Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Barrie Zwicker, media critic & false-flag expert

Tuesday, May 22nd, 11 a.m. to noon Central (9-10 Pacific) on NoLiesRadio.org (archived here a few hours after broadcast).
Guest: Barrie Zwicker, author of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11.

A decade ago, Barrie Zwicker, one of Canada's top media critics, quickly realized that the US government and media were lying to us about 9/11. When he bravely began speaking out, Canada's leading publications suddenly lost interest in his work. He responded with Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11 - an indictment of big media's complicity in high treason, mass murder, and incitement to genocide.

In recent years, Barrie has defended the Citizen Investigation Team and blasted the tiny clique in the 9/11 truth movement that shrilly insists that a big passenger plane actually did hit the Pentagon, suggesting that this group is being misled by government agents in its midst. He is working on a book about false-flag attacks in history, which promises to be a breakthrough work on that critically-important subject.

8 comments:

  1. Hi KB, BZ: you're 2 of my fave Truthers: both stubbornly civil, insightful, while emanating good cheer, :)

    Now that the niceties are over, I was disappointed by an aspect of your discussion. Beginning around 22:00, you delved into the AJ-esque drawing of "parallels between Hitler/Nazis/3rd Reich, and USA today as 4th Reich".

    I submit that this is an improper comparison, despite how deeply the Zio/banksters ("winners" of WW2) have ensured their "Hitler/Nazis as epitome of evil" memeplex is ingrained into Western minds- which makes it practical and convenient for this sort of parallel-drawing in making your desired points to a wide Western audience. But I'm afraid your taking the easy path like that is playing into the Zio's official (revisionist!) narrative of WW2, and ultimately does a disservice to listeners.

    I submit that Hitler&Co's true main crime, which earned him the Zio's eternal wrath perhaps 2nd only to Jesus Christ, is that like Christ's true main crime, Hitler "kicked the money lenders out of the temple". As you know, he rolled out a debt-free national currency in the '30s, which fueled Germany's economic miracle during that decade. So WW2 fixed that "problem" for the Zionist-bankster winners, and consequently today that same Zio/NWO juggernaut is in the endgame phase of their master plan, wars/economic-collapse/engineered-chaos, which after some radical depopulation/genocide, will lead to world government of/by/for themselves with the lower ~99% permanently economically & technologically enslaved.

    JFK started making gestures in that same "Hitler-esque!!" direction (Exec. Order 11110), and we know what our dark bankster overlords' minions promptly did to him!

    So Hitler&Co did something *very right* wrt his national currency cutting out the international usurers, which if it had been allowed to gain a foothold across other Western nations, would have freed us from this hideous bankster/NWO barrel the world looks down today. Futureless. Depressing.

    I submit a much more apt "villainous evil" historical parallel for you two (KB & BZ) to draw, would be invoking Bolshevism/Stalin/Communism/Holodomor/etc. The Bolshevik/Communists WERE THE SAME Zio/NWO banksters controlling the world today, while Hitler&Co were the ANTI-Zio/NWO bankster regime. This is such an important distinction! The whole post-WW2 zio-engineered "Hitler&Co = EVIL" memeplex, in cahoots with official (Western Zio-revisionist) history's suppression of the real Bolshevik/Communist story of atrocities, reflects the Zio's signature deception method: inverting reality, by PROJECTING their own evil, atrocities & agenda onto their enemies du jour. "Evil hate-filled Muslims wanna take over the world!" sound familiar? Hitler's mortal sin: kicking out the int'l usurers, caused the "anti-Communist" West & the USSR to drop the "enemies" charade temporarily for WW2, & combine forces to crush the 3rd Reich, to ensure the continuity of the Zio's control of the world through funny money debt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The tiny clique in the 9/11 Truth movement that shrilly insists that a big passenger plane actually hit the Pentagon " - based on the evidence of the eyewitness who were at the Pentagon, during and after the event. If ever there was an indication of the delusional nature of the 9/11 Truth movement ,and of people like Barrie Zwicker, it's this bizarre idea that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, and more especially their apparent inability to understand how anyone could disagree with their conclusion that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. This, it seems, can only be explained if these people actually agree with Barrie Zwicker that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon but are just pretending to disagree. They couldn't actually disagree because that would mean people would actually be disagreeing with Barrie Zwicker and that couldn't possibly be the case surely. Wherever Mr. Zwicker goes,after all, giving speeches to Truth conferences, and doing softball interviews on alternative media radio and TV shows ,everyone agrees with him.
    I'd love to hear Barry Zwicker actually being interviewed by someone who challenged what he says rather than just going along with him and telling him how wise and perceptive he is, lobbing softball questions at him. What Barrie Zwicker needs is to be interviewed by someone who would give him a good figurative kick in the pants.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually, anyone who thinks that most of the damage at the Pentagon could have possibly been caused by any kind of plane is delusional. The official reports on the Pentagon completely misrepresent the type and areas of damage. Look at the two key photos showing the whole damaged wing of the Pentagon: http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/barb-honeggers-vancouver-powerpoint/

    What you'll see is two massive, widely-separated bomb craters INSIDE the Pentagon, while the outside walls are relatively undamaged. Anyone who looks at those pictures, and admits they are authentic, must admit that at least two widely separated bombs went off at two completely different locations inside the Pentagon. The damage shown in these, the best available photos, is so blatantly inconsistent with the official story that no five-year-old of average intelligence could possibly believe that one plane hit could create those two widely-separated bomb craters.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Reactions to the analysis and information in this presentation

    “This will transform the discussion of what happened on 9/11.” -- Prof David Ray Griffin

    "This changes everything.”
    Fmr FAA Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon

    “I think you are the only Pentagon researcher who is both honest
    and presents a coherent model.”
    -- Prof Niels Harrit, June, 2012

    “This is the very best I’ve seen on the Pentagon attack.”
    -- Gregory Ziegler, Former U.S. Army Intelligence Counterintelligence / HUMINT / Tactical Intelligence
     
    "Breathtakingly amazing work!  Completely stunning in its logic,
    order of presentation and painstaking detail of the research."
            -- Lt. Dennis Morrisseau, Vermont 9/11 Truth

      "The talk was amazing and revelatory -- one of the most compelling
    I’ve seen in the 9/11 movement."
        -- Byron Bellitsos, Executive Director of Senator Gravel's
            Campaign for State Initiatives for a New 9/11 Investigation

    "Easily the most compelling example of the delusional nature of the 911 truth movement, where a contorted illogical case is made for a contorted illogical plot,using any quote, interpretation of a photograph, or piece of evidence that will serve to point the finger at the accused, sorry, the guilty, while ommiting any evidence or logic that shows otherwise. If this is the intellectual level of enquiry that receives praise from members of the truth movement then there is no hope for the concept of ever finding the truth, only for the confirmation of prejudice.

    Quote Ms Honegger

    "The Real Perpetrators
    Who Called For And Executed The “New Pearl Harbor”
    Must Be Brought to Justice
    via
    A New Nuremberg Tribunal
    Held Simultaneously
    in Nuremberg
    and Ottawa, Canada
    "

    Judge Honegger:
    "You ,the guilty parties, have heard the charges against you, how do you plead?"

    You couldn't make it up. But then as Ms Honegger demonstrates, you can make it up."

    --Me

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/barb-honeggers-vancouver-powerpoint/

    Look at the two photos showing the whole West Wing.

    Assuming the photos of the West Wing are authentic - and there is no reason to believe they are not - everyone who sees them knows that two widely separated bombings devastated two widely-separated parts of the Pentagon interior on 9/11, and that the official "plane crash" story is a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Looking at these photos I don't see the damage that is shown in Barbara Honegger's photo.
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon
    http://stevenwarran.blogspot.ie/2007_06_01_archive.html

    I also notice that in Ms. Honeggers photo there are no trees in the front of the building, notably the two at either side of the projecting ends of the corridor, in the area that you refer to.
    There is a photo here http://www.vaticanassassins.org/the-jesuit-owl-common-to-cia-headquarters-the-pentagon-and-capitol-buliding/
    that must have been taken months after the event showing the reconstruction well under way and one of the trees is still there.
    This looks to me like the source of Ms. Honeggers photo
    http://uncensored.co.nz/2009/08/20/more-than-a-movement-the-search-for-911-truth-is-an-awakening/
    (it has seemingly been rotated -see the angled line at the top right- and cropped)
    There is practically nothing on the green lawn, not even a heliport tower. I would say the only thing that can be said about this photo is that it has been altered.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Barbara Honegger replies:

    If I understand correctly, the below is a comment on the photo that shows a large cavity at the north/left end of the outer E Ring, correct? If so, the original photo is the same as the one a bit down at http://uncensored.co.nz/2009/08/20/more-than-a-movement-the-search-for-911-truth-is-an-awakening/. It is precisely because it is obviously a composite, as the lawn and heliport area have been 'cleared' and the 'plane' added that I covered that portion of the image, leaving just the revealing photo of the building itself. 'Cleaning up' the lawn area and adding the 'plane' is a clear example in the intel world of 'skunking the cat.' The photo of the building itself showing the north cavity was too damaging to the official story to be allowed to stand 'as is' and needed to be 'skunked.' One of the few editorial suggestions a vetter made to the book-length manuscript I sent for vetting was, because of this obvious 'skunking', the photo shouldn't be included. I, rather, think it should, with the caveat added re the above context. Not to include it would be to allow the 'skunkers' to succeed. If you come across the original without the lawn cleanup and 'plane', please send, and visa versa.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Reply to Barbara Honegger:
    Getting back on that issue, can I say I don't think that explanation about the photograph is at all convincing or valid because first of all the image has been altered and not having the original or knowing anything about it's origin it's not possible to say how or where it has been altered. I don't see how it makes sense that someone trying to cover up some part of a photo would alter large areas of the image, but leave the part they are trying to cover up unchanged. There are many much clearer photos taken showing that area of the building - I posted links to a couple of them- and there is no damage of that kind to be seen in that area. Altering the image again doesn't give it validity and it might have the effect of giving people the impression there is no reason to doubt it's authenticity when that is obviously not the case. There are numerous other things in your presention that to me are of doubtful validity, and I think using them to arrive at a conclusion undermines that conclusion, especially if practically all of the evidence to the contrary is omitted.
    C.D.

    ReplyDelete