ronnie s

GREAT VIDEO

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad

IF ANYTHING IT WELL BE A LOP !!

LIKE HE SAYS , WHERES ALL THAT TRILIONS GOING TO COME FROM ??

GREAT VIDEO !!!!!!!!!!

Commentary on Russia, China, "ISIS"October 19 2015 There is obviously a lot going on right now with Russia. Any time the political scene gets as active as it is right now, truth becomes difficult to separate from fiction. Here is what I think is the most probable scenario right now, based on all the rumors, and whatever hard fact is out there: First of all, Russia has in effect propositioned many surrounding nations to form a loose alliance that looks a lot like the old Communist bloc. This time it is not being done for the purpose of any sort of conquest, it is being done for the purpose of keeping the CIA out. I think Russia was not acting on internet rumors or even good intelligence on the ground prior to starting their attacks on ISIS, intelligence and rumors that stated it was all CIA. Even if they knew for certain it was CIA, they held off and were quiet and inactive until they got boots on the ground and proved it in irrefutable terms. Now that Russia knows beyond all doubt that America was in fact ISIS, and that ISIS was in fact nothing but a front for the CIA, and that "Islamic terror" itself is just a front for the CIA, they are telling a large alliance of old satellite nations to harden their borders "against terrorists" openly, and "against the CIA, because the CIA is the terrorist" behind closed doors. Not really closed doors, I'd say it is more like half cracked open doors anyone can sit outside of, with no cover music or rumblers to prevent anyone from hearing what is being said inside . . . . . Yesterday, (the 18th) Russia revealed that large numbers civilian factories and businesses, wholly owned by civilians, were bombed to smithereens by "someone with aircraft". And these businesses had nothing to do with war or anything of the sort. They proved that the damage signatures which "erased" the businesses could not possibly have come from any sort of ground assault, only direct aggression from the air. They proved that Syria and Assad did not do it, and then asked the question "Who has been flying aircraft in this area, to do so much damage to civilian infrastructure?" And there are only two possibilities, America and Israel. In one fell swoop, Russia proved in front of the world that America was not in Syria to do anything against ISIS at all, America was in fact in Syria to destroy as much of the nation as possible. And that does not look good. This opens up a huge can of worms then. It proves America lied about everything. And if ISIS really is CIA, and ISIS destroyed antiquities (as reported previously many times), it means America was in Syria destroying antiquities just for a cheap psy op. This can of worms is SO HUGE it could infect an entire kennel, with the American people being the unwitting dogs taking the hit. Clearly no American would want to have the government intentionally wiping out ancient historical sites, but that makes little difference. America is at least on it's face a "democracy", which means the American people are responsible for it all, just like anyone who falls asleep at the wheel while driving is responsible for any unwanted disaster that results . . . . . . Russia has played it all so cool, in the most painfully disciplined way, that they can't be accused of stoking any sort of provocative propaganda B.S. as well. All Russia did was quietly and slowly present the facts as they were proven out 100 percent beyond any and all doubt and let it all fall where it landed in the course of logic. It is game over for American credibility, at least it is with enough of a core of nations to set the stage for an even battle during world war 3. And Russia did it in a way that undermined America even with America's core support, officially recognized or not. As a result, China got a lot more bold and has authorized the direct use of force against the U.S. Navy in the South China sea. And it would be rock stupid for the navy to confront the Chinese and push where they really do not need to push, because as I have said before, nukes win against aircraft carriers any day. And what would really be the consequence for China blowing the Navy sky high within territory they claim as their own? Out in the ocean, it equals "nuclear test" environmentally and it would just happen and be done with. And I doubt the U.S. or Israel would nuke mainland China in return, because NOW CHINA KNOWS ISIS IS CIA, AMERICA LIED LIED LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING, AND THAT IT IS ALL OR NOTHING BECAUSE THAT IS ALL IT EVER IS WHEN DEALING WITH A COMPLETELY CORRUPTED LIAR. Israel may well have in place their "samson option" but what good would that do if China cratered them in even 10 locations? Israel is stuck. America is stuck. If china has the guts to dig in and say NO, what on earth could America or Israel do about it? If lacking all credibility after bad behavior in Syria, for America it becomes check mate. China keeps the islands and that is all there is to it. What can America do about it? What can America do now that Russia has busted the CIA for "Islamic terror" and has proven that at least for the most part, Islamic terror was an American/Israeli circus act? If Russia successfully seals out the CIA and causes the CIA to get blocked out of many many former Soviet states, and takes China with them, what can America do about it? And then there is another point - the high quality aircraft that Sukhoi can put out, the fact that China now also can mass produce ultra high quality fighter/bombers, and that between Sukhoi and China, they have six of the top 10 combat aircraft in the world and the ability to crank them out in droves? How is that going to look when corruption is robbing America so badly that America can't even put out a decent fighter aircraft for even top dollar? Outside the corruption stream, military tech is now cheap. Hillarious made sure China and Russia has it. No one is going to accept being over run by a liar that has effectively been busted for destroying antiquities and running the world like a puppet show. The writing is on the wall . . . . . Click here to Reply, Reply to all, or Forward

