Fact checking Newsbud’s “Syria Under Siege” Video

03/29/2018786 Comments

James fact checks Newsbud’s recent “Syria Under Siege” video and comes to some unfortunate conclusions.

Watch this video on BitChute / YouTube

SHOW NOTES

Sibel attacks 21st Century Wire (Archived link)

Sibel accuses “junkie” news site 21Wire of mystery funding (Archived link)

Sibel replies to George Monbiot to attack Beeley and Bartlett (Archived link)

Sibel claims SSM “kicked out” Beeley/Bartlett. SSM disputes. (Archived link)

Newsbud promises documented expose of Beeley and Bartlett (Archived link)

Syria Under Siege: Guarding Against Wolves in Sheep Clothing

Sibel claims expose “triple fact-checked” (Archived link)

Sibel congratulates Eva’s reporting, offers her a position (Archived link)

Paul Larudee Disavows Sibel
Part 1 (Twitter) / Part 1 (Archive)
Part 2 (Twitter) / Part 2 (Archive)
Part 3 (Twitter) / Part 3 (Archive)
Part 4 (Twitter) / Part 4 (Archive)

Vanessa Beeley’s 2014 tweet archive

Military Intervention is never the answer.

Further context to Beeley/Navsteva torture conversation

30 years since Sydney’s Hilton Hotel bombing—the unanswered questions

Original source of Mufti mistranslation

Sourcewatch: Memri

Mufti Hassoun Threatens U.S and Europe | The True Story

Beeley quotes Chris York using a “dirty” word (Archived link)

Sibel uses a “dirty” word 1 (Archived link)
Sibel uses a “dirty” word 2 (Archived link)
Sibel uses a “dirty” word 3 (Archived link)
Sibel uses a “dirty” word 4 (Archived link)

Larger context of Beeley’s DM re: Rania Khalek (Archived link)

MSM Syria Lies Need to Be Exposed

Western corporate media ‘disappears’ over 1.5 million Syrians and 4,000 doctors

Syria: Aleppo Doctor Demolishes Imperialist Propaganda and Media Warmongering

Jafaari at UN calls MSF a branch of French intelligence

Newsbud’s Exposé of Beeley and Bartlett: Comment

Sibel discussing doctors and psychologists at torture sites (Archived link)

Cory Morningstar blasts Newsbud for falsely alleging plagiarism

Sibel claims SSM got 1.5 million (Archived link)

SSM response to $1.5 million claim

Sibel tweets Daniel McAdams regarding her campaign part 1 (Archived link)
Sibel tweets Daniel McAdams regarding her campaign part 2 (Archived link)
Sibel tweets Daniel McAdams regarding her campaign part 3 (Archived link)
Sibel tweets Daniel McAdams regarding her campaign part 4 (Archived link)

Example of social media posts being made under the “human decency” campaign (Archived link)

Sibel admits she researched her claims about Patrick Henningsen AFTER she made them, and found that they were false (Archived link)

Sibel’s personal attack on Vanessa Beeley (Archived link)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Videos

Comments (786)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. manbearpig says:

    From American Everyman:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAA4ps77GzI

    “Ajoutée le 29 mars 2018
    Sibel Edmonds turning on Vanessa, Eva and Patrick? Ending her hit-piece video with open support for the attack on independent journalism right as we are about to ratchet-up the war on Syria? And folks act surprised Sibel is toeing the establishment line? Anyone remember her 9/11 “truthtelling”? Anyone?”

    PG-rated: Profanity

    He’s not into handing out flowers…thorny stems for everyone… this reporting is not exactly Mr Corbett’s substantiated surgical strikes…

    Haven’t always subscribed to everything American Everyman’s said…but…

    he’s trying to make sense of it all… sincerely it would seem…
    makes some interesting predictions and analyses as to “Why now?”…

    Dissecting the demonic art of Gatekeeping…

    (Sorry if it’s already been posted)

    • manbearpig says:

      And for my own catharsis, to finally leave this whole can o’ worms behind, I’ll come clean as to exactly where I’m coming from on this issue:

      Below is an unedited comment I left on the Newsbud site on February 18, 2017 at 9:47 am in reponse to the following Newsbud feature:

      Newsbud Special Report- State Secrets: Sibel Edmonds Uncovers ‘The Untouchables’

      “A very moving and disturbing testimony with enormous implications.
      Now for my Mea Culpa;
      I have to admit, for many years I was very skeptical of you Sibel Edmonds and even voiced my réservations and unfounded convictions on the comments board of a website.
      It was because of Behrooz Sarshar, and when complaining that his testimony had not been taken into account you seemed (to me at the time) to be supporting the LIHOP idea purporting that Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11, which was preposterous to me.

      I had réservations about Daniel Ellsberg as well because of Doug Valentine’s article “Will the Real Daniel Ellsberg please stand up!” and seeing videos of you in his company reinforced my suspicions of deep state collusion.

      Also I found it strange that Behrooz Sashar claimed he’d been your father’s classmate at school. And that your uncle, according to the Vanity Fair article, had been the mayor of Istanbul (mother’s brother?) which all seemed to indicate to me that you had ties to an international political network with an unstated agenda which explained why you were living in Washington DC and were hired by the FBI.

      Finally, that you are so charismatic and seemed to be unanimously venerated by the 9/11 Truther crowd made me think you’d be the perfect pied piper à la Amy Goodman or Noam Chomsky using Truth to lead people away from the Truth which really put me on edge.

      Since then it has been very gratifying listening to you on a number of subjects including Gladio B and using your videos concerning Jeff Cohen and Fair.org (The Fifth State exposed) and Edward Snowden (on infowars with David Knight) with university media students. Finally, amongst the ambient mire, I’m proud to say that I am occasionally capable of admitting I was wrong and changing my mind.

      and I’m glad to be supporting, however modestly, this kind of alternative media.

      Anyhow, be safe and I look forward to discovering more enlightening content here on Newsbud.”

      To which Sibel Edmonds replied:

      “Kate, thank you for this sincere comment. Behrooz Sarshar’s documented info, as far as I could tell, was genuine. As for Ellsberg: I learned my lesson- the hard way. I am a big fan of Doug Valentine as well.”

      to which I replied:
      February 21, 2017 at 4:30 am
      Thank you very much for your reply.

      For what it’s worth, the comment’s still up on the site.

      The website where I’d left a number of comments expressing my doubts about Sibel Edmonds (and incidentally quoting Angie who I mentioned above in another post) was the “Paying to be Raped” piece by Sibel Edmonds about the TSA machines published on InternationalClearingHouse. Their comments no longer verifieable

    • peter.fairhurst says:

      Thanks for that video manbearpig. He certainly raises a very interesting point about Sibel Edmonds “whistleblowing” about the “Bin Laden did 9/11” diversion.

      I now wish that I had researched SE more thoroughly myself. I took her Gladio B on face value. Particularly so given that it was in effect endorsed by James.

      But 9/11 was done by Bin Lid? That is simply ridiculous as anyone who is half awake will know.

      So James this leads to a big question for you:

      You must have known Sibel’s views about Bin Lid. And they are disinfo surely? So how could you associate with her at all?

      • manbearpig says:

        Your question is not addressed to me, but I hope you’ll suffer that I offer my off-the-cuff thoughts on the subject.

        She may never have come out and said verbatim “Bin laden orchestrated 9/11”
        (Though she strongly implied it in “official government reports” and in televised interviews) and when demanding that Behrooz Sarshar, (who did claim to have received info that Bin Laden would be responsible) be listened to.

        “Bin Laden” is not on her wikipedia page (as suggested by American Everyman?). Only “Bin Laden’s group”… which is NOT the same thing…

        Indeed, there was also a lot of (convenient) confusion about what she really meant for a long time as she was (conveniently) under a gag order.

        If “Al-Qaeda” is Al-CIAda, created and operated by American secret services then saying “Al-qaeda orchestrated 9/11” is essentially annihilating the LIHOP/MIHOP distinction and saying what the Truth movement essentially claims, that “9/11 was an Inside job” without specifying that Bin Laden himself had nothing to do with it.

        In short, she was brilliantly ambiguous while apparently toeing the Bush-it official fairytale line.

        Easy to be confused. No red-hot smoking guns. A lot of professionals covering her tracks. And her past. (Who is this uncle who was mayor of Istanbul that Vanity Fair quotes her as having?)

        And Mr Corbett has a galant gift for extracting and highlighting the best work of his guests while firmly and respectfully disagreeing with them on other subjects.

        So why not Sibel Edmonds?

        • peter.fairhurst says:

          Thanks for that interesting reply manbearpig. You are quite correct that her Wiki shows “Bin Laden’s group” [this is in fact what American Everyman showed in his vid]. But the word “group” has no capital letter so she is clearly not referring to the Saudi corporation, nor the BL family.

          Therefore this distinction between BL group and BL is too subtle for me and, I suspect, most readers of her Wiki page. So both my questions to James are still valid.

          I asked James earlier in this thread to express his views on Gladio B in the light of this new info about SE. She was the primary source after all. She is clearly not reliable so, what are we to think, is Gladio B real?

          Also my question above still stands:
          You must have known Sibel’s views about Bin Lid, so how could you associate with her at all?

          • manbearpig says:

            Just to say that I think “Bin Laden’s group” is often interpreted as being neither the Saudi corporation nor the BL family, but

            “Al-Qaeda”

            which again, if that means the CIA created Al-Qaeda amounts to saying she tried to warn that “the CIA would orchestrate 9/11” which flatters the 9/11 Truther’s convictions. And remains deceptively vague.

            Her views were not sufficiently clear as to be known by anyone.

            You never been taken in by a professional operation? Just human.

            And Mr Corbett has already said at about one hour and 27 minutes;

            “So on that note, of course, I’ll have to add a clarification to all my Sibel Edmonds interviews and videos and podcasts and whatever… It’ll take a significant amount of time I guess to add all those clarifications but it will be a clarification that we can’t take Sibel’s word as a trustworthy reliable source on I suppose anything at this point or anything that can’t be independently verified as true has to be taken with a gigantic grain of salt obviously at this point but having said this let’s not throw babies out with bath water, things that can be independently verified as true obviously should not be thrown out, other things don’t have to be thrown out unnecessarily if we can fit them in and they make sense until the point at which we say well naaah that doesn’t make sense …”

            etc.

            • peter.fairhurst says:

              Thanks again for some useful clarification. And yes, I doubt that any truth seeker could say that they’ve never been taken in by a professional op! I certainly have, numerous times. You live and learn and a decent memory is clearly important. I certainly wish that mine was better…..

              Yes, SE could well have meant AQ by “BL group”. I suppose that the timing of that would be the key. Because AQ was not widely known to be CIAQ until sometime after 2001 was it.

              In the early days AQ meant BL, and BL meant AQ, in most peoples minds anyhow. Probably still does for the majority of people. So, for these people at least then, SE was effectively supporting the official version wasn’t she?

              Further, I have followed James for a few years now and I have read, and watched, lots of his excellent work. So I find it hard to believe that James was taken in by such sophistry tbh.

              In respect of Gladio B, I take your point. You are quite right, James did refer to the daunting task of independent verification [that damn memory again!] late on in his vid. I just hope that he starts that task with Gladio B which IMO is the most important. It certainly is for me anyhow. I admit that I have not seen all their work, by any means, so there may be more important pieces, but I doubt it

              • I Be William Munney says:

                I’m pretty sure that all that footage is really gnawing away at James. It’s messing up his file system at the moment. JimBob

  2. James says:

    I loved this video. Really well researched. Good job! I must be out of it, but have never heard of Newsbud and or that wacky and mentally unstable Sibel. There is one thing that was not clear…the part where you spoke of how Sibel placed the comment way down on the post, stating that 21st Century Wire is a credible news organization, etc. So, if Sibel spent all of that time trashing them along with Ms Beeley & Bartlett, then why would she bother making that comment? I did not see the logic…even for someone as illogical as M. Weirdo Thing.

    • manbearpig says:

      From what I understand, a Gatekeeper’s job is to instrumentalize certain important truths to seduce followers so as to better obfuscate other important truths, often at key moments.

      Gatekeepers have their own brand of logic that quite often merely comes down to sowing confusion and divisiveness.

      Obviously my personal assessment is that Sibel Edmonds is most probably a Gatekeeper. The nature of this occupation would make her fundamental allegiances and objectives difficult to determine. And thus her behavior appears illogical.

      I’d venture to say that the logic of many seemingly illogical events and behaviors is often quite simply the objective observable effect they’ve created: often violence, destruction, disempowerment, confusion, all for more indirect and unstated objectives.

      I’ve often wondered, for example, if the Vietnam war was a lot less about stamping out commies and a lot more about creating and documenting almost unrivaled terror and destruction (and of course, feeding the war machine$$$). In other words, contrary to all the noisy Mea Culpa movies and the official version, for the deep-state, the Vietnam war was a total success. But I’ll have to read a lot more about all that to establish any convictions.

      I doubt Ms. Esmonds is mentally unstable. More likely a paragon of self-control, formidably focused and determined. Like Chomsky. And just a tad young for menopause.

      • mkey says:

        A gatekeeper may be also someone who doesn’t understand the “truth” and has collected a base of followers putting out information that fits their point of view, which, for all intents and purposes, may be crippled (by various forms of bias, for instance.) So, there must not be something sinister going on behind the curtain.

        Vietnam war (along other wars) was firstly a battle for the mind. As long as you can deploy several hundreds of thousands of people thousands of miles away to destroy, maim and torture you have achieved a resounding victory. The war machine is there to enable the grueling process, but you firstly need the consent of entire nations of people. Minus a goddamn hippie here and there.

        I’d refrain from objectively comparing Chomsky and Edmonds, this thing she’s pulling now is more fitting to a third grade Mexican telenovela. Most of her supporters will continue supporting because they don’t want their god tarnished, same story all over again. As James stated it time and time again, it’s about verifiable information, not about the talking head.

        • manbearpig says:

          I guess we’ll agree to disagree on this one mkey. But thanks for your thoughts.

        • pearl says:

          “Most of her supporters will continue supporting because they don’t want their god tarnished, same story all over again.”

          I think this is what irks me most. It’s incredibly infuriating to me to see people, particularly the very people who’ve navigated the rabbit holes, wide awake to the kakistocracy, who should absolutely know better than to tolerate tyranny from the very ones supposedly exposing the belly of the beast. It’s fundamental in my opinion. I have a hard time seeing a way forward when so many of us are blinded by loyalty, who look the other way, making excuses for the despot like he/she’s “only human”. Repeated early symptoms must be confronted and the offender held accountable. If the offender’s reaction is to silence dissension, time to cut the chord and move on, simple as that. Anything else is a slow death by compromise, and a betrayal of principle.

          I’ve been monitoring the “About Newsbud” page, and the names which remain are complicit by their silence. Each one could make it on their own, yet they remain.

          • ddude says:

            Very informative and insightful discussion all over the place here in regards to this video and the fallout. I appreciate reading everyone’s take on this whole thing.

            As I was reading manbearpig talking about gatekeepers, I was thinking about Chomsky, and how shocked I was to see him essentially shit on someone for asking him about 9-11. So I was going to mention Chomsky, but you already did. This Sibel situation has a very different feel to me than with Chomsky – though she still may very well be a gatekeeper. I have the same question regarding Julian Assange since I believe I saw him more or less do the same thing to someone asking about 9-11. Sorry for a bit of change of subject here, but I feel like I have to ask, do people here see Assange as a gatekeeper as well? Thanks in advance.

            • manbearpig says:

              Perhaps Eva Bartlett or Vanessa Beeley could indicate whether they feel they’ve been essentially shit on…

              If they’re anti-establishment whistleblowers and have been nominated for Time man of the Year, or shown up on 60 minutes there’s a good chance

              they’re gatekeepers.

              (now disinsert tongue from cheek in a long… squeaky…. POP!…)

              😉

              (unless they’re merely denouncing universally accepted boogeymen like Bush and Bushmen)

            • Mark K. P. says:

              Assange is definitely a gatekeeper ; as anyone with a high profile on MSM. And they all attack 911 truthers publically, which Assange has done

          • Mark K. P. says:

            at least William Engdahl seems to have departed ; i’m pretty sure he was on that page a week ago

  3. VoiceOfArabi says:

    Hello James, first, i sympathize with you having to make such a report, but it is a necessary evil. It is a good report, and you HAD to do it for our sake.

    everyone here knows how I feel about Sibel Edmonds. Her management of Newsbud did remind me of the rules of Saudi Arabia 🙂 .

    But we must not forget that Newsbud is more than Sibel… I guess Newsbud as an organization will go down as Sibel does not have what it takes to keep it alive, but….

    Peter Lee, Prof. Filip, Kurt Nimo, and the rest of the team are very good reporters, and it will be sad to see their talent go to waste.

    I guess Newsbud team members have two choices… either take ownership of what is left of Newsbud, kick Sibel out, and set it back on track, or branch of and create their own individual news sites, and i will be one of the first to join.

    regardless of what happens… I wish Newsbud team all the best for the future.

  4. CYBERFRUME says:

    THIS WAS SAD. I SUBSCRIBED TO NEWSBUDS AFTER WATCHING SIBEL ON ‘THE CORBETT REPORT.’ I ENJOYED PROF. FILIP, ENGDAHL, IAN PYE, NIMMO, ALL OF THEM. THE POST IS STILL ON NEWBUDS, SO I WILL CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION. “THANKS JAMES”!!!

  5. candlelight says:

    The Corbett / Edmonds fallout is one of those events you wouldn’t ever think you’d see, or hear. But, I happen to feel for James in that if he’s appearing to seem hysterical – in Sibel’s eyes – it’s not that he is, really….any more so than anyone else getting a whoppingly blindsided brain fuck, courtesy of the ferment whirling over at Newsbud.

    So, Sibel, we thank you for your past services, or at least I do. I’m not going to question your sincerity and integrity as a whistleblower. Although, the jury isn’t exactly out on that score, yet, unfortunately.

    You know, it is hard to know what’s going on. But, I have a sneaking suspicion that it has to do with where Sibel is, personally, in respect to her life, career and her relevance, if I may be blunt. Most significant is that Newsbud hasn’t blossomed. Has it? Actually, I don’t know because I’m never on it. There’s something about it that bores me to tears. Well, quite frankly, that “something” is Spiro. Yeah, he’s a nice guy, sweet and affable and the like; but, Lordy, he’s not a newscaster! He may be talented as hell in a hundred different respects, but not with what his function is over at Newsbud. And, so, being that Sibel hasn’t been able to attract the right kind of talent for the right kinds of positions over at Newsbud, it leads me to believe she’s been spinning her wheels and getting, in the meanwhile, awfully frustrated. I mean, awfully, awfully frustrated! To the point that she’s got nothing better to do than go after a much younger and vibrant “Sibel Edmonds” in the form of say, an Eva Bartlet, for instance. Dare I intone the concept of….jealousy?

    Anyway, who knows what the hell is going on, really? You all remember David Shayler, right? The MI5 whistleblower who went off the deep end, so it would seem? Look him up. He had some very interesting things to say about the inner workings of the security services apparatus. But, he’s only human, and, alas, there’s no telling how much stress taking on the roll of whistleblower may have on any individual, including an aging Sibel, heaven bless her.

  6. wall says:

    Voice of Arabi, did Newsbud ban you? I always wondered why you stopped commenting.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      wall,
      There are a lot of comments, and now we are page 2 of the comments’ section.
      So, it is easy to miss things. Here is a previous comment of mine.

      For the record – Corbett Report Members mentioning Sibel Edmonds and Newsbud.
      I read most comments on this website.
      For close to a year, on occasion, different Corbett members have mentioned a variety of things about Sibel and Newsbud which were not very positive. No drama — just their opinion, question or an anecdote. (Thank goodness civil discourse is uncensored here.)
      Most recently, just prior to this video, some Corbett members who were talking about Newsbud migrated to the thread at “Interview 1316 – Eva Bartlett Exposes the Lies on Syria.”

      I have often heard stories from folks that Newsbud will censor people or kick them out if their viewpoint differs from Sibel’s.

      wall,
      Specifically, to answer your original question, see these two links…
      https://www.corbettreport.com/whitehelmets/#comment-47946
      and
      https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1273-newsbud-launches-new-funding-drive/comment-page-1/#comment-38426

      The Newsbud 9/11 EVENT
      On the previous comment page are quite a few comments about that event.
      It is significant in that it provides a backdrop of behavior. Three or four months later we had the Edmonds attack Bartlett/Beeley.

      On the previous comment page are some links.
      A lot of folks gained insight from The Ochelli Effect interview.

  7. wall says:

    Has anyone else noticed the tweets supporting Sibel on twitter? Who is making them? Dumb supporters? I used to think it was cointelpro until I saw that BennyB really was fooled. But still, I really have to wonder if there is some sort of cointelpro op egging her on to destroy herself.

    I mean… This does not seem normal for her at all. Seems like everything changed after BFP became Newsbud.

    Did anyone else notice the sort of hamfisted promo type comments in the comments section on Newsbud after it changed from BFP to Newsbud? The ones were they would say something like “Just another great video by Newsbud”…

    I mean… something weird is going on there. I wish I could think of all the things that irk me about this, but that’s all I’ve got for now.

    Has anyone else noticed anything odd?

  8. wall says:

    And does anyone know what happened to Xicha? I haven’t seen her post in years.

    • BennyB says:

      No, wall. This is a good question. I remember Xicha from years back at BFP and had many a good discussion. But the exodus seemed to precede Newsbud by a certain length of time and I can’t recall an incident which would’ve prompted the leave.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Xicha
      Xicha
      Xicha
      https://www.newsbud.com/2018/03/21/newsbud-exclusive-report-syria-under-siege-guarding-against-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/comment-page-1/#comment-28830

      EXCERPT
      FYI, for all of you BFP OG’s: I am Xicha. I briefly left BFP, after a misunderstanding and a heated discussion, some years ago. That didn’t last too long. Sibel is also a personal friend and we hashed things out in private and she asked me to come back to BFP. When I did, I chose to use my real name. It’s Robert Diggins. I know some of you thought I was a chick, LOL!!! But I’m not. ….

    • pearl says:

      Hey Wall (& Benny), just back from catching the veiled threat you recommended I see, and while I was there I caught this comment from Xicha (who sounds like a decent, loyal fellow, btw):

      https://www.newsbud.com/2018/03/21/newsbud-exclusive-report-syria-under-siege-guarding-against-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/comment-page-1/#comment-28830

      Too many comments to navigate – if this has already been pointed out, oh well…

      • I Shot Santa says:

        I’m going to go out on a limb and say that, not only did they double down on stupid, they just hit the nitro boost! But, I did like the little language lesson that was totally irrelevant to anything at all. JimBob who knows all there is to know about being irrelevant.

      • mkey says:

        I like the smell of butthurt in the afternoon.

      • wall says:

        It’s strange that this “Xicha” is now accusing Corbett of getting bought off. I mean… really. Will this be as “soundly” backed as the stuff Sibel claimed about cussing?

        Look at this post by Tim Ferner. Especially read the part starting with “war-mongers”.

        I mean… This is a psyop. I just can’t figure out what the purpose is.


        Tim Ferner says:
        April 5, 2018 at 4:39 pm

        Why yes, I am serious about the United States getting pulled deeper into the conflict in Syria. I don’t want to see any more American lives lost over there! The rank and file military member have no interest in being deployed to the Middle East now or anytime in the future. Most military members have been deployed there at least once in the past 18 months for a 90-180 day rotation. It gets old being deployed away from their family and loved ones. Having lived in Saudi Arabia for 3 ½ years and spent almost another 6 years deployed throughout the region I know exactly what its like!
        “War-mongers” ??? You obviously don’t know much about the military. Going to war is not fun! 99% of the military members I know don’t want to go into an environment where they might be killed or maimed. The proposition of taking another humans life is not something military members take lightly. Pulling a trigger or dropping in a war zone is not something most rationale humans want to do…it’s a hell of a lot more difficult and more thought goes into it then what you see in the movies or on TV. “Muddy water” in a place like Syria is exactly what pulls a county like the US into the fray. BTW…there is no “US/NATO/Zionist-war machine”. Having been with NATO for 8 years I can attest to it being a dysfunctional organization incapable of making a decision letalone an informed decision. It has plenty of military assets but lacks the capability to deploy them. Member nations wont go to a war zone and place the burden on the US to go…they will deploy to certain areas depending on the per diem rate. Zionist war machine??? Really???
        It’s difficult to take someone seriously when they use the terms “US/NATO/Zionist-war machine”, “war-mongers”and “Psyop” . Very odd verbiage indeed. Its awesome people have opinions…even better when they are informed.
        Log in to Reply “

        • I Shot Santa says:

          It’s quite possible that he is simply telling the truth from his perspective. Few people know less about a conflict than the soldiers involved. The phrase “Soldiers are like mushrooms, feed them bullsh#t and keep them in the dark” didn’t just pop up without a reason. 99.9% of all soldiers change their mind about war being cool when they get orders to go to a war zone. He is also on the money about the competence aspect. The military is infested with the step-by-step approach to everything. And like all bureaucracies, it chases out talent while promoting incompetence. From his perspective, he is probably telling the truth. It is the very top levels, of this incompetent and useless band of pinheads, that you find even more incompetent people who ARE this crazy alliance. See? All that time in the military finally paid off! JimBob who uses the Copperhead Road approach with his military memories.

  9. wall says:

    I want to propose this idea. This is an elaborate conspiracy to breed divide within the truth community and to discredit and destroy it.

    ????

    What do you think?

    I got to wondering after I saw this story about Corey Feldman.

    http://www.ign.com/articles/2018/03/28/corey-feldman-claims-he-was-stabbed-in-his-car

    He’s going around telling everyone about the evil pedo’s in Hollywood… and then we see these story where he likely falsely claims he was stabbed.

    I mean, are we seeing heroes being purposefully created only to be destroyed later so that whatever they were supporting will lose credibility? I really have to wonder. Because this sort of crap would have just that effect.

    • I Be William Munney says:

      This same scenario is unfolding across several sites right now. I mentioned it earlier during my blizzard of comments. But, like anything else done by people who would wear a pussy hat in public; it hasn’t gone well for them. I don’t know why people are always scared to have truth and open=ness on their side; it always seems to work out better for them when they call on it. JimBob: Just saying

    • Duck says:

      Wall,
      if the people trying to keep some stuff out of the public mind were NOT setting up hero’s and making them fall off the pedestal then they would hardly be doing their job. Look at the 9/11 folks and the Pizzagate folks after them and how they ended up being thought of as crazy nuts because of the constant arguing and noise generation over things that are either a)unlikely b)unprovable either way or c)crazy…even though they both had PLENTY OF FACTS to show general weirdness in the official story.
      The “powers that shouldnt be” dont need to keep secrets from the public they just have to make the public’s minds unwilling to accept any truth that they are told to reject. Thats why I like Corbett Report since i dont even NEED to trust what he says because he’s aggregating data from freely accessable sources. Just like Skinner said his Walden 2 most people dont want to bother learning or thinking or doing much outside their own day to day lives.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        Duck says:
        …Thats why I like Corbett Report since I don’t even NEED to trust what he says because he’s aggregating data from freely access able sources.

      • wall says:

        Yeah, I should have trusted my gut and thought a bit more.

        What is going on with Pizzagate and the Parkland shooting anyway?

        1) I wonder about pizzagate. I recall at one point people were linking to this ron paul forums thread where they were posting heavily censored images of some of the crap from hollywood and playboy and the like that really made me wonder if someone was trying to frame those looking into pizzagate. And some of the pizzagate stuff. I mean, is it really about satanism or is that just a red herring to make people look nuts? To me it looks like pedophilia is more of a sort of entrance test into that level of society. Kinda like how cryps have to murder someone to join the cryps gang.

        2) What is going on with Parkland?

        I have found out so far that

        a) There are at least 3 witnesses that heard multiple shooters
        b) Hogg, according to his own words, wasn’t at the school and cycled to it after hearing about the shooting. And we are supposed to believe he went to the school during a shooting to hide in a closet and make a vid?
        c) How did Hogg know Cruz was the shooter while he was hiding in the closet?
        d) Why was the school security tape rewound by 20-26 minutes depending on the report you read? I mean, conveniently this event happened on a drill day and the security footage was on a 20-26 minute delay to create as much confusion as possible?
        e) Was march for our lives really planned SEVERAL months in advance? Isn’t it an awful coincidence that the Cruz shooting happened at just the right time to really make march for our lives hit home?
        f) Is Soros really funding this protest movement? Were the protesters paid and bussed in?
        g) And as for that Hogg picture that you can find on arrests.org if you look in south carolina… I mean, the person shown in those images is only VERY slightly different looking from Hogg. But was that a purposefully planted red herring?
        h) Is Jim Fetzer legit?

        And Corbett, please cover that shooting… PLEASE!!!!! Your tore apart oklahoma city. No reason you can’t tear apart Parkland.

        Or are you just waiting till there is more info out?

        • mkey says:

          Regarding point no 1

          Real Big Money: Revelations by an insider
          https://vimeo.com/212237317

        • Duck says:

          Wall
          The Pizzagate folks hang out on VOAT now.
          I kinda think Corbett was right about the kakistocracy, bad people tied together by shared crimes. The thing is that normal people dont want to think about things like that… most people cant even kill and cut up a chicken these days and reject the horrible idea as impossible even though they busted a norweigan online pedo ring about the same time the story blew up and it had 150 TERABYTES of filth and included a lawyer , teacher and a couple of politicians or that snuff movie maker Peter Scully who they wanted to bring the death penalty back for.
          Even if there isnt a pizzagate satan ring the fact that rich and powerful people like to collect pedo, necro and canibalistic “art” and hang with a woman who does crowley style wall painting spells with blood and jism is PRETTY WORRYING 🙁
          If the guy next door it would be bad enough let alone the guys who move the levers of power.

  10. colin786 says:

    I feel I must reinforce the positive outcomes of this whole discussion which I have followed closely in recent days. I listened to the whole of the Ochelli Effect interview with Pearse Redmond which helped clarify my thinking and a re-evaluation of Sibel Edmond’s activity after 9/11, and I have come to the preliminary conclusion that she is a disinformation agent, because all her work has been directed at the 19 Muslim hijackers, and hence away from any US and/or other government involvement.

    All her efforts on Syria from her interventions is also to detract people who differ from the official government (US, UK, Israeli and French) story.

    The fact of disenchanting all the BFP and Newsbud volunteeers, staff, supporters and subscribers or the ethical questions does not seem to bother her in the least, perhaps because there is support from black funds for all this ‘work’. She merely moved from an official FBI job to an off-the-books position.

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      Sibel’s work is vast, yet you claim that all her work has been directed at the 19 Muslim hijackers”.

      How can you say that when the overwhelming majority of her work has nothing even remotely connected to the ’19 Muslim hijackers’?

      In fact, you contradict yourself in your very next paragraph when you make reference to her work on Syria; work which is clearly not directed at the ’19 Muslim hijackers’.

      “All her efforts on Syria from her interventions is also to detract people who differ from the official government (US, UK, Israeli and French) story.”

      You have concluded that Sibel is a disinformation agent with allegiances to the US, UK, Israel and France.

      Can you please give us a few examples where she makes clear these allegiances?

      “perhaps because there is support from black funds for all this ‘work’. She merely moved from an official FBI job to an off-the-books”

      Can you give any proof that she has received black funds?

      • colin786 says:

        Oh, so sorry. I meant the work for which she became famous – about the 9/11 “plot”.

        All the FBI gag order work, the Gladio B stories, the Syria stories and all the Bartlett & Beeley stories.

        No, one has to read between the lines.

        No, just supposition.

      • manbearpig says:

        Sibel has very effectively proven herself to be an utterly unreliable source.

        All one can really do to understand her free-wheeling wild west behavior is to surmise. That’s what Colin786 is doing. He’s entertaining possibilities – hence the word “perhaps”.

        Colin786 is trying to understand why she seemed so bent on peddling the “Bin Laden did it” fairy tale which might indicate an allegiance to the official story espoused by the US, UK, Israeli and French governments,

        and why she seems so utterly unphased by the ethical and economic fallout of her demolition derby.

        Newsbud may well go bankrupt depriving its contributors of a means of revenue. To Colin she seems unconcerned about this: perhaps she has other employers or livlihoods or… funds? I hope the others do.

        Why are you agressing Colin786 for saying Sibel held an official FBI job and may still work for them in some capacity?

        Please do tell how a a commenter here might go about proving an operative’s source of black funds?

        One may nonetheless wonder if they exist in light of this prominent Truth movement figure’s viciously destructive efforts.

        Sibel’s provided the very best proof of her own disingenuos and highly suspicious malice.

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          Sibel has very effectively proven herself to be an utterly unreliable source.

          Can’t argue about that one.

          Colin786 is trying to understand why she seemed so bent on peddling the “Bin Laden did it” fairy tale which might indicate an allegiance to the official story espoused by the US, UK, Israeli and French governments,

          Here’s my take on her pushing the Bin Laden fairy tale. It’s really quite simple.

          At the time of her employment at the FBI she did in fact come across tapes
          talking about vague plans for an attack (perhaps planted plans by another party).

          Whenever she talked about Bin Laden and the Muslim hijackers it was in this capacity.

          Years passed after 9/11. YouTube came along as did the 9/11 Truth Movement and a whole lot of 9/11-related information became available and disseminated.

          It quickly became crystal clear that Bin Laden and the hijackers had nothing to do with 9/11. Clear to anyone who had done their 9/11 homework.

          Sibel published her first book (Classified Woman) in 2012. Despite having years to research what happened on that fateful day she still had no qualms stating that the U.S. was attacked “supposedly by stateless invisible enemies scattered around the globe.”
          (i.e. Bin Laden and the hijackers).

          You may wish to label her a disinfo agent for maintaining this stance. I choose to say
          she simply has been a very poor 9/11 student.

          and why she seems so utterly unphased by the ethical and economic fallout of her demolition derby.

          This is another matter entirely. I can’t answer the question at this moment.

          Newsbud may well go bankrupt depriving its contributors of a means of revenue. To Colin she seems unconcerned about this: perhaps she has other employers or livlihoods or… funds? I hope the others do.

          I wouldn’t say she seems ‘unconcerned’ about this, nor concerned. Rather, I would say she does not believe this affair will have any impact on Newsbud going forward.

          Why are you agressing Colin786 for saying Sibel held an official FBI job and may still work for them in some capacity?

          Is ‘agressing’ a verb? I don’t see any evidence of such (her currently working for the FBI).

          Please do tell how a a commenter here might go about proving an operative’s source of black funds?

          Yes it’s practically impossible. It would be nice if Colin would triple-fact check though before he made speculations such as this.

          • mkey says:

            Just a thought, how does one fact check something that is not checkable and can only be put fort as a speculation?

            • Fawlty Towers says:

              Just a thought, how does one fact check something that is not checkable and can only be put fort as a speculation?

              I was being sarcastic. I do that from time to time. 🙂

              I’ll tell you how I feel about Sibel/Newsbud and how they operate.

              I think Sibel is the real deal. She wears her heart on her sleeve, tells it like it is, puts her foot in her mouth much more often than she’d like, is passionate about everything she does, is very emotional and thin-skinned. All of these characteristics can from time to time lead to pieces such as the one we have just witnessed about Beeley and Bartlett.

              My personality allows me to overlook them or take them with a grain of salt.

              I know how Sibel operates at the Newsbud website; the same way she operated at the BFP website. One criticizes her at one’s own peril.
              There have been many times when I have had to bite my tongue and resist the urge to let her know how I really felt about certain issues. Such is life.
              Some people can’t resist. I can.

              Overall, the current Newsbud team is very solid, delivering quality information.
              My favorites are Kovacevic, Nimmo, Valentine, Ian and Sibel (when she’s on).

              To me, I see more upside to sticking around Newsbud as a member than leaving. Subject to change of course.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                By the way, regardless of whether Sibel is running an op or not; she is having a meltdown. That last interview she gave of the 10th Amendment guy was painful to watch. It’s like she was emotionally regressing. I could only watch 2.5 minutes of it. That’s how bad it was. It was the video with Achille’s Heel in the title. The last one in which we hear from her. JimBob who says to never forget to add a dash of crazy in the mix whenever you’re trying to figure out what’s what in the world.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          “Bin Laden did it” fairy tale

          Coincidently, recently at 911blogger, it seems that a number of users are upvoting the “Bin Laden did it” fairy tale, while promoting the Official Story of hijackers next to the Lawsuit against Saudi Arabia, while downvoting anyone who says the ‘hijackers’ didn’t do 9/11.
          http://911blogger.com/news/2018-03-29/lawsuit-against-saudi-arabia-can-go-forward

          It blows my mind.
          What can I say?
          Who can believe that the hijackers did 9/11? (Besides uninformed public)

  11. Olivier says:

    I can’t see what is in Sibel’s head. Focus below is on summarizing her statements, with a number of questions attached. Unfortunately she is the primary source for quite a number of statements, which is the very case where ad hominem actually does apply:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Non-fallacious_reasoning

    It’s a challenge to summarize what it is she has been saying over the years. I think we roughly have three chapters:

    A. Sibel’s description of a criminal network interfacing between the overworld (NATO, Congress) and terrorists, originally headed by politically motivated people “gladio-A”, and later operating through religion, “gladio-B”. The greater aim of the empire with the “B” operation was to push back the Russians from central Asia in a bigger repeat of the Afghanistan operation, where the bearded men were thrown as a wasp’s nest in the Russian back-garden. The tactical modus operandi was to have a criminal network move drugs one way and weapons and training for terrorists the other way, in a way comparable to the Iran-Contra operation. Specifically Turkey had a pivotal role in the “B” project because of its linguistic / religious relationship with Central Asia. Other countries involved: Azerbaijan, Belgium, Israel, UK. The transition from “Gladio-A” to “B” involved a power shift in Turkey leading to disgruntled displaced members of the “A” network fleeing to Moscow, ratting out “B” members managing operations in Chechnya from Turkey, leading to these “B” members subsequently getting killed by Russian services. The Criminal network’s operations in the US are particularly concentrated in Chicago, with “A” member Abdullah Çatli travelling freely around while being on interpols most wanted list, ultimately dying in a mysterious car accident in Susurluk. In Jan 2008 Edmonds publishes her State Secrets Privilege Gallery, a gallery of pictures of overworld members of this network. The gallery does not include Fethullah Gülen, which lateron becomes Sibel’s target of choice. The network intertwines with 9/11 in a number of ways:
    — Members Marc Grossman, Prince Bandar and Al-Zawahiri meet in the late 90’s (2000s?) in the (Turkish or US?) embassy in Baku.
    — Grossman orders 3-4 911 suspects freed & deported so that they will not “spill the beans”

    B. The FBI’s investigation of this network: It was set up as Clinton’s counter attack against the Lewinski scandal, allowing him to circumvent constitutional law in order to dig up dirt on his enemies. The network however dug up dirt on both Democrats and Republicans, and was therefore never used beyond blackmailing direct Clinton opponents, and never led to the actual prosecution of the network. The investigation was infiltraded by the network through her colleague Melek Can Dickerson, wife of Douglas Dickerson, who had served under Marc Grossman (nr 3 in the State Dept and part of the network) in Turkey and who fled Turkey shortly after the Susurluk accident.

    C. Edmonds’ own six-month experience within the investigation (B): Hired as a translator, but effectively operating as an analyst because of her background. She witnesses the above infiltration of the translation unit, reports, escalates, gets fired for whistleblowing, and gets gagged by the State Secrets Privilege letter coming from Ashcroft. Edmonds is interviewed by the 9/11 commission where she mentions Dickerson’s infiltration and Behrooz Sarshar warning “that Bin Laden was planning a suicide mission to hit major cities with airplanes and some of his operatives were already in the United States”. On her podcast, she would later relate a scene where a Bin Laden video aired on TV was recognized by the translation unit as being old video material with new audio, that the unit was locked down and that everybody was forced to remain silent about the tape, and refer to documents that she once saw describing the Baku meetings with Al-Zawahiri.

