Ian Fantom – Sept 11, 2020

Even the most ardent believers in the anti-COVID masks believe that things aren’t making sense. That varies from country to country, but it seems quite general throughout the anglosphere and NATO countries. In my part of England everyone is saying it, though people in the South East of England might think that’s ‘not nice’. Believing two directly contradictory things at the same time is what George Orwell called ‘doublethink’.

The Mad Media

Belief in the Mad Media must be at an all-time low in the UK. In Germany they call the Mad Media the Lügenpresse – the Lying Press. This term has historical roots, but it’s being massively revived today. I found a nineteenth century compilation of European proverbs and sayings which contained the expression ‘Lying like a newspaper’. I suppose we could now say ‘Lying like a churnalist’, or ‘Lying like a Prestitute’. I sent out a number of review copies of the book ‘Presstitutes: Embedded in the Pay of the CIA’ by Udo Ulfkotte, which is the English translation of the German book ‘Gekaufte Journalisten’. A great review appeared on 28 July in The Morning Star under the heading ‘Shills for sale’.

Now another great book has been published, and it is literally a ground-breaking book, because it presents a convincing case that the three towers of the World Trade Centre were brought down by nuclear devices. I’ve been working with a web television team in producing a video, introducing the ideas, and explaining how virtually all of us had failed to see the obvious, when distracted by a series of partial theories. They are planning to launch that on the 19^th anniversary of 9/11 this month in three languages: English (https://www.kla.tv/en), German (https://www.kla.tv/de) and Esperanto (https://www.kla.tv/eo).

The English title is: ‘9/11: A Nuclear Meltdown?’ and the Esperanto title is ‘9-11: Nuklea Disfandiĝo’. Kla TV is a fantastic voluntary organisation based in German-speaking areas, which produces current affairs current affairs videos that challenge the Establishent in 71 languages. Their founder is Ivo Sasek, whose motivation comes from a religious spirituality, but he doesn’t impose that on others, and he keeps that separate from the web TV work. Their last physical conference, in Switzerland, was attended by 3 000 people. I have to say that this is quite a find. I was introduced to it by their Esperanto editor in France. These video links need to be tweeted and retweeted round the world on 11^th September, because things that were once considered way out are now very credible, given what most people now know about the ‘Lügenpresse’ / ‘Mis-komunikiloj’ / ‘Mad Media’.

Journalists beware

There are now very few journalists left in the Mad Media that the Brits were once so proud of, when they believed the UK to have a uniquely free press. George Orwell warned that the press was in too few hands. The uniformity of the national press puzzled me in the 1970s when I was leading the Press and Public Relations in The British Esperanto Association. I didn’t think then that it was coordinated, but the extreme uniformity nowadays is blatantly obvious to all. The National Union of Journalists held a conference at their London headquarters just over ten years ago on the truthfulness of the press. I went along. On the bookstall at the back were two new books. The newer one was ‘A Century of Spin: How Public Relations Became the Cutting Edge of Corporate Power’ by David Miller and William Dinan. The other was by Guardian writer Nick Davies, and was called ‘Flat Earth News: An award-winning reporter exposes falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media’. I purchased both, but read only the Nick Davies book, because it was about more immediate things. The book was in a way an eye-opener, but it criticised everyone other than The Guardian. There were also no references. Many now regard The Guardian as the main source of fake news in the UK’s printed media. This was I think the beginning of the phone-hacking scandal, in which Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World was closed down. The other book is more academic, and is mainly about corporate media takeover of the press. That now seems much more relevant to today’s situation.

Everyone in that NUJ room – and it was full to capacity – was well aware of the distortions that were appearing in the press. They were saying that they didn’t have enough time to check the facts. The term ‘churnalism’ was introduced. One lady from the BBC even told us that they had been given specific instructions not to check the facts if they came from official sources. If that is the case, then it explains everything: The BBC is a propaganda wing of the Establishment. One of the speakers was BBC journalist Alan Johnson, who had been constantly in the headlines, reportedly kidnapped in March 2007 and held for 114 days. I asked him how he knew his kidnappers were Palestinian terrorists. He replied “I, too, have heard conspiracy theories”. I replied, “I haven’t”. I said I was just asking the obvious question. Make of that what you will, but I would have expected my question to be followed up by professional journalists, who should have been asking that question, too.

I see that the NUJ has been talking about the Julian Assange case, but it seems a bit half-hearted to me. An article of 20 February 2020 is headed ‘Assange’s treatment should be fair and humane’, and it states: “That Assange’s plight is not eliciting more concern among the UK’s journalists is troubling. If his deportation to the United States is successful, the implications for media freedom are profound. The US Espionage Act, offences against which Assange is charged, is little tested. Indeed, no journalist or publisher in the US has ever been successfully prosecuted for the act of publication. Much of the legal process in this case also falls below minimum expectations of justice”. Well yes – so why aren’t the journalists writing about this in the national press? Why is The Guardian not more supportive, when at one stage they were the newspaper publishing information from Wikileaks? A colleague of mine went to the court hearings, but could not get in. He told me that only the first four in the queue were allowed in. Of course, there’s no way of knowing whether those four were genuine or whether the were placed there, but my colleage said it was a ‘kangaroo court’. Outside the court on the first day veteran journalist and campaigner for a free press John Pilger addressed the crowd. He calls it “the political ‘trial of the century’”, and he published his text on his website under the title ‘THE STALINIST TRIAL OF JULIAN ASSANGE. WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?’. I traced the US documents to references 159, 161 and 161 of the Wikipedia entry for WikiLeaks, but all three links were broken.

The Guardian reported on the second day, saying that an interjection by Julian Assange could not be heard properly by journalists because they were in a separate room watching by video link. They reported that the judge told Assange that if there were any more interjections he would be removed from the court. According the The Guardian Julian Assange probably commented, “this is nonsense”. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether this is a fair report, or whether they have made the whole thing up.

As I write a conference is in progress in London under the heading ‘Imperialism on Trial – Free Julian Assange’.

Government by decree

The announcement for the Julian Assange conference states that tickets are limited due to Covid restrictions. Even so, they may find themselves in breach of the law, because the law seems to keep changing arbitrarily. The capacity for that venue is 600, but only meetings up to 300 are allowed. As I write the government is announcing a new change, to be brought in on Monday 14th September, which places a limit of six people for any meeting other than meetings for work or school. Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matthew Hancock, explained on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Tuesday, 8th September, that he was saying this to make it very clear, and to remove the confusion. However, the wording hadn’t so far been published, and so it remains far from clear. What is clear is that any political groupings, or protests groups will be verboten. What does it mean to ban meetings of over six people in a pub? Does it mean only six people in the pub, or no more than six people who know each other. We’ll perhaps find out when we read the decree.

I was encouraged the following day to hear that the Speaker (Chairman) of the House of Commons had repremanded Matt Hancock for first making that announcement through the media rather than to the House of Commons, where MPs would be able to question his statement. I’ve never known a Speaker of the House of Commons to get so angry. He asked for an apology from Matt Hancock, but I don’t know whether he got one. That may be the beginning of a return to some sort of parliamentary democracy.

The government was also in trouble when Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis stated that unilateral changes to the Brexit agreement with the EU, previously approved by parliament, broke international law. The Independent reported: “Theresa May warned her successor that other countries might think twice before trusting the UK in future, while other MPs from Mr Lewis’s own party accused the government of putting Britain’s honour up ‘for sale’. I was told at primary school in the 1950s, “An Englishman’s word is his bond”. They didn’t tell us that that was just for ordinary people, and that the high-ups had a reputation in diplomatic circles of ‘perfidious Albion’. I first heard that expression years later in Dutch. In reaction to Brandon Lewis’s statement, Irish MEP Martina Anderson told the European Parliament: “Britannia will always, always waive the rules. So my final warning to fellow MEPs is: Beware of Perfidious Albion – a country that you cannot trust and never keeps its word. Britannia will always, always waive the rules”. So what MPs are saying about Britain’s reputation abroad looks as if it’s for our consumption, and the government is trying it on because they think they can get away with it under the present state of government by decree.

On 29^th August two big demonstrations took place, one in Berlin and one in London. In Berlin Robert Kennedy spoke to three to five thousand demonstrators. The press had been putting out that he would be speaking to several thousand Nazis, but he said now he was talking to the opposite of Nazis. He stated: “Seventy-five years ago Hermann Goering testified at the Nuremberg trial, and he was asked, ‘How did you make the German people go along with all this?’, and he said, ‘It’s an easy thing. It’s not anything to do with Naziism. It has to do with human nature. You can do this in a Nazi regime, you can do it in a Socialist regime, you can do it in a Communist regime, you can do it in a Monarchy and in a democracy. The only thing a government needs to make people into slaves is fear, and if you can figure out something to make them scared you can get them to do anything they want. Fifty years ago, my uncle, John Kennedy, came to this city. He came here to Berlin, because Berlin was the front line against global totalitarianism. And today again Berlin is the front line against global totalitarianism. When my uncle came here, he proudly said to the people of Germany, “Ich bin ein Berliner”. Today, all those who are here today can proudly say once again ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’, because you are the front line against totalitarianism”.

In London the number of people gathered in Trafalgar Square was reported that evening as between a few hundred and a few thousand. The videos show Trafalgar Square to be full, which some say would put the numbers at 35 000. Piers Corbyn’s account was that as organiser they had negotiated with the police, and everything was cleared to go ahead. Then at the end another lot of police officers came in an arrested him and give him an on-the-spot fine of £10 000. I was amazed at that; I hadn’t heard of any law that would have enabled that. He explained this in an ITV interview with Piers Morgan. However, he was constantly talked over, and although he retained his composure, it sounded like a shouting match. At the end of the interview they put their medical specialist on, a Dr Hilary. I wrote to him, challenging him on one point, and he replied with utter incoherent nonsense.

Peter Hitchens, one of the few journalists left in the Mad Media, wrote a piece in The Mail on Sunday titled ‘Protest against our new State of Fear is banned… by order of a Dead Parrot Parliament’. It began: “We have ceased to be a parliamentary democracy. There was no military putsch. Nobody passed an Enabling Act allowing rule by decree. But the House of Lords and the House of Commons are now the Dead Parrot Parliament. They are dead because they do nothing to hold the Government to account. The most shocking instance of this so far was the £10,000 fine imposed on the eccentric weather forecaster Piers Corbyn (brother of Jeremy) for his part in organising a protest in London. They are parrots because, when asked, they obediently confirm decrees Downing Street put into effect, sometimes weeks before. We used to jeer that the so-called parliaments of Communist and Fascist states were mere rubber stamps. Well, we cannot jeer now. The most shocking instance of this so far was the £10,000 fine imposed on the eccentric weather forecaster Piers Corbyn (brother of Jeremy) for his part in organising a protest in London. That protest has, in my view, been wrongly portrayed as a mass of weirdos and conspiracy theorists. No doubt such people, and worse, were there. But many went to it out of a feeling their liberties are fast disappearing under a strange new regime based on fear and panic”.

He then quoted from a lawyer, Matthew Scott: “But what Mr Scott says is deeply worrying. The regulation used to fine Mr Corbyn – 5b of the Coronavirus Act – ‘was hastily made law the day before the demonstration was held. It was introduced under an emergency procedure and was neither debated nor given even the most cursory scrutiny by any parliamentary process. ‘It permits the most junior Community Support Officer in the country to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice to the suspected organiser of a political event, demanding £10,000 to avoid prosecution and consequent financial ruin”. I found Matthew Scott’s article in The Spectator.

How the Masquerade has prepared people for 9/11 truth

People are coming to realise that there is something wrong with our supposed democracy. They don’t identify with the ‘truth movement’ as such, but they have their own specific issues. Whenever I talk to local people I find they are now susceptible to the idea that they were lied to over 9/11, just as they are now being lied to over just about everything else. The lockdown has focussed their minds, and once that happens they start to see things they would otherwise have dismissed as unlikely. They can, however, fail to see the obvious when their minds are focussed just on details. Sometimes things are just too big to see, or to talk about, as people look at detail. There’s an expression in English ‘the elephant in the room’, which Wikipedia describes as “a metaphorical idiom in English for an important or enormous topic, question, or controversial issue that is obvious or that everyone knows about but no one mentions or wants to discuss because it makes at least some of them uncomfortable or is personally, socially, or politically embarrassing, controversial, inflammatory, or dangerous”. 9/11 is such an elephant as far as both chambers of the British parliament are concerned.

The organisation Transport for London issued a press release in 2008 announcing their latest safefy campaign (https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2008/october/tfl-launches-latest-cycling-safety-campaign). “Adverts carrying the stark message ‘It’s easy to miss what you’re not looking for. Look out for cyclists’, will play before some of the autumn’s most hotly anticipated films …”, the press release stated. As part of that campaign they issued a video ‘Test Your Awareness: Do The Test’, with the explanation “How many passes does the team in white make? Test your awareness and Do the Test! TFL cycling safetly advert! Count the number of passes the White team makes. Do you see the Moonwalking bear?”. Yes, there was someone dressed up as a bear, doing a ‘moonwalk’ dance. I’ve seen various versions of that idea. That is how distraction works in propaganda.

A variant on that idea, which I have noticed, is that the person does initially notice the moonwalking bear – or whatever it is in real life – but quickly forgets about it when something shocking happens immediately afterwards. That’s how it was with me, and probably millions of other people, when I saw the Twin Towers collapse, followed by the realisation that a massive human tragedy was unfolding. My immediate reaction to the first collapse was: “Is that possible? If it’s not I’ll soon hear about it”. That ‘soon’ was five years. I did, however, hear murmers on the BBC of some people in New York suggesting that the US government had known about it in advance and let it happen. I dismissed that as unlikely, because of my ingrained expectation that they wouldn’t do that – would they? In February 2006 I took a covert sound recording of my last committee meeting in Esperanto Association of Britain, in which they rounded on me and started shouting at me. They passed a nonsensical resolution calling for my immediate suspension. It was nonsensical because they didn’t say on whom they were calling, and in any case there was no-one there that could have immediately suspended me. I remembered all that. But the following day I played back the recording of the first half of the meeting, and found that I’d forgotten about most of the detail. That contained the incriminating details that quickly led me on to figure out the plot, going back to the early 1970s. That is what led me to contact dissident former MI5 officer David Shayler, to ask him whether MI5 had penetrated the Esperanto movement, and that is what led me to 9/11 truth.

Now something similar is happening to whole populations. The expectation of ‘They wouldn’t do that, would they?’ is now not so strong. The expectation that governments don’t lie on such a grand scale is also greatly weakened. Lots of ordinary people understand that there’s a mighty power struggle going on, with the purpose of gaining more and more control over the people. If their attention is now turned to 9/11 they will now have a good chance of seeing the ‘moonwalking bear’ or ‘the elephant in the room’.

Another psychological technique is what I call ‘reversal’, in which the propagandists accuse others of what they are doing themselves. I was already aware of that before I started my research in 2005, but what amazed me was how consistently they were doing it in the Esperanto committee. They were effectively telling me in enigmatic code everything I wanted to know. It wasn’t difficult to break the enigmatic code, because I was better at that game than they were. I just wasn’t so arrogant. In the case of 9/11 Bush and Blair were putting the blame on 19 Muslim Arabs, who had supposedly flown airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, all directed by another Muslim Arab from a cave in Afghanistan. Anyone who doubted this story was likely to be called ‘antisemitic’, as David Cameron was later to make clear in his speeches to the UN when he referred to “The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy”. In fact, Arabs are Semitic and the idea that Jews are persecuted all over the world is being promoted by the Zionists, such as Conservative Friends of Israel, of which David Cameron was a member.

So what did happen to the WTC Towers? – Unmasking the decoys

The group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has been doing a good job in making people aware of the third tower to fall in 9/11, which was not hit by an aircraft. They also managed to establish a research project at the University of Fairbanks Alaska, which showed that the third tower could not have been brought down by fire alone, as had been claimed. They were also instrumental in the setting up of a Grand Jury in the US, working with Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Truth, and there are legal proceedings against the FBI, taken by 9/11 family members and advocates.

The question of what didn’t happen on 9/11 is easily resolved. The third tower, Building 7, didn’t collapse through fire alone, and the Twin Towers didn’t collapse because of two aircraft hitting them. Most people that I meet can now easily accept that. That leaves the question of what actually did happen.

The first scientific paper on the destruction of the Twin Towers was Professor Steven Jones’s ‘Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?’, which he published after giving a talk at his university, Brigham Young University. The university put him on paid leave and then fired him. I read an offprint of the paper in December 2006. It also appeared without the pictures in the book ‘9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out’; I have the 2007 Arris Press edition, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Stott – the original edition was in 2003, before Steven Jones wrote his paper. The Preface sumarises his paper, saying: “He points to many features of these collapses that cannot be explained by the official theory, according to which the collapses were caused by fire (and in the case of the Twin Towers, by airplane damage). He then shows that it is more probable that the buildings were destroyed in controlled demolitions, triggered by pre-set esplosives”. I found the physics of that convincing, in showing that the towers could only have been brought down by explosives. I thought that the weakest point was the sourcing of the dust samples, which were analysed for traces of thermite. I knew about thermite from school chemistry; it is an incendiary, rather than an explosive. Our teacher demonstrated that in the school playground.

I quoted the paper in an article for the current affairs magazine MONATO, which appeared in April 2007 under the heading ‘Kial vere kolapsis la tri turoj de MKC?’ [Why really did the three towers of the WTC collapse?] (https://www.monato.be/2007/009196.php). Only when I saw the photo on the front cover, with the top section at a 15 degree angle to the rest (https://issuu.com/franciscojavierguerrassabio/docs/monato04) did I realise that that paper had left out vital information. The angular momentum of the top section would have made the rotation unstoppable, and so if the tower really did fall onto its own footprint, then the top section would have had to have exploded into dust. Simple controlled demolition could not fully explain the collapse.

In 2009 a paper appeared in a peer reviewed journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal under the title ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe’. This provided a chemical analysis of various dust samples taken from Ground Zero. There were nine authors to the paper, but the key author was the chemist who undertook the analysis, Professor Niels Harrit. He found very tiny particles of thermite, known as ‘nano-thermite’ in all of the samples. This is not just an incendiary, like thermite, but is also highly explosive. In a 2009 interview he suggested that perhaps 10-100 tonnes of the material were in the three WTC buildings (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Niels_Harrit). He cautions that nanothermite may not have been the sole cause of the collapses, but he wants to know how it got there.

As far as I can tell, the chemical analysis looks good, though I studied only first year university level Chemistry as a subsidiary subject in Physics. I think, though, that the paper had too many authors. This has been common practice in recent decades, perhaps because that gives scientific papers more authority, or perhaps because of previous complaints by PhD students when their professors took all the credit. In a police detective department one would expect the forensic examination to be carried out by scientists, and the checking of the sources of the samples to be carried out by detectives, who would consider whether there could have been contamination before or after collection of the samples. At the end of the paper there was a suggestion that nanothermite gel could have been painted on the walls, but there was no analysis of this. I’ve seen no analysis of that possibility elsewhere. It seems that a mere suggestion by the chemist involved escalated in subsequent discussion into a theory for the collapse of the towers. A separate study would be needed for this. My first reaction to this was to wonder whether nanothermite would have to be painted on just one side of a wall, or on both sides of the wall, in order to pulverise it.

The idea that the towers were brought down by nanothermite still ignored vital evidence. Other buildings were damaged, and there was evidence of radiation damage from ‘toasted cars’ and people trapped in the towers stripping their clothes off, a known result of Active Denial System (directed energy weapons as used in riot control in the US). These use microwaves of around 100 GHz. This was amongst the evidence presented by Professor Judy Wood, who also was presenting photographic evidence of wider damage in the World Trade Centre. In 2009 she published a book, ‘Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11’. The first several chapters presented photos and other data that appeared to go against the idea of controlled demolition by explosives. But then she proposed a theory of some unknown ‘directed energy’ from the sky, which had ‘dustified’ the towers, claiming that there were no high temperatures involved, and invoking a ‘Hutchison Effect’, which is unknown to Physics. Judy Wood’s book dismissed nano-thermite as consisting of elements that would have been present anyway, and she dismissed a nuclear reaction in one page, saying that there was no evidence of radioactive fallout. However, there was no analysis, and no consideration of types of nuclear device: whether fission or fusion, above-ground or below-ground, tactical nuclear weapon or nuclear meltdown.

I studied the first chapters of Judy Wood’s book, and checked the calculations. There were a few minor points, but in general they seemed correct. Her claim that the Twin Towers collapsed too quickly for controlled demolition ignored the fact that the top parts of the towers exploded, and so she should have taken the top point as the highest point that wasn’t seen to explode, rather than the tops of the towers before explosion. However, her mysterious ‘directed energy’ which didn’t bring about any heating of the towers, made no sense to me. I have to say that her supporters seemed very dogmatic in claiming that book to be the authoritative account of the event, and suggesting that anyone who contested it was a gatekeeper.

In the meantime, a former Soviet citizen, who had been part of a secret military unit responsible for detecting nuclear explosions, Dmitri Khalezov, was developing the idea that the towers of the World Trade Centre could have been brought down by underground nuclear explosions. Moreover, he testifies that he knew about an in-built ‘emergency nuclear demolitions scheme’ of the Twin Towers as long ago as back in the ‘80s – as a serviceman in the Soviet Special Control Service. In 2010 he published a book, as a pdf in draft form, now in its fourth edition, in Russian and various other languages, proposing his theory of underground nuclear explosions. At the time his theory seemed way out, and was dismissed by more well-known investigators. His book was little known in the West, and somehow he ended up in prison in Thailand.

A few years ago I was interviewed by Professor Jim Fetzer, when he suggested I look at the possibility of nuclear energy bringing down the towers. I put that on my to-do list, and there it stayed until eventually I came across trained nuclear physicist Heinz Pommer in Germany, and invited him to give a presentation to Keep Talking. He studied underground nuclear tests, and came to the conclusion that such a nuclear device could indeed explain most of the unexplained phenomenae in 9/11, though there were one or two problems. He later modified the theory, proposing not a nuclear explosion as such, but nuclear meltdown. This, it appears, would account even better for the lack of radiation signature in the air following 9/11.

Nuclear meltdown had been explored in the 1960s for purposes of ‘nuclear landscaping’. The Soviet Union had been creating massive reservoirs using ‘nuclear landscaping’. Further development in the West would enable the cutting of deep channels through mountains for motorways or railway links. One aspect that researchers were working on was the reduction of radioactive fallout following such a blast, and that could account for the low-level traces of subsequent radioactive materials following 9/11. Another concern of the developers was public perception, and so such research was kept relatively quiet. It would, of course, have been known in the nuclear industry and academia.

Heinz Pommer presented his technical data on his website, and he has given public talks during this development (https://www.kla.tv/15470). Now he has published a ground-breaking book in English, with contributions from several other physicists, under the title: ‘The Ground Zero Model’. The very term ‘Ground Zero’, he points out, is a technical term from nuclear engineering. In fact, Dmitri Khalezov’s book contains a very detailed explanation of the term ‘Ground Zero’.

“On the right scale everything becomes simple”. This is Heinz Pommer’s central idea, which he promotes in his book. “On the right scale we can see the major connections which go as far as nuclear blackmail against a civil society”, he writes. The book introduces the development of nuclear landscaping, and shows how that would match the traces of radioactivity left at Ground Zero. He also shows how nuclear radiation would account for interference in some of the videos taken at the time, and why paper survived, but iron didn’t. He goes into some detail on the model itself, with slow-burn underground nuclear reactions, leading to high-temperature winds gushing up the lift-shafts, and pulverising much of the building materials. He writes, too, of the “spineless universities” which have turned a blind eye to the evidence. I fully concur on the ‘spineless universities’. I’ve written about them in my previous newsletters. Why aren’t academics doing proper research into areas of vital public concern? I’ve been writing about medical ‘research’ in relation to COVID-19, and about psychology ‘research’ in connection with so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’. For long I was unable to accept that the physics community in universities could get it so wrong on climate change, until I invited Piers Corbyn to talk to Keep Talking about his work.

Yet the answer all along was hidden in plain sight. Whilst I was wondering where the term ‘Ground Zero’ had come from, and presuming it must have been some US term, or a term used locally for the World Trade Centre area, every active nuclear physicist would have known that it was specifically a term from nuclear engineering.

But even more spectacularly, Heinz Pommer includes in his book a picture of a monument, known as The Sphere, placed directly above the very point where he considers the nuclear device have been planted at the time the World Trade Centre was constructed. Some of us have come to expect in any big terrorist event some enigmatic clue suggesting that the event had been preplanned, as for instance in the case of the 7/7 London bombings of 2005, in which the bus that was blown up carried an advertisement worded: “OUTRIGHT TERROR… BOLD AND BRILLIANT”. So what did The Sphere symbolise? The sculptor, German artist Fritz Koenig, called it ‘Die Kugelkaryatide’ – the Spherical Caryatid – designed to promote a vision of the World Trade Center as an engine for promoting global peace. But what would the planners have had in mind? Fritz Koenig wouldn’t have been in on that, but to me it looks as if those who commissioned it would have had in mind ‘Globalisation’ in all its senses: a global takeover by a power capable of holding the world to ransome with global nuclear devices.

That thought is horrendous. It means that if Dmitri Khalezov and Heinz Pommer are correct, then the whole world could be being blackmailed into submission by some nuclear force stronger than the US government. It could explain the submissiveness of nearly all governments on earth to the demands of the corporation-controlled World Health Organisation. It could explain the bizarre behaviour of governments in claiming ‘Science’ to be behind their demands for their citizens to wear masks that don’t work, and are increasingly seen not to work, to protect them from a virus which has never been shown to cause the mysterious illness, which somehow is causing many thousands of deaths without pushing up the excess death rates.

Any government which steps out of line may be subjected to such a nuclear device. The UN’s Agenda 2030 makes it clear that no government will be allowed to step out of line. Now we know what means they have to control governments. Whatever the solution to this problem is, it has to start off with a better public understanding of the linguistics of propaganda and brainwashing that we have all been subjected to all our lives. The enigmatic code has now been broken, and ‘The Sphere’ may now become the icon of the Globalists agenda.

LATEST: I’ve just seen a preview of the video I’ve been working on with Kla TV. I provided the text, and a team of dedicated truth campaigners worked on the production. I found their efforts very impressive, and I have to agree with Robert Kennedy, that now Berlin (being symbolic of the German-speaking people) is now the front line against totalitarianism. See the video in English , German and Esperanto. The intend to go public on 11 September. I have just come across a video in which Professor Jim Fetzer interviews the publisher of Heinz Pommer’s book, Jeff Prager, on 9 September 2020). This gives interesting details and insights into the development of the nuclear theory of 9/11. Like Dmitri Khalezov, they suggest or imply that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are gatekeepers, because of their support for the nanothermite theory. I don’t quite go along with that. I think every group will consist of genuine people and of gatekeepers. The usual issue is how to proceed without causing a schism, which would disable the whole project. Richard Gage has done marvelous work in bringing about a wider understanding of the contradictions in the collapse of Building 7, and together with others in bringing about legal proceedings. Niels Harrit was undertaking specific forensic work. There is now a danger that a schism would jeapordise those efforts. I think, though, that they now need to acknowledge the seriousness of the nuclear theory, and to talk about that, too. After all, it’s the purpose of the legal processes to collect and assess such evidence on what happened, once those legal processes get underway.