May 7, 2013

False Flags Unveiled


With the Boston Marathon bombing still fresh in the public consciousness, and before that, the Sandy Hook shooting, the 'alternative press' is awash with references to 'false-flag' terrorism. A recent article on a blog [1] defined what constitutes a 'false flag attack,' and how it differs from a 'psy-op,' and how the two work together to condition the public. While it provides useful insight, I realized that...
what is also needed is a guide for people to be able to discern when an 'event' is a genuine 'terrorist attack' or another false-flag, staged event. Toward that objective, let's consider the distinguishing marks of a typical false-flag incident-- ten indicators that will tell you when an 'official explanation' doesn't pass the 'smell test.'

1. 'Drill for the drill' – one feature of false-flag attacks that comes up, time after time, is the occurrence of a 'practice exercise' by the police, or military, or security forces, on the very day, time and place of the purported incident.
You can go back to the ultimate false-flag of the 21st century, the attacks on NYC and DC on 9-11-01, and everyone knows that the CIA was having a 'drill' that day that just so happened to center around the scenario of high-jacked airliners being used to crash into buildings...while NORAD was also having a training exercise involving airborne attacks. How about that for all you 'coincidence theorists?'
Again, in London, on 7-7-05, security forces just happened to be conducting an exercise that envisioned a bombing in the underground and on the bus system. Gee-- how close to 'reality' could they have guessed?
Similarly, some kind of drill was conducted during the Boston Marathon bombing, as verified by eye-witness accounts. In this case, the authorities have denied that an exercise was under way, despite the evidence.
The idea behind these 'exercises' is that they provide convenient cover for (1) the presence of various government agents/troops/etc., (2) the excuse of confusion when people question why all the security measures failed, (3) a pretext for framing suitable 'patsies.' Many netizens have caught on to this ruse, and are spreading the word before the next staged drama.

2. Consider the date – Yes, the numbers that make up the date of the incident. Note that so many past incidents occurred on dates with curious number sequences-- e.g. 9-11 (9+1+1=11), 7-7-2005 (2+5=7), 3-11-04 (Madrid train bombs), 3-13-03 (Mumbai train bombings), 26-11-08 (Mumbai terrorist attacks), and so on it goes.
To a newcomer to the world of government terror, this will sound too esoteric to be real. But, put aside the doubts long enough to investigate, and you come to see the weird patterns. The fact is that the people who orchestrate these attacks are deeply connected with the occult or demonic realm. They really believe that certain numbers enhance the power of their 'majick tricks.' (If you don't believe me, just 'dial 911.')
You have to know that 7 and 11 are favorite occult numbers, but 8, 9 and 13 are also evident, depending on other 'mystical clues.' It's bizarre... but it applies.

3. The 'black-ops' connections – A common feature of many of the terrorist attacks-- whether failed or successful-- is the connection with government undercover operatives.
In very many cases, the fingered suspect(s) is/are revealed as being handled by the FBI, or the CIA, or MI5, the RCMP, or whatever. The story goes that these organizations were 'keeping a watchful eye' on these 'subversives.' If you really pay attention, you'll see that really, the gov't handlers were luring gullible young idealists into planning potential crimes, and often setting them up to be caught, either before or after carrying out the supplied plan. If 'before,' then the agency claims a successful interception of terrorist acts; if 'after,' they lament that their patsy was somehow able to elude them.
The Tsarnaev brothers are classic (and tragic) examples. Except in their case, there is reason to suspect that the CIA was using them to infiltrate overseas organizations, and then double-crossed the pair to take the rap for the Boston bombs.

4. Pay attention to on-site reports – As underscored in the above-cited article, the media are full, essential partners in pulling off a false-flag event, so don't expect to hear the truth from them... except by accident.
Often, the earliest reports from the scene will include correct details that are damning to the official story-line. These inadvertent 'slips' are invariably quickly removed and disappear down the proverbial black hole, never to be reported again. This happens in most FF operations because they are too complex to have every possible detail covered by the conspirators. If you noted a particular detail-- especially one that strikes a strange note-- and it later is never mentioned again, that's a clue to a 'FF op.'
Thanks to the Internet-- and alert netizens-- most of these slips are captured by someone and are available if you search for them. Good example: early on 9-11, a network reporter covering the scene from a helicopter noticed the explosion that rocked the second tower, but he made no mention whatever of an airliner! 'Bet you never heard that one, except maybe on Youtube.

5. Keep track of the story-line – As FF ops unfold, the official narrative will change and twist in a myriad of directions; contradictions will abound, even on the network propaganda organs.
At the Sandy Hook 'shootings,' the police were saying that the children were killed by hand-gun fire, while the coroner, in a rambling interview, stated that a long-gun was used. At the Boston Marathon event, spectators' videos showed numerous security agents behaving oddly, while network video was all about the supposed terrorists. The police claimed Tamerlan was run over by his brother's SUV, while on-lookers stated it was the cops' vehicle.
The inconsistencies are rampant in these events, and it takes days, sometimes weeks, for the media to get the official story-line 'correct' (i.e. 'straight'). And, yes, it's not unusual for there to be confusion during a 'terrorist' attack; however, the blatant contradictions that distinguish a FF op go beyond the expected norm. These are details that ought to be known right away, and should not confound common knowledge, or common sense. The FBI should know whether the Tsarnaev brothers were on their payroll (which they were) or not-- the story should not change from one day to the next!

6. Does the official 'explanation' make sense? - Now, there's a good criterion. Consider the famous, Christmas, underwear bomber incident that resulted in every air traveller now having his/her privates inspected by 'security officers.' An African from Nigeria (near the equator) travelling from Holland to Detroit-- both cities in the cold northern hemisphere in December-- and he's not wearing anything more than summer attire, carries no baggage, and has no passport or boarding pass... yet he gets on the plane with a bomb in his gotch. Come on, people-- this story is prima-facie ludicrous! It would never have fooled a 9-year old, but for the disgraceful compliance of the mass media.

7. Who gets blamed? - The whole idea of a FF op is to pin the blame on the 'donkey du jour,' the latest bogeyman that the government(s) have in their sights.
On 9-11-01, the towers had hardly collapsed when the media announced that it was done by Osama bin Laden, the scape-goat of choice. Why bin Laden? Just see what horrible sequence of events went into motion following 9-11. The invasion of Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the dozen years of bloodshed that have occurred since then. The Washington cabal needed a figurehead by whom to justify their incursions into the Middle East region, so an Arab/Muslim was just the pretext needed.
Now that the US gov is preparing for social collapse inside the realm, they need 'domestic terrorists' they can direct their dictatorial attention towards; hence, 'lone gunmen' incidents, and now, the Boston bombings.

8. Watch what is proposed next – As implied in point 7, the naming of 'suspects' will provide an indication of how the current agenda of the government can be advanced by exploiting the 'cowardly attack.'
In 2001, the PNAC group was itching for a pretext to invade the Middle East region, and to supply a new enemy for the military-industrial axis. That project continues today, with 'humanitarian concern' (oh, sure) for Syria's civilian population.
The current desire of the US gov to disarm Americans of military-grade weapons means that the threat of domestic terror must be vivid enough for the populace to go along with this scheme. Expect more such incidents across the country (and look up 'Operation Gladio' on the web for some illuminating reading).
September 11/01 was the majick show used by the PTB to begin in earnest the removal of human rights, as well as incessant wars. The ludicrous 'crotch bomber' incident was leveraged to get the federal gov to purchase 'naked, X-ray scanners' for all the major airports (from a company partly owned by Michael Chertoff, then head of DHS). Sandy Hook was used to initiate the first legislation against the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. And on it goes.
So, listen for the ready-made memes, usually packaged in convenient words and phrases that can be repeated ad-nauseum by the media whores. You've heard them before: 'terrorists,' 'cowardly,' 'extremists,' 'al Qaeda,' Muslims, etc. etc.

9. Look for the white-wash 'investigation' – This is a major give-away that an event was staged. We've seen this sorry movie too many times already.
Perhaps the first outrageous, official white-wash was the Warren Commission investigation of the JFK assassination. Oliver Stone's movie demonstrated many of the plain crazy assertions of the official explanation, and to this day, a large portion of the populace knows that something evil happened that November day in Dallas. But since the media pretend it all makes sense, more or less, then most people shrug and forget it.
Similarly, the 'crime of the (21st) century' that occurred on 9-11-01 was given a very sorry spectacle for an official investigation. So much so, that the chief investigators themselves later admitted that their report was flawed. (They basically stated that the military lied to them).
The hallmark of these 'investigations' is that they are obviously hiding facts that 'they' (governments, generally) don't want known by the public. They need to obscure the truth because they don't want the guilty persons and agencies identified as 'insiders.'
Phoney investigations are easier to discern than the events they examine, generally. Therefore, these white-washes are a clear sign that the incident was a false-flag op.

10. Shoddy journalism rules the day – it's a given, sadly, that investigative journalism is long dead in the mainstream media. What we have now is manufactured news and disguised propaganda.
That said, during and after a FF op, the journalistic laxity will be especially egregious. The inevitable interviewed experts will all be singing from the same song-sheet. The same 'approved' videos will appear on all the major network news. The same inadvertent truths will disappear almost simultaneously from all stations. And of course, the same key-word phrases (as noted above) will be repeated like mantras on all the news-casts. None of the key, relevant questions will be addressed by any so-called journalist.

There are other, more subtle signals that an experienced observer can use to detect a false-flag operation; but for most of us, these ten indicators will provide sufficient light on a given event to make us fairly certain it was staged. You may not find all ten 'finger-prints' every time.
But if several are apparent, then surely that's enough evidence to make you doubt the official story, and do some personal searching of the 'underground press.'

[1] http://www.john-friend.net/2013/04/understanding-false-flags-psyops-and.html
See also:
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/04/29/the-art-of-catching-government-false-flags-in-real-time/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pakalert+%28Pak+Alert+Press%29



(c) W. Kazimir, Apr. 2013

No comments:

Post a Comment