    I posted some questions on the newsbud site about what exactly the evidence against Gülen was, but would often get no answer, maybe worth looking into as part of the ‘review’ that James plans. Will add links below.

  12. mkey says:

    I’d like to point out a few things.

    Firstly, from the getgo I had a gut feeling something was off with newsbud. I have nothing to prove that, it was just that, a gut feeling. If you guys remember, back in the day when newsbud was becoming a thing, there was a general sentiment James was about to join their team and people were held back a bit by a feeling he might have less time for his site. I can’t remember if something to that effect was ever publicly stated, but I think it’s fair to say Edmonds wanted James on the “team,” which only stands to reason.

    Now, if I had a bad feeling about newsbud (mostly owing to financial aspects of it i.e. trying to raise quite a lot of funds; trying to create a monolithic media alternative of sorts where group think has to prevail rather sooner than later, especially with business considerations in mind) imagine what an astute person from a first person perspective could have seen.

    As time went by, it became obvious James wasn’t hopping on that train and, more importantly, an obvious rift was forming since his contact with Edmonds was fading, they went from frequent interviews to no shared work in some 16 months now.

    Well, there was that spell a the “titans” of truth, pay per view thing, expensive at that, something most of us had concerns about, which was left without a comment from James, something I attributed to “loyalty” he probably felt toward Edmonds.

    The other thing, I’ll refer to her demeanor this one more time and never again, I find it very odd how these two people (James and Sibel) manage their time. Sibel apparently has all this extra time (nibbling away from time dedicated to her research) to “wage wars” on twitter and comment quite extensively on the newsbud site. I’d wager quite a substantial amount of time is bound to moderating the site, as well.

    On the other hand, we seldom get James’ input in the comments section here even though it seems to me he reads most of the stuff (if not all) that is posted (owing to the fact he mostly comments on some nuggets of information which are fairly rare.) So, are we to conclude that a) James is an asshole who doesn’t care about his subscribers and their input or b) he simply can’t find the time with ALL THE THOROUGH RESEARCH he does, with major bodies of work emerging quite often?

    I’ll go out on a limb and state:

    James Corbett research – Sibel Edmonds research 5:0*

    * football, or soccer, reference, in other words – quite a substantial lead

  13. ddave says:

    James, You demonstrate yet again why I respect your work. You teach me how to go about truth discovery and analyse information. This research was surely a great disappointment for you personally. A bitter pill! Is it not interesting how time reveals truths. Reminds me of the Norwegian expression “Ta tiden til bruk” It does not translate directly to English very well.

  14. wall says:

    Have any of you watched the original video? Is there any point in watching the original after watching what James put up? It doesn’t really look like there is a point.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Way back, I watched parts of Sibel’s original video, but it was sooo ugly and smelled like a strained, hypercritical “hitpiece”, that I couldn’t stomach it. I skipped to different parts and then stopped watching. It left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

    • mkey says:

      The point of all this mangled conversation is that if you’re interested you should review the information presented yourself.

    • BennyB says:

      Well this answers one of my questions, wall. I saw you pulling my card again somewhere saying you couldn’t believe how I got fooled. Indeed, once I watched the video James made I felt foolish, but in all fairness to myself, James is quite the master of exposition. When someone else stops certain keyframes and exposes a few obvious shots of poorly composed blue screen backdrop, it’s easy to sit back and laugh at the viewer who started watching the scene without having that reference pointed out in advance and weren’t instantly jarred by what to you appears to be such an amateur and shoddy job.

      Still, to expand on my metaphor; there were some practical effects and props on the set which, even if they might’ve been fabrications, still seem to me like they could be passed off as having been real. In other words, as I’ve stated elsewhere, I’m not entirely convinced that there aren’t aspects of Newsbud’s account that are entirely lacking in merit. Pointing out what I feel those aspects are in the context of the larger discussion (at least here) is not something I’m interested in posting at the moment since I think there’s a pretty clear consensus that the report, as a whole, was inherently flawed, defamatory, and hypocritical not to escape the level of scrutiny it’s rightly received here.

      In short, to answer your question; no, I don’t think it’s worth watching. But I felt the need to make a bit of a point in my defense since I’ve been caught looking the role of the fool; a criticism I’m not going to attempt to dodge but I’m adding a note that I think that anybody who’s going to get too comfortable pointing out and laughing is likely to miss an opportunity for constructive self reflection under these circumstances.

      More than anything though, I realized that what bothered me most was the tone of the piece and the notion that critiquing other figures in the alt-media in a way which vilifies and degrades them on such a visceral level is something I’m interested in encouraging or supporting. I should’ve been more sensitive to some of the vitriol in the presentation itself. However, it was really the subsequent nastiness on Twitter which pushed me over the edge.

      I’ve stated that I think that Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley have done some commendable work, but I think one of the biggest takeaways I’ve had on a personal level in this situation is never to let yourself become too comfortable when you’re taking in news, analysis, and journalism to the point where you all but abandon critical objectivity on account of respect for that individuals previous work or reputation.

      • BennyB says:

        wall, I’m gonna walk back and say maybe you should watch the original Newsbud report. I re-watched a fair amount of James’ rebuttal here and I realize that part of what led to me being confused and mislead at various points in the Newsbud presentation have to do with my lack of familiarity with the formatting of Twitter itself. I’ve reviewed some more information there since this whole thing started and I can see that it can be easy to lose track of what the intent is behind re-tweeting something, whether it’s to criticize the conclusion or implication or to agree with it, as was the case with the segment on the allegations of previous support for Assad etc.

        One thing that James did seem to have potentially glossed over or not covered adequately, having taken a second look, are some of the other interviews with former colleagues and other people who have had either questionable or problematic interactions with Bartlett and Beeley. These, as I recall, were probably the more important elements of the report that I’d initially responded to, which I think did leave room for critique.

        I listened to a recent interview with Beeley on the Sunday Wire show, trying to be as objective as possible and I did notice that she probably used the term “terrorists” a bit too liberally and I don’t think it would be overly unreasonable to observe that there’s a certain level of pro-Syrian government and support for some aspects of Russian intervention. That said, I tend pretty strongly agree with the notion that the Syrian government and, specifically the army (and even Russia to a degree) deserve credit for defeating western/Atlanticist terrorist proxies who’ve held many parts of the country essentially as hostages, so it’s hard for me to find that objectionable.

        I think part of what might make Bartlett and Beeley come across as sounding “pro-Assad” or “pro-Russia” is probably the result of the sense of exasperation that I too have felt as well, hearing endless demonizing of Assad/the Syrian Army and that of Russia in the western media when, at least in my opinion, whatever harm they’re inflicting on the Syrian people (something I wouldn’t dispute on factual terms) wouldn’t be happening without the continued backing of “the terrorists”, as Beeley puts it, in the first place. Frankly I have a hard time nitpicking with that terminology, since I view that as an accurate description of these proxies.

        To wrap up for now, I don’t doubt there’s room for critique of aspects of Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley’s work, but I think something closer to constructive criticism (if it pans out) ought to be much closer to the tone than the wholesale takedown that questions their integrity and undermines what I’ve referred to as commendable work. I’m just not feeling that overall and I think that’s one of the major things that people in the alt-media who really care about the issues need to constantly consider and re-assess.

        I’m going to continue to think about this because I think this is a very important case and I’m not going to withhold scrutiny from James’ response should I encounter it, but the bottom line is that I feel that James was really forced into having to make this video and as I’ve noted on numerous occasions, one of the things I appreciate the most about James is that he’s been extremely mindful over the years in avoiding getting caught up in inflammatory rhetoric and feuds and makes a clear effort to keep the attention focused on the information and not the personalities, to the extent that this is possible.

  15. Nonelilian says:

    Thank you, I was hoping you would reply.

    Nonelilian

    • manbearpig says:

      Thanks for this Olivier.

      A shame though that Mr Collins can’t tell the difference between a 98-minute fact-checking piece from a 75-minute smear campaign

      when he takes a pot-shot at the length of Mr Corbett’s substantiated autopsy of it.

      Looked a bit like face-saving damage-control commentary focused mostly on tweets with a veneer of appearing cooly objective.

      Substance requires space and time. Not like hot toxic air.

      • manbearpig says:

        “Substance requires space and time. Not like hot toxic air.”

        In fact, this pretty much defines the problem with Twitter itself.

        …and to a lesser degree posts left on comments boards of websites…

        😯

      • I Be William Munney says:

        Ry Dawson was the same way. His was more from the sour grapes entitled perspective though. I deleted all his videos that I had downloaded from him as I lost all respect for the conclusions he reaches. I have noticed this aspect about him, but had just chalked it up to stress. What I forgot is that stress reveals the direction our character is shaping as well. But who can expect an old pothead to remember everything? JimBob

        • mkey says:

          Do you have any links to Dawson’s commentary?

          • I Shot Santa says:

            Not anymore. I just deleted all of the videos I had downloaded. On the bright side, I found my ML King William Pepper video! I don’t trust the web will be here that much longer, so I just download what I want. JimBob sez better to be prepared than scared.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Thanks Olivier!

      April 2, 2018
      Peter Collins talks about Newsbud, Sibel Edmonds, Corbett Report, Eva, Vanessa, Ron Paul Institute, etc.
      (Starting around the 13m28s mark)
      https://www.peterbcollins.com/2018/04/02/pbc-news-comment-media-ignores-gross-misconduct-in-orlando-trial/

    • mkey says:

      I found his assessment to be reasonable. I remember this guy from a newsbud (or was it boiling frogs?) roundtable in which James took part as well.

      Oh, if you haven’t already, check the podcast at 20:30, it’s hilarious.

  16. senge says:

    Dammit.. oops, sorry for resorting to profanity… but I could have been second in replying to this video. One night’s sleep and the comment section exploded. Didn’t want to write without having read all available comments. took me quite a while now!

    Well, by now all I originally wanted to write has been written numerous times, so I will only express my surprise about the many commenters who were almost going to join newsbud who had second thoughts about it. I was there too. Well, I kicked in with the first wave of the fundraising campaign, but after that I too had second thoughts. And I found myself going to the website only 3 or 4 times, although I contributed a considerable amount of money.

    By now my jaw is back in position, but I’m still scratching my head. Sibel was always the emotional one in the interviews/roundtables, it is quite human to loose one’s temper given the subject matters. But all this?

    What irritates me most is the way she talks about James in the comment sections. As if she hadn’t seen his video. Nor anybody else…

  17. M says:

    Regarding the credibility of Sibel Edmonds:

    How exactly she came across “Gladio B” and the main question really being why would the FBI have a codename for something like that and how she found out about it? For some reason the name “Gladio B” has always raised suspicion on myself as Operation Gladio has been the most mainstram allegation of false flag terrorism inside Western democracies. Why would the FBI have codename like that and how could she gain access to that type of information? If she comes across in her translations something about ties between US intelligence and al-Qaeda (Osama had been in FBI Most Wanted List since 1998), I have trouble believing someone would start telling her that “Yes we here at the FBI have codenamed these ties Gladio B etc”. Above top secret? Sell your soul to devil in some ritual if you want access to that?

    Her other allegations make sense to me and the Vanity Fair article is supported by other people too, but something about “Gladio B” does not feel right even if the allegations of connections between US intelligence and islamic terrorists are very easy to believe at this point.

    She was also saying how Turkey was the most important country in “Gladio A”, but considering the power of Italian-American mafia inside the United States, I have real trouble understanding how any other “Gladio A” operation could have been more significant than Operation Gladio (Italy).

    Of course Islamic terrorism (“Gladio B”) is now being used the same way communism (“Gladio A”) was used, but still that the FBI would have it codenamed like that and a person like Sibel Edmonds would be able to access all that seems fishy to me.

    All that said I hope Sibel Edmonds is ok and she is not being targeted with some kind of psychotronic weapon or whatever kind of manipulation there possibly exists. If this is just act of frustration and feeling of not getting the recognition deserved, I hope she would apologize and take a break. What she has done is hurt her own credibility, which is very sad if she has been honest about her own experiences and first to second hand knowledge.

  18. john.o says:

    I thank all the contributors here, who have greatly increased my knowledge of this sad episode. In the end, though, my intuitions seem correct. Sibel Edmonds does indeed show signs of a personality disorder, and as many have noted, it has been evident in various forms for awhile.

    That in itself does not disqualify her as a source, but it certainly doesn’t help. In my opinion, that she is also being manipulated, at the very least, seems highly likely just based on the players and stakes involve and her own background. It is hard for me to imagine it otherwise.

    They still inspire me, too, bit that Beeley and Bartlett are also affected emotionally by watching people get killed in a war based on Western lies, is understandable. And it seems quite likely that they too are manipulated, because, in the end, this is a war by competing colonial powers, and some of their benefactors and supporters also have blood on their hands for sure. Again, I cannot imagine it otherwise.

    Those looking for clean hands and a pure heart in every source, will end up rather ignorant.

    Finally, I would like to say that sorting through this stuff is what James Corbett does best, and I appreciate it (and his distaste for this particular sort) but I think he is a little naive when he says “it is not about personalities but the information.” Nobody can personally experience all events. Most attempts to sort out truth from falsehood in law and history both, come down to whom we decide to trust.

    Of course every source is suspect, including Corbett, but when one person shuts down all dissent, while another welcomes it, that is a good reason to extend trust. I personally, though a huge admirer of James Corbett, have criticized him intensely here, trying my best to rile him up and make him defensive. I have never seen anything in return but more encouragement to speak our minds and trust our own intelligence. James is obviously too busy researching to argue with me, much less shut me out. I am grateful.

    And that is why I tend to trust his reports and analyses (except when they concern Austrian economic theory, and the philosophy of mind).

    Sibel Edmonds is looking like a cult. Sad, but c’est la vie, that’s for sure.

    • pearl says:

      “Those looking for clean hands and a pure heart in every source, will end up rather ignorant.”

      Really? Dude. Consider the audience. Pains me to say it, but this reminds me of the oft-repeated guilt-inducer, “If you’re looking for the perfect church, don’t join it, you’ll ruin it.” Amazing what authoritarians get away with when congregants fail to ponder and question that seemingly innocuous statement.

      • I Shot Santa says:

        It’s not the same. When you are aware your sources are merely human, you are able to better sort through their garbage and find something useful. When you are just saying it as an excuse to keep from doing anything, then you’ll get the situation you’re describing. There’s a lot more to a thing than just doing it. JimBob

        • pearl says:

          I know I have blonde hair and all, but even I know I’m living in a world of fallible beings. I do have standards, however. If clean hands may be translated to honesty, integrity, respect, sincerity, and making every effort to right a wrong, then, yes, those are the friends I seek and will do my best to keep. That I should expect to find each and every one of these characteristics in a news org filled with all sorts of personalities borders on fantasy. Newsbud has made it delightfully easy by failing to exhibit a foundational one: respect.

      • john.o says:

        Pearl, I like the “dude” thing! That’s the Spirit!

        I get what you are saying (I hope), but I think, with old redneck Flori-Santacide, (who has stopped jumping out of airplanes long enough to entertain us) that the comparison with church-joining doesn’t work. First, as an adult of sound mind, one doesn’t, thank God, have to join ANY Church. (What the little children suffer coming unto Him there is a different matter.)

        I suppose some can just skip thinking about “truth,” but for those on this board, I do not think we can help it: we want to know what happened in history (2000 or 200 years ago or this morning) and what is happening now. We must rely on sources and all of them are suspect, because:

        1) Nobody sees or reads or knows everything, and what we do, we distort inevitably with our own built in biases. (I guess that’s Original Sin in historiography).

        2) MOST (not all) of our sources for world historical events are involved in the carnage they are documenting. Many have blood on their hands, some figuratively, some literally. (Notice I did say “in EVERY source” – I don’t dispute that some sources have clean hands and truthful and benevolent intentions.)

        My point was that if Beeley and Bartlett sometimes are dependent on Russia and the Syrian government (no angels, but I support them both in Syria, because US/NATO is much much worse at the moment) or other key powerful players for facts, they are only doing what anyone would have to do in their situation. I personally tend to trust B&B’s own motives, but they are human and in an unbelievably stressful situation, and that makes it so that we have to check them out too.

        But the point holds in general even stronger. How could I write a history of Nazi Germany without reading Hitler as sources? Or a history of US slavery without reading the works of slave dealers and owners and slavery defenders? Or a history of 911 without reading Cheney and Rumsfeld and any number of other bloodthirsty liars?

        If I only used guiltless pure sources, truth would suffer. That was my only point.

        As to the perfect Church, I have invited you into the Church of The Return of John Frum, but, sadly, you have not yet seen the light. (One can lead a horse to water…)

        • I Shot Santa says:

          Also, when we look at those sources, most people think in terms of good or evil. Generally speaking, they’re wrong. Understanding perspectives will also help you to understand what failings they likely have and all that. The more you look at the world, the more confusing it gets. JimBob

        • pearl says:

          “How could I write a history of Nazi Germany without reading Hitler as sources? Or a history of US slavery without reading the works of slave dealers and owners and slavery defenders? Or a history of 911 without reading Cheney and Rumsfeld and any number of other bloodthirsty liars?

          “If I only used guiltless pure sources, truth would suffer. That was my only point.”

          Ah! That’s totally different than what I perceived, and makes perfect sense. As the late, great Emily Liteila often said, “Never mind.”

          Clearly, I would benefit from a prolonged submersion (weighted down by a few cinder blocks, perhaps?) in your healing baptismal fount, Pastor John. Don’t give up on me yet!

  19. john.o says:

    How did that double post happen? Accident or conspiracy? Since I never make mistakes, must be the Khazarian mafia.

  20. Cheryl says:

    Thank you James for this, it can’t have been easy. Honestly though, this is just so so weird. The irony of the ethical journalism situation alone is too much! Are we certain Sibel isn’t actually really quite poorly, mentally?

  21. wall says:

    I have wondered. It’s funny the way Peter B Collins basically thinks twitter has caused Sibel to become unhinged.

    I also have to wonder if there are people goading her on. I mean, why didn’t anyone stop this vid? It’s not like Sibel can do video editing. And it is odd that Peter B Collins compares Newsbud to Infowars. Especially since she now has Kurt Nimmo as a contributor.

    Also, what was with her support of Flynn? To me the whole Mueller vs Flynn thing looks like smoke and mirrors to get the truth community divided. I haven’t looked into it. But it looks like a bullshit show to me. Also, look at Flynn’s twitter account. I mean, he basically humps Trumps leg like a randy dog. So I find it odd for Sibel to support him. I don’t think Sibel, if legit anyway, could support any politician, especially a guy like Trump who hangs out with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

    Ever since she started supporting Flynn I have had a hard time trusting her.

    And what is her connection to the Ibrahim banker fellow? I always found that odd.

    And as for her coverage of the supposed Turkish coup. Why didn’t they shoot down Erdogan’s plane if it was really a coup attempt? I mean, they had f-16’s in the sky, and they had his plane on radar… on the internet! People on the net could track him. So, it’s not like they couldn’t just shoot him down. I really think that coup was just an excuse to consolidate power under Erdogan. I think he is a U.S. puppet. What do you think?

    The more I think about it the less I trust her. There is something off with her.

    • mkey says:

      I’d say Erdogan is certainly a US puppet. An important country in the region, an important US ally; Turkey can always stir up quite a fuss in Europe/middle east. Of course US will want to have the things under immediate control.

    • colin786 says:

      I think, in this case of Turkey, the word coup is a misnomer. I would call it a purge, and perhaps with a quite broad reach of potential opponents.

      Flynn received money and only declared it `retroactively` as acting for foreign agents, both for Turkish and other interests, perhaps second-hand for Ratio Oil Exploration, an Israeli company, although this has been denied by them.

      From NY Review of Books:
      “Flynn’s work for the Turkish government is also under investigation. The Flynn Intel Group was paid $530,000 by Inovo BV, a thinly capitalized Dutch company that serves as a front for Inovo Turkije, whose principal, Ekim Alptekin, is a close associate of President Erdoğan. Public records in the Netherlands confirmed that Inovo BV is a shell company. Flynn should have known that Inovo BV was a pass-through and, given Alptekin’s close relationship with Erdoğan, that Inovo BV’s funds originated from the Turkish government. Flynn hid the origins of the money and the fact that his payment was funneled through a third party. When details of the contract surfaced in press reports, Flynn acknowledged his service for the Turkish government by belatedly registering under FARA.

      The contract with Inovo BV required Flynn to lobby on appropriations bills for the departments of State and Defense. Flynn’s duties also included keeping his client informed about “the transition between President Obama and President-Elect Trump.” In effect, Flynn was also hired to conduct a smear campaign of Gülen. In an article published by Flynn in The Hill on election day, November 8, 2016, Flynn referred to Gülen as a “shady Islamic mullah residing in Pennsylvania.” He wrote: “To professionals in the intelligence community, the stamp of terror is all over Mullah Gülen’s statements.…”

      From Mother Jones:
      “Flynn’s retroactive disclosure noted that he had been hired in August 2016 by Inovo BV, a Dutch consulting company run by Ekim Alptekin, the chairman of the Turkey-US Business Council.”

      “Much is hazy about Flynn’s work for Alptekin, including, most notably, the source of the funding for the project. According to Flynn’s disclosure filing, Alptekin’s Inovo made three payments to him from September 9 to November 14 totaling $530,000. None of the money came from Turkey, according to Alptekin’s American attorneys. In an interview with a Dutch newspaper in April, Alptekin said the funds for the Flynn project came from a loan from his wife and payments from Ratio Oil Exploration, an Israeli natural gas company.”

      From the Ratio web site:
      “The Leviathan reservoir is one of the world’s largest deep-water gas discoveries of the last decade, and the largest natural gas reservoir in the Levant basin”.

      “Development of the Leviathan reservoir is expected to be the largest infrastructure project ever performed in Israel.”

      https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/michael-flynn-mystery-payment-foreign-agent-turkey-alptekin/
      http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/11/20/michael-flynn-and-the-turkish-connection/

  22. manbearpig says:

    Well, though I find Something strangely soothing about John o’s paternalistic certainty

    Something just doesn’t… seem…quite right …

    it’s late, and I’m utterly wiped but… I’ll just let that one last rant have its heyday…

    ?

    Born to an Iranian father who was often the target of the SAVAK (Iranian police), a surgeon so prized that he could threaten the threateners

    and a mother whose brother or husband or brother-in-law is the Mayor of Istanbul in 1987

    in 1988: she decides to go to the U.S.

    Goes directly to Washington D.C. not to the north-east with its plethora of prestigious ivy league men and women’s schools or hip, progressive Berkely. No other major capital: New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, L.A., Boston… no. Washington D.C..

    Within 4 and half years marries a man about twice her age, (another father figure?), a retail-technology consultant? who’d lived his entire life in Virginia and lives an “idyllic life until

    One year later she kicks off her career in Russia.

    Then, after three months comes back to the states

    Works with young people in judiciary difficulty…?

    for 7 years then

    despite the uncle who was the mayor of Istanbul

    and having spent 3 months working in Russia in the country’s biggest hospital managing among other adminstrative things, security clearance of…ordered products…? …

    She’s hired by the FBI, working with a guy who says he was her father’s classmate in Iran? or Turkey? and who says she sees him as a father figure and obtains high security clearance access to sensitive conversations…

    then at a time when the Truth movement has managed to get Kissenger off the Investigative commission, she earns notoriety by saying that the FBI had prior knowledge of “Bin Laden’s group” planning to fly planes into buildings in major cities.

    She’s beautiful, articulate, hangs out with other brave whistleblowers such as Daniel Ellsberg (ask him about Germaine and Landsdale)

    and keeps everyone hanging until Chomsky’s wish is granted and “who cares?” anymore if 9/11 was an inside job

    loses her gag

    and gains the trust of the most rigorous and potentially subversive voices in the altosphere (yea, James Corbett at the very top of the list who defending his stubborn autonomy and freedom declines to move the Corbett Report over to Newsbud)

    then suddenly, a couple years after “Fake News” became THE Meme of the early 21st century and after starting her own website “where media integrity matters” but where she kicks anyone off the site who doesn’t agree with her with nary a collective complaint about it

    until she practically single-handedly divides and discredits the entire alt media wielding unprecedented, inscrupulous and incomprehensible slander and libel against perhaps 2 of the most potentially subversive alt reporters on the ground in Syria …

    And you don’t see anything… suspicious about all this?

    Sounds like another success story peddled as a break down to me…

    Seems she might even be designed to discredit Twitter as well, which suggests to me, despite the fact that I never personally really got into it, Twitter might truly serve some sort of subversive purpose… like all powerful tools, a double-edged sword… ?

    dunno… she may be manipulated…she may not even be mata hari…who really did exist…

    anyhow, ’nuff already. Got too much real work to do…

    but some warm, soft, mentally cleansing sleep first…

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    • wall says:

      Yeah, definitely something to worry about.

    • john.o says:

      Thanks for that rundown, MBP. Glad I was soothing, and confess I didn’t know her story anywhere near as well as you, but to my mind it’s all still almost the same: whether she was manipulated as a child and young woman to carry this out, or more recently, it stinks. Mata Hari herself was not self-created. She was was a child of a broken family, beaten by her husband, (and, I would bet, sexually abused by someone, maybe her “Godfather”).

      I do not think Edmonds’ seductive and disruptive personality is an act, either. I would guess she is as manipulated as she is manipulative.

      Like many here, I have found her hard to listen to for a long time. I donated money to NB for awhile but something always seemed off. Corbett’s support was what kept me interested. (I actually felt a mild guilt for my opinion.)

      I am still trying to figure out which of certain disruptive Kennedy assassination researchers were planted trolls, and which were just random unstable egotists. But from what you say she seems to have been a troll op from day 1. Her act is self-destructing now, but her handlers probably don’t care much. The seeds of confusion have been sown.

      The largest issueis this: as we try to deconstruct the matrix of lies in which we are embedded, we find the protectors of that matrix are skilled, subtle, unbelievably well funded and not monolithic, but a network of linked and competing interests. It seems inevitable, as James just found out, that our attempts to unravel it will get us entangled from time to time and we may make it worse. The confusion that follows is inevitable. Any strategy that depends on large numbers of people sorting this stuff out adequately is probably wishful thinking.

      I am grateful for James stubbornness and independence. My personal opinion is that the best way forward here is to ignore this woman as much as possible after this thread closes down.

      • manbearpig says:

        good morning

        of course I totally neglected to mention that she officially made Whistleblowing sexy and glamorous in 2004:

        perhaps to really initiate the mainstream public to the highly attractive concept in 60 minutes

        just in time for the big time “whistleblowing” stars to come out of the closet

        with great deus ex machina and pomp à la chelsea manning, julian assange, glenn greenwald, ed snowden and whathaveyou

        Heroes, all, in the company of the telegenic irate truther queen herself

        (whereas of course no one’s ever really heard of Tice, or the DC Madame etc etc…

        but perhaps this timing was just dictated by the arrival of the internet…

        Hamsterwheel calling (sounds like the title of an epic movie…! The one I star in!!)

        • I Shot Santa says:

          One of the things you see surfacing out in her meltdown is that she wishes she were the same age that she was in 2004. I don’t think she ever had a lot of self-confidence and she really liked having her looks for a crutch. She’d fit right in down here in Florida. JimBob from fluorida who knows crazy when he sees it.

  23. wall says:

    God, the Newsbud response to Corbett’s vid only puts more nails in their coffin. I mean… I have never seen them put out something that bad. I mean, they twist everything.

    One of you said this scenario was going on across multiple sites right now. What sites has this been going on with? What issues is it happening over on those other sites? The same issue or different issues?

    Um, it sound like Sibel is trying to blackmail Corbett just before the 12 minute mark… wow.
    https://www.newsbud.com/2018/04/03/newsbud-responds-to-james-corbetts-smear-campaign/

    • I Shot Santa says:

      That was me that pointed out this was being reported across several sites. How many are legitimate is a different matter as I’ve not investigated any of them. They were all sites that I never frequented so I didn’t even bother remembering them. One of them was something like AIM (American Independent Media?). An off the wall Alex Jones lite if I remember correctly. People supposedly being exposed as something or another. How much is true is unknown, I just thought it odd that I was hearing so much on this area at one time. JimBob just sees the trends, that’s all.

      • wall says:

        Is it all about Beely and Bartlett on all the other sites you saw?

        • I Shot Santa says:

          No. It seems they were all different. Smear campaigns of some sort. There was a lot of other stuff going on at the same time, so I didn’t keep up with it very well. One of them was supposedly someone outing someone as a gov op; but the source was sketchy if you ask me. As in really sketchy! I think the others were in the same vein, but it’s hard to remember them now. Like I said, they weren’t channels I frequented. I’d just never heard of this many at once before. I think a lot of stuff can also be chalked up to people have just been about squeezed out. Also, it’s pretty easy to get lost in those rabbit holes. JimBob: If you hook your car exhaust up to that rabbit hole, they’ll come on out to ya! Just saying.

          • wall says:

            squeezed out?

            • I Shot Santa says:

              Ever since 9/11 the state has been squeezing us for all the fear they could milk out of us. When I watch a movie from before then, it’s hard to believe it is even in the same country. We flipped a switch to crazy town then and we ain’t never got off that track. People crack after a while. JimBob

    • mkey says:

      That’s one sorry attempt at journalism. They should do a face off with James, that would be priceless.

      Spiro and Sibel are really pathtic, to sink this low, and over what?

      They absolutely have to assume that newsbud “followers” have never seen the video in question and are complete idiots. Which I very much doubt they are.

    • Olivier says:

      Hot from the newsbud moderation queue:

      —————–
      Olivier says:
      April 3, 2018 at 3:56 pm

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Style sliding down to childish, better stick to substance. May I also suggest if in any way possible that you respond not to what Corbett ignored, but to what he did not ignore. This will indeed distract from what you apparently want to say, but style has so overshadowed substance now that this issue needs some attention.
      —————–

      https://www.newsbud.com/2018/04/03/newsbud-responds-to-james-corbetts-smear-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-28783

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        What?!

        Spiro deliberately takes things completely out of context in order to smear.
        Spiro’s intent is obvious.

        • I Shot Santa says:

          On the brighter side, compare their view counts in similar time periods. Her low hundreds to his high teen thousands. Just saying. JimBob

        • mkey says:

          While I may be under the impression Sibel is “out of her mind” so I’m cutting her, probably some unjust, slack, Spiro is a disgrace. His body of work alone puts him in no position to throw any stones.

          Not to mention that this hit peace, while laughable and very transparent, reeks of cheap propaganda. Taking things out of context, misrepresenting, labeling, repetition. Hopefully, to use their terminology, staff of substance at newsbud will open their eyes and move on, I’d hate to see their reputation destroyed over anything Spiro had to say.

          • I Shot Santa says:

            While Spiro is a suck up master, he can’t ruin those other journalists. If you’re a journalist and you can’t see a crapfest like this coming, you really ain’t a very good journalist. JimBob from swamp country who has noticed that mother nature don’t care about no rules.

        • Olivier says:

          HRS, here’s what I mean: Let’s assume for a moment that Newsbud would have something substantive to say, e.g. that B&B are biased and/because they are protected by the Syrian gov. Let’s assume that the witnesses that NB refers to have something substantive to add to that, and let’s assume that Corbett did not address that. Let’s call that substance ‘A’, assuming it exists.

          Now NB’s first video is A+B, where B is without substance, ad-hominem and debunked by Corbett. I call it ‘style’, in the sense that it doesn’t add to the substance that they apparently want to convey. James’ video focusses on B, and rightly so.

          NB’s response doesn’t tackle B, which they should have. My comment on NB is that they should have originally stuck to whatever substance they have, and they should have responded to Corbett’s analysis of B.

          As moderately as I phrased it, it would seem the comment didn’t pass the moderation test.

          • VoiceOfArabi says:

            Hello Olivier… Experience tells me you will be asked to leave Newsbud very soon, with the standard “we will give you your subscription back” as they are only interested in the “irate minorities” 🙂

        • wall says:

          You know, after thinking about it I can recall some incidences where I did something similar in an argument…

          BUT!

          it was actually because I was winging it because I couldn’t remember the specifics of the argument anymore because such time had passed since it started.

          But in this case it makes no sense. This isn’t just Sibel doing this. She has other people there to correct her if she gets tripped up on something.

          So… yeah. It’s either she being manipulated, she a manipulator, or both.

      • scpat says:

        Lots of straw man arguments, visual and audio distortions and effects, and personal attacks on Corbett instead of rebutting the actual points he made. RIP Newsbud.

  24. wall says:

    And what the hell happened to Xicha? Has anyone seen her anywhere on the net?

  25. tony.p says:

    Mmmmm. Thanks James. Sure … this one was boring as chite, but actually very important. Thank you so much for wading through all that kack (Scottish word), you made good sense of it all. Of course I will not be independently verifying all that stuff, I know you would prefer me to, but i will just lazily see what rebuttal (if any) Sibel comes back with. Frankly I am not expecting any. I will look though.

    I never joined twitter, from what I have seen of twitter I think you are correct, so, again thanks for doing all that hard work to discover that it’s a waste of time and cyber space. I trust you on that one 🙂

    I am not sure what’s up with Sibel. Women do sometimes get into awful fights with other women, and when the emotions run high all reason falls into a black infinite void. Maybe Sibel is having personal problems of her own… or maybe the cover she plays slipped a bit for a while there. I dunno, but I am forewarned. It a pity to see two sites both supposedly on the same side fall out like this, but must and had to happen from what has been revealed. Good work.

    I intend starting up my own site soon, and I have been surfing on the internet since about 1995. It hasn’t done me much harm… maybe some good actually… but the what Sibel Edmonds has done is not that surprising to me really. Viscous of course. I have been through bad times myself, people sense this, and can be cruel. We all go off the boards at times and it’s a matter of forgiving and forgetting usually. Even if you can’t and just have to bite you lip for a considered period of time.

    Anyhow. I am glad I subscribed to your site. As said, I have been through a scrape or two myself, and even if it’s “obvious” in your ones own mind that one is absolutely right on a matter, it’s comforting to know that others have reached the same conclusion as oneself from the evidence presented. I concur with your findings.

    I am hoping still that Sibel is just having a bad day/month/year and will come out of this better then she has been presented so far here. It would be bad if her whole site is shown to be sour and I have to pull my subscription from Newsbud. There are so many bad guys out there, we can ill afford to have problems amongst our own ranks, but issues do arise and need to be sorted.

    I agree, you should not have to waste anymore time on this, thanks for the analysis, we the subscribers of Newsbud need to carry this forward. Not all of us are star struck sheep that just believe everything we are told…. even if we are a tad lazy.

    Good night and God Bless,

  26. tony.p says:

    oh and don’t forget to check out the Newsbud Face Book site for a running commentary. Going to keep tabs on that one. At the moment James is kicking butt. One can edit responses on FB though… like edit them out altogether. The mood amongst the FB community is that Judge Judy needs to be brought in to fix this. Hear hear !!! https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=Sibel%20Edmonds%27%20Boiling%20Frogs%20Post

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Interesting.
      Tony, thanks for the brief, because I can’t see the Facebook page. (I’m not on Facebook.)

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Oh, Now I accessed it.
      https://www.facebook.com/newsbud/posts_to_page/
      from “Visitors Posts”
      https://www.facebook.com/newsbud/

      You are right Tony! Wow!

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        but I don’t think it is the same Facebook page as you showed.

        • tony.p says:

          Hi HRS,
          I logged out of FB and looked at your links. I couldn’t see much, so I logged back in as a normal FB user.

          Yep… it looks like Newsbud FB account has been edited to pieces already. I had approved of many of the comments there and everything has been disappeared (including all my approvals so I know for a fact this is the case) -lol- oh well !!!

          I’m gonna give Sibel a day or two to get her house in order, but umm.. This is not good. She must of entirely lost her marbles. A good number of FB contributors already saw and know what happened. Newsbud can try and put their fingers in the dyke and try and stem the flow, it’s NOT going to work though. Sure as night follows day, this incident is going to blow wide open (imho).

          • tony.p says:

            Hi HRS,
            It’s me again. Sorry for being a bit tedious. Looks Like I wasn’t looking hard enough. it’s all back. Maybe I had a browser problem ? Whatever. I am going to take a few screen shots for prosperity. I can tell you for sure that the James Corbett video is figuring BIG with Newsbud FB supporters, and nearly ALL the comments are supportive of James.

          • wall says:

            This is why you’re supposed to take screen shots and post them.

            ARCHIVE EVERYTHING ALWAYS.

  27. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Sibel Edmonds’s efforts to dictate what others should think or should say

    One behavioral characteristic which stands out with Sibel is how hard she strains to dictate what others should say or think.

    One easy to observe example is her efforts to extort and blackmail the Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity.
    Can a person imagine if Sibel was a leader of a country?
    “You will believe what I tell you to believe, and you will publicly say what I want, or I will waterboard you like Zacarias Moussaoui.”

    Another example:
    We see it with the comments she censors, or the people she kicks out.

    Another example:
    We see it with her attacks on James Corbett. James did not make “Fact Checking Newsbud’s Syrian Under Seige” video in order to attack Sibel. He made it to point out the facts of Sibel’s baseless, radically ugly attacks on two journalists.

    Another example:
    Sibel and Spiro are now straining very hard with over-the-top hypocriticalness trying to find faults with Bartlett & Beeley in order to justify their original attacks on these two women. We see this in the recent 12 minute video of April 3rd. It is so strained, that it has become “desperation drama”. “You must believe our opinion. We were right in attacking and insulting them. We will insult you too if you don’t believe us. We will insult James Corbett in order to try to nullify his valid Fact Checking.

    • mik says:

      I thought about staying out of this debate, then changed my mind and then saw your statement:
      ” James did not make “Fact Checking Newsbud’s Syrian Under Seige” video in order to attack Sibel”

      I’m pretty sure that was not on his mind, but the way video is done it can be perceived as an attack (not that she doesn’t deserve a slap). Particularly I was surprised with mentioning Sibel at Alex Jones’ show and over the top compilation of Sibel’s fuck-shit.

      With the first one he gave them such an easy ball and they used it very efficiently in their reply. Of course, Newsbud is having “problem” with putting things into proper context, but many people won’t notice.

      Anyhow, I understand James’ unusual approach in Fact Checking…
      I think Sibel was part of James’ inner circle, but now she looks like a shill, mole,…
      I think this is personal, too.

      • wall says:

        Um, the part where James shows Sibel on Alex’s show wasn’t meant to attack her. It was meant to illustrate a point about the effects of montage “journalism”. You can make anyone look bad if you don’t take a hard look at what’s really going on with all the “evidence” you have.

  28. pearl says:

    Well, this 2nd report changes everything. Through the wonders of video and audio manipulation, I now realize James is a hypocritical scoundrel of the worst kind (it couldn’t possibly be that a much younger James started on square one and learned as he went). And that’s just from the first 5 minutes; I was unable to plod beyond that (it couldn’t possibly be because they’re miserably dull). Time to withdraw my support here, and flee back to Newsbud. I pray they’ll have me…

    • senge says:

      Yeah, the editing is so in your face manipulative…ridiculing JC

      funny thing: my MacBook couldn’t stand the rebuttal and freezed at around the 10 minute mark, just when Sibel came on…atta boy!

    • wall says:

      She tries to blackmail James at around the 12 minute mark. Might wanna watch that part.

      • pearl says:

        Indirectly, I suppose, through her intent to take down Beeley and BartLETT given he’s “joined at the hip” to them. Whatever. Granted, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, so I have no doubt she’ll spend every waking hour to see it through.

  29. Billy Field says:

    Good too see CR still does not have “Moderation” unlike Newsbud at moment!

    • mkey says:

      There is an automatic moderation que (posts with multiple links have to be cleared by hand) and a limit of 3000 characters, which is not enforced without prejudice.

      Sometimes posts will wait for James’ waking hours in Japan as well.

  30. VoiceOfArabi says:

    OMG…. i have just viewed the video from Newsbud on 3/4/18 attacking James Corbett (to a personal level) and really can’t believe my eyes or ears… this is truly unbelievable (so let us say “Sibel is disturbed menopausal woman” and slightly going mad.. what is Spiro’s excuse…. OMG.

    More importantly….. ***LESSONS LEARNT***

    Believe your own gut feel. You have it for a reason.

    – On my first interaction with Sibel, i had a gut feel that she was a “Tyrant” – my gut feel got confirmed to me… you judge for yourself.

    – on my first interaction with Spiro, i had a gut feel that he has no substance, and will follow “dear leader” to the abyss. – again, my gut feel got confirmed.

    – on listening and viewing Kurt Nimmo’s video reports, i had a gut feel that he is good at stiring emotions, but lacks real abilities for true research apart from what’s available on the “net”… that gut feel yet to be confirmed or denied.

    for any Corbetteer who would like to learn more about their own gut feel and where it originate from… I highly recommend reading the following book.

    Thinking, Fast and Slow Hardcover – October 25, 2011
    by Daniel Kahneman (Author)

    I can’t believe it… but Newsbud gagged their own subscribers…. Newsbud appears to be the new North Korea 🙂 .

    • manbearpig says:

      When a high-profile ‘whistleblower’ who’s been gagged recycles her gag on her own paying subscribers
      this is known as

      a “running gag”…

      uhhh… hyuka hyuk.

      (actually…just wanted to be comment number ‘400’…for posterity)

      a little lunch break hysteria…

      or maybe it’s menopause….8-O

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      What a gag!

    • john.o says:

      VofA,

      “More importantly….. ***LESSONS LEARNT***
      Believe your own gut feel. You have it for a reason.”

      Gut is hard to tell from gross prejudice sometimes, but, for me, this is really the most helpful comment here. I now see ways in which, confusing my instinctive antipathy with prejudice, I overrode my gut and gave this woman a pass by force of will. (Most of the other NB team never interested me enough really to notice, except Engdahl recently, who surprised me

      Not the first time in my life unfortunately. Something to work on.

    • Cu Chulainn says:

      the tyrant personality style is Enneagram 1–Hillary Clinton is a good example

      https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/type-1/

  31. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Wisdom and Inner Self and Conflict

    Recently, someone sent me the following link. The MESSAGE is pretty good. It doesn’t matter if you are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, Spiritual or whatever.

    Sibel Edmonds should watch this.
    Actually, anyone should. I took home some important concepts from it.
    https://subsplash.com/kingofkings/lb/mi/+w8cwkzp
    I laughed when I heard the fight scene…reminds me of growing up.

    • I Shot Santa says:

      Was confused for a minute with the whole book of james thing. Though I didn’t check, I’m guessing it’s Romans. still, it’s always nice when those christians at least get close to those four gospels. Since they named the whole religion after him; just seems rude to ignore him. JimBob who don’t cotton to no religion, but knows there is a god.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      If one substitutes one’s personal concepts about self for some of the religious terms, there are some very good points made during the talk. At least, for me, I walked away with more enlightenment.

      • I Shot Santa says:

        Oh I wasn’t saying he didn’t have some good points. It’s just nice to not hear anything from their war god for a change. JimBob who thinks he ain’t never going to be in as good a war spot as Kelly’s Heroes.

  32. geotos says:

    Spectacular demonstration of James Corbett (thanks!), as I see it, and Newsbud yesterday’s spectacular reaction.

    A) 10 second: James’ clip FAKING to make an “attack against Edmonds for providing interviews to Alex Jones & Info Wars”

    B) 60 seconds: explanation of the previous clip. The point, as I understood it: one can be mislead and manipulated by taking things out of context, by editorial intrusion. This to pave the way for the following hour of video.

    Newsbud move?
    Well, they just took the first clip out of context (hahahahaha) and spent almost 2 minutes to denounce the «twisted attempt to smear Sibel Edmonds» by making an “attack against Edmons for providing interviews to Alex Jones & Info Wars”.

    Hahahaha so hilarious for me.
    Sorry for you, James, you cannot possibly win, they are much too good.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      You said it well.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      And actually, you mentioned a profound aspect:
      you cannot possibly win

      With some folks, “you can’t win”. It doesn’t matter the logic nor facts nor heartfelt concern for all, you just ain’t gonna win on the side of reason.

      Once my grandson was arguing with his grandma about a valid point. When grandma walked out of the room, I shook my head and told him: “Richard, you are not going to win on this one. It doesn’t matter what you say.”
      (Sidenote: By the way, I do know about intense, Menopausal hormone induced behavior run amok.)

  33. candlelight says:

    Okay, so yes, yes, yes, the Newsbud response to the “Corbett Smear Campaign” of their wonderful hit piece on Beeley and Bartlett:

    First of all, dear me! The expose of James’ hypocrisy, the downright utter hypocrisy! – of his dissing Sibel for appearing on the Alex Jones’ show, when he himself is shown, it seems, to have kissed Alex’s very ass for appearing on that same show, too! Maybe, what, like last week? But, but, where’s the beard?

    Oh, hell, doesn’t Spiro realize that this occurred during James’ pre-bearded days? I mean, seriously Spiro? Look how young, clean cut and respectful, and a bit nervous, too, that James was back then, with his starched white shirt, black pants and black patent leather shoes, and white socks? Yes, Spiro, those were James’ nerdy days many moons ago, when he was perhaps a touch naive. And maybe, just maybe, many years later, he may very well have now a completely different assessment of Jones. I mean, Jones is still the 800 pound gorilla in the room, so I don’t want to comment too much on him. But, haven’t I heard somewhere, something about programming. Programming? Hmm, help me out, Spiro. Oh, that’s right….Predictive programming! Thank you very much for that, Spiro….

    But, let me ask you this, Spi, about those character WITNESSES? You know, those four WITNESSES on your hit piece? I really don’t know anything about these people, nor why these four individuals are deemed to be nothing but entirely credible and beyond reproach? Though, I must say, I am terribly impressed with the Syrian guy Zak, is it? Wow, Evil Eva called him out on his lack of military service, or his Syrian patriotism, or something along those lines, or for whatever reasons she ultimately began to feel he wasn’t a man of good character? So, it was really so very, very good he was able to call out that dastardly Eva, on his military status, at least, and was able to produce his documents for military exemption for the camera, and for all the world to see, and to express his displeasure at Eva’s unfair character assassination – after all, to get that military service exemption, as he blurted out in front of the camera, cost him 3000 thousand dollars! You know, spi, maybe you’re right, this Eva woman is pretty low down to have said anything about this guy, Zak. I mean, after they were palling around together, she lays down some criticisms about this poor guy? Wow. That was certainly admirable that you included that in your hit piece. It certainly represents a major flaw in Eva’s character, how she spews lies and vilifies, especially when it comes to a guy like Zak who seems so lovable, and I can certainly understand why Corbett went out of his way to ignore this tidy bit of dirt you have on her, albeit at the expense of poor Zak’s hurt feelings.

    Moving on, what of the other three WITNESSES? Well, I believe that at least one of those three, Corbett did include in his fact-checking, so you can check that out for yourself, but, from what I recall, this particular WITNESS he did include didn’t exactly come off as very credible, at least not after Corbett got through with his adept manipulations. But, you’ll have to admit, just like your boss, Sibel, admitted, James has gotten pretty entertaining these days, hasn’t he? Oh, I know…yeah, according to one of your other WITNESSES, Barbara McKenzie, he’s “an egregious and dishonest piece of self-promotion on several counts”…. Boy! Man oh, man, it’s amazing this woman accuses Evil Eva with vilifying others. If you were to ask me, I’d say this Barbara woman does a pretty damned exceptional job, herself! Pretty damned easy with the vilifying, all right, just like her friend, Sibel. But, who knows, maybe that’s why James is acting pretty egregiously chill these days, and that he grew his beard is a terrible expression of self-promotion and dishonestly, since maintaining the beard is strictly for his audience and not himself. Plus, for some reason he hasn’t the need to be so stiff upper lipped anymore, and generally, if I had to guess, is feeling awfully comfortable in his thick skin these days, too, and I think it really shows. But, at any rate, it’s interesting that he’s able to smoothly go through a monologue, verbatim, without the video being cut and spliced, like some people I won’t publicly name, right, spi? But, that’s natural, right? I mean, it stands to reason, since they are all his own words and his own ideas. Right, spi? You get what I’m saying, right, Spi? His own words?

    Anyway, for now, just one last question. Unless I missed it, why is it that after 12 minutes of your response to “Corbett’s Smear Campaign” (btw, as an aside, what brilliant master over at Newsbud came up with that title? That in itself is so incredibly laughable! I mean, honestly – and don’t mind my French now – it’s really disgustingly fucking laughable!)…. so, tell me, after 12 fucking minutes of your goddamned bullshit, why did you not respond to a single iota of any of the fact-checking points that our dear friend and comrade actually did put forth in his fact-checking rebuttal to your hit piece – yours and Sibel’s inexplicable and mind bogglingly dirty little hit piece? Mind telling me that?…. Spi, are you still there? Or has that crazy cat got your tongue?

    • mkey says:

      U r stupid. (Spiro says, while employing all of his linguistic might)

      • candlelight says:

        And maybe he’d be right, as Spiro struggles to express himself.

        This whole thing, though, this crusade Newsbud has embarked on is getting under my skin, to tell you the truth. If their response can be believed, we haven’t heard nearly the last of it, as they are promising several future exposés of these two women, with a dark warning from Madam Edmonds to James that he’d better come in from the cold or risk oblivion, or some such absurdity.

        Irksome is to put it mildly. But, as silver linings sometimes pan out, as a growing number of others have remarked, this latest episode of Edmonds is starting to churn some rather dark thoughts concerning the true underpinnings of her historic whistle-blowing story, and how, if you follow her story closely and logically, you begin to understand that at certain level, and with only some very controlled and calculated cost of prestige to the FBI, her story actually fully supports and gives cover to the official story line of 9/11, that the event leads back to Osama bin Laden and his 19 hijackers – because this is precisely the story she claims the FBI was inept to prevent, or that the FBI simply looked the other way – I don’t know if she’s ever made that clear, believe it or not; but further, that her gag order under state secrets provisions prevents her from naming names and describing documents – how nice and convenient.

        The funny thing is, as an FBI newbie, teams with a much higher pay grade than hers, could very well have planted these documents and transcripts, etc., etc. for the young and bright-eyed Sibel Edmonds to disseminate. Either way, at relatively little cost, whistle-blower Edmonds was absolutely a win-win for the establishment, and the solidification of the official myth…whether she knows it, or not.

        Hey, Spiro, would you mind asking your boss a few hypothetical questions, please?

        • mkey says:

          Well, it saddens me you are irked by this situation. I guess I grew weary of the internet drama to really pay too much attention to this, much less get emotionally involved. Hadn’t James responded, I probably wouldn’t have payed much attention to it, if at all.

          Obviously this is a very critical case, since James invested quite a lot of time for his fact checking (fourth in the row total, supposedly) of presented materials. I guess not much can be expected at this point by the same people who produced these couple of videos, firstly the smear job of the dastardly “duo” (as if they act in unison and collude) and then the anti smear smear job of James. I dare only guess, but we’re bound to get more of this sensationalist bullshit.

          Regarding Sibel’s whistleblowing (she used to be a whistleblower, now that she lost her whistle she just blows, sad) I guess anything really goes and I’m filing it in the “we’ll probably never know one way or the other” cabinet. Of one thing we can be very certain, FBI and other alphabet soup agencies are capable of finding patsies when they need to.

          • candlelight says:

            Irksome isn’t the right term, really – it’s more like highly disappointed/disgusted. Why? A number of years ago, while it was BFP, around the time she published her 2nd novel, and also before that, I happened to honestly like her. I liked her attitude, believe it or not, as she had a worldly maturity about her, and interesting and relatively unique reference points which seemed to qualify her views on myriad geopolitical subjects. Her whistle-blowing status gave her credentials (I wasn’t connecting the dots – shame on me). So, for me, she was an intelligent truth warrior with an adorable giggle….and all was well.

            But, like numerous others have noted, some sort of oddly unpleasant transformation was taking place with the rollout of Newsbud, wherein it quickly went from a vibe with possibilities, positive and upbeat, to a guilt-filled feeling of being browbeat. You were made to feel that the quality and integrity of the operation was going to require lots of money in order to be successful, and we, the people benefiting from the largesse of this powerhouse group would have only ourselves to blame should the venture fail. It was a queasy-feeling inducing marketing plan with overtones of a we’re-more capable-and-smarter-than-thou sort of shtick. And, it made you wonder, okay, who are all these wunderkind that Newsbud’s going to get on board, who are going to be so much better than a James Corbett, or a Peter B. Collins, or a Guillermo Jimenez? And why is Newsbud’s operation going to adamantly require, per Sibel’s insistance, all this additional cash to operate, far and away, above BFP’s budget?….God, I hate to keep beating this guy over the head… lol but, what really changed? Oh, no! Can’t be! Spiro came on board! Poor, Spiro. Does he not get it?

            But, what’s really bothering me – and it’s not Spiro – he’s just irksome (and besides, we know he’s just a parrot), what’s really troublesome is Sibel’s completely non-compelling, yet highly compulsive agenda. She supposedly lauds fair minded journalism, though even the worst of the critics that she has found to dis Bartlett and Beeley have better things to say about them than does she. That’s bullshit, if I do say so, and it does reek of a palpable, yet still hidden agenda.

            If she doesn’t like these women’s government friendly reporting styles, to the point of accusing them of potentially harming people’s lives, as I believe she has already intimated, then get the hell off your comfy, suburban ass, Sibel, leave your husband to the house chores, and get on a goddamned plane to Damascus,and do all the fair and balanced reporting you’d like. What, with all your trusted sources on the ground(and, you’ll need them), this should be a no-brainer for you. But, until then, please my love, stfu.

            And, for the time being, that’s where it’s at!

            • wall says:

              While your sarcasm is getting kind of annoying I would like to point out something.

              Part of the reason for supporting Newsbud was to support on the ground reporting. Yet we never see ANY of that from them. We only see the same old internet researching type reporting that everyone else does. It’s like the whole budget went into video editing. I mean, really, what happened to all the money? Why didn’t they spend it on on the ground reporting instead of… whatever the hell the spent it on?

              • I Shot Santa says:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qbz0kFMohw

                Oops: where the money went. JimBob who ain’t got no sense of decency whatsoever.

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                Yes good points. When you strip away the veneer, there really hasn’t been a lot of change between BFP and NB.
                Sure more writers/contributors, but almost identical style.

                Many promises still haven’t come to fruition.
                You mentioned on-the-ground reporting.
                Apart from a couple of Sibel trips to New York and Texas to cover Turkish-related stories, we just haven’t seen them.

                Then there are all those wonderful daily/weekly video interviews.
                Where are they?

                And how about the promised discussion forums? Where are they? etc.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                Fawlty Towers and Wall and candlelight,
                Interesting.
                I did not know about these promised or inferred aspects of what Newsbud was supposed to be.

        • mik says:

          “….Spiro struggles to express himself”

          Himself? Empty barrel without walls. Spineless creature.

          He irritated me from the first moment I saw him years ago (probably Newsbud round-table) and immediately I had a question: what is he doing here?
          Now I got the answer.

          But maybe he is better as a boy-toy (Pierce Redmond’s description of the creature (in Ochelli effect, link somewhere in the beginning)).

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          The funny thing is, as an FBI newbie, teams with a much higher pay grade than hers, could very well have planted these documents and transcripts, etc., etc. for the young and bright-eyed Sibel Edmonds to disseminate.

          Sibel herself stated in her first book that it was her archenemy, Feghali (her boss) who happened to drop the ‘incriminating’, ‘9/11’ box of audio tapes and paper documents in her lap to ‘review’.

  34. manbearpig says:

    Yup GEOTOS nailed it.

    What’s most tragic is most choose not to understand. Or pretend not to understand. For some reason.

    Sent from my battered old Android phone

  35. dave_voce says:

    There’s a new video on newsbud (Newsbud Responds to James Corbett’s Smear Campaign). Will James do a debunking the debunking video that was debunking the debunking video? Or does he have a life?

    • mkey says:

      I doubt he will, probably enough time was wasted on this as it is. Besides, it’s not like James can do anything to outdo damage they did themselves.

      • Duck says:

        mkey
        But its kinda weird that they make a video that looks like THEY created it to make themselves look like they were doing a PARODY of a debunk.
        They never came across as actual stupid people who would make a video that “looks” like its done by a bunch of drunken chekists before a show trial. Its flat out weird and counter productive to their credibility to do a video as flat out silly with the ‘freeze-face-at-crazy-look” and “use-chimpmonk-voice’.. are they just trying like those “nigerian prince” email scammers to collect ONLY people who believe anything no matter how silly? Or are they just trying to make everyone talk about them instead of something else? Or are they actually that bad at doing an attack piece?
        I cant believe that they “couldnt” have come up with a better attack because anyone (even corbett) can be made to look bad under the right circumstances.

        • mkey says:

          I understand your reasoning, but when multiple options are available I’ll always put my money on the most probable option. In this case that means they simply doubled down on stupid.

          I’m certain most of us have been in the situation where doing the most stupid thing seemed like the obvious way to go, a decision only later to be met with a warp 10 palm to the forehead.

          Granted, probably a dozen of us would need to rally to commit acts loke these.

          Luckilly, censorship or not, the video hasn’t been met with much praise on their site, two neutral comments at best.

          My final verdict would be that Sibel has some mental health issues going on, while Spiro is being Spiro.

          • HomeRemedySupply says:

            In this case that means they simply doubled down on stupid. – mkey

            …and…
            I’m certain most of us have been in the situation where doing the most stupid thing seemed like the obvious way to go, a decision only later to be met with a warp 10 palm to the forehead.

          • Duck says:

            Mkey
            I guess you are right, but she never struck me as a nut before, kinda emotional but not actually nuts.

            • mkey says:

              Yes, she could get irrational (she is a woman, after all) at times and while I understood that this aproach could be offputting to some, I found her to be quite perky and determined. Something I found refreshing, she could have talked a bit less or more succintly, but it is what it is. I did appreciate her work quite a lot, but never really got into the deep end, as some have.

          • wall says:

            Um, what exactly do you base your idea of what is most probable on? I apologize, but that part of your comment was logically flawed.

            • mkey says:

              It’s based on the fact systems tend to be the simplest they can be, to be in a state of lowest energy.

              • wall says:

                That furthermore makes no sense. What is simple and what is complex are matters of opinion and perspective. And human social systems aren’t governed by physics, they’re governed by emotional reactions.

              • mkey says:

                They are also governed by laziness. People will most often opt for the most easy to follow venue.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                Any of the seven deadly sins will do. Such a disgusting tapestry, but I confess to have dabbled in most of them myself. JimBob who ain’t gonna have no one say he’s puttin on no airs.

  36. herrqlys says:

    I take a leave of absence from posting on the internet and come back to The Corbett Report to find out that Sibel Edmonds has committed harakiri without restoring any honour to herself. This self-inflicted disembowling will predictably haemorrhage fatally for her and Newsbud.

    Using my impeccable 20/20 hindsight I can stridently agree with some others here than my “gut instinct” also waved a red flag from the first time I watched Edmonds on video. And it seems I wasn’t alone in appraising Spiro, either.

    All of the personality stuff aside, I can’t fathom why it was decided to try and crucify Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett. From my own sensibilities, Vanessa and Eva put their lives at risk to get real, on-the-ground facts about Syria and ordinary Syrians for us. Newsbud’s ad hominem attacks are what started this wonky ball rolling and Edmonds needs to use documented facts (remember those?) or shut up and stop with the video editing innuendos and smears.

    People in emotional meltdown don’t have a very objective view of their own actions, or the perceptions those actions generate. It’s just better that they keep the situation within their private domain of family, friends and health professionals.

    As a side note, I was very surprised when respected personal favourite William Engdahl joined Newsbud as a weekly contributor. The Newsbud hype over this was wrapped in commercial, subscriber-only terms that are the antithesis of what Engdahl does, which is extensive personal research, weaving the strands together and producing clear, rational articles and books for public consumption. His forté is tight, historical analysis that names names and relationships. I sincerely wish that he’ll protect HIS OWN reputation and credibility by not bothering with Edmonds or Newsbud anymore, to avoid being tarred by the same brush.

  37. Damani says:

    James, you are cutting off all ties to Sibel because of one report you disagree with? Really? After all the VERY GOOD work you two have done together you are cutting ties because of your differences on this one report? Unacceptable!

    Sibel, you are cutting off all ties to James Corbett because of his criticism of your report? Really? After all the VERY GOOD work you two have done together you are cutting ties because of your differences on this one report? Unacceptable!

    As a subscriber to both of you, I urge you both to step back, take a deep breath, assess what is truthful and accurate in the relative criticisms of the other, adjust, make the appropriate corrections and apologies, if needed, and move forward TOGETHER. I love the work of both of you. This fray will not change that. I think the honest differences and passion expressed are refreshingly healthy.

    James, thank you for your anticipated more thoughtful retraction of you rejecting all ties with Sibel. Sibel is very passionate and she does have her faults, but she does not deserve being cutoff by you. Not because of this one report. Stop it!

    • I Shot Santa says:

      I’m pretty sure I’d cut off all ties with her if I were him.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      I also would cut ties.
      It is actually a very sane action.

      When a spouse is sporadically a major source of trouble, someone who is manically irrational, then no amount of logical communication can resolve things. Distance or divorce is the remedy.

      Logical reason doesn’t work with someone who dramatizes illogical, unreasonable thoughts and actions.

      Divorce or distancing oneself from this type of insanity is the smart thing to do…errh…unless one is a masochist, and wants lots of grief and trouble from then on.

    • mkey says:

      One report? I think not.

      We’re talking about at least two different smear campaings, a sanctimonious status, veiled threats, unprofessional and unworthy of a journalist conduct, collusion to denigrate and possibly commit fraud… how did you get to a “one report of disagreement”?

      If that’s all you concluded from this, you’re barking at the wrong tree. Is James a child to be spoken to as if he were one?
      The only thing James did wrong was to apologize for her behaviour, that was bullshit.

    • wall says:

      Actually, she does deserve to be cut off at this point. Everything she has done here is shit and tarnishes all who have relied on her. Plus, as other commenters have documented, she is likely deep state herself.

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      James, you are cutting off all ties to Sibel because of one report you disagree with? Really? After all the VERY GOOD work you two have done together you are cutting ties because of your differences on this one report? Unacceptable!

      Sibel, you are cutting off all ties to James Corbett because of his criticism of your report? Really? After all the VERY GOOD work you two have done together you are cutting ties because of your differences on this one report? Unacceptable!

      What a Difference a Year Makes!
      Corbett Report Places Newsbud Under The Microscope
      Published on May 3, 2017
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF-IFUyqDc0
      A 56 minute promotion piece.

      I wonder if Newsbud will take down this video, seeing as it was god-awful James who did the interviewing?

  38. herrqlys says:

    Before I go, I simply have to ask:

    Is manbearpig two posters? One that does hamster wheel poetry and some occasional whiskey philosophy, and the other that does well-crafted prose with well-expressed insight?

    Or maybe it’s just another case of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr.(Ms.) Hyde?

    • manbearpig says:

      Wow I’m blushing behind my beard. What?! I’m definately not blushing! Yes I am!? For God’s sakes! Remember the Crow and the Fox! The Crow in the…?! The Crow and the Fox idiot! And stop eating with your mouth open, it’s! (Why did I capitalize the word “god”?) Who are you!!? Don’t try to change the subject! What was the… Don’t you ever read??! Well sure but Mr Corbett said YouTube was…YouTube!? (mais Quel Con!) That’s not reading!!? Well, sometimes…you know, there’s the title, and there’re subtitles and …! DE LA FONTAINE!! Please, please stop yelling at me in Spanish! MAIS! quel con! That’s French Dimwit! It’s a Name in French! DE LA FONTAINE! He wrote fables! Fables? Yea fables. Allegorical stories. Stories? Yea, with animals. OOhhhhhhhh! You mean like Dr.Seuss!! Sam I am! That Sam I am, I do not like that Sam I am! Do you like green eggs and ham?…wait! what kinda animal was he exactly?…nevermind…No, I love poetry!!…sigh….No wait! not poetry! whaddya call it again? dorkle no doggy something. Doggerel. Yea! That’s it!! doggerel!! just… nevermind. Could you pass me another piece of cheese please? HEY!!! DID YOU HEAR THAT??? Please stop spitting on me! DID YOU?? IT RHYMES! …what…? HOLY CANOLLI! I DIDN’T EVEN DO IT ON PURPOSE!!!! IT JUST CAME OUT!!! someone please get me a towel…CHEESE PLEASE!! I’M A NATURAL!!… good God… (damn! why do I keep capitalizing the word “god”???!!!) If you pleeeaazzzze to pass da cheeezze It’ such a breeeeeeeze…heh heh…no not a towel actually. Someone get me a GAG!!! CHEEEEEZE ON MY KNEEEEZ NEXT TO DA FLEEEEEEZ!…

      • I Shot Santa says:

        That’s the first thing you’ve said that wasn’t batsh#t crazy – Rocket the Racoon. Not really, but my favorite to date. JimBob who don’t need no good sense since he’s doing just fine without it.

        • manbearpig says:

          😎

          So sorry we can’t come to the phone right now. We’ve officially departed for a long awaited Odysee to Crete. Please leave your name and message after the tone and we’ll get back to you at our earliest convenience. (Mythical bearded creatures, griffins, gorgons and three-headed dogs please abstain.) Thank-you.
          bbiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipp!

      • candlelight says:

        I meant to comment earlier, manbearpig, about your free-wheeling post, above.

        Well done!

        I can recall typing stuff like this out (but not this good) on the ole Corona many multiple moons ago.

        Feeling of catharsis comes to mind.

        One can definitely use that here, on this thread, to be sure.

        Cheers!

  39. HomeRemedySupply says:

    April 4, 2018
    Comment from Sibel to Damani
    https://www.newsbud.com/2018/04/03/newsbud-responds-to-james-corbetts-smear-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-28823

    EXCERPT
    …(James Corbett) announced that he has ceased all relation/communication with Newsbud (and me). That’s why we decided to honor his decision, and accept it as such. In fact, today we sent him a polite e-mail and asked him to remove our material (including 100s of hours of exclusive interviews he did with me) from his website. We have our own path and approach and standards, he has his. No reason to continue this attention-diverting and pointless conflict. He does some great work on many topics/subjects- we wish him the best. And we continue as before. Again, I share your sadness, and wish this had not taken place- We not only stand by our report exposing the dangerous misinfo-disinfo by the duo, but we’ll continue with follow ups and updates (including the coming exposes/reports by other outlets investigating this case).

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      By the way, if I were James I would NOT remove the interviews. Those are Corbett Report interviews on his channel and on his website.

      What if Corbett interviewed Donald Rumsfeld who then confessed to playing a role in 9/11. Then Rumsfeld later says: “Oh, I want you to remove your exclusive interview with me.”

      Sibel has no concept of ownership. She is silly. She is just trying to make things tough, just trying one of her extortion tactics much like the Ron Paul Institute. She loves to dictate what others should do or say.

      Damn! This lady is trouble. Irrational. She dramatizes her irrationality without recognizing it within herself. Look at her own statement above.

      Trouble. I bet her husband has bruises on his ears and has been beat up verbally trying to talk logically to her. He probably distances himself from her or stays “mum” while walking on rice paper.

      • VoiceOfArabi says:

        Hello HomeRemedySupply,

        when you say…
        “By the way, if I were James I would NOT remove the interviews. Those are Corbett Report interviews on his channel and on his website.”

        I agree with you 100%. This is James Corbett “body of work” / “Creation” which Sibel consented to when it was taken. Sibel cannot withdraw her consent “after the fact”.

        Also, when you say…
        “Sibel has no concept of ownership. She is silly. She is just trying to make things tough, just trying one of her extortion tactics much like the Ron Paul Institute. She loves to dictate what others should do or say.”

        Sibel proved to be a little DICTATOR (that’s what i meant when i said she remind me of Saudi 🙂 ). I wonder if she suffers from Napoleon syndrome!

      • candlelight says:

        Oh, truer words could not be said, HomeRemedy.

        And the same holds true for friendships.

        Many years ago I had a bosom buddy from my high school days which lasted long into adulthood. But, one day I received a scathing letter from him, which apparently had been set off by a perceived slight on my part, and it was true that for a week or two, I had ignored a few calls to get together for lunch of which we had previously planned; but, dealing with my own issues at the time, I wasn’t in the mood to listen to his problems which I knew I’d be subject to, so I held off answering him. Then, lo and behold, I received from him the most vitriolic communique I could ever imagine, which contained in several instances, the usual I can go fuck myself sentiment, for which I would have dealt handily with, with not too much difficulty and would have endeavored to patch things up, old friends that we were. But, the letter also included something else, a sentiment about me that I had been completely unaware he had harbored, one that due to its subject matter, he would have been harboring for the previous ten years. Granted, it was a sentiment he no doubt expressed in anger, but, at the same time, it was as if he had breached a sacred place in my life, a place where another friendship had existed, where, through the passage of life, such friendships must of necessity end. I knew at that very moment, then and there, reading what he angrily expressed, we could not, he and I, remain as friends, nor did I want to ever have anything further to do with him. I concluded, after so very many years, that he was, in reality, no friend of mine; with this single statement of his, he had crossed an indelible line, for which there could be no retraction, no stepping back, no going back. For the illusion of his friendship had been irreparably destroyed. And life would move on.

        It is, in its own way, the same here, between James and Sibel, what is now playing out. Based upon my personal feelings, whatever other conclusions about this matter I might express would be biased in James’ favor, obviously; but, the bottom line is, there is no going back for these two, whatsoever. They are both professionally minded, they won’t be mortal enemies, they will be cordial if necessary, but they will not be friends, they will not collaborate, they will not share information. This is over. It is history. And life will move on.

      • Fawlty Towers says:

        “Trouble. I bet her husband has bruises on his ears and has been beat up verbally trying to talk logically to her. He probably distances himself from her or stays “mum” while walking on rice paper.”

        To the contrary!
        He is all behind Sibel on this one.

        A couple of days ago I started drafting a post to explain why I thought Sibel had done this.
        My explanation was really quite simple.

        No it wasn’t about menopause, personality disorder, being a disinformation agent etc., as the possible reasons for her deciding to lash out at the B.B. girls.

        For me it all came down to just a few key trigger points.

        The geo-politics that she covers is vast, but her area of specialty is eastern Europe and western Asia, in particular Turkey, Greece, Iran, Syria , Armenia and Azerbaijan.

        Themes that are near and dear to her heart are government corruption and integrity of journalists.

        In addition she is very proud of her upbringing, in particular the lasting influence her beloved father an Iranian surgeon has had on her.

        Somehow Sibel got wind that the B.B. girls were being funded, at least partially, by the Syrian government. This was a big no-no in her books re: integrity.

        When she discovered that the B.B. girls had been labeling doctors in Syria as terrorists, that had to be the last straw for her, given her personal stories and experience with her father who was selfless treating the wounded on both sides in the Iranian war.

        She felt it was a kick directly in her stomach.

        And guess what?

        Today Sibel’s husband Matthew confirmed exactly what I had been thinking!

        You can read about it here…
        https://www.newsbud.com/2018/04/03/newsbud-responds-to-james-corbetts-smear-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-28867

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          Yea, I read that the other day. Nice thing for a husband to do for his wife.
          Maybe my above comment ( I bet her husband has bruises on his ears and has been beat up verbally trying to talk logically to her…walking on rice paper. ) prompted him to write.

          • wall says:

            Doesn’t explain the “triple fact checked” claim back about what was obviously NOT triple fact checked, nor the senseless pro military comments by Tim Ferner and the accusation of Corbett being bought off by Robbert Diggins.

            It’s just too bullshitty for me. And she still hasn’t put up BennyB’s last post.

            She’s gone too Nazi and those around her have gone too far into pushing total bullshit for me to accept it as anything but purposeful disinfo.

            • I Shot Santa says:

              I think the total meltdown theory holds a lot of water in this case. All of these actions look a lot like she is desperately trying to push reality away from her. I have tried that myself and it didn’t work out too good. Unfortunately, she’s a bit brittle and that doesn’t bode well for her. JimBob

        • manbearpig says:

          Being proud of your upbringing makes you insult a person for being single at 54?

          What unadulterated BS.

          Or as others have more accurately suggested:

          “Purposeful disinfo”.

          • Fawlty Towers says:

            Manbear, one person’s pride is another person’s pity or __ fill in the blank.

            No I am not trying to make _any excuse for her insulting Beeley that way!

            I stick to my conclusion. Not disinfo, not menopause, not personality disorder, not drugs, not a bad day etc.
            Simply all the wrong boxes were ticked, the most egregious being a perceived attack on her late father.

    • mkey says:

      Absolutely-freaking-not.

      Who the hell does she think she is? This kind of people rewrite history and redraw borders. A pox on her.

      Hopefully, James already added Sibel and her conspirators to the junk mail list.

      Besides, who’s this “we”? Is she newsbud? Or her and Spiro are a thing now?

      • wall says:

        Um, all who disagree with history as presented rewrite history. So um, your comment is illogical in it insinuation that rewriting history is wrong…

    • Octium says:

      Well I do hope that James ignores her request and keeps the material up.

      I have backups of much of it anyway, but I think it is a matter of integrity to keep records of what was said in the past.

      Of course people are entitled to change their opinion over time, but hopefully there should be rational reason for change (New information coming to light etc..)

      • wall says:

        Agreed, and the change should not be accompanied by the deletion of his past works. The change should merely be shown by a video expressing change, and a disclaimer on past videos.

      • herrqlys says:

        I think Edmonds forgot to demand that all Corbett Report subscribers who bought his video collection should destroy any copies that include her interviews with James.

        Like zebra and quagga mussels, and the profusion of algae that they then encourage, they all spread in the way that viruses do. So it is with internet-based information. It’s impossible to eradicate all of it once it goes viral. And if even one single file survives, it can go on a rampage again if the conditions are right.

        • BennyB says:

          herrqlys said:
          “I think Edmonds forgot to demand that all Corbett Report subscribers who bought his video collection should destroy any copies that include her interviews with James.”

          lol…. nice one 😉

          I’m with the rest, no way on taking down the videos! That’s some corporate style Mickey Mouse BS. I’m sure on some levels James would actually like to remove the videos to wash his hands clean and sever the ties, but I don’t think he’ll be bullied on this one.

  40. HopefulOne says:

    HRS-

    Broc West used to be Newsbud’s Video Editor, and was listed on their “About Us” page.

    Just noticed that Broc West is no longer listed as such.

    Wow. Glad to see he’s keeping his self-respect.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Interesting.
      I like that Aussie. Even if he talks funny. 😉

    • VoiceOfArabi says:

      Respect to Broc West and F. William Engdahl so far. They appear to be people with self respect!

    • BennyB says:

      Yeah, no doubt. I was pretty sure the Hollywood Insider style dramatization music and editing wasn’t quite his style 😉
      Broc West is the man and he’s super talented. I imagine this has been pretty tough for him. He invested a lot of energy into Newsbud. I guess this is a learning experience for a lot of us. Albeit a painful one. I know Bas Spilet spoke early on here, saying that he’d been planning on leaving, but had been holding out until this happened. He’s someone else who’s work I really appreciated while he was at Newsbud. Really top notch analysis which was sophisticated but accessible to someone like me who understands perhaps more than your average about the shady modus operandi of the central banks, but less so about the technical market terminology and so forth. I look to see good things from both him and Broc in the future.

      All in all this is pretty sad. There were a lot of good things going on at Newsbud in my opinion, even if in retrospect it’s easier for me to reflect now on the ways it went off course pretty early on. I thought Peter B. Collins was key player and that the regular news program he was doing was in fitting with part of what Newsbud had been pitched as. I think that show gave them a sense of balance and that having a show like that, which was an alternative news format that covered some “basic” news, but that covered the angles which were being glossed over or distorted was something that would’ve helped expand the subscriber base. But shortly along the way, following a comment at the from a Newsbud subscriber in response to a video which maybe seemed too “liberal” to the commenter, Sibel said something really disparaging, along the lines that she agreed with the person commenting and that they weren’t going to promote those sort of views (or something like that) moving forward.

      Ironically, I disagreed with the angle that Peter was approaching the guest with in that case but I thought the topic; the complexities of legislating for gender identity in spaces like women’s locker rooms and women’s shelters, was something thought provoking and worthy of discussion. I suspect there would likely be a fair amount of disdain for that sort of topic within the Corbett Report community too. However, in the past Sibel had been clear that, while she often disagreed with some of the topics or angles Peter B. presented on his Processing Distortion podcast at BFP, she never interfered and told him he couldn’t put something out.

      In Pearse Redmond’s discussion on the Ochelli podcast, one of the things that he mentioned which was bothering him was the fact that he felt that Sibel was attempting to target a specific demographic; the sort of white male, libertarian, patriot minded audience, and that she was doing it in a way which felt crass and exploitive to him. Pearse also didn’t speak to highly of Spiro and thinking about it now, it’s sort of interesting to observe the fact that the “white male, libertarian, patriot mindset” is pretty closely in line with how you might describe Spiro. I’m not saying that to tarnish these groups nor would I say that this wasn’t already a key demographic among those who’d supported Sibel and subscribed to BFP. I’m just saying, if you look at some of the figures like Pearse, Peter B., and Katy Aguilera who would’ve broadened the audience that Newsbud would’ve appealed to and (IMO) would’ve made the platform stronger, and look how they got pushed out while Spiro moved into a bland leading role, it sort of makes you wonder.

      I don’t think it’s as simple as Spiro coming in as an infiltrator and provocateur, but in some ways, particularly with this disgusting jab at James with this latest video, where Spiro’s doing 90% percent of the attacking (did he do the editing too?), again it just sort of makes me wonder.

      I supported and admired Sibel for many years as a member of BFP before Newsbud and while I think it’s best not to rule anything out and to remain critical of her account of Gladio B etc, I still have a hard time believing the idea that she’s been insincere or pulling some sort of sanctioned gatekeeper or disinformation agent, as many have speculated over the course of this discussion here. I have no reservations however about dropping Spiro like a loose stool and flushing him down the toilet though after watching the hit piece on James. As I stated from the get go, Sibel’s responsible for her own actions and I’m not just trying to shift the blame to relieve myself from the unsettling issues this incident brings about. But, like many, I still find myself scratching my head wondering what the hell happened.

      I think it’s worth taking into consideration where Spiro fits into this equation. One other thing: one of the last major stories that BFP covered was the Hastert case. I think Sibel showed a lot of bravery and determination in going after him and exposing him while he was in the spotlight. Understandably, she was extremely disappointed that, despite a concerted effort by her and other members of us at BFP were unable to generate any significant impact in raising critical awareness. I recall that the idea for Newsbud (before it had a name) surfaced shortly after Hastert managed to slither out of sight, relatively unscathed. Part of the thinking seemed to be that one of the obstacles to getting more traction to publicizing that story had been the limited audience Boiling Frogs Post had access to as a small independent site operating on a shoestring budget.

      While the efforts to expose Hastert were a disappointment I doubt they went unnoticed. In her state of disappointment and sense that it was too hard committing herself to BFP when she still had to make money and care for her family, what better time to propose a project that would set her on a more ambitious path where she could be temporarily diverted from keeping the Hastert story and other more damaging info related to her case that she now seemed willing to risk disclosing boiling at the surface while the issue was still at least somewhat hot. Furthermore, once the next platform was established, some other inside players or outside influences could help encourage her to shift the platform towards a niche demographic appeal, similar to InfoWars. On top of that what would be better than to influence and encourage her to pursue a campaign which would ultimately destroy her reputation and credibility enough to call into question the credibility of presentations concerning Gladio B, something which relates to Hastert, blackmailing, and covert illegal relationships between Turkish business interests and various elected and unelected officials.

      That’s a lot of info and I still haven’t read all the comments, but hopefully there are some thoughts which benefit the discussion here.

  41. Olivier says:

    James, may I suggest an open source investigation with the aim to independently verify the Gladio-B story? My earlier comment ( https://www.corbettreport.com/fact-checking-newsbuds-syria-under-siege-video/comment-page-2/#comment-49164 ) is somewhat out of context here.

    There is this quote in Labeviere’s book from Fuller that is consistent with the overarching story:

    “The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvellously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia.”

    It would be good to bring together whatever independent verification is available.

  42. HomeRemedySupply says:

    I want to restate:

    Logical reason doesn’t work with someone who dramatizes illogical, unreasonable thoughts and actions.

    Divorce or distancing oneself from this type of insanity is the smart thing to do…errh…unless one is a masochist, and wants lots of grief and trouble from then on.

    I also would cut ties.
    It is actually a very sane action.

  43. dwayner says:

    Dear James,

    Just to let you know I totally respect you for your ability to make good decisions as to what you feel are the most important things (people) to spend your precious time with. Your MLK piece was fabulous. IMHO everything you do is worthy of my attention. I fully support you and encourage you to cut this “thing” off with Edmonds. Agree with HRS, it is a sane action.

    A little story to illustrate: I had a friend, went back years, who acted “strangely” sometimes. I wouldn’t hear from her for weeks, sometime months, and the friendship was sort of off-an-on because of the mysterious disappearances. She was a social worker who dealt with substance abusers. Very intelligent and passionate. We had a lot of laughs, and I treasured our time together when it happened.

    She had a problem relationship with a guy that she complained about constantly, but she kept going back to him for reasons I never knew. All this never added up until one day she showed up looking for someone to get high with one night. Coke. All of sudden it all made sense, all the mysterious behaviour, the absences, the drug-buddy boyfriend, the lack of money, worry and stress… I made it clear that if she wanted to play with cocaine, she would have to find someone richer and stupider than me.

    One night she phoned and she was on a rant. High as a kite, but worse than cocaine. Sounded like crack or meth. Wanted to come and stay at my place because she needed “somewhere safe”. She claimed her boyfriend was trying to kill her, and her elaborations sounded exaggerated. And then she started asking, in an accusing manner “You believe me, don’t you?” Over and over, like I was betraying her trust, or something. There was absolutely no way I could bring her around. I recommended she get professional help, as this was way out of my league. I figured she would hear this, as she WAS a social worker, after all… She hung up on me, and that was that. We lived in the same small city, and I would see her once in a while. We were polite, and I think she was a little embarrassed, but we were never friends after that. We both had our reasons. I have no idea if she ever kicked her habits, and I don’t care.

    I can think of many more instances where I bent over backwards to attain some clarity and understanding with unreasonable people. Now, in my older and wiser years, I can see that there is no authority telling me I have to get along with everybody. I don’t have to put up with boring people, nor abuse from anyone. If I have to be harsh to get my point across, I will. I am a compassionate being, and I act from that place, but compassion is way more than being sweet and selfless.

    Life is short, and there are so many worthwhile things to occupy our limited days with. Just go with your first impulse. Cut her off. Let her wail and scream. She will find someone more reactionary to attack where she can really show her vitriol to its full glory. Reasonable people will just want her to go away, and her credibility will suffer. I didn’t know there have been several more exchanges since the first vid you made, and that is regrettable, but your statement that you really didn’t want to make this video in the first place was the wise voice you didn’t listen too, unfortunately. You went ahead and made it anyway, albeit through a desire to be open and honest, and respectful of the facts, but you fell into the crazy-making trap. Live and learn. No blame.

    I don’t need Newsbud, nor Edmonds. They are gone from my Favourites list, along with Freedomain Radio. I hope Dr. Filip Kovasovic and the “Russian Newspaper Monitor” goes to Bitchute!

    Teresa

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Interesting personal anecdote Teresa.
      I’ve seen that scenario, repeatedly, with my drug addicted 27 year old step-grandson.

      Drugs are a real problem in our society.
      It is way beyond the 60’s era.

      • I Shot Santa says:

        Yeah, in the 60s you could experiment and not go straight to crazy town with no return ticket. Today these drugs are insane! I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who does most of them. Shooting up meth that is more battery acid than it is meth and they don’t see how those burn holes on their veins might indicate a bad picture wherever that drug flows is not something an intelligent person does. They’re not even entertaining, as stupid needs a certain standard which it has to reach before it can be entertaining. JimBob who finds that at a certain point stupid just needs to keep its’ distance from him.

    • mik says:

      Teresa,

      you mentioned Filip Kovačević. I object regarding him from the beginning of Newsbud, because of his misinterpretations of recent Balkan’s history. I found his analyses about contemporary events on Balkan are also occasionally misleading. Here is an example.

      https://www.newsbud.com/2015/01/29/bfp-exclusive-the-balkans-elections-update-croatia-greece/

      excerpt from article
      “….including the persecution and ethnic cleansing of the Serbian minority in the Gladio-type Operation “Storm” in 1995…”

      This is simply quite far away from truth, while using Gladio word is completely inappropriate.
      He also missed several points in his analysis of Croatian elections.

      I wouldn’t be surprised that he is a proponent of “truth” from BS documentary The Weight of Chains.

      In the following article one can see what actually happened with Yugoslavia.

      http://en.kalitribune.com/echomaniacs-alternative-media-as-postmodern-propaganda-pt-1/

      I’m not saying that everything Filip is doing is bad. He is biased regarding (ex)Yugoslavia.

    • BennyB says:

      Teresa,
      Thanks for sharing your reflection on your own personal experience with us. Even if you lament the sentiment that James opened a similar window only to close it again and perhaps draw the blinds, the conversation benefits from your perspective =]

  44. wall says:

    James, Sibel posted this yesterday. Is it true?

    “Damani, Thank you for sharing this sentiment here (and doing so sincerely). In the last 7 weeks I have sent several e-mails to Corbett- asking him a few questions, and letting I’m know that we’d be more than happy to provide him with info/witnesses/documents. Same with our other team members- they all tried to contact him repeatedly to no avail. e did not respond to a single e-mail, and went on producing a video without interviewing/talking with anyone (including us), and without responding to many sources who contacted him and provided him with info. Further, a few weeks ago he and his supporters began contacting our team members and asking them to bash Newsbud and join their group. Other than Broc (one of our part-time editors) they were unsuccessful (we have a mature and professional list of partners and team members who have disdain for operations like this). How can we discuss and reason with this type of childish and belligerent behavior? He announced that he has ceased all relation/communication with Newsbud (and me). That’s why we decided to honor his decision, and accept it as such. In fact, today we sent him a polite e-mail and asked him to remove our material (including 100s of hours of exclusive interviews he did with me) from his website. We have our own path and approach and standards, he has his. No reason to continue this attention-diverting and pointless conflict. He does some great work on many topics/subjects- we wish him the best. And we continue as before. Again, I share your sadness, and wish this had not taken place- We not only stand by our report exposing the dangerous misinfo-disinfo by the duo, but we’ll continue with follow ups and updates (including the coming exposes/reports by other outlets investigating this case).”

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      I feel for James C.
      I bet his INBOX is a wreck.
      He has a tough enough time trying to handle routine traffic.

      I make it a point to avoid emailing him, except to confirm money/membership.

    • herrqlys says:

      “…[James] went on producing a video without interviewing/talking with anyone…” – Sibel Edmonds

      Well, excuse me, but James has every right to produce whatever he likes, and in any manner in which he sees fit. His material is subject to review and approbation by his subscriber base and any other site vsitors, and his reputation depends upon this. He doesn’t need Sibel Edmonds’ permission.

      The deconstruction of Newsbud’s hit piece can be done by anyone doing a thorough background check of the information presented, but James is very, very good at this sort of thing and most of us really appreciate that he did it, even if he was visibly disappointed at what he found.

      Sibel Edmonds is being combustible only because she was found out.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        herrqlys says:

        …James has every right to produce whatever he likes, and in any manner in which he sees fit.
        His material is subject to review and approbation by his subscriber base and any other site visitors, and his reputation depends upon this.
        He doesn’t need Sibel Edmonds’ permission.

        The deconstruction of Newsbud’s hit piece can be done by anyone doing a thorough background check of the information presented….

    • I Shot Santa says:

      That is so hilarious! Cuz she was so totally polite and honest in her rebuttal of his rebuttal. And because she never closes off comments and always lists a full and comprehensive list of her sources. Like every time never! Just reading that letter made me laugh, so I think she probably did send him a bunch of crazy emails that made him think he was going to come home and find her in his bathtub wearing nothing but a butcher knife. JimBob who has run into many (wholly undeserved) situations in which they ended up just like that.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        JimBob, you bring “southern” to the table with your words. I often get a grin from reading your comments.

        • I Shot Santa says:

          At one time I had actually “refined” it all out of me. But don’t you worry, it was really all just festering under the surface like swamp muck. I COULD speak otherwise, but where’s the fun in that? JimBob who always throws in the barn with the naked woman chained in front of it whenever he gives directions to outlanders.

        • mkey says:

          I like the “longhaired redneck straight shooter with toothpick in the mouth” that comes with it.

          He also appears to have several personalities, but they are all redneck. Marvelous.

          • I Shot Santa says:

            One of the best parts about being a redneck is that we take such pride in nuking the language of that beautiful country that shipped all our ancestors over here without even asking us how we felt about it. The look of confusion (with a dash of disgust) on some fop’s face when I tell him just what for in the blasphemy of English we Rednecks have refined is priceless. It just makes up for being one of the earlier area beautification programs descendants.JimBob

            • colin786 says:

              JimBob,

              I have enjoyed most of your comments since this whole kerfuffle started, and the use of self-deprecating language and jokes involved, and the one or two I didn’t smile at could just have been because of my mood at the time. Those comments helped lighten a thorny subject and are greatly appreciated.

              However, being from that beautiful country you refer to, I am curious and can’t resist asking you to emlighten us as to these techniques of ‘nuking’ the language. Also, I would say, only the slaves from Africa were not there by choice. Can I conclude you are an African-American redneck, or descendant thereof? 😉

              • I Shot Santa says:

                Why who hasn’t heard of Oglethorpe’s debtors colony? Or the Irish getting kicked out of Ireland? America was founded mostly by drunks and whores. I actually listened to a lecture on YouBoob (and I agree wholeheartedly) in which the professor made this his central point. JimBob who hails from a redneck part of England where his family was considered just white trash.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                Oh and on the ethnicity thing, it appears that my family tree invited everybody to the party. It is only occasionally sullied by respectable people though. Got to have some kind of standard. JimBob who can’t be racist cuz he’s pretty much all them races.

      • candlelight says:

        Now THAT is funny, my friend. …

        [SNIP – We’ve had a very wide-ranging discussion here, but we are now getting further and further from substantive discussion of the issues in the video. -JC]

        • candlelight says:

          The allusion got the better me, James. But, I do agree with your judgement. You have my apologies.

          After posting it, I was, retrospectively, hoping it wouldn’t be mistaken in any degree that I was advocating firearms possession. I wasn’t. Please understand, I’m very far from such a stance – this was simply for me a comic relief, if you will, at least that’s what it felt like when posting it.

          This matter of Sibel going after these two women may constitute an extremely serious underlying problem, of unknown magnitude, not to mention their disgusting tactics they chose to employ on your behave. That’s almost laughable, in comparison. The far more serious problem is the Beeley- Bartlett issue, which needs to be gotten to the bottom of.

          Cheers

    • candlelight says:

      I’d like to mention a point, or two, regarding this butter-couldn’t-melt-in-her-mouth response to Damani, keeping in mind Newsbud’s video titled “Corbett’s Smear Campaign”:

      First of all, when I read her response to Damani, I could almost hear her voice, so I’m pretty sure she actually wrote it, and not any of her associates, so I believe it’s pure Sibel.

      For fun, let’s consider the following statement she makes, and then slowly shorten it:

      “That’s why we decided to honor his decision, and accept it as such.”

      “…we decided to honor his decision…”

      “…to honor his decision…”

      “…honor his decision…”

      “…honor…”

      Now, think for a moment about the video Newsbud released, “Corbett’s Smear Campaign”. If you haven’t seen it, please do yourself a favor, and watch it. Think about how they resorted to a visual portrayal of James that is so unimaginably disrespectful, in a manner as disparaging and despicable as any videographer could possibly splice together, carefully composing this visual effect to coincide with a running commentary that together, is solely designed to inflict as much damage to his character as the Newsbud team could dream up. The voice-over was not an innuendo inserted here or there. This was a running commentary throughout the video, designed to destroy a man’s character and reputation – and to assassinate that reputation and character using all the tools of the trade, with an insidiousness and a viciousness that, honestly, I have not seen before, anywhere, ever.

      Keeping the nature of this disgusting video in mind, let’s return for a moment to Sibel’s statement – “That’s why we decided to honor his decision, and accept it as such.” – and ask ourselves what meaning, or understanding, could Sibel Edmonds possibly have of the notion of honor? Does this vindictive and thoroughly disturbing video represent her idea of honoring a person? Is this what she means by honoring a person’s decision, by first wretchedly skewering them in retribution, then, wishing them the best – “…we wish him the best.”? That’s quite an approach and path to take.

      Is this the new model and “standard” for “The most gagged woman in America”?

      Wouldn’t it be most hilarious (the joke being on us) if she was, in actuality, the antithesis of the roll model we’ve been led to believe? Extrapolating from the second to last line of her response to Damani, what if it were really she, herself, who was the disseminator of “dangerous misinfo-disinfo”? That is, of a format of misinformation cleverly camouflaged and directed over time by skilled operatives.

      As for clues to misinfo-disinfo, as she puts it, it’s going to have to take a very keen, sharp instrument, and a powerful microscope, and a very steady gaze, but, it may likely be found, if we were to take a long and hard enough second look at Sibel Edmonds, while asking ourselves, and keeping in mind, who she may really be.

      The crass fraudulence of her insipid response to Damani may be only a dim reflection of which belies a far more insidious and sophisticated fraud working behind a studied facade.

  45. eugenie says:

    Thank you, James, for your mind-blowing, detailed, careful response to Sybel Edmonds/Newsbud’s video, “Syria Under Siege.” I had just spent a few days trying to renew my subscription at the old BoilingFrogsSpot rate (because my subscription was due to be renewed about three weeks previously). After they reinstated my sub at the lower rate, I listened to their video and I have to admit, although now I am embarrassed to say so, that I was confused and even partially swayed, because of the way she presented the case against Beeley, Bartlett and Anderson — as if they were truly monsters. I have read a number of articles by all three and agreed with a lot of what they had to say. When I come across their articles or interviews, I usually read or listen to them. Not one of them was ever rude; they never cursed or talked to anyone in a disrespectful manner and they made very good points that I agreed with. The way you showed so clearly how Sibel distorted the facts and took everything out of context piece by piece, I really felt ashamed for doubting my self, doubting my own opinion, and being so easily influenced by such dishonest work. Most of what I liked from Sibel was the interviews she did with you about about 9/11, her knowledge of the CIA’s history, etc. In the last few years, I’ve had my doubts about many of the subjects she seemed to be excited about and I also noticed what she didn’t talk about. But I’ve been hoping to find as good work as she did in the interviews with you, so I kept going back to the site. Now I want to cancel my subscription I just worked at getting back. It is the dishonest and unfair way she presented her case that makes me feel I must unsubscribe and disassociate with the site. I don’t want to condone that behavior by paying $50 a year for it. I thank you, James, for being such a great and hard working teacher. I think your work on this issue is worthwhile (even though you didn’t enjoy it) because it shows the importance of and is a great example of sound critical thinking. I don’t agree with every thing you say about every subject, but I do trust that you are honest, fair and a very sharp person. Keep up the good work!

  46. Olivier says:

    Pepe Escobar seems to have left BFP at just about the time that it underwent the transformation to newsbud:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20161017211428/http://www.boilingfrogspost.com:80/about-us/

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      – Bump –

    • manbearpig says:

      Aawww, maybe I was a bit hard on Mr Collins the first time round…

      maybe.

      My thanks to Olivier for his links and collective investigation suggestions.

      Cheers Corbetteers from the ruggedly gorgeous island of Crete

      • I Shot Santa says:

        Amazing how I hadn’t heard of the military on the border. Haven spent 10 years in said military, I’m sure they’ll be plenty of them willing to coyote a number on in for a fee. Enjoy Crete and may I be so bold to add that you should allot a period of time to just drink a big old glass of Ouzo and go off wandering with not direction.JimBob who did just that one time.

        • manbearpig says:

          ..where ya got dire supply ‘n demand ya got profiteers always ready to cross that line. at any cost…

          just b’tween us though, menbearpigs tend to teeter if not teetotalin’ and could very well tumble into a gorge or large expanse of sea were they to follow your otherwise very wise suggestion sir…hic…

          gotta stick to the feta…

          • I Shot Santa says:

            While it is true that you have correctly stated a likely outcome to drinking ouzo, I am pleased to note that you realize it’s ultimate wisdom. However, I would like to add that it only has enough alcohol in it to counter the massive opiod content. Thanks to that alcohol content I was able to note the bouncers in that so-called heavily secured bar I was in seemed to agree with my extremely large friend when he announced they didn’t have enough bouncers to kick us out. I did note that after we left in our own dang time, there were enough of them to control that doorway when we returned. Choke points are a real thing. JimBob who thinks that since things only go bad after he pushes that button marked “Do Not Push” that they’d start hiding that button after a while.

  47. HomeRemedySupply says:

    – Heads Up –
    I posted a recent Newsbud video in the Corbett Report Comment Section.
    https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1352-dr-paul-connett-on-the-case-against-fluoride/comment-page-1/#comment-49539

    Please do NOT say anything denigrating against Newsbud there (or on any other Corbett thread).
    I would like to confine any criticisms of Newsbud to this thread.

    I’ll say it again.
    I would like to confine any criticisms of Newsbud to this thread.

    We owe it to ourselves and to Corbett to keep the dirty laundry in one place, not all over the house.

    • BennyB says:

      Great phrasing HRS and I second your suggestion to make appropriate efforts to quarantine soiled linens to avoid unnecessary contamination. However, I think that the extent that this s#!t stinks certainly may require an extended period of ventilation.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        I hear ya on “I think that the extent that this s#!t stinks certainly may require an extended period of ventilation.”

        There is some therapeutic value for all of us to be able to “air it out”. I’ve done that with laundry at times. It takes the edge off.

        “It takes the edge off”
        DEFINITION – reduce the intensity or effect of (something unpleasant or severe).

        At Newsbud in their comment section, they are doing the same. I am glad to see it.

        Like James said REPEATEDLY, he LOATHED making this video.

        This was a FACT-CHECKING video, not designed as a hit piece.
        However, James pointed out the ugly, disgusting elements which came to the forefront of the fact-check. These points weren’t designed as a personal attack against Sibel or Spiro, but an abhorrence to the ugliness of certain aspects. The purpose of the ONE video Corbett made was not to attack Sibel, but rather to “attack” elements of the ugliness.

        LOATHE – definition
        feel intense dislike or disgust for.
        SYNONYMS: hate, detest, abhor, execrate, have a strong aversion to, feel repugnance toward, not be able to bear/stand, be repelled by

        • I Shot Santa says:

          With Sibel, facts might feel a little personal. Especially since she’s so tangled up in those webs she can’t hardly walk right! JimBob who notes that most people don’t need no conspiracy to screw up their own lives; their own choices do a far better job than any incompetent bureaucrat!

  48. thoth52 says:

    Thoroughly entertaining and not really that surprising. I was more than a little taken-aback regarding the unnecessary use of profanity to reinforce her angst on several of Sibel Edmonds “Newsbud” reports.

    I’m glad you’ve seen sense James to leave this hack ‘news organization’ to their own devices and self-destruction. As for my ‘two-penneth”, it would seem that Sibel’s previous CIA programming (i.e. MK Ultra) has finally broken down and left her bereft of truthful and polite conduct.

    Your video was very unbiased and replete with substantiated evidence as ever. I’m happy to have been a subscriber for 3+ years now and will continue to do so. Great work!

  49. s.jamieson says:

    I like James Corbett even more after seeing him in this video. “What matters most is how well you walk through the fire,” as Bukowski said. For this is a kind of fire and his poise and relatability don’t falter.

  50. candlelight says:

    In an earlier post, I had written the following: “The funny thing is, as an FBI newbie, teams with a much higher pay grade than hers, could very well have planted these documents and transcripts, etc., etc. for the young and bright-eyed Sibel Edmonds to disseminate.”

    To which Falty Towers responded:

    “Sibel herself stated in her first book that it was her archenemy, Feghali (her boss) who happened to drop the ‘incriminating’, ‘9/11’ box of audio tapes and paper documents in her lap to ‘review’.”

    I thank you, Falty Towers, for sharing that very interesting information, as it seems to corroborate the supposition that Sibel was merely an unwitting dupe…perhaps. I haven’t read this memoir of hers, I’ve only read her second novel which was fictional, although the heroine portrayed in “The Lone Gladio” is, of course, modeled after Sibel.

    If you go on Amazon, the very first review of her memoir is written by none other than David Swanson, whom I’m assuming is the same David Swanson of Alternet fame. He titles his rather in-depth review “Sibel Edmond finally wins”. The following is an excerpt from Mr. Swanson’s review. Try reading it from the point of view that her story isn’t real, but rather her memoir is an obfuscation designed to hide the real inner workings of the FBI which worked hand in hand in conjunction with the intelligence arm of the military, i.e., the CIA, who, in turn, worked directly with their Muslim patsies, and together as a team, these two entities, the FBI and the CIA worked to create the cover story for the big event. Period. The Pentagon, of course, did the heavy lifting – building demolition, planes potentially rigged for remote operation, the organizing of multiple same day air force drills which mimicked and paralleled the actual “hijackings”, etc. With regard to the airliners flying remotely, which seemed a bit questionable at the time, it’s now most likely one more example of advanced military technology becoming common place and humdrum: Witness drone technology – now completely ubiquitous. Though, it’s still speculative that the planes where flown pilotless. However, without getting into the controversy regarding the strike at the Pentagon, ostensibly, the three which met their targets were flown flawlessly, with the fourth plane flying erratically, which I believe strongly favors the idea that remote control of the plane had been lost, and therefore necessitating that it be shot down. Also, within the next 15 to 20 years, I suspect we’ll possibly see, now and then, examples of the advance military grade incendiary used to implode the twin towers in use.

    The Swanson excerpt:

    “Edmonds found at the FBI translation unit almost entirely two types of people. The first group was corrupt sociopaths, foreign spies, cheats and schemers indifferent to or working against U.S. national security. The second group was fearful bureaucrats unwilling to make waves. The ordinary competent person with good intentions who risks their job to “say something if you see something” is the rarest commodity. Hence the elite category that Edmonds found herself almost alone in: whistleblowers.”

    Do you see how this story sounds like a story? So, the FBI not only tolerates, but hires for purposes of analyzing intelligence, multiple sociopaths (well, probably), foreign spies, cheats and schemers who work against the nation’s security. And everybody else working in intelligence are scared to say something when they know something, i.e., when the schemers and foreign spies are found to be working against the interests of the United States. Do I believe the FBI’s competence was at the lowest abject level possible? Which would have meant they had absolutely no system in place, whatsoever, of vetting their intelligence officers. No, I’m sorry, this doesn’t sound plausible. Because the scenario Swanson is describing means the FBI might as well have been flipping coins to determine who worked there, and who didn’t, in order to have all these spies, cheats, and schemers winding up in their intelligence division. It sounds like a cover. It smacks of a story which is obfuscating a different set of circumstances.

    Here’s another excerpt from Swanson’s review:

    “Reams of documents and audio files from before 9-11 had never been translated. Many more had never been competently or honestly translated. One afternoon in October 2001, Edmonds was asked to translate verbatim an audio file from July 2001 that had only been translated in summary form. She discovered that it contained a discussion of skyscraper construction, and in a section from September 12th a celebration of a successful mission. There was also discussion of possible future attacks. Edmonds was eager to inform the agents involved, but her supervisor Mike Feghali immediately put a halt to the project.”

    C’mon now. Let’s get real. One month after the event, she’s dropped an audio tape to translate, dating from July, discussing skyscraper construction, plus the tape also included a celebratory bit recorded on September 12th discussing future attacks, and her supervisor wanted no part of it?

    This tape, which very conveniently and perfectly implicates outside actors with orchestrating the event, reminds me of the widely known occurrence, that of the FBI miraculously finding the passport of one of the alleged hijackers in the dust of 9/11, the day of the event.

    I’m afraid to say, Sibel’s account sounds like one of the more elaborately woven artifices of a pattern, but, part of a pattern, nonetheless.

    There happens to be one extremely crucial concept in all of this that needs to be absolutely spelled out. And that is, you absolutely cannot have non state actors, absolutely none, including Osama bin Laden, either orchestrating the event of 9/11, or authentically celebrating on her tape about a job well done, if those buildings where brought down by controlled demolition. You can have one, or the other, but not both. And, the fact of the matter is, if there is one thing we now know, with absolute certainty, well beyond any shadow of any doubt, at least to any honest individual in the truth movement, and not a government shill, is that those three buildings were imploded on that day. Period. And it’s positively essential to understand that only a highly technologically advanced state would have had the wherewithal to accomplish such a feat. Not bin Laden, and not some idiots on a tape patting themselves on the back and planning future attacks. That is completely and utterly bogus, and, in the truth business, you’d have to be a shill lying through your teeth, if you didn’t think so.

    So, Sibel Edwards simply needs to be asked if she believes if those three building were brought down by controlled demolition, and if not, I’d like to know why not in detail. And if she answers that she believes they were brought down by controlled demolition, I’d like to hear her explain that she must have been duped, and therefore completely manipulated by the FBI. And, in addition, if she states that she believes they were demolished by controlled demolition, I’d like to know why it is that she hasn’t heretofore changed her story…just a tad.

    I was hoping someone in the Newsbud community would be kind enough to ask her these questions, politely, though with the requirement that she answer these questions directly and clearly.

    The thing is, I already know what her answer is going to be. I’d still love for someone to pose these questions to her, but, I still know its outcome.

    She’s going to simply say that the question of controlled demolition and for that matter, building construction, is not her field of expertise, and therefore she herself could not truly have an informed opinion on the matter, yadayadayada.

    And these are the words she will not add: However, the prospect of controlled demolition does raise the possibility that I’ve been duped, and therefore, in my own way, I’ve been an instrument of disinformation for the entire post 9/11 era, save a month, or so…….

    And so it goes.

    • I Shot Santa says:

      I had not heard of this David Swanson guy before this, but I do like the way he thinks! That is how you are supposed to read such books. It’s hard work to do so, so I only do it occasionally myself, but it’s always an illuminating experience. JimBob who notes that spring is approaching, the shorts are short and the shrooms will soon be fruiting. So there’s that.

      • candlelight says:

        David Swanson and his website Alternet have been around for quite a long while. Check him out. By the way, I wasn’t critiquing his review; I simply thought it provided a good synopsis of Sibel’s memoir, and referred to two of its passages, as I, myself, had not read the book. Based upon what Swanson provided (and I would have to presume he was being fair and accurate)I offered my own analysis, or deconstruction, of her memoir as he presented it. Granted, its second hand, since I haven’t, as I mentioned, read the book.

        Btw, your sense of humor got me into a little bit trouble with the moderator of this comment board a little while back. Anyway, I can understand why folks may come to you for your insight – between the laughs, you make some excellent points, as long one has their waders on.

        • I Shot Santa says:

          Well, now my day has been made knowing that someone is in trouble over something I did. Errr, I meant, I’m sorry. But, one should definitely NEVER forget their waders. I was really impressed with that review and it dove-tailed nicely with my perception of her. She seems to need extreme viewpoints all around her, preferably enemies. While we all have a preference for just 2 choices (could this be why there are 2 parties in the US? YES!), there are really an infinite number of choices you can make in any situation. Unless it’s life or death, or just a need to think really really fast, it might pay to consider a few of those infinite other choices. JimBob who ain’t important enough to have to think of too many options.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      candlelight,
      HEADS UP my friend –
      I think that Corbett tries to keep comments under 500 words. When there are more than 500, break the post into several entries by replying to your previous comment.

      I’ve been corrected a few times.
      Here is a reference link of a commenter being corrected.
      https://www.corbettreport.com/the-news-is-a-social-construct-it-is-used-to-program-you/#comment-43900

      • candlelight says:

        Thanks a bunch for the HEADS UP. Though there’s probably a half dozen or so posters here who may need your reminder, too. Have you made the effort on their behalf, as well, or just me?

        Did you read my post, or did you just skip to the end to remind me to keep it under 500?

        Personally, I’ve been snipped, but not corrected for lengthy posts. I can see where they may be a problem with limited attention spans, though.

        I spent the time to write it because I wanted to express what I truly believe is a very, very basic, though very important point.

        Unfortunately, so far, it doesn’t seem as if people are even so much as catching my drift. Is the dissonance out there this bad, I’m asking myself.

        If you’ve got the time, and are inclined, I’d love for you to read it.

        Thanks!

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          I read it. Two different times. Once, shortly after you wrote it.
          I really understand your point.
          It’s a good point.

          Over the past decade or more, this basic aspect has had a lot of back-n-forth at 911blogger.

          If a 9/11 Truther can not “see” the evidence surrounding controlled demolition… something is off.

    • Olivier says:

      Hi candelight, if I understand correctly you exclude the simultaneous occurrence of 1 and 2:

      1. Controlled demolition
      2. (non-state actor orchestrates) or (non-state actor celebrates)

      I once heard Tom Secker give the following suggestion: “Don’t ask who did 9/11, ask what Al-Qaeda is” (my paraphrasing), by which if I understood him correctly he meant to say that since there is no clear boundary between AlQaeda on the one hand and state institutions like the CIA on the other, it is a fruitless pursuit to try and decide whether 9/11 was an “inside job” or “the work of alQaeda”: The one doesn’t exclude the other, and he went on to illustrate various known circumstances where such intertwining occurred.

      With that in mind, can’t you have a criminal network a-la Gladio-B which on the one hand controls a demolition team, presumably a team with strong convictions, and on the other hand maintains correspondence overseas during which said event could have been celebrated?

      • I Shot Santa says:

        Olivier, the Gladio B idea you mentioned is standard procedure in our operations. Think of the opium connections in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Also, the cocaine syndicates involving Pablo Escobar (whose son recently said he worked directly for the CIA), Noriega (Bush, Srs. bff), and the list goes on. JFK assassination wasn’t our first foray into this strategy. Of course, Sun Tzu not only would have approved, I’m sure he practiced this strategy as well. While it is fitting in war, it sure does leave some embarrassing stains after the party’s over. JimBob who thinks that organized crime really isn’t that organized.

        • Olivier says:

          Yes. My question is whether Sibel Edmonds could NOT have been a dupe while still the buildings WOULD have been demolished.

          • I Shot Santa says:

            My wholly subjective viewpoint of Sibel is that she is an extremely patriotic Turkish woman who needs to be on a crusade in which she is championing justice. And she wants power. The One Ring wants her to have it, but she is too weak to handle it. Only Sam (the redneck of the wondrous world of Tolkien) could handle it since he didn’t want to be in charge of nuttin sides hisself.
            A person like this, who lacks a lot of self-confidence and thus relies on her looks, could easily be a dupe. She would be thrilled to be a knowing dupe. She needs attention. While I would recruit her if I were an intelligence agent, this doesn’t even make what she does right or wrong. Her life, her rules. While I don’t doubt she is an intel asset of one form or another, I think that at the moment she is having a moment. I’m pretty sure she’s not going to get over it either. JimBob whose seen a lot of people just go crazy and stay that way for good.

      • candlelight says:

        Hello Olivier,

        Yes, you’ve go it exactly right. You understand correctly that item 1. and item 2. on your list are mutually exclusive. Except for one small point that you seem not to actually have understood, which I shall clarify. I’ll use your format:

        1. Controlled demolition

        2. (non-state actor orchestrates) and (non-state actor celebrates who acts and/or is mistakenly interpreted as if he were, along with his cohorts, responsible for the deed themselves, which is impossible, because strictly only a state, as I mentioned in my post, would have had the wherewithal to accomplish such a deed. Though, there is a caveat to this detailed below)

        Though, do you get the distinction now of the second part of item 2., I hope?

        Also, I have a couple points for you.

        1. I don’t really give a damn about what Tom Secker has to say, if he did, indeed, start an argument with the phrase “Don’t ask who did 9/11,…” The rest of what you paraphrase of his, is equally absurd as well as repugnant.

        2. I have no knowledge of a “criminal network a-la Gladio-B” If such a network exists, or existed, and if acting in the capacity as government contractor, where given the tools, materials, and the access, to perform the demolition, then what’s your point, Olivier?

        Sorry, there’s a third point – the caveat mentioned above:

        3. You’re correct, any and all assholes could have celebrated 9/11, be they government contractors, or their friends, wondering when their next job is going to be, or simply some idiots, planted or not, on a tape, pretending to have pulled it off. But, there’s an additional small point/s: If these were government contractors, there would have been no need for Sibel to have interpreted, because 1. they wouldn’t have been on a tape presumably of intercepted communications nor 2. would their identities be mysterious to their paymasters. And 3. therefore, these were, in fact, idiots for Sibel to interpret, who were pretending to have pulled it off.

        Hope all’s clear now.

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          I’m with you on all points here Candlelight.

        • Olivier says:

          Hi candlelight, no I don’t get it, mea culpa. What’s wrong with this scenario:

          1. Dr Evil manages both a demolition team and a team of handlers directing a bunch of bearded guys that will be or provide patsies.
          2. The bearded people are provisioned by an arms-for-drugs network comparable with the Iran-Contra setup.
          3. Clinton, not necessarily in the know about 9/11, directs the FBI to start an investigation to dig up dirt on his enemies, and this FBI section ends up monitoring this arms-for-drugs network.
          4. The bearded people think they are in charge because they plan to fly planes into buildings, bojinka style.
          5. The jihadis have no knowledge of the demolitioners who press the button that brings the buildings down.
          6. The jihadis celebrate a job well done, being the hijackings and the damage that ensued, which they consider to be their own work.
          7. The arms-for-drugs / jihadi network is being overheard by a section of the FBI that is not necessarily in the know. Edmonds gets to hear the tapes, and hears somebody celebrate.

          Wouldn’t you then have controlled demolition together with Edmonds NOT being set up to be a dupe?

          • candlelight says:

            Hello Olivier,

            Perhaps you could direct me with some links where I could gain a little insight, or otherwise fill me in with regard to your bullet points.

            I’m not familiar with:

            1. arms-for-drugs/jihadi network

            2.Dr. Evil – I suppose a bin Ladin type?

            3.Which Clinton? Bill as president, or Hillary, when she was at the state dept.? Enemies? What enemies? 🙂

            4.bojinka style?

            Thanks!

          • Fawlty Towers says:

            Wow, by your scenario, I can see we are miles apart in our understanding of 9/11.

            1. Dr Evil manages both a demolition team and a team of handlers directing a bunch of bearded guys that will be or provide patsies.

            Unless ‘Dr. Evil’ are the top level western guys who masterminded 9/11 then everything is wrong with that scenario.

            6. The jihadis celebrate a job well done, being the hijackings and the damage that ensued, which they consider to be their own work.

            The planes were window-dressing. The building demolitions
            were the imperative shock and awe of 9/11.

            HOWEVER, ‘Dr. Evil’ could not let a bunch of bumbling jihadi fools
            screw up the entire mission by missing or partially missing their targets. (No planes inside buildings, no building demolitions).

            So the military planes were guided to their targets. NOT the scheduled flights (with or without the jihadis).

          • candlelight says:

            Hello Olivier,

            I looked up the Bojinka affair, brushed up on Iran-Contra, and also noticed your reference to Clinton as a he, so we’re talking about Bill (right?) lol.

            Well, if you were thinking my answer to your question was going to be yes, you were wrong. It’s an astounding no. And for some very simple basic reasons. Firstly, we’ll need to assume this is, in part, an exercise in logic and is reality based, not the other way around, which I’m sure you’re okay with. Also, my belief is that intelligence agencies endeavor to recruit the best and the brightest, actually, I know that for a fact, and they are methodical and thorough when they want or need to be, as well as sloppy if it suites their needs. Just take a look at the head of the FBI while Sibel was there, Robert Mueller. You can’t convince me that he’s anything other than completely methodical, thorough, and immovable. Remember the old saying, the FBI always gets their man? Damned straight. Apparently, lets em go too, when they want….

            As Fawlty Towers mentioned, we’ll first have to assume that the Dr. Evil character must be the equivalent of a top tier Western power, and I’ll add, just like the Pentagon – the all knowing and all powerful Pentagon, who has at their command the most sophisticated weapons team the world can for now only dream of, with choice weaponry that can down steel framed buildings like they were made of paper.

            The Pentagon also has and/or works with agencies whose job, in part, is to clandestinely handle foreign and domestic patsies. Well, we know domestically, the agency who handles patsies here, in this country, is the FBI, but, in all things foreign, we have the CIA – in this case we’ll call them handlers of bearded guys. In our story, the bearded guys are provisioned by a Jihadist arms-for-drugs network, but, what sort of provisions they’re provided, for what sort of favors in return, is for our purposes, completely immaterial, because our bearded guys in this story are recruited, minded, directed and controlled by what otherwise might be called, as we said, the CIA. And the CIA would be monitoring very closely all their assets’ whereabouts and contacts, even those nasty sounding Jihadists of the arms-for-drugs network, whom, as you had mentioned, Olivier, at the outset of your story line, were also being monitored by the CIA’s domestic cousins, the FBI’s intelligence agents. And because these agents can multi-task, they can at the same time handle any requests made by any sitting presidents, though, whether they should or not is immaterial.

            So, the day comes, and the Pentagon’s plan goes pretty much as smooth as can be expected. Though they would have preferred a 100% success, they’ll just have to settle for 75%. Technicalities – what can you do? The bearded guys fly to their deaths, God knows what they were thinking. They were given coke and promised virgins, sonsofbitches. The Jihadis/ arms-for-drugs network, whom we know had been recorded chatting among themselves for literally months, were tickled pink the next day, and couldn’t help expressing their glee, and hoping to do it again!

            Now, the Pentagon, the CIA and the FBI certainly didn’t want their involvement with these bearded guys suspected in any way, manner, shape or form; rather, they wanted the public to believe the bearded guys had acted on behalf the Jihadist network, and only the Jihadist network. So, very soon after the big event, because timing is everything, the FBI hired some fresh blood for their monitoring division who would be completely unaware of past shady associations. So, one day, soon after Sibel was hired, her supervisor, who had overseen his intelligence division, and was far from being unaware of what transpired – unlike his new translators – went and collected his division’s monitoring tapes for her to translate, explaining they’d never gotten around to doing so. And what Sibel had discovered was exactly what they wanted her to discover – elated Jihadists gleeful for the bearded guys great success and hoping for themselves to have more success in the future. And with that, the FBI’s cover story was successfully complete, even though they’d catch some heat for failing to catch the plot before it happened. Stuff happens, what can you do?

            So, there you have it, even with buildings imploding, Olivier, Sibel could easily have been duped without ever having been a party to the crime, and forever believe she was the one to uncover her agency’s bungling ways, and blow the whistle on their negligence.

    • wall says:

      Um. In my mind it was always that the hijackers were just dupes that were used as cover for the controlled demolition. I don’t know about the remote control or not, but I had always thought there really were hijackers. Or attempted hijackers. Maybe once they got on the plane they found out they didn’t have so much control over it?

      But yeah, it was obviously controlled demolition as the towers at the least should have fallen OVER instead of down as that would have been the path of least resistance for a long slender building with asymmetrical damage. Only a very squat building that is much wider and deeper than it is tall could pancake like that.

      But the point is that supporting the hijacker story does not mean you are ruling out the reality of controlled demolition.

      • mkey says:

        There is no doubt in my mind some of the recordings made on that day were edited (oddly lit planes with disappearing wings; supposedly there was another “version” of the second crash wihout the fireball; some of the background noise made by those recording was odd to say the least, seemed like several different people have a similar if not identical voices; some recordings didn’t make the final cut because of being quite awful) which is not to say there weren’t planes.

        One of the videos made from the ground, with two people talking just above the camera, shows these people reacting to the explosion, but not reacting to the plane itself, which I’d wager would make quite a lot of noise, flying at that speed, at that low altitude.

        Regarding the plane speed, is it possible for a plane built to fly at some 540mph at 10000 feet to reach 600+mph at several hundred feet altitude?

        Statements made by various pilots lean toward confirming manouvers made on that day practically impossible, even for a professional pilot. Some pilots from a pilot school stated they couldn’t repeat the second crash on a similator without turning a buch of stuff off, like turbulence or side winds.

        Not to mention that one would expect quite a lot of debree consisting in plane parts on impact.

        I don’t know about planes, but the official story, along with all the technical details, is a load of bullshit.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          911blogger has recently been having some controversy…debate and downvotes and “censoring”.
          http://911blogger.com/news/2018-03-29/lawsuit-against-saudi-arabia-can-go-forward

          It all started when in reference to the “Hijackers”, one Corbett member said: “I think you mean “patsies” who never boarded the planes.” And another poster said, “Stop calling them hijackers.”

          From that point, moderation, rules and downvotes kicked in.
          ~~~~

          I’ve seen this type of arguing before. Some folks push only the “soft stories”, such as how the FBI might have covered-up something, or ways in which the government was incompetent and let 9/11 happen by the hijackers.

          I’m not saying that all the “soft stories” are false or not important. They are important, but with context.
          “Hard stories” example – Controlled demolition and analysis of nanothermitic material in the dust samples, etc. are dynamically important. No hijacker in 2001 is gonna be a nanothermite technician.
          “Hard Stories” rile folks up. “Soft Stories” tend to make folks yawn.

      • candlelight says:

        I’m afraid you’re completely missing the point, Wall.

        The hijackers are nobody, just tools, controlled CIA patsies. Whether they flew the planes or sat there dumbfounded. They were only one small part of the operation. They didn’t have jack shit to do with the orchestration!! My point is neither did Osama bin Laden! Precisely for the reason that he could not have been able, directly or indirectly, to carry out those demolitions! Only a state, or state sponsored contractor could have done so. People tend to confuse these patsie “terrorists” with being responsible for 9/11. And that their handlers were Osama & Co. who they believe in turn was the brainchild of the 9/11 operation. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the fact of controlled demolition that proves this point beyond a shadow of a doubt that it couldn’t have been him, or somebody like him. And because the demolition proves this, it means that whatever Sibel was given to interpret was an act on somebody’s part, of disinformation perpetrated against her. And trust me, that is giving her a certain amount of credit she may or may not deserve. I’d like her to explain herself, in light of the fact it is now rather obvious the buildings were imploded. This fact changes the entire nature and meaning of her story, and I think she owes the public to explain what she feels about such an impact. I am not asking for much. Hardly.

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          Spot on again Candlelight.

          About Sibel talking about 9/11 details…

          I’d like to get a transcript of the Titan’s of Truth video from Sept 2017.

          Just to see if she voiced any of her own opinions about what actually happened.

          She has been steadfast to keep her mouth shut about 9/11 at BFP and now Newsbud.

          She doesn’t even like it when someone else starts discussing any of the technical details.

          So don’t hold your breath about her coming clean on this.

          • candlelight says:

            Thanks, Fawtly Towers, I’ll take spot on any day!

            Your “Sibel talking about 9/11 details” is interesting.

            Because, I was wondering about just that aspect. Am I surprised? — Not.

            Regarding your kind admonition, I almost do feel like holding my breath until she does comes clean, or perhaps I’ll decide to go on a hunger strike until then, but, you’re right, I may be waiting an awfully long time!

            I guess we’ll see how all this pans out – perhaps hitting 2000 posts by the time we do, who knows! 🙂

            Take care

          • HomeRemedySupply says:

            April 13, 2018
            Sibel and 9/11 science – (Fluoride)
            https://www.newsbud.com/2018/04/06/fluoride-a-big-mistake/#comment-28969
            In her comment under the NEWSBUD Fluoride Video, Sibel says: “…I for one sit in the middle: the water we consume (Oregon) is fluoride-free, on the other hand, we use toothpaste with fluoride.”

            It is very evident to me that Sibel has not researched the science, nor the government/ADA cover-ups regarding the studies about Fluoride. If she had done her homework, she wouldn’t be on the fence.

            I am not really faulting Sibel on this. Many folks don’t thoroughly research Fluoride.
            Everyone has their own bailiwick. Everyone has their own interests. And, a lot of folks are just not generally interested in science, or the mechanics of nature, or health.

            Perhaps, when it comes to 9/11, Sibel has very little interest in the mechanics, in the science of controlled demolition. Perhaps it is not her bailiwick. It certainly is not her field of expertise.

            That said…
            Just watching the 15 minute Ed Asner video, Architects and Engineers: “Solving the Mystery of Building 7 “ enlightens most folks, even the brain dead.

        • Mark K. P. says:

          As I understand it several of the named hijackers were somebodies, including Mohammed Atta, one was an airline employee, and most of them were still living after 911. While a few had died before 2001. So perhaps not even patsies, just a list of names.
          Most likely this was stated by Rebekah Roth, the last researcher I listened at length on 911 – she’s a specialist on the “art student” idf crew who lived on the 91st floor of one of the twin towers for some four years prior, complete with thousands of demolition fuses identified in their labelled boxes from photographs.
          According to Roth the guy who identified one of the hijacker names as an airline professional was first sacked later killed by a suv hit and run as he stepped off a bus

          • candlelight says:

            Mark K. P.

            I vaguely recall seeing a video regarding students, possibly Israeli students, I forget, who were using some empty office high up in one of the towers as a studio. And there were some mysterious cartons stacked up around the place. Is this what you’re referring to? I would guess so. Weren’t they taking helicopter rides to the WTC to record themselves looking at each other to and from the helicopter and their studio windows?

            I am not familiar with Rebekah Roth, or her research. Was that one of her videos?

            I never heard about one of the hijackers being identified as an airline professional, however, scary stuff concerning the identifier, if the suv hit is true.

            My point about the hijackers being nobodies is that they could well have been lifelike robotic androids (tongue-in-cheek), for all it mattered, and still would have been fine for use as 9/11 black op props.

            The report about someone getting killed over identifying a hijacker as an airline professional would be interesting to know in much greater detail, starting with a police report of the “accident”.

            • mkey says:

              Regarding the first paragraph, you are probably referring to this

              http://www.methodicaldeception.com/Resources.html

              • Mark K. P. says:

                thanks mkey, that’s her homepage she kept referring to in various interviews i saw on youtube several weeks ago.

                candlelight, the story of the airline guy who got whacked after identifying one of the 19 hijackers as a fellow airline pro is pure Roth, no documents. She says the family of the slain man (killed by the suv) contacted her and she’s repeating what they told her. She claims to have been an airline hostie herself for several decades before giving it away circa 2004.

                She seems to have a lot of great documents and research behind her, but is the subject of a LOT of negative scrutiny from within 911 truth. Some claim she’s a disinfo shill based at Langley, Virginia ;
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Po8NgBllQw

                I dont know enough to be sure either way, but either way her emphasis on Israeli defense personnel involvement is extremely unusual.
                She now has her own radio show touting herself as the leading expert on 911, which doesn’t feel right somehow;
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RfzJVVkDV8

                But the one nugget and BIG news to me from watching vids about her, was repeated references to a terabyte of documents on 911 stolen from David Cole, which she may have had access to. As an associate of Cole ? Or a recipient of the stolen goods? This is something I really want to follow up, time permitting, later in the year. Had no idea such an important ww2 truther was involved in 911 research.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                – Rebekah Roth –
                My take is that she is not the real deal. Way back, when she first came on the scene, me and the fellows in the local 9/11 truth group compared notes for the longest time.
                I and others came away with the conclusion that Rebekah Roth is not as “real a deal” as she made herself out to be.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                Mark K. P. has this comment about “David Cole” on another thread… and my response.
                https://www.corbettreport.com/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-an-open-source-investigation/comment-page-1/#comment-49986

                I think he accidently got it on the wrong thread.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                I faintly remember David Cole telling me about the Rebekah Roth incident…

                This was around the time when Kurt Haskell in a radio show from Costa Rica said his source from the Dallas 9/11 Group ‘saw Rebekah Roth aka Sara Folger’. Well, hell…at that time, I and my buddies knew everyone in our group. I was the Organizer. So, we couldn’t figure out what Kurt talking about.

                Cole contacted me, and we Skyped, trying to sort things out.
                Previously, David Cole provided Rebekah Roth with over a terabyte of data that he received from FOIA with the FAA. He outlined the story of how he got the FOIA. David also told me how he and Rebekah would exchange information on what they discovered while sifting through the FOIA. When Roth started with an idea of using some Israeli art student gelatin photos from somewhere, David balked and eventually they parted ways.

                So, she actually did not “steal” the information from David Cole.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                – Kurt Haskell –
                I like Kurt. I spoke to him on the phone one time, in early 2010, shortly after the Underwear Bomber incident. We talked & joked. Kurt had made a “cartoon” video (now deleted) which portrayed Michael Chertoff as the asshole he was while talking to Kurt Haskell, and as the guy pushing “body scanners”.

                Remember, prior to Christmas 2009 (the Underwear Bomber), going through U.S. airport security was a breeze. Errh…there really wasn’t much security. You just went inside the airport and waited to board your plane. No scanners. No security lines.

                The Underwear Bomber incident was a game changer.
                Kurt tried very hard to blow the whistle.
                He even wanted to represent the bomber in court.
                (I would be curious if the ‘real bomber’ guy is even still in prison.)

                Here is a long running record of the Kurt Haskell events.
                http://911blogger.com/news/2009-12-30/accomplice

                All that said…
                I think that Kurt’s radio show from Costa Rica about Rebekah Roth had some false information in it. It became sensational, but I don’t think he hit the mark when it came to all the facts.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                David Cole is a damn good researcher.
                His integrity is stellar.
                He and I sometimes exchange emails, and once skyped (I hate skype).

                David Cole discovered this photo of John Gross (NIST) holding a thermite affected beam.
                https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/figure-c2-jpg.29114/

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                Here is that lying sack of shit, John Gross, saying he doesn’t know anything about molten metal.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o

                (By the way, if anyone knows who the fellow is in the video that asked the question to John Gross, David Cole would like to contact him.)

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                Sidenote – Kurt Haskell’s cartoon with Chertoff –
                Kurt had used “xtranormal” and it was hilarious, but revealed a lot of truth.
                Here is an example someone made about FACEBOOK
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOTUZ2LlmoA

              • mkey says:

                I didn’t care much about what Roth had to say. She provided some new angles to the story, but this theater is so full of deception, everything should be taken with a shovel of salt.

                I didn’t realize David Cole researched 9/11, he did excellent and very dangerous work with holocaust. I think he was basically forced to drop it after some time, people weren’t exactly catching on and life is to precious to put in jeopardy like that. Still, his findings are readily available to those who seek.

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                So, she actually did not “steal” the information from David Cole.

                Thanks for your personal story HRS. Interesting.

              • Mark K. P. says:

                Yes i did misplace like a goof, thanks for reinserting where it belongs HRS. Also for your further info on the Roth and Cole association. Agree that Cole is a great researcher + “stellar integrity”

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      I have been doing some research the past few days on Sibel and her position on 9/11. I was always curious to know where she stood, what her take on 9/11 was.

      As I mentioned before, at both BFP and Newsbud she has kept her cards very close to her chest about it. And certainly, if she ever did reference the event she never talked about the technical details about what happened that day (plane crashes/damage, building ‘collapses’, etc.)

      So I decided to look elsewhere (podcasts, interviews etc.)
      I would like to share some key findings I discovered.

      candlelight
      So, Sibel Edwards simply needs to be asked if she believes if those three building were brought down by controlled demolition, and if not, I’d like to know why not in detail.

      On the RNZ Radio show on Jun 15, 2013 (almost a year after Sibel wrote her first book “Classified Woman”) the interviewer made Sibel cut to the chase after another of her long-winded answers:
      RNZ:” But there’s a difference right…the reason I want to be clear is that I don’t think you’re saying 9/11 was an inside job and dynamite blew up the buildings, are you?”

      Sibel: “Ah, no, I don’t have any information about dynamites blowing up buildings or people asking me about that there were no hijackers, look unless someone has direct position that has direct knowledge of this,
      someone like that maybe come and the evidence claim this, I would definitely listen but I don’t know, and I don’t like to engage in speculation, and I know there have been some architects, maybe hundreds of them, I haven’t had time to research and look at those, I’m not an architect and I’m not a scientist, uh my case did not involve any of the hijackers…”

      So as surprising as it may seem, as late as 2013 Sibel was stating that she knew nothing about explosives being used to take down the towers nor about whether hijackers were involved.

      Take good note about here reasons for not knowing about this, she says:
      1. that she didn’t have time to research this
      2. she’s not an architect or scientist

      candlelight
      She’s going to simply say that the question of controlled demolition and for that matter, building construction, is not her field of expertise, and therefore she herself could not truly have an informed opinion on the matter, yadayadayada.

      BINGO, you got that right candlelight!

      So in 2013 she doesn’t like to engage in speculation and shies away from it because she is not an architect or scientist.
      So what does she do just three years later? She starts speculating about a string of other false flag operations!

      In an interview at nz911truth.org published on Mar 25, 2016, three years later, Sibel is now a false flag expert!
      She discusses the false flag attacks of the Boston Marathon bombing, the Paris attack, and the Belgium attack that occurred just three days prior.

  51. Olivier says:

    Here’s the impression I have: Given the type of reporting that B&B do, it is not improbable that they have some kind of strings attached to them, and if that can be exposed, it’s OK for newsbud or anyone else to do so.

    However, what newsbud did was to mix that in with apparently unsubstantiated smear tactics to try and reinforce whatever substance NB actually has.

    It is that unsubstantiated part that Corbett debunked, and I think rightly so, until such time that I might hear why James’s point were incorrect.

    Newsbud’s reply however completely missed that point, and tried to go back to the possibly more substantive criticism of B&B, offering zero explanation and/or apologies for their own apparent misconduct, and furthermore doubling down on ad-hominem & appeal to ridicule.

    http://www.triviumeducation.com/appeal-to-ridicule/

    We may try to look inside Sibel’s head and understand what triggered her, but strictly speaking we can’t really look into somebody’s head.

    The only thing we can do really, particularly at a distance, is to try and verify what people say. Corbett debunked part of what Edmonds claimed. An other part might very well be correct and we should also try to verify that part, that should also be worth an open source investigation.

    • I Shot Santa says:

      I think when you look at her history, you might want to look at how many times these people are being vilified after refusing to work for her. Typically, women aren’t as practiced in hearing “no” as we men. As it is the most common word I hear from women, it has almost zero impact on my feelings anymore. I’m thinking this is not the case with her. JimBob who is so glad that he’s not ethical enough for anyone to consult with on anything respectable.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Olivier says:
      However, what Newsbud did was to mix that in with apparently unsubstantiated smear tactics to try and reinforce whatever substance NB actually has.

      It is that unsubstantiated part that Corbett debunked, and I think rightly so, until such time that I might hear why James’s point were incorrect.

      Newsbud’s reply however completely missed that point, and tried to go back to the possibly more substantive criticism of B&B, offering zero explanation and/or apologies for their own apparent misconduct, and furthermore doubling down on ad-hominem & appeal to ridicule.

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      Here’s the impression I have: Given the type of reporting that B&B do, it is not improbable that they have some kind of strings attached to them, and if that can be exposed, it’s OK for newsbud or anyone else to do so.

      However, what newsbud did was to mix that in with apparently unsubstantiated smear tactics to try and reinforce whatever substance NB actually has.

      It is that unsubstantiated part that Corbett debunked, and I think rightly so, until such time that I might hear why James’s point were incorrect.

      Newsbud’s reply however completely missed that point, and tried to go back to the possibly more substantive criticism of B&B, offering zero explanation and/or apologies for their own apparent misconduct, and furthermore doubling down on ad-hominem & appeal to ridicule.

      Exactly!

      I’ve got some good news and some bad news.

      First the good news.
      I am confident that we have passed the midway point in the future tally of posts for this topic.

      Now the bad news.
      Still a ways to go to get past 1000+ posts.

  52. edenison says:

    A few days ago I posted this on the Newsbud sponspored Facebook post with their response to James’ video…

    “I have donated a lot to Newsbud since they started because I was hopeful for the option of agenda-free news. I am sickened by this latest turn of events. I am relieved to see there is only a tiny minority of comments on this (sponsored) post that are supporting Newsbud in this questionable ‘campaign’. Since Newsbud has proclaimed themselves to be the paragon of journalistic virtue, with triple fact-checking and impeccable credentials I was shocked at the sheer number of outright lies and misrepresentations that Corbett very thoroughly identified in his response to Newsbud’s March 21st video excoriating the Beeley Bartlett ‘duo’.

    My question to those few supporters and more importantly to Newsbud itself is how do you respond to these items that are at minimum misrepresentations and at worst flat out lies? 1) Beeley and Bartlett were NOT kicked out of the Syrian Solidarity movement according to one of the board members. This was tweeted by the board member on 2/19 long before the video was released on 3/21. 2) Paul Larudee’s statements on the ‘duo’ were not included in the video but instead were paraphrased by Newsbud. Paul Larudee’s later comments on this video are virtually the opposite of what Newsbud claims he said. Since there’s nothing to support what Newsbud claims in their show notes why should we believe their hearsay over his actual tweets? 3) Newsbud uses out-of-context tweets to ‘prove’ that Beeley was anti-Assad before she was pro-Assad? Yet Newsbud completely missed the article Beeley published that clearly refutes their allegations. 4) The Syrian Mufti’s statement was clearly misrepresented. 5) 21st Century Wire was denigrated as fake news, name-called ‘junkie’ in Sibel’s tweets and accused of accepting questionable donations THEN later this was retracted deep in the comment section of a Newsbud post! What happened to a journalist’s responsibility to clearly and prominently publish a retraction when you are wrong about something? 6) Tim Anderson was labeled a ‘terrorist’, multiple times, as if it is an unequivocal fact. 7) Beeley’s posts with the ‘F’ word in quotations were CLEARLY taken out of context and misrepresented. 8) Sibel goes on and on tweeting about the 1.5 million dollars when all she had to do was the research to find that it was already explained. She did not retract her questioning even after someone tweeted a response directly to her indicating where she could find the posted answers. 9) Newsbud vehemently claims that tweets were scrubbed by Beeley and that Beeley specifically demanded they be scrubbed, yet they are still on Twitter for all to see. This mis-stated fact is just a minor sub-note to the Newsbud video, They didn’t even bother to link to the tweets or apologize. 10) And finally the most vicious of all is Sibel’s tweet regarding Beeley being 54 and without relationships! First of all that is one of the lowest most catty statements I have seen from any of the news people that I follow and second how can Sibel claim to know the details of Beeley’s personal life in the first place? What hubris! I would not call that a shining example of journalistic integrity.

    Yet instead of answering these very serious allegations Newsbud chooses to double down and attack James Corbett with grade school tactics like showing him over and over again looking goofy and speeding up his speech to sound like a chipmunk. Then to top it all off Sibel threatens to expose some deep dark secret about James. That threat of hers absolutely gave me the creeps. I’m sorry but there is no equivalency between Newsbud and Corbett. They are not equally wrong in this situation. Corbett had a responsibility to attempt to set the record straight considering that he had heavily promoted Newsbud to his listeners for some time. I wondered lately why Corbett no longer even mentioned Newsbud, unfortunately now I know. This is a very sad and sordid affair that only Newsbud can set right.”

    I took a couple days off FB and went back to look at the post today. I found that my post was removed and I have now been blocked from commenting on any Newsbud FB posts. There are other posts that have been removed also. It seems that disagreeing with Newsbud is not allowed. I’m very sorry that I ever supported their site, especially through the kickstarter campaign.

    This is a very sad affair.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      edenison,
      You sure gave a great summary outline of what transpired.
      Thanks.

      • candlelight says:

        Hey, there, now, HomeRemedy,

        Why didn’t ya give ole edenison a HEADS UP for going over 500??

        Isn’t that poster deserving of a little chastisement, too? 🙂

        • mkey says:

          Cool it, brother. Your singling out approach is getting on my nerves. Internet bullies are even less interesting than real life ones. Something aking to armchair generals.

          I don’t know why HRS tried to pass on that bit of information to you, but it was obviously a mistake and a confirmation that Corbett should enforce the 3000 characters limit adamantly. Can we just leave it at that?

          • candlelight says:

            mkey,

            Wow, brother.

            I was only kidding around, and was meaning absolutely no harm.

            What, are you kidding?

            I am honestly taken aback with your post, man. Whoa. But,

            why don’t you do yourself a favor, either take some Valium,

            or simply ignore me.

            So, yeah, we’ll definitely leave it at that.

            But, I’ll write just how I feel like, man, and if you don’t

            like it, please, feel free to take it up with the man.

            Okay, mkey?

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          candlelight,
          I caught the joking around. I grinned when I read it.

          A trouble we all have with typed words is that it is no substitute for face-to-face communication.

          ~~~
          On another related point, sometimes I go OCD. Sometimes I really stick my nose where it shouldn’t be. This is Corbett’s website. He’s sharp. If he needs to say something, he will.
          Actually, for me personally, this website is a prime example of a “Benign Anarchist-styled Republic”.

          • candlelight says:

            HomeRemedy

            I haven’t had the chance until now to thank you, and to let you know that I was quite grateful for your post. Confirming my innocence as you did, was both very nice and very gracious of you. You went out of your way and I am most appreciative!

            And now, I’m going to search the google for “Benign Anarchist Republic”! It sounds pretty cool…! 🙂

            And, I thank you, again!

            • HomeRemedySupply says:

              “Benign Republic” (with the Anarchist tint) is a made up term.
              It is just a concept with no strict definition.

              When I stepped down as “Organizer” of our 9/11 Truth Group, no one wanted to take the reins (reigns). And, previously for many years, I never wanted to, but someone needed to. I don’t like to be Boss.
              The group was about to dissolve because no one would step up. I made the point that the new Organizer does not need to run the group with my style. Just let it run like a Benign Republic.

              REPUBLIC
              I use the term Republic to mean something like: ” a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity.”
              https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

              BENIGN
              Benign – kind, friendly, gentle, gracious, compassionate, caring, well disposed, benevolent, etc.

              Anarchist – (derived from “without leaders”), that is: “One is one’s own Leader.”
              “Lead” infers that an individual is the initiator in an action.

              Tying into the above
              mkey and JimBob make some profound points here…
              https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1352-dr-paul-connett-on-the-case-against-fluoride/comment-page-1/#comment-48753

              …And just so you know, occasionally there are scraps (bar fights) in the Corbett comment section. Mkey and JimBob once had a doozy, bloody noses and all. But like a southern bar, the following week of the fist-fight everyone is drinking together and joking around.

              • candlelight says:

                HomeRemedy

                Hmm, and they often start out with a sucker punch….

                I grasped, at the time, an over-protective thing going on, so, at least we know chivalry’s not dead…yet.

                But, I will admit, though, to my detractor’s credit, I was a little too cutting and testy with some of my replies. But, I’m going to honestly plea here that it wasn’t a case of my being a bully, at least I hope not, because being a bully isn’t my speed. Rather, I could actually sense when I was being cutting and snarky, and knew, too, that it was a manifestation of a certain level of frustration that I couldn’t help expressing, and for that I apologize to you, and others.

                Sibel Edmonds is quite another story. I think she needs a great degree of bullying!

                And, until she addresses the impact of imploding buildings upon her story, she’ll continue to get bullied. Because, the two don’t go hand in hand.

                Sibel could be as pure and as innocent as a babe.

                Or, Sibel could be an older version of Nayirah, the Kuwaiti Ambassador’s daughter.

                It’s essential to find out.

                Btw, I was being tongue-in-cheek about looking up Benign Anarchist-styled Republic. I new it was something you made up. But, it does have a cool ring to it!

                Who, save for a hardcore Corbett devotee, would have “benign” and “anarchy” supported in the same phrase? 🙂

                Cheers!

              • mkey says:

                Well, I don’t request any apology, if part of what you stated was aimed at me.

                I usually refrain (try to do so as much as I can) from throwing insults, I just called it as I’ve seen it. A while ago, I figured it’s just best to call it out, as soon as you see it, bring it in the open and see what’s what. If everyone did it, there would be more fist fights for sure but I’m betting there would be less bombs dropped over civilians as well.

                It’s a lot easier to come to terms after a fist fight.

                Peace.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                Since you stained me with a badge of valor, I’d like to let you know that your comment smacked of southern honor. As in our typical response to anything we do is “So?” So there. JimBob who always schemes for his revenge.

              • mkey says:

                Dang nabbit, there ain’t nothing wrong with southerners. Apparently, being closer to equator affects people by the way the communicate. Must have something to do with increased circumferential speed.

                We have something similar to “so?” here, it’s usually used to provoke and piss people off. Nothing better to cut down someone who’s ready to pop a vein.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                Yes. The “So?” gets right to the heart of redneck anarchism, if you asked me. And even if you don’t, since you don’t seem too speedy about asking, I’ll tell you anyway. Rednecks just think they belong to some political party; the reality is they live anarchy now, as always. It ain’t always pretty, but it works out pretty good compared to the state.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                HomeRemedySupply says:

                So?

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                mkey discovers the cause:

                Apparently, being closer to equator affects people by the way they communicate. Must have something to do with increased circumferential speed.

              • candlelight says:

                mkey says

                “Well, I don’t request any apology, if part of what you stated was aimed at me.”

                Part of what I overall stated was directly concerning you, obviously. Though not the apology part, that was concerning a couple of others, including HRS. But, I’ll refrain from being specific lest I’m accused of singling people out and getting another face full of fist. lol

                My apologies to you, too, brother, whether requested, or not.

                Peace

    • mkey says:

      A good summary. You made a good choice to have it mirrored here even if it’s gonna be burried.

    • candlelight says:

      edenison,

      An outstanding post! I had to chide HomeRemedySupplies about a little silliness first, before reading your very well crafted, well balanced, and truly spot on commentary. Above and beyond, that I dare say, with your vindication, James could very well walk away from this affair now, close this thread, and not look back.

      Excellent!

      Like HomeRemedy, I, too, thank you.

      Cheers!

    • I Shot Santa says:

      That comment packed a wallop! But, just so you know; the Corbett Report is not on FaceBook. JimBob

    • edenison says:

      Thank you all for the kind words. I don’t post very often but I posted this comment on Sibel’s Facebook page to document for future readers of the comments exactly what the issues were that Newsbud was either lying or misleading people on. It was irritating to me that people were thinking that James’ clarification on Newsbud’s original smear piece had any sort of equivalency as just another hit piece. In my mind it is completely different and I felt that James was acting out of a responsibility to his readers who, like me, may have found Newsbud through his original promotions. Once I realized that Newsbud had removed the post I asked my husband to repost it for me under his name, which he did. It’s still there as of today along with another post of youtube video that documents some of the comments that Newsbud removed from their website on this issue.

  53. Oscar says:

    Hi James,

    Just a few diverse points, in order of descending importance.

    First, thank you for exposing this. Myself and I think all Corbett Report readers/listeners/viewers will stand right next to you as long as you persuit the truth wherever it leads. As indeed you do.

    Second, I wonder what this all means with regard to the truthfullness or lack thereof of Sibel’s book “The Lone Gladio”. [I bought 3 copies: 1 for myself and 2 for friends when you recommended it, so I kind of need to know ;-)]

    Third, Sibel’s claim to fame is that Bin Laden WAS behind the 9/11-attacks and this knowledge was known beforehand at the FBI but the FBI just didn’t do anything about it. Was this ever truthful? Does this thing with Sibel now alter your view of the cause of 9/11?

    Fourth, prior to this video, it seemed to me you two were close but I could be mistaken. So why didn’t you two contact each other to just talk it out? I can imagine that if Sibel has bad intentions then that isn’t a good idea. Or maybe all the signs were there that that just wasn’t going to work. But still, it’s kind of all of a sudden it seems.

    Fifth, I respect the integrity you display in handling this subject (as you do all subjects) and refraining from going into speculation why Sibel is doing what she is doing, but I can’t help wonder what IS behind this. Is it just poor judgement on Sibel’s part or is she a gatekeeper? Or is it something else?

    In any case, thanks again! You have my full support and keep up your always excellent work!
    Oscar

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      First, I not James’ personal secretary and am not trying to speak on his behalf. 🙂

      I’m sure if he feels the urge to pipe in on your questions he will.

      I would however like to make a few of my comments of my own on them.

      I wonder what this all means with regard to the truthfullness or lack thereof of Sibel’s book “The Lone Gladio”.

      The Lone Gladio was a work of fiction and as such can’t be scrutinized for ‘truth’ the same way a work of non-fiction can.

      Third, Sibel’s claim to fame is that Bin Laden WAS behind the 9/11-attacks…

      As far as I know this is not Sibel’s claim to fame.
      I don’t even know if she has ever made this claim.
      Source(s)?

      Does this thing with Sibel now alter your view of the cause of 9/11?

      It seems like you are trying to paint everything that Sibel has said/written prior to the B.B. girl hit piece as questionable/false?

      If you have read/viewed all that James has authored re: 9/11
      in the past 7-8 years you will see that he never bought into the Bin Laden fairy tale.

      Fourth, prior to this video, it seemed to me you two were close but I could be mistaken.

      Sibel has indicated that a ‘falling out’ had occurred between the pair in Summer 2017.
      I am curious to know if this occurred before, during or after the ‘Titans of Truth’ video conference.
      If before, it seems strange that they would have hooked up for the conference.

      So why didn’t you two contact each other to just talk it out?

      Most likely because of the ‘falling out’ that had occurred.
      According to Sibel, her team did make an attempt to contact James before he published his fact-checking piece.

      • Oscar says:

        Thank you very much for your reply and for your answers/insights.
        Here’s my reply to your reply:

        a. Yes, The Lone Gladio is a work of non-fiction and indeed can’t be scrutinized for ‘truth’ the same way a work of non-fiction can. I knew this of course, and what you say is true. But still, I don’t have the same feeling toward the book I first had.

        b. The link you asked for:
        http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/02/01/the-fbi-%E2%80%9Ckamikaze-pilots%E2%80%9D-case/

        or at the end of Sibel Edmonds wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds) it is abbreviated at the end of the “Post-FBI” section with a reference to this.

        c. I’m not trying to paint everything Sibel has said before her B&B hitpiece as false/questionable. I’m not saying everything is false. Only questionable. Especially IF Sibel is a gatekeeper, which I just don’t know. But it could be. Gatekeepers often give good information except on 1 or more crucial points. Sibel claiming Bin Laden was behind 9/11 could be a red flag. What I am saying now is speculation, but if Sibel were a gate-keeper, now would be a perfect time it seems to do a B&B hitpiece with the Powers That Be ramping up everything to go to war: with the false flag Syria chemical attack, the Skripal-farce, John Bolton becoming national security adviser, Mike Pompeo becoming secretary of state. Yes, this is a recipe for a perfect storm, and I can image that at time like this you would like to have your gatekeepers fall in line as well. But…just as I said, I don’t know, this is speculation. But all I can say is that I’m keeping my eyes open.

        James is not speculating on this or anything like that. But even James himself said in the video we should question/scrutinize her information – as we should do all information even his. All information should be corroborated with other independent sources.

        d. I have read quite a bit James has published the last few years, but not so much on 9/11. More on current topics, or other topcis that I specifically am researching. I wasn’t aware of his views regarding the Bin Laden 9/11 connection. Ok, so he never bought into it. That’s good to know. Thanks. That then must have been a point of disagreement between James and Sibel. Of course, not everyone has to see eye to eye on everything, friends or not but knowing that James has strong feelings about 9/11 itself, I can image this could have been a large point of disagreement.

        e. Yes, if a falling out did occur earlier such as in the summer of 2017, then that would explain why they didn’t talk this out.

        Again, thanks again for your reply.

        • candlelight says:

          Precisely spot on, Oscar, regarding your paragraph c.

          The timing of Sibel going after B&B is uncannily perfectly coinciding with this latest round of hyperbolic political rhetoric, as well as purported military build-up facing off against Assad & Co.

          That’s why getting to the bottom of who Sibel Edmonds is, factually, is of utmost importance. I can very well understand James holding whatever he may know, or now surmising, close to his chest.

          But, if one day he comes out with one of his iconic gatekeeper videos titled: “Welcome to Sibel Edmonds: GATEKEEPER”, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

          • I Shot Santa says:

            Still, let’s not forget that she typically seems to run these campaigns on people when they don’t want to work with her. She had apparently wooed both of them before she smeared them. Not that both her being a vengeful wraith and a gatekeeper isn’t a possibility as well. JimBob who thinks the more crazy you stick in a reason, the more likely it’s right.

            • candlelight says:

              Good point, Santa. In fact, can it be that this modus operandi of hers that you describe is but an over-the-top means of self-defense – rather than simply accepting rejection, and letting it go like a normal person, she feels the need to attack, as if she had been attacked herself? That sort of defensiveness on her part is extreme. What does that say about her? What’s going on inside her to trigger that sort of defense mechanism, I wonder? It would on the outside look like she’s motivated by revenge, that she’s vengeful; but, her actions may be more easily explained by an extreme need for defensiveness and self preservation, and there’s no room within her mindset for taking prisoners.

              That last thought of yours, JimBob, stuck, for sure, by the way. Right on.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                when I look at her now, I didn’t really pay any attention before, I see a drama queen who always needs to be the center of attention and on a quest for something that only she accomplish. She needs for others to adore her. I think she is not comfortable with Father Time either. Her flirtations with the Tenth Amendment guy was distorted due to her emotional state, but you could tell she was stuck on a twenty-low number level of flirting. So she hasn’t matured. I don’t think she has a lot of self-confidence either. That’s why she needs people around her to be a cheerleader for her. Being beautiful, she also had that for a crutch. But, I don’t think she takes no very well. Just my jumbled thoughts with no care as to any format. JimBob who also thinks that regardless of whether she is an agent of some sort, she won’t be one any longer.

              • candlelight says:

                “…she won’t be any longer” That was a zinger – cracked me up!

                The way I’m looking at her now, every word is suspect. Through such a filter, it’s pretty formidable to listen to her now, with new eyes.

                Before elaborating, I need to listen to her a bit more.

                I don’t expect I’m going to have a single positive thing to say, I’m afraid.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                Good luck! That 10th Am. video did it for me. I only made it 2.5 minutes. It was pretty sad. Plus, I’m not a big 9/11 guy anyway. Even if we had that break wide-open, the public mind-set would expect the system itself to administer justice. Don’t sound too just to me. JimBob who knows justice takes a firm hand.

              • candlelight says:

                Santa, would you mind linking the video you’re referring to? You mention “That 10th Am. video did it for me.” What video is that?

                Thanks

              • I Shot Santa says:

                Here’s the video link. Warning: It’s pretty obvious she’s having a meltdown. I only made it 2.5 minutes.:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px7-dF6PjaY&t=157s

              • candlelight says:

                Thanks for the link.

                You actually lasted 2.5 minutes!

              • I Shot Santa says:

                I know, it’s actually really sad. While it’s obvious she had enough passion to get her further than I have in our own paths, it is sad that she chose to focus that passion on herself, rather than the ethics she claimed. JimBob always hates seeing the results of bad choices.

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          Third, Sibel’s claim to fame is that Bin Laden WAS behind the 9/11-attacks…

          b. The link you asked for:
          http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/02/01/the-fbi-%E2%80%9Ckamikaze-pilots%E2%80%9D-case/

          or at the end of Sibel Edmonds wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds) it is abbreviated at the end of the “Post-FBI” section with a reference to this.

          Thanks for the links.

          To me, Sibel’s ‘claim to fame’ is that she discovered all kinds of cover-up and corruption inside the FBI field offices.

          The sources that you gave do not have Sibel claiming that Bin Laden WAS behind the 9/11-attacks, but rather have her name OTHER people who said Bin Laden was planning attacks.

          I still have yet to hear her come out herself and say Bin Laden did 9/11.

          Haven’t said that, I am VERY unhappy that she has not done her 9/11 homework.

          She had plenty of time to research 9/11 by the time she published Classified Woman. Although she doesn’t come right out in the book and say Bin Laden planned and carried out the attacks, she certainly gives the reader the impression that she is OK with that narrative.

          That is a shame!

          Does that automatically make her a gatekeeper?
          Not in my books, sorry.
          But it does make her look awfully naive.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          On Page 1 of this thread, Titans of Truth 9/11 Activist Summit is discussed, with links to around September 2017 comment board.

          See comments above and below this point…
          https://www.corbettreport.com/fact-checking-newsbuds-syria-under-siege-video/comment-page-1/#comment-49027

  54. candlelight says:

    Hello everyone. It seems as if the Corbett community has moved on. Congrats to my friend, mkey, for ringing in the 6ooth post 48 hrs ago. Yay, way to go, mkey – and btw, your link was correct, that definitely was to do with the Israeli art students, etc., etc.

    Anyway, after 600 posts, I was wondering if anyone had any conclusions they could draw about the nature, or rather the meaning of Sibel’s propagandist hit piece on B&B, and the meaning, as well, of Sibel and boy-toy Spiro’s insidious counterattack of James’ skillful fact-checking exposé of said hit piece?

    As an aside, it’s amazing James’ resiliency, as can be seen in his subsequent lively chat with his friend Dan Dicks. This past week I’ve lost lots of sleep, literally, and have been totally physically dragged out over this whole Edmond’s thing, trying to piece together its meaning, in particular, of her unveiled threat to seek out and destroy those two women, B&B, for their devious government biases that has inexplicably become her major cause célèbre. S&S are like a double headed cruise missile zeroed in on B&B, just as the orange man has now launched his, zeroed in on Damascus as I type.

    Forgetting (well, seems like it’s already been forgotten) this recent falling out between these two, what their skirmish has brought into focus,specifically about Sibel’s integrity is this: If one, with ever increasing hindsight, were to believe that the twin towers and building 7 were brought down by demolition, which only a state or a state sponsored group could accomplish, then it stands to reason that all the “terrorist actors” in one way or another, were absolutely controlled and manipulated by a state. Therefore, it is in this light, that all of Sibel’s whistle-blowing must be seen. It must be seen, then, as either purposely, or inadvertently, but, nevertheless, as having been used as a convenient and brilliant cover for a state run covert operation.

    If Sibel was innocently duped, which she may very well have been, she can be exonerated, if when these dots are brought together and explained to her, she is able to say after thoughtful consideration, that she has, all along, been a tool of state deception.

    Could somebody, please, somebody who perhaps has her ear, try to explain this rather very simple idea to her? Pretty please?

    ___________________________________________________________________

    On another somewhat related matter – and I express I’m sorry not to break the post up – the matter of building 7:

    Another commented, paraphrasing James, at one of these summits on 9/11, the rather unfortunate fact that after all these years it would seem that all that truthers can hold onto is the likely seeming scenario of building 7 having been demolished by controlled demolition. Of course, what is most glaring about building 7, as we all know, is that it wasn’t hit by an airplane and yet it, too, went down that day.

    I very strongly believe that this rather glaring crack in the veneer of the official fable, is directly due to a rather large and glaring failure occurring the day of 9/11, which had this failure not occurred, building 7 would have behaved precisely like a person would think it would behave if struck dead on by a large jetliner full of fuel. In fact, it would have given a lot of credence to the other two towers falling, had it been felled by a jetliner, as well.

    The very first report I could find regarding flight 93’s alleged target was in an interview by Al Jezeera of two high ranking Al Quida figures back in 2002. They claimed 93 was headed to DC. There were consequent reports alleging pretty much the same. Are we to believe this, necessarily? Hell, no.

    Think about how very much cleaner it would have been if 93’s target was building 7, and it hit its target? How many fewer misgivings?

    Food for thought….

    Anyway, as for Sibel, I’ll make one last appeal. Perhaps to Spiro. Could you please whisper, this time, please, in her ear, instead of little nothings, Spiro, a little something?

    • Octium says:

      I’ll give it some time before I come to a more final conclusion about Newsbud.

      If in 6 months time they are continuing without some serious downsizing to the organisation (now that they have cooked their frogs) we will have a good answer to the question on whether they are independently funded or not.

      I wouldn’t agree that Building 7 is the only thing truthers have got to show for all these years. It’s just that Building 7 going down without ever being hit by an aircraft is a good thing to pose to people who have never put any though into what happened since the actual day.

      I do agree that building 7 behaving precisely the way people would expect it to behave if hit by a plane is very suspicious, almost comical if it were not for people dying in real life.

      It kind of reminds me of the boxing fix scene from the movie Sgt Bilko

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cued6FlY_Vo

      A controlled fall indeed!

      • I Shot Santa says:

        I always wanted to see that movie. Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid was amazing! On a possibly interesting to someone besides me side-note, while there are cold-blooded killers in the military, there are also a lot of Sgt. Bilkos. And the entire assortment of people like him in his show and the old McHale’s Navy. Some of them are both as well. I think this is an important note as our “leader” always act as if the military is just some corporate cog which moves as the lever is pulled. Hardly. JimBob who may have been a bit of all of those types and don’t care what anyone thinks of it either.

      • candlelight says:

        Funny scene from the movie! But, nonetheless, fits the scene on 9/11 for sure – two buildings get hit, and down goes another one.

        Agreed, there are any number of things, a multitude of things, that don’t add up about 9/11 that truthers can point out. But, to the casual observer, or to the observer for whom the case is closed, I think the anomaly that is building 7, because of its shear identical likeness to a classical demolition, together with video tapes of cops clearing the area, telling people the building’s coming down – an absolutely concise indication of the foreknowledge, and, indeed, even the timing of the building coming down, the various news reporting of its demise before the fact, the building’s owner, Larry Silverstein, explaining how they decided to “pull it” and sit back an watch it come down, etc.,etc., etc., – because of all the highly damaging corroborative evidence exposing the likely falsehood of the official story, building 7 carries the most bearing and justification for calling for a new investigation into 9/11. And I can’t applaud loudly enough for the efforts of Richard Gage, along with twenty-nine hundred other architects and engineers signed on, taking this Truth worldwide.

    • I Shot Santa says:

      On Sibel, I will never listen to another word which comes out of her mouth. There are too many people who don’t engage in her type of behavior and are also knowledgeable for me to waste my time on giving someone a chance after they have proven themselves undeserving of one. JimBob who sez that a whole lot of people wouldn’t have to beg for second chances if they hadn’t proven they were such a jerk with their first one.

    • mkey says:

      I sure hope I haven’t stolen anyone’s thunder on that 600th post. It has been a while since I felt “pride” over post count statistics, I ain’t going back to that messed up state of mind. Live and learn.

      Regarding your first question I have to say I haven’t followed Sibel that much, apart the work she did with James. I haven’t followed much of Newsbud either, possibly to my own detriment, but from the beginning I didn’t feel that great about that establishment. Ever since I saw that Spiro’s video where he explains where and how the raised funds will be used, I lost interest. I don’t like bullshitters and at that time it felt OK skipping on chipping in for Newsbud project.

      To that effect, I can’t reach any conclusions that would connect A to Z. My initial impression after all of this broke out was that she started suffering from some psychological problems, because I have seen people change when faced with some issues she may be facing. I have no real foothold to establish a theory there, but if I were to assume Newsbud was not doing that great (financially or simply success wise, depending on the viewpoint) the “big Kahuna” (Sibel) could be that type of person who can’t admit an error and adapt course, and instead opt for doing something really stupid.

      And that’s what I think of the epilogue, this stupid thing she started to divert attention from people whose work people appreciated; people who possibly didn’t want to join the team; she attacked them, tried dragging them through the mud, tried bringing them down a peg while probably expecting (if so, this would be quite a proof of lunacy) her loyal friends would take up the cause. But they didn’t as far as I could gather, nobody apart Spiro and some shadow posters, that is. She firstly did a stupid thing and then she did what was to be expected in this scenario I’m trying to lay out here, she doubled down on stupid, instead of tracking back and taking a moment for the cause.

      I see you, candlelight, hold a penchant for this affair, and that’s OK. I didn’t care much for the whole thing, but I understand some do and would like to know what happened with Sibel. Knowing would certainly cast a light on her previous work as well, stamping a yay or nay whether or not she could be trusted as a source ever again. What I find most interesting here is that this Newsbud case shows too many people play the man instead of playing the ball (ball being the information, of course) which results in defending the indefensible, upholding the points which can’t be upheld. Which is kind of disappointing, but we can only try to do better.

      (mmm, I have another post down below in the queue, that’s my thanks for breaking the post up two parts lol)

      • pearl says:

        “What I find most interesting here is that this Newsbud case shows too many people play the man instead of playing the ball (ball being the information, of course) which results in defending the indefensible, upholding the points which can’t be upheld.”

        Nailed it. Well said.

    • mkey says:

      Finally, regarding 9/11. It is my general opinion that no large planes were used to hit buildings. I don’t know what part of that footage can be trusted, but I know what I can’t trust. I can’t trust those split second photo op chances took by so many people on that day. I can’t trust that said planes can fly so fast on an altitude so low without breaking up. I can’t trust an aluminum plane can penetrate completely a steel framed building. I can’t trust that people with no apparent flight experience can complete runs trained pilots can’t complete in simulators. All of this simply makes me conclude, no large planes hit buildings on that day and from there a number of other conclusions has to be drawn, which I won’t do now for the sake of brevity.

      I’m not saying smaller planes or missiles weren’t used, I simply don’t know and won’t speculate. The videos were obviously edited to a certain degree, discerning which parts of the story told by liars are lies and which are not is always extremely difficult, so I won’t even bother. How were the buildings brought down exactly? The classical approach? Nukes? Advanced energy weapons seem less probable to me. Who knows, I certainly don’t. We’ll probably never know.

      Regarding building 7, I have to give my testimony of seeing a video on youtube, which appears to be quite unique and which I am not able to find for your perusal because it’s either extremely rare or has been scrubbed. This video shows building 7 from an angle giving a good view of the side of the building which was damaged by one of the falling towers. This recording shows that the big free falling chunk of the falling building ripped a sizable vertical gush in building 7. Ensuing fires caused a smoke screen, making the damage not visible from later videos and other angles. I’m not an architect, but that type of damage would in my opinion cause the building to be beyond repair. To that effect, had someone made a decision to “pull” the building, it would probably make sense. Now, how much time would it take to set the thing up, I don’t know, I don’t have the fainest idea.

      However, following this line of thought, I have to conclude building 7 was the only building which may have had a good reason to be brought down on that day, all the while being the center piece of a magnificent psyop.

      I’ll put my conspiracy theorist cap on for 10 seconds and provide a possible scenario: all three buildings rigged to go. Two buildings hit by small planes or missiles looking like planes. Videos modified to make the thing look close to legit, at least for the time. Plans for the third building may have gone south, but one falling building damages it catastrophically, providing cover for having it brought down too. Ops don’t come through with proof of the damage and allow the truther movement to center on it and form a baseless construct, which allows them to drop the truth bomb at a later date, causing further insecurity and lack of cohesion in public’s eye. Conspiracy theorist hat off.

      • candlelight says:

        I wouldn’t mind trying that cap on for size, there, mkey.

        My take is this: Both the north and south towers were hit by jetliners, most likely the jetliners we were told, and were not switched out with military planes. These planes may have been flown remotely, much like drones are flown today. I believe all three buildings were set up to be demolished, and to be hit with jetliners (in this case, including flight 93, or a 5th flight that never got off the ground). Due to the completely unique structural design of the twin towers, which were specifically designed to withstand a sizable impact (as one designer described, the buildings’ exterior was designed as a “netting” that would remain as a cohesive structural whole, if, indeed, it had sustained not one, but multiple impacts creating multiple holes in this “netting”). If you notice, the tower’s windows were relatively small and narrow, separated from each other by the steel framework making up this “netting”, which taken as a whole, formed in and of itself, a structural component. This design in itself is highly unusual, and probably wholly unique, requiring a specialized method of demolition, wherein this exterior netting had to be thoroughly blown out floor by floor, from the top, down. Building 7 could be demolished in a more conventional manner. Though, I don’t believe any of the explosive charges placed in any of these buildings needed to be wired together in the traditional sense, as we’ve seen in the past, requiring reams of wire. On the contrary, each explosive devise would have been digitally timed and activated, wirelessly, in a computerized, precise fashion.

        I believe I’ve seen either a short video, or photo stills of building 7 showing more extensive damage and/or fires not seen in most views as you mentioned. Even at that, it simply doesn’t explain uniform catastrophic failure of all columns at the same time, nor the building, admittedly, falling at free fall speed for a number of stories, or for that matter, falling symmetrically. Together with studies indicating thermetic components in the dust, and multiple evidence of foreknowledge, I would not characterize rallying around the truth of building 7 as forming a truth movement around a baseless construct. I personally think that if these politicians were to get up some courage, and pressured enough by an ever more questioning public, they might stop for as moment and collectively say, hey, let’s do re-investigate this matter. There certainly are a whole lot of folks from each and every corner of this event that need to get subpoenaed, along with records and hard drives, from military personnel on duty that day, to air traffic controllers, from Mayor Giuliani, to the young fellow who informed Dick Chaney about the aircraft approaching the Pentagon who asked if the orders still stood, from NIST’s computer models that they won’t let anybody see, to the tapes that the FBI confiscated which may have shown a jetliner hitting the Pentagon.

        There is still a potential for a thorough, detailed, not set-up to fail, investigation that Americans, and the entire world, need and should have, that we not live forever in the legacy of the disgraceful and bullshit cover-up that we got.

        —————————————————————-

        My penchant for the Sibel Edmonds affair: Yes, I do have one.

        To be continued….

        • mkey says:

          Nowhere have I implied nor stated building 7 fell due to anything but controlled demolition. I stated it seemed to me the building was damaged to such a degree that a “pull” scenario would make sense. “Pull” scenario being something fire department guys or whoever supposedly do when faced with a severely damaged building which may fall on its own so they opt to bring it down instead, on their own terms and timetable.

          If that were the case, then the question becomes how long would it take for the fire department guys or whoever to setup a controlled demolition. Is something like that doable in several hours for a building of that size? If yes, building 7 may have not been rigged to blow, otherwise it surely was.

          Regarding the planes thing, you should review available information and try to pick from several options which range from “no planes were used” to “planes with a bunch of hostages were used.” On one extreme of this spectrum, you can fire a missile, one looking like a plane why don’t ya, into the building and edit the video recording later. Something which you’ll do anyway and something that has obviously been done, to a certain extent.

          On the other end of the spectrum, you need to fly planes fast, over their speed limit (they need to fly real fast to gain enough momentum to penetrate steel frame buildings, you see) while performing near impossible maneuvers.

          I pretty much don’t care about the exact modus operandi, I just have a hard time believing anyone would choose an over the top, near impossible to execute scenario over some simple video editing, something basically anyone can do, even in near real time.

          Regarding your question on text formatting, you can use some html tags to make text italic (i) or bold (b) and I think you can use a (quote) tag as well.

          • candlelight says:

            Mkey

            Sorry about that. I reread your passage concerning WTC7. I thought when you referred to the large gaping gash, whatever, you were speculating about it being enough to collapse the building. My error. In wondering about the time it takes to rig the building, listen to Danny Jowenko.

            http://911-questions.com/demolition-expert-dies-in-car-crash-after-911-statement/

            It’s apparent he’s rather perplexed.

            He’s talking about a team of 30 to 40 experts, with a specific plan in place. When told there were fires still burning inside the building, that weren’t extinguished, he looked completely nonplussed.

            Jetliners, smaller aircraft, missiles – take my choice? I choose jetliners flown by remote control, i.e., like drones.

            Thank you for the lesson in text formatting! At least that’s one thing new I can say I learned today!
            CHEERS, MAN!

            • mkey says:

              I’ll check out that Jowenko guy. This is an interesting topic, but fairly immaterial since the exact “how did they do it” is not nearly as important as “why did they do it” and “who did it”.

              And of course people will wonder about how because when eyes get tricked one can’t stop thinking about the trick itself. I bet the official story is full of holes on purpose, just a one gigantic honey pot.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                mkey says:
                I bet the official story is full of holes on purpose, just a one gigantic honey pot.

                “Gigantic Honey Pots” seems to be part of the The Powers That Should Not Be Standard Playbook now.
                They seduce folks into all types of speculation and compromising positions.
                Anything to make a chaotic mess.

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      I’ll break this response down into two posts to observe the 500 word count limit…

      Hello everyone. It seems as if the Corbett community has moved on. Congrats to my friend, mkey, for ringing in the 6ooth post 48 hrs ago. Yay, way to go, mkey –

      Relax. This is just the lull before the storm. Still a long way to go before we cross the 1000 mark. 🙂

      If one, with ever increasing hindsight, were to believe that the twin towers and building 7 were brought down by demolition, which only a state or a state sponsored group could accomplish,

      I don’t know where you are personally with your 9/11 homework but we are far beyond the ‘belief/theory’ stage with the towers destruction.
      Perhaps on another planet other possibilities may be viable, but on planet Earth
      one and only one possibility exists for their destruction: controlled demolition.

      …then it stands to reason that all the “terrorist actors” in one way or another, were absolutely controlled and manipulated by a state.

      Of course, if you believe that terrorist actors (hijackers) even participated in the attacks.

      Therefore, it is in this light, that all of Sibel’s whistle-blowing must be seen. It must be seen, then, as either purposely, or inadvertently, but, nevertheless, as having been used as a convenient and brilliant cover for a state run covert operation.

      No it must not. How many people in the weeks and months following 9/11 had solved the crime? How far advanced was the truth movement at that time? What percentage of the population was not buying the official Bin Laden/hijacker story? That is the time-frame you need to focus on when considering Sibel’s comments on Bin Laden et al.

      If it took me many years to realize the truth about 9/11 surely Sibel can be cut some slack in this area, just weeks after the attacks?
      Even in the following years after blowing the whistle she was consumed with legal proceedings and the like, years before the birth of YouTube!

      • candlelight says:

        I have a post waiting moderation where you’ll get a good handle on where I’m at vis-à-vis the notion of demolition.

        First, could anybody explain how to italicize and also how to make bold letters? Thanks.

        Anyway, Fawlty Towers, I do think we’re on the same page for the most part, but, we have differing approaches, and yes, we do have different ideas about certain things, but, that’s okay. We have a long, long way to go, as you intimated.

        On this planet, there still are people who don’t believe the buildings were destroyed by way of demolition. So, argumentatively, I wish to couch such an idea, not as an absolute reality, but as an idea that should be sinking in to the mind’s eye of the casual observer, not necessarily the hard core truther, based on ever greater evidence and ever widening acceptance of the reality of controlled demolition. The ramifications of the level of evil and greed in the bastard game of power it represents, is so utterly stark, that I am still loath to add that last .001% to its certainty.
        Better to build an exact replica of one of the twin towers somewhere out in the desert, down to the last desk and computer monitor, and crash a fully fueled 747 into it, and see what happens. I know very well that that replica will still be there, the fuel will burn out, as will the fires; at most, the structure above the impact zone may topple over a bit, or precariously, or may even break away from the intact structure and fall to the ground. But, the tower, itself, below the impact, will still be there standing. I realize this, but almost need to see this demonstration to confirm the monstrous deed that was perpetrated by the sickest of the sick on that awful day.

        As far as the terrorists, there’s a reason I put the word in quotes, and added the word actor – “terrorist actors”. Because, ultimately, they are simply actors, props, completely manipulated.

        That’s why I say that Sibel’s whistle-blowing either purposely, meaning knowingly, or inadvertently, meaning without her own intention, became a useful tool to further obfuscate the state’s covert operation. In light of demolition which you are fully ardent about, what I am implying here is simple logic, and nothing else.

        To Sibel’s benefit, I do make very plain in the very next quote that she may be very innocent “If Sibel was innocently duped, which she may very well have been,…”

        And I agree with you, that if Sibel was duped along with everybody else, she should be certainly forgiven. And let me be the first one to forgive her! All I want of her is to state plainly, 1. What her take is on the truth of those buildings being demolished by controlled demolition, and 2. How that truth effects her legacy as a whistle-blower.

        That’s not too much to ask, is it?

        If we raise the banner that in absolute terms, those buildings were imploded, then of the following two statements of yours, the first can be completely plausible, but your second statement, in absolute terms, cannot be either plausible or true: “She may have been duped by the FBI with the audio tapes dumped in her lap. Or perhaps (more likely) they were genuine.” Unless we say that the tapes were of genuine “actors”. The reason being, you cannot have demolition and real terrorists in the same story. No way. No how.

        Jeez, only another 300 some odd posts to go!

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          You are talking about three issues here: demolition of towers, terrorists and Sibel.
          I will begin with Sibel as she is the primary focus of this piece.

          And I agree with you, that if Sibel was duped along with everybody else, she should be certainly forgiven. And let me be the first one to forgive her! All I want of her is to state plainly, 1. What her take is on the truth of those buildings being demolished by controlled demolition, and 2. How that truth effects her legacy as a whistle-blower.

          That’s not too much to ask, is it?

          First of all, it is highly unlikely she will give a response to either of your questions.
          Second of all, her whistle-blowing has nothing whatsoever to do with the buildings’ demolitions.

          As I stated in my last post, at the time Sibel came out and blew the whistle on the FBI, virtually no one in the general public knew the truth about what happened on 9/11.

          I also stated it was likely that the perps planted a ‘hijacker meme’ that was being circulated around the world months before 9/11.
          It was a story about hijackers terrorizing the U.S. That’s all, just a story.

          Yes it would be nice if Sibel could give us her take on 9/11, not just the demolition of the buildings but everything that happened that day. She hasn’t to date and we can only speculate as to why she hasn’t. I believe she wasn’t/isn’t interested in those details and regrettably hasn’t even taken the time to research them.

          If we raise the banner that in absolute terms, those buildings were imploded, then of the following two statements of yours, the first can be completely plausible, but your second statement, in absolute terms, cannot be either plausible or true: “She may have been duped by the FBI with the audio tapes dumped in her lap. Or perhaps (more likely) they were genuine.” Unless we say that the tapes were of genuine “actors”. The reason being, you cannot have demolition and real terrorists in the same story. No way. No how.

          I would change that to “you cannot have demolition and real Muslim hijackers in the same story.” That is correct.

          As far as my two statements are concerned: “She may have been duped by the FBI with the audio tapes dumped in her lap. Or perhaps (more likely) they were genuine.”

          They are both plausible. Yes you can have demolitions + hijacker stories circulating around the world pre-9/11. That is exactly what happened.

          • candlelight says:

            Fawlty Towers says

            First of all, it is highly unlikely she will give a response to either of your questions.
            Second of all, her whistle-blowing has nothing whatsoever to do with the buildings’ demolitions.

            To your “First of all”: Of that I am well aware.

            To your “Second of all”: You are, if you will forgive my saying, completely missing my point, I’m afraid. Which is probably my own fault, so, please let me put it this way:

            This is how the buildings’ demolition and Sibel’s whistle-blowing has something to do with one another, implicitly….

            1. The fact that the buildings were imploded, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was perpetrated by the state.

            2. Given it was perpetrated by the state, the entire terrorist meme, including, but not limited to terrorist leaders, terrorist masterminds, terrorists with US visas, terrorists on airplanes, terrorist cells, terrorist chatterboxes on tape recordings, is all phony. Period.

            3. Therefore: Sibel blew the whistle on crap. Nothing. Phony shit. Stuff the FBI and CIA already knew about because it was there own damn cover story! The only thing Sibel did was to cement it!

            4. The reason your earlier statement is not true, and not at all logical is because you are simply not using the word “genuine” in the true sense of the word and in the context of our discussion. Yes, it was a “genuine” fake tape, and she translated “genuine” fake conversations, of “genuine” fake terrorists, or “genuinely” deluded would-be terrorists, managed, handled and known to the FBI and CIA.

            And whether you, or I, or Sibel, or anybody else knew it at the time, the fact still remains that this changes the entire nature of her whistle-blowing. That’s all I’m trying to say. And, yes, again, I’m well aware she’ll never address this issue. Ever.

            Quite frankly, I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. Of course we can have, as you say “demolitions + hijacker stories circulating around the world pre-9/11.” That’s exactly what we did have. And for convenience sake, we even had handy tape recordings corroborating these hijacker stories…. All I’m saying is please, let’s not refer to these tapes as “genuine”! Nor refer to Sibel’s whistle-blowing as being meaningful, except in the light of cementing the fairy tale.

            5. This about as clear as I can make it. I cannot make it any clearer than this.

            • Fawlty Towers says:

              1. The fact that the buildings were imploded, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was perpetrated by the state.

              Correct, or had direct state involvement.

              2. Given it was perpetrated by the state, the entire terrorist meme, including, but not limited to terrorist leaders, terrorist masterminds, terrorists with US visas, terrorists on airplanes, terrorist cells, terrorist chatterboxes on tape recordings, is all phony. Period.

              Correct.

              3. Therefore: Sibel blew the whistle on crap. Nothing. Phony shit. Stuff the FBI and CIA already knew about because it was there own damn cover story! The only thing Sibel did was to cement it!

              Have to agree with that. Although, I am convinced she did it unwittingly. That is important.

              4. The reason your earlier statement is not true, and not at all logical is because you are simply not using the word “genuine” in the true sense of the word and in the context of our discussion. Yes, it was a “genuine” fake tape, and she translated “genuine” fake conversations, of “genuine” fake terrorists, or “genuinely” deluded would-be terrorists, managed, handled and known to the FBI and CIA.

              Have to agree again.

              And whether you, or I, or Sibel, or anybody else knew it at the time, the fact still remains that this changes the entire nature of her whistle-blowing. That’s all I’m trying to say. And, yes, again, I’m well aware she’ll never address this issue. Ever.

              Correct.

              Quite frankly, I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. Of course we can have, as you say “demolitions + hijacker stories circulating around the world pre-9/11.” That’s exactly what we did have. And for convenience sake, we even had handy tape recordings corroborating these hijacker stories…. All I’m saying is please, let’s not refer to these tapes as “genuine”! Nor refer to Sibel’s whistle-blowing as being meaningful, except in the light of cementing the fairy tale.

              I’m OK with that too.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                I keep noticing a recurring theme in your statements concerning sibel. You say that if she was an unwilling dupe, you would listen to her again. Wouldn’t that make her a crappy journalist if she was a dupe? JimBob who knows that people know that 9/11 was state sponsored, and that they know that most everything else is BS and yet, because they are waiting on the system to fix itself, will never do anything at all. Regardless of the revelation. And thus, the system rolls on.

              • candlelight says:

                Santa,

                If you don’t stop making so much goddamned sense, man, before long Corbett’s going to be out of a job, and people be clicking on THE JIMBOB REPORT! 🙂

                All I know is that whatever comes out of that ladies mouth is going to have to be viewed through a pair of rose colored glasses. There’s no two ways about that.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                Oh no need for James to worry. I invariably tend to offend almost everyone at some point! Though I am about to start a steemit blog. JimBob’s blog will not be relevant to much of anything.

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          On this planet, there still are people who don’t believe the buildings were destroyed by way of demolition. So, argumentatively, I wish to couch such an idea, not as an absolute reality, but as an idea that should be sinking in to the mind’s eye of the casual observer, not necessarily the hard core truther…

          Better to build an exact replica of one of the twin towers somewhere out in the desert, down to the last desk and computer monitor, and crash a fully fueled 747 into it, and see what happens…

          Despite making a distinction between the ‘casual observer’ and the ‘hard core truther’ (and I will assume you believe yourself to be a ‘hard core truther’) from everything you wrote above it is clear that you yourself are not completely convinced the towers were demolished!

          I can prove to anyone who is capable of reasoning, in less than five minutes, that all three towers (WTC 1/2/7) were demolished.

          • candlelight says:

            Fawlty Towers

            I said I was loath to add that last .001% to its certainty. And that’s because it tears my guts apart.
            But I add it, anyway, on a daily basis.

            But, please, go ahead. Let’s hear your take. I’m capable of reasoning and have 5 minutes to spare.

            Thanks

            • Fawlty Towers says:

              But, please, go ahead. Let’s hear your take. I’m capable of reasoning and have 5 minutes to spare.

              I have many ways to prove the towers were demolished, but I’ll use one of the simplest methods. It will take several posts however for I need you to answer a few questions as we go along.

              WTC1 was impacted by a plane between stories 93-99.
              Let’s imagine it was impacted between stories 103-109 instead.
              That would mean one floor was left undamaged (110) and floors 103-109 were all partially damaged.

              I want you to wrap your head around this hypothetical change for a few minutes and give it some thought.

              After a few minutes of thought, let’s continue and allow the fires to burn for approximately 1.75 hours as they did on 9/11.

              And let’s have collapse initiate after 1.75 hours, exactly as it did on 9/11.

              Now forget about what you saw on 9/11.

              Just think about a 110 story steel/concrete high rise building.
              Think about a top floor (110) collapsing on seven partially damaged floors below it.

              Tell me what you would expect to happen to the building please.

              • candlelight says:

                Not necessarily that much. Though, if that 110th floor were collapsing, it would mean, necessarily, that at minimum, the 109th floor was damaged enough to buckle under the weight of the 110th floor. There would be some twisting, bending, snapping of connections, perhaps. How much further this would go on is hard to say, depends on the severity of the damage to the 109th floor, as well as the 108th floor, and subsequent damaged floors below, the variable being the number of interior columns that may have been taken out. It must be remembered that the building’s facade was designed to be a structural component, and would be a factor of resistance. Given your scenario, I do not see any further downward movement below the 103rd floor, or at most, a floor or two below that. But, certainly nothing more than that, if that.

              • candlelight says:

                The above does presuppose that the damaged floors are extremely damaged to get so far as to effect intact floors. I could see extremely damaged floors accordion, but meet resistance where the building is intact.

              • candlelight says:

                Also, this is forgetting what we saw on 9/11. On 9/11, we saw the top of one of the buildings above the impact zone buckle over, so we have to assume a floor or two was damaged enough for that to happen, but we didn’t see damaged floors accordion, per se, at least not before implosion.

              • mkey says:

                Aren’t floors built to withstand the weight of floors above?

                Also, if one can bring the entire building in a controlled fashion by simply blowing a few floors, why waste the explosive as demolition guys usually do?

                That is if we assume the plane actually blew out entire floors, which it didn’t.

              • candlelight says:

                Mkey

                Well, buildings are designed with dynamic and static loads in mind, of so many lbs per square foot. These are floor loads and vary with the use, or purpose of the building, and/or a given space. This is where the “pancake” theory comes in, the same theory that NIST tried to push. These assholes, though, presented floor models showing floor slabs minus the core columns which were, in reality, quite massive. So, the theory being that one floor collapses upon the floor below with loads exceeding the design load, thus collapsing it, and thus starts a cascade of collapsing floors. This simply wasn’t the case here, though they would have loved for us to believe it. Actually, that’s exactly what I had originally had taken for granted, when, at first, the wool was pulled over my eyes.

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                Not necessarily that much. Though, if that 110th floor were collapsing, it would mean, necessarily, that at minimum, the 109th floor was damaged enough to buckle under the weight of the 110th floor. There would be some twisting, bending, snapping of connections, perhaps…

                Given your scenario, I do not see any further downward movement below the 103rd floor, or at most, a floor or two below that. But, certainly nothing more than that, if that.

                Thanks for your reply candlelight. You gave a reasonable answer and so we can proceed.

                I mentioned that this would take less than five minutes, but that was assuming a face-to-face personal encounter. Obviously this will have to take a little bit longer with the necessary delay to await responses.

                I do not skip any floors usually when I use this method, but to spare you and others here the tedium of having to wait days and days I will continue with the next floor and then ask you to continue on your own with the exercise, floor-by-floor until you have reached the 99th floor. You can make notes if it helps.

                So let’s now imagine WTC1 was impacted between stories 102-108 instead of 103-109.
                That would mean the top two floors were left undamaged (109-110) and floors 102-108 were all partially damaged.

                Now wrap your head around this hypothetical change for a few minutes and give it some thought.

                Now let’s continue and allow the fires to burn for approximately 1.75 hours as they did on 9/11.

                And let’s have collapse initiate after 1.75 hours, exactly as it did on 9/11.

                Once again, forget about what you saw on 9/11.

                Just think about a 110 story steel/concrete high rise building. A picture of WTC1 showing the full 110 floors would really help here.

                Think about the top two floors (109-110) collapsing on seven partially damaged floors below them.

                After reflection, tell me what you would expect to happen to the building.
                Please jot down your answer.

                And now to save time, continue this exercise as follows:
                Next imagine WTC1 was impacted between stories 101-107 instead of 102-108.
                That would mean the top three floors were left undamaged (108-110) and floors 101-107 were all partially damaged.

                After reflection, tell me what you would expect to happen to the building after the initiation of collapse 1.75 hours later.

                … and please jot down answers until you have reached the following scenario…

                Forgetting what you saw on 9/11, imagine WTC1 was impacted between stories 93-99 (as actually occurred).

                Finally tell me what you would expect to happen to the building after floors 100-110 collapsed on the seven partially damaged floors below them.

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                Maybe veterans of this site can explain to me why the following just happened?

                In my last post I wanted to quote someone, using the
                usual italics quote tags that I use.
                For some reason it didn’t work this time!

                And then with more than 3 minutes to edit the post I get this message:

                “You can no longer edit this comment”

                And finally, the comment was not posted!

                Anyone?

              • Corbett says:

                Looks like your comment got spam-binned for some reason. I’ve fished it out and posted it.

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                Ahhh.. the dreaded spam-bin.
                Thanks for helping out James. 🙂

                BTW, I usually get the equally dreaded
                “This Connection is Untrusted… yada yada”
                message when connecting to your site via the Chrome
                browser.

                Just now, for the first time Firefox (my main browser)
                popped up the same message. 🙁

              • I Shot Santa says:

                Aw Chrome. Yes, the end result of the open-source dream that was Linux. Now the preferred browser to ship you your favorite viruses. By the way James, your security certificate (whatever that is) is expired. I got this message (I checked for an exception because I am such a trusting soul):

                http://www.corbettreport.com uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate expired on Monday, April 16, 2018, 7:59 PM. The current time is Monday, April 16, 2018, 8:22 PM. Error code: SEC_ERROR_EXPIRED_CERTIFICATE

                JimBob who tries to be helpful just to throw people off.

              • Corbett says:

                Yes, the security certificate expired and I had to renew. Ahhh, the joys of vacation! Thanks for bearing with me.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                It was difficult to click on that button. Enjoy your vacation on the eve of (yet another) destruction. JimBob who thinks we’ve been on the eve of destruction for an awful long time.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                I also just found this video by Syria Girl:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbffI52stc0

                With so much coming out against the US, even within the US, I’m hoping that we can actually just leave Syria. That would break ISIS. JimBob who don’t cotton to cowards who hide behind the skirts of women.

              • candlelight says:

                Hi Fawlty,

                Okay, getting back to hypothesizing about the destruction of WTC1 on any other day than 9/11:

                Basically, I will start by assuming in each scenario that you’re putting forth i.e., that given successive lowered points of impact, the level of destruction of the impacted floors remain the same, where the only difference is the number of floors of non-impacted building increasing above the damaged floors.

                Essentially, the greater the number of floors above the impact zone, the more such floors would exert additional weight and pressure upon the first damaged floor beneath these floors.

                Though, looking back on my first answer to your original question, where you had only one undamaged floor above the impact zone, the damaged zone would have to really be extremely damaged, with only a bare skeleton’s worth of support remaining that it might be crushed. The compression strength of steel is exponentially higher than bending strength. So, even with ten floors above the impact zone, or more, there would have to be quite a number of columns missing and a good deal of the structural exterior facade missing to crush that first, or first two or three damaged floors. We couldn’t look inside the building on that day, but the exterior was still very much intact.

                So, I would expect to see pretty much what we saw on 9/11 prior to the building’s collapse, i.e., it would remain in the state it was in before it collapsed. That is, before it was imploded. The bottom line is, the tower would have remained standing on any other day, even if it was rammed by a jetliner, accidentally.

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                So, I would expect to see pretty much what we saw on 9/11 prior to the building’s collapse, i.e., it would remain in the state it was in before it collapsed. That is, before it was imploded. The bottom line is, the tower would have remained standing on any other day, even if it was rammed by a jetliner, accidentally.

                Precisely.

                Thanks for your reply!

                I hope this exercise erased that .001% doubt that you may have had. 🙂

                This method is clean and simple and as I said, so long as a person can reason, they almost always come up with the logical conclusion; as unpatriotic and treasonous/diabolical as it sounds, controlled demolition had to have been used.

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      If Sibel was innocently duped, which she may very well have been, she can be exonerated, if when these dots are brought together and explained to her, she is able to say after thoughtful consideration, that she has, all along, been a tool of state deception.

      She may have been duped by the FBI with the audio tapes dumped in her lap. Or perhaps (more likely) they were genuine. Don’t forget as part of the plan (which was in the works for years) some deliberate leaking of the hijacking meme was likely to have taken place.

      So she can be forgiven for not being up to speed on the Bin Laden/hijacker fairy tale when she blew the whistle and tried to tell as many people about her FBI tape discovery.

      Another commented, paraphrasing James, at one of these summits on 9/11, the rather unfortunate fact that after all these years it would seem that all that truthers can hold onto is the likely seeming scenario of building 7 having been demolished by controlled demolition.

      I believe James simply intended to say that after all these years people seem to be satisfied with debating how WTC7 came down, rather than trying to organize and bring justice to those who planned/carried out the event.

      I very strongly believe that this rather glaring crack in the veneer of the official fable, is directly due to a rather large and glaring failure occurring the day of 9/11, which had this failure not occurred, building 7 would have behaved precisely like a person would think it would behave if struck dead on by a large jetliner full of fuel. In fact, it would have given a lot of credence to the other two towers falling, had it been felled by a jetliner, as well.

      Not sure exactly where you are trying to go with this. But no, a rational-thinking person would not think that ANY steel and concrete building (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 etc.) would fall directly into its footprint due to a plane crash.

      • candlelight says:

        Fawlty Towers

        The last two points you brought out in your post:

        I was only making an assumption based on what someone was paraphrasing James as saying at one of the summits on 9/11. I didn’t hear James directly, so what you’re saying could very well be what he wanted to get across. All I know is that it seems that the only aspect of 9/11 Truth that is penetrating, or at least was penetrating for a while, into the main stream is AE 9/11 Truth’s push to raise the public’s consciousness about building 7. A few years back they ran the campaign – Building What?, and also going worldwide lecturing and promoting their full length movie 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out.

        The last comment I made was my awkward attempt to simply say that I think that building 7, in the planning of 9/11, was supposed to be hit by a plane to provide cover for it being demolished, similar to the twin towers. I posit that perhaps flight 93 was slated to hit building 7, but failed. If building 7 was hit by a plane, there would have been far fewer questions raised about it coming down, as there are now.

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          All I know is that it seems that the only aspect of 9/11 Truth that is penetrating, or at least was penetrating for a while, into the main stream is AE 9/11 Truth’s push to raise the public’s consciousness about building 7. A few years back they ran the campaign – Building What?, and also going worldwide lecturing and promoting their full length movie 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out.

          One of the points James was probably trying to get across is that WTC7 is old news.
          But yes it is an attention grabber for most people who haven’t been hip to it.

          The last comment I made was my awkward attempt to simply say that I think that building 7, in the planning of 9/11, was supposed to be hit by a plane to provide cover for it being demolished, similar to the twin towers. I posit that perhaps flight 93 was slated to hit building 7, but failed. If building 7 was hit by a plane, there would have been far fewer questions raised about it coming down, as there are now.

          These are precisely the types of discussions that James, myself and other veterans of the trade roll their eyes over when viewed for the umpteenth time. These are bona fide conspiracy theories.
          I usually run for the hills when I see them. 🙂

          • candlelight says:

            Running’s good exercise!

            I have two posts that are now pending moderation. Hopefully James wasn’t, or isn’t, rolling his eyes to the point of discomfort. 🙂

            I am no veteran commenter, to be sure. I think it’s been about a week? Nor have I ever paid very much attention to people’s comments at all in the past, virtually none.

            So, if WTC 7 is old news, was there a point he was trying to make?

            By the way, it’s curious you referred to yourself, others and James as “veterans of the trade”.

            Can you perhaps offer an honest representation of what exactly that “trade” might actually be? Please be as honest as you can possibly be. As you consider your answer, there’s a quote by a mathematician which may be of help ~ Think deeply of simple things ~.

            Cheers

            • Fawlty Towers says:

              So, if WTC 7 is old news, was there a point he was trying to make?

              Caveat, I did not see the Titans of Truth video.
              I have only read comments about what James said.

              Again, it seems to me that James was trying to say that he sees endless infighting about the technical details of 9/11
              as pointless and a waste of time, today.

              He simply mentioned WTC7 as it is one of the most popular
              “gottcha” events of 9/11.

              By the way, it’s curious you referred to yourself, others and James as “veterans of the trade”.

              Can you perhaps offer an honest representation of what exactly that “trade” might actually be?

              Nothing complex, mysterious or nefarious going on here.
              The “trade” of thorough and painstaking 9/11 research
              focusing on as many facts as possible.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                When you have an event, even one as traumatic as 9/11, there comes a time when revelations no longer have a significant impact. Few people today actually believe the official story of 9/11, yet there isn’t enough emotion left for any effective mass outcry. We like to think we are rational creatures, but we are just as emotionally driven as we are rationally driven. The fact that logic was cast out of the public educational system and replaced with feel-good platitudes doesn’t help the truther movement any either.
                Basically, if you want a public outrage you’d better strike while the iron is hot. And you’d best not pull that punch either. JimBob thinks one secret to knocking out giants is to hit hard and often. And also first.

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                When you have an event, even one as traumatic as 9/11, there comes a time when revelations no longer have a significant impact.

                In general I would agree. Of course it depends what the revelations are. And “no longer have a significant impact” on who?

                For example, as seasoned a 9/11 researcher as I am, a new revelation came my way last year which completely blew the entire 9/11 boat out of the water for me.

                The problem is that major 9/11 revelations have no mechanism available to be publicized to the masses. Believe it or not we still have information control firmly in place.

                Few people today actually believe the official story of 9/11, yet there isn’t enough emotion left for any effective mass outcry…
                …Basically, if you want a public outrage you’d better strike while the iron is hot.

                I wouldn’t say there isn’t “enough emotion left for any effective mass outcry”.
                Rather, there isn’t and never was leadership and direction in the movement.

                Too many competing camps. Not enough brainpower to see that only unification of all parties could bring about change. That and a charismatic leader.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                Grassroots 9/11 Truth Activism
                I can definitely speak about the subject.

                Since 2006, our 9/11 Truth Group has given out more than 70,000 free DVDs, literally thousands of pounds of flyers & brochures & broadsheets, and has participated in hundreds of actions, events, and film presentations.

                But I will say this (and my local buddy Joe will affirm)…
                …it becomes a strain to try to inspire others to get out into the real world and participate in getting the word out. Typically, the energy and set-up of most events and actions fall on the shoulders of just a few folks.

                With emphasis…
                There are a lot of “awake people”, but very few will make a strong effort towards directly waking up others.

                Anyone can step up.
                Anyone can do outreach.

                A factor which helps in activism outreach is when the media (alternative or mainstream) gives the issue some play in the Press.
                One example is the recent North Texas Water issue. I know about this, because I am involved. From a handful of local concerned citizens, within three weeks it grew to more than 12,000 folks involved. Erin Brockovich got the attention of the media and things mushroomed with all the Press. The Press can be like free advertising on an issue.

                Some of the examples of our group’s actions are on this YouTube Channel
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpH453BTUJk
                and some 9/11 actions are listed at 911blogger
                http://911blogger.com/topics/north-texans-911-truth
                However, our group has helped on many other activist endeavors (like vaccines, Fluoride, health, Monsanto, etc.)

              • I Shot Santa says:

                Fawlty, there is a slight problem with this portion of your comment line of thought (at least with me):

                Too many competing camps. Not enough brainpower to see that only unification of all parties could bring about change. That and a charismatic leader.

                I think they call that situation “government”. For me, I’m not looking for the state to impose justice on itself. To me, the whole idea of “exposing” the wrongs of the cave dwellers isn’t really that important. I think the Agora! Agora! Agora! episode really helped me to determine that I don’t give a rat’s patootie what shadows presently entertain the cave dwellers. Instead, I’m looking more towards creating my own place in the sunshine. Preferably deep in a swamp where there ain’t no caves for them dwellers to come out and get me. JimBob who don’t play well with others anyway and who quit following anybody after leaving the army.

                I’m not discounting anybody else’s efforts, but I don’t really think it will bring about the change people think it will bring about. Of course, it’s just my opinion and don’t make me right.

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                Fawlty, there is a slight problem with this portion of your comment line of thought (at least with me):

                “Too many competing camps. Not enough brainpower to see that only unification of all parties could bring about change. That and a charismatic leader.”

                I think they call that situation “government”. For me, I’m not looking for the state to impose justice on itself.

                Perhaps you missed the point I was trying to make?

                I was simply saying that the endless infighting amongst genuine truthers hasn’t produced and likely will never produce the desired results: justice for those who committed the crime and a 180 degree change in the direction we have been going in since 9/11.

                Instead of infighting I was suggesting unifying all 9/11 truth parties involved (NOT political) under one common voice.

                To me, the whole idea of “exposing” the wrongs of the cave dwellers isn’t really that important. I think the Agora! Agora! Agora! episode really helped me to determine that I don’t give a rat’s patootie what shadows presently entertain the cave dwellers. Instead, I’m looking more towards creating my own place in the sunshine.

                It’s perfectly fine to adopt that attitude. Not everyone needs to strive for justice.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                Well Fawlty, how do you intend on getting justice? The court system is owned by the people who are behind the crimes. So that system is out. Just how are you going to get the state to convict itself? You can’t. Especially today in this lockdown state that is our modern free society. So where is this justice going to come from? JimBob who thinks there’s more horse thieves than we got rope to hang them with, so he rides a gator instead.

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                Well Fawlty, how do you intend on getting justice? The court system is owned by the people who are behind the crimes. So that system is out. Just how are you going to get the state to convict itself? You can’t. Especially today in this lockdown state that is our modern free society. So where is this justice going to come from?

                As much as I regret having to say this, I carry the exact same beliefs as you on this one.

                In my personal life I try to be as optimistic as possible in day-to-day encounters with other people.

                However when it comes to big geo-political matters that involve the intangible, faceless deep state I confess to being extremely pessimistic.

                I fear we have reached the point of no return, barring some devastating cataclysm to reset the switch.

                It’s not even close to a David vs. Goliath struggle. There was a sliver of hope for David.
                They’ve got us by the balls and I don’t see a way out.

                When you control the narrative (the media) and have all the money and power in the world to control any dissent what could possibly go wrong and how?

                When you can kill anyone in the world you chose at any time, including presidents/heads of state and thousands/millions of civilians, without so much as a blink of the eye, “What me worry?”.

                That’s why as much as I enjoy the discussions here at Corbett report, which cover a full range of bleeding/leading edge topics, I see us Corbetteers as savvy spectators rather than active game-changers, movers/shakers capable of making the deep state shiver in its boots.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                When in war, which we are, you should never let the enemy control any aspect of the battle. Unfortunately, the state has a system in which they control all aspects. Therefore this system is not a battleground we should do anything more than feint an attack. However, if we choose to not engage, but to just understand where these cave dwellers are attacking, we can not be there. It’s hard to be defeated when you avoid the battle field entirely. That’s why, while I like to keep up with events, it’s not to do battle, just to figure out how to attack where THEY are not. Where are they NOT? Anything community related. JimBob who figured out that if we invite Goliath to a fight but burn his crops down while he’s waiting on me to show up, we won’t have to knock him out. 🙂

              • Mark K. P. says:

                just as important as building 7 is the footage of the cars getting toasted in the parking lot half a mile from the buildings, and the footage of big chunks of the twin towers disintegrating, some in mid air as they fall, some near the base of the building. That’s in Judy Woods’ Dustification videos. No one else seems too interested in that stuff, probably because the thought control surrounding 911 extends to mainstream astrophysics, which is largely bogus from about the time of the Versailles Treaty

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                Judy Wood
                Corbett mentions Judy Wood just past the 33 minute mark on his first Questions for Corbett.
                https://www.corbettreport.com/an-arrow-through-the-brain-questions-for-corbett-001/

                I have repeatedly talked about her to other commenters.
                She and Fetzer were extremely destructive in causing all kinds of grief and upset, especially in relation to Dr.Steven Jones.
                Here is one link where I mentions her.
                https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1280-james-corbett-on-taking-the-911-red-pill/comment-page-1/#comment-39700

              • mkey says:

                Regarding James’ Dr. Woody comment, I can only say: buurrrrn.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                Burn? Understatement of the year! Of course, I had to cringe a bit when he said that her theories wouldn’t pass high school physics. since I never took physics at any time. I did have to take a physics test once in the Navy (first hitch there) as they decided I had a high enough score that they wanted me working on the nukes. I scored so low the testing officer looked at me as if I were retarded. Understandable as I WAS joining the service. JimBob who don’t know no physics, astro or otherwise.

              • Mark K. P. says:

                HRS I think you’re wrong about the relative merits of Steven E Jones and Judy Wood.
                So far as I can see Wood focuses on evidence and has an interesting hypothesis about the destruction of the twin towers + building 7 which links directly to the current leading astrophysics paradigm (electric universe).
                The other point about Wood is that she is rigorously and methodically scrubbed from wikipedia (see the following from about 40:00 min mark);
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgyWhdSe0Yc

                Steven E Jones on the other hand was directly involved in the suppression of the alternative nuclear energy research of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. This was done in fairly despicable and certainly unscientific manner, and Jones’ allies included employees of big oil. The Fleishmann/Pons energy research (which was dubbed Cold Fusion by Jones by way of ridicule) offered a viable alternative to oil industry products.

                Eugene Mallove resigned from MIT in protest against Jones’ misbehaviour and wrote a lot in support of Fleischmann and Pons and their research, until he was murdered in 2004. His assistant Michael Zebuhr was also murdered (2006). Jones was not

  55. HomeRemedySupply says:

    4/14/2018
    Important update from James Corbett about Boiling Frogs videos

    From…
    When Did Bin Laden Die? – Questions For Corbett #039
    at the video 42:11 mark
    https://youtu.be/2V2LryLph-4?t=42m11s

    Above on this thread there was discussion about the topic of removing Boiling Frogs videos, because Sibel Edmonds responded to Damani on her Newsbud comment section.

    Corbett Member “Wall” brings it up…
    https://www.corbettreport.com/fact-checking-newsbuds-syria-under-siege-video/comment-page-2/#comment-49460

    …and it is also brought up here…
    https://www.corbettreport.com/fact-checking-newsbuds-syria-under-siege-video/comment-page-2/#comment-49389

  56. mousepusher says:

    Sebastian Gorka also tries to smear people
    skeptical about the “mission ” of the white helmets.
    Look his pathetic smear on Assad “using chemical weapons on his
    own people” 5:00,

    or his ridiculing of people questioning the white helmets real agenda
    Starting 10:25

    http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/last-woman-standing-laura-ingraham-nails-it-on-the-sadistic-syrian-strike/

    So Sibel Edmond is now in the same smear-campaign.

    Ghee, I think that’s at least a new car, maybe a BMW(the 7 series or just a cabrio ?).

    btw, I always had a strange feeling watching whole videos of her.
    This narcissism was to bold for someone who just wanted to get the message.

    Thanks James for the good work

  57. candlelight says:

    I’ve a question for Mark, somewhat out of the blue:

    Mark K. P. says:
    04/03/2018 at 6:26 am

    Assange is definitely a gatekeeper ; as anyone with a high profile on MSM. And they all attack 911 truthers publically, which Assange has done

    My question is, can you supply any back-up for your above assertion that Assange has attacked 911 truthers? Are there any other telltale signs that give credence to your definitive statement that Assange is a gate-keeper? Holed up for years on end in an embassy? That’s one amazing helluva sacrifice made to the establishment he’s gate-keeping for, don’t you think? Will the wonders of devotion ever cease!

    I have a comment, also somewhat out of the blue:

    As for Chomsky: He seems married to, and particularly devoted to the rules of scholasticism of which he’s been subject to during his entire scholarly career. But, he is, though, very clever indeed: He dismisses the entirety of AE 9/11 Truth, in large part for failing to live up to his standards of what I would describe as scholastic imperialism, wherein one must run themselves through the gamut of peer review, through the very same established entities residing in the very highest of ivory towers, laying (lying) muted and silent, whom Chomsky fails to mention are funded by the very same government harboring the very entities responsible for 9/11 in the first place. That is quite a stretch, Mr. Chomsky! I see a veritable black hole of conflict here, in a very murky sea of dubious dark interests.

    The fact that Mr. Chomsky doesn’t bother to qualify these “discoveries” of AE 9/11 Truth as being particularly prone to such inevitable conflicts, puts the lie to his argument. But, there is something else he has mentioned about AE 9/11 Truth which is both highly disrespectful and disparaging – he calls out the number of architects and engineers who have signed on as being “minuscule”. This diminution by its very description is, of course, purposely contemptible, designed to round out and further his denigration. But, what Mr. Chomsky either fails to ponder, or wishes to not stop to consider, is that for every architect and engineer willing to risk ridicule, from every direction, from family, friends and work, let alone risking their careers and livelihoods, is the possibility of there being a very great number of professionals who may be in complete agreement with AE 9/11 Truth, but unwilling to face these obvious risks. This very simple and plausible consideration, needless to say, does not bode well with his half-assed, trite, and thoroughly dishonest answer he chose to give from his venerable lectern.

    Shame on you, Chomsky, because I’ve had friends I’ve greatly respected, who’ve, in the past, greatly respected you. It makes me wonder, and it’s truly saddening.

    Anyway, what of Julian Assange? A gate-keeper? I’d love to know why.

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      Shame on you, Chomsky, because I’ve had friends I’ve greatly respected, who’ve, in the past, greatly respected you. It makes me wonder, and it’s truly saddening.

      I’ve lost all respect for the man since he started blabbering lies and disinfo about 9/11.
      He is a case study in “Intellect means nothing when it comes to 9/11 truth”.

    • Mark K. P. says:

      I picked up the three rules of identifying Gatekeepers from Webster Tarpley. They make sense to me.

      they have high media profiles (plenty of air and tv time to get their message across quickly to large audiences);

      they tell nothing new (often regurge old sensational material in new forms to give the appearance of novelty, but nothing serious about government ops, nothing real about the likes of MI6 or Mossad or any of the big players in the monetary system);

      they are all hostile to honest investigation into 911 and those who question the official BS story.
      In this regard I’ve seen one video of Assange some years ago slamming 911 truthers generically and acidly. No I cant provide the link because I wasnt collecting such things back then. But seeing this convinced me Assange was a gatekeeper and I’ve seen nothing to persuade me otherwise since.

      Assange locked up in a London embassy for years sounds dramatic. But to me its just a MSM story. In my view the only inconvenience he suffers is having to get back to that embassy now and then for a speech, interview or photo op.

      • candlelight says:

        Thanks for that, Mark.

        Webster Tarpley I like. Through the years he’s offered outstanding analyses on a myriad of subjects. He’s very thought provoking, to be sure. It’s funny, I just now googled him for a split second and see that he was involved in a lawsuit with Melania Trump wherein she sued him for suggesting her modeling days involved a bit more than “modeling”, if you know what I mean. Apparently the suit has been settled. No doubt somebody thought the better about pursuing it.

        I haven’t listened to Tarpley for a while. The last I recall he was very informative about the nature of the Syrian protests which started out more or less in Homs. He claimed at the time that it was paid mercenaries on behalf of the Saudis, who turned non violent protests into violent ones, e.g., with the use of snipers firing at the crowds, etc. I think his words ring true in this, and many other instances.

        As for Assange, it would be interesting to dig up his slamming a 9/11 truther, so I can see it for myself.

        And a thousand bucks to the photographer who snaps Assange with his pants down outside the embassy!… No, make that ten thousand!

        • Mark K. P. says:

          provided some slapper like Hillary isn’t kneeling in front of him, of course.

          Yes Tarpley is a great researcher and full of good humour and sharp wit. Has an awful left wing blind side that makes me puke (pro FDR monster and even Stalin), but i guess no one is perfect. Some of his exposes are really brilliant.

          You’re right not to take my random word for a random vid you haven’t seen. But I’ve seen it and cant forget it. Ever. Try searching Tarpley’s website for Assange ; I think he’s tackled and exposed him. He’s certainly exposed that troll freak Snowden

          • candlelight says:

            She’s got an excuse – of late, she’s been caught a bit wobbly on her feet at times.

            I’d like to revisit Tarpley – it’s been a while, and also to see what I’ve missed.

            But, I’ve got to say, oil, water, politics and truth – don’t necessarily mix too well.

            Certainly not as well as salt, lemon and a nice shot of tequila.

            Cheers!

  58. BbobKS says:

    James : After weeks of waiting for News dud to retract or modify attack pieces and attempting to comment about implications I finally addressed her husband at ADMIN and you can now send them a thank you note since I am no longer qualified to view their news . I also predicted this intervention about 3 weeks ago because suddenly Sibel Edmonds ran a series of hit pieces about Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett , then demanded Ron Paul Liberty report retract interview with these 21stcenturywire.com reporters for exposing That the White Helmets are at best infiltrated with French American and British intelligence operatives coordinating and staging Terrorist operations and producing propaganda videos at worst just a Saudi controlled operation employing the same people !
    Sybil’s ( on Purpose ) attack is being promoted by her fellow foe whistle blower associate and I assume husbands Army Buddy Lt. Tim Ferner ,.
    My guess is Newsbud.com is now receiving new funding from Ferners Saudi employer, and possibly The Open Society since no opposing comments questioning these hit pieces are allowed and if you address Admin moderator about this ( Si bells husband )you get a email like this .

    We have cancelled your subscription, deleted your comment and refunded the balance of your yearly payment.

    There are many sites out there where you can rant and rave – Newsbud is not one of them. It is obvious from your comment that you do not like Newsbud or its staff, so please go find a site you do like and support, and please do not come back here.

    Newsbud Admin

    Sybille forgot to sign it The News Nazi !

    I supported her from day one at BFP , and with this attack she has insulted many of her followers, contributors including James Corbett, Kurt Nimmo,William Ingdal ,and I assume many who don’t dare speak up for fear of a shriek attack !

    Sorry I digress , Don’t count on NEWSBUT to report on Wikileaks, The Chemical weapons labs report on 12centurywire.com or any other information that might damage Saudi Arabia , or Turkey !
    Other real news organizations wlli take my money when campaigns come up but the news bud princess will have to seek her funding from her Saudi Princes from now on !

    • pearl says:

      Good for you, Bbob!

      You’d think that with so many testimonies shining the light on subscribers being not only gagged & rebuked for contrary opinions, but banished outright and comments scrubbed that NewsBud might experience a twinge of embarrassment and be forced to change their ways just to keep afloat, but apparently not, lacking a collective conscience. Why am I amazed? I’ve seen this exact buckling down and circling the wagons many times over in the institutional religious complex. But it still amazes and baffles me. I just can’t get over that people not only put up with it, they throw more money at it!

      I supported her from day one at BFP , and with this attack she has insulted many of her followers, contributors including James Corbett, Kurt Nimmo,William Ingdal ,and I assume many who don’t dare speak up for fear of a shriek attack !

      See, I don’t get that. Kurt Nimmo fears to take a stand? I find that hard to believe.

      The tone of Ferner’s comments make plainly evident they’ve got a new enforcer to keep the enablers in line. And that xicha/diggens character I had compassion and sympathy for earlier last week turned out to be quite mean-spirited (that’s me biting my tongue to the point of drawing blood).

  59. duc_palatine says:

    Anyone recall Sibel on Faulty Towers (English Comedy series circa 1970s) Sibel is such an old fashioned name. At least that Sibel was funny authentic and had real entertainment value.

  60. I Shot Santa says:

    Just thought I’d share this one with you. I don’t think it’s been posted before, but there are so many…… Anyway, this is their uptake on the results of the syrian strike. While they may be one of those that search for ways in which trumpy looks as if he is fighting this “deep state”, he might be right on the outcome. JimBob who ain’t really even sure what this deep state really is, but he does know that he ain’t important enough for them to mess with him so he’s okay with them.

    It’s the X22 report.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQQphenktOw

    • candlelight says:

      There does seem to be a pattern going on here. It almost seems like Trump is doing a lot of posturing for the benefit of the war-hawk crowd, but not necessarily for the war-hawks we know of in congress, but, for the war-hawks behind the curtain who push the Pentagon’s buttons, and it seems that there might be a mixed crowd in there, too, in the Pentagon, itself. Because with all the buttressing of flotillas, bluster and fanfare, the latest missile strike didn’t seem to amount to a hill of beans, relatively speaking. There could very well be rumblings of the pissed-off in the board rooms of the fortune 25 about such a lack of military action. Maybe that’s why Trump is so dodgy. Maybe he’s the most democratically minded man in the country, with the levelest of playing fields — ’cause he makes no bones about who the fuck he bullshits, as long as it gets him to where he wants to go. I just wish I knew where that was.

      • I Shot Santa says:

        We’re leaving Syria. No war. I believe I called that at the beginning. This is classic Trump. Remember NK? There will be peace there. Where is he going? I think a nationalist surveillance state. JimBob who admires trumpys strategic style but not his end game.

        • candlelight says:

          Santa,

          You mean to tell me that you don’t think he’s going to take down all the red light cameras? And maybe even dismantle the CIA,NSA and especially the FBI who’s on his tail?
          Well, I guess not. I suppose as good as he thinks that head of hair is, it’s not going to deflect a bullet.

  61. VoiceOfArabi says:

    I just stumbled on the following youtube for The Jimmy Dore Shoe… You guys should watch it… It also confirms that we are not alone, but what it shows is truly shocking as it was on MSM media.

    Link below: for YouTube video Bombshell: Professor Stuns MSNBC Panel On Syria

    https://youtu.be/_O2TRzA2ezk

    • manbearpig says:

      Very interesting video from various points of view… won’t take time now to further examine it for its finer gatekeeping qualities but

      firstly, I found intriguing that, amidst so much gratifying mirth and cathartic emotion, there was that little epithet that JudahFriedman slipped in there at around 15minutes and 30seconds;

      “Amazing how many people who are for regime change don’t believe in climate change…” badum ching… okaaaayy…

      and I can’t help noting that the Columbia professor guest refers to that other time he was invited to comment on MSNBC “7 years ago” so really, far from being shockingly and unexpectedly subversive, I imagine that Micah Brzezinski knows perfectly well what he’s going to come out with and

      she doesn’t make a peep – he represents what a significant percentage of Americans think and so must be heard in the interests of pacification and credibility

      and all of this confirms my conviction that Trump and the Brzezinski-style media are there to assist the controlled demolition of the American dream/police state ideal in favor of the rising eastern-brand of sustainable technocracy before an ever increasingly savvy population with access to internet…

      thanks VoA,

      it’s always interesting to watch the John Olivers, Jimmy Dores and Micah Brzezinskis in action…

      at 15minutes and 10seconds:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

      • manbearpig says:

        oh goody! maybe my comment responding to VoA’s YouTube link that’s been awaiting moderation for the last few hours (too many words I guess) will end up being lucky number 700! Hello Posterity!! 8-))

  62. HomeRemedySupply says:

    BINGO!

    “…not put this in partisan terms. This is a U.S. mistake that started 7 years ago… …and we know they sent in the CIA to overthrow Assad, the CIA and Saudi Arabia together….”

    The Permanent State (i.e. elections don’t matter.)

    • I Shot Santa says:

      I like that phrase Permanent State. Far more accurate than that Deep State phrase. And easier to understand for even the dullest (okay, I’m giving a lot of credit to a belief I don’t have personally) person. I know it’s a petty thing, but I’ve never liked that phrase Deep State. It just sounds crazy. Permanent state though is something that people have realized for a very long time. JimBob who is amazed sometimes how much difference a single word can make even when he knows it’s just window dressing.

  63. I Shot Santa says:

    https://www.patreon.com/posts/recent-interview-18277958?utm_medium=post_notification_email&utm_source=post_link&utm_campaign=patron_engagement

    Eva’s response to Sibel. It’s a patreon posting, but I’m sure she wouldn’t mind having her rep cleared (even better than James did) from this affair. I find her amazing. JimBob who got tired out just reading about how she traveled.

    • mkey says:

      I thought LiftTheVeil guy took a break. Or youtube simply stopped sending notifications.

      I shall view the video in the morning, I bet it’s interesting.

    • candlelight says:

      You know, I’m startin’ to think you’re one very good man, there, Charlie Brown…er, I mean JimBob!

      And I do believe old Sibel is going to spiral down like it’s nobody’s business, not years, but in months.

      Cheers!

      • mkey says:

        I don’t think she’s going to spiral. The flight path will be more akin to that of a boulder hurled out of an airplane at mach 7.

        I may only deduce, but her next move is probably going to be a “silenzio stampa” i.e. she’s try to act as if nothing had happened since the move failed so miserably. And since she already doubled down on empty threats, there’s really no more moves left at her disposal. Either go 100% passive aggressive and immerse yourself in the lala-land or backtrack and ask for forgiveness.

        • I Shot Santa says:

          Yeah, she is in a tough spot. But she did put herself there and she has damaged a lot of others in the process. Hard for me to feel sorry for her because of the pain she has inflicted on others. My guess is she’ll limp along. Hopefully, she will use this as an opportunity to become a real journalist (like the ones she craps on), but I doubt I’ll ever learn of it as I only check their site now for my own little statistical nonsense gathering. JimBob who is more like Lucy holding the football than Charlie Brown.

          • candlelight says:

            Santa

            Wasn’t Lucy the one who’d swoop the football away so fast Schultz needed to show lines indicating the velocity of her move – and Charlie Brown would slip on his ass attempting to kick the ball that was no longer there? Anyway, I hear the Peanut’s music in the background….So, you’re more like Lucy, eh? lol

            Real, or truthful journalism isn’t part of her lexicon, it’s nowhere to be found in this woman’s playbook. Its meaning got lost in translation sometime very early along the way.

            _____________________________

            Mkey

            The woman’s already in lala land, especially when you listen to her with an entirely new perspective.

            And I do believe she’d dissolve a tab of cyanide in her mouth before apologizing to anybody – for it would necessarily put her in a position of having to explain her motivations…honestly, as if doing so were even possible for this woman.

            It isn’t.

            • I Shot Santa says:

              That’s the one! And old Charlie never learned. I agree she will never apologize. I hope that she learns, but I’ve always hoped people would do the right thing, despite all of my experiences. JimBob who was asked by someone if he thought the glass was half full or half empty, but they didn’t show him any glass at all! WTF?!

    • mkey says:

      That was a solid reply and just goes to show how many nails James got to hit on the head. As Eva stated as well, too bad so much time and energy got invested into this bullshit.

      Journalist Who Went To Syria Schools Colleague On Syrian Realities
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9F-cHc5Qog

      If you haven’t, check out this older video by Dore on how Eva dishes out facts.

  64. candlelight says:

    Earlier this evening I viewed James’ fact-checking video for a second time. I found it easier the 2nd time around to take in those facts, or rather, the fact that those “facts” of Sibel’s were false, without experiencing the mind-numbing effect James’ exposé originally produced. Although now less sensational and impactful on say an emotional level, the meaning of James’ exposé has become more profound. One thing I realized about the shear length of the video itself, was that there were so many numerous “facts” to check, and it was incumbent on James to be thorough with each one – such is the nature of uncovering obfuscation.

    The profundity here is realizing just how utterly and systemically unscrupulous and thoroughly deceitful Sibel’s hit piece really is, as fact after dishonest fact after calculating, duplicitous, mendacious fact, was painstakingly checked.

    The point I’d like to make here, near the end of his video, James apologizes for even introducing Sibel to his listeners, makes note that he’s going to have to go back and clarify any aspect of past material with regard to Sibel that can’t be independently verified, a daunting task as he intimated, and as anybody could well imagine, and when couching this in terms of the importance of the information being primary, and not the person, that’s all well and good, James can go back and qualify all the material proportionate to its exposure to Sibel’s brand new credibility deficit: But, to simply clean up past material, and let it go at that, may nearly constitute a disservice both to James’ own self, and we, his listeners, and well beyond.

    As James’ himself said, this was a very special edition of The Corbett Report, though one he absolutely loathed to do, though do he must, and he did an outstanding job, par excellence, yet, besides reexamining his past collaborative work, he very clearly states that this is where it ends, he washes his hands and says goodbye to this woman. My point is, he makes no mention of endeavoring to explore the “why” of Sibel’s thorough dishonestly, the depth of which is exemplified by the mere fact that James is compelled to clarify the work he’s done with her. On the contrary, it seems as though by what he has stated, he’s not going to take it any further, meaning he is not going to examine the whys and wherefores of her motivations, what makes her tick, whereby in doing so, he may begin to uncover certain patterns, and may ascertain just how long she’s been “ticking” as she is today. How far back does her deceit go? I would say, logically, James believes he may have been deceived from the the very beginning of his association with her, otherwise why would he have felt the need to apologize for his introducing her? Therefore, wouldn’t it be important from a Truth perspective to uncover and understand everything we can about her from fully historical perspective?

    Sibel, as she stands within the genre of alternative news, and especially within the Truth movement, is a very unique figure. In the post 9/11 era, for the seekers of that Truth, she is literally iconic.

    Therefore, in her case in particular, the person, i.e., the full understanding of the person, knowing who that person really is, and what that person has done in potentially (and probably) manipulating our understanding, is just as important, if not more so, as the “information”. Sibel, the person, is very much worth examining in totality. Hers would be a clarification certainly more than worth the effort, exceedingly so.

    That’s my point.

    • I Shot Santa says:

      Those are very good points. However, I’m sticking to the simplest of solutions: Never believe anything she says. JimBob who has found his simple mind really DOES like the simple things. Like explanations.

      • candlelight says:

        KISS? With Sibel?

        There’s an internal conflict going on, that unfortunately doesn’t play well with the likes of a simple mind: Though an explanation may be in itself simple, getting there may be a bit more complex.

        Besides, I’ll agree, JimBob, that you have a simple mind if you’ll agree the moon is made of cheese. 🙂

        Next up, we’ll have to discuss Nancy Pelosi, and what she had to say regarding the outgoing Bush administration at the time, and how it might relate to our discussion.

        • I Shot Santa says:

          Please let’s not talk about whatever that crazy pelosi has to say. By the way, her son has the contract to clean up the racetrack in Daytona Beach. They hire about fifty workers for about 4 hours. Minimum wage of course. He gets 1 million dollars for each event. I’m sure it’s not a payoff. JimBob who knows the moon is made of cheese, but it’s swiss so he ain’t building a rocket to get there.

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      James wears many hats. And hats off to him for that!
      However I don’t believe he is a psychologist.

      And even if he were one, he has made it perfectly clear that he has no interest in pursuing this matter, nor anything to do with Sibel, any further.

      BTW candlelight did you catch my post where I found an answer to one of your questions?

      corbettreport.com/fact-checking-newsbuds-syria-under-siege-video/comment-page-2/#comment-50232

      • candlelight says:

        Fawlty,

        You say: However I don’t believe he is a psychologist.

        Not that anything I had to comment about had a lick to do with psychology, per se – any more so than any open source investigation might have – I do believe with or without a psychologist’s hat on, as you mention, James can out psychoanalyze many a psychologist. So, James needn’t be The Corbett, Psy.D Report.

        You went on further to say: And even if he were one, he has made it perfectly clear that he has no interest in pursuing this matter, nor anything to do with Sibel, any further.

        Yes, this is absolutely correct, albeit, completely unnecessary, redundant and unproductive to restate. The fact is, though phrased a little differently, it’s precisely what I have already stated – …besides reexamining his past collaborative work, he very clearly states that this is where it ends, he washes his hands and says goodbye to this woman.

        I don’t quite understand? Was it your point to tell me something I already know? Why bother?

        In any event, this wasn’t the focus of my argument, nor was it my argument. My argument, which I’ll elaborate, is as follows:

        1. Of James’ fact-checking video, Sibel, if I may paraphrase, would like the world to think was a viscous and unwarranted smear attack. Nope! Hardly. It was, on the contrary, a thoroughly warranted, point by point, refutation of a so-called report that he exposed as pervasively fraudulent and misleading.

        2. It was so fraudulent and misleading a report as to indeed warrant that he will go back and vet all his collaborative work that he’s ever done in association with her, which clearly indicates he strongly suspects she may very well have been fraudulent from the first they met.

        3. Which would mean to anyone save the brain dead, or perhaps even to to the brain dead, that Sibel had been fraudulent prior to his association with him. And if that is so, which is highly likely, it is incumbent to at least attempt to find out how long this has been going on.

        4. Because of her iconic stature in the Truth movement, it is an important and critical issue, and one not to be taken lightly, and can potentially change how people view 9/11.

        Therefore, I do call on James, given his skills and his years of association with her to not only vet his prior material, but to endeavor to unravel yet one more mystery – that of Sibel Edmonds, herself.

        If anybody can do that, it would be him, with or without wearing a hat.

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          Two things.

          1. I think James can/will decide on his own, whether he should alter any material on his website.

          2. I think Sibel is the genuine thing. No disinfo agent, shill, psycho, etc. Just way over-reacted to comments she took personally about her father (ie. terrorist doctors in Syria).

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          I have already stated – …besides reexamining his past collaborative work, he very clearly states that this is where it ends, he washes his hands and says goodbye to this woman…

          …Therefore, I do call on James, given his skills and his years of association with her to not only vet his prior material, but to endeavor to unravel yet one more mystery – that of Sibel Edmonds, herself.

          You can’t have it both ways candlelight:
          Acknowledging that he has said goodbye to her AND then calling on him to do research on her.

          • candlelight says:

            Several things:

            I clearly understand what James has stated.

            I understand it his prerogative to do as he wishes.

            I also understand, as a human being, I have a right, and in this case, an obligation to my conscience, to ask, call, persuade, argue – however you want to put it – for him to reconsider.

            That’s all. It’s really very simple.

            You think she’s legit? You think this is a one-off?

            Really?

            Do you think James Corbett would apologize to his listeners for introducing her?

            Because of a one-off?

            Do you think he feels compelled to “clarify”, to use his term,
            all his prior work that he’s done with her?

            Because of a one-off?

            Do realize how time consuming a prospect like that is?

            All for a one-off?

          • I Shot Santa says:

            Fawlty, SE gave James no choice but to check all their previous collaborations. In the academic world, when you find new data which calls into question your previous assumptions, you must re-examine all of the previous data. This is how you find out the truth of a matter. Sibel, being a psycho, has brought all of her “contributions” under suspicion with her vicious smear pieces. JimBob who knows that stress brings out who we really are deep inside.

      • candlelight says:

        Fawlty,

        No, I wasn’t aware of your earlier post concerning Sibel’s take on building demolitions until you mentioned it in your above post.
        Thanks for that. It is very informative, for sure.

        And, do you want to know what?

        Her answer absolutely reeks of dishonestly. Reeks to high holy hell of it!

        It’s amazing how she, on such a critical, overarching subject, one that directly effects all that she purports to be, can so easily play Micky the Dunce. She’s a slippery gal. I can even sense her overusing her normal lack of syntax to further obfuscate the pretense of her ignorance; she who is so completely astute on any and all other matters, where she steadfastly uncovers and gleans the “truth” where others fail. When she has opined on everything under the sun, and also for that which is hidden under shadows, she offers no opinion, whatsoever, for something as critical as buildings having been imploded on 9/11?

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          You’re welcome candlelight. It was quite the ear-opener for me too (the podcasts).

          I was quite shocked by her answers, and then for her to go on just a few years later to be come a false flag expert! If you haven’t, you should listen to that second interview where she tears apart the 2016 Brussels bombings and references several other false flags.

          Having said that, I have flesh and blood family members who are extremely intelligent, well-read, etc. and they haven’t a clue what happened on 9/11 nor about the JFK assassination etc.!!

          So no, let’s not throw the baby (Sibel) out with the bath water (Syrian hit piece) just yet.
          Keep a close watch on her as she goes forward? Sure.

  65. candlelight says:

    Fair enough. I was just gonna mention something she said in a blanket statement about a certain judicial inquiry being “off the table”. But, no matter. Interesting about the Daytona thing. Goes to show you what mothers will do for their children.

    Btw, what if I told you that that cheese wasn’t swiss, but american? Would you be interested in perhaps some of Musk’s new rocket designs?

    • I Shot Santa says:

      Holding out for Chedder! Her son is too dirty for politics, which is hard to believe. I hear she is worried about N.K. Missile sales as well. JimBob who finds it hard to believe that anyone is too dirty for politics.

      • candlelight says:

        Hmm, sounds good. How about a little Stilton, to go with that nice red wine rocket fuel?

        So, I suppose she’s worried she may not getting her cut?

        …too dirty for politics. Now that pure gem made me laugh the you know what out loud.

        Though, if we go on too much longer with this banter, either you or I (most likely) are going to get the ” snip“!

        Cheers!

  66. Asa says:

    As a NEWSBUD subscriber I made a comment on their rebuttal. They deleted my comment so I made a comment that they deleted it. They just send me this response below and CANCELED my subscription! This is what I received in my email:
    Your membership has been cancelled with a full refund of your subscription.

    We encourage respectful commentary, but our site is not a blog or social media where anything goes.

    As to Corbett – you actually have things exactly backwards. It was Corbett who launched his vicious unwarranted attack on Sibel & Newsbud.

    Sibel spent several weeks researching & investigating Beeley and Bartlett, all the while being attacked on social media with vile, threatening – purely disgusting tweets – supported and re-tweeted by Corbett. She then produced her video report on Beeley & Bartlett – the report had nothing to do with Corbett. Yet he chose to insert himself into the narrative with his smear attack on Sibel, attempting to discredit her and her report by twisting facts, omitting facts and most of Sibel’s actual report in a supposed “rebuttal”, with cutesy, snide remarks meant solely to denigrate Sibel – nothing at all to do with her report.

    If you wish to choose Corbett’s version and prefer his site, that is of course your right – please go there

    I’m so disappointed in the NEWSBUD organization! Something is dirty in the Milk at NEWSBUD!

    • EUbrainwashing says:

      Frankly I am reluctant to invest too much faith in people who have worked with secret intelligence services. Potentially too slippery – always must remain suspect.

      Sibel Edmond’s recent strange behaviour reminds me of MI5 whistleblower David Shayler who, to my knowledge, never really told us anything we could not have known or worked-out without his ‘help’ (or else was generally unsubstantiated).

      When Shayler went, apparently, then totally nuts the result was that he just discredited everything he was associated with before or since.

      Conversely: when UK WMD inspector Dr David Kelly opened up on Iraq facts he was soon found dead – which qualified to me that the small amount he had already said was indeed very important. What he could have said, to a wider topic, would likely be more important still. I think he ‘ended up dead in the woods’ to first cause other such truly important people, with deep knowledge, to know what the outcome would be in store for them as well.

  67. haraldmeling says:

    It’s beyond odd. I have this rule on my own, which probably most do, that ANY sincere follower of Truth will act in a sincere and respectful manner. Always ready to object of course, but having an open mind and ALWAYS using a constructive language. To mention a good example that most know; James Corbett. Just a gutfeeling.
    Now here is a tweeter comment to me from “sibel” (is it really her?) :
    “… Get the he** out of “my” twitter space…”.
    And I had not even STARTED to ask questions about B & B.
    And honestly furtheron, her comments and recommended reading would be something coming from the desk of Rita Katz at SITE.
    Until now I have always regarded responses like this as coming from what later clearly turns out to be disinfo agents.
    Has “sibel” just shown herself?
    James is in my opinion one of the best sources of truth telling. To such a point that he must be regarded as a threat by the forces that shouldn’t be.
    Did he therefore smell a rat when “sibel” suddenly had a controlled demolition of Truth? Maybe even meant to demolish James as well through Guilt by Association?

    Timing and topic are also odd.
    At this critical junction in time with regards to Syria, I would expect the Criminals to go All In to finish of Syria before Iran.
    Is “sibel” a sleeping agent doing her part?
    From her contradictory comments on B&B, WH and general Syria it certainly looks like it.

  68. haraldmeling says:

    Sibel, your knowledge of 9/11, the controlled demolition of at LEAST the Three Towers,and the agenda behind it has made you aware of the overriding plan to destroy 7 countries in the Middle East,Syria one of them. Why make fun of the President? More important issues are at hand.

  69. ashley says:

    obviously, after seeing the rebuttal and then Sibel’s video, Corbett is clearly the one engaging in good faith in this dispute. Corbett, as usual, is concerned with the Truth.

    however, I am disturbed by the amount of comments relating to Sibel’s perceived “mental instability” and its relation to her gender. “oh, she’s acting bipolar because she’s going through menopause,” “she’s just jealous of B&B bc women hate each other,” and the old saw “of course she’s acting this way – she’s an irrational woman!” are peculiar responses which, to me, are themselves irrational, detached from reality, and rooted in bigoted gender bias. Sibel is a person with her own character. if she handled this situation poorly, lacking tact, intellectual honesty, integrity, and grace, those are actions springing from her own character, not her gender or age. you wouldn’t say any of these things based on her ethnicity, it is equally untrue as to her gender.

    • I Shot Santa says:

      Actually, you do have to include her age and gender. Biology trumps equality. Unfortunately, feminazis have equated that noting obvious differences between sexes are simply not true. I’m not saying the comments were justified, but a woman’s perspective is nothing like a man’s. I am of the opinion our differences are wonderfully complementary, but that is unfashionable at the moment. Not that it stops me. JimBob who don’t see different as superior/inferior.

    • colin786 says:

      You seem to be claiming that we or you are rational, and that irrationality is in others, that women do not feel jealousy and hate towards each other or others. While I applaud your defence of women, who are often misunderstood and misunderstanding, I cannot agree. Humans are not always rational, and to expect that we are is the source of many of our problems.

    • mkey says:

      are themselves irrational, detached from reality

      People form opinions, as well as bias, based on their life experience (which may not be very accurate, if at all) which is usually imbued, among other influences, with natural gender roles. My experience states women tend to be more erratic due to whatever. It’s a relatively small sample though and I didn’t really pay much attention to my control group.

      Pinning all of this to menopause is a stretch, but menopause can be a real bitch.

      • I Shot Santa says:

        Women are certainly more emotional. They also talk about 5x a day more than men, so that has physical consequences on the brain structure, as well as the emotional centers. Women also notice details, while men don’t see that big pile of beer cans by the back door. While, the comments you made on “menopause”, etc., probably weren’t made with any deep understanding of the situation; they do have an effect. I communicate with females a lot differently than I do with men. The problem is that feminazis have made these differences about power over one another, rather than becoming more powerful together. JimBob who knows he probably should just walk away, but knows he won’t.

  70. haraldmeling says:

    Sorry guys.
    I have a message to all commentators here.
    Of course we could all be blamed for badmouthing and smearing.
    Point is we haven’t. I can only speak for myself when I say that I was confused by some comments by Sibel/Newsbud about B&B and Assad.
    After having asked politely I was bluntly told to get the he** out of “her” twitter space.
    Jaws dropped.
    Then I came across some crude comments about Beeleys personal life….?!!
    So, anyway I got this rule of mine. Anyone I speak with I speak politely.
    If not, I waste my time.
    To me that’s a Truth Litmus Test.

    Here. For you all.
    WE ARE GARBAGE :

    “… Herald, I think that would be great. A court case will bring out (expose)everything- including shady funding and background for these lunatic operatives. I wage my bet: you will see no such a thing. Why do you think they did not go after Guardian, Channel 4, Middle East Monitor, BBC, Richie Allen, and hundreds of other news organizations whether MSM or alternative? Because they know their shit will come out, and they know that they have ‘ZERO’ ground/case. Now, I have received several reports from twitter/Corbett researchers regarding your posts and bad-mouthing Newsbud (and myself). I am going to try and be gracious here and give you an opportunity to get out of this amazing site/community. You will be Number 28. We have nearly 4000 subscribers here. Since our latest expose on human-waste B-B we have gotten rid of 27 viruses (trolling and blinded idiots) and have had a net gain of 71 new subscribers for the month of April. What I am trying to say: We are cleaning house, and seeing your idiotic attacks and comments out there we’d like to see you leave and join the lunatics here (I invite all members to read the comments posted by people like Herald and 7 other despicable Corbett Fund-ers here: see for yourself the ones we have disposed of): https://www.corbettreport.com/fact-checking-newsbuds-syria-under-siege-video/#comments (We now call it Newsbud Garbage Disposal- where removed ugly people get recycles). In 2013, due to our coverage of ‘The Intercept’ we had to remove 80 ignorant people, so this is not a new practice… “.

    All this from initiating an honest conversation.

    • I Shot Santa says:

      Wow! So we’re the Despicables now. I guess that’s a step up from being the Deplorables. lmao I guess that makes her the CNN of the internet news services. Thanks for that update. JimBob who thinks that Sibel isn’t still on the crazy train as she has obviously transferred to the b#tch express.

    • mkey says:

      This was communicated to you privately or publicly?

      Sibel does not appear to be getting any better. She sounds more and more like Alex Jones to me. Well, AJ from those insane moments of his, not the regular AJ.

      • haraldmeling says:

        Public on Newsbud.
        This is not about me. Or Sibel. It’s about having focus where it should be. On Truth before they blow up Syria. Again.
        B&B is on it. Question is of course why not Sibel.

    • Octium says:

      So I guess she doesn’t mind giving a few people the boot since the subscription fairies just magically top up the accounts for her…how convenient!

      • haraldmeling says:

        What do you mean?

        • mkey says:

          I assume he’s referring to some oddities in Newsbud financing. Supposedly, there were some large last minute contributions to the fund drive on kickstarter.

        • Octium says:

          I was referring to the part “[Newsbud] had a net gain of 71 new subscribers for the month of April.”

          I find that hard to believe given the number of people who have canceled their subscription or have been publicly given the boot.

          A good way to secretly fund an subscription based organsation would be to create a large number of robo subscriptions, each one paying a small amount.

          Of course all this is only speculation, it is imposable to verify if independent media is really independent or not.

  71. Fawlty Towers says:

    I will make comments on various posts from the last month or so…

    manbearpig says: 04/02/2018 at 7:51 pm
    “In short, she was brilliantly ambiguous while apparently toeing the Bush-it official fairytale line.”

    You have no proof at all that she was deliberately ambiguous.
    I have said this more than once now, in 2001-2002 when most of her disclosures were initially revealed almost no one was a 9/11 truther.
    The vast majority of the public was still buying the Bin Laden fairy tale.

    So why try to discredit Sibel on her Bin Laden stories when almost everyone else saw him as the 9/11 mastermind?
    Was she supposed to have ‘cracked the code’ or ‘solved the 9/11 puzzle’ simply by virtue of working at the FBI?

    Would you have labeled James Corbett a gatekeeper in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005? Because during that time even James was blissfully ignorant of what
    happened on 9/11.
    Heck, I guess I was a gatekeeper too! And far longer than James was! I’m too embarrassed to say when I woke up to 9/11 truth.

    peter.fairhurst says: 04/02/2018 at 11:15 pm
    “In the early days AQ meant BL, and BL meant AQ, in most peoples minds anyhow. Probably still does for the majority of people. So, for these people at least then, SE was effectively supporting the official version wasn’t she?”

    And what would be wrong about that, given the time context when all of this was being said?

    “You are quite right, James did refer to the daunting task of independent verification [that damn memory again!] late on in his vid. I just hope that he starts that task with Gladio B which IMO is the most important.”

    No, that is not what he said. This is what he said:
    “I’ll have to add a clarification to all my Sibel Edmonds interviews and videos and podcasts … we can’t take Sibel’s word as a trustworthy reliable source etc.”

    There is a BIG difference between adding clarifications and independently verifying all Sibel-related info on his site. You simply cut and paste the clarification. Time-consuming sure, but not even remotely close to the “daunting task of independent verification” of the Sibel-related material that you mentioned.

  72. Fawlty Towers says:

    manbearpig says: 04/02/2018 at 6:54 pm

    “Obviously my personal assessment is that Sibel Edmonds is most probably a Gatekeeper.”

    mkey says: 04/02/2018 at 7:16 pm

    “A gatekeeper may be also someone who doesn’t understand the “truth” and has collected a base of followers putting out information that fits their point of view, which, for all intents and purposes, may be crippled (by various forms of bias, for instance.) So, there must not be something sinister going on behind the curtain.”

    Exactly.

    candlelight says: 04/30/2018 at 7:37 am

    “I want to know exactly why this most heralded 9/11 whistle-blower-cum-journalist of alternative news…”

    How did she earn that title? 9/11 whistle-blower? Someone who was in on 9/11 and blew the whistle? Hardly!

    Her biggest claim to fame was exposing the corruption and cover-up going on at the FBI, and the highest levels of the U.S. government.

    “I contend that the importance of Sibel Edmonds’ legacy in the 9/11 truth movement, based upon her involvement molding public perception of the event warrants she be entered onto the list of suspects contributing to it…”

    Sibel has little legacy in the 9/11 truth movement per se. A little bit of fact-checking might be in order.

    I Shot Santa says: 04/30/2018 at 7:50 am

    “She went all postal on them because they turned down her offer to work for her.”

    I think you have that completely backwards. I believe they approached Sibel, Sibel checked them out, then was not interested in working with them.

    I am with mkey on this one. You have absolutely nothing on Sibel.
    Go back and read her writings. Watch her videos. She has been incredibly consistent with her views.
    Make no mistake about it, Sibel is a control freak. Always has been. But she’s not a government gatekeeper. With Sibel it’s WYSIWYG.

    Oh, and just for the record, I am not defending her attack on the B.B. girls in any way!

    • candlelight says:

      Fawlty Towers,

      You say “Sibel has little legacy in the 9/11 truth movement per se. A little bit of fact-checking might be in order.”

      Here’s a little fact-checking that takes about a billionth of a second.

      Simply google: 9/11 truth sibel edmonds

      Here’s two of dozens of related articles, videos, etc., etc.

      Feel free to help yourself!

      http://911truth.org/sibel-edmonds-case-the-real-culprits-of-911/

      https://www.wanttoknow.info/911whistlebloweredmonds

      Question still remains: Is she really the incorruptible, fresh, young, doe-eyed, newbie beauty, who struggled to get past her unyielding superiors – Mueller of all people, reaching out to the Justice Department and the Senate Judiciary Committee, meeting with members of the 9/11 families, etc., to tell her story of incredibly wide spread corruption reaching world wide and to the highest levels of government, foreign and domestic? Or, is she a hand-picked, cream-of-the-crop, foreign born and trained United States’ intelligence asset, brought in at just the right time to provide immense self-flagellating extra cover for the largest sanctioned black operation ever conceived?

      If the latter, I’ll be the first to admit she’s GOOD!

      By golly, she’s good!

      • Fawlty Towers says:

        Here’s a little fact-checking that takes about a billionth of a second.

        Simply google: 9/11 truth sibel edmonds

        Here’s two of dozens of related articles, videos, etc., etc.

        No that’s cheating! Try spending a few dozen hours reading and watching videos etc. on Sibel, learning about her on your own, and not relying on Wiki’s or any other ‘Coles Notes’ version.

        In other words, show us the goods!

        What evidence do you have that led you to characterize Sibel as “this most heralded 9/11 whistle-blower”?

        As many details as possible would be appreciated.

        Sibel surfaced on the coattails of 9/11. That does not make her a 9/11 whistleblower.
        In fact, to this day, I am not aware of single person on this planet who is a 9/11 whistleblower!

        • candlelight says:

          Again:

          “Sibel has little legacy in the 9/11 truth movement per se. A little bit of fact-checking might be in order.”

          You are claiming that Sibel has little legacy in the 9/11 truth movement, correct? And, since I am claiming the opposite, you suggested a little fact-checking would be in order. Correct?

          As for your – In other words, show us the goods!

          I simply googled “9/11 truth sibel edmonds”, and instantly came up with plenty of goods! I don’t understand – what don’t you get? What are you not connecting? There are literally dozens and dozens of references to Sibel and 9/11 whistle-blowing. In any number of her interviews there ensues the discussion of FBI incompetence with regard to their dropping the ball in preventing the attacks of that day.

          Her story about her blowing the whistle on FBI incompetence was printed in every major newspaper. She even appeared on 60 minutes. How much more of a public roll out do you need?

          Do you not like the phrase “most heralded”? How about we substitute it for “well known”. Does that work for you?

          Also, notwithstanding the actual specifics of what she was charging the FBI with, i.e., covering up internal espionage in her department, etc., her story of being the most gagged woman in America – an idea she oft repeats – certainly has been conflated with 9/11. Hence, many, many an article headliner reads Sibel Edmonds 9/11 whistle-blower.

          Also, lest you continue to nitpick, the 9/11 whistle-blower connotation further conflates with 9/11 truth movement, especially when back in the day numerous 9/11 truth websites referenced her whistle-blowing.

          So, I’ll be damned if you can’t see how she has quite a legacy with regard to 9/11.

          If you would, then, please connect these dots for me, because I really don’t want to be damned. 🙂

          By the way, I am sorry if you think I cheated by using google. lol As old school as I am, I guess I could have gone to the local library and start fiddling with the microfiche, but, nah, too lazy.

          Now, what is all this about: Try spending a few dozen hours reading and watching videos etc. on Sibel, learning about her on your own, and not relying on Wiki’s or any other ‘Coles Notes’ version.”?
          You’re not making any sense to me. Do you have some preferred references you feel are worthwhile pursuing? Please feel free to list them. I’ll be happy to take a look.

          Just for fun, listen to my evidence our lady is the most heralded – listen in @ 5:53 mins

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Um6Esrs6o

          Last but not least (whew!):

          “In fact, to this day, I am not aware of single person on this planet who is a 9/11 whistleblower!”

          https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-the-911-whistleblowers/

          https://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm

          I rest my case your Honor.

          • Fawlty Towers says:

            Also, notwithstanding the actual specifics of what she was charging the FBI with, i.e., covering up internal espionage in her department, etc., her story of being the most gagged woman in America – an idea she oft repeats – certainly has been conflated with 9/11. Hence, many, many an article headliner reads Sibel Edmonds 9/11 whistle-blower.

            Exactly and this is the problem. She was gagged for various reasons. I contend the 9/11 element specifically, was not a major factor.

            So, I’ll be damned if you can’t see how she has quite a legacy with regard to 9/11.

            If you would, then, please connect these dots for me, because I really don’t want to be damned. ??

            Her 9/11 story fits with the official narrative, save for the FBI and others not acting in a timely manner to prior tips.

            If her story fit with what really happened on 9/11 I would consider her a 9/11 whistleblower.

            Now, what is all this about: Try spending a few dozen hours reading and watching videos etc. on Sibel, learning about her on your own, and not relying on Wiki’s or any other ‘Coles Notes’ version.”?
            You’re not making any sense to me. Do you have some preferred references you feel are worthwhile pursuing? Please feel free to list them. I’ll be happy to take a look.

            I’m just saying that only by “paying your dues” spending hours and hours watching videos of her, reading her interviews/books etc. as I have, can you see that she has been extremely consistent with her story. And you will see that the 9/11 element plays a small part in her overall whistleblowing. It’s always the mention of the Bin Laden group planning an attack, buildings etc. That’s the extent of it.

            Just for fun, listen to my evidence our lady is the most heralded – listen in @ 5:53 mins

            youtube.com/watch?v=q9Um6Esrs6o

            I did listen. Alex Jones certainly praises Sibel as “one of the biggest whistleblowers”, but he never describes her as a 9/11 whistleblower. That’s my whole point.

            “In fact, to this day, I am not aware of single person on this planet who is a 9/11 whistleblower!”

            corbettreport.com/meet-the-911-whistleblowers/
            corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm

            I rest my case your Honor.

            Sometime in the future in another thread I will address this. I think this thread should be devoted to Sibel and/or the B.B. girls.

            • I Shot Santa says:

              I’m confused. Are you both arguing the same points? Or am I more stoned than I thought? Or both? I don’t know. JimBob who is now exhausted after watching videos of extreme workout videos of fitness models.

            • candlelight says:

              You’re confused, Santa? I think that’s the point. It ain’t the weed.

              Fawlty, you’re just never going to ever get it, I’m afraid, by happenstance or with intent. And, frankly, I don’t care either way.

              Your logic, your conjectures, your conclusions are beyond meaningless from my perspective. So, let’s not bother.

              And also, please don’t ever infer, or otherwise tell me anything again about “paying my dues”. In this one instance, I truly hope you’ll understand, and that’s all I’m ever going to ask of you.

              Since you seem to have missed it, since you haven’t as yet copied it and italicized it, like you do with just about each and every point I make, I’ll save you the trouble and re-post myself.

              As far as I’m concerned, it’s a question for you, or anybody, to decide for themselves.

              Please know this post is the last I’m going to discuss Sibel Edmonds with you. Therefore, should you decide you’d like to offer a comment to me on the subject of Sibel, you shall have the last word on it:

              Question still remains: Is she really the incorruptible, fresh, young, doe-eyed, newbie beauty, who struggled to get past her unyielding superiors – Mueller of all people, reaching out to the Justice Department and the Senate Judiciary Committee, meeting with members of the 9/11 families, etc., to tell her story of incredibly wide spread corruption reaching world wide and to the highest levels of government, foreign and domestic? Or, is she a hand-picked, cream-of-the-crop, foreign born and trained United States’ intelligence asset, brought in at just the right time to provide immense self-flagellating extra cover for the largest sanctioned black operation ever conceived?

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                Question still remains: Is she really the incorruptible, fresh, young, doe-eyed, newbie beauty, who struggled to get past her unyielding superiors – Mueller of all people, reaching out to the Justice Department and the Senate Judiciary Committee, meeting with members of the 9/11 families, etc., to tell her story of incredibly wide spread corruption reaching world wide and to the highest levels of government, foreign and domestic?

                Or, is she a hand-picked, cream-of-the-crop, foreign born and trained United States’ intelligence asset, brought in at just the right time to provide immense self-flagellating extra cover for the largest sanctioned black operation ever conceived?

                Definitely the former. But you forgot to add these important descriptors: control freak, huge ego, short-tempered, aggressive style, thin-skinned.

                As far as this whole debacle has gone I quickly came to the conclusion that one major item set off Sibel; that of Bartlett painting Syrian doctors as terrorists. That caused her to go ballistic like she never has before (having taken it as a personal assault).

                But I wasn’t the only one who came to this conclusion.
                Others on this site have and others at Newsbud too, including her husband who’s in one of the best positions to know.

    • pearl says:

      Fawlty Towers, first quoting IShotSanta, said (which I italicized for clarity):

      “I Shot Santa says: 04/30/2018 at 7:50 am

      ‘She went all postal on them because they turned down her offer to work for her.’

      “I think you have that completely backwards. I believe they approached Sibel, Sibel checked them out, then was not interested in working with them.”

      _______________

      Eva Bartlett specifically responded to that:

      “Edmonds lied by stating she first became aware of myself and Vanessa Beeley when we started trying to get her to interview us last year. That’s not how events played out. Here is one of our first actual communications, Edmonds replying to my request that Newsbud kindly credit me for the nearly two minutes (not 2 seconds) of footage NB used. Following is our communication:”

      [what follows is a series of screenshots including the initial correspondence deliberately omitted from Sibel’s smear job; see link:]

      ingaza.wordpress.com/2018/04/17/recent-interview-eva-bartlett-on-syria-smear-campaign/#jp-carousel-24396

      Due to so many other cross-commenting on various posts here, it’s likely you may have missed the entire, point-by-point response by Ms. Bartlett which was linked to by JimBob a couple weeks ago:

      patreon.com/posts/recent-interview-18277958?utm_medium=post_notification_email&utm_source=post_link&utm_campaign=patron_engagement

      • I Shot Santa says:

        Yeah, she does make it easy to miss things. while she is thorough, one has to pay close attention. JimBob who often reads things while he is under the influence of substances which cause his attention to wander.

        • pearl says:

          No kidding. It was encyclopedic!

          As for a wandering attention span, at least you’ve got a good reason. Me? Still looking…it was here a minute ago…

      • Fawlty Towers says:

        Thanks pearl, yes I had missed Ms. Bartlett’s response.
        I am now officially caught up. 🙂
        I am much more inclined to believe Ms. Bartlett’s story on this one.

  73. candlelight says:

    The link below, which I had missed, was provided by bayer, a Corbett member, who posted it much earlier in this thread.

    I find it to be a very compelling read. For anyone holding the notion, or simply entertaining it, that Sibel Edmonds may have been an agent of disinformation from the very start, the article draws certain evidentiary conclusions, or at the very least, interpretations, in support of such a notion.

    So, for anyone still interested:

    https://italkyoubored.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/the-secrets-of-sibel-edmonds/

    • manbearpig says:

      After a quick pre-hamster wheel read of this voluminous article

      I’d say the detailed documentation of the discrepencies, distortions and lies is quite interesting

      and it becomes clear that she quite definately espoused the LIHOP-Bin Laden did it fairy tale

      but the interpretation and personal biases of the author do not correspond to my own, on several levels.

      Basically, I do not believe Sibel Edmonds is a “paranoid…sociopathic fabulist”

      and I do find it quite possible that members of government would take bribes, be subject to blackmail and sell nuclear secrets.

      I also do not believe it’s reasonable to imagine that “Jews and Muslims will despise each other for all eternity” and it seems quite plausible and even probable that their political factions can “find a happy elysium of cooperation”.

      This article also seems to confirm my hunch that Sibel Edmonds largely defused and diffused the truth movement through distraction based on a form of bait and switch.

      but a reread might be worth the effort.

      • manbearpig says:

        ADDENDUM:

        I wrote:

        “…Basically, I do not believe Sibel Edmonds is a “paranoid…sociopathic fabulist”…”

        No, I believe she is a fabulist of another variety.

        Paranoid sociopathic liars aren’t given the high-level, high-profile credence and attention she was given by both government and the media. Extraordinary telegenic charisma not withstanding.

        • manbearpig says:

          unless, of course,… it serves some high-level, high-profile purpose…?

          I said:

          “…I’d say the detailed documentation of the discrepencies, distortions and lies is quite interesting…”

          For clarification these “documented discrepencies” concern varying versions of Sibel Edmonds’ own accounts and narratives.

      • I Shot Santa says:

        You read the whole thing? I admit, SE has already fell off my list of people I give a rat’s patootie about. Ergo, no novels on her for me! Though the bit I read seemed familiar, and well-written. JimBob who ain’t got but so much attention to span these days.

        • manbearpig says:

          I skimmed the commentary of the texts that I had already read over the years. In fact, to tell ya the truth I’d already picked up on a few of the same inconsistencies… but I’m a hamster with little self-discipline and rigour so I never went about writing such an exposée. HOwever I did write a couple of letters to my favourite journalists at the time but my arguments were quite apparently and admittedly far from compelling as centered around other more superfluous details; LIHOP, the Uncle who was mayor of Istanbul, living in Washington DC, Russian stint… anyhow…I was young and foolish…now I’m …no nevermind…

          • I Shot Santa says:

            Yeah, the problem with learning is we have to first learn just how stupid we were before we learnt this new thing and that is always just after we were congratulating ourselves for being so smart and all. JimBob who is on a mission to warp the world’s mind now. No particular reason. Maybe I just like Mondays.

          • candlelight says:

            Add some ten years, subtract foolish.

            Not as bad thing.

            As I read the article, the word fabulist was, indeed, forming.

            What variety of fabulist comes to mind, MBP?

            One thing’s for sure, this lady does not, by any means, represent your garden variety. 🙂

      • Fawlty Towers says:

        …and it becomes clear that she quite definately espoused the LIHOP-Bin Laden did it fairy tale…

        Yes she did, for many years. Although fairly recently she has moved to the MIHOP camp. So that’s definitely an improvement.

        And what are we to make of Snowden (whom Sibel does not believe is a legit whistleblower) who also is a Bin-Laden fairy tale believer?

        And how about Lindauer, another whistleblower who espouses the LIHOP-Bin Laden fairy tale?

        It seems hardly any public figure can get the 9/11 story straight!

        • I Shot Santa says:

          If they could get the story straight, they wouldn’t be a public figure. This doesn’t mean they’re all spies either. They could be wrong, crazy, entertaining, a ton of things. But even if they were right, how many people would actually listen? Those cave dwellers keep covering their ears anytime someone gives them a shout from outside. JimBob who ain’t into spending a lot of time yelling his throat sore for a bunch of dang fools who ain’t got the good sense God gave a rock.

  74. manbearpig says:

    On another note, The Circle has grid-locked around us so quickly, in the flash of famous faces and in a flick of rhetoric…

    We’ve gone from the Snowden jobs “unveiling” the total surveillance state to a revolutionary obsession with total transparency.

    Like in the super star-studded movie.

    The masses are mentally malaxed, prepared to move from an imperialist and individualistic war industrial complex

    to a very female-friendly environmentally sustainable “terror-free” total surveillance “Planned-opolis” smart city

    thanks to charismatic media icons representing concepts and messages…

    Chomsky = The U.S. is a monster

    Edmonds = (during her heyday stint as 9/11 truth darling) = The neo-con government covered up info that Bin Laden was planning airplane terrorist attacks and let it happen.

    Snowden = The government is spying on everything you do

    Julian Assange = Secret information is sacred and will set you free

    Angelina Joli = The beautiful breast-free Amazon Lara Croft starring as the poster child for egalitarian Agenda 2030

    Trump = The vulgar filthy rich bellicose redneck capitalist turned megalo-politician – The anti-Christ (and secret ally) to global Planned-opolis

    Putin = Charismatic KGB vilain we love to hate as he consolidates lucrative BRICS hurling them at hawk missiles aimed at Syrian bad guys.

    The United Nations: impotent but well meaning bureaucracy who needs revamping and more clout…

    and of course the ultimate secret double agent false flag boogeyman: Al. Al Qaeda. The core argument for total surveillance and transparency.

    9/11 = The apocalyptic explosion of the phallic American Dream birthing the horror of ubiquitous terrorism that is chasing us into the new globally publically private or privately public blockchained total transparency paradigm.

    Just follow the light of your smartphone.

    • I Shot Santa says:

      And don’t forget the ultimate gatekeeper: Our own dang selves. Every time we name these controllers, we cement their power into our minds. All of their power is imaginary and is derived from our belief that it is true.
      I was just thinking along the same thoughts as you manbearpig (if that is your real name). A recent video I shared here from Judicial Watch had to do with the over-reach of FISA. After you get through watching it, you can easily forget that you thought FISA being in existence was an over-reach and you are left cheering for it to be brought under control. Yep, we are a beautiful mosaic of stupid sometimes. JimBob who ain’t trying to say he’s no better; but this just isn’t his kind of stupid to take seriously. Does it really seem like I’m the kind of person anyone would really bother trying to control?

  75. manbearpig says:

    In fact, these images are the “Poor Man’s Bible”.

    In churches, the scenes portrayed in the sculptures, paintings, mosaics, altarpieces and stained glass windows were designed to teach an illiterate population the scriptures and comprised what’s known as “The Poor Man’s Bible”.

    Today, media icons and images are designed to teach a semiotically illiterate population the scriptures of the new politically correct paradigm.

    The shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave…

    • candlelight says:

      mbp,

      We ought to correct one of those shadows upon the wall, whose essence has, in effect, deepened the climb out of that cave and into the light.

      The 9/11 truth darling, at a crucial time during her initial stint as a key dispenser of inside information, was fully one big click below LIHOP.

      Not even close. Her story had nothing to do with LIHOP, whatsoever….Quite to the contrary.

      Where her story touched upon 9/11 (and, I say touched, because she references only one (1) tape recording that more than ostensibly, as she relates it, had to do with 9/11) was with a tape recording that her supervisor dropped in her lap that hadn’t been thoroughly translated. She proceeds to translate a conversation from June/July 2001, wherein people from the hinterlands of the Middle East were discussing high rise building blueprints, which seemed to her suspicious. Due to these suspicions, she fast forwards the tape to September 12th, and….”bingo!”. Sure enough, it would seem the same people were congratulating themselves about a job well done. Hence, we are left to conclude the FBI fumbled with their intelligence until it was too late.

      Just as an aside, isn’t it downright strange that she has absolutely no follow up with regard to this particular “bingo!” tape? No quest to find out the identities of these people? Apparently no reference at all to it during any of her hearings? Nada?

      No, the main thrust where all the details are, and what all the hearings and gagging is about, which, for all the tea in China, is but a super distraction as far as I’m concerned, is the FBI’s cover-up of nefarious connections between American elected officials and various foreign players with terrorist ties, with links to internal espionage and spying within the FBI, itself; with such a cover-up having nothing to do with 9/11. The only thing in her story that had to do directly with 9/11 was the “bingo!” tape which went no further in her story….Not terribly surprising.

      The main thrust of her story did several things:

      1. It helped solidify the notion of a bungling, inept, infiltrated
      and compromised FBI: With the latter two items belonging
      exclusively to EB.

      2. Solidified the notion that there are terrorist networks with
      tentacles reaching in and out of government circles as well as
      intelligence agencies: This continues to be the foundational
      bedrock of her story lines to the present.

      3. Helped to lend credence to the idea, at least for the average
      observer, as well as calls for – from the likes of a George
      Bush, et al – linking or centralizing intelligence agencies
      into a Homeland Security type of apparatus.

      4. Created a situation of wholesale gag orders placed on
      multiple members of government – a gag which was basically
      placed on anyone who came into contact with EB’s classified
      information. [By what method she escaped any prosecution for
      disseminating such classified information is a mystery onto
      itself. Though, I have no illusions that there’s someone “out
      there” who has all the answers to that question down pat]
      It would stand to reason that such an environment of a
      multitude of gag orders would have put an overall damper and
      stigma on the dissemination of information, even among
      officials who ordinarily may have been more inquisitive.

      All in all, it is absolutely incredible, outlandish, and seemingly impossible, that from that one little “bingo!” tape (which was never explored a tad further!) we get this amazing conflagration, this fireball a of mainstream media darling 9/11 truth teller extraordinaire, who probably, in reality, did more to harm the 9/11 truth movement than anyone else.

      Unfortunately, you can sum up her truth telling with the following quote. Even taken out of context, it is very plain to see that she is in no way saying or explaining that the authorities let 9/11 happen on purpose. What she is saying, and only what she is saying, which reflects her entire story, is that pertinent information regarding 9/11 was bungled, period:

      “Could we have prevented in 100% certainty? I don’t think anything is that certain. However, we would have had a very, very good chance for preventing it.

      We can infer to add: “If we only looked harder.”

      You can find this not so terribly brainy and inexcusable quote here: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/sibel_edmonds

      The shadow on the wall needs to change.

      • I Shot Santa says:

        Just a little note from my perspective on this whole trust thing. I generally just look at a person’s past words a whole lot differently whenever I find out they are lying their butts off to me right now. The degree, and cause even, will certainly affect my vision as well. From my point of view, I don’t hold her word on past accounts on such a high pedestal as I did. I would say the words I DID pay attention to would probably be a result of my wondering her motives in saying them. But, as a whole; I won’t be listening to her at all. Some may disagree with my end result; but that’s okay with me. There are too many other people who have messages I want to hear to bother with those I no longer trust. JimBob who’s time ain’t worth much if’n you look at it like a normal person; but nobody ever said JimBob was normal.

        • candlelight says:

          I, for one, agree with your end result. I, too, will not be holding her word on past accounts on any type of pedestal, let alone swallowing any of it wholesale.

          Until this whole boondoggle happened, I never gave too much thought to her commentary, to tell you the truth. For instance, the whole of the Gladio B series of discussions with Corbett for some reason never interested me. It seemed well enough to put it on a back burner to save to look into at some future date. Cursorily, it never seemed all together pertinent. Drug running, arms dealing, underworld networks, dirty politicians – yeah, like what else is new?

          But, with the Corbett exposé of her thoroughly underhanded, dishonest, slimy smear tactics – it woke me straight the hell up.

          Did you ever meet a person who can lie to you straight-faced, using half-truths to paint a deceptive picture?

          There you have her.

          • candlelight says:

            On a completely different note, literally, I heard this song on the radio today, the sirius radio, however it’s spelled.

            Like you hear sometimes the man in the commercial saying – This bud’s for you! Well, so’s the song….Hope ya like it!

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0jb3gt0MOg

            • candlelight says:

              Btw, for anybody reading the post with the brainy quote from Sibel Edmonds a few posts above, I don’t know why I used the letters EB. I meant SE.

              Maybe I was channeling EB White, the author of Charlotte’s Web? Only, Charlotte was a rather benign spider, unlike the real life unnested spinner of webs.

              Anyway, that’s the clarification – SE, not EB.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                She had me at Yippie’Kai! Though she might not have to work her fingers to the bone if she wouldn’t just give away her music like that. That whole buying a cow analogy thing there. But that’s not saying I don’t appreciate her sharing herself like that. JimBob who notes that generations of pigs are raised praising the exploits of the heroic Charlotte. She the patron saint of saving us from being bacon spider.

              • candlelight says:

                I didn’t hear that buying a cow analogy. You mean in her song?

                The way I’m hearing it, she’s singing it takes 700,000 rednecks to get to the top, right? So, what’s the top? Forgetting about the gazillionaires out there, if one dude had say 10 million bucks, or was worth 10 million bucks, he’d pretty much be, for the most part, at the top. [years ago the popular figure was more like one million bucks to be on top of the world- but, with inflation it’s gone up] Anyway, with 10 mil he could easily live out the rest of his life doing pretty much as he pleases, without lifting a finger’s worth of work. Now, the rednecks can get to the top, too, is what she’s saying, but it would take 700,000 of ’em with roughly $14.28 in each of their pockets to get there….

                Bacon spider: That’s one helluvan inexplicable thought to weave a nightmare out of! Geez!

                Boy, getting a little closer back to the topic of fact-checking Newsbud, which is tantamount to fact-checking SE, I’m surprised I didn’t get a soul, besides yourself, to comment or express two cents worth, what they think about the idea that SE may have done more harm than anyone else to the 9/11 truth movement; that is, by way of brandishing the false narrative basically from the very get-go. Now, if that sounds to some a bit sensational, or an exaggeration, it’s certainly not by very much. You can well believe that with her privileged “inside information” which in reality conveyed the official false narrative, and together with the all-too-telling mainstream media exposure, she was, without a single doubt, way up there.

                Further, I don’t value all the other “revelations” she’s been “uncovering” since 9/11. Nor do I find it terribly important whether or not they all have to be treated with a grain of salt…no, actually, make that a heavy dose of chlorine….

                What is of utmost concern, and what is necessary to understand, not only for the sake of 9/11, but also for any future false flag events, is the analysis of the method by which the false narrative is literally imprinted in the psyche.

                Precisely in the way a particular familial environment is imprinted permanently into the psyche of the newborn (think of a motherless gosling following behind ducklings and mother duck), immediacy is imperative for successfully imprinting a narrative by those who wish to plant the weft of a lasting falsehood of their choosing.

                Therefore, it makes no difference any longer what SE may or may not be accepting, believing or declaring these days, or whether or not she’s paying any attention to the details, or finally doing some unheeded homework after 17 very long years.

                The damage from the widespread imprinting of her early initial story of government failure has long been accomplished against that of exposing the actual truth.

                Yet, for present purposes, and for the future’s sake, it is recognizing the methodology of imprinting that needs to be realized and understood, and most importantly, to recognize such imprinting, preferably, in real time as it’s being rolled out.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                For me, I got a big lesson out of this. It looks so clear with that hind-sight vision. But I do tend to turn off my mind when I’m listening to videos. Not always, but when it’s someone I trust my BS antennae gets turned off for some rest. I’m not saying I’m not going to trust anyone, but I am going to make a more concerted effort to really analyze what I’m hearing. So for me, this has been great! I’m not that big on 9/11 as I believe the emotional impact isn’t enough anymore. I know that my opinion isn’t a leading one; but is that really a big surprise? Also, I don’t really want to play crime detective. When I was a kid I never played a law enforcement person. Though I would have stood by Matt Dillon; you bet your boots on it! JimBob who always wondered where Grizzly Adams got all that jerky since he never let the only decent hunter get them any meat.

              • I Shot Santa says:

                I almost forgot the song questions. There used to be a saying to young women warning them that men don’t have a reason to buy a cow if they can get the milk for free. While it was obviously sexual, I thought I’d spin it for her record sales. I guess the 700,000 has to do more with how many rednecks have to buy her record for it to hit one of them endless top this or top that chart. But whatever it is, it’ll be the top of whatever she’s looking for. Unfortunately, it will probably be a peak a long, long, way from me. Yet another tragedy for me. Though I imagine she’ll heal. JimBob who tries to make sure every answer he gives is as absolutely confusing as possible. This way no one ever questions the validity of what he just wrote since to do so would risk receiving yet another incredibly stupid answer.

              • candlelight says:

                First the song!

                You know, you’re absolutely right, I hadn’t even looked at it from that perspective – she’s singing about herself getting to the top with the help of 700,000 redneck fans!
                And here I’m thinking she’s making a social comment on how your typical archetype redneck would have to pool together, 700,000 strong, to get to the top which is to say culturally, they’re economically depressed.
                No, you’re right, she’s definitely talking about herself rising to the top with their help. Suddenly, her song makes total sense to me. Gonna have to play it again!…. Actually, I happen to like her voice.

                Besides mostly making good sense with that song (I’m not 100% sure what you mean about her healing eventually – do you mean b/c you’re not going to go to her concerts and buy her records? Aw, c’mon, man!), I’m also appreciative that you’re being pretty straight forward with the Edmonds thing and 9/11 in general.

                I’m still very big on 9/11 – it still has a major, direct emotional impact on me. It was, and still is mind blowing. Its revelations are mind blowing. The full spectrum machinery to manipulate its cover-up is mind blowing. The possibility as lately revealed through a little crack in the cover, that Edmonds may have served her part in that machinery, willingly, is mind blowing.

                Using the BS antennae is a good thing – sometimes the only thing. Maybe it’s the best thing. This is the antennae stemming from our second brain located in the gut, primordial, highly sensitive, and if allowed to be listened to, informs our common sense.

                And when it comes to the level of bullshit out there these days, there is, ultimately, nothing better.

                As a kid, I never played detective, or cops and robbers, either. We used to take turns playing Sgt. Saunders, Vic Morrow’s character in Combat!, or playing the lieutenant, or Kirby, or one of the privates. And, if it was your turn to get shot at and die, well, guess what, you’d play a kraut. We played cowboys and indians, too. You can imagine who did most of the dying. If I can recall, the bullets were way deadlier than the arrows.

                Common sense. 🙂

              • I Shot Santa says:

                I had to go re-read that to find out what I was talking about healing. It was just me being mournful that when she makes it to the top, I won’t be anywhere near her. I know this will break her heart as well, even though she has absolutely no idea I exist, but I trust she will heal. 🙂

                I used to wander the marsh near us. It was the 60s, so a lot of birds became VC. I was also Geronimo, Jeremiah Johnson, super Sgt. Rock, just anybody who was rooting-tooting tough!

              • candlelight says:

                Copy that.

                Hell, you know what it was like pulling imaginary arrows out of your loins?

                With the singer, I suggest flooding her now with fan letters – real letters, hand written, before she gets anywhere near the top. As a professed redneck, now is your chance!

                You just might be that 700,000th + 1 who gets the prize! 😉

  76. mkey says:

    Ran into this record of some of the deleted comments.

    Deleted Comments from Newsbud Hit Piece.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx5oOs3KSbA

    • I Shot Santa says:

      That was hilarious! I had to stop the video and read some of them. It seems her readers are far more astute than she. JimBob who notes that he wasn’t that astute himself on SE.

  77. mkey says:

    I don’t know why I still check out newsbud from time to time. Well, I kind of secretly hope to see a glimpse of that expose on the dastardly duo, which is surely incoming. But, for the time being, I’ll just post this, which kind of looks like further cashing in, partly, on the work the smear job professional hitman extraordinaire a.k.a. James Corbett.

    newsbud.com/2018/08/12/newsbud-exclusive-9-11-activist-summit-titans-of-truth-2017/

    vimeo.com/ondemand/911summit2017

    Quite pathetic on sooo many levels.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top