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCCkNpaO-vo&feature=youtu.be&utm_source=June+10th+report&utm_campaign=Sep.+3rd&utm_medium=email

THE TREASURY VAULT IS SELLING 1000000 DINARS FOR 995.00 AN PAYING 695.00 ON THE BUYBACK. USURY ???

THE TREASURY VAULT IS SELLING 1000000 DINARS FOR 995.00 AN PAYING 695.00 ON THE BUYBACK. USURY ???

WOW THE BUY BACK PRICE HAS REALLY CAME DOWN AN THE CBI IS STILL 1166 TREASURY VAULT IS 695 A MIL. WHAT A RIP

great vid

Pentagon: Iraq Likely to Split Into Three States Tags: IRAQ After plunging a functioning country into war and ostensibly pushing for a unified new government, Pentagon officials are now beginning to accept that the country they helped unravel may ultimately settle into three separate nations. It's what Israel wanted all along (and they want the same thing for Iran). SELL BEFORE ITS TOO LATE !!!!!

where did all the gurus go?? 98% gone out of ammo !!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/26/the-osama-bin-laden-myth-2/

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41794.htm The Final Push Splitting Up Iraq By Mike Whitney “Iraq’s fate was sealed from the moment we invaded: it has no future as a unitary state … Iraq is fated to split apart into at least three separate states…This was the War Party’s real if unexpressed goal from the very beginning: the atomization of Iraq, and indeed the entire Middle East. Their goal, in short, was chaos – and that is precisely what we are seeing today.” — Justin Raimondo, editor Antiwar.com May 09, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "Counterpunch" - A bill that could divide Iraq into three separate entities has passed the US House Armed Services Committee by a vote of 60 to 2. The controversial draft bill will now be debated in the US House of Representatives where it will be voted on sometime in late May. If approved, President Barack Obama will be free to sidestep Iraq’s central government in Baghdad and provide arms and assistance directly to Sunnis and the Kurds that are fighting ISIS. This, in turn, will lead to the de facto partitioning of the battered country into three parts; Kurdistan, Shiastan, and Sunnistan. The plan to break up Iraq has a long history dating back to Oded Yinon’s darkly prophetic 1982 article titled “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”. Yinon believed that Israel’s survival required that the Jewish state become a imperial regional power that “must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states … The Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.” (The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, Israel Shahak) The GOP-led House Armed Services Committee’s bill embraces Yinon’s vision of a fragmented Iraq. (Note: Under the current bill, which is part of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), as much as 60% of the proposed funds, or $429m, would flow directly to the “Kurdish Peshmerga, the Sunni tribal security forces with a national security mission, and the Iraqi Sunni National Guard”.) Providing weapons to Sunni militias and the Kurdish Peshmerga will inevitably lead to the disintegration of the country, the ramping up of sectarian hostilities, and the strengthening of extremist groups operating in the region. It’s a prescription for disaster. Here’s a brief excerpt from Yinon’s piece on Iraq: “Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel … Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.” ( “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, Oded Yinon) The fact that US and Israeli strategic objectives match up so closely calls into question the ISIS invasion of Iraq in 2014 when a two mile-long column of white land rovers loaded with 15,000 jihadis barreled across the open desert from Syria spewing clouds of dust into the atmosphere without being detected by US AWACs or state-of-the-art spy satellites. The logical explanation for this so called “intelligence failure” is that it was not a failure at all, but that Washington wanted the operation to go forward as it coincided with US-Israeli strategic aims. As it happens, the areas now controlled by the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shia are very close to those projected by Yinon suggesting that the ISIS invasion was part of a broader plan from the very beginning. That’s not to say that ISIS leaders take orders directly from Langley or the Pentagon. No. It merely implies that Washington uses the marauding horde for their own purposes. In this case, ISIS provides the pretext for arming the Sunnis and Kurds, imposing new borders within the existing state, creating easier access to vital resources, and eliminating a potential rival to US-Israel regional hegemony. The US needs an enemy to justify its constant meddling. ISIS provides that justification. Check this out from the Daily Star: “The present ISIS lightning war in Iraq is the creation of an illusion to initiate the fulfillment of a pre-planned agenda of the West in close alliance with Israel to redraw the map of the entire region as the “New Middle East…..The chaos, destruction and devastation caused by the ISIS in its process of establishing the Sunni Islamic Caliphate in Iraqi and Syrian territories is the realisation of the intended policy of the US and the West to change public perception that the “War on Terror” was never a war waged by the West against Islam but a “war within Islam” along religious, ethnic and sectarian lines in the Islamic world… The division of Iraq into three separate entities had also been strongly advocated by US Vice-President Joe Biden. Biden’s heritage and an analysis of his electoral constituents will help understand better his support for the fragmentation of Iraq under the Yinon Plan.” (The Yinon Plan and the role of ISIS, The Daily Star) The Biden-Gelb plan, which was proposed in an op-ed in the New York Times in May 2006, called for the establishment of “three largely autonomous regions” with Baghdad becoming a “federal zone.” In other words, the powers of the Iraqi central government would be greatly reduced. The authors tried to soft-peddle their radical scheme as “decentralization” which is a milder term than the more accurate “partition”. The authors, both of who are members of the powerful Council on Foreign Relations, obscure the real aims of the plan which is to weaken the country through dismemberment and to leave it in “a permanent state of colonial dependency.” (Chomsky) Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has denounced the proposed bill as an attempt to undermine his authority and rip the country apart. In a recent phone conversation with Vice President Biden, Abadi expressed his opposition to the bill insisting that “only the Iraqi people can decide the future of their country.” Also, according to Press TV, Iraqi cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, warned that if congress passed the bill, he would order his Mahdi Army to resume hostilities against the US targets in Iraq. “We are obliged to lift the freeze on our military wing … and begin hitting US interests in Iraq and outside it,” said Sadr, who once led the powerful Mahdi Army and still enjoys huge influence among the Shia population. Although Obama doesn’t approve of the new bill’s wording, his opposition is far from convincing. Here’s what State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said on the matter at a recent briefing: “The policy of this Administration is clear and consistent in support of a unified Iraq. We’ve always said a unified Iraq is stronger, and it’s important to the stability of the region as well.” “Clear and consistent”? When has US policy in the Middle East ever been clear and consistent? Is it clear and consistent in Libya, Syria, or Yemen where jihadi militias are armed and supported either directly or indirectly by Washington or its allies? Is US policy clear and consistent in Ukraine where far-right neo-Nazi extremists are trained and given logistical support by the US to fight a proxy war against Russia? Sure, Obama wants to make it look like he opposes the bill, but how much of that is just public relations? In truth, the administration is on the same page as the Congress, they just want to be more discreet about it. Here’s Harf again: “We look forward to working with Congress on language that we could support on this important issue.” Indeed, the administration wants to tweak the wording for the sake of diplomacy, but that’s the extent of their opposition. In fact, the House Armed Services Committee has already complied with this request and removed the offending clause from the bill (asking for recognition of the Peshmerga and Sunni tribal militias as “countries”) while, at the same time, “maintaining that some of the military aid should go directly to the two forces fighting ISIS….” So they deleted a couple words from the text but meaning remains the same. Also, according to Huffington Post: “Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said Sunday he wants to identify “a way to streamline the process of getting the weapons to both the Sunni tribes and the [Kurds] … while at the same time not undermining the government of Iraq in Baghdad.” There’s no way to “streamline the process” because the two things are mutually exclusive, Abadi has already said so. If Obama gives weapons to the Sunnis and the Kurds, the country is going to split up. It’s that simple. So how has Obama responded to these latest developments? Last week he met with Kurdish president Masoud Barzani in Washington. Here’s what happened: “Asked by Kurdish outlet Rudaw whether he had secured any commitments on a change to the policy from President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden when he met with them Tuesday, Barzani responded, “Both the vice president and the president want the peshmerga to get the right weapons and ammunition. … The important point here is that the peshmerga get weapons. How they will come, in which way, that’s not as important as the fact that peshmerga need weapons to be in their hands.” (Kurdish Leader Aligns With White House Over Congress On ISIS Strategy, Huffington Post) So Obama basically told Barzani he’d get the weapons he wanted. (wink, wink) Can you see what a sham this is? Iraq’s fate is sealed. As soon as Congress approves the new defense bill, Obama’s going to start rushing weapons off to his new buddies in the Kurdish north and the so called Sunni triangle. That’s going to trigger another vicious wave of sectarian bloodletting that will rip the country to shreds. And that’s the goal, isn’t it: To split the country into three parts, to improve access to vital resources, and to eliminate a potential rival to US-Israel regional hegemony? You know it is.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/twenty-six-things-about-the-islamic-state-isil-that-obama-does-not-want-you-to-know-about/5414735

http://www.truth-attack.com/jml/index.php MUST WATCH

what happend to mt. goat ????????

what happend to mt. goat ????????

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/02/17/guest-column-kevin-ryan-science-died-911 Guest Column by Kevin Ryan — Science Died On 9/11 February 17, 2015 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: | Print This Article Print This Article Guest Column by Kevin Ryan — Science Died On 9/11 Money Murdered Science Paul Craig Roberts Kevin Ryan, a science/engineering employee of the firm that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers, realized that the official explanation of the destruction of the three skyscrapers was false. Steel does not, and cannot, behave in the way that the official explanation says. In the article below, Ryan exposes the NIST account as pseudo-science akin to Lysenko’s temporarily successful attempt in the Soviet Union to substitute ideology for genetic science. Today pseudo-science has exploded. Monsanto and its GMOs rest upon “science” paid for by agri-business. Honest scientists who dispute the faked evidence cannot get funding. Ryan’s interest in pseudo-science was sparked by the false account of 9/11. He lists these six characteristics that indicate pseudo-science: There is a lack of experiments. The results of experiments are ignored or contradicted in the conclusions. There is either no peer-review or peer-reviewer concerns are ignored. The findings cannot be replicated or falsified due to the withholding of data. False conclusions are supported by marketing or media propaganda. Hypotheses that are supported by the evidence are ignored. Ryan concludes that “all six of these characteristics of pseudo-science are exhibited by the U.S. government investigation into what happened at the WTC on September 11th, 2001.” Ryan then demonstrates that the official story consists not of any facts but of the six pseudo-science characteristics: The lack of experiment: NIST performed no physical experiments to support its conclusions on WTC Building 7. Its primary conclusion, that a few steel floor beams experienced linear thermal expansion thereby shearing many structural connections, could have easily been confirmed through physical testing but no such testing was performed. Moreover, other scientists had performed such tests in the past but since the results did not support NIST’s conclusions, those results were ignored(see peer-review comments below) The results of experiments were ignored or contradicted in the conclusions: For the Twin Towers, steel temperature tests performed on the steel samples saved suggested that the steel reached only about 500 degrees Fahrenheit. This is more than a thousand degrees below the temperature needed to soften steel and make it malleable—a key requirement of NIST’s hypothesis. NIST responded by exaggerating temperatures in its computer model. Another key requirement of NIST’s explanation for the Twin Towers was that floor assemblies had sagged severely under thermal stress. Floor model tests conducted by my former company Underwriters Laboratories showed that the floor assemblies would sag only 3 to 4 inches, even after removal of all fireproofing and exposure to much higher temperatures than existed in the buildings. NIST responded by exaggerating the results—claiming up to 42-inches worth of floor assembly sagging in its computer model. After criticism of its draft report in April 2005, NIST quietly inserted a short description of shotgun tests conducted to evaluate fireproofing loss in the towers. These results also failed to support NIST’s conclusions because the shotgun blasts were not reflective of the distribution or trajectories of the aircraft debris. Additionally, the tests suggested that the energy required to “widely dislodge” fireproofing over five acre-wide floors—required by NIST’s findings—was simply not available. There was no peer review and public comments from peers were ignored: NIST published its own WTC reports and therefore its work was not subject to peer-review as is the case for all legitimate science. The people and companies involved in the NIST investigation were either government employees or contractors dependent on government work and were therefore not objective participants. In terms of indirect peer-review, the international building construction community has made no changes to building construction standards in response to NIST’s officially cited root causes for the WTC destruction. Furthermore, no existing buildings have been retrofitted to ensure that they do not fail from those alleged causes. NIST provided a period for public comment on its draft reports but the comments provided by those not beholden to government were not supportive of NIST’s findings. In some cases, as with NIST’s linear expansion claim for WTC 7, independent scientists submitted comments about physical tests they had performed (which NIST had not) that directly contradicted NIST’s findings. There was one important exception to NIST’s ignoring of public comments. After a physics teacher’s well-publicized comments, NIST was forced to admit that WTC 7 was in free-fall for a vertical distance equivalent to at least eight stories of the building. Structural engineers have since noted that many hundreds of high-strength steel bolts and steel welds would have had to vanish instantaneously for an 8-story section of the building to fall without any resistance. The findings cannot be replicated or falsified due to the withholding of data: NIST will not share its computer models with the public. A NIST spokesman declared, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, that revealing the computer models would “jeopardize public safety.” Because NIST’s conclusions depend entirely on those computer models, they cannot be verified or falsified by independent scientists. False conclusions are supported by media or marketing propaganda: As with the Soviet propaganda machine that supported Lysenkoism, NIST’s pseudoscience was fully and uncritically supported by the mainstream media. Hearst Publications, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and Skeptic magazine are examples of media that went to great lengths to stifle any questioning of the official account and divert attention from the glaring discrepancies. NIST depended on that media support as indicated by the timing of its release of reports. NIST’s final report appeared to be scheduled for dual political purposes, to coincide with the seventh anniversary of 9/11 and to give the appearance of finished business at the end of the Bush Administration. The timing of NIST’s other reports coincided with political events as well. These included the draft report on the towers in October 2004—just before the election, the final report on the towers—just before the fourth anniversary of 9/11, and NIST’s first “responses to FAQs”—just before the fifth anniversary. All of them appeared to involve politically motivated release dates. The report release dates allowed time for the media to quickly present the official story while public interest was high, but did not allow time for critical review. With the report on WTC 7, the public was given just three weeks prior to September 11th, 2008 to comment on a report that was nearly seven years in the making. Hypotheses that are supported by the evidence were ignored: Throughout its seven-year investigation, NIST ignored the obvious hypothesis for the destruction of the WTC buildings—demolition. That evidence includes: Free-fall or near-free fall acceleration of all three buildings (now acknowledged by NIST for WTC 7) Photographic and video evidence demonstrating the characteristics of demolition for both the Twin Towers and WTC 7 Eyewitness testimony from many people at the scene who witnessed explosions or were warned that a demolition was proceeding The expert testimony of thousands of licensed engineers and architects who are calling for a new investigation The peer-reviewed science that supports the demolition theory including fourteen points of agreement between NIST and independent researchers, environmental anomalies that indicate the use of thermitic materials, and analytical results confirming the presence of nanothermite in the WTC dust The WTC reports produced by NIST represent the most obvious example of politically motivated pseudoscience in history. The physical experiments NIST performed did not support its conclusions. The reports were not peer-reviewed and public comments that challenged the findings were ignored. NIST will not share its computer models—the last supposed evidence that supports its conclusions—with the public and therefore its conclusions are not verifiable. These glaring facts should be readily recognizable by any scientist and, given the unprecedented impact of the resulting War on Terror, this abuse of science should be the basis for a global outcry from the scientific community. Original source: http://digwithin.net Kevin Ryan lost his job for speaking out, as did physicist Steven Jones. Over the course of my life, I have watched science lose its authority and its independence. There can be no outcry from the scientific community, because scientists are dependent on funding from corporations and government. Remember the psychologists who helped Vice President **** Cheney devise the illegal, both under US and international law, torture program. Remember the anthropologists that helped Washington learn how to disorient and suppress native people’s opposition to Washington’s invasions. Nothing has happened to these social scientists who helped Washington violate law and human rights, because the professions desire Washington’s funding more than they desire truth, justice, mercy. These torturers and human rights abusers are still honorable, and even envied, members of their professions. If memory serves, two of the psychologists who devised the torture program are $80 million richer. The same is the situation for physical scientists. The largest part of scientific funding is for military work and for technologies that enhance control over populations. The careers of scientists depend on the money. As the money comes from the corporations and Washington, scientists serve the money. A physicist who speaks out against the official 9/11 story jeopardizes not only his career but the career of all his colleagues in his physics department. The university has to buy out his tenure and say good-bye, or the department is cut off from outside funding. My Oxford University professor, the distinguished physical chemist Michael Polanyi, told me that during his career, during which he produced a number of students who won Nobel Prizes, scientific apparatus was inexpensive. The equipment needed for experiments and discoveries did not require funding beyond the capability of university budgets, and if it did, the donors were interested in discovery for the sake of progress and not conclusions in support of their material interests. No more. Today money buys result. Today if a soil scientist gets a grant from agribusiness, he knows better than to attest to the dangers of GMOs and Roundup. Food scientists know not to say anything about the poisoning of the food supply with pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics. The preposterous official story of 9/11 warned physical scientists to forget all that they know about not only the temperature necessary to melt steel but also the temperature necessary to weaken steel. It taught them to forget the obvious calculations that prove beyond all doubt that there was not enough gravitational energy in the towers to pulverize everything into fine dust, much less to eject steel beams and human bone fragments hundreds of yards away. It taught them to ignore the molten steel still steaming below the rubble in the subfloors of the towers weeks after the towers’ destruction. The question what produced a temperature so high that molten steel still was present weeks after 9/11 has been officially ignored. Kevin Ryan is correct. Science died at the World Trade Center. As scientists respect money more than they respect truth, the abuse of science for political and commercial purposes will only get worse. Just as Gerald Celente has produced the term “presstitutes,” a combination of press and prostitutes, for the media, he will need to come up with a term with the whores in the scientific community. As Karl Marx said, Capitalism turns everything into a commodity that can be bought and sold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sydpPUEjUI

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-anglo-american-empires-war-of-conquest-the-war-on-the-islamic-state-isil-is-a-lie/5406458