This Weeks Hot News /
Sun Oct 1, 2006


I.  As America remembers the fifth anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, we all need to be alert to the bottom line truth, i.e., that the Illuminati Card Game conclusively proves that government agents carried out those infamous attacks!

Remember the fundamental premise on any 9/11 book or video: Any treatise about 9/11 which accepts the basic falsehood that Arabs carried out the attacks is fundamentally flawed. The Illuminati Card Game and Cooper's book, "Behold A Pale Horse" tell us the attacks were carried out by government provocateurs.

NEWS BRIEF: "28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job", Prison Planet, Alex Jones, September 7, 2006

"A 28-year CIA career man and a former skeptic of alternative 9/11 explanations has gone further than ever before in voicing his convictions that the attacks bore the hallmarks of an inside job and the three buildings in the WTC complex were brought down by controlled demolition."

If you have not seen the Twin Towers falling straight down in its "tracks" in what is obviously a controlled demolition, we encourage you to watch this demolition on the video, above. Once you gain the understanding that the WTC towers were taken down in a controlled demolition, you shall be on your way to comprehending the fundamental truth of this attack -- the Arabs did not do it!

Now, let us examined the credentials of this "former CIA official".

"Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. Since then he has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policies. In Christison's recent article, Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11, he afforded credibility to the notion that "significant parts" of the official 9/11 story were false and after careful research he concluded that the twin towers and building 7, 'were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings'."

"Christison went further on The Alex Jones Show, agreeing that the attacks being an inside job was the "most likely possibility."

This card, to the left, represents "THE" Smoking Gun in this entire conversation, because it was part of the Illuminati Card Game published in 1995! This card demonstrates the truth that the attacks were well known to practicing members of the occult as far back as 1990-1995. Certainly, Steve Jackson of Jackson Games knew the plan very well.

Thankfully, the world is getting much closer to examining the fundamental question as to whether the attacks of 9/11 could have been carried out according to the official government and Mass Media story, or whether only government expertise, assets, and control could have carried out the attacks. If we can just get a person to begin doubting the official government lie, it is easy to convince that person because the evidence is so overwhelming. Therefore, we applaud the reality that more and more people are getting closer to the truth that only government agents could have carried out this long-planned attack.

However, we need to examine the title on this World Trade Center card, for it reads, "Terrorist Nuke".

Don't you find it extremely interesting that this most accurate card says, "Terrorist Nuke"? Is it possible that the plan was changed just slightly? Or, did Steve Jackson get the plan just a little bit wrong? After all, the Twin Towers fell straight down into its foundation; it was not destroyed by a conventional nuclear blast.

Stop to think for a moment of that last sentence: " it was not destroyed by a conventional nuclear blast."

Is it possible that an unconventional nuclear blast was used to bring the World Trade Center towers down into their "footprint"?

Experts at an American - Russian Nuclear Terrorist Workshop point out the reality that terrorists would have little difficulty implanting a micro-nuke to be used as a terror device. Please read carefully:

""High-Impact Terrorism: Proceedings of a Russian-American Workshop (2002)", The National Academies Press.

"In conclusion, potential nuclear terrorists would encounter no serious technical problems in constructing a simple, low-yield (in the order of a few tons of TNT equivalent) and low weight (in the order of a few hundred kilograms) gun-type explosive nuclear device using weapons grade or reactor-grade plutonium. A device of this kind would have destructive and kill ranges of about 100 meters. Moreover, it would produce radioactive fallout with a few tens of curies as well as a cloud containing a few kilograms of plutonium oxide aerosol." []

Such a cloud of radioactive fallout would also dissipate rather rapidly; if officials were not on the scene quickly with radioactive monitors, the telltale signature of such a low-yield nuclear warhead would have disappeared.

What potential threat to our democratic way of life is posed by a nuclear terrorist threat? Listen carefully, for the news is not good.

"The public's fear of nuclear weapons -- or for that matter, of all radioactivity -- is intense. To some extent, this fear arises from a sense of unlimited vulnerability. That is, radioactivity is seen unbounded in three dimensions: distance -- it is viewed as having unlimited reach; quantity -- it is viewed as having deadly consequences in the smallest of doses ... and time-- if it does not kill you immediately, it will cause cancer decades hence."

"Fred Ikle recently stated that 'the morning after ... a nuclear weapon has been used, the rules of warfare throughout the world will be profoundly transformed. Democracy cannot survive if a nuclear detonation can be detonated in Paris or Manhattan." []

Let us repeat that most significant of statements: "Democracy cannot survive if a nuclear detonation can be detonated in ... Manhattan."

Notice this statement did not say that "Democracy cannot survive if a nuclear detonation annihilates Manhattan." No, the entire city does not have to be destroyed to sow the kind of panic for which the Illuminati is seeking. Once officials confirm that a nuclear detonation has occurred, the public misconception of the effects of a nuclear device, coupled with the scientific facts, will combine to produce the kind of panic that would allow the Illuminati to seize control.

Did our Skull & Bones government use a micro-nuke at the foundation of the World Trade Center? Later, we demonstrated that a micro-nuke was likely used in the Bali hotel blast in October, 2002. If a micro-nuke was used, that would explain why the foundation was so hot that no rescue worker could go near it for months afterward.

However, if a micro-nuke was utilized, it would have produced the kind of radioactivity release as described, above. People should be getting sick in Manhattan -- rescue workers and people living in close proximity to the towers. Do we see such a pattern of sickness? Indeed, we do!

NEWS BRIEF: "9/11 recovery workers: 'Gov't deceived, abandoned us' ", Worker's World, By Deirdre Griswold, New York Published Jul 3, 2006

"... today, thousands of those who worked at ground zero after the buildings collapsed are furious at the government, which they charge deceived and abandoned them. This June 17, some 200 held a rally at the site to demand comprehensive health care for all those sickened by the work there after the disaster. 'Many of the two dozen or so people who spoke at the event, including former recovery workers and their families, said that top federal, state and local officials seemed to be focusing on 9/11 memorials while workers who untangled the gnarled debris at ground zero continued to face red tape, resistance and skepticism over their claims'." (New York Times, June 18)

What is the nature of this health crisis facing the thousands of people in the vicinity of Ground Zero? This next segment shows that this author is aware of the nature of the illness.

"Like U.S. soldiers sickened by the Pentagon's use of Agent Orange and depleted uranium in its wars for empire, these workers-whose health is failing after breathing in the toxic dust left by the towers' collapse-are being treated as malingerers by a .... government that spends hundreds of billions each year for war and for state repression at home but has cut essential services. Many former recovery workers who are too sick to labor now find themselves unemployed and joining the 45 million people in this country without health care."

Indeed, news stories are now beginning to appear, reporting widespread illnesses amongst those people in the vicinity of the Towers when they collapsed.

Watch the CBS video entitled, "Ground Zero Sickness". Notice the conclusion that the E.P.A. had deliberately lied to the people and to the rescue workers! However, the conclusion of the video that this sickness is being caused by chemicals and asbestos fibers is flawed only because it does not mention the probability of nuclear contamination. We believe that the air was poisoned by these elements, but also by uranium contamination.

Notice, also, the intense levels of fine dust particles which these men ingested. Then, compare those uranium-laced dust levels to those faced by our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan (Read NEWS63 -- How Blinding Sandstorms Kill An Entire Population")

We are just now paying the full price for the attacks of 9/11.

II. One of the most important questions of this 5th anniversary is, "What would have happened had 9/11 not occurred"? How differently would the world look today had this planned attack not been carried out?

NEWS BRIEF: "If 9/11 hadn't happened" : By Gwynne Dyer, reprinted in Tehran Times, September 5, 2006

"Five years since 9/11, and we are still being told that the world has changed forever."

The author then lists the events which would not have happened if the attacks of 9/11 had never occurred. We shall list these events in bullet format in the interest of clarity.

* "There would have been no invasion of Afghanistan"

* "There would have been no second term for President Bush whose main political asset for the past five years has been his claim to be leading the United States in a Global War on Terror" -- this conclusion is speculation, for incumbent Presidents tend to gain re-election. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that President Bush has consistently used the emotion of the 9/11 attacks to justify his policies, paramount of which is his "War On Terror".

* "Would Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz & Co. have succeeded in invading Iraq anyway?" The attack on Iraq was planned during a 1954 Bilderberger meeting, according to former Satanist, Bill Schnoebelen. It does seem now that the attacks of 9/11 were planned as the catalyst by which that 1954 plan would be implemented. However, had something prevented the attacks from being carried out on 9/11, the Illuminati would have fallen back upon a "Plan B". The leaders of the Great White Brotherhood always has a "Plan B, or C".

Ms Dyer then truthfully states, "after 9/11, it was easy to sell the project to geographically challenged Americans: maybe no Iraqis were involved in 9/11, but they're all Arabs, aren't they?"

Undiscerning Americans are truly easy to deceive, aren't they?

* "... probably no Israeli attack on Lebanon either, because that was pre-planned in concert with the United States."

* "Without 9/11 there would still be a 'terrorist threat' ... the fluke success of the 9/11 attacks (which has not been duplicated once in the subsequent five years) created the illusion that terrorism was a major problem."

* "... without 9/11 there would have been no governments justifying torture in the name of fighting terrorism, no "special renditions," no camps like Guantanamo."

* "Tens of thousands of people killed in the various invasions of the past five years would still be alive." We need to add this caveat: Without 9/11, Coalition Forces would not have spent up to 4,000 tons of Depleted Uranium munitions, the radioactive dust of which is raining down on the heads -- and in the lungs -- of nearly 857,000,000 people throughout the Non-Integrating Region of the Middle East.

* "Western countries with large Muslim minorities would not now face a potential terrorist backlash at home from their own disaffected young Muslims."

* "The United States would not be seen by most of the world as a rogue state." And, may we add one more caveat: the U.S. is seen as a Christian country being led into these disastrous wars by a Christian President who is being guided by his Bible reading, his daily prayers, and his understanding of prophecy!

We could not agree more! However, we must add some more consequences to this list.

Without the attacks of 9/11:

* The President could not have justified demanding -- and getting -- absolute dictatorial powers not seen since the days of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. Today, our freedoms have been taken away on paper without Americans realizing what has happened.

* Homeland Security would never have been established. This monstrous government bureau nightmare would have remained still-born and our future would have looked brighter.

* The National ID Card through the Federalization of Driver's Licenses would have not gone forward. This National ID will be instrumental in someday keeping the population in check.

* The United States would owe billions of dollars less

Doubtless, you can think of more instances of impact had 9/11 not happened. I have been repeatedly amazed at how much mileage the Illuminati has gotten from one staged terrorist attack!

III. As Republicans face an uphill election battle this Fall -- in no small part due to President Bush's unpopularity -- the President boldly strikes out on a campaign trail of sorts, acting as tough as a Texas cowboy! Apparently, the President has decided that casting this new tough-guy anti-terror image is exactly what the voters need to see and hear, as Bush takes his failures and casts them as being necessary to lead America through these hard terrorist times.

NEWS BRIEF: "Bush touts progress since 9/11 attacks", The State, September 8, 2006

"ATLANTA - Terrorists today would have a tougher time plotting and carrying out attacks like the ones of Sept. 11 because of security improvements in the past five years, President Bush said Thursday. There's no way to know if the attacks would have been prevented by the changes, Bush said, but he contended the nation is safer than in September 2001 ... Abetted by apologists in both parties, the Bush administration has instead fabricated the dangerous notion that anybody who opposes U.S. or Israeli interests in the region -- be they secular or religious, Arab or Persian, Sunni or Shiite -- is by definition a terrorist, who cannot be negotiated with or tolerated."

By the way, just this week, the President hinted that anyone who opposes him is, by his new definition, a terrorist.

When he spoke, the President must have been aware of the fact that many Americans really do not believe the nation is safer now than before 9/11.

NEWS BRIEF: "Bush Isn't Making Us Safer", SF Gate, August 16, 2006

"GOVERNMENT-INDUCED hysteria thrives on public ignorance, which is why President Bush is so confident of ...Rather than admit this incalculable mistake and move forward, the president has instead continued stubbornly and against all evidence to claim smashing up Iraq was somehow a fitting response to the Sept. 11 nightmare. This past week, chief hatchet man Dick Cheney even had the outrageous gall to argue that anti-Iraq war U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont's Democratic primary victory over pro-Iraq war Sen. Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut would embolden 'al Qaeda types'."

We could not have said it better! Now, let us go back to The State article, above.

"... Bush said more still needs to be done to stop the terrorist threat. He pressed Congress to take quick action on two new laws - legislation proposed Wednesday by the White House that would allow terror suspects to be tried by a military commission and a bill that would give specific authority for his anti-terror eavesdropping program. Bush initially resisted eavesdropping legislation on the grounds that the once top-secret program was already legal and that legislation could expose sensitive details. But some leading members of Congress disagreed, and a federal judge in Detroit ruled last month that the program violated rights to free speech and privacy as well as constitutional separation of powers."

Rather than backing down, changing his tactics, the President declared that he needed those dictatorial powers in order to "fight terrorism". Remember, we are dealing with a lawless President, one who has declared that he finds no difficulty violating 750 laws, or declaring that he shall act even if his actions are against the law -- trademarks of a full-fledged dictator (See and hear this incredible information in the new DVD, Terror Storm: Government Sponsored Terrorism")

Why is the President refusing to act lawfully and morally on these issues? First of all, he is a Skull & Bones Adept, a very nasty Black Magick secret society. Members of the occult never admit to being held to any outside laws, especially the commandments of the Holy Bible. Their motto is, "Do what thou wilt, for that is the whole of the law". Therefore, we should not expect President Bush to admit to any legal boundaries!

Secondly, Bush's advisers have discovered that the President will pick up a considerable amount of political support if he acts tough in front of the cameras, if he yells against all those terrorists the CIA created in the first place. Considerable numbers of undiscerning people always support a "tough guy" promising them protection.

What was it that Adolf Hitler said: "What luck for rulers that people do not think."