Sunday, 7 September 2014

The Climate of Fear & 9/11 - Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up

With the imminent arrival of the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11, the public has once again been exposed to the manufactured “climate of fear” paradigm. Such a phenomenon has perhaps always existed throughout history and has been an effective tool for the powers that be to control the unwitting masses. The phenomenon has come into sharper focus over the last hundred or so years, thanks largely to the social engineering experiments of outfits such as The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. In the early decades of the twentieth century, the Institute’s study of “retrogressive psychology” [1] allowed the global agenda players to take advantage of many aspects of the human psychology; notably creating a kind of “crisis strategy” or “shock doctrine” [2] with which to manipulate and manage mass perceptions and emotions. One example in particular was the Institute’s extensive studies of post-traumatic stress caused by the bombings of Germany and Japan during WWII – via the Strategic Bombing Survey. [3]

Many significant social engineers had substantial connections to The Tavistock Institute. Edward Bernays encouraged mass irrationality by tapping into the deepest of human fears, for the benefit of the ruling elite. He called it “guiding from above.” Another, Walter Lippmann, is often credited with being one of the first to categorize the paranoid fear of nuclear destruction that became associated with the proverbial “Cold War”.

In the BBC documentary “The Power of Nightmares” [4], Adam Curtis examined how the threat of the Soviet Union was greatly exaggerated by the US elite in order to manipulate and control the perceptions and emotions of the masses. Elements of the US Neo-Conservative political cabal began perpetuating the notion that the USSR’s military capability was growing rapidly. Neo-Conservative heavyweight Donald Rumsfeld managed to convince US President Gerald Ford to set up an “independent” inquiry (called “Team B”) to prove that the Soviets intended an imminent nuclear strike against the US. However, the inquiry was far from “independent” – one member was fellow Neo-Con Paul Wolfowitz, whilst the chairman (Professor Richard Pipes) was a staunch critic of the Soviets. Additionally, the CIA had been watching the Soviets for some time and concluded that there was no truth to the inquiries claims. Team B actually examined all of the CIA’s data and found little evidence of a threat. Despite this, the inquiry claimed that the threat was very real and even argued that Soviet weapons systems were so advanced that they “defied detection”! They even fabricated evidence to support these conclusions.

On the basis of Team B’s “findings”, public information films were made to vilify the Soviets and raise the global profile of the US. The campaign was a whirlwind of propaganda and psychological manipulation. A “grand vision” for America’s future was established, with the intention of bolstering national pride and creating a sense of purpose amongst US citizens. The psychological precepts of mythology and fairy tales were utilised – having been recognised as an effective model for reshaping cultural preconceptions. A world of certainty was crafted, with clearly defined parameters establishing who the “good guys” were, who were “bad”, and how dire the circumstances would be if the “bad guys” ever gained the proverbial upper-hand. Ironically, years later, it was discovered that the CIA’s intelligence had been less than solidly reliable regarding Soviet capabilities. However, as this was not known at the time, it had no bearing on the enquiry’s conclusions or the subsequent psyop that ultimately engulfed much of the Western World.
Such scenarios have repeatedly surfaced in subsequent decades. The central mechanism of perception management in these scenarios is the mainstream news media. The media often  features “special reports” (known in the industry as “over the horizon” pieces) which present various “doomsday” scenarios such as asteroid collisions, alien invasions, solar flares, “climate change”, economic collapse, etc. These pieces often come with the addendum that mankind is on the brink of the proverbial abyss. We are told how society will (under such circumstances) probably be plunged into the Dark Ages, gangs of looters will stalk the streets, food and water will become scarce, the skies will darken and so on! The traumatic effect upon the viewer often undermines the ability to stand back and examine the issues in a critical, objective and unbiased manner. The scenarios presented are often cemented in our psyche as “inevitable certainties”.

The reason this occurs lies with the level of “legitimacy” that we apply to the information given to us. If we have no way of judging the accuracy of the information, our cognitive processes fall back upon the level of trust we have in the “apparent” source of the information. The level of trust determines the value of the information - and every subsequent source of information that is connected to the subject. This psychological process (when we do not know the original source or accuracy of a piece of information, but “trust” those who relate it to us – i.e.: the mainstream news, etc.) is called “source amnesia”. [5]

Mass conveyance of a manufactured or exaggerated concept can also saturate public consciousness to the point where we (the masses) will determine the degree of its inevitability. This is largely perpetuated by nothing more than a mass naïve trust in those who first conveyed the information or a collective herd mentality. It has happened time and time again in recent history. Notable examples include the aforementioned “The Cold War”, “Population Growth”, “Climate Change”, and the “War on Terror”.

As the 1990s drew to a close, the storm clouds of the Neo-Con cabal once again loomed on the horizon. In 1997, these individuals formed a Washington think-tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The work of this group was published in a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" in September 2000. PNAC was effectively charged with creating a blueprint document outlining an aggressive military plan for the US during the coming years. This would be accomplished by the waging of "multiple simultaneous large-scale wars.” [6]
The report singled out a number of countries that were in the American military's cross-hares:

"According to the CIA, a number of regimes are deeply hostile to America - North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria." [7]

The report concluded that:

"The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." [8]

Pearl Harbor was a false-flag event that swayed public opinion into supporting America’s entry in WWII. On September 11, 2001, exactly one year after “Rebuilding America's Defenses”, the world was delivered the promised “New Pearl Harbor”. In the decade that followed, the West would wage war against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and attempt to do the same with Iran, North Korea and Syria. It seemed that the folk from PNAC had a staggering ability to predict the future. Even more bizarrely, just a few months later, these individuals would end up literally running America.

The stage was set for one of the most elaborate and contrived perception management operations ever conceived. Since then, we (the masses) have been repeatedly exposed to the “climate of fear” paradigm. Not a day has gone by when the news media haven’t talked about extremist nutters making bombs and planning terrorist atrocities, vague amorphous armies, organisations and psychopathic dictators plotting the downfall of the Western world, civilian passenger planes being hijacked, blown up or shot down by various parties (more recently associated with our old “Cold War adversaries”.) Throw into this mix a few stories about out of control viruses and epidemics, social unrest, technology gone mad, and you might well feel that there really was a lot to be afraid of.

Of course, such a reaction is the desired intention of the orchestrated “climate of fear” paradigm. Many people look toward the news media and our “leaders” for reassurance and answers and ultimately end up feeling even more confused and uncertain. Notably, one key figure in the last fifty or so years of US politics (Zbigniew Brzezinski) once openly admitted that said mechanisms are a key part of the contemporary “War on Terror” paradigm.

“The vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue.” [9]

At certain times during the year, the “climate of fear” mechanism kicks into overdrive. Recently, we have heard about new (potential large scale) military campaigns in Iraq and Syria. Russia has also been touted as a new (or old) bogeyman – once again bringing echoes of the fear driven days of the Cold War to mind. We’ve even been taunted by a potential Ebola pandemic on the horizon. There is one thing that these recent doom-mongering scenarios all have in common. Their timing coincides with the forthcoming anniversary of 9/11. Despite the fact that so many of these scenarios have their roots in 9/11, it is amazing how few people remember the catalyst. Perhaps this is testament to the effectiveness of perception management – particularly in the mainstream media.

Perhaps the greatest cover-up in living history is the one that was perpetuated in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. The events of that day seemed almost “hyper-real” and could easily have occurred in the plot of some hokey political thriller novel, film or TV show. Within a few years of 9/11, I became aware of certain oddities – such as pre-9/11 insider trading that benefited those who had premises in and surrounding the World Trade Centre complex and the airline companies whose planes were allegedly “hijacked” on the day. I was also highly suspicious about the lack of disproportionate damage and confiscated surveillance camera footage during the events at The Pentagon. Additionally, there were any number of anomalies surrounding the destruction of the WTC7 building – particularly the BBC’s reporting of its destruction well in advance of the actual event. As for the destruction of the towers themselves, it was clear that there was something wrong with the official story.

Several years later, I became aware of two volumes of research that presented the most complete evidence of a cover-up on 9/11. Dr. Judy Wood (B.S. in Civil Engineering, M.S. in Engineering Mechanics / Applied Physics, and Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science.) spent several years assembling a huge body of work - showing how evidence of directed free-energy technology was apparently utilised on that day in New York. Crucially, the evidence is such that it can be quantifiably measured and can be found in her landmark book “Where Did the Towers Go? – The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11”. [10]

Dr Wood’s work examines multiple pieces of evidence – here are a few key facts that I believe are the most compelling:
•The disproportionately small seismic readings measured as the WTC was destroyed.
•The lack of the distinctive S (known as “Secondary” or “Shear”) and P (“Primary” or “Push-Pull”) wave in the seismic readings.
•Sizeable fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field at the time of the “plane impacts” and the destruction of the WTC.
•The rate, speed and nature of the destruction of the WTC.
•“Weird Fires” documented in the vicinity of the WTC.
•The lack of an appropriate amount of debris following the destruction of the WTC.
•The relatively undamaged sub-basement areas of the WTC and the “Bathtub Wall” - that prevents the Hudson River from flooding this area of Manhattan.
•The bizarre behaviour (and almost non-existent reporting) of Hurricane Erin that was due to make landfall in New York on the morning of 9/11.

The second book is Andrew Johnson’s book “9/11 – Finding the Truth”. [11] Not only does his book examine the evidence featured in Dr. Wood’s work, but it also exposes several key organisers within the so-called “9/11 Truth Movement” who have deliberately attacked Dr. Wood’s work and character. These same people have tried to obscure the larger implications of the reality of the directed free-energy technology which was employed in the destruction of the WTC complex.

These books / collections of evidence tell us what really happened to the World Trade Centre complex on 9/11 – a true and verifiable account, quite unlike what mainstream outlets presented to us. Currently, in my opinion, it is difficult to definitively say exactly who planned and perpetrated the destruction seen on 9/11. Similarly, the reasons why it was done and why it involved certain targets is also unclear. This prevents many people, even those who disbelieve the official fable, from investigating the available evidence. That is, they cannot see a reason for a cover up, or the promulgation of a “false conspiracy”, so they don’t even look.

What we can know (from studying the evidence) is that the story of four hijacked airliners, two of which “crashed” into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre and subsequently resulted in their “collapse” is nothing more than a hugely elaborate smokescreen. When studying the evidence collected by Dr. Wood, it becomes clear that an advanced weapons technology was used. This proves that the science and technology available to the agenda players is far in advance of the publicly-perceived level of such technology.
Studying 9/11 in depth allows us to observe the larger global agenda mechanisms at work. Put simply, the greater lie precedes a truth which has been hidden. The 9/11 smokescreen has been successfully “wafted” across governments and into political leaders, military forces and intelligence agencies, the mainstream news and entertainment media industry, and so on. Given the scale of this lie, there will always be people who believe that those in the media and elsewhere, who helped perpetuate the lies, are complicit in hiding the “who did it” and “why they did it”… One can then suggest that senior figures in media organisations must know the “who did it” and the “why they did it”.

Sceptics and disbelievers imply that a cover up of the scale of that necessary to keep all the evidence secret would be so big that it would involve thousands or millions of people and so the cover up could not exist. However, the cover up works because the vast majority of people have a belief in the lie and an apathy or ignorance of the truth. It doesn’t take a psychologist to realise that “the greater the lie, the more people are willing to believe in it”. Continual and widespread repetition of a lie can go a long way – something the mainstream media has down to a fine art! Think about it. Can you accurately recall your gut instinct of 9/11 when you initially became aware of it? How did you find out? I suspect that most people would have been told, “Oh, terrorists hijacked a plane and flew it into the tower.” The media told the world this lie within moments of the first “plane impact”. How would they have known - that Islamic extremists had commandeered airliners – almost instantaneously… how could anybody know with such “certainty”, for that matter!?

The 9/11 cover-up demonstrates the reach and power of the agenda players. They can “snuff out” huge numbers of people without “batting an eyelid”. It is a frightening realisation and underlines how the 9/11 lie (in and of itself) has been an effective deterrent to anybody who dares to question the truth. I have witnessed the power of the 9/11 lie first-hand. I know of many open-minded people who will quite happily entertain the notions of extra-terrestrial life, mind control technology, secret societies and occult conspiracies, and so on. Yet, when the subject of 9/11 comes up (particularly the connection to directed free-energy), they seemingly shut down all critical thinking and see nothing more than the lie – even when presented with compelling and quantifiable evidence. Why is this?

The 9/11 continues today. Not only has history been completely falsified in keeping with the lie, not only has it fuelled the many excuses that the powers that be continually use to justify the reasons for psychological manipulation and perception management of the masses, but it also continues amongst the ranks of certain groups and individuals who “claim” to be fighting to “expose the truth” about what happened on 9/11. An article posted by Andrew Johnson in February 2014 (entitled “9/11 and Cold Fusion – a Possible Attempt to Rewrite History?”) evidentially examines the continuing nature of the latter phenomenon. I have also reposted the article here on this website and included the links to both in the footnotes of this article. [12]

There are many people – for all manner of reasons – who would quite happily consign 9/11 to a closed page of the history books.  We are often told that to keep the subject alive in the public consciousness is disrespectful to the memory of the victims, that it fuels the fires of extremism throughout the world, that there are no real answers to be found and that the events were as “officially” accounted. These are convenient notions (and in some cases outright lies) designed to keep people from seeing the truth. It should always be our obligation to ask questions and expose lies wherever they exist.  If nothing else, we owe it to ourselves, to our loved ones, to all of our fellow human beings, to always seek out the truth.
If those who perpetuate lies and cover ups had their way, each and every one of us would be mindless automatons – born into servitude, both living and dying the same way. Our freedom lies with our ability to question and examine our “reality”.

If we bury our heads in ignorance, then there really is little hope.
The Truth Seeker’s Guide.

[1] An incredible amount of detailed information on this subject can be found here: The Material relates to Tavistock pioneer Eric L. Trist – notably: The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations Foundation (History, Research and Publications 1941 – 1989), "The Social Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology" - Volume I - The Socio-Psychological Perspective, Volume II - The Socio-Technical Systems Perspective, & Volume III - The Socio-Ecological Perspective. See also: Dr. John Coleman, "Conspirators' Hierarchy - The Story of The Committee of 300", 1992 -
[2] Naomi Klein has written an interesting book on this related subject called “The Shock Doctrine” – Knopf Canada, 2007, ISBN 978-0676978001
[3] See: Tavistock Institute Quotes -
[4] See also:
[5] The “academic” perspective is that source amnesia is an “episodic memory disorder” – an affliction rather than a common psychological trait - see: However, the trait appears to be quite common in human behaviour, at least on a superficial and generic level.
[6] "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century", September 2000 (pg. 6 / pdf version: pg. 18)
[7] Ibid. (Pg. 51 - 52 / pdf version: pg. 64 - 65) Iraq is heavily emphasised, being referenced 24 times in the reports seventy-odd pages (ninety pages in the pdf version).
[8] Ibid. (Pg. 51 / pdf version: pg. 63)
[9] Zbigniew Brzezinski, "Terrorized by 'War on Terror'", The Washington Post, March 25, 2007 -
[10] Dr Judy Wood’s website: See also: Dr. Judy Wood, “Where Did The Towers Go? – The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11” -
[11] Andrew Johnson, “9-11 – Finding the Truth” - His thoroughly extensive research (on a variety of subjects) can found at the website:
[12] Andrew Johnson, “9/11 and Cold Fusion – a Possible Attempt to Rewrite History?” (03 Feb 2014) See: &

Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One -
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two -
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics -

No comments: