Interview 1152 – Sibel Edmonds Shines A Light on the Brussels Attacks

03/25/201642 Comments

Sibel Edmonds of joins us to discuss the Brussels attacks. We discuss Belgium’s central role as the base of NATO/EU/Gladio headquarters and how the script of this event follows the script of previous false flags almost precisely. We also talk about the public’s reaction to these events and how both the mainstream and alternative media are being divided and conquered to keep people from questioning the true roots of these events.

Support the Kickstarter

Operation Gladio B

Corbett Report: Operation Gladio B Series with Sibel Edmonds

Belgian Stay Behind Network

Secret Warfare Operation Gladio & NATO’s Stay Behind Armies

Belgium Has Become Center for Extremists

Belgium Warned of Attacks

Who’s Behind ISIS?

Brussel Attack Suspects’ Images


Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (42)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jay.z says:

    Hi James (& Sibel),

    I very much understand your frustration with the misinformation and disinformation at play within our world. Informational and psychological warfare is central and crucial to the “globalist deep state” and its ends for complete population subjugation.

    One thing I would caution tho:
    It can be easy to be dismissive of statements like “hoax”, “staged event” and “crisis actors”… I’ve always been very critical of any initial “alternative media” reports in that vein. It seems so outlandish and bizarre that “terror events” would be staged, faked and “crisis actors” would be used rather than just actually planning a real event where real people die…

    But the problem (for my always skeptical mind) is… in spending countless hours in weighing out the different evidence and narratives, some of these events (particularly Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing, Lee Rigby/Wolwich Beheading, to name a few) do appear to be staged/contrived events. Now that baffles me. But if I’m forced to follow the most compelling evidence rather than dismissing it because of cognitive dissonance, I have to concede at this point that I believe that staged events are part of the agenda, the “theatre” of it all. Part of the psychological/informational warfare is doing these sorts of events along side of real events such as the OKC Bombing or 9/11.

    One of the few reasons I can come up with of why the elite/alphabet agencies would choose staged over real events is to bring about yet more confusion and cognitive dissonance within our world… If “truth seekers” are really striving to figure out what is really going on in our world and in any given provocative event, and are finding that there is a lot of compelling evidence that some of these events are staged than that’s going to make them and the “truther movement” seem even “crazier” than it already is considered being… And that obviously plays into the elite’s hands well.

    A lot of this I see as experimentation too. Experimenting and proving how well the narrative can be controlled and manipulated in the mass media and the alternative media. What is being done today (in terms of “terror events” or psychological operations) is a way of determining future steps and directing the future, laying the groundwork for complete societal and consciousness control (both covertly and overtly).

    Some quick links to some glaring evidence with these events:
    Sandy Hook – Robbie Parker’s (bad) acting being one of many, many examples of it being a staged event

    Boston Bombing – Jeff Bauman’s wheelchair ride photos that to any (skeptical) person in medicine would seem to indicate that something is amiss in that event

    Wolwich Beheading – This guy’s speech, fake bloody hands?, and the old lady walking beside him near the end gets me every time! It’d be more funny if it wasn’t so sad.

    Tho I do lean toward these three events being staged for example, I’m fully willing to be persuaded otherwise. I would prefer to view it otherwise to be honest! But at this point, I’m unable to just to dismiss the compelling evidence and this sense that there is something quite eerie or bizarre about these events that lends itself to a word like “hoax”.

    That leads me to the question I want to offer your way James:
    (I think I’ll place the question on your last QFC hopefully for an upcoming QFC. Definitely a fan of that series)
    Obviously, there are historic, mainstream accepted examples of “hoaxes” and “staged events” like the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Are there any other events that you lean toward being “staged”, a “hoax” or that even “crisis actors” have been used for such an event?

    Thanks again James. And as so many others, really thankful for your research, analysis and for creating such a valuable, investigative open source community. It is definitely one of the most significant beacons of change and hope in our world for me.

    [QFC noted and logged. No need to copy/paste the comment in two places. – JC]

    • dubrey says:

      Jay.Z, I was not surprised to see such a well thought out and lengthy reply to this video. If there’s one definite way to alienate many thousands of people, it’s to say that regardless of years of people searching for the truth, wading
      through tons of increasingly shoddy information, is that they are all dumb conspiracy theorists. After all , we are all just a mere twenty years old. Very few were having these discussions before that. I’ve been thinking all day of some sort of response to this video. If you want to “hear” somebody shoot themselves in the foot, listen again.

    • shiranaihito says:

      > Robbie Parker’s (bad) acting being one of many, many examples of it being a staged event

      I’m not sure what to make of that video, but note that:

      1) The people orchestrating and acting/carrying out these events are psychopaths (e.g. because someone with a conscience would find it too distasteful to participate)
      2) A psychopath would not need to “psyche himself up” for an acting performance, because they’re acting all the time anyway (to appear human, to ‘show’ emotions, etc).

      So if Robbie Parker was actually paid to mislead the public, he’s pretty much guaranteed to be a psychopath, but if he is, then his “psyching himself up for acting” was an act too.

      I suppose staging a video that supports the view that an event was staged would serve to further distract/confuse us. Psychos are certainly devious enough to do that.

      Anyway, Sibel and James talked about people in the alt-media who deny that some event actually happened at all, and I wanted to point out that those people are probably psychopaths too.

      On a related note, whenever someone is being “too irrational to be true”, it’s probably not true! .. which means it’s yet another psychopath, *pretending* to be irrational, for whatever reason.

      Usually they’re just fucking with people / playing games / trolling / causing frustration or whatever, but in the media & on the Internet, it serves to Divide & Conquer us and of course some of them are paid to do that.

      • jay.z says:

        @shiranaihito maybe it takes someone with an overly strong ego (board line psychopath?) to label other people that don’t agree with his view psychopaths?!? ; )

        Pride/arrogance can have a funny way of blinding us to everything but the evidence that proves our position. It can have a deafening effect, where the only voice we really hear is our own. And that is that sort of person/circle that cognitive dissonance is the norm for rather than an infrequent occurrence (as individuals like Thomas Kuhn and Rupert Sheldrake so masterfully elude to).

        Community and diversity, different points of view are crucial to our way out of this mess as humanity… I would urge you and others to not be so quick to alienate others that have differing views. We all (should?) know that alienating others that are striving to to be thoughtful and critical in their thinking only serves the elite that we’re all supposedly against. Let’s find unity and dialogue in our diversity rather than throwing shit at each other?

        We all have so much yet to learn from one another. And if we don’t learn this basic lesson, the elite, the “psychopaths” have already won and we might as well give up now!

        • Steebs says:

          You have mostly said what I wanted to say. This video
          Went a long way in showing, with news footage, the Sandy hook hoax. I think James and James reported on the circling of people though the firehouse. Sibel though, Idk. I’ve not been to boiling frogs as they don’t have a mobile site and unfortunately thats how I peruse the Internet.

        • shiranaihito says:


          >>> maybe it takes someone with an overly strong ego (board line psychopath?) to label other people *that don’t agree with his view* psychopaths?!? 😉

          Well then, it’s a good thing I didn’t do that?

          I wasn’t actually even talking to you, but just wanted to point some stuff out.

          It’s kind of strange that you took my message personally enough to lash out with a false accusation like that! :p

          >>> I would urge you and others to not be so quick to alienate others that have differing views

          You just had to have another, sneaky go at shaming/discrediting me? 🙂

          I must have touched a nerve there! But I wonder how, considering I was mostly just talking about psychopaths.. why would you take that personally? 😛

          I didn’t even mention you at all!

          >>> the elite, the “psychopaths”

          Why did you quote “psychopaths” when that’s exactly what “the elite” are?

          • jay.z says:

            Apologies about the confusion in psychopaths being in quotations. Unable to revise, read without quotations.

            >>>> “Anyway, Sibel and James talked about people in the alt-media who deny that some event actually happened at all, and I wanted to point out that those people are probably psychopaths too.”

            This was (part of) what I was referencing. It’s nothing personal on my end. I didn’t think you were referring to me, just don’t agree with your reasoning.

            But in light of this brief interaction, it’s probably best we agree to disagree and move on to discussions that bring about more light than heat.


            • shiranaihito says:

              >>>> “Anyway, Sibel and James talked about people in the alt-media who deny that some event actually happened at all, and I wanted to point out that those people are probably psychopaths too.”

              >>> This was (part of) what I was referencing. It’s nothing personal on my end.

              We all know that since you didn’t quote anything I said, this:

              >>> maybe it takes someone with an overly strong ego (board line psychopath?) to label other people that don’t agree with his view psychopaths?!?

              .. reads like an accusation that I’m labelling someone a psychopath *because* he doesn’t agree with my views.

              The idea was that whenever someone claims something that clearly happened didn’t happen, he’s probably a psychopath.

              That’s got nothing to do with disagreeing with *my* views. It’s about “disagreeing” with (reasonably well established) facts.

              If that wasn’t clear enough to you, you *could* have asked for clarification.

              Instead, you insinuated that *I* might be a psychopath, based on labelling others psychopaths because they don’t agree with me.. even though that didn’t actually happen. Projection?

              Your original post was very careful in its wording, and you went through considerable effort in trying to establish yourself as someone who doesn’t jump to conclusions.

              Why didn’t the same apply when responding to me?

              One logical, *possible* explanation is that you were “threatened” by my post because you’re a psychopath yourself, and reacted by lashing out a bit.

              Inconsistent behaviour is one of the classic signs of a psychopath.

              I’d like to address something in your original post though:

              >>> If “truth seekers” are really striving to figure out what is really going on in our world and in any given provocative event, and are finding that there is a lot of compelling evidence that some of these events are staged than that’s going to make them and the “truther movement” seem even “crazier” than it already is considered being… And that obviously plays into the elite’s hands well.

              In a nutshell, I think faking events to make us look crazier wouldn’t be worth the trouble.

              They get the same benefit from having their shills spread nonsensical conspiracy theories about aliens and the earth being flat, etc.

              But that has two additional advantages too:

              1) It works to divide & conquer us
              2) It’s vastly cheaper, easier and less risky than faking an event that gets publicized all over the (Western) world.

              But yeah, all in all, I think you’re *probably* a psychopath. That’s not a baseless accusation either, considering everything that’s happened here.

              I got suspicious already when reading your original post, but I won’t bother going into additional detail now, because I’m not sure it would benefit anyone.. and I’ve already spent quite a bit of time on this too.

              • jay.z says:

                @Steebs @dubrey I’m guessing this definition would *probably* make you guys “psychopaths” then too? lol.

                @shiranaihito obviously, you haven’t caught the sarcasm of my first response to you in the wink at the beginning? At this point tho, I think it seems like it’s becoming increasingly irrelevant to clarify anything.


  2. Mohawk Man says:

    Nice work James and Sibel. I believe this is just a part of a much larger agenda which speaks to the incrementalism we are experiencing at an ever increasing rate daily. Here is a somewhat related story which may interest you.

    If I may suggest for your new project team (Newsbud) a comprehensive look at the numerous tax avoidance and social engineering “Foundations”. The Rock..The Ford…Clinton…The Gates et al..and now the new F-Book clown Z-Berg “charity”. I believe they are a major cancer on society and have accelerated this rush to global fascism.

    The amount of money diverted to NGO’s, wealth accumulation of these folks and the damage they have done and continue to do. I would be pleased to see a Nuremberg trial addressing crimes against humanity that these people have clearly committed. I include Catholic Charities in those charges. (I am Catholic)

    God bless you both and may he bless your continued work. May he anoint an anonymous benefactor who will bestow all the money you require and may they remain anonymous and never have sway to your work in any way.

    Have a blessed Easter.

  3. roostersummers says:

    It definitely appears the STORY is the primary mission ops once again.
    F E M A –I.C.E. (integrated capstone events)Real documentation use with socially respected roles to get the desired results or the STORY out there for the world. Combining staged & real events using ALL resources to present the story. KEEPING IN MIND THERE IS NOT A BAD GUY WITH IN A 100 OR 1000 MILES. But you’ll never know it.
    These are truly Howdy-Dude-Times we’re living in and all with the intent to modify audience behavior. I truly would like to know the total numbers to date state side and abroad of these I.C.E. ops. Keep up the good work. “If they can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit atrocities.” -Voltaire- “Terrorism is the best political weapon, for nothing drives people harder than fear of sudden death.” Adolph Hitler
    I do believe we are being schooled using school plays as a form of training for future needs. Keep on keeping on! You make the difference.

  4. dreadeutsch says:

    But don’t you think the Boston Marathon Bombing was, in fact, a hoax, perpetrated with actors and bombs which didn’t hurt anyone? There is a great deal of evidence supporting this view.

    • dubrey says:

      Absolutely right dreadeutsch. All one has to do ,if you can take the language and sarcasm, is to watch “peekay Boston” on youtube. If a person still believes anyone got killed or injured, I would suggest that there’s no help for that person.

  5. mario says:

    Hi James & Sibel. Thank you both one again for your insight into this unfolding “story”… See I live in Belgium and work in Ghent about 60km out to brussels. When this just happened I was on the parking lot at work and ran into a coworker directly saying “Did you hear the news! Bombs went off in Brussels!!?”
    And looked at me for a response… He then reminded “Bombs went off in Brussels airport!” I still remained silent as I just nodded my head. (that was around 8:30AM). Later we heard of explosions going off in the metro… And then the media let it all loose… They already knew everything… And I mean everything we even had a twitter post from the VRT (Vlaamse (Flemish) Radio Television) Saying sorry they used the wrong CCTV camera images (it was from Minsk Russia (metro bombing) a few years back)… It was totally bonkers to say the least. Then I came home and my daughter and son told me that every school activity was suspended and they asked me why. (Bear in mind I live near Ostend Coastline to North Sea) that’s a 125km from Brussels. It was like everybody put your lives on hold because terrorists blew up ppl at the CAPITOL of Brussels. So please stop living!
    I will not stop living and told my son & daughter that some ppl cannot handle certain news and they absolutly lose it and that is why fun school activity is suspended…

    Reflecting on that day at work and everything went on HOLD. I mean … no wait a minute not everything. I work for a big firm that is internet service provider and ALL cellphone activity in Brussels was jammed because of the high load. Our company made sure that communications worked as needed and set everything High as to make sure that everybody could communicate with there friends/family/… There was something strange in that NOBODY was allowed into the capitol of Brussels and I mean NOBODY (in or out)… But just one of our team of technicians was let through because it was vital for communications… That was very odd.

    Days later I read that our government wants to bomb (AGAIN!) with there F-16’s in Syria… Was this bombing (airport & metro) to justify (read hammer) this to parlement? Like that is going to solve the problem!!! It’s going to make it worse! They should really start in Brussels! Days before the bombing they make “a show” around how they GOT the MAN! “Salah Abdeslam”. Really it was a show… and it was weird that in the initial reporting we heard & saw that youngsters had thrown stones & bottles to the reporters there in Brussels but the evening news did NOT show it… You have to understand that Police stations/ shops/ … in Brussels are like prisons (they actually have bars on the outside) – The ppl living there do not speak French or Dutch… And our government knows full well who lives there but still refuses to clean them out! Oh and the whole flag thing on Facebook is really getting on my nerves! Yes pll NEEDLESSLY died yet again for crimes committed YET AGAIN by our Belgian government. They knew beforehand when and where they would strike and did NOTHING! I am ashamed of being a Belgian.

    To my fellow Belgians “Please stop changing your profile to the belgian flag as your government doesn’t give a sh*t about you! – It only has it’s own interests at heart not yours and never will”

    Best regards and keep up the good work!

    PS : Sibel do not despair as time will tell and we will win in the end. Keep up the good fight!

  6. peter3 says:

    I’d like to echo jay.z 12:33 above.

    At 72 years of age, I’m now in my 12th year of near full-time research into ‘how the system works’ and what a journey it has been! I set up Wikispooks in 2010 as a sort of therapy for the cognitive dissonance being generated by what I was discovering and to help with getting my understanding into some sort of order. It continues to chug along and if it is found to be a useful resource by others, then that’s a bonus. I am flattered to note both James and Sibel have it as a primary link to the Gladio/B phenomenon too.

    I fully understand Sibel’s anger at being sidetracked and mislead by absurd, shallow, sensationalist claims. I share her anger. I am also accutely aware of Cass Sunstein’s exhortations to ‘cognitive infiltration’ and have some understanding of the vast resources being channelled into it – ie sowing confusion with absurdities is undoubtedly one (of many) of their methodologies. My personal modus operandi these days is to keep a scrupulously sceptical open mind and not to BELIEVE anything, or take anything at face value; rather I assign probabilities and try to reach one of the two UK standards of legal ‘proof’ about things – ie ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ or ‘on the balance of probablities’.

    All that said – and like jay.z – I judge the evidence for the staging of some recent events using so-called ‘crisis actors’, to be very persuasive indeed. I also agree that all three cited cases are disturbing. I have researched the Boston Marathon bombing more than the others. I judge the evidence of a complete ‘hoax’ in that case to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. That’s a personal judgement for what its worth. I keep an open mind on the others but judge both to be close to ‘balance of probability’.

    I have heard both James and Sibel talk about their motivations elsewhere. Mine are similar. I share Sibel’s abhorence of war and militarism of ANY kind. I have no wish for recognition and prefer the soft anonymity of a pseudonym for most of my web presence. I do what I do because I have an insatiable need to know how the world works – and that’s about it. I fervently wish that things were not as I have found them to be; but they are and that knowledge cannot be ‘un-learned’ so I live with it.

    There are many many things – monstrous lies of both history and current affairs – that I now KNOW, to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard. I have no wish to preach about them; nor to persuade people that their fond patriotic beliefs are often in fact their polar opposites; but whenever such things are raised in polite company, I feel impelled to ‘set the record straight’ so-to-speak – just can’t help it. Over the years, the result has been that I have become persona-non-grata among many that I formerly thought of as my friends.

    This essay by an expatriate German – of similar age and with whom I have enjoyed an extended correspondence – describes the process well. Not your standard trendy left-wing brew but, since both Left and Right are simply poles of the same system, of no less validity.

    Thanks for all you do James and Sibel. It is very much appreciated.

  7. ccuthbert2001 says:

    I have to agree with jay.z 100% about Sandy Hoax and the Boston non-bombing. I readily admit that i could be wrong, but there is ZERO doubt in my mind that these events were staged and no one was injured or died. Sorry to say it, but Sibel is doing the same thing to the Sandy Hoax/Boston non-bombing truth people that the msm does to the 911 truth people.

    I think there may be many motives for faking events. Here are a some:

    1. make truth movement people look crazy
    2. create dissent in alt media
    3. just as with false flags, thumb their nose at those who understand what’s happening to dishearten them. That is, tptb are saying, “We can do anything we want and you can’t do anything to stop us.”
    4. And the most important motive, to avoid having grieving family members who will ask too many questions, force investigations and sue the gov’t for redress.

    Who has been more critical in keeping the 911 truth movement and the ok city truth movement alive than the victims’ families?

    There clearly are gov’t agents and others fanning the flames of some of the nonsensical ideas being floated out there about what happened during these events. I know for a fact that the gov’t has teams of people on the internet creating and disseminating disinformation, false information, whatever you want to call it. However, that doesn’t mean that these events happened.

    Even though I’ve spent a lot of time looking into both hoaxes, for me there was one question, and only one, i had to ask myself to really prove it to myself that they are hoaxes, to wit: would I have been able to accept and acquiesce to being barred from identifying and receiving my child’s body on that day?

    • dubrey says:

      ccuthbert2001, your absolutely right. We all are going through an “Evolution” as far as compiling knowledge and learning to separate the wheat from the chaff. Some of us are at different levels, that’s all this is all about. I happen to believe the facts don’t bear out the official story. When I first saw the Robbie parker story, i told people at work that I really felt bad for that father. Then I saw the other video with the laughing. I didn’t have to be told by anyone,hey! that was not right! I had a visceral, immediate feeling of disgust. They official story is full of this kind of stuff. Like you said, not being able to see the childs body? B.S. there would be a ton of lawsuits had this been real. Wouldn’t a parent be a bit concerned that paramedics were not allowed to rush any of the kids to the hospital? I suppose not, after all, the cops declared them dead, so I guess that’s,that! again B.S. Not if that was my kid. We really have to start using our heads and let common sense have a clear pathway to reasoning. I’m really tired of all the goofy crap being put forth, no doubt by those who benefit from that.It’s been getting worse for two to three years now. Kind of like Alex Jone’s high dive of factual information right into the same pool of …what ever you want to call it. Thanks for reading

    • Mohawk Man says:

      One motive I believe..Totalitarionism. Total control and the peoples rights no longer acknowledged by the fascists in control (for now). The pendulum swings both ways though and it;s gonna be a brutal swing back. I’d suggest they figure out what they’ve purchased with their tyranny but I don’t see that happening. Increasing awareness only increases the tyranny.

      Blue UN helmets in the streets at some point if they can’t be reined in soon. Bureaucrats and career politicians (a term that should never have to be used) have worked together over the decades to enslave us with assistance from the central banksters. Those must be the first to go before any of this corruption can be addressed. Cut off their funding..they’re done.

      Our answer must be “We no longer recognize your authority or positions.” at some point. En masse.

  8. tkelly67 says:

    Very informative. Sibel’s observations are very useful. Yes, why would a secret terrorist cell have an ISIS (or ISIL) flag in their apartment? It’s almost as if the two alleged terrorists were filmed wearing ISIS t-shirts. The sad fact is a majority of the population will believe anything they see on TV.

    These attacks need to be analyzed in the context of Gladio and the documented history of western intelligence agencies resorting to false flag events.

    Which brings me to the matter of false flag vs hoax debate. There is no reason to believe that these two are mutually exclusive. An event could contain elements of both for operational and psychological warfare reasons.

    An example of this was Operation Northwoods – a false flag plan submitted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to John F. Kennedy in 1962. Included in the plan were real atrocities (bombing attacks in south Florida) and hoaxes (a fake shoot down of a passenger jet by Cuban jet fighters). Now the latter event would have been a complete hoax. There would have been no downed plane nor would there have been real victims – and presumably the American people would be treated to fake reports by the trusted network news anchors and in reputable newspapers including interviews with grieving family members aka “crisis actors.”

    And of course, most are now familiar with the CNN’s producing a fake SCUD missile attack in 1991. How much of that war was real and much of it was fake? It’s a fair question.

    And with Satanic creeps like Col. Michael Aquino writing psy-war doctrine for the Pentagon, who knows what could happen?

  9. Di Nuovo says:

    I have to agree with those who say we shouldn’t dismiss the idea that some horrendous attack reported in the news just didn’t happen as both James and Sibel seem to do. And I was about to write that events in one day may be only partially real. Now I see the point has just been made by tkelly67. Actually, also a guest James Tracy that was interviewed by James with regard to Sandy Hook made similar point when he said that he believes that event may have been ‘PARTIALLY staged’. We should break the habit of thinking in either-or terms.

    For example as a part of reporting on an event where people really die the news may include a hoax story of a massacre that didn’t really happen and this is then picked up by some skeptics who correctly identify the hoax killings and, thinking in either-or terms, make a generalization that all events of that day were a hoax. And of course it can be then plausibly claimed (by those who want to do so) that ALL those who attempt to revise in any way what has been reported by the media are vultures, disrespectful to the real victims.

  10. Lon.W says:

    After investigating the Boston marathon bombing several years after the event, I was compelled by the weight of the evidence that was available to conclude that it was a hoax. I don’t claim certainty in this conclusion, only that it seems highly likely given what we currently know. At the time, this was quite a shock to the system along the lines of learning about 9/11. I had assumed that the bombing was real with real victims and had avoided all news on it for years. I now approach each event individually and try to judge them on the merits of the evidence with hoax as a possibility, but certainly not a necessity or even a baseline assumption.

    It seemed like James and Sibel were castigating anyone who believed that some events were hoaxes. That was a little disheartening to hear among the otherwise very good information.

  11. cabanaobr says:

    I’m not sure there’s a reason for all the pessimism regarding the latest Belgium attack. I don’t think anyone who understands 9-11 would be surprised to find that the Belgium attack was a false flag, and I believe that the 9-11 Realist Movement is growing, not decaying, with time.

    If people are not up in arms about Belgium, the main reason is probably as follows:

    1st: It’s Belgium, not the U.S.

    2nd: 9-11 was the watershed moment. That was the event that sorted out the T.V. True Believers from the Mass-Media-Government skeptics, and this includes the media itself. After 9-11 and the Iraq War, I think people both inside and outside the media knew the score.

    So if you’re still in the Mass Media, you understand very well that its function as stenographer, and you are less likely to make a fuss trying to be anything else. While if you are a thinking person *outside* the mass media, you have come to understand and accept this reality as well. There is little visible agitation with respect to the Belgium attacks, not because people are more likely to believe Mass Media, but because they increasingly assume out of hand that whatever the reality of Belgium is, Mass Media is lying to them. So there are fewer rumblings, fewer protests, fewer ‘gotchas’ and fewer ‘ahas!’ simply because nobody is all that motivated to beat what is now a long-dead horse.

    3rd: Fatigue. I spent a lot of energy trying to discern the reality behind 9-11, and I have no real desire to pick apart the truth from the lies on every terror incident that has followed. I suspect many feel the same way. The U.S. Government and Mass Media is, for many Americans, discredited, and again, there is no need to beat a dead horse here. The main issue is what you, James Corbett, focus on: unplugging yourself from the Matrix, being as independent in your own life as possible.

    9-11 Truth, simply because the evidence is so overwhelming, and the Official Story so obviously and transparently ludicrous, will continue slouching on, growing incrementally, in a similar way that skepticism over the Warren Commission has grown. It will be slower, since the crime is more monstrous, but it becomes impossible to be convinced of the falsity of the Warren Report and the veracity of the 9-11 commission. The question is how this understanding will affect the mass psyche of the American People.

    And I agree with most commenters here that the argument from incredulity works both ways. No one really knows what the ultimate limits are of Government-Media’s arrogance and audacity, and unless one has firsthand evidence to which one can personally testify or strong testimonial or documentary evidence, the best thing to do is suspend judgment with respect to the debates over Boston and Belgium, regarding the extent to which either were hoaxes rather than false flags. If we have learned anything, it is that the boundaries of one’s credulity count for nothing measured against the boundaries of what is actually possible.

  12. Cu Chulainn says:

    Attentats de Bruxelles : le témoin israélien est issu du groupe qui diffusa la photo-choc du Bataclan

  13. *Very important warning* (to Sibel, James, and everyone)

    1) A lot of what appears to be “alternative” media are actually organizations that are built up by the establishment itself, in order to try to control the critiques that are made – and, therefore, the dissent:

    (Notice how all of the media that appears in the previous chart, don’t even reveal – and even bash people who reveal – the most “basic” of truths, like who was really behind 9/11…)

    “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
    ― Vladimir Lenin

    2) Also, the Internet is full of “trolls” – which are people who are paid by the establishment in order to try to spread confusion and disinformation about the most “sensitive” subjects that are talked about and denounced online. And, those same trolls often try to interact, or associate themselves, with real alternative journalists, in order to try to somehow disturb and/or misdirect – and also discredit – their work.

    You can see proofs of what I’m talking about in the following links:

    (And, if there’s anyone who can understand Portuguese, I’ve published a video with excerpts of interviews made to mainstream media Portuguese journalists, were they denounce that they have been informed that there are people who are paid by the local political parties to go comment on their web pages and to go comment on social networks (using fake profiles) in order to try to discredit their work – – with one of these journalists being a very well-known TV news presenter, that has for many years presented the 8:00 o’clock news in the state-owned TV station, and which is also an author of international best-sellers.)

    3) So, as someone who has also been the target of such people, myself, for more than 15 years now, one simple advice that I can give to everyone is:

    Don’t give much credit to – or don’t waste much of your precious time reading messages from – people who don’t identify themselves and/or that don’t even have their own publications. I they have something of important to say, they can always publish it online, and send other people the links to it. And, as part of good “etiquette” online, even if they prefer to use pseudonyms (like myself) in order to publish their works, there’s no reason why they should not reveal their true identities in private e-mail exchanges with people who have already revealed their own. (And also, if they intend to make such messages exchanging be continuous, and are communicating with someone who reveals their face, there’s no reason why they should not reveal their own.) Big Brother already knows everything about ourselves, which websites we visit, what we do online etc. So, the only people who would have something to hide from honest and decent journalists, who don’t go around denouncing anonymous citizens online, are the kind of people who always work in the “dark”, making the dirty works for the establishment.

  14. ben7 says:

    I’ve watched some of the vids claiming sandy hook and the Boston bombing were faked and agree it seems possible, maybe even plausible. What better way to completely control the response than to use paid actors?

    BUT: surely it would not be difficult to prove one way or the other whether people/children were actually killed? If they were killed in a way that differs from the offical story would that qualify as a false flag?

    In the end, whether they were hoaxes or false flags I don’t think it changes anything for most of us “open minded skeptics” with relation to who gains and who loses and who is ultimately responsible.

    • jay.z says:

      @ben7 definitely agree with your overall thoughts here. I think it’s just one more thing to foment confusion and cognitive dissonance. I know many people that dismiss “9/11 truth” because they find it utterly absurd/preposterous even after a couple glances/conversations. That is the strength of the mass psychological games the elite are playing. And reminds me yet again of the analysis and discussion that Corbett and Jay Dyer (from Esoteric Hollywood) did on The Prestige. Definitely recommend that FLNWO episode.

      I’d also recommend (if you have the time and emotional/psychological stamina) to delve deeper down some of those rabbit holes (Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing, etc)… There’s been quite a bit of good research compiled if you’re willing to sort thru some negligible blog posts or youtube videos.

      Here’s one of many on Sandy Hook:

  15. whateverittakes2 says:

    Thanks to both of you! I needed this explanation to force self-reflection on my own proclivity to dismiss these false flags and other horrendous acts of depravity as fake. And then dismiss any further effort to truly understand what is going on.

    How badly we need such a news outlet as this! We won’t get discouraged and we won’t give up: This is about the false flags and about Newsbud.

    Thanks, again, for bringing these insights to a sadly beleaguered human race. Even the birds (Bernie in Portland) seem to understand how far astray we’ve gone.

  16. mikeandcori530 says:

    I have gained a lot from listening to Sibel Edmonds, but her condescending tone towards those who have come to the conclusion that some of the recent “events” have been hoax, versus false flag is disappointing. It smacks of pride when she says that people holding these other points of view are getting in the way of those doing the “real work”. Plenty of citizen-journalists are pouring hours into researching current affairs, and evidence abounds that some of these events are hoax, or at least part-hoax.

  17. jennerclay says:

    Wait, did Edmonds just say that the idea that
    the Sandy Hook tragedy really “didn’t happen,”
    i.e., (that it was a hoax,) is tantamount
    to something that is beyond a possibility …
    “outside, non-existent level?”

    Oops! She may have just outed herself.

  18. SoniaG says:

    Because some events appear to be staged, or at least show reasonable compelling evidence to be skeptical about them (as is the case with Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing IMHO). But that does not mean that similar events are also staged. Now the alternative media has become so rife with cries of “crisis actors/mossad/false flag/staged event” without any actual evidence, that it is as bad as the mainstream. From my personal experience, I was reading a blog presenting what I thought was a fair case that the downing of MH-17 was faked/staged to incite war against Russia – and I have to admit I was almost convinced – until I got word just half an hour later that 2 of my friends were on that flight and were dead. I learnt a hard lesson right there that it’s fairly easy to present half truths concocted from still photos & circumstance that appear convincing. I have come to the realisation that it is becoming increasingly difficult to pick fact from fiction in both the mainstream & alternative media – and all by design, of that I am 100% sure!

  19. justaguy says:

    For those that believe you have determined an event to be a hoax (which might be the case but it’s a huge claim nonetheless), it needs to stand up under enormous scrutiny before it should ever be presented in respected alternative media with high journalistic standards. This is not an unreasonable expectation given the high risk entailed in bringing such a story forward by folks who I believe are fighting the good fight. Respect to all.

    • dubrey says:

      reply to:
      justaguy says:
      03/28/2016 at 4:02 pm
      I believe your right Justaguy. These issues and the conclusions have undergone enormous scrutiny. That is precisely why it has taken nearly three years for the alt media and those studying the matter to come to the hoax conclusion about Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing. I just want to mention, that like building seven, where it wasn’t mentioned in the corporate media until people started asking questions and it became an alt media issue. What about the heavy wooden bench at the Boston bombing that shattered itself all over the bomb scene, long after the bomb went off? There are a multitude of questions that have to be answered. It can easily be said that if the incidents were true, corporate media’s explanation,message and stance would be quite different, and the story would fit more closely the expectations of those who study it with an open mind. It would be easy for truthful people to show their cards. Why is this so hard? Because the official story is just misunderstood? I don’t think so. For those who doubt the hoax story, take another look. The legwork must be done.You will not get your answer on MSNBC or CNN

      • dubrey says:

        The story on the Boston bombing Bench.
        I know of no explanation given for this by those giving us information on corporate media. I do know, and plain common sense tells me, that someone is quite confidant the scene is protected from this getting exposed. The bench didn’t break itself and would take quite an effort to make that change.
        The perp er traitors, have done a really sloppy job terrorizing the American citizens. Ask yourself, qui bono? What would be the purpose of this event? What’s next? Myself, I wouldn’t call it false flag. I would call it fraud. Fraud can be brought to trial and people can go to jail. The millions of extorted dollars can be returned to the true victims.

  20. Octium says:

    Well I sure hope Sibel does not give up on the Newsbud idea should the Kickstarter campaign not meet the target in April.

    Unfortunately Newsbud is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Newsbud was conceived to counteract the controlled and non independent nature of the so called alternative media – and it is the same media that that has ignored and not promoted the Newsbud campaign.

    It’s obvious we can not depend on the alternative media to do the right thing any more that we can trust the mainstream media.

    Sure – us Newsbud supporters can pass links on to our friends and urge them to give their support, however I’m sure that I am not the only one who has a limited number of friends who care about this stuff and are in a good enough financial position to offer much support.

    Make no mistake – there is adequate number of people out there to make Newsbud a reality – the real challenge is reaching them in the short amount of time allowed by a Kickstarter campaign.

    If the target is not met in April, my suggestion would be to launch a new Kickstarter campaign to fund a once off project for a smaller amount (Say $40,000) under the Newsbud banner. A suitable project might be a documentary on Political Pedofphelia.

    Once the documentary is complete, make it available for free download to anyone who signs up to the Newsbud mailing list. Include a segment at the end of the documentary to support an “Up an coming Kickstarter campaign to launch the full Newsbud media service”

    The free documentary could be used to promote Newsbud virally without the need of the phony alternative media. I’d be happy to copy DVDs and hand them out on the street corner while it is still legal – I’m sure others would as well!

  21. A-Ben says:

    Dear James,

    Thanks for the invaluable contribution you have made (and hopefully continue to make) towards providing a rational counter narrative to the mainstream insanity that poses as the news. I also appreciate your evolving perspectives on economics, anarchism and voluntarism.

    However, in the interest of maintaining this rational counter narrative, I implore you to reconsider your and Sybel’s outright dismissal of the probable role of crisis actors and staged events in many recent terrorist and/or false flag operations. If you are interested in a very rational argument which illuminates the degree of obfuscation and compliance by the mainstream media in allowing such hoaxes to be perpetrated on the public, I strongly recommend checking out former Professor of Media Studies Dr. James Tracy of


  22. anacardo01 says:

    The boys over at Hoax Busters are on serious tilt over the one-offs perceived as basically in their direction at the end of this talk. Why don’t you and Sibel arrange a debate or airing-of-grievances or something with them, as basically the #1 ‘all this stuff is basically fake’ proponents right now, and air grievances / bury the hatchet?

  23. ccuthbert2001 says:

    I agree 100% with anacardo01. Pick someone–James Tracy seems a good choice–and have an open discussion without the innuendo. That would benefit everyone without creating rancor.

    Between the pot shot at Paul Craig Roberts and these dismissive comments, it appears as though “battle lines” have been drawn. This is not a positive development. Sadly, it seems common among libertarian leaning people (people in general?). I hope that there was some quiet discussion with the “other side” before these public comments. If not, I urge James and Sibel to rethink what they are doing. Making your differences of opinion public is one thing, denigrating comments is another.

    • tillerman says:

      Professor Tracy appeared on the Corbet Report in both 2012 and 2013. I second the suggestion of inviting him back on for an open discussion and also recommend inviting two other guests whose voices have been heard previously on the Corbett Report, Kevin Barrett (2008, 2009) and James Fetzer (2008, 2012). Both Barrett and Fetzer have edited and contributed to recently published books with pieces by serious authors that together question the official narrative of both Paris attacks, the Boston Marathon bombing and what did and did not happen at Sandy Hook.

      In fact, my understanding is that Amazon Banned Fetzer’s book on Sandy Hook after a month of sales as it failed to conform to the narrative of the dozen plus titles on the event that are available on Amazon’s site and thus threatened the official account of events. Looking into the possible reasons for the blatant censorship of a book on this important topic is, I think, worthy of further investigation.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top