When the media manipulates information

October 23, 2005

I plan to revisit the issue of September 11 as soon as I have some time. Amidst this veritable avalanche of catastrophic news coming from all corners of the globe, one hardly knows where to begin or what to write.

What seems clear is that, more than ever, we live in a civilization of lies. If there were any announcement to be made nowadays, it would be:

We’re desperately seeking moral values.

Ah, before you plunge into all these horrors, let me recommend a good antidote. Go watch a relatively recent movie full of dreams—where CEOs are poor souls trapped within systems, where high school teachers have kind hearts, where little North African girls are beautiful and adorably naive, where teenagers are romantic. Go see “Saint Jacques la Mecque.” I was reluctant at first; I grumbled about it. But two friends dragged me along, and I got a breath of fresh air. I wandered through landscapes reminiscent of the American Wild West, akin to those depicted in “Dances with Wolves”—yet this was in France. I laughed heartily. Everything in this film is guaranteed: villains and bitter people transform into very decent folks. The happy ending is assured. These men, women, and children mirror us—with both dark and bright sides. At the end, everyone’s dark clouds dissipate, leaving only warm light. It feels good to dream that things might actually turn out this way. Without dreams, we cease to exist; it is dreams that change the world. Remember Martin Luther King’s words:

“I had a dream.”

Must we constantly echo the horrors of the world? Must we hunt down lies and demand investigations? Is there a solution? We must believe in it, against all odds. Believe that the edifice of lies resembles a house of cards or a row of dominoes. This is the stance I choose to adopt:

The future isn’t written anywhere.

The world isn’t under tranquilizers; it’s under sleeping pills. Have you ever tried to wake someone who’s taken a sleeping pill in the middle of the night? Or perhaps this has happened to you? It’s agonizing, almost painful.

“Wake up! The house is on fire!” “Leave me alone! Let me sleep!”

In Aldous Huxley’s ideal world, “emotion engineers” already produced documents—what we now call audiovisual materials—to keep people in a state of unconsciousness. When such people resisted treatment, there was still “soma,” a drug with no side effects.

These drugs exist; they’re called tranquilizers. Occasionally, scientific media report that scientists are very close to creating “the happiness pill.” You’re not dreaming; it’s all real. But frankly, the more time passes, the more these scientists bore me—they lack any moral values, ideals, even dreams.

Sometimes you feel like bursting out laughing. Bird flu—which I’ve been stressing on my site since May 2005—is at our doorstep. If you don’t know where Croatia is, consult an atlas. It’s a thousand kilometers from us, on the Adriatic coast.

Progression of bird flu as of October 23, 2005

But “all precautions have been taken.” And that’s when we witness an unimaginable farce on TV. A “representative of French veterinary services” is called to a field where a dead crow was found. Wearing rubber gloves, he carefully picks it up and places it in a plastic bag. Then, instead of removing his gloves and putting them in the same bag, he keeps them on and starts writing his report, handling the pen and paper with those gloves. The end of the clip doesn’t show whether, upon leaving the journalists, he shakes hands with them wearing those same gloves!

Who put this together? In what circus did they find this “representative of veterinary services”? What commentary can we make? As I’ve already written:

Between alarmism and blindness, where lies the right stance?

I know no more than you do. There exists a lexicon allowing us to translate official statements. For example:

“Those responsible for these misdeeds will be prosecuted, regardless of their position.”

means:

“Rest assured we’ll do everything to cover this up.”

Another example:

“A series of measures are being prepared; their gradual implementation should improve the situation.”

means:

“We have absolutely no idea what to do and we’re telling you anything...”

Finally:

“The risk must be considered extremely low; in any case, all precautions have been taken.”

should be translated as:

“We have absolutely no idea what might hit us; besides, we’re practically completely unprepared.”

Just in case, go buy some cardboard masks and paper towels—they’re cheap and might come in handy. You can find them at hardware stores. A friend of mine is about to accompany a tourist group to Vietnam. I know Tamiflu is impossible to find at regular pharmacies. I advised her, armed with proof, to try getting it at her local military hospital, which is probably better equipped to obtain doses of this precious stock than what TV shows us a hundred times over. It’s a precautionary measure in a region already affected by a deadly variant of the virus. But I doubt she’ll do it—because that would mean realizing the true scale of the problem.

Get vaccinated. That doesn’t mean it’ll save you in case of a pandemic. Nor does it mean this vaccine will protect you from ordinary flu viruses, which mutate constantly. But if a pandemic occurs, this is the first question your doctor will ask, trying to assess your condition: “Are you vaccinated?” Personally, I asked my doctor for a prescription and I’ll get vaccinated. I bought the vaccine. I noticed the dose came in a disposable syringe, all sealed in plastic, ready to use. These measures aim to prevent drug addicts from spreading AIDS by reusing syringes.

Yet now these disposable syringes could pose another kind of danger. For now, this is mere speculation: that globally, during a vaccination campaign, people are injected with “chips” smaller than a grain of sand, easily passing through syringe needles and practically invisible in liquid. I’ve already explained that these chips could serve as antennas enabling manipulation of large groups of people, either via ground-based microwave transmitters, satellite emitters, or ground-based sources whose waves are reflected by mirrors made of ionized gas.

See the file dedicated to the HAARP project

I wonder if it wouldn’t be wise to try finding old equipment—Grandpa’s Pyrex syringe with its removable needle, sterilized with steam. Then the plan to inject 100-micron chips (already operational) could be thwarted. All you’d need is to filter the liquid using filter paper, or at worst a simple paper towel or handkerchief, taken from its packet. When you arrive at the nurse’s or doctor’s office with your disposable syringe, you could say:

“Would you mind filtering the contents and using this other syringe instead?”

You can also learn to give injections yourself; it’s child’s play. I’ve done dozens after practicing on a pillow. Should a mass vaccination campaign ever occur, I’ll open a free clinic at my home. We just need to find such equipment. Where? At an... antique shop? If anyone has such gear, I’d gladly take it for my future clinic. Follow my example; equip yourselves. You never know...

The title of this page dealt with media manipulation. I have two clips to share. The first aired on TF1 on October 14. Bush made a clumsy blunder. While his standing in the media was plummeting, he wanted to present a “very open” dialogue with members of the expeditionary force in Iraq. “Handsome, clean-cut” Marines, with a pretty brunette on the left, as if all female soldiers were bombshells! But nothing came of it. The commentary claimed this interview was “very positive” and that American troops’ morale seemed excellent there. Then, oops—the tape continues, and all U.S. TV channels broadcast a rehearsal of this scene where a Pentagon representative checks that soldiers have memorized their lines.

A manipulation error? Perhaps. It could also be an act by a technician fed up with all these lies. The Pentagon... apologized to the American people. But how can one recover politically from something like this?! It defies comprehension.

Excerpt from TF1’s 1 PM news on October 14, 2005

The second clip required work by one of my collaborators, Mattew Pearlson. French television aired two documents concerning September 11. The first is the scandalous “September 11 Didn’t Happen,” broadcast on Arte in 2004. This film may be available on sites like Emule. The second is a documentary where the designer of the Twin Towers, the World Trade Center’s twin towers, explains “Why the towers collapsed.” That’s the title. According to him, this was due to “an initial design error.” We’re currently dissecting this film, frame by frame, theme by theme. These analyses will appear on the site in HTML pages, with short animated GIF sequences. We can’t extract elements from these videos, which are protected by copyright held by their creators and broadcasters.

For now, know that the document on the towers isn’t any more credible than the one previously aired by Arte. The designer explains that to maximize office space, supporting elements were placed on the periphery. These towers are built like cages with wavy bars welded together. This technique allowed very rapid construction: you assemble and weld the elements. According to the Twin Towers’ designer, the floors, forming a relatively lightweight structure, are attached to this external support framework. In the center there’s also a more conventional support structure, which he barely mentions; it houses elevators and staircases.

His thesis is that upon striking the towers, the planes not only weakened the floors—“which fell one atop the other”—but “the explosion of jet fuel ripped off the thick fireproof coating protecting these structures.” In short, this led to what we saw: the spectacular collapse of both towers, falling straight down like “i’s.”

The designer then tries to explain (I’ll show you all this with images and GIF sequences) how the separation of the floors weakened the outer structure. He shows two models. The presence of “floors” allows the first tower to bear heavy loads. In the second model, there are no floors; the “tower” (his model) sags, but—and this is glaringly obvious—it twists as it bends. I was an engineer and have some knowledge regarding material strength and structures. Such a phenomenon is called “structural buckling.” Yet if his thesis were correct, there’d be absolutely no chance of vertical collapse, especially since the fire affected only one side of each floor, not the whole structure. The towers would have bent (just like in his model, which thus proves the opposite of what he intended!). You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to notice all these details in the film. We must also remember that Building No. 7 also collapsed vertically, in classic “controlled demolition” fashion, despite having a completely different, standard structure. Moreover, it suffered no plane impact. The fire it experienced was minor; photos prove this. Add that the official investigation report simply omitted any mention of Building No. 7’s tragic fate—even though it reached half the height of the Twin Towers.

We’ll need to compile all these documents; it’s a huge task. Fortunately, my collaborators will extract short video segments and convert them into animated GIFs.

But there’s a sequence at the end of the second film, aired in 2004 on a French channel. After this brilliant technical demonstration, the film ends with slow-motion footage set to violin music. This is the kind of piece you’d hear in a crematorium. We see the “fatally wounded by plane impacts” towers collapsing slowly, to music. But one thing immediately caught my eye. If you doubt this, you can look up both the aired film and other repeated videos. It’s the sequence showing one of the planes hitting one of the towers (actually there are four; this fleeting flash appears on all four, as shown in Jimmy Walter’s team’s “Painful Deception”). The French channel version (France 2? Date?) replays this sequence in slow motion, but—astonishingly—the flash no longer appears.

Wait for the animated GIF sequence to load. Here’s what it looks like.

Left: Original sequence. Right: Sequence aired on Arte: the flash has been removed!

You’ll also clearly see a container attached beneath the plane—this isn’t a commercial airliner but a military aircraft. Who was inside? No one. It was flown automatically, guided by a radio beacon. Any professional pilot would tell you it’s impossible to pull off such a maneuver manually at 650 km/h, especially while banking sharply. And we’re supposed to believe that terrorists with minimal training could accomplish what professionals declare impossible!

As noted by one of my readers, Serge Bougaieff, there’s a photo of the impact from CNN’s site, which can’t be accused of conspiracy theories:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/gallery/unimaginable.html (archive from 20/05/2006)

Here’s that photo:

Image of the impact as seen on CNN’s site

But why this flash? This container?

There’s an explanation. The Twin Towers indeed have an external support structure, which “protects” them like tight corsets. Of course, thanks to its kinetic energy, the plane stood a good chance of penetrating inside. Its engines and wing spars form rigid structures. The steel turbine shafts behave at such speeds like actual punches (though they seem ineffective in the “Boeing 757” crash into the Pentagon). The problematic part is the fuselage; its front section, made of lightweight alloy, is akin to chocolate paper. So, to ensure the fuselage penetrates, why not fire a “contact missile” using the “contact firing” technique mentioned in the Koursk file? Note that if this were true, it’d be impossible for our “beginner pilot” to execute such a shot at the exact right moment, to the hundredth of a second. All this must be commanded automatically by a radar rangefinder integrated into the ventral pod or container.

But then, where was the real plane? What became of its pilots, passengers, and terrorists filmed boarding?

Details, all of them. When you decide to kill thousands of your own citizens to create a “Pearl Harbor” at home, would you hesitate to make disappear one or several aircraft along with dozens more people? All it took was for an agent to leave, a few blocks away from the towers, the passport of Mohamed Atta—intact and well visible.

Can you imagine this poor guy, with just a few hours of training on a single-engine trainer, steering a heavily loaded airliner straight into a tower, while banking sharply—and at the last moment, at 650 km/h, tossing his passport out the window? Can you imagine the wind current generated by opening a window at 650 km/h inside a cockpit?

None of this makes any sense, none.

Yet I’ve received messages from readers “surprised that a scientist of my caliber engages in such disinformation operations.”

“Do you have your own explanation?” “Of course. I’ve been convinced for a long time.” “Does that mean you’ve compiled your own dossier?” “Absolutely!” “Then you can share it with us. I’m ready to open my columns, as I did a year ago for computer expert Jean-Sylvain Delroux, who could thus develop his very original explanations.”

I’m still waiting.

History is full of monstrosities. The difference is we learn of them 40 years later. Look at Delouvrier’s testimony (Source: November 2004 special issue of Science et Vie, on the Algerian War): High Commissioner of the Republic in Algeria, directly under de Gaulle, he admitted before dying that with help from French oil companies, he paid the FLN to avoid sabotaging the gas pipeline carrying “French gas” from Hassi-Messaoud to the Mediterranean port of Bougie.

Yet even when perpetrators are still alive, no one moves; not a single journalist utters a word. We install a Minister of Defense who covered up negligences that amounted to crimes at the Académie Française, decorating and redecorating him. We have at the head of the State not a politician but a common thief, saved from prosecution only by extending his parliamentary immunity.

People of Earth must choose. If they all decide to keep closing their eyes to the lies displayed daily before them, they’ll pay a heavy price. Horrible chaos awaits, making our previous world wars seem like playground squabbles—and this within just a few years.

What measures must be taken? They’re both simple and utopian. We must shatter banking secrecy, eliminate tax havens (think of Ziegler’s book, whose author knows what he speaks of, being from such a country; his book is titled “Switzerland Washes Whiter”). Current computer technology, inspired by the famous search engine “Google,” makes it technically feasible for every person on Earth to access virtually instantly all banking transactions and individual accounts worldwide—at least for the most important ones. Transparency, economic truth emerging naked from the murky, putrid pit where it hides. I believe it was ecologist René Dumont who once wrote:

Utopia or death.

This message remains valid. But this time the deadline is less than five years, mark that.

Failing to shatter banking secrecy, we’ll try conducting counter-investigations on the toughest subjects. The champion of all “dominos”: the September 11, 2001 affair, to which I’ll now devote maximum effort. Goal: post online all available evidence, including that relating to pathetic broadcasts attempting to uphold the official thesis—some of which represent a disgrace to journalism, such as the infamous “September 11 Didn’t Happen,” produced by “so courageous, so honest, uncompromising” Arte.

Back to News Back to Guide Back to Home Page

Number of views since October 23, 2005: