I regularly participate in Huffington Post forums, and they have a very sophisticated system of moderation. There are certain words and phrases it won't let through. And I discovered a new one today: false flag.
When my first post was deleted (under the “notifications” tab, which is where moderation seems to be the strictest) I looked at it, because it was a short sentence.
It was clear that the offensive term could only be “false flag,” so I retyped only those two words, and sure enough, they were instantly deleted.
That only happens under the notifications tab. And when it happens, the very instant you hit the reply button it says, “This comment removed.” So apparently I can't used the term “false flag” anymore, at least when I'm under the notifications tab.
Insane as it may sound, some of the smart money is betting that DHS is making a major drone play and trying to find a way to claim that drones everywhere will help them detect and stop IEDs.
The Federal Aviation Administration has finally released a new drone authorization list. This list, released in response to EFF’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, includes law enforcement agencies and universities across the country, and—for the first time—an Indian tribal agency. In all, the list includes more than 20 new entities over the FAA’s original list, bringing to 81 the total number of public entities that have applied for FAA drone authorizations through October 2012.
Some of these new drone license applicants include:
The State Department
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Barona Band of Mission Indians Risk Management Office (near San Diego, California)
Canyon County Sheriff’s Office (Idaho)
Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office (Northwest Oregon)
Grand Forks Sheriff’s Department (North Dakota)
King County Sheriff’s Office (covering Seattle, Washington)
Probably for the first time ever or at least in recent history, it appears the mainstream media has openly considered the Boston bombings were false flag attacks, as specified in this story:
“Bin Laden's repeated statements that he deplored the 9/11 attacks, considered them un-Islamic, and suspected that American supporters of Israel were behind them failed to penetrate the corporate media bubble. When the FBI definitively stated that Bin Laden was “not wanted” for 9/11 because there was “no hard evidence” of his involvement, the media blacked out the story. But after the Boston bombings of April 16th, 2013, even the corporate monopoly media could no longer ignore the possibility of a false-flag attack. Yahoo News asked “Who's behind the Boston Marathon bombings?” and offered 4 theories: (1) Islamic jihadists, (2) Right-wing militia types, (3) the government, and (4) a criminally-insane lone wolf. Numbers (1), (2), and (4), of course, are the usual suspects. But including (3) “the government” on the suspects list is unprecedented for a mainstream news story reporting on a domestic terror incident.
Click on Image to Expand
The false-flag meme's growing prominence was underlined at Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick's press conference after the bombings. The first question for Governor Patrick came from Infowars correspondent Dan Bidondi, who asked whether the bombings were “a false-flag staged event..to take away our civil liberties.” Patrick, of course, answered “no.” Even the Atlantic Monthly, a neocon-lite magazine associated with names like Goldberg and Hitchens, felt compelled to publish a story headlined: “What Is a ‘False Flag' Attack, and What Does Boston Have to Do with This?” Amazingly, the Atlantic article stated that yes, there is historical precedent for viewing the Boston bombing as a false-flag event. The author, Philip Bump, even admitted: “If the Boston attack had been a ‘false flag' attack, Gov. Patrick would have responded ‘no' anyway.”
“The Boston bomb squad clearly had advance notice of the presence of the bombs at the marathon, and they also had advance notice of the location of the bomb at the Kennedy Presidential Library.
President Obama's budget for the Department of Defense for 2014 is a strange document. As if to justify its disconnect from reality, someone in the administration advertised it to the press as basic to Obama's overall negotiations with Republicans. If true, that does not augur well for needed change in the Pentagon.
What the Defense budget request really shows is that there is no new thinking in the Pentagon for putting defense spending on a constructive path. There is not even anything that promises a departure from the last-minute, hysterical decision making we observed in the denouement of the 2013 defense budget process.
As submitted, the new Defense plan simply wishes away the statutory reality of sequestration, and to pretend to save money, it trots out only tired old ideas.
It’s time for ‘debunkers’ to showcase their years of hard work. I’m looking for a concise and agreed-upon explanation for each of the following items so that we might forever put to rest these ‘nonsense conspiracy theories’ about 9/11.
Ideally, I’m hoping for a 1-4 sentence long, simplified explanation for each of these listed circumstances, explaining how they fit into the widely-accepted narrative. If any of these conditions were not present as alleged, or if you find them to be irrelevant, just explain a more accurate interpretation of the corresponding data.
Choose any number or set of numbers from the following list. For each point, write what you believe to be the official stance relative to the mainstream “Arab terrorist” narrative. Consistency and consensus is what we’re looking for. The goal of this article is to have each of these points adequately addressed in order to demonstrate, for any future “truthers”, that there is a reasonable explanation for these circumstances that was simply overlooked by the 9/11 Truth movement.
Eventually, I would like to be able to construct a full outline of the ‘debunker’ consensus on these most-relevant aspects of 9/11.
Some of the points, below, may seem familiar. Special thanks to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (VIDEO) andall of the honest institutions and individuals who have made this article possible.
