Friday, July 7, 2017

James Perloff on "9/11 Simplified": Gold Star father Dale Pierce on the Iraq War deceptions that killed his son Noah

This show broadcasts LIVE 8 to 10 pm Eastern Friday, July 7th at FreedomSlips.com - click on Studio B - then gets archived about 24 hours later.  For only $4 a month you can listen to shows on-demand before they are broadcast - and also get free downloads. Help Kevin keep these shows on the air – Click HERE!  
First hour: Bestselling author James Perloff discusses his new article "9/11 Simplified." In it he sketches a best-guess interpretation both of who did it AND how they did it.
     Perloff takes issue with the truth movement slogan "9/11 was an inside job." He writes: "I believe a far more correct rendering is: 9/11 was an outside job, done by Israeli operatives, but with consent and cooperation at the highest levels of the U.S. government." And he thinks there were actual hijackers on actual commercial airliners on 9/11 – but they weren't the 19 Arabs. He also has interesting and provocative views about how the controlled demolitions of the WTC skyscrapers were accomplished. Excerpt:
On 9/11, seated in row 9 of Flight 11 (directly behind “Mohammed Atta”) was Danny Lewin, a former captain in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force), and who served in the Sayeret Matkal, which specializes in counter-terrorism, hostage rescue, and assassination. Lewin could bench-press 315 pounds and “was trained to kill terrorists with a pen or a credit card, or just his bare hands.”2 In 2000, he had himself photographed in front of panels resembling the Twin Towers, wearing a Swatch Watch whose model name was “Hijacker.” The hour, minute and second hands were all on the “11” and the date was set to the 11th, even though the picture was taken on the 10th.
James Perloff hypothesizes that the Twin Towers were demolished with miniature nuclear weapons. For details supporting that theory, check out the Veterans Today Nuclear Education Series – click here and scroll to the bottom for a list of articles.

Second hour: Dale Pierce is a veteran firefighter and a trained saturation diver who has been diving since 1982. Dale is also a gold star father losing his son Noah Pierce in the Iraq war. The story of the loss of his son Noah is told in "The Life and Lonely Death of Noah Pierce."

Dale works with ProtectOurProtectors.net.

6 comments:

  1. PSTD is another one of those hypocritical expressions used to car-wash the dirty deeds of orders-followers.

    The hired mercenaries-for-the-ruling-class have ALREADY killed their soul when they inflict undeserved pain suffering and terror, again and again and again, on men women children and animals.

    When they kill their body also, by committing suicide, they are indeed just putting the final touch on their satanic enterprise : there is no need to feel sorry for them, good riddance.

    Instead of trying frantically to find someone to blame and point the finger at, for the suicide of his son, I wish Dale Pierce - and the other parents of suicides - would admit his big part of responsibility. He is the one who swallowed the propaganda of the ruling class ("patriotism", "flag Worshipping", "ball games and national anthem", "OUR" government, "OUR" country...etc,), and made sure to push it down the throat of his child for years and years with no respite. So much so, once an adult, his son was thoroughly PROGRAMMED to become a murderer for the ruling class ("THANKS FOR THE NON-STOP INDOCTRINATION DAD !!!").

    "Thank the troops for what ?." (By Larken Rose) :

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AnGHFLXimy0

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did you listen to the whole interview? Dale Pierce has been questioning the propaganda for much of his life. There may be some parents out there who programmed their kids to be "patriotic" killers, but Dale isn't one of them. Now he's working all out to stop other parents from making that kind of mistake. So he is very much on the right side of this spiritual battle. As for other parents of kids who fight evil wars, they bear some responsibility for the brainwashing – but the psychopaths who run the system are the main perpetrators. I think we should have compassion for the parents and kids, and deal out justice to the psychopaths.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I think we should have compassion for the parents and kids". I will try....maybe one day as new knowledge and guidance unfold.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Regarding Perloff's article https://jamesperloff.com/2017/06/30/911-simplified/

    Whereas the first part on Mossad/Israel involvement in 9/11 was mostly as good as I’ve seen on the subject, the second part is just the opposite, i.e., about as bogus as I’ve seen. And little to none of it is really new or original, but rather gathered from other individuals, some of it dating back well over a decade.

    The title, 9/11 Simplified is the opposite of the actual case. For example, in order to fake the abundant evidence for plane strikes, it would necessary to greatly complicate the 9/11 operation, since so much complex faking would have to be done. The obvious example is the idea that the two WTC planes could be faked with some sort of holographic projection, such that all the thousands of witnesses, ~50 video cameras, a few broadcast in realtime, and an unknown number of still cameras could all be fooled. The sound of the approaching, then impacting jets would also need to be faked, as well as the entry holes, jet fuel explosions, and interior damage, as well as the engine that passed though Tower Two, which was videotaped arcing downward towards the ground, and which landed on a street nearby the Twin Towers. Perhaps most difficult to fake, both Towers would have to be made to sway from the impact, a phenomenon noted by a large number of Tower survivors. There are MANY other things that would also have to be elaborately faked. So a more accurate title would be: 9/11 Greatly Complicated.

    I co-authored with Dr. Frank Legge a VERY short article on this subject of faking the plane parts of the attacks, which I titled “Why Not Use a Plane?”. You can read it at several websites, including mine here: http://www.9-11tv.org/the-pentagon-plane-puzzle/why-not-use-a-plane-2

    I originally conceived the article to rebut the “no-planes-hit-the-WTC-towers” meme, but it was easy to adapt the concept to what Frank had already written and posted on his website in the intro to his page containing research and analysis about the Pentagon strike.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I love Perloff saying it was an "outside job." It really drives home the point that this is beyond the MIC and/or the US neocons. I'm going to start using that term now myself.

    As for how the buildings came down, I'm really open to all 3 versions being simultaneously possible. The use of any one of the methods (controlled demolition, free direct energy, mini nukes) does not obvious the use of the other two as well, n'est-ce pas?

    As for controlled demolitions, my architect friend Eleni wrote me this:
    "Controlled demolition was developed so that nearby buildings would not be affected, that is the SOLE reason. Which holds here for 9/11 100%. God knows we don't want real financial damage to the insurers of the surrounding buildings, do we? Only a win win for Silverstein. "

    She goes on to write: "The only reason you'd choose controlled demolition is if you are invested in some way in protecting the buildings surrounding the site. A terrorism scenario and / or a "planes bringing down buildings" scenario doesn't require controlled demolition. It's even more spectacular and enraging if the buildings toppled sideways or blasted apart in chunks, making a domino effect of smashed and toppled buildings around the site.

    But that didn't happened, instead we have an expensive investment in controlled demolition i.e. an expensive investment in NOT affecting the surrounding context.

    So what was being protected in those buildings? and / or who owned those buildings? and /or who insured those buildings? There has to be a reason for this ultra-conscientious Good Housekeeping decision."

    ReplyDelete
  6. They had to control the insurance company investigations. The WTC (Silverstein) had one set of insurers/reinsurers. Each neighboring building might have a different set. Had they done multibillion dollar damage to the neighborhood, it would have been impossible to make sure that actual truth-seeking litigation would never, ever happen.

    ReplyDelete