Former employee of HSBC Uncovers Terrorist Financing, Blows Whistle

Luke Rudkowski interviews Everett Stern, a former employee of HSBC that uncovered and blew the whistle on the company knowingly financing criminals, terrorists and drug cartels.

To find out more about Everett Stern check out https://twitter.com/SternEverett

Advertisements

Congress Moves to Create New Surveillance Agency Under NDAA 2014

Seen on UnSpy – For Liberty!
images

Congress is ready to add another layer to Stasi surveillance state.

“In other words, the proposed NDAA “enhancement” would further extend the reach of the surveillance state into the private affairs of the American people, a reach significantly more expansive than previous documented, due largely to the recent revelations of whistleblower Edward Snowden.” ~infowars.com

unspy‘s insight:

When is it going to finally dawn on people…. they aren’t setting up new agencies. They’re setting up.. a NEW government….and soft-form of continuous and unending Martal Law… this is now a NEW fundamentally changed country! Welcome to East Germany USSA.

Earlier this year, the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities, one of several Armed Services Committees, discussed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014.

“The main subject of the hearing was Sec. 1061, otherwise known as Enhancement of Capacity of the United States Government to Analyze Captured Records,” writes Stephen Benavides. “This enhancement provision of NDAA 2014 would effectively create a new intelligence agency, one with the authority to analyze information gained under the Patriot Act, FISA, and known spying programs such as PRISM.”


Government continues to insist NSA cannot listen to your phone calls or read your email.

Sec. 1061 authorizes the establishment of a Conflict Records Research Center by the Secretary of Defense. The Center would create a “digital research database” with the ability to “translate” and facilitate research on “records captured from countries, organizations and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.” Additionally, the Center will engage in research to “increase the understanding of factors related to international relations, counterterrorism and conventional and unconventional warfare, and ultimately, enhance national security.”

In order to work effectively, the Center will require collaboration with the Director of National Intelligence in the coordination of “information exchanges important to the leadership of the United States Government.”

Benavides writes:

That coordination would require participation of all 16 member agencies and departments of the U.S. Intelligence Community. This would leave James Clapper, the man accused of lying to Congress about the National Security Agency’s domestic spying program known as PRISM, in de facto direction of another federal surveillance and data analysis agency. And while the Center would be officially directed and overseen by the Secretary of Defense, without unfettered access to secret and top secret information, the Center would be completely ineffective. These information exchanges would most likely include data and records generated by the mass surveillance of everyday people under PRISM, as well as surveillance of those identified as “potential terrorists” or “high value targets” by any one of those 16 intelligence agencies now in operation.

Benavides notes that because the war on terror is now borderless and permanent – due primarily to the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) – any “captured record” may be used by this new agency, including records collected under the sprawling NSA Stasi surveillance state now firmly in place and a prominent feature of the national security state.

if-we-dont-nullify-ndaa1

“Thus, any captured document, audio file, video file, or other material could potentially be submitted to this new intelligence agency for research and analysis, all in the name of national security and counterterrorism, as deemed appropriate by a swelling government surveillance class,” Benavides explains.

In other words, the proposed NDAA “enhancement” would further extend the reach of the surveillance state into the private affairs of the American people, a reach significantly more expansive than previous documented, due largely to the recent revelations of whistleblower Edward Snowden.

“While the National Security Agency swears that no citizen was spied on under PRISM, the very fact that cell phone metadata and online activity was gathered from millions of individuals guarantees that information was taken illegally from innocent people,” Benavides concludes. “We’re told that the government is attempting to minimize the amount of information captured from Americans, and that all of that information is being kept in specialized and restricted servers in order to protect our constitutional rights. But that’s difficult to believe when the Department of Justice is currently fighting the release of a secret FISA Court opinion that detailsunconstitutional government surveillance.”

More accurately, the government – including Congress with Dianne Feinstein, Mike Rogers, Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss leading the pack – is lying to the American people and attempting to dismiss and cover up the NSA surveillance apparatus. Most of our supposed “representatives” are fully on board with the effort to turn the United States into the most effective police state ever imagined.

The goal here is obvious – the government has systematically designed and constructed a surveillance apparatus intended to subvert the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment under the bogus pretext of responding to the attacks of September 11, 2001 and engaging in a boundless and open-ended war on terrorism that does not threaten the United States and, as the evidence reveals, is largely nonexistent, but puts forward the policy objectives of the ruling elite.

The end game is not the eradication of al-Qaeda or the protection of the American people from the hyped-up ravages of terrorism, but the installation of a high-tech surveillance mechanism that will effectively result in apanopticon where political opposition to the establishment and the ruling elite will be virtually impossible.

Military Whistleblower Claims She Witnessed Flight 93 Shootdown Order

A woman who claims she was stationed at Fort Meade on September 11, 2001, has given an explosive interview about how she personally heard military commanders make the decision to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 on 9/11.

A person using the pseudonym Elizabeth Nelson told The Project Camelot website that she personally heard officials agree on the order to shoot down Flight 93. The decision was apparently made because the plane was flying in a no-fly zone near to Camp David and heading toward Site R, a military facility in known as the “backup Pentagon”.

Nelson stresses that at no time was there any talk of “hijackers,” and the plane was shot down purely because communication had been lost and standard operating procedure mandated that the plane be intercepted and destroyed.

Because the woman refuses to provide her real name, the authenticity of her story is very much up for debate, but in a 40 minute MP3 recording ( click here to listen) of the interview, she relates what she witnessed in as sincere and genuine a way as one could expect. This individual has seemingly little to gain from making up such a story, unless it’s part of a deliberate disinformation campaign.

Nelson says that she was stationed at at Fort Meade under the Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Center Hospital and was training as a radiologic technologist having finished basic training three weeks prior. On 9/11, her rank was Private First Class.

Nelson relates how 9/11 started as a routine day before a higher ranked soldier suddenly emerged from another room and exclaimed, “Holy shit! I just saw a plane crash into one of the Twin Towers.”

Nelson and her colleagues then gathered around the TV in the hospital lobby before they saw the second plane hit the tower. Despite the fact that the first plane strike was not broadcast on live television, Nelson was adamant that the soldier was referring to the first plane when he first spoke. Nelson says that when she first saw the live TV pictures, only one tower was on fire, so the soldier could not have been referring to a replay of the second hit. In the interview, Nelson speculates that the first hit could have been broadcast on an internal military channel. President Bush once famously claimed that he had seen the first plane hit and thought that it was a case of pilot error, despite there being no live TV footage of the first plane strike.

While the majority of the personnel on the base scrambled to protect the facility as part of standard operating procedure, Nelson and a colleague were offered up by their First Sergeant to act as assistants to the Commander of the Base.

“All the other departments of soldiers – the nursing department, the clerical, administrational department – everybody sent their base soldiers there and I didn’t see them anymore. So basically the hospital was not fully active at that point. Everything was on hold,” said Nelson, adding, “And so I remember the room that they took us into. And they told us that we were in charge of, you know, getting coffees, any kind of snacks from the cafeteria – not cafeteria, like from the snack machines or from the place where you can get little snacks – in charge of making photocopies because she and I had the access codes for the rooms, to get in there.”

Nelson and her colleague were sat at the far end of the room and told to face the wall as the meeting of top officials on the base commenced.

“And there was probably six or seven men around this very large table, just like you would see in a big office somewhere. And they had this funny phone. It was like a conference-call phone. And I remember them sitting there and they were talking through this phone. And it seemed to me that they were talking to one or two other places,” said Nelson, adding that she suspected the men were in contact with the West Point military base an hour north of New York City.

The men were trying to ascertain what was going on and quickly expressed concern about Camp David and “Site R” and stating words to the effect of, “Protocol is that this is a no-fly zone. We have to take this plane down. Yes, it’s a passenger plane. It needs to be taken down. It’s a no-fly zone.”

 According to Wikipedia, Site R, otherwise known as The Raven Rock Mountain Complex (RRMC) or the Underground Pentagon, is a United States government facility on Raven Rock, a mountain in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. The facility houses the ANMCC (Alternate National Military Command Center), JSSC (Joint Staff Support Center), OSD/DHS (Office of the Secretary of Defense/Department of Homeland Security), and the 114th Signal Battalion. RRMC also houses the emergency operations centers for the Army, Navy and Air Force.

“I didn’t hear a thing about hijackers,” states Nelson, “We just heard that this plane was flying in a no-fly zone and they couldn’t make contact with the plane, or something like this. There was no communication. Protocol says it has to be taken out. And so I was in this room when the decision was mutually made by the people talking on the phone in the room that I was in, to shoot this plane down.”

“It didn’t feel like anybody knew that there was anything with terrorists,” added Nelson, saying that the officers mentioned the attack on the twin towers but only in the context that they didn’t know where Flight 93 was heading. She got the impression that they were genuinely unaware of the wider 9/11 plot, as would be expected in a compartmentalized structure, and that they were simply following military protocol.

Nelson recalls how she later felt revulsion after she saw news reports about how Flight 93 had supposedly been taken down by brave passengers.

“I remember the distinct feeling inside of me of when I saw on the news that there was this story that there were terrorists on this plane, and that the people overtook the pilot and crashed the plane, – I mean, overtook the terrorists and crashed the plane themselves. And how this was leaking out as these people being heroes,” she states.

“And I remember the extreme moral frustration inside of me, of feeling: But that’s not true! That’s not true at all! We shot this down. And a huge conflict inside of me, of knowing that the world is made to believe this story that’s not true.”

Nelson subsequently felt frustrated when anyone talked about the manufactured myth of the Flight 93 heroes.

“I also remember the confronting feeling when I would be around … because there were civilians that worked in the hospital as well. And then when they would talk about the heroes and these things, the conflict that I had inside of myself was wanting to bust out and say: That’s not true!,” she states.

“They didn’t crash the plane. If they would have crashed it, there would have been a skeleton of the plane. There was no… Nothing. It was blown up.”

Nelson speculated that the errant aircraft could have been originally heading for New York City (Building 7?) before the passengers retook control of the aircraft and started aimlessly flying it elsewhere.

“The only thing I can think is if the third plane was also intended for somewhere in the city [New York City] as well, and that the people actually did take over the hijackers and divert the plane so that the plane ended up flying aimlessly someplace else. And of course the people don’t know how to talk over the radio or any of these things. And that’s maybe something that happened,” she states.

The biggest argument against Nelson’s claims is the hard to accept notion that she and another Private were allowed to sit within earshot of top military commanders making monumental decisions about national security. If the commanders had needed people to make photocopies of documents and bring snacks and drinks as Nelson describes, then why not just have them on call in a different room? One would expect that a military complex have sophisticated communication connections that would have easily facilitated such a scenario.

Then again, if all the other active duty personnel were busy defending the base it could be argued that in the midst of the chaos, Nelson and her colleague were called upon.

Whether or not Nelson’s story is true, the fact that Flight 93 was shot down is one of the most glaring holes in the official 9/11 story.

Footage of the crash site showed barely any debris whatsoever. Compare this to any other plane crash in history and the contrast is astounding.

The debris field of Flight 93 was eight miles wide – investigators found a second debris field three miles away from the main crash site at Indian Lake, and a third debris field in New Baltimore, eight miles away. This is entirely consistent with the plane having been shot down.

Several eyewitnesses described hearing explosions before Flight 93 crashed and others said they heard missiles.

The Flight93Crash website has a compilation of eyewitness reports all attesting to the fact that the plane was shot down.

Donald Rumsfeld himself  said that Flight 93 was “shot down” in an apparent slip of the tongue on December 24, 2004.