Comment: Aside from a couple items I havn't researched, the answer is YES

(See in situ)

Aside from a couple items I havn't researched, the answer is YES

YES, Al Qaeda is a CIA asset. It's not theory, it's fact. Before I get into this other stuff let me also tell you that Drugs are illegal to keep the prices high. The CIA controls the Drug trade here and in Mexico for the purpose of funding it's "black-ops". That way the CIA doesn't have to explain to Congress what the money is to be used for (assassinations and other illegal activities). The occasional big drug busts you see in the news are competitors to the CIA being taken out. This is a short article from this week's issue of Joel Skousen's "World Affairs Brief" ( and there is a plethora of information on this if you dig in [Joel's comments are in brackets]:



As readers know, my analysis of the Fast and Furious government program was 1) to get weapons into the hands of the Mexican cartel that runs the secret, but official US/Mexican drug pipeline and 2) to pin the blame on the gun show loophole and American’s Second Amendment.

Univision TV told their viewers that the scandal is even bigger: “There were other gun running operations, such as Operation Castaway which sent guns into Colombia, Honduras and Venezuela.” But they also parroted government propaganda when they said, “Bill Newell, the Phoenix ATF office leader, who [was the one who] decided that “the only way to track the guns was to wait for weapons to be recovered in crime scenes in Mexico.” That isn’t true. This plan was hatched at the highest levels of government power (not including the puppet president who is usually kept in the dark on such issues).

But the biggest and most damaging evidence to surface comes from (kind of a private outlet for government intel and sometimes government disinformation). Alex Newman of The New American covers the story with the title: “Stratfor Sources: U.S. Troops in Mexico as Feds Aid Cartels”

“Federal authorities in the United States have been quietly supporting certain Mexican criminal empires, especially the Sinaloa drug cartel, in a bid to solidify the syndicates’ reign as dominant powerbrokers in particular territories, according to leaked e-mails from a U.S.-based Mexican diplomat to the private intelligence firm Stratfor. If cartel chiefs cooperate with authorities, ‘governments will allow controlled drug trades,’ the diplomatic source wrote [this is nothing new. This has been going on for years, and the Sinaloa cartel was the primary recipient of Fast and Furious weapons in order to beef up their firepower against other cartels growing up to compete with the official US-Mexican pipeline. This infighting between the officially sponsored cartel and the competitors is what the drug wars is all about].

“Other information unearthed so far in the leak, much of it coming from a variety of sources, was equally explosive. One 2011 e-mail from an individual described by Stratfor as ‘a US law enforcement officer with direct oversight of border investigations,’ for example, indicated that American troops were already operating in Mexico under the guise of the drug war. ‘U.S. special operations forces are currently in Mexico. Small-scale joint ops [operations] with Mexico’s [special forces], but they are there,’ the document claimed, citing the federal law enforcement supervisor identified as US714. The allegation in the e-mail was echoed by the Mexican diplomat and served to confirm previous reports of U.S. military operations in Mexico based on other sources.”

“Also troubling were Stratfor documents detailing ‘surgical strikes’ by Mexican special-operations troops — backed by U.S. taxpayer money and the Obama administration — which analysts equated with ‘death squads.’ Essentially, then, Mexican troops have gone on a killing spree taking out certain troublesome cells.

“Another bombshell uncovered in the leaked e-mails indicated that the U.S. federal government had deliberately allowed cartel hit men to murder people inside the United States if they agreed to offer their services to Washington. “Regarding ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] screwing up informants: They [ICE] were handling big hit men from Juarez and letting them kill in the U.S.,’ the same federal law enforcement supervisor wrote in an e-mail. While the claim is certainly explosive and hard to understand, analysts who follow the drug war closely say it would not be the first time the U.S. government had authorized similar insanity.”

It’s not insanity—it’s official corruption. The only way to understand why the US both fights a drug war and supports drug importations is to understand that the US has long been running drugs for the benefit of financing black operations outside of Congress’ oversight, and to allow their cadre of Mafia hit men to have a lucrative source of income. The US favors several cartels, but they are supposed to maintain strict boundaries so they don’t compete. But it doesn’t always work out that way.

I’ve covered in the past the testimony of DEA agents in San Diego that wanted to open sealed truck containers coming in from Mexico that their drug sniffing dogs indicated had drugs onboard. The trucks are certified “drug free” in Mexico but are obviously smuggling in huge amounts of drugs. When the agents complained, their supervisors staunchly refused to intervene in those certified trucks—under orders from Washington. Therefore, this was not just local corruption.

But violence will always be part of a system that gives official sanction to corruption. In the same way that the US runs certain terrorist organizations at the top, the terrorists or criminals under them don’t know that—and sometimes do unauthorized acts which the US has difficulty stopping once it gets started. It appears that the US is secretly moving in special forces and advisors to help the Mexican government get back control over the drug network it runs jointly with the US.


Now let me give you more "dots to connect" and you piece it together.

Here's the beginning of Al Qaeda when we got involved with the Mujahideen:

Now here's a couple news clips on Anwar al Awlaki. Now remember he was he first American Citizen openly executed by Presidential edict as part of our official policy with no Judicial review (We have killed many U.S. citizens previously but in secret with plenty of denials on the government's part). He was selected as the first to be killed because everyone agrees that he is a bad guy. I can tell you that another reason that is not for public consumption is that the government didn't want a trial. That is because it would show an obvious connection that Al Awlaki was a CIA asset. Watch these:

Now onto 9/11. In 2009 I wrote up an email piece which I designed to be replicated and propagated through the Internet. I'll share that with you here. It will connect a lot more dots than you can imagine. The most important link here is the Aaron Russo interview, though I hope you'll go through all of these.

I put "When did you quit believing in Santa Claus?" in the Subject line. Feel free to use this if you like. Here's the body:


As kids we believed in Santa Claus. Our parents were the gatekeepers of information and, though benign, our environment during that formative time was a controlled one. We were taught to believe in Santa Claus. Initially we accepted all the information that we received at face value. However, as time progressed, we gained bits and pieces of information that led to a cognitive dissonance which, in turn, led us to question our image of Santa Claus. These “bits and pieces” led to questions such as “How could Santa Claus fit through my chimney” or “How does Santa Claus leave gifts in millions of homes during a single night”? Armed with all these bits and pieces of information, we began to get a different picture that caused all the previous illogic that we had learned to come crashing down. This finally led to an epiphany that Santa Claus really isn’t anything like what we had first thought!

There are other things in life that we have always taken for granted as “fact” that later prove to be only an illusion as well. It’s only a matter of getting more information. As in the case of the Santa Claus myth, it is only a matter of time as new evidence unfolds that we are forced to rethink our view on what the truth is.

I want to try an experiment here:

Please watch this first video linked here. It’s only one minute. You’ve read this far into my letter so please take just one small minute and watch this first video. You’re going to be impressed. This is a local news video of a witness named Kenny Johannemann testifying to explosions that happened in the basement of one of the WTC towers. While he is testifying you still see both of the twin towers burning behind him in the background. This was live footage and it's only ONE minute long. Go ahead and watch this here:
(YouTube Key Words: Johannemann suicide)

Those explosions were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling the tower. You say, “wait, this doesn’t fit anything I know, maybe there is some other explanation for those explosions in the basement.” True. This is just one piece of evidence, but it’s a piece of evidence that raises a lot of questions. You didn’t see this on TV either. Does that prick your interest?

The government has promoted a “theory” that maybe the fuel from the jet trickled down the elevator shafts into the basement and subsequently exploded. Could this be? Let’s continue and look at other evidence. Barry Jennings was another witness that got stuck in Building Seven during 9/11. Remember, Building Seven was NEVER hit by a jet. In Barry's case an explosion blew out a stair well below him leaving him hanging and stranded for hours until the fire department got him out. Both the twin towers went down during the time he was stranded. Building Seven, a tall building in it’s own right (47 stories tall), came down at around 5:20 (later that day). Fortunately, he was saved. Watch his account here:
(YouTube Key Words: Barry Jennings dead age – more hits when “dead age” excluded)

Again, the explosions he talked about were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling down this building. You say, “Hold On! Building Seven housed the FBI and the CIA offices, so who would have access to set up explosives in there? There has got to be another explanation.” True. This is just one piece of evidence which raises more questions. Again, you didn't see Barry’s testimony on TV.

William Rodriguez, head janitor at the towers, was meeting with some people in basement level #1 (the highest of several basement levels) when an explosion from below pushed everyone upwards, causing ceiling tiles to fall and walls to crack. Just as William started to express to others what he thought that explosion might be, an airplane hit and shook the building from above. His story begins at 9:31 here:
(Google Video Key Words: William Rodriguez)

Now, let’s look for other different kinds of evidence. Steve Jones, a physicist, obtained WTC dust samples from the collapsed WTC towers from people who lived nearby. He analyzed it and found that the dust contained residues of explosives. Steve Jones first became famous when he became known as the “voice of reason” during the Pons / Fleischman "Cold Fusion" debacle of 1989, if you remember that. For a Nuclear Physicist, like Steve Jones, analyzing dust samples for explosive residues is a relatively simple task. It may be similar to asking a PhD mathematician to do arithmetic. He reported his detailed findings here in Boston:
(Google Video Key Words: Steve Jones Boston)

In this lecture, you recall, he offered other scientists to take parts of his samples in order to analyze the "red chips" that he had recently discovered. That was December 2007. These specks have now, in fact, been confirmed to be unexploded “nanostructured super-thermite” particles. That confirmation is not just a smoking gun IT IS THE GUN. See the article here:

The actual paper in its entirety can be found here in PDF form. Be sure to click the “download” link here:

If you get into the actual paper, you learn that the explosives may actually have been sprayed into position like paint or insulation!

Steve Jones’ findings may not fit the stories that you have heard in the news but it does lend support to what Johannemann, Jennings and Rodriguez testified that they saw. You say, “The news media isn’t going to shoot itself in the foot by making something up.” So how do we rectify all the contradictions that we were told in the news? Could Steve Jones and these witnesses be glory-seeking kooks trying to make a name for themselves?

Then take a look at this:

Here is a BBC report announcing the collapse of the Solomon Building (the official name for Building Seven). There is only one problem. The reporter standing at the scene and announcing this didn't realize that, in fact, you could still see Building Seven still standing off to the right. It actually collapsed within about 20 minutes after that live report. Watch it here:
(YouTube Key Words: BBC Solomon slips – you get more hits by excluding “slips”)

How did the BBC know in advance that Building Seven would collapse? The fact that it was announced in advance is strong support that the flow of information on this tragedy was being controlled (but in a more sinister way than how information about Santa Claus was controlled in your life).

Were the people at the BBC the only people privy to this information? Probably not. Larry Silverstein was the leaseholder of Building Seven. In a 2002 PBS documentary he talked about how he discussed the Building Seven situation with the fire department and how the decision was made by that department to "pull" it. Well, there is one problem with his testimony that you may want to consider. It takes about a week to rig a building with explosives before you pull it. So are buildings constructed with built-in explosives just in case they need to be blown up in a hurry? Building Seven went down that same day. Whoops! Watch Larry's testimony from the PBS documentary here in this short clip:
(YouTube Key words: PBS Silverstein)

Incidentally, luckily for Larry, he insured his property in the nick of time just six months before September 11th! It was a sweet deal. So who orchestrated this terrorist event anyway? They had to get past the FBI and CIA and prepare at least three buildings for demolition as well as direct the activities of men with box cutters (if they even existed). It’s clear from the evidence presented here so far that at least some of the media was in on this. What else could explain the BBC blunder? They had to control the information to those of us who might not like the idea that a few thousand people had to be killed in order to fulfill some kind of agenda. What’s in it for these people that were “in the know?”

Aaron Russo was a famous movie producer who became best friends with one of the Rockefeller family members (Remember “The Rose” and "Trading Places" starring Eddie Murphy?). This is the same Rockefeller family that is a large shareholder of the Federal Reserve Bank -- a private company that loans money to our government and contributes to our huge national debt. You see the name “Federal Reserve” at the top the dollar bill. Yes, we're talking about THAT Bank! Anyway, the upshot of this friendship was that in the year 2000 (11 months before 9/11) Aaron Russo learned from his Rockefeller buddy that there was going to be an "event". He was told that out of this event the U.S. would go into Afghanistan and look for Bin Laden in Caves and then the U.S. would go into Iraq. His fascinating testimony about this "event" starts at 26:45 here in this interview:
(Google Video Key Words: Aaron Russo Reflections Warnings)

One more thing. In February 2009 a 44 story Chinese skyscraper caught fire and thoroughly burned into a crinkling cinder. However IT DID NOT COLLAPSE. By comparison WTC Building Seven had a few small fires and was never hit by a plane. It DID COLLAPSE. See that article here:
(Google Key Words: China 44 fire consumes)

Now see this:
(YouTube Key Words: architects engineers 911 truth)

Amazingly, all this evidence is only the tip of the iceberg. Each of these are separate independent pieces of evidence from unconnected sources. When taken together they paint a clear picture. You are a juror in a court of law. What would be your verdict? Remember, the word “conspiracy” is not in the dictionary to describe a fiction.

To forward this as a clean readable e-mail (without the accumulation of all the “>” symbols) just highlight all the text and COPY IT FIRST. Then paste it into your new e-mail before sending it on. It works like a charm!

NOTE: I included key words below each link because it’s common for a video to disappear. Usually multiple versions exist and the key words will assist in finding another copy.


Now on to the next big false flag attack that will make 9/11 look like a pop of a firecracker:

A whistle-blower was accidentally invited to a high powered meeting with the Elite in London that supports what Skousen stated above. Here's Skousen reporting on it in his May 7, 2010 issue [with his comments in brackets]:



A reluctant whistleblower has come forth from the City of London to confirm that a globalist conspiracy exists to foment a third world war with China, and targeting Iran is an integral part of triggering that eventual conflict. I concentrate mostly on the American side of the conspiracy which is primarily running the current agenda (having control of most of the money and military power in the world) but we must never forget that the roots of the American globalist conspiracy go back to England and Europe--who still play an integral role. This is the story of a high official in the city of London who had many official meetings with other officials in England who turned out to be knowledgeable about the existence of a conspiracy to create future wars. This inadvertent whistleblower ended up being invited to a meeting of about 25-30 people where 3 high British government officials were also in attendance--who began to talk about conspiratorial issues in an informal way, assuming (mistakenly) that everyone in the room was vetted. Only in rare instances does the world get such a glimpse into the dark side.

First, in analyzing these rare glimpses into conspiracy talk, let me say that I'm always skeptical of people who claim to have seen something on the inside and who claim to know too much or to have everything figured out. Those that conspire to control nations and use war to force the world into an eventual New World Order (NWO) are never that open about their overall plans even with people they task with implementing things. What you are about to read, I believe, is a real but only partially correct conversation overheard between third level people who only knew a portion of the overall plan. It is easy for the uninitiated witness to draw incorrect conclusions from partial information and he does. But, with the exception of some speculations based upon things he read on the internet afterward, he concentrates on telling what he heard. He doesn't claim to know too much, or to have "figured it all out" (which usually means passing along disinformation). In the following excerpt I will comment [in brackets] where I think errors of assumption occur.

Bill Ryan was the recipient of this whistleblower's information in February of this year. You can hear his video commentary here: Ryan runs a moderate British conspiracy website entitled Project Camelot that focuses on British involvement in the NWO plot. This interview was called "The Anglo-Saxon Mission: the Third World War and the Inheritance of the New World" In this issue, I am giving you the most useful excerpts from the transcript of his interview with his unsolicited source, whom he calls "W".

BILL RYAN (B): I want to thank you for coming forward with what was immediately clear to me, once I'd read your written debrief, that you have some highly significant information that needs to be shared. And it's our job at Project Camelot to assist you in reaching people who are aware enough to understand what you're saying, why it's important, and to put it in perspective with other information that they may have.

And to introduce all of this, I wonder if you could say what it is that you're prepared to say on record about your background, about your history... just in general what you think is okay to share about how it is that you've actually been positioned to get a hold of the information that you're going to be reporting.

WITNESS (W): For my part, I've spent a long time in the military and then held a senior position in the City of London, and within both institutions I became very intimate with events that were being manufactured secretly, covertly, on behalf of a group of people -- I can't say it's on behalf of a nation or a community because it's certainly none of that -- but it's certainly something is to do with a group of people whose interests lie within themselves and what they're doing to coerce a series of events to happen.

B: What would be great is if you can differentiate between information which came at you first-hand when you were physically in meetings with some of these people, and other information that you've got that was through more subjective means, which you may feel very confident in. It's important to separate out the provenance of the information [This kind of guidance from the interviewer indicates he's a good critical thinker and wants everything clearly distinguished, fact from opinion--a trait not found among many conspiracy theorists]... Can you add a little bit of detail about the group that you referred to? Does this group have any kind of name that they're calling themselves? Is this a group that other people reading this would recognize when cross-referencing information?

W: I've had difficulty myself in trying to describe these people. I've called them like a 'Band of Brothers.' [Dr. Stan Monteith calls them something similar: The Brotherhood of Darkness"] I've also called them an 'over-government'... they're like an over-government, because that's what they're doing.

B: Are you talking about British people here, or international people?

W: The meeting that I will refer to later, it was all British, and some of them are very well known characters who people in the United Kingdom will recognize immediately. Those who are international who might read this might have to do bit of research on them. But they are national figures, some of them.

B: Are they political figures? Or are they figures in the "noble classes", so to speak?

W: Yes, there is a bit of aristocracy there, and some of them come from quite aristocratic backgrounds. There's one who I identified at that meeting who is a senior politician. Two others were senior figures from the police, and one from the military. Both are known nationally and both are key figures in advising the present government -- at this present time.

B: And inasmuch as there's a political component to this, does this political component go across both parties?

W: No, this senior political component belongs to the right-wing party in Britain, the Conservative Party (Tory) [Just because this component was from the Tories doesn't mean there isn't a similar component in the Labour Party--there is. Just as in America, the 'over-government' people control both political parties and the same war agenda goes on regardless of who is in power].

B: So, it's an insider group that functions in Britain as many American readers of this transcript would recognize by analogy -- it's like the American secret government. You're talking about politicians behind the scenes who are still very influential, links with the police, links with the military. Are there also American military links in there?

W: Yes. ---One significant military figure, now retired, but active in advising government [might be Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Kissinger associate].

B: Okay. Are you aware of or did you hear any discussion of any participation by church authorities or the Vatican or any of the religions of the world? Was this mentioned as part of their strategic planning for all of this?

W: No. Not at all, but I know the Church of England, especially, is complicit in everything that's going on, totally complicit [He's honest enough to only state what he heard, but absence of mention in a limited hearing does not rule out all the other evidence of Vatican involvement in this New World Order plan].

B: Okay. And you know this because of the close relationship between senior figures in the Church of England and the group that you met with in the City of London?

W: Absolutely. You don't need a forensic expert to find that one out. That's quite open.

B: Okay. Is this all fundamentally Masonic?

W: Absolutely. There's no question about that [although W has got to be presuming here based on subsequent research since most likely nothing about Masonic process was discussed at the meeting]. Everybody is vetted through that process, through the Masonic process, and then they get to meet one another [The use of the Masonic Order is much more open and pronounced in England and Europe than in America, where conspiratorial roots were exposed early in the 19th century--so in America, they morphed into several other less obvious organizations though, I am told, there is still Masonic involvement at levels above 33rd degree Masons. His next comment is quite correct]. That's something that people need to understand. There are levels in Masonry. You know, most Masons don't really know anything at all, and they're out there doing good work for the most part and they get the benefit of a kind of 'club,' as it were. But that goes through various levels.... And these people attract one another and they get together because they all have a single cause.

B: So things had already been decided at an even higher level than this. Is that what you're saying?

W: That was very clear [and very important to understanding why one cannot take everything he overheard as the complete plan or even the correct one]. From what I heard, they weren't a decision-making group. They were like an action group. They were people who needed to come together now and then to discuss together what needs to be done, or what is getting done, and what should be getting done.

B: Okay. And you attended one meeting?

W: Only one.

B: And in what capacity did you attend this meeting?

W: By sheer accident! I thought it was a normal three-monthly meeting because I looked at the e-mail list, which had familiar names on it, and I was on it. But by that time, because of the senior position I held within the City, I just thought it was quite normal for me to be earmarked for this kind of meeting.

So when I went to the meeting, it wasn't the same venue as before... I went to this meeting and it was not the meeting that I was expecting. I believe I was invited... it was because of the position I held and because they believed that, like themselves, I was one of them.

And I was regarded as that. Lots had known me for some time, even the most senior figures within them. I mean, it was first-name terms, that sort of thing. And I'd also been regularly invited to various functions, social functions, and things like that where I became familiar with some of them and some of them became very familiar with me. So it was easy-going, quite professional, nothing out of the ordinary, although bells started to ring about what they were up to and what they were doing and the kind of decisions that they were making, which by and large, I ignored. It seems unusual, but there was a part of me that wanted to ignore what was going on... I knew most of the attendees at the meeting, but not all. There were about 25 or 30 people were at the meeting. And it was looked rather informal, you know, people getting to know one another, re-acquainting themselves as people do. There was nothing unusual about that. It was when the subjects started to come up that my astonishment started to rise at what was being said.

B: Was it like a formal chaired meeting around a table, with notes and water glasses, and all of that kind of stuff?

W: None of the sort. There were no notes taken -- nothing. It was really a behind-closed-doors meeting with people talking over one another, some people holding the audience, spelling out what their concerns were, catapulting onto other things that they thought were of concern to them. And then describing, which I can only say is the 'timeline of events' that they had anticipated to be happening, to be on course, and lots of concerns because it wasn't. And what was meant to happen on the timeline that hadn't happened, and what actions were going to be taken for it to happen. And this is where things started to get quite surreal -- because I'd never been in the company of people like this, talking like that.

Now, the group of people who I was most familiar with, the people who do the work within the City, they belong to various well known financial committees; some of them quite diverse committees, but they all belong to the same organization. These are people who go unseen; most people don't know who they are. I know them. I know them by sight, know them by name. I know them by what they do. It was the other people who were there at the time that surprised me. Three others in particular. There were more people there who were at their type of level as well who I couldn't really identify, but three of significance, certainly.

B: Okay, now when was this meeting? Let's put a date on it.

W: Okay. We're talking 2005. It was after the May general election -- that's when Blair was voted back in again. That meeting definitely took place some time in June of that year.

B: Could you spell out what it was that was discussed at that meeting?

W: The meeting ranged from several discussions covering several items or things that were happening in the world at the time, so there was quite a big discussion about security within the country... The big thing at the time was Iraq. That was on their agenda, but also, surprisingly, there was lots of conversation and talk about Iran. And what surprised me and really raised my eyebrows, was mention, open mention -- this was people talking comfortably to one another, not arguing or shouting -- but talking comfortably about the Israeli reluctance to strike and provoke Iran into armed action [-very important revelation, since this tactic is very much back in the news]. That was something that really raised the hairs on the back of my neck. And it seemed as if the Israeli government was tied onto what was going on here and had a role to play which was being dictated outside Israeli borders [another important verification of what I have been saying for years]. A year later, Israel attacked Iranian-backed Hezbollah bases in Lebanon.

And then the second thing that came out that I recall quite clearly was mention of Japanese reluctance to create havoc within the Chinese financial sectors. I really couldn't understand why they were talking about that and why that had any importance. What I picked up from this seemed to be the Japanese government, or those in Japan, being coerced or ordered into doing something that would wreck or slow down the Chinese rise to financial power. It was mentioned that China was growing too quickly and the main beneficiary of that growth was the Chinese military, which was getting modernized, mostly through the money that they were getting from the world market [One mustn't assume by these comments that the globalists were actually trying to stop Chinese advancement--only slow it down for timing purposes. It was the American globalists themselves that started China's massive economic miracle by encouraging major corporations to move offshore to China. They also worked hard at giving Chinese PLA army spies access to American military factories like Hughes and Lockheed Martin--but apparently China was moving too fast for the globalist's timetable].

I was on the periphery of this meeting and I could feel the anxiety just rise up inside me because this was stuff that was getting spoken about off the cuff. It wasn't getting announced to anybody. This was things that they already knew about. So then there was open talk about the use of biological weapons, where and when they would be used, and the timing. And timing always appears to be crucial.

And then there was more talk centered on how Iran must be engaged militarily in order to provoke the desired military response from China. There was a clear expectation of goading Iran into some sort of armed conflict with the West, with China coming to the aid of Iran. Through this goading, either China or Iran would use a tactical nuclear weapon of some sort [most assuredly, only Iran--probably to get the "first use" of nukes out in the open so that a nuclear pre-emptive strike on America is more easily justified later on. I don't think China is going to get involved at all in this new attack on Iran]

And, as I mentioned, these people weren't making decisions. They were discussing something that had already been planned, so they were simply sharing their information between themselves. And it became clear as these discussions went on that the central issue of this meeting was when the balloon would go up -- when all this would happen. Other talk centered on dealing with finances, resources, protection of assets, and a control of these resources and bringing in outlying assets.

They needed either the Chinese or the Iranians to be guilty of the first use of nuclear weapons in order to justify the next stage. But my information coming through in this meeting, and from elsewhere, positively indicates that the Iranians do indeed have a tactical nuclear capability right now. They're not developing it. They've got it... [he believes] it's from the Chinese [he's guessing here, but it is more probably from Russia, who has been involved from the beginning in Iran's nuclear program].

It's because the Chinese technology has been, for many years, used in their missile systems. They're getting missile technology also from the Russians as well, but this is mostly ground-to-air missile systems, that sort of thing -- defensive weapons. Tactical missile weaponry -- that technology is coming via China [he's adding this from his past military knowledge, not from what he heard at the meeting]... Now, Iran is being continuously backed by China and then later by the Russians; and also by other countries too. The military market is quite an open one and in that we can even include the French, who quite independently export their weapons out wherever they can... But the amount of weaponry and the level of technical expertise that Iran is receiving from the Chinese military -- it seems inconceivable that nuclear weapons haven't been included within any package that goes there [this comment indicates he's guessing about Iran's possession of nuclear weapons--although it is derived from comments he heard about Iran being induced to a first use of nuclear weapons (which the globalists hope to use to make sure WWIII is a nuclear war). I don't think Iran would be going through all the secret motions of developing its own nuclear program if they already had Russian or Chinese stockpiles of tactical nukes--but we'll soon find out when the war starts]; whether that comes under the direct control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards or jointly by the Iranians and the Chinese. One can't be sure.

B: Understood. And what you're going to go on to talk about is how this cooperation between Iran and China was going to be used as a way to get at China -- because China's the main target. Is this correct?

W: That's correct. China has been the main target since at least the mid 70s -- and again, this information it's through third parties so I can't give you any direct first-hand evidence of this -- but it's always been China. It was always China that is to be the big one in this timeline [I think he's jumping to wrong conclusions here. China isn't the main target for removal in the next war--Russia is. But China is a major player in the next war, so the western globalists certainly have to "manage" China's ascendancy and control its role during the next war].

It's China that they're after right now, and it's all about how to coerce and create the scenario where this type of -- well, it's going to be war, Bill; there's going to be a war -- how this can be realized and how it can be made credible to everybody here living in the West? And the way it's going to be made credible is by a state like Iran being used as a patsy to use a nuclear weapon in order to elicit an exchange.

B: And the whole justification of this, then, is to provide or to trick China into a war, with what reason?

W: China will then come to the aid of Iran, very quickly [He's jumping again to wrong conclusions, and mistakenly believes that the Iran war will immediately lead to a nuclear World War with China. There are many other credible scenarios showing how this Iran attack will NOT directly start a world nuclear exchange, but will instead further increase hatred of the West for appearing to ruthlessly destroy Iran, increasing its image as the "bully of the world" --essential to eventually justify a Russian/Chinese attack on the West later on].

B: Okay. So what you're saying, then, is that there's a long-term plan which has been decided quite a while ago to set up the situation, to set up the chessboard, the global chessboard, so that there will be a war with China. This is what you're saying.

W: Yes, in a nutshell... the plan is for the fuse to be set off in the Middle East again, in a way that would make the previous conflicts in the Middle East look like playground scraps. It will involve the use of nuclear weapons and, again, it's to create an atmosphere of chaos and extreme fear, not just in the West but throughout the world, and to put in place what I've mentioned as unified totalitarian Western governments; and to do this China needs to be taken out, politically and socially, for this to happen.

B: So what they're doing here, they're killing two birds with one stone. They're using this as a justification to create what many on the internet have called the One World Government, except that's not including China. You're talking about the Western nations in lockdown alliance against this new threat.

W: It's specifically the Western nations, but I think we've also got to include Japan in this too.

B: And how about Russia? Where does Russia stand?

W: I believe Russia is a player, but I've got no evidence. For some reason or other Russia really doesn't get a look in here; and it's just an assumption of mine that that Russian government that's in place at the moment is hand-in-hand with the controlling players that are here in the West [He's dead wrong here. Russia has by far the largest arsenal and is actively planning on a surprise attack on the West].

B: Hm. So you're saying that because in this meeting that you attended, Russia wasn't mentioned as a major factor.

W: No, none at all [big mistake to take silence about a subject to mean it isn't a factor]. The only way it was mentioned is that the whole idea is to create a condition of chaos throughout the world. It would mean the later use of biological weapons, widespread food shortages, which will affect vulnerable countries across the globe, followed by mass starvation and disease.

The only mention that Russia gets in here is an odd one which I can't explain and maybe someone else can. I can't really get my head around this. But within this meeting it was mentioned: "to cause the Chinese military to attack Eastern Russia". Now, I can't qualify that and why that was mentioned at the meeting -- I just don't know [Well, I do. Because he's hearing informal conversation, it does not present a totally coherent strategic plan. This one comment that struck his as strange is a very important confirmation of my unique theory that the West intends to use China (after the war starts) to attack Russia's rear, to assist in Russia's defeat].

B: One goal here, then, is to establish a united alliance of Western countries with a kind of totalitarian 'emergency war footing', heavy control aspect to it. And the other aspect is actually to light the fire of this war, which will result in all kinds of chaos and presumably an enormous number of people dying somewhere... Is this part of the population reduction plan? What did they say?

W: Well, there was talk about biological agents being used, described as being flu-like and it would spread like wildfire... It even sickens me to speak about this now, it really does. It sickens me no end that they would go ahead and do this sort of thing; that such things have actually been spoken about. They're bringing the population down to what they coldly believe to be a "manageable level"... They're talking about half.

Well, in a nuclear exchange -- and I believe there will be a limited nuclear exchange -- there will be some sort of ceasefire. That was spoken about; they anticipated a quick ceasefire, but not before millions had already died, principally in the Middle East. So we're probably talking about Israel here, the population in Israel being sacrificed. Also places like Syria, Lebanon, possibly Iraq, definitely Iran, you know, the towns and major cities, power plants and so forth, that sort of thing. And then a ceasefire before it goes full-out... So we'll have the ceasefire, and it's during this time of the ceasefire that events will start to really take off [He assumes it is a brief period, but I don't think so. I think there is an interlude of several years before the larger pre-emptive strike on America, probably triggered by some conflict with North Korea or Taiwan in the Far East].

This will create the conditions where biological weapons can be used. And here you've got to imagine a world, now post-nuclear war, or limited nuclear war, in chaos, financial collapse, totalitarian governments coming into place... People living in total fear and panic -- this is what's going to happen next. You'll have a scenario... and this again was talked about, and I can go into some detail about how people will become more controllable with no one coming out in contention about what's going to happen because their own safety and security has now being placed firmly in the hands of those who are saying they can protect it best.

B: What does that look like? Is this global? For instance, are you talking nuclear weapons on American territory, in Europe, and so forth?

W: No. Global nuclear war wasn't mentioned. It was just purely geographical, Middle East [Big mistake of assumption].

B: Okay. What's the timing for this series of events, as best you know?

W: As best I know... 18 months. It's definitely before 2012.

B: Okay, so this is what they were discussing in 2005. How can you know that this plan is still on track, that things haven't changed radically, that they haven't abandoned it completely, that there hasn't been some big U-turn or epiphany here? What makes you so certain that this is still on track?

W: Because of the events that have taken place since 2005. I think that's probably the most coherent way to look at it. We've already had a so-called financial collapse. It wasn't a collapse at all. It was a centralization of financial power [He's going to turn out to be right about that]. That's happened. It's certainly happened in the United States. It's most certainly happened in the United Kingdom. It's most certainly happened in France and in Germany. So all the key players in the Western world centralized their financial assets.

B: Was this talked about in the meeting?

W: Yes! It took up quite a large part of that meeting about how it was going to happen. Bear in mind where the meeting took place -- in the City of London. The City is the financial hub of the world, beyond any question.

To what degree it's going to affect the world, one can only imagine, and I'm sure there's contingency plans in place right now for that event to happen because I believe that is widely known within these circles. They understand it's going to happen. They have a certainty of knowledge that it's going to happen. They may have a timeframe, and it appears likely that they have. Again, it's one of these things -- it would be inconceivable if they didn't know. I mean, the best brains in the world will be working for them on this. You know? And they know all about it, and personally, I don't.

B: So what we're talking about is the Western powers seeking a 'perfect war' -- doing so throughout the 20th century right up till the present day, because this timeline goes way back. So we're talking decades or hundreds of years of time where this timeline has been in use.

W: And also I think it's quite important to associate the timeline with its other reference which I've heard several times now: it's called THE ANGLO-SAXON MISSION. I feel that's important to add because that may ring some bells with some people as I don't think it's been mentioned before.

B: I've heard that phrase before. I don't want to digress here, but the flag which I've got against that -- and actually which I'm really starting to understand and it's as chilling as it gets, from what you're saying -- that the reason why it's called The Anglo-Saxon Mission is... that it will be the Anglo-Saxons who are in a position to rebuild and inherit the new Earth, with no one else around. Is that right?

W: And it's safe to say that World War One and World War Two were manufactured wars. I'm quite sure of that. And they were used as stepping-stones to get to where they are now. Any historian will tell you that if that didn't happen, this wouldn't have happened. We wouldn't have had the United Nations; we wouldn't have had the United States of America becoming a superpower in such a short period of time. They became a superpower within four years of war. And they ended up with nuclear weapons.

B: Sure. Let me ask a different question. Was there reference to "safe or safer places to be"? Physically, I mean.

W: No. None at all.

B: Nothing like the southern hemisphere is okay, the northern hemisphere is going to be a problem? Nothing like that?

W: No, not at that meeting. That wasn't mentioned at all [Other sources indicate that these same powers that be are preparing safe havens in rural mountainous areas--so they intend to survive this. So should you].

Summary Comments: The interview degenerates into a lot of speculation about everything from the role of extra-terrestrial to earth changes which I edited out. I personally feel that these are bizarre claims that get in the way of understanding the verifiable threats that we face. I didn't cover them for space reasons and because I didn't want them to dilute what I consider an important rare glimpse into the dark world of those that conspire to alter life as we know it. I believe what "W" observed was credible and even if he incorrectly extrapolated things from what he heard, the one thing that should stand out in everyone's mind is that this conspiracy is big, it is ruthless, and it isn't going away despite the mild uprising of the Tea Party movement.


One last thing. The Religion of the top elite who own the Federal Reserve Bank is Luciferian (specifically the Rothchild family). A key part of their religion is deception. They usually have a "front religion" for public consumption such as Jew, Christian, etc. Though most commonly they prefer Jew because there are cultural protections put in place to shut down the conversation and honest inquiry such as the word "antisemitism." There is no counterpart word for those who speak ill of Christians or Muslims. It's my opinion that honest real Jews get a bad rap because there are so many of the Luciferian elite who are involved in conspiracy that use Jew as their cover religion (who in actuality are Jews in name only and are really Luciferian). I only wanted to bring this up because Bohemian Grove has a Satanic (a spin-off of Luciferian) ceremony called the "Cremation of Care" where attendees (presidents, heads of big corporations, supreme court justices, etc.) watch a human (or mock) sacrifice done before a 40 foot "Moloch the Owl." Here's an interview with David Gergen who was top adviser to four U.S. presidents (both Democrat and Republican):

Now about Moloch the Owl. You can find that Owl on the Federal Reserve Note: