9/11 official scenario: what about the pools of melted metal?

by Jon Rappoport

February 8, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

I began by reading reports of melting dripping metal at the World Trade Center after the attack on September 11^th.

Some of these reports come from weeks after the attack.

This seemed quite strange.

Following links, I arrived to Dr. Steven Jones and his famous paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?”

Jones takes up this issue and much more. His paper is well worth reading.

Jones’ approach goes beyond the argument about whether the buildings collapsed because the steel construction melted or just weakened.

The molten pools of metal are the anomaly. They need to be explained. Jones is arguing that these long-lasting pools wouldn’t have resulted from burning jet fuel.

His conclusion, which he states needs further investigation, is that thermite charges were the cause of the pools. And why else would thermite be present in the buildings, except for the purpose of bringing them down?

I fully understand that all sorts of assertions have been made to explain the collapse of the buildings. And I’m sure people will write me with their assurances about what really happened on 9/11.

But in this article I’m simply pointing out that what appears to be confirmed observation of molten pools of structural metal from the WTC is a key.

Why? Because it cannot be explained or accounted for by the official 9/11 scenario.

Yes, there are other facts that can’t be explained by the official scenario. The molten pools are one important fact, and Jones takes it up. Here are quotes from his paper:

“We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7.”

“There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6.)”

“…the observed surface of this metal is still reddish orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time — once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse could also contribute to the prolonged heating.”

Jones goes on to explain thermite reactions.

“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. [See Grimmer, 2004] Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting.”

“Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, which we call ‘thermate,’ will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report.”

“On the other hand, falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed during collapse will not coalesce into molten pools of metal!”

“The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams—then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology]) stated: ‘Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.’ (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)”

“And in a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states: ‘In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.’”

“None of the official reports tackles the mystery of the molten metal pools. Yet this is clearly a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis.”

“Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel: ‘The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true… The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was definitely not capable of melting steel.. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C — hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.’”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Flashback: 9/11 and the gold in the NY Federal Reserve

Jan30

by Jon Rappoport

January 30, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

With reports that Germany can’t get back much of its gold stored in the NY Federal Reserve, I remembered what I was writing just after 9/11.

Here are a few quotes. Most are from my posts on 9/11 and 9/12, 2001:

“Still no word on the condition of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, which is 2.5 blocks away from the destroyed WTC. This bank, underground, holds $75 billion in gold from [about five] dozen countries.”

“CNN has a large map posted today, which shows the condition of a number of buildings by name in the area, but, curiously, the NY Fed Reserve is not one of them.”

“And now that workers are going down underneath the remains of the WTC, where $100 million in gold is admittedly stored (Reuters), we have no word on the condition of that gold, either.”

“Yesterday, I brought up the issue of the gigantic fed gold reserve stashed underground 2.5 blocks from the WTC. And mentioned that no press accounts were covering damage to nearby buildings. Which I find odd.”

“Here is an account from [a reader] on the ground in NYC, as of an hour ago. ‘It seems like we are getting the same limited [TV] shot on all networks…kind of a tight angle shot of damage of the base of the towers…no shots of damage to nearby buildings, including the gold reserve building. No one knows anything because the whole island [of Manhattan] has been shut down below 14th St. Camera crews not allowed to wander. If you live below 14th St. and you leave your apartment you need identification in order to get back in.’”

“The WTC took up several blocks in lower Manhattan. From the Liberty Street side, it is about 2 blocks to the Fed Reserve Bank of NY, at 33 Liberty St. Under the Bank, 5 levels down, in bedrock, is the $75 billion in gold.”

“The NY Federal Reserve keeps a facility for storing gold in NYC. It handles the gold reserves of about five dozen countries. $75 billion in a vault. About 1/4 of the world’s gold supply. At least, that’s the Fed Reserve press release on this, from 1999. This vault is located close to the WTC, where the towers fell. Is it [the vault] buried? Is the vault open? Anyone see Die Hard 3? A gigantic terrorist ‘diversion’ leading to the theft of all the gold in the vault.”

In the days following 9/11, I also wrote that there were no reports or video of troops guarding the NY Federal Reserve building. This was very curious. 75 billion in gold and no troops present? Nor have I found any video from that time, later posted on YouTube, showing troops around the Fed Reserve.

There is debate about whether a tunnel existed connecting the basement of the old WTC and the basement of the Federal Reserve. A 2010 piece at Cryptome indicates (with photos) that, during the post-9/11 WTC cleanup, an old railroad tunnel between the WTC and Fed Reserve basements was uncovered. (Diehard 3 featured such a tunnel and track.)

Was the Fed Reserve gold taken away after 9/11?

Or had it been taken before 9/11? Perhaps long before.

Clearly, in the immediate wake of 9/11, there was a concerted press effort to omit or limit mention of the Federal Reserve building.

On March 2, 2013, Tyler Durden, writing at zerohedge.com, in Why Is JPMorgan’s Gold Vault, The Largest In The World, Located Next To The New York Fed’s?, reported his finding that “the de facto largest private gold vault in the world [is] located across the street [from the NY Federal Reserve building] 90 feet below 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza.”

This private vault, at the same level as the NY Fed Reserve vault, could front right up against it.

The private vault belongs to JP Morgan Chase. It is larger than a football field.

Under circumstances deemed “essential,” it would appear to be easy to transfer an enormous amount of gold from the Fed Reserve to JP Morgan Chase.

Silverdoctors.com reports that a US Treasury Dept. audit of all US gold reserves inadvertently exposed a total figure of 466 tons, far less than previous claims of 8,133 tons.

Anyone trusting that US-held gold reserves are safe and sound needs to examine his own head.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Alexis, Lanza, Holmes, and the Psychiatric State

Sep28

Alexis, Lanza, Holmes and the Psychiatric State

by Jon Rappoport

September 28, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Whether or not these three men committed the crimes they’ve been accused of, there is no doubt scenarios have been written and established to emphasize and advertise them as mental cases.

And not only mental cases, but people “in need of psychiatric treatment…if we had only caught them in time, we could have gotten them help and then they wouldn’t have killed all those people…”

That’s the PR people at work, because gun control is only one of the items on the agenda here. The twin is MORE PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT AND DRUGGING.

And of course the way the story is being spun, anyone can go off the rails, so be on the alert, your neighbor could have a mental disorder, it’s all right, no stigma attached, he needs treatment right away.

It’s called The Psychiatric State. It’s based on myths and fairy tales about distinct and separate disorders and “good treatment” and sharing and caring in this new humane society of ours.

“Everyone at some time in their lives will experience a mental disorder.”

An open secret has been slowly bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association (twitter).

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

But we have a mind-boggling twist. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for 3 years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances (twitter), and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness,” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the (then) latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre fantasy:

“Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic…you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here’…we have a dragon’s world here. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”

Translation: Patients need hope for the healing of their troubles; so even if we psychiatrists are shooting blanks and pretending to know one kind of mental disorder from another, even if we’re inventing these mental-disorder definitions based on no biological or chemical diagnostic tests—it’s a good thing, because patients will then believe and have hope; they’ll believe it because psychiatrists place a name on their problems…

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with science.

If I were an editor at one of the big national newspapers, and one of my reporters walked in and told me, “The most powerful psychiatrist in America just said the DSM is sheer b.s.,” I think I’d make room on the front page.

If the reporter then added, “This shrink was in charge of creating the DSM-IV,” I’d clear room above the fold.

If the reporter went on to explain that the whole profession of psychiatry would collapse overnight if the DSM was discredited, I’d call for a special section of the paper to be printed.

I’d tell the reporter to get ready to pound on this story day after day for months. I’d tell him to track down all the implications of Dr. Frances’ statements.

I’d open a bottle of champagne to toast the soon-to-be-soaring sales of my newspaper.

And then, of course, the next day I’d be fired.

Because there are powerful multi-billion-dollar interests at stake, and those people don’t like their deepest secrets exposed in the press.

And as I walked out of my job, I’d see a bevy of blank-eyed pharmaceutical executives marching into the office of the paper’s publisher, ready to read the riot act to him.

Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM-IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definition of Bipolar was expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;

life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;

brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

intercranial pressure leading to blindness;

peripheral circulatory collapse;

stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

serious impairment of cognitive function;

fainting;

restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

Dr. Frances’ label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of toxic Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So what about Ritalin?

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

* Paranoid delusions
* Paranoid psychosis
* Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
* Activation of psychotic symptoms
* Toxic psychosis
* Visual hallucinations
* Auditory hallucinations
* Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
* Effects pathological thought processes
* Extreme withdrawal
* Terrified affect
* Started screaming
* Aggressiveness
* Insomnia
* Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
* Psychic dependence
* High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
* Decreased REM sleep
* When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
* Convulsions
* Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

A recent survey revealed that a high percentage of children diagnosed with bipolar had first received a diagnosis of ADHD. This is informative, because Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label. Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash. This is easy to call “clinical depression.”

Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes. The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern—and then produces a new diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and prescribes other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium.

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.

And Dr. Frances is somehow let off the hook. He’s admitted in print that the whole basis of his profession is throwing darts at labels on a wall, and implies the “effort” is rather heroic—when, in fact, the effort leads to more and more poisonous drugs being dispensed to adults and children, to say nothing of the effect of being diagnosed with “a mental disorder.”

I’m not talking about “the mental-disease stigma,” the removal of which is one of Hillary Clinton’s missions in life. No, I’m talking about MOVING A HUMAN INTO THE SYSTEM, the psychiatric apparatus, where the essence of the game is trapping that person to harvest his money, his time, his energy, and of course his health—as one new diagnosis follows on another, and one new toxic treatment after another is undertaken, from cradle to grave.

The result is a severely debilitated human being (if he survives), whose major claim to fame is his list of diseases and disorders.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

Here is a smoking-gun statement made by another prominent psychiatrist, on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [emphasis added]

Without intending to, Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession.

So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.

These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.

If I said the moon was made of green cheese, even if I were a Harvard professor, sooner or later someone would ask me to produce a sample of moon rock to be tested for “cheese qualities.” I might begin to feel nervous, I might want to tap dance around the issue, but I would have to submit the rock to a lab.

Dr. Barkley employs a corrupted version of logical analysis in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. But if a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have science at all, and that would mean our whole profession rests on nothing—and that is absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.

Close to 50 years ago, psychiatry was dying out as a profession. Fewer and fewer people wanted to see a psychiatrist for help, for talk therapy. All sorts of new therapies were popping up. The competition was leaving medical psychiatry in the dust.

As Dr. Peter Breggin describes it in his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, a deal was struck. Drug companies would bankroll psychiatry and rescue it. These companies would pour money into professional conferences, journals, research. In return, they wanted “science” that would promote mental disease as a biological fact, a gateway into the drugs. Everyone would win—except the patient.

So the studies were rolled out, and the list of mental disorders expanded. The FDA was in on the deal as well, as evidenced by their drug “safety” approvals, in the face of the obvious damage these drugs were doing.

So this is how we arrived at where we are. This was the plan, and it worked.

Under the cover story, it was all fraud all the time. Without much of a stretch, you could say psychiatry has been the most widespread profiling operation in the history of the human race. Its goal has been to bring humans everywhere into its system. It hardly matters which label a person is painted with, as long as it adds up to a diagnosis and a prescription of drugs.

Do people suffer, do they have problems, do they experience anguish and pain, do they make choices that sabotage their own interests, do they fall victim to external circumstances, do they long for relief? Of course.

But this nothing to do with fraudulent psychiatric diagnoses.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

MKULTRA? Patsy? Aaron Alexis’ portrait: painted for gun control

Sep19

by Jon Rappoport

September 19, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Mentally unstable man in the military gains legal access to gun, goes on rampage. That’s the portrait.

Heavily promoted details: “Should never have been allowed to buy a gun, but prior red-flag arrests weren’t prosecuted. Slipped through the cracks. Heard voices, claimed he was being assaulted with microwaves that prevented him from sleeping. Obvious nut job. But still, he was able to buy a gun.”

Bottom line: Do whatever is necessary to grab guns from private citizens. Tighten laws. Step up psychiatric interventions across the land, to prevent shootings before they occur.

Perfect. You couldn’t have scripted a better sales campaign for gun control.

And therefore, one can legitimately ask: Did somebody script the word-picture of Alexis for that very purpose?

Until official sources retracted the claim that Alexis had an AR-15 at the Navy Yard, it was: James Holmes (Aurora), Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) and Alexis all supposedly firing the semi-auto weapon. Bottom line: “stop selling the AR-15 and any other semi-auto.”

When it comes to characterizing Alexis as mentally unstable, you need to ask yourself this—if someone was, in fact, deploying available technology to produce the sounds of voices talking to you, and hitting you with microwaves to keep you awake night after night…

What could you do to make people believe that story?

I’ll tell you what: nothing. You’d be sunk.

Let’s assume Alexis was already somewhat unstable. That would make him a better candidate for harassment.

At that point, there would be two ways to go, if you wanted to engineer a mass shooting. Make Alexis an innocent patsy. Or actually turn him into a Manchurian Candidate, an MKULTRA subject who would kill.

If your objective is gun control, you’d achieve your aim either way.

And here is the bonus: in the wake of the Navy Yard shooting, you could institute more psychiatric control of the citizenry, which means, when you strip away the baloney, more fake mental-disorder diagnoses and more drugs which CAUSE VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, including suicide and homicide.

After which you can make an even better case for universal gun banning, because people on those drugs would be committing murders from coast to coast in greater numbers.

Of course, when television viewers pray at the altar of the major news networks, they would never entertain, for a moment, what I’m suggesting here. Why not? Because, as consumers, they’ve allowed themselves to be conditioned, for many years, by the kinds of tales these media outlets tell. If well-known “journalists” don’t speak of “patsy” or “mind control,” there’s nothing to know about.

Meanwhile…

Patsy at the scene? How would that work? Several possibilities. Alexis is there, but another shooter is doing the killing. He kills Alexis, who becomes the focus of the story, the “shooter.” A shotgun and AR-15 are placed near his body.

The problem to overcome: witness statements.

So far, I find two witnesses, Terry Durham and Todd Brundige, executive assistants in Building 197, who claim they saw “the shooter” down a long hallway fire a a gun at them.

In their television interview, which you can find at YouTube (BBC, other outlets) they claim they couldn’t see the shooter’s face. However, the Washington Times reports Durham saying, “I could see his face.” Quite odd, when we have her on camera saying the reverse.

Other news outlets use headlines to suggest these two witnesses did see (“confronted,” “came face-to-face with”) the killer’s face, but the body of text finally confesses this is not the case, despite some slippery language (“came around a corner and saw the killer”).

Obviously, media outlets are trying to make more out of less.

It seems somewhat curious that we don’t have many witnesses who are specifically making positive IDs of Alexis killing people in the building. For example, in the Aurora Theater shooting, a number of witnesses say they saw the shooter. Of course, he was masked.

Well, what about police statements? We’re told cops killed Alexis in a shootout. How many cops? Unknown. Five, ten, one? I find one report of a canine cop (unnamed) who traded shots with “a gunman” and was seriously wounded in both legs. He was in surgery at the time of the report, and was expected to undergo a number of operations, in an attempt to save his legs.

Perhaps there are other witness statements out there which positively ID Alexis as the shooter. I have not found them.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Turning Alexis into an MKULTRA Manchurian Candidate, who would, as a result of mind control, go into the building and kill people is an entirely different matter.

In that case, the microwave harassment and the broadcast voices would serve as a softening up process. But much more would have to be done.

(I should note here that when Alexis reported the voices and the microwave harassment to the Rhode Island police, he refused to say what the voices were telling him. If his basic story is true, perhaps he was receiving commands and instructions—although in my opinion such commands (“kill,” “attack,” etc.) would be insufficient to program him specifically.)

Although there are patents one could search to try to learn about modern mind control technology, and statements from people who were past victims of mind control, many blank areas remain. This is because the experiments are secret.

Here is a bit of background on MKULTRA secrecy.

Back in the early 1990s, I interviewed John Marks, author of Search for the Manchurian Candidate (1979). This was the book that exposed the existence of the CIA MKULTRA program.

Marks related the following to me. He had filed many Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests to the CIA for documents relating to their mind-control program. He got nothing back.

Finally, as if to play a joke on him, someone at the CIA sent him 10 boxes of financial and accounting records. The attitude was, “Here, see what you can do with this.”

I’ve seen some of those records. They’re very boring reading.

But Marks went through them, and lo and behold, he found he could piece together MKULTRA projects, based on the funding data.

Eventually, he assembled enough information to begin naming names. He conducted interviews. The shape of MKULTRA swam into view. And so he wrote his book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate.

He told me that three important books had been written about MKULTRA, and they all, in a sense, stemmed from those 10 boxes of CIA financial records. There was his own book; Operation Mind Control by Walter Bowart; and The Mind Manipulators by Alan Scheflin and Edward Opton.

Marks continued to press the CIA for more MKULTRA information. He explained to me what then happened. A CIA official told him the following: in 1962, after ten years of mind-control experiments, the whole MKULTRA program had been shifted over to another internal CIA department, the Office of Research and Development (ORD).

The ORD had a hundred boxes of information on their MKULTRA work, and there was no way under the sun, Marks was told, that he was ever going to get his hands on any of it. It was over. It didn’t matter how many FOIA requests Marks filed. He was done. The door was shut. Goodbye.

The CIA had gone darker than it ever had before. No leaks of any kind would be permitted.

In case there is any doubt about it, the idea of relying on the CIA to admit what it has done in the mind-control area, what it is doing, and what it will do should be put to bed by John Mark’s statements. The CIA always has been, and will continue to be, a rogue agency beyond the reach of the law.

To give you just a hint about how far the CIA, the US military, and its allied academics will go in MKULTRA “research,” here are two brief excerpts from a piece I wrote in 1995 about human experiments. My information was based on the three key books I mentioned above, as well as Martin Lee’s classic, Acid Dreams:

“Dr. Robert Heath of Tulane University, as early as 1955, working for the Army, gave patients LSD while he had electrodes implanted deep inside their brains.”

“In the mid-1950’s, Paul Hoch, M.D., a man who would become Commissioner of Mental Hygiene for the State of New York, then a laborer in the field for the CIA, gave a ‘pseudoneurotic schizophrenic’ patient mescaline. The patient had a not-unfamiliar heaven-and-hell journey on the compound. But Hoch followed this up with a transorbital leucotomy [aka lobotomy]… Hoch also gave a patient LSD, and a local anesthetic, and then proceeded to remove pieces of his cerebral cortex, asking at various moments whether the patient’s perceptions were changing.”

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

Because “more psychiatric treatment” is a prime agenda, pushed after every one of these mass shootings, people need to understand how the history of mind control and psychiatry are interwoven, and how the madmen and murderers within these “professions” are content to use torture in the name of science.

From a naturalnews article by Dr. Peter Breggin (“Never again! The real history of psychiatry”) we get insight into one aspect of that history:

“[Before World War 2, in America], organized psychiatry had been sterilizing tens of thousands of Americans. For a time in California, you couldn’t be discharged from a state [mental] hospital unless you were sterilized. In Virginia the retarded were targeted. American advocates of sterilization went to Berlin to help the Nazis plan their sterilization program. These Americans reassured the Germans that they would meet no opposition from America in sterilizing their mentally and physically ‘unfit’ citizens.

“While the murder of mental patients was going full swing in Germany, knowledgeable American psychiatrists and neurologists didn’t want to be left out. In 1942, the American Psychiatric Association held a debate about whether to sterilize or to murder low IQ ‘retarded’ children when they reached the age of five. Those were the only two alternatives in the debate: sterilization or death.

“After the debate, the official journal of the American Psychiatric Association published an editorial in which it chose sides in favor of murder (“Euthanasia” in the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1942, volume 99, pp. 141-143). It said psychiatrists would have to muster their psychological skills to keep parents from feeling guilty about agreeing to have their children killed.”

Dr. Breggin, in his books, including Toxic Psychiatry and Medication Madness, demonstrates that this “healing profession” is still tilling the same soil. Because of its reach with toxic drugs, it’s more dangerous and deadly than ever. Only its PR has improved.

I obviously can’t prove or conclude that Aaron Alexis was MKULTRA-programmed. But I can say the CIA and other allied agencies have an extensive track record of carrying out horrendous mind-control experiments, concealing them, concealing the technology, and making bland statements to the public and the press denying their contemporary use of mind-control.

If Alexis was, in fact, the man who killed people in the the Navy Yard, and he wasn’t overtly programmed to do it, then recent accounts strongly suggest he was taking psychiatric drugs. The SSRI antidepressants, in particular, have a long track record of pushing patients over the edge into suicidal and murderous violence.

Psychiatry IS a form of MKULTRA. It operates according to a different plan, what I call the Johnny Appleseed approach. Drop enough drugs into enough bodies, and then stand back and watch the killings sprout here and there and here and there, across the land.

Jon Rappoport

The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and truth-serum torture

Mar18

By Jon Rappoport

March 18, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

In 2002, author Martin Lee wrote an article for Common Dreams: “Truth Serum and Torture.”

It could have been written yesterday, because now a Colorado judge has stated that, if James Holmes pleads not guilty by reason of insanity to the Aurora murders, state psychiatrists can subject him to drugs that will “help him remember his state of mind” at the time of the shootings. The drugging will reveal whether he really was insane that night last summer at the Aurora theater.

Well, when it comes to so-called truth drugs like sodium pentothal, sodium amatyl, scopolamine, mescaline, LSD, and hypnotic benzodiazepines, where are the pros with real experience?

At run-of-the-mill psychiatric wards? No. Those hacks in the Colorado state hospital system have rarely if ever tried out the drugs for the purpose of getting at the truth.

But the CIA has up-to-date interrogators around, and thousands of pages of MKULTRA (mind control) literature, that constitute the best experience in this dark art.

Therefore, it’s highly probable the CIA or their independent contractors will be sitting in on James Holmes’ drug-induced sessions, supervising them, giving advice. It’s the Ghostbusters motto: “Who ya gonna call?”

Martin Lee points out that, even before the CIA was created, its forerunner, the OSS, tried out a cannabis extract as a truth serum. This was back in the 1940s. Lee goes on to trace US intelligence-agency and military “leadership” in truth-drug testing.

In 1947, the US Navy Project Chatter, borrowing from Nazi studies, moved on to experiments with mescaline as a truth drug.

Shortly after its inception, in the late 1940s, the CIA used drugging with sedatives, plus hypnosis, to extract secrets from agents. This method, and barbiturates alternated with amphetamines, were soon rolled up into the infamous and overarching MKULTRA mind-control program, with its hundreds of sub-projects. MKULTRA was all about developing chemical means of eliciting truth from prisoners, along with creating unconscious assassins.

In the 1950s, the CIA employed LSD in Operation Artichoke. People don’t know or forget that, while LSD failed to qualify as a reliable truth serum, its use in very high doses produced extreme terror in people being interrogated. It was this effect, as straight-out torture, the CIA capitalized on. The idea was simple. Demand the truth and threaten with extreme-dose LSD as the alternative.

We shouldn’t discount the possibility that James Holmes, once he enters an insanity plea, and is sent away to a secure hospital for psychiatric eval, will be given drugs that produce the kind of mad panic that will convince him to say, in court, exactly what his handlers want him to say.

Back in 2002, Martin Lee wrote that William Webster, former head of the CIA and FBI, was recommending the use of truth drugs on terrorism suspects under US detention. This statement spurred a significant amount of media coverage at the time.

But in the ensuing years, very few people have bothered to ask the key question: Why should we assume that waterboarding and isolation tanks and sleep deprivation are the only torture methods the CIA/military are employing on these prisoners? What about the drugs?

In particular—because no drug has ever been found to reliably elicit the truth—what about the use of drugs to produce panic and wild terror, as a way to force people to tell what they know, or confess to what they’re told to.

It’s obvious, given the history, that US interrogators have, in fact, been using these drugs on detained terrorism suspects.

Lee ends his prescient article with a chilling quote from former CIA chief of counterterrorism, Vince Cannistraro, that reflects directly the James Holmes situation in 2013:

“Once you’ve used [truth drugs] for national security cases, then it becomes a standard. Sodium pentathol is not that effective, and so you have to use something stronger, It’s a short skip and a hop to LSD, or something worse.”

These drugs are certainly being used in national security cases. Therefore, as Cannistraro predicts, they are now entering the mainstream as the standard. The astonishing statement from the court judge in the James Holmes case, ordering his truth-drug interrogation, couldn’t be a clearer signal:

full-speed ahead in chemically inducing a suspect to give up his right not to incriminate himself;

forget the fact that such truth-drug interrogations are notoriously unreliable;

forget the damage suspects can incur from the effects of the drugs;

and most of all, forget the fact that, although truth drugs don’t work reliably, they can be used to create such terror that the suspect will do or say anything to escape more dosing.

Many people have observed that James Holmes already looks like a man who has been heavily drugged, while in custody.

Whatever Holmes knows about what happened last summer at the Aurora theater; whatever he doesn’t know; whatever role he played or didn’t play; whether he was in the theater doing the shooting or was the patsy set up by professionals to take the fall for the murders…

All of this can be twisted, on strong enough drugs, to cause him to say anything his handlers want him to say in court.

The psychiatrists who are working on Holmes will need advice on methods. They’ll go to, or be approached by, the people who have the track record, the history, the experience: the CIA.

And once that move is made, it will be very much like saying the Holmes case has national-security implications.

In so far as the Aurora murders have been used to try to snuff out the 2^nd Amendment, the case is definitely the gun-grabbers’ version of national security. They want no mistakes in Holmes’ performance.

They want him to enter a plea of non-guilty by reason of insanity. Then they want him, after his stay in a mental hospital for “testing and observation,” to come back to court, and state that is now aware he killed and wounded many people. Then the State will dispose of him one way or another and he will never again see the light of day.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

Naïve people place false barriers between the practice of psychiatry, institutional confinement, coerced admissions of guilt, torture, brain-twisting drugs, and the CIA’s MKULTRA. They swim together in the same stream far more often than Americans want to admit, or want to know about.

This horrendous stream flows through the James Holmes case.

Other than using drugs to force him to follow orders, what possible value can this “narcoanalytic review” have in a court of law? Think about it. If Holmes enters an insanity plea, thus triggering the ensuing truth-drug interrogation, he’ll already be stating he is crazy. So the drugs will be administered to a crazy man, on the premise that can he recall correctly, or reveal correctly, his state of mind at the time he committed murders.

Is there any defense lawyer in the country who couldn’t cast doubt on the reliability of such evidence?

No, the Holmes case is now being used to put straight-out drug-torture of defendants, in order to gain confessions, into the mainstream of American legal practice.

There is one more long-shot factor here. It’s nearly unthinkable, but it should be mentioned. Many people have found evidence that the Aurora murders were staged. Without recounting the details, suppose there is one more piece of stagework left: the truth drugs used on Holmes are shown to have created brain damage.

If Holmes’ lawyers claim that the prosecution irreparably destroyed their client, they can move for a mistrial.

Can you imagine the uproar, chaos, and destabilization that would result from a declaration of a mistrial, a no-verdict in the case, and Holmes walking out of prison? Or his remand to a psychiatric facility as a permanently damaged person—but without a guilty verdict?

Jon Rappoport

Sandy Hook: Mind control achieved through the “information flicker effect”

Dec20

by Jon Rappoport

December 12, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

No, I’m not talking about the flicker of the television picture. I’m talking about an on-off switch that controls information conveyed to the television audience.

The Sandy Hook school murders provide an example.

First of all, elite media coverage of this tragedy has one goal: to provide an expanding narrative of what happened. It’s a story. It has a plot.

In order to tell the story, there has to be a source of information. The top-flight television anchors are getting their information from…where?

Their junior reporters? Not really. Ultimately, the information is coming from the police, and secondarily from local officials.

In other words, very little actual journalism is happening. The media anchors are absorbing, arranging, and broadcasting details given to them by the police investigators.

The anchors are PR people for the cops.

This has nothing to do with journalism. Nothing.

The law-enforcement agencies investigating the Sandy Hook shootings on the scene, in real time, were following up on leads? We don’t know what leads they were following and what leads they were discarding. We don’t know what mistakes they were making. We don’t know what evidence they were overlooking or intentionally ignoring. We don’t know whether there were any corrupt cops who were slanting evidence.

The police were periodically giving out information to the media. The anchors were relaying this information to the audience.

So when the police privately tell reporters, “We chased a suspect into the woods above the school,” that becomes a television fact. Until it isn’t a fact any longer.

The police, for whatever reason, decide to drop the whole “suspect in the woods” angle. Why? No idea.

Therefore, the media anchors no longer mention it.

Instead the police are focused on Adam Lanza, who is found dead in the school. So are the television anchors, who no longer refer to the suspect in the woods.

That old thread is gone down the memory hole.

What does this do to the audience who has been following the narrative on television? It sets up a flicker effect. An hour ago, it was suspect in the woods. Now, that bit of data is gone. On-off switch. It was on, now it’s off.

This is a break in logic. It makes no sense.

Which is the whole point.

The viewer thinks: “Let’s see. There was a suspect in the woods. The cops were chasing him. Now he doesn’t exist. We don’t know his name. We don’t know why he’s off the radar. We don’t know whether he was arrested. We don’t know if he was questioned. Okay, I guess I’ll have to forget all about him. I’ll just track what the anchor is telling me. He’s telling the story. I have to follow his story.”

This was only one flicker. Others occur. The father of Adam’s brother was found dead. No, that’s gone now. The mother of Adam was found dead. Okay. Adam killed all these children with two pistols. No, that’s gone now. He used a rifle. It was a Bushmaster. No, it was a Sig Sauer. One weapon was found in the trunk of a car. No, three weapons.

At each succeeding point, a fact previously reported is jettisoned and forgotten, to be replaced with a new fact. The television viewer has to forget, along with the television anchor. The viewer wants to follow the developing narrative, so he has to forget. He has no choice if he wants to “stay in the loop.”

But this flicker effect does something to the viewer’s mind. His mind is no longer sharp. It’s not generating questions. Logic has been offloaded. Obvious questions and doubts are shelved.

“How could they think it was the dead father in New Jersey when it was actually the dead mother in Connecticut?”

“Why did they say he used two handguns when it was a rifle?”

“Or was it really a rifle?”

“I heard a boy on camera say there was another man the cops caught and they had him proned out on the ground in front of the school. What happened to him? Where did he go? Why isn’t the anchor keeping track of him?”

All these obvious and reasonable questions have to be scratched and forgotten, because the television story is moving into different territory, and the viewer wants to follow the story.

This constant flicker effect eventually produces, in the television viewer…passivity.

He surrenders to the ongoing narrative. Surrenders.

This is mind control.

The television anchor doesn’t have a problem. His job is to move seamlessly, through an ever-increasing series of contradictions and discarded details, to keep the narrative going, to keep it credible.

He knows how to do that. That’s why he is the anchor.

He can make it seem as if the story is a growing discovery of what really happened, even though his narrative is littered with abandoned clues and dead-ends and senseless non-sequiturs.

And the viewer pays the price.

Mired in passive acceptance of whatever the anchor is telling him, the viewer assumes his own grasp on logic and basic judgment is flawed.

Now, understand that this viewer has been watching television news for years. He’s watched many of these breaking events. The cumulative effect is devastating.

The possibility, for example, that Adam Lanza wasn’t the shooter, but was the patsy, is as remote to the viewer as a circus of ants doing Shakespeare on Mars.

The possibility that the cops hid evidence and were ordered to release other suspects is unthinkable.

Considering that there appears to be not one angry outraged parent in Newtown (because the network producers wouldn’t permit such a parent to be interviewed on camera) never occurs to the viewer.

Wondering why the doctor of Adam Lanza hasn’t been found and quizzed about the drugs he prescribed isn’t in the mind of the viewer.

The information flicker effect is powerful. It sweeps away independent thought and measured contemplation. It certainly rules out the possibility of imagining the murders in an alternative narrative.

Because there is only one narrative. It is delivered by Brian Williams and Scott Pelley and Diane Sawyer.

Interesting how they never disagree.

Never, in one of these horrendous events do the three kings and queens of television news end up with different versions of what happened.

What are the odds of that, if the three people are rational and inquisitive?

But these three anchors are not rational or inquisitive. They are synthetic creations of the machine that runs them.

They flicker yes and they flicker no. They edit and cut and discard and tailor as they go along. Yes, no, yes, no. On, off, on, off.

And the viewers follow, in a state of hypnosis.

Why?

Because the viewers are addicted to STORY. They are as solidly addicted as a junkie looking for his next shot.

“Tell me a story. I want a story. That was a good story, but now I’m bored. Tell me another story. Please? I need another story. Tell me the beginning and the middle and the end. I’m listening. I’m watching. Tell me a story.”

And the anchors oblige.

They deal the drug.

But to get the drug, the audience has to surrender everything they question. They have to submit to the flicker effect and go under. Actually, surrendering to the flicker effect deepens the addiction.

And the drug deal is consummated.

Welcome to television coverage.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Finally, while under hypnosis, the viewing audience is treated to a segueway that leads to…the guns. Something has to be done about the guns. The mind-control operation that brought the passive audience to this point takes them to the next moment of surrender, as if it were part of the same overall Sandy Hook story:

Give up the guns.

In their entrained and tranced state of mind, viewers don’t ask why law-enforcement agencies are so titanically armed to do police work in America, why those agencies have ordered well over a billion rounds of ammunition in the last six months, why every day the invasive surveillance of the population moves in deeper and deeper.

Viewers, in their trance, simply assume government is benevolent and should be weaponized to the teeth, because those viewers subliminally recognize that the television anchors are actually government allies and spokespeople, and aren’t those anchors good and kind and thoughtful and intelligent and honorable?

Therefore, isn’t the government also kind and honorable?

Jon Rappoport

The Connecticut school shootings: Operation Chaos

Dec15

by Jon Rappoport

December 14, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

Jacob Roberts, the Oregon mall shooter, and the shooter(s) (Adam Lanza) at the Connecticut elementary school, share a common trait: they committed irrational and inexplicable murders.

This may seem like an obvious fact, but it holds the key to understanding what is going on. You don’t look for an ordinary motive. Therefore, what are we dealing with?

It’s easy to say, “They were crazy,” or “Who cares why they did it,” but that gets you nowhere.

We have to shake off our own conditioning to these repetitive murders. We have to shake off the idea that “they just keep happening” and instead look below the surface.

First and foremost, we have to consider the possibility that SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft were in play. The drugs have been well studied. They do, in fact, push people far over the edge, scramble neurotransmitter systems, and result in patients committing suicides and murders.

My extensive school-shooting report, written a decade ago, lays out the facts about these drugs, and also about the amphetamine-type drugs prescribed for ADHD, like Ritalin:

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/02/11/the-school-shooting-white-paper/

The meds cause inexplicable violent behavior: suicide, homicide. The drugs were, in fact, linked with the 1999 Columbine school shooting. Eric Harris, one of the killers, was on Luvox, an SSRI antidepressant, which was taken off the market by its manufacturer several years later.

It’s long past the time when police should continue to fear defensive psychiatrists. In these latest tragedies, an investigation must be launched immediately to see whether the shooters were on these drugs, or whether they had just come off them. The withdrawal effects alone can be horrific.

You can be sure drug companies have people striving to find out, in Oregon and Connecticut, before anyone else does, whether the shooters were on the devastating drugs. It’s called damage control, which means, if necessary, covering up or downplaying the facts.

The same kind of damage control is no doubt being tried in the Aurora theater shootings, where it finally leaked out that James Holmes was under the care of a psychiatrist and was, most likely, on one or more of the drugs that induce out-of-control violence—inexplicable baffling violence.

Jacob Roberts, the Oregon mall shooter, was said to be happy-go-lucky, and then shortly before the killings, “went numb.” Investigate whether he was under the care of a doctor, and whether he was given psychiatric drugs.

Whether either or both of the shooters in Oregon and Connecticut were operating out of an even darker mind-controlled program, as was apparently the case, for example, with the dupe in the RFK assassination, Sirhan Sirhan, we are still looking at Operation Chaos:

Generations of children and adults have now fallen under the influence of psychiatrists, who have given them these brain-scrambling chemicals, and the overall outcome is certain. People will continue to launch inexplicable motiveless murders, on a random basis.

The destabilizing effects on the society, the debilitating effects on the population are enormous. People are confused, they become more passive, they move a little further each time into dependence on the authorities.

The government screws in tighter controls on freedom. New programs are mounted to take away guns from citizens.

All this is the aim of the massive covert operation that is behind the “mental-health establishment.” Distort the brains and neurological systems of millions of people, and let the chips fall where they may.

Mass murders are the consequences.

Whether or not Jacob Roberts and the Connecticut school shooter(s) were on these psychiatric drugs, Operation Chaos will proceed. The very fact that we may never find out whether the latest mass murderers were drugged in this way speaks volumes: powerful people don’t want the truth to be known.

This is a common feature of all mass murders: the police and the prosecutors refuse to investigate the psychiatric medicines, unless they are absolutely forced to. They are under tacit orders to ignore that obvious and glaring route of inquiry.

The most important reason why? The hugely powerful drug companies, who are only a step away from incrimination, when a shooter is driven to kill by the storm created in his brain by the drugs.

Billions of dollars are at stake.

The pharmaceutical companies have it all figured out. No matter how much is written and discovered about the violence-inducing effects of psychiatric chemicals, they can ride things out and keep selling those poisons. The FDA will maintain a hands-off attitude. The money will keep rolling in unless:

One of these killers is shown to have killed because he was on Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Ritalin, or Adderall.

Terrible things happened in Oregon and Connecticut. Terrible things will keep happening unless a relentless pursuit of the truth is undertaken. Anything less is obscene dereliction of duty.

To law-enforcement officials: blood is already on your hands. Find the truth and tell it.

Sources:

http://www.breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=295

http://www.naturalnews.com/034960_Prozac_teens_murder.html

http://www.infowars.com/prozac-zoloft-paxil-did-one-of-these-drugs-drive-the-empire-state-shooter/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/panel-to-examine-murder-a_b_838147.html

http://ssristories.com/

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport