Damning Documents - Part 2: Report From Iron Mountain

   For anyone who spends anytime looking into aspects of a hidden global agenda, they will inevitably encounter a document entitled “The Report From Iron Mountain”. Whilst some have debated the validity of the ‘Report’ (including claims of genuine authorship, which I shall come to later), others cite it as an example of those, in the upper echelons of power, postulating strategies that could be implemented to advance the cause of an agenda.

   Report From Iron Mountain was released into the public domain in the mid-1960s via one Leonard C Lewin. Lewin purported to have met with an acquaintance, who he ambiguously named “John Doe”. It seems that “John Doe” wanted to remain anonymous because of his alleged connection to The Report. Doe claimed to be one of 15 prominent individuals who had been approached to form a think tank called “The Special Study Group”. The group would be given unrestricted access to both top level documentation and any ‘expert’ who could assist with their research. The purpose of this research was to investigate alternate social, political and economic replacement systems that could be implemented, should the world achieve a state of “permanent peace”.

   The Report claims that the Special Study Group met regularly for two and a half years before producing the final report. Doe claimed that the first and last meetings were held at Iron Mountain, an “underground nuclear hideout for hundreds of large American corporations” with “substitute corporate headquarters“, near Hudson, New York. It was at the last meeting here that the group debated the issue of The Report’s disclosure. Despite the group never explicitly being charged with (or sworn to) secrecy, the group decided it should remain classified. Only Doe believed that it should go public. The final report was submitted to the government ‘Interagency’ and shortly after both the said agency and the study group decided it should be suppressed indefinitely.

   Whilst much of this could be accused of being plagiarised from the elaborate plot of a James Bond novel, it was the tone and content of the  ‘Report’ that raised alarm bells for some. The document uses an almost unemotional, surgical and strategic like approach to analyse the potential systems that could replace the need for a military (and the global dependency on it) during permanent peacetime. Some of these replacement systems are shocking in their implications…

   The Study Group takes it as a given that the entire global system would fall into wreck and ruin if “peace broke out”. The Report details how politics, society, culture, belief, economics and nation states are totally dependant on or connected to the military system and the need for war to allow it to function fully. It also highlights how global systems of codified law, institutions of policing, emergency war powers, distribution patterns, the class system, etc, had all been established and maintained via a model akin to “military victors dealing with defeated enemies”. Therefore, a military style contingency model or “war system” would need to be established as an inevitable replacement.

   The first area of scrutiny is “Economic”. The Report claims that economic systems need to be inherently “wasteful” to survive: “modern industrial societies can be defined as those which have developed the capacity to produce more than is required for their economic survival”. It also surmises that “most of the major industrial advances known to history, beginning with the development of Iron, could never have taken place” without a war system. Whilst it would be difficult to argue with certain aspects of this notion, the alternatives proposed are surprising to say the least.

   The initial proposed scenario of a social welfare system that gives everybody instant access to complete medical care, a full (degree level) education,  housing (clean, comfortable, safe and spacious), mass public transportation, clean water, food, expanded forests and parks, the total end of pollution and a societal wide elimination of poverty (including a guaranteed annual income); appears Utopian. It was ultimately dismissed by the Study Group. Not because it wouldn’t work, but because it would only work in the short term. With all problems sorted, what would money be spent on next?! It is shocking to think that this proposal is considered “inadequate because it would be far too cheap”! The Report then considers the “development of a long range sequence of space research projects with largely unattainable goals”. It also considers the development of a “giant antimissile / missile complex”. Do either of the latter two sound familiar?

   The second area is “Political”. This looks at the nature of national sovereignty and how nations need to be pitted against each other to create a “political authority from some source”, without resulting in a war scenario. The report considers a “well armed international peace force” little more than a military operation in disguise. It does wonder whether this could be combined with a large scale “economic threat”, but surmises that it would lack the “capacity to evoke credibility”. Something resembling this scenario is, coincidentally,  playing out today.

   The Report then discusses some shocking possible means to create political stability. “Uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by ‘creatures from other planets’”, whilst connecting the UFO phenomenon with this system to add legitimacy and commencing a program of cultural and artistic zeitgeist that could stir fear and apprehension in the population. The Report proposes that a similar scenario could be played out with the use of purposeful pollution that would heighten fears regarding Global Warming. In any case, the final conclusion here, is that “such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions”. If true, the implications of this scenario would be huge…

   Next up is “Sociological”. Here, a non military-national service, to deal with “undesirables”, is discussed.  Under this heading are: “the socially disaffected, the economically unprepared, the psychologically unconformable, the ‘hard core’ delinquents, the incorrigible ‘subversives’ and the rest of the unemployable”. It then points to the benefit of population control: in the form of artificial insemination, birth control medication that could be introduced through “water supplies and essential foodstuffs” (which the Study Group claim is already in development) and a “direct eugenic management” of population growth. The notion here is that “excess population is tar material”.

   The document then touches on “Cultural And Scientific” aspects, with the opinion that the arts (without the stimulus of a war system) would become hollow and vacuous, serving no other purpose than merely decorative. Sadly, we are gradually seeing this today: in our music, art, television, cinema, literature, etc. It’s not happened totally, but it’s getting there. 

   The Study Group also talks about a modern social and psychological form of “slavery” that could act as an inhibitor. They surprisingly refer to the works of Wells, Orwell and Huxley, but point out that a modern system would need to utilise a modern “mythological or religious structure”. If true, I wonder at this point whether modern mass media and information dissemination has become a principle conduit of sociological and psychological slavery. Within this context, The Report’s idea of establishing the “antisocialist” and “undesirable” aspects of society as the “alternate enemy”, has credence. 

   Bizarrely, The Report then highlights “social purification” and “blood games…  in the manner of The Spanish Inquisition”…

   The final aspect is “Ecological”, where The Report reiterates various aspects already covered in the previous sections. It does make a strange comment though: “It must be kept in mind that the momentum given to scientific progress by the great wars of the past century, and even more by the anticipation of World War 3, is intellectually and materially enormous”. People wanted a World War 3?!!

   The Report’s conclusions generally consider a military system as the preferable scenario. The Study Group does believe though, that the alternatives they presented are credible and realistically attainable if necessary.
   Report From Iron Mountain (allegedly) contained, within it’s entirety, 604 exhibits of statistical support date. The Study Group claimed that these were left out for the purpose of “non-technical” people. These addendums have never surfaced, which has fuelled speculation about The Report’s nature as a possible hoax.

   Additional to this data was a preliminary manual that explained a forecasting technique / information system (called Peace Games”) that was developed help The Study Group to “approximate the effects of disparate social phenomenon on other social phenomenon… a superior capacity to interrelate data with no apparent common points of reference, using algorithms”. John Doe claimed that The Advanced Research Projects Agency (Department Of Defence), General Electric and several other organisations had developed similar types of systems. To this day, no system labelled “Peace Games” is known (publicly) to exist, although it may exist under another name. The science of statistical forecasting has come a long way since the 1960s, although accuracy seems to be largely dependant on established rules, laws of nature, cosmological constants, etc. Some claim that Futurology or “Future Studies” and the ability to forecast more long term scenarios, has moved the science forward in other areas. Note has also been given to the mathematical study of optimising objects, called “Game Theory”. Are any of these areas related to “Peace Games” system? It is possible… but without harder evidence, it remains pure speculation.

   The Report itself has languished in controversy ever since Leonard C Lewin himself claimed that “Report From Iron Mountain” was a hoax, that it was meant to be a social and political satire and that he authored it. Many ‘mainstream’ websites label the book as fiction (under the subheading of satire), but this hasn’t stopped many from believing that it’s origins are much more suspect.

   In November 1967, “US News And World Report” claimed to have had confirmation of the reality of The Report, from a government official. It is also claimed that when President Lyndon Johnson read the report, he “hit the roof” and ordered it suppressed for all time. Several sources were also said to have revealed that orders were sent to U.S. embassies, instructing them to emphasize that the book had no relation to U.S. Government policy. On November 26, 1976, Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith cited the report's authenticity “because he had been invited to participate in its creation; that although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project secret”.

   There is also the strange remark in the report relating to “the breakdown of ecological balance anticipated after a thermonuclear war”. The Report claims that (under DOD guidance) the RAND Corporation had “planning under way” and that the DOD had “begun to stockpile birds, for example, against the expected proliferation of radiation resistant insects, etc”. A few years ago, an anonymous researcher claimed to be able to confirm this project, allegedly labelled “Operation: Keyhole”. The identity of this individual has never come to light and his research has subsequently disappeared from the internet. If anyone can shed any light on this, please let me know. It may be something that could confirm or deny the authenticity of The Report.

   Finally, we also have reference to a location called “Iron Mountain”, near Hudson, New York… an underground bunker like vault of corporate information. Whilst I don’t wish to infer that the following organisation is the Iron Mountain named in The Report, there is a company called “Iron Mountain“, which was founded in an underground facility near Hudson, New York, in 1951. The company stores and maintains materials for clients, including records, electronic files, medical data and e-mail, according to one of it’s annual reports. It works with more than 150,000 corporations in North America, Europe, Latin America and Asia Pacific. The company went public in 1996 and joined the S&P 500 Index in January 2009, according to the filing…

   The reason that Report From Iron Mountain elicits a shocked response from many, speaks for itself really. The glorification of a War System, the dismissal of a far reaching and poverty removing Welfare System because it is “too cheap”, false flag threats, fear induced trauma, slavery, the list goes on. Whilst I do concede that I can’t prove “The Report” as genuine, I find the huge number of coincidences telling. It can’t really ALL be coincidence that the systems proposed, now seem to be in existence, 50 years later…

Can It?

Next up: “Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars”.
All The Best,
The Truth Seeker’s Guide.


Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html

Damning Documents - Part 1: Rebuilding America's Defences

   In September of 2000, a neoconservative Washington think-tank called The Project For The New American Century, published a document entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defences'. This particular opus, like many other key documents over the years, quickly became the topic of huge debate and discussion in the Truth Community. Such ‘damning documents’ (as they have become known) are often cited as possible, quantifiable evidence of an inside job, cover up or ‘conspiracy’. For others they are simply the subject of speculation. Over the next few posts, I will endeavour  to examine a few of these key articles, look at their origins and authenticity… and their implications.

   Rebuilding America’s Defences (or RAD), was seized as particularly damning because of it’s immediately authentic origins. The authors and those involved with Project For The New American Century, held  (or were soon to hold) key positions of financial, military and political influence.

   Amongst their number were the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, and Elliot Abrams. These (along with many others) became intricate in the Bush years in the White House.

   At first glance, RAD appears to be a policy document that outlines detailed aspects of America’s future plans to create a system of global dominance. It discusses ways and means to carry out this policy, including more ’unconventional’ methods.  One such observation has been scrutinized to death, dismissed as coincidence by some and held up as a smoking gun by others.  It is the well known quote from page 52. When discussing possible ways to expedite the policies therein, it states: "Further, 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 Harbour". In other words: a huge attack on American soil.

   The significance of this should not be underestimated. There has been much research relating to Pearl Harbour as an “allowed to happen” or “false flag” event, that served as the catalyst for public supported, US entry into World War 2. The authors of RAD clearly understood the true meaning of a statement like that. A year later 9/11 happened. An event that served as the perfect catalyst for public supported, US instigation of the War On Terror. The subsequent war also fitted perfectly with the lengthy policy outlines that were proposed in RAD. If this is merely coincidence, then it’s a biggy!

   There are 3 central notions at the heart of RAD: a “Pax Americana”, securing a “Global Hegemony” and “Using The Military To Gain An Empire”. The conceited notion of “Pax Americana” involves working hard to maintain the US’s position as the world’s “sole superpower”, following the end of the ‘Cold War’. It encourages intervention in countries that are idealogically opposed to The West, "multiple simultaneous large-scale wars" and the pervasion of “American Peace” and “Democracy”. It also places extreme emphasis on “pre-eminent action”. When you look at the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya, the sabre rattling at Iran and Syria and the intelligence agencies’ involvement in social uprising that have created attempted regime-change in Egypt and Yemen, the existence of “Pax Americana” becomes all to clear.

   At this point in RAD, attention is also brought to “Homeland Defence” (coincidently similar to  “Homeland Security”, which came into existence following 9/11) and several other aspects, including disregarding the power of the United Nations. In this regard, RAD states: "Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than traditional 'peacekeeping' missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations, as the failure of the UN mission in the Balkans and the relative success of NATO operations there attests. Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality. . . . American troops, in particular, must be regarded as part of an overwhelmingly powerful force".

   The second central notion of RAD, “Securing Global Hegemony”, specifically talks about an “Axis Of Evil” which includes the likes of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It states that any nation pursuing a Nuclear program will be viewed as a threat and talks at length about the threat posed by the rise of China to “great power status”. It also discusses the validity of “Regime Change”. Does any of this sound familiar?!

   The final notion, “Using The Military To Gain Empire”, talks about the multi-generational nature of the task and reinforces the idea that America might, must always remain at the core of these policies. "If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned US military preeminence". It goes on to justify the financial cost ($2.3 trillion, Mr Rumsfeld?!) and how that should be distributed throughout the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. RAD also places huge importance on establishing a huge network of US military bases overseas.

   It then expands the remit to larger areas of military means. These means include “Nuclear Expansion” (Obama agreed to cut the number of nuclear weapons several years ago, but the real number is unknown), “Control Of Space” (unknown but highly probable) and Control of the "International Commons": meaning a ‘Star Wars’ like missile program or a missile shield system. "An effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defences is a prerequisite for maintaining American pre-eminence" .The latter means is very real and very much in the process of happening today. In fact, in the last few months, Hilary Clinton has been (both secretly and publicly) signing off the commencement of missile and radar placements with several countries.

   The prospects for the “Future Forms of Warfare“ (which the document proposes) include:
Soldiers in “encapsulated, climate-controlled, powered fighting suits, laced with sensors, and boasting chameleon-like 'active' camouflage“. Drugs to heighten the senses and control the emotions of soldiers in the form of  “skin-patch pharmaceuticals” to “help regulate fears, focus concentration and enhance endurance and strength“. This is something we are already seeing, in the form of vaccinations and pills that soldiers receive prior to going to a combat zone. Although unconfirmed, there is also speculation that army food supplies are tainted with such elements to provide a ‘top-up’. Superior, highly precise and lethal weaponry is also discussed, meaning that a “squad of seven soldiers (are) able to dominate an area the size of the Gettysburg battlefield”.

   It states that “air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft.”. This is something commonplace now. Unmanned drones are used all across the Middle East to carry out surveillance and combat operations. These drones have also been seen over the skies of Western countries… what they are up to is anyone’s guess!

   Even more shocking is the intention to use “advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes” that “may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool". This is potentially a nightmare scenario.

   It also discusses new forms of war including: Cyber Warfare. Here, it discusses systems whereby the US military has “the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks”. This is another aspect which is very much a reality today. The internet is seen a huge threat to the West’s global dominance and has seen the military and intelligence agencies work hand in hand with corporate internet giants, to develop extensive systems that could ’potentially’ limit or even shut down access to the internet.

   It is telling that, whilst most of the areas covered in “Rebuilding America’s Defences” have either been actively pursued or come to pass during the Republican / Bush Administration, the sentiment has remained very much the same during the Democrat / Obama Administration.  This shows that it is not only a bi-partisan way of thinking, but also a systemic intention… something that goes hand in hand with the very existence of the American (and Western) military industrial complex and (by extension) corporate systems.

   The real crime hidden within the pages of this document, is not the spectre of the future of global warfare and western dominance… it is not even the eerie prediction of 9/11 or the fact that it seems to predict the exact strategy of US Foreign Policy for the next ten years. It is the complete and total disregard of the individual. Whilst those from Project For The New American Century (and all those inextricably linked to them) maintain that these proposals are to safeguard and protect the sovereignty and security of The West, I suspect that it is their beloved infrastructure and global reach that they wish to protect rather than ordinary individuals.

Protecting people and keeping them safe is furthest from their minds.
Where the individual is concerned, it is the capacity to control.
That, and another (possibly) ‘damning document’ will be the subject of my next post.
To Be Continued…

Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html

9/11 Legacy - Part 3: "The Day The Light Came On!"

   In February 2003, Tony Blair’s Labour Government issued it’s ‘proof’ of Iraq’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction” capability, to UK journalists. These documents were used to justify its involvement in the invasion of Iraq. The documents became known as “The Dodgy Dossier”. The reason for this label became clear when numerous journalists and researchers quickly discovered that much of it’s content had been plagiarised from various, less than authoritative sources. “The most notable source was an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi entitled Iraq's Security & Intelligence Network: A Guide & Analysis, which was published in the September 2002 issue of the Middle East Review of International Affairs” (Wikipedia). Aspects were repeated verbatim (including typographical errors), certain amendments were made to strengthen the alleged findings and no reference was made to the origins of the information, other than "a number of sources, including intelligence reports".

   This dossier became the exclusive argument for the Iraq invasion and used by George Bush in his “State Of The Union” address. An address signalling the forthcoming war. It became extremely important that this dossier be taken at face value, considering that in July 21, 2002, British Cabinet Office briefing papers warned officials that any war, executed on the basis of regime change, was illegal. Also relevant is the (July 23, 2002) secret British Downing Street memo warning officials that Saddam Hussein was not a threat, that President Bush was determined to invade Iraq and U.S. officials were fixing their intelligence and facts around their policy to go to war. In September 2002, one of Tony Blair's most senior aides told intelligence chiefs their draft dossier failed to demonstrate "an imminent threat" and that Saddam Hussain “does not demonstrate the motive to attack his neighbours, let alone the West". The UK government knew the risks, yet proceeded anyway.

   With Bush‘s claims that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more" and daily news articles telling the public that such weapons were capable of hitting the west within “45 minutes”, those behind the war plans felt secure in the knowledge that an uninformed public would support the war unquestioningly. Whilst a few people could already see the true agenda at play, most were still in the dark. However, it was (ironically) the BBC that was about to change this situation.



Andrew Gilligan

   Andrew Gilligan wrote a report for the BBC, claiming that the Dossiers had been deliberately exaggerated. His research led him to an unauthorised, off the record interview with Dr David Kelly, a British scientist and expert on biological warfare (employed by the Ministry Of Defence) and formerly a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. Kelly was asked by the British Government to proof-read all aspects of the Iraq Dossiers and was very concerned about many aspects of the documents, specifically the “45 minute” claim. In his interview with Gilligan, Kelly told him of his concerns over the 45-minute claim and allegedly ascribed its inclusion in the dossier to Alastair Campbell, the director of communications for Prime Minister Tony Blair, in order to “sex up” the Dossiers. He also asked Gilligan not to reveal his identity in these articles. The report was broadcast on 29 May 2003 on the Today programme, stating that the 45-minute claim had been placed in the dossier by the government, even though it knew the claim was dubious.

   In June 2003, Kelly visited Iraq to inspect (what was claimed to be) some mobile WMD production labs. Kelly was unhappy with the description of the trailers and spoke off the record to The Observer on 15 June 2003. He said, “They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons”.

   Andrew Gilligan wrote a follow up to the original item on The Today Show, in The Mail newspaper. Here, he directly identified Alastair Campbell as the person responsible for adding the 45 minute claim. The UK Government immediately denied any involvement in the intelligence content of the dossier and lambasted the BBC, calling them liars and pushing them to reveal the name of the source. Kelly subsequently contacted his superiors saying, "I am convinced that I am not his primary source of information". The MOD publicly admitted that “an employee had come forward who might be the source”. When pushed, they confirmed it was Dr David Kelly.

   It is believed that this was strategic decision made by Tony Blair in order to discredit Kelly directly. Many individuals went to great pains to muddy his character, describing him as a “Walter Mitty like, fantasist. The Government also launched a huge operation (coincidently spearheaded by Alastair Campbell) to effectively destroy any remaining independent elements of journalism in the BBC. Initially targeting Andrew Gilligan, they also successfully managed to decapitate the BBC by forcing Director General Greg Dyke out of his job. It would be fair to say that, if any independence of reportage remained in the BBC, it probably ceased to exist that day… something that we are now truly feeling the repercussions of in all media aspects of Western society.



Dr David Kelly

   Dr Kelly was called to appear (on 15 July) before the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Select Committee (which was investigating the issues Gilligan had reported) where he was aggressively scrutinised about his actions. He denied meeting with Gilligan. On July 18, Dr Kelly was found dead in some woods near his home in Oxfordshire. The ‘official’ account states that he committed suicide through an overdose of painkillers and significant blood loss caused by slashes to the wrists. ‘Depression and Stress’ was related as the reason.

  Independent investigations and research into his death has discovered some curious aspects. It appears Dr Kelly’s body was moved from it’s original resting place, to a spot that became known as the ‘official’ site of his death. It appears that both the drug intake and degree of arterial injury weren’t substantial enough to cause death. There was a strong police presence near his home just before his disappearance. Also huge aerials were reported as being erected in his garden!  A few months before his death,  British Diplomat David Boucher asked Kelly what would happen if the West were to invade Iraq. Kelly answered by claiming that he “would probably be found dead in the woods”.

   Whatever subsequent inquiries say and despite the protestations of politicians, medical examiners and journalists, it seems likely that Dr David Kelly was murdered. Was it to silence him because he didn’t exactly tow the party line? We may never know…



Robin Cook

The following awakening was astonishing. In politics, MPs and cabinet minister alike, showed their disapproval of the Iraq War and the intelligence that led to it. Politicians like Norman Baker and Clare Short raised their heads (even if briefly) above the parapet to join the growing chorus of dissent. Some like Robin Cook, who died as a result of a ‘heart attack’ on a mountain in Wales , possibly met the same fate as Dr Kelly.  Hundreds of thousands of people marched through the streets in peaceful protest against the wars, carrying placards and banners with slogans like “Not In My Name”, “No War For Oil”, “No WMDs” and “Bliar” (Blair the Liar). The powers that be had been caught, well and truly, with their pants down.

   The likes of George Bush and Tony Blair would never be looked at in the same way again. Of course, all of this is compounded by the fact that, in the end, no Weapons Of Mass Destruction were ever found anywhere in Iraq… even to this day. In January 2004, ex-US arms hunter, David Kay, stated on record that there were no WMDs in Iraq. In December of the same year, a US report from the Iraq Survey Group stated on record that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The very next day, the CIA made the same statement. In December, an ex-CIA agent claimed he was sacked for not faking intelligence reports on Iraq’s WMD capability. By the end of the year, The White House decided that it was no longer looking for WMDs.

   In 2005, George Bush made a staggering comment: That the US was in Iraq because of 9/11. The statement is misleading, 9/11 actually allowed the circumstances in order to get away with Iraq… at least initially. Today, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Western governments and mainstream media has an edict that runs scared of connecting Al-Qaeda and 9/11 to Iraq. Whether illegal or not, the instigators of the war have gone unpunished for a crime they now call “regime change”. This buzz phrase is now the tactic they have latched onto as a means to commit unspeakable acts across the world. The most important factor, though, is that with Iraq, we finally saw the truth exposed for what it was. These events proved that governments cannot always successfully hide the truth from the people. This scares them to death. In the UK, more people believe they were lied to over Iraq, than those that believe the government propaganda. This is truly a victory for the truth.

   It is here that we should remember the road travelled. Iraq came from 9/11, even though it had nothing to do with 9/11. There is a legacy to 9/11 that should be discussed. It is disrespectful to NOT ask the questions. We need to expose the lies. Those who were TRULY responsible for 9/11 should be called to account. This is how we can respect and honour the victims. All of them. People like Dr David Kelly, anybody who has been innocently accused of crimes and tortured to death as a result of the destruction of civil liberties, anybody who has spoken up and disappeared, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in illegal wars, the oppressed and all those who died on September 11, 2001.

For all this, we should continue to remember 9/11.
Not for trite reasons… but for the right reasons.
The Truth Seeker’s Guide.


Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html

9/11 Legacy - Part 2: "Illegal Endeavours..."

   History shows us that part of the legacy of 9/11 was the “War On Terror”. Although this war began in Afghanistan, it was obvious that it was never going to be confined to this country alone. The eventual scope of this endeavour appeared disproportionate with the implications of the ‘official’ account of 9/11. Documented accounts show that the Bush administration (with the support of several other western powers) had considered both extensive military incursions in Syria and Pakistan, whilst an invasion of Iran was discussed on a weekly basis. With this, the public began to hear the alarm bells and questioned the true nature of these events. What was the real agenda behind the “War On Terror”? Tens years after 9/11, it is hindsight and information leaks and disclosures that have shown why questioning the real agenda was justified. The next stage of the “War On Terror” began “officially” in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq. However, like Afghanistan, evidence shows that this target was on the cards long before 9/11.

   It has always seemed strange that the turn of the millennium showed such obvious aggressive intentions toward Iraq. Strange given the historical context of Iraq’s (and by association, Saddam Hussein) relationship with the US. There is a tangible history of business deals between the two countries and more importantly, an arms deal. The US armed Iraq to the teeth many times throughout the latter part of the twentieth century (see: Iran / Iraq War) and the extent of this arming was fully realised when US troops discovered that most of the small arms, ammunition, rockets and many vehicles (seized from fighters, post invasion), were US-made.

   Many have theorised about “what went wrong”, in order to change the nature of this relationship. Some have speculated about Saddam’s plans to sell oil via a system other than the petro-dollar, some have talked about Global Agenda plans and others have simply pointed to financial reasons. It is difficult to truly know. As with Afghanistan, the usual suspects of business and military contractors profited hugely from the Iraq War and on a much larger scale than Afghanistan. Recently, it has been revealed that billions of dollars were wasted on black hole projects that certainly never benefited the people of Iraq, improved the infrastructure or helped to rebuild the country. This is simply nothing more than a crime of greed and corruption, but I’m digressing here…

   Although it was perhaps the first Gulf War that set the precedent for Iraq always being an eventual target of the “War On Terror”, it seems that the first credible evidence appeared in late January of 2001... A full 7 months before 9/11 and 2 years before the actual invasion. This evidence relates to a Treasury Department memo received by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on January 24 2001 which contained a summary of a "military plan" for a "post-Saddam Iraq" which was marked “secret“. O’Neill later admitted that, within days of George Bush entering the White House, the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq. Even former White House anti-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke later revealed, "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12. Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq". He also said that Rumsfeld said, “There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq".

   The pretence could be seen on September 10 2001, when Rumsfeld warned of Iraq’s pursuit of WMDs. In 2002, CNN reported that mid afternoon of 9/11, Rumsfeld began planning strike plans against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. On September 12, Rumsfeld insisted (at a Cabinet meeting) that Iraq “should be a principal target of the first round of terrorism". In October of 2001, former CIA Director James Woolsey said Iraq was likely involved in 9/11 and the ‘alleged’ anthrax attacks of the time, and that “the US will probably confront Saddam Hussein as part of its war on terrorism“.

   From this period onwards, Iraq was inextricably connected to 9/11, despite there being no evidence to prove it. The West began to build a case for the invasion of Iraq. In February 2002, US military intelligence warned the Bush administration that a captured Al Qaeda operative had given fabricated information that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in how to make chemical and biological weapons. Despite this information being totally unreliable and despite being warned by intelligence agencies that the information “may be faulty”, President Bush used this information in a (October 2002) speech to try to link Iraq to 9/11. On February 5, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council about alleged WMDs in Iraq and alleged connections with Al Qaeda.

   Despite the continued search for, and lack of, credible evidence to connect Iraq, the West appeared unfettered and unconcerned. The rhetoric was that it was always ‘inevitable’. The true arrogance of the ‘Agenda’ players was witnessed in January 2003 in a war memo showing that George Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq, regardless of whether or not they had the backing of the UN. The memo also quoted him as  “discussing ways they could provoke Saddam Hussein into a confrontation“. By March 2003, Iraq had been invaded.

   The most damning proof of a cover up began to unfold in George Bush’s State Of The Union address on January 28, 2003. It was here that Bush uttered those now infamous 16 words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". This intelligence became mired in controversy when columnist Robert Novak exposed CIA operative Valerie Plame, the wife of retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson. This is key because Wilson was sent to Niger, Africa in February 2002 to investigate the possible purchase of Uranium Yellowcake by Iraq. His conclusion that this was “highly unlikely” was considered by the CIA to be “less than definitive”.  With the onset of the ‘British Intelligence Reports’ and Bush’s statement of evidence in his address, many in US and British politics began to accuse the Bush administration of ignoring prior intelligence and eventually added to the notion that the President “lied the country to war”.

   The involvement of the British Government and Intelligence Agencies, at this point, is key to understanding why Iraq became known as an “illegal war”. As early as October 4, 2001, the U.K. Government released a 70 point dossier as evidence against Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda networks and their alleged involvement in 9/11. Both experts and media reports stated that their case against Osama was "thin on facts,"  "full of conjecture," and "still no smoking gun". It seems bizarre that when the Iraq scenario came around, the British Government continued, in part, to refer to this document. This is despite there being no real relationship between this 70 point dossier and the ‘Iraq Case’.

Throughout 2002, Tony Blair’s government began to work on building a case against Iraq as part of their commitment to a U.S.-led Iraq invasion. By early 2003, The UK released a document entitled “Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation “, now known as “The Dodgy Dossier”.

Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, they had inadvertently opened Pandora’s Box…
To Be Continued…


Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html

9/11 Legacy - Part 1: "The Road To War"

   The central notion of the ‘official’ 9/11 account, is that of the perpetrators. Namely Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. As this particular operation was based in Afghanistan, it seemed logical that this country would be the first target of the US “War On Terror”… a concept seemingly born in the aftermath of 9/11. Eventually, this ‘battle for freedom and democracy’ would expand into 2 wars and an eye on several other areas in the Middle East.

   Because this quest stemmed from an event that had all the hallmarks of a ‘false flag event’, it seemed logical that (by extension) the War On Terror would also need to scrutinised for it’s credibility. Truth researchers didn’t need to look very far before they had serious questions to ask. In the fullness of time, mass public opinion was galvanised not so much by the questions of 9/11, rather the increasing questions of the morally and legally curious, conceit of this particular series of theatres.

   Millions were awakened to the true nature of our politicians and the dealings of corporate methods. People marched through the streets of the world’s cities carrying banners that showed the growing sentiments of an increasingly aware populace. The implications were (and still are) huge. The true legacy of 9/11 is the creation of the largest social revolution, possibly, in the history of modern civilisation. It is for this reason alone that the powers that be, feel compelled to reinforce their perspective of history. A total fear of mass realisation.

  It could be contended that had the West not reacted in any large scale way, 9/11 may have eventually been consigned to the quiet hole of history and those that attained awareness of global machinations would have remained in a very small minority, fringe group. The threat posed by our current global consciousness can be witnessed by the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s numerous speeches about “global mass awakening” and the dangers it poses. Our news media daily reminds us the fight for freedom in these countries, highlighted by yet another death of a western soldier. It is this, not a daily reminder of the events of 9/11, that shows the true façade behind the ‘official’ mask.

   The first war has been scrutinised for signs of the real agenda. Soon after 9/11, many pointed out the significance of the history behind the alleged 9/11 perpetrators. It has never escaped attention that Al-Qaeda (and by association Bin Laden) was born from “Soviet Era” days of the  Mujahideen. With USSR’s intervention in Afghanistan to tackle the increased threat from the Mujahideen, the US had found the perfect opportunity (what with Cold War tensions) to ingratiate themselves in the situation.

   History shows that during the Carter and Reagan administrations, the CIA (probably under the auspices of Bush Snr, Rumsfeld, Brzezinski and the like) financed, equipped and trained the Mujahideen on a huge, multi billion dollar scale. It should be noted (for the nitpickers) that the UK, Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan and other countries, also played a role in this particular endeavour. However, it was the US that held the lion’s share of involvement, for the longest period of time.

   It is also well documented that Bin Laden occupied a prominent position amongst the CIA backed operation. He was financed and equipped at length by the US in this period. With the end of the cold war, the Mujahideen collapsed into factional civil war engulfing the entire country. It was here that Al-Qaeda came into being, supported by the CIA, with the intention of becoming the dominant, victorious faction. A faction that in return would be most US friendly. “Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote that the word Al-Qaeda should be translated as "the database", and originally referred to the computer file of the thousands of  Mujahideen militants who were recruited and trained with CIA help to defeat the Russians” (Wikipedia). Robin Cook is an integral player in the bigger picture and I will discuss him in my next blog.

   History also shows that it may not have played out exactly as the US planned. The Taliban government became increasingly belligerent toward The West including stone walling the US gas pipeline from The Caspian Sea. Several companies including Unocal, a company with documented and lengthy connections to the administration in general (and George Bush specifically), had begun discussions with The Taliban in 1996 to begin construction of said pipeline. With things still stalled in 1998, a U.S. congressional hearing recorded a Unocal representative testify that “a gas pipeline through Afghanistan can't happen until there is a single internationally recognized stable government there“. He urged the US Government to use its influence to help find solutions to “all of the region's conflicts".  By the end of 1998, Unocal had withdrawn it’s plans due to “lack of support and funding”. However, it is interesting that in 1999, it was discovered that the U.S. had paid the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official in hopes of securing a stable government in Afghanistan in order to allow Unocal to build the pipeline. In May 2001, it was revealed that the US had given $43 million to Afghanistan, becoming the largest donor to Afghanistan for two years in a row. Within 8 months of 9/11, the US gas pipeline was given the go ahead.

   Another interesting aspect is Afghanistan’s production of Poppy Opium. There are detailed accounts going back hundreds of years showing The West’s involvement in the influence of the Opium trade. Again, the CIA has had extensive involvement in the global drug trade and not for morally righteous reasons either. You need only look into the Iran Contra scandal to see the connections.  By 2000, Afghanistan was responsible for 75% of the world’s Opium production. It seems strange that in July of the same year, The Taliban decided to ban cultivation of Opium Poppies in Afghanistan. By 2005, Opium production was surging again. In fact USA Today reported that the country was “in danger of becoming a narcotics state”.

   There was also the inevitable boom in business for other companies. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, “War is big business!”. The companies that secured the biggest deals were again (surprise, surprise), damningly connected to key administration individuals. Halliburton, of which Dick Cheney was CEO, gained massive middle eastern deals in the wake of 9/11 and the subsequent wars. These are just a few examples of the benefits that 9/11, and it’s repercussions, gave to US business and finance.

   Many have claimed that 9/11 was the justification needed to create these theatres of war. It’s a big accusation to make… but not without precedence. In June of 2001, the US government had already discussed the possibility of a limited military action against The Taliban. By July (strangely coinciding with the ban on Opium cultivation), the US had restructured this “limited military action”. Now there were detailed invasion plans on the drawing board, with an inception date of October 2001... What a coincidence.

   Documents show that US involvement in various peacekeeping operations were scheduled to continue no later than early September 2001. Both CBS and USA Today reported that The White House had approved plans to invade Afghanistan on September 4th, 2001. From this point on, huge numbers of US military troops, equipment and vehicles were dispatched to The Persian Gulf in anticipation of this plan.

   Of course, one week later, we have 9/11. Within an hour or so of the initial events, Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, The Taliban and Afghanistan were all blamed. By October (the pre-9/11 invasion date), the ‘coalition of the willing’ was there.

Unfortunately, this was only the beginning…
To Be Continued...


Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html

BBC's "9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip"

   Television coverage of the 10th anniversary of 9/11 has been somewhat different from what I expected. Granted there are still a few days to go yet, but it appears that the media propaganda machine has been completely bewildered as to how to go about their annual reconviction of the ‘official’ story. In the UK, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have all (aside a rehashed and laughable 9/11 Conspiracy Files ‘update’ from the BBC) taken the softly, softly approach this year, with the emphasis truly being on the tragedy/loss of life angle. Such programs (a correct use of the word if ever used) were book-ended with a reminder of said ‘official’ account of events and filled with endless examples of lives ended and families torn apart. Whilst I truly feel for these people and always endeavour to try never to besmirch or make a mockery of their memory, this approach is slightly more misleading than people may initially think. It is, sadly, one of the many callous examples of how broadcasters (especially the BBC, but  numerous others also) use to emotionally manipulate the sentiments and rationality of the viewer.

   The BBC finally decided to shift the gears today and present to us “9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip” on BBC Three. It was presented by comedian Andrew Maxwell, who took five “conspiracy theorists” on a trip to America to see if they could get them to “change their mind” about their particular views. They consisted of Charlotte Scott Hays, Emily Church, Shazin Nurse, Rodney Chavrimotoo (hope that’s right!) and, the now infamous, Charlie Veitch.

   The first five minutes set the standard BBC tone, with a voice over by Mr Maxwell, where he reinforced the ‘official’ story and stated that he was “as certain as certain can be that Osama Bin Laden ordered the attacks”. This was followed by an introduction to the five “theorists”, interspersed with shots of them crying and shouting at each other. Without going to far off track, you may remember (from my “Popcorn For The Mind” blog series) that I looked into the media use of “love-bombing”, “divide and conquer” and “herd mentality” tactics in it’s programming. It’s certainly something worth looking out for in a re-watch of this program. These first five minutes are classic examples of social engineering aspects, with all the hallmarks of certain organisations: from Tavistock to Common Purpose. Methods that would have raised a knowing smile from the likes of researcher, Brian Gerrish!

   Andrew Maxwell pointed out that it was “unbelievable” that there were people out there who questioned the “truth” about 9/11. He first took the group to WTC Ground Zero, believing that by simply going there it would change their mind and giving them a “reality check”. This trite act is akin to taking a group of Ufologists to the desert in New Mexico and hoping they’ll raise their hands to the sky and shout, “My God I’ve Seen The Light!”. It trivialises any real attempt to present a critical analysis of 9/11 research, right off the bat.

   He went on to declare that the 9/11 Commission was “totally independent”… you only have to look into the people involved (including the farcically initial period with Henry Kissinger) to know that this is just a biased and misleading comment.

   The specific theories were represented by half a dozen of the (what I consider anyway) weaker aspects of 9/11 speculation. “Amateur pilots couldn’t have done it”. The program then went on to take the group to a flight school where one was taken up in a tiny two man plane and proceeded to fly it above Manhattan for ten minutes. The ‘expert’ flight instructor commented that “if you’re tender with the controls, you’ll probably land it first flight”. He claimed it was easy to navigate and land on a runway, but also said that it was “easier to fly a big jet”. If that were the case, then why isn’t everybody flying jets for British Airways within a day of signing up?! They then dropped in a sound bite of Shazin saying that she thought it would be easy to do it with a Boeing. Well I’m convinced already!…

   This section was closed with the statement: “All they had to do was fly straight and level”. Clearly this is a ridiculous observation. You need only look at the ‘official’ flight path, altitude and angle of Flight 77...

   Next up was the view that the US government screwed up their security procedures. This was quickly dismissed by a quick recollection of the ‘official’ account, with every aspect including the word “Did”. United Airlines pilot Buck Rogers (yes really!) made a staggering remark that there had never been one single aircraft hijacking in the US before 9/11. Where do these people learn their history?!

   At this point, it was obligatory to show the group arguing and shouting at each other, whilst Mr Maxwell (apt name!) called them “childlike” and “gullible”. Next stop was the controlled demolition theory. No physics, simple mathematics or laws of gravity here. Just demolition ‘expert’ Brent Blanchard (do some serious research on this man, you’ll be surprised what you find…) and his reassuring claim that “buildings NEVER fall OVER”, they are simply “compressed”. By now, Charlie Veitch was presented as having an epiphany: “It makes sense now”. The producers must have rubbing their hands with glee.

   Onto the means used to create a controlled demolition and Rodney was next to be ridiculed. “You would think that a science grad would be more rational”, said Andrew Maxwell (another example of nothing more than insult). Another ‘expert’ displayed combustion of a steel girder which was barely scratched, thus the “conspiracy theory” was definitively debunked. Charlie Veitch was, again viewed, voicing his opinion: “It’s becoming more and more unlikely that this stuff was used to bring down buildings… and planes DID mess up the buildings”. At this point, they showed Charlotte upset because “Charlotte has been relying on Charlie to back her up”.
Onto The Pentagon . The producers obviously didn’t want to touch this one at all, for fear of showing themselves up. They simply presented the ‘official’ commission approved animation of Flight 77’s impact… the one that removes an engine from the schematics in order that it fit’s the pattern of damage (see parts 7 and 8 of my 9/11 blog series, to understand this crucial evidence). Maxwell said here, “Do you think a missile could go in there unnoticed by the public… I think that’s nuts”. Please Mr Maxwell, much more of your profound knowledge and I’ll have to admit defeat and close my blog down…

   At this point I nearly choked from laughing when he said, “What’s more important, the truth or the right answer!”. If it wasn’t such a serious matter, I’d have almost mistaken it for a “Carry On…” film. More arguing and he accuses them of “sulking”. He finally shows himself for the dignified and morally superior being by walking off and saying, “Fuck Them!”. He then claims that the group “selectively hear things” and mentions something about Israel and MI5, claims that “Santa does not exist, how do you know he doesn’t exist… this is ludicrous”.

   A demonstration of physics followed, in order to explain the crash of Flight 93. This involved a pebble and a mound of flour, followed by the group throwing some eggs and water bombs. Seriously! You couldn’t make this stuff up!

   Onto voice analysis of the ‘passengers’ of ‘93 and an expert who bravely commented that the calls could have been edited or faked, however they were not really practical in “realtime”. Lots of crying for the finale, as the group met the mother of Mark Bingham. She said that her son often used his first name and surname in personal conversations because of habits he’d picked up in his profession  and commented that people “on the internet” had “not many brains”.

   The whole ordeal ended with more arguing and shouting and the final position of the group regarding 9/11. Charlie Veitch was praised as a “realist” because of his decision to renounce the “conspiracy” path and join the rest of the sheeple. At which point I could pretty much feel my brain running out of my ears and decided that an hour in the company of the BBC’s psychological manipulation machine was more than enough…

Top: Andy Thomas & David Icke
Bottom Left: Andrew Johnson
Bottom Right: Ian R Crane

   Overall, it was pretty much what I’d come to expect and wasn’t really surprised. I’ve maybe been a bit hard on Charlie Veitch and Andrew Maxwell. Sometimes, to coin a phrase, “they know not what they do”. I absolutely blame those further up the chain of command for ever approaching the matter in such a shallow and superficial way… but that was always inevitable. Imagine if someone in the BEEB had decided to take the likes of David Icke, Ian R Crane, Andrew Johnson and Andy Thomas on such a road trip?!! They probably could have only used about two minutes worth of footage. In fact, I can safely say that it would NEVER have happened.

   These people are ultimately afraid of the truth ever being revealed. There are literally hundreds, possibly thousands, of aspects that raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the ‘official’ 9/11 story. You cannot analyse a lie, cover up, inside job or “conspiracy” in one hour, with a superficial glance at 7 or 8 aspects. It simply won’t do. The fact that they keep coming back to the well, time and again, in such a derogatory manner is indicative of their need to continually reinforce dogma divert people from recognising their fears. And they are afraid, don‘t ever think they aren‘t. They are afraid of the implications, of people waking up, they are afraid of the reveal and they are afraid of YOU. Afraid because you can think and reason, learn and speak of it. Try not to get bogged down in semantics and arguments because, like the road trip, they’ll use that against you.

Be sensible, level headed and informed. I say this all the time but, at the risk of sounding like a scratched record, the truth really does speak for itself.
If we’re wise, we can show them how it’s really done!
Till Next Time,
The Truth Seeker’s Guide.

See also:
http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/more-bbc-conspiracy-road-trips-on-way.html


Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-one/paperback/product-23209429.html
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/science-fiction-and-the-hidden-global-agenda-2016-edition-volume-two/paperback/product-23209433.html
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics - http://www.lulu.com/shop/carl-james/what-really-happened-at-the-london-2012-olympics/paperback/product-23221527.html