Anti-Illumination

In Anti-Iluminati's (AI) podcast ramblings, there is not one phrase, not one idea, not one complete thought that is not in some way misinformation, either by omission, commission, or outright untruth. Let's parse it, line by line (in illuminating Iluminati's untruths, we can perhaps work in some actual truths):

[John O'Neill] is the real thing...

Obviously, I disagree here, but even in the context of pre-O'Neill-epiphany, this is a questionable statement, assuming by 'the real thing' AI means 'awake,' meaning awake to the fact that the war on terror is a hoax now and was a hoax back circa 2001. (Am I correct in calling this concept 'Truth 101'?)

...the top counter-terrorism officer for the FBI...

AI is forgetting that O'Neill is a 'top officer' in a war that – to the extent that it is 'real' at all -- is being orchestrated by the deep state, of which – if O'Neill isn't an integral part – he should be aware, given all the intel he is privy to. (I include no source(s) here because I assume the reader him/herself is 'awake.') So if the above description of John O'Neill tells us anything, it should be, 'Assume that this man is of the deep state until evidence shows otherwise.'

Yes, there are 'good' FBI people and 'bad' (rotten is a better word) FBI people (Sibel Edmonds and Coleen Rowley being examples of the good); among the good are the various field agents who tried to alert their bosses to... to what? The 9/11 plot? NO! They were trying to alert their bosses to what in actuality were aspects of the 'legend,' i.e., the false story behind the attacks first foisted upon the public by Jerome Hauer on the morning of 9/11.

To repeat: The '9/11 plot' that the 'good' FBI folks were uncovering was not the 'real' 9/11 plot but rather the 'legend' being constructed by the real perpetrators.

Yes, we've been told that John O'Neill was thwarted in his obsessive hunt for bin Laden, etc, etc, but, when you come down to it, what real revelations came from his direction? As far as I know, this quote from an interview via CNN about sums up O'Neill's years of dedicated Osama-chasing: 'All the answers, everything you needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia.'

Really? Saudi Arabia? No mention of Langley, Virginia? No mention of bin Laden's CIA asset cover name, 'Tim Osmond'? What this looks like to me is misdirection. (Sibel Edmonds has verified that CIA was running bin Laden right up to the day of 9/11.)

Given that the FBI admits openly that it has no hard evidence that bin Laden was involved in 9/11, upon what intel did John O'Neill base his claim that bin Laden was such a threat? Or was his claim merely part of the 'legend'?.

Evidence that the John O'Neill Legend was in fact part of the misdirection of the official story 'legend' is in subtext in this excerpt from the PBS interview with O'Neill's 'favorite' girlfriend, Valerie James. When asked if Osama bin Laden had become John's 'nemesis,' her answer is:

No. I don't recall that. Yes, the name was bandied about. We were all certainly aware of who he was and what a threat he was considered to be. No, I don't believe he was a nemesis.

Bin Laden's name was 'bandied about'? O'Neill was 'aware' of who bin Laden was; and what a threat 'he was considered to be'? Does this sound right? It may not sound right but it sounds true – coming from the person who knew more about what made O'Neill tick than anyone else, at least in the latter stages of his 'life.' Her detail-rich accounts of O'Neill's work habits prove this.

The feeling I get here – and it's a strong one – is that the bin 'Laden-obsessed' O'Neill was largely a deep state creation, a part of the over all misdirection.

More from Valerie James, via a New York Magazine (not The New Yorker) article:

James says that O'Neill kept other secrets: the overwhelming debts he'd racked up living a James Bond life on a Bureau salary; a plan, complete with legal papers, to divorce his wife. But is her John O'Neill the real one? Given what James has learned about him since his death, she isn't quite sure.

 

The Real Thing?

Until we shake our denial/doublethink and see past the misdirection, we will not be able to clearly understand the level of sophistication achieved by the over all 'legend' behind the official story of 9/11. John O'Neill himself, and the misdirection he represents, is a part of that legend, and a 'crimestop' barrier we need to get past.

I'll rephrase, and to hell with fear of redundancy, for I'm trying to expose a systemic aberration in how we think when the subject of O'Neill and his pursuit of al-Qaeda and bin Laden comes up: Via denial/doublethink we forget that al-Qaeda is a CIA-driven operation, and that bin Laden, plus the 19 'hijackers,' were the 9/11 patsies.

Keep in mind that there is no hard evidence that bin Laden planned or even okayed the attacks, and he himself denied involvement. (Virtually all the 9/11 Report sourcing for bin Laden's involvement was via CIA's 'interrogation' of KSM; in other words, worthless.

Keep in mind that there is no hard evidence that any of the '19 hijackers' were on board whatever aircraft were used that day.

Does anyone really doubt that whatever planes were used that day – the ones that actually crashed -- were piloted remotely? No? Do you believe that that drunken fool Atta flew Flight 11 into the North Tower, suicided himself for the glory of Allah? Or Hani Hanjour...

The idea that 9/11 could have been avoided had the various whistleblowers been heeded fails to take into account the nature of the misdirection. Take the flight school revelations – the Phoenix Memo, say. Ask yourself how that would have gone, specifically, had any of the 'future hijackers' been arrested. Do you think the perpetrators of 9/11 would let the whole operation hang on the competence of Atta, Hanjour, et al.? Do you think these useful idiots/stooges/patsies knew anything about the real mission?

The reason there is no evidence that the 'hijackers' were on any of the planes (no bodies, no names on flight manifests, plus the planted evidence) is because they were not on the planes. All that was needed – once they spread their 'legends' across the landscape – was for them to disappear (in one way or another). The fact that some of them turned up alive shows how difficult it was to set up so many patsies.

The mistaken notion that 9/11 could have been prevented had some of the hijackers been 'exposed' has been around for almost a decade. In thinking this – putting so much energy into it – researchers are implicitly buttressing the official story, i.e., that the 'hijackers' were on those airplanes, even flew them that day. Misdirection!

One way to understand 9/11 is to examine the parallels to the JFK assassination. Think of the hijackers as a collective Oswald and you are on the right track. Webster Tarpley sums this up well.

Here's how it most likely went: they wanted to link Oswald with the Commies, especially with the KGB assassination chief (in Mexico), whom (via look-alikes and staged phone calls) 'Oswald' was contacting, thereby not only setting Oswald up as patsy, but putting the stops to JFK's attempts at détente by making it look like Oswald was in league with the Soviets/Cubans. Classic misdirection. But to do this, the compartmentalized (unaware of the plot) CIA/FBI people had to be kept ignorant of the (faked) 'intel', or they might have grabbed Oswald in Dallas before he could play out his role as unwitting patsy. The 'Oswald intel' had to be quashed until November 22, 1963, at about 12:30 PM.

Do you see how this same misdirection was going on with bin Laden? Set him up as the perpetrator so his guilt would be obvious, but only after the fact. And the same went for the rest of the crew of patsies, mainly the hijackers: create the legends that would incriminate, but before 9/11 keep that stuff under raps so some unwitting force within the CIA/FBI doesn't play last minute spoiler (not of the attack itself but only of an aspect of the 'legend'). A delicate game, culminating on the morning of 9/11/01 and also way back in the 11/22/63 Dallas coup d'etat.

The main difference between Dallas and 9/11 was in scale and complexity: the number of patsies that had to be set up.

Back to AI's podcast blurts on John O'Neill (keep in mind we are trying to figure out why my essay was censored):

...I mean... you know, he was... hahh...he had the most intel...the most information about.. you know...al Qaeda and bin Laden and what he was finding out was that al Qaeda was run by the Central Intelligence Agency...

Really, AI? First I'd like to know where you got your information that O'Neill was finding out that al Qaeda was run by CIA. I suspect you got it from nowhere, or, rather, from inside your own head. I strongly suspect that you said this because it sounds right, based on the John O'Neill Legend, which is your default position (and let the facts and logic be damned).

And if someone (like me) shows up to point out that you have your head up your ass, just censor him. (If this is starting to sound personal, please keep in mind that AI censored me then banned me permanently from an important public forum for merely pointing out an error in his research/theorizing, thereby holding back information you have every right to be privy to. Aren't you outraged?)

But let's take AI's ramblings as truth, that O'Neill was finding out that al Qaeda was run by CIA (which of course is the case in fact). So answer me this: If O'Neill is the real thing, why did he keep his trap shut? He had time, weeks or months, depending on when he 'found out', but he kept this vital – this world shaking – intel to himself. AI, if O'Neill knew that CIA running al Qaeda, you must have evidence that he told someone. If not, then how can you call him 'the real thing'?

In my view, so far AI is not making much sense. Let's see how he does next:

...he took a team to investigate the USS Cole bombing and he found ties to Israeli Mossad... that typa stuff...

If this is true, and maybe it is, I'll repeat: Why didn't O'Neill in some way put it on the record? Finding ties to Mossad in the Cole bombing doesn't mean anything unless you do something with the information. In fact, if what AI says is true – if O'Neill found ties to Mossad – the fact that he kept silent on it would be evidence that he's after all a deep state asset. Isn't that the case?

While we're on the subject of FBI investigations, by all accounts didn't O'Neill participate in the investigation of the 1993 WTC bombing? (Or at the very least, he 'studied it closely.') If so, why did he never divulge the FBI's involvement in that (provocateur-ed ) attack? He surely knew, since FBI asset Edem Salem's taping of his FBI handlers was made public. And ditto with the Oklahoma City Bombing , which we all know was a false flag event as well. Why the silence on that massacre? (These of course are rhetorical queries, since we know from the TWA 800 affair that John O'Neill was/is an enabler of cover ups.)

Further, since we know that the major American-soil 'terrorist attacks,' i.e., Oklahoma City, WTC 1993, and 9/11 were all in some sense false flag (outright staged or provocateur-ed), why should we not suspect that the foreign 'biggies' – the Embassy and Khobar Towers bombings and the Cole attack – were not of similar provenance? Which would make any 'investigation' (by O'Neill or anyone else) just as suspect as the 9/11 Commission one.

We just don't know, but to assume that O'Neill was 'the real thing' based on these investigations is to put the theory before the facts (which is exactly what we accuse defenders of the official story of doing).

Back to the AI Corbettreport.com podcast interview:

... and what happened? Jerome Hauer of Kroll Associates gave John O'Neill a new job... they basically fired him... he had a briefcase... they seized that... they terminated his job, they seized his documents... because it would have... it was... stuff just like Sibel Edmonds... in its own way... and it would have exposed hardcore criminality that would have... would have really brought a lot of the cards down... in the house of cards... okay?... so they seized that and lo and behold they give John O'Neill a new job at the World Trade Center, starting on 9/11... and he's dead... that's like What a coincidence!

I don't even know where to start here. The only thing AI got even remotely right is the name Jerome Hauer. Oh, and 'he had a briefcase' is true, more or less.

I'll try to sum up the 'briefcase incident,' which, as told by AI, gives 'conspiracy theory' a truly bad name, a la the mainstream media's definition, which claims we 'Troofers' make up stuff. Looks to me like some of us do.

By everyone's account, including O'Neill's girlfriend (one of them), Valerie James, O'Neill screwed up by leaving his briefcase -- containing classified documents that should not have left the office – unattended. So if there was a grand conspiracy to discredit O'Neill, he himself was in on it.

According to the story: 'Fingerprint analysis showed the documents hadn't been tampered with.' Yeah, well, a fingerprint analysis wouldn't prove anything: what if a spy had worn gloves? If they'd really wanted to screw O'Neill, surely they wouldn't have said 'No harm, no foul' based on that....

There is no evidence (and I've looked) that the documents would have exposed hardcore criminality, let alone 'brought down' some 'house of cards.' And neither were the documents 'seized.'

And neither was O'Neill 'fired,' in any sense of the word. He retired, with full pension (and life insurance) benefits.

Unless Anti-Iluminati can show me wrong with sources other than himself (and I invite him to), I'll have to assume that this crapola, too, was made up, presumably because it fit so well with what AI had already decided was the truth, i.e, the John O'Neill Legend.

But let's sum up AI's fevered main point: Jerome Hauer got O'Neill the WTC Security chief job (on the day of 9/11) in order to kill him, thereby silencing him on all the hard core criminalities and world-shaking truths he was privy to (but never put on the record, let alone made public).