Why is any of this relevant??? - part 1,
'Kick-off' 2001

Dragon symbols are not of course ubiquitous in modern culture, there are no dragons decorating the White House or the logos of large corporations.  Yet the Sumerian model described in the previous post lies at the root of the heirarchical societal model which has been with us since antiquity.  That doesn't mean that those running the show presently are aware of this history, nor that such a societal model might not have developed without Sumer and its dragon-elite ... but it did. 

What follows will seem totally unrelated to Sumer and the dragon, but to get a feel for how that might be relevant to the modern age some other ground has to be covered first - and I prefer not to take short cuts.

This whole journey for me began after 9/11.   Something about it just didn't seem right, and the more I looked into it the more suspicious I became.  I won't go into all the details here, that would take forever ...  suffice to say that I became convinced that 9/11 was an elaborate hoax. 

I was not satisfied however with the prevailing wind that blew through the early 'truth movement' that the Bush administration was behind 9/11, obstensibly simply to start a war for an oil pipeline in Afghanistan and another one for oil in Iraq.  My hunch was based on many things, one of them being the bizarre case of the "dancing Israelis".

The dancing Israelis were five Mossad agents who were observed celebrating while filming the 9/11 event from several locations across the Hudson in New Jersey.  They conspicuously "high-fived" and danced as the twin towers fell, almost as if they were trying to get arrested, which they were.  They immediately identified themselves to the police as being Israeli, and it became clear later that some or all of them were or had been members of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency.   This led a lot of internet bloggers to proclaim, "See?? It's a Zionist conspiracy, Israel was behind it!!!".

Hmmmm.  Something doesn't seem right about it, they were too overt.  If these guys were with Mossad and had foreknowlege of the event (and it seems they did, they had their camera set-up in the first location beforehand), you would think they would keep quiet - why try to get arrested, why try to point the finger at Israel?  It makes no sense! 

Actually, it does make sense, you just have to do some mental gymnastics and a lot of pondering (for a couple of years in my case LoL) to figure it out.  There are two themes at work here, I believe. 

Firstly, there would be no down side for the perpetrators to allow Israel to be implicated in the attacks.  Anyone accusing Israel of (single-handedly) pulling off something like 9/11, since that would entail Israeli operatives having access to the towers, the planes, Pentagon defenses, NORAD, etc., would be regarded as kooks.  No one would take such a charge seriously.   Furthermore it would allow the "anti-semite" card to be played against those who questioned the official account.  The second part of the equation has to do with something a very smart gentleman from Ann Arbor, Michigan termed, 'Open Complicity' (the title of a video he made).

The best way to explain 'open complicity' is to draw an analogy from the Mafia.  An underling trying to make his way into the inner circle must perform certain tasks, maybe murder, which his superiors observe.  In this way the underling proves his loyalty, and his superiors obtain "dirt" on the potential initiate.  By the logic of 'open complicity', Israel, via the dancing Israelis, stuck its @ss out just a little bit - not enough to put the Mossad in any real danger, but enough for the true conspirators to "get some dirt" on Israel and document their involvement.   There are several other instances of flagrant incompetence, percieved stupidity or profiteering related to 9/11 which can potentially be attributed to Open Complicity, the "put-options" issue being one of the most obvious.  The SEC and FBI investigated large volumes of put-option trades (bets that those stocks would fall) placed on airline and insurance companies adversely affected by and purchased during the week preceding 9/11.   No one was ever named.  In effect, those who profited were allowed to stay unidentified, but were put on notice ... keep your mouths shut.   (To be precise, there were some traders who never collected their profits.)   Other examples of "open complicity" might include Larry Silverstein's odd admission on PBS regarding the collapse of WTC7 that he told the Fire Chief to "pull-it", the fact that the Secret Service did not wisk president Bush out of an elementary classroom once it became known that the country was under attack (all on video tape),  and the incredible case of the BBC "cock-up".

About the time that I figured out that Mossad (Israel) was somehow involved but only in a supporting role, the internet lit up like a Christmas tree when archival footage surfaced of the BBC reporting the collapse of World Trade Center Building #7 ... 20 minutes before it happened (!!!).

For those unfamiliar with this event, WTC7 (also known as the Salomon Brothers building), which hadn't been hit by a plane, stood a hundred yards from the twin towers and inexplicably collapsed into rubble at about 5:20 in the afternoon of 9/11.  (Admittedly, some fires had broken out on a few floors of the building, but they were minor, as is evidenced in photos - and how did those fires get started?)

If you haven't seen the footage of the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC7 (before it happened),  here's a link -


Note that WTC7 stands mockingly behind BBC correspondent Jane Stanley's shoulder in the distance as she and her London associate discuss the collapse (past tense) of the same building.  The BBC responded to hundreds of queries about this footage by stating simply that it was a "cock-up".   A mistake.  

Huhh!??  - Maybe, if the building hadn't actually collapsed at free-fall speed into its own foot-print a couple of minutes after the live feed from Ms. Stanley to London suddenly went dead, someone might buy that it was just a "cock-up".  The problem is, BBC, you were right.  WTC7, which hadn't been hit by a plane, did collapse, just as you said it did-would.  

Add to all that, the fact that Britain has rallied hand-in-hand with the US in incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq (while other countries have been far less enthusiastic), and that Israel is a benificiary of these aggressions against Arab nations, it didn't escape my notice that the US, Britain and Israel were in bed together regarding the current "war on terror" for which 9/11 was the seed.

So if elements within the governments or intelligence agencies of not only the US, but of Israel and Britain were somehow complicit in the attacks of 9/11 then we have to accept that there are also powerful people behind the scenes with enough connections to organize such a clandistine team effort and keep it covered it up.   When you factor in the willingness of mass media to both act as cheerleaders in the war on terror and marginalize anyone questioning what really happend on 9/11, then it becomes obvious we are dealing with something few people are equipped to wrap their heads around.

Some notes on the above before moving on ... first, apart from the BBC "cock-up" there is no indication that Britain played any role in the events of 9/11.  However the 7/7 subway bombings in London show all the tell-tale signs of a false-flag event.  (It was reported that a bomb blast blew the train floor upward, not down, indicating the bomb having been under the train not in it.  There are other anomolies, for instance an anti-terrorism exercise involving the same train stations that were hit was being carried out by the police that day, much like America's air defenses were busy conducting numerous war-games and exercises on 9/11, confusing people at NORAD and the FAA.)

Secondly, who sent the BBC desk news of the collapse of WTC7 too early?   Why would someone do that?  Could such a slip-up really be attributed to incompetence?  Or, was this another case of 'open complicity', whereby the BBC was put on notice ... "you're @ss is exposed now, so tow the line." ?

Finally it should be noted that stating that the mainstream media assisted in covering up the truth about the 9/11 attacks does not infer in any way that every program director, executive or news anchor working for the major networks knows the truth - they all bought the cover story hook-line-and-sinker just like everyone else.   It must be the case however that memos got passed down from somewhere, drawing lines in the sand as to how certain stories were to be spun or what topics were simply taboo - the proof in the pudding is the fact that not a peep was ever heard from any of the mainstream media outlets about bomshell stories such as the BBC's reporting of the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes before the fact, the discovery of an incendiary (nano-thermite), both signature residue and unexploded flakes in samples of WTC dust by a team of scientists which was published in a peer reviewed paper, or the analysis of the AA77 Flight Data Recorder by a team of aviation professionals.  (The AA77 FDR analysis was done by members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, the data they scoured over with a fine tooth comb for months is official and was released by the NTSB under a Freedom of Information Act request and are in direct conflict with the assertion that American flight 77 hit the Pentagon ... in short, the 'black-box' says unequivocally that the plane was too high to have hit the Pentagon and was on a course incompatible with the damage to both the Pentagon and the surrounding downed light poles.  The data also shows that the cabin door was never opened once the engines had been started for the duration of the flight.)  

The first two of these news items got a fair amount of coverage on alternate news sites and blogs on the internet, the BBC clip going viral.  Yet the major outlets simply would not touch these news items ... asssumedly because they constitute proof that 9/11 wasn't what they told us.

Which all leads to the $64,000 question ... Why???  If it was an "inside job", why was 9/11 carried out?

No one really knows of course except the people who cooked it up, but anyone can make a guess.   Here's mine:

To start a global war against Islam.   (You can't say that, it has to be called a global war on terror.)

Which begs the second question, how does war against the Islamic world serve the global power-brokers?

* Resources.  That's where they are - not just in the Middle East, the Caspian Sea is surrounded by oil and gas reserves, possibly rivaling those of the Middle East.  Some of these reserves are now trickling out of Central Asia westward to European markets, but where Big Oil really wants to export this oil and gas is eastward, to the energy starved markets of India, China, Japan and south-east Asia.  Afghanistan (which is still unstable) and the Islamic Republic of Iran block this export route.

* Banking.  Islamic rules against usury generally prevent banks in the Muslim world from charging interest.  Banks in places like Iran and Sudan make their money from transaction fees, not interest.  These rules against usury make it nearly impossible for the fiat-based western banking model to gain a foothold in the Muslim world.

* Tightening the screws on freedom.  The war on terror has provided the excuse to tighten security everywhere, spy on citizens, suppress free speech and justify an increasingly overbearing police presence.   The Patriot Act alone gutted half of the bill of rights.

Then there is the fact that "rogue" states targeted in the war on terror happen(ed) to be enemies of Israel.   I would agree with the assessment that the destruction of Islamic regimes in Israel's neighborhood has played a role in the reasoning behind the war on terror ... but ... I don't know for sure if Israel itself isn't a means to an end, a wedge which was driven into the heart of the Muslim world so many decades ago.  ... For what reason, to create a homeland for the Jews?  But how does that rational stand up when one considers that the top Jewish bankers of Europe and their American allies helped fund Hitler's war machine in the 30's?  That the holocaust (to whatever degree the reported history is accurate) was permitted (or worse) by those same people in order to encourage European Jewish migration to Palestine, which had been paltry prior to WWII?

These are tough questions, which I don't know the answers to.  But the fact that the Hun, Viking, Frank and Israelite branches on the dragon tree all split off from the trunk in the pagan Ba'al worshipping northern Levant (northern Israel/modern Lebanon/Syria), I'm not so sure that the "Jewish homeland" meme wasn't just a cover story from the beginning.

That's pretty controversial stuff, but very important "stuff".  Clarity on the issue is in fact one of my quests, and subsequent posts on this site will hopefully lend insight into what the real truth is. 

On a final note, the possible (actually, I would say probable) reasons I submitted above for executing 9/11 to kick off a war on terror all serve a deeper purpose, that is, that the westernization of the Islamic world and the near-tyