and corruption and to support causes it deem[s] beneficial.”
It was noted that Gen Z sees themselves “as agents for social change” and believe that the “system is rigged against them.”
In light of the protests that have developed around the world over the past months, activists are starting to revisit the original spirit of the technology, and are seeing its potential as a tool for revolutionary movements. The details of the Pentagon war games were not made public until Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz suggested freezing the financial accounts of demonstrators who are spotted at the ongoing protests against police violence.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
Nathaniel Whittemore, a bitcoin and cryptocurrency consultant, and strategist, previously told Forbes that, “One of the most important tools in the authoritarian toolkit is the ability to freeze the funding of legitimate political dissent.
» Lees verder
Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,
According to internal documents, Monsanto and Germany’s BASF knew their products would destroy farms in the United States. The firms disregarded the risks even while they planned on how to profit off farmers who would buy Monsanto’s new seeds just to avoid the damages caused by their products.
The documents (some of them date back more than a decade) have been uncovered during a recent successful $265 million lawsuit brought against both firms by a Missouri farmer. The internal documents were seen and released by the Guardian. They also revealed how Monsanto opposed some third-party product testing, in order to curtail the generation of data that might have worried regulators. In some of the internal BASF emails, employees were even joking about sharing “voodoo science“ and hoping to stay “out of jail.”
“The documents are the worst that I’ve ever seen for any case that I’ve worked on,” said lawyer Angie Splittgerber, a former tobacco industry defense attorney who works with farmers who are suing Monsanto and BASF.
“So many of them put things in writing that were just horrifying.”
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time Monsanto has been caught trying to hide the damages that are done with their products.
Records showed that at private meetings dating back to 2009, agricultural experts warned that the plan to develop a dicamba-tolerant system could have catastrophic consequences. Dicamba herbicide would normally kill crops such as soybean or cotton, but Monsanto altered the genes in these crops to create genetically modified varieties that are resistant to the herbicide. This meant that farmers can spray the weedkiller directly on those soybean or cotton plants to destroy weeds but leave the crops unharmed.
The experts told Monsanto that farmers were likely to spray old volatile versions of dicamba on the new dicamba-tolerant crops. They have warned that even new versions were still likely to be volatile enough to move away from the special cotton and soybean fields on to crops growing on other farms.
What is more important, under the system designed by Monsanto and BASF,
» Lees verder
Fight For The Future
Breaking: leaked documents show that the Trump administration is drafting an executive order that, if upheld by the courts, could essentially end free speech on the Internet. The draft order would put the FTC and the FCC, headed by its notoriously corrupt chairman Ajit Pai, in charge of monitoring and policing online speech on social media platforms, online forums, and more.
It would give these bureaucratic government agencies unprecedented control over how Internet platforms moderate speech by allowing them to revoke the essential protections Congress laid out in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). CDA 230 is the basic law that makes it possible for online platforms to let users post our own content, and to make basic decisions about what types of content they as private entities want to host. Every meme, every social media post, every blog and user-created video on the Internet has been made possible by this crucial free speech protection.
In practice, this executive order would mean that whichever political party is in power could dictate what speech is allowed on the Internet. If the government doesn’t like the way a private company is moderating content, they can shut their entire website down. The administration claims it’s trying to stop private companies from silencing speech—but this plan would create terrifying new censorship powers for the government to do just that. And the White House isn’t alone in promoting this misguided idea, some top Democrats have also called for weakening CDA 230.
The draft order has already been resoundingly condemned by First Amendment and free speech experts from across the political spectrum. Regardless of your politics, regardless of how you feel about the president, this is a terrible idea that will have the exact opposite impact of its stated purpose of protecting free speech.
If this accurately reflects resulting EO, it’s an anti-American edict that would empower FCC & FTC to be viewpoint-based arbiters of online speech. Thankfully, 1st Amendment forbids that. It’s regrettable that this Administration doesn’t seem to know that. https://t.co/uKNqE6UKD4
— PEN America (@PENamerica) August 9, 2019
Sign the petition to tell the White House: “Don’t break the Internet with an executive order that makes the FCC and FTC the speech police.
» Lees verder
- The Facts:
This article was written by By Jeremy R. Hammond, Contributing Writer, Children’s Health Defense.
- Reflect On:
Are vaccines as safe as they are marketed to be? Why has the mainstream and big health ridiculed and demonized those who question them instead of addressing and countering their points?
By telling parents not to do antibody blood tests to avoid needlessly vaccinating their child, Paul Offit unwittingly exposes scientific fraud by the FDA.
Many parents today are naturally concerned about the number of vaccine doses their children are exposed to by following the schedule recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). To many parents, it makes sense to avoid vaccinating their children unnecessarily, and to this end a blood test can be done to determine an antibody titer, or the level of antibodies in the blood. If a child already has a protective antibody titer, indicating immunity to a given infectious disease, then there would be no reason for the child to undergo the risks associated with vaccinating against that disease.
To persuade parents that this is wrong thinking, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) has published a video in which Dr. Paul Offit argues that such blood tests are of little practical use, and that the best thing for parents to do is just to get their children all of the vaccinations strictly according to the CDC’s schedule.
Offit’s argument, however, is fallacious.
Moreover, the nature of his argument reveals how advocates of existing public vaccine policy rely on deception in order to persuade the public to comply with the wishes of the bureaucrats and technocrats who determine that policy.
In fact, properly understood in its context, Offit’s argument undercuts the case for public vaccine policy inasmuch as it highlights how, in order to get vaccine products to the market, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) colludes with the pharmaceutical industry in what is arguably scientific fraud.
… just because someone doesn’t have a protective level of antibodies doesn’t necessarily mean that they aren’t immune.
In the video, Paul Offit introduces himself as coming from the so-called “Vaccine Education Center” at the CHOP.
» Lees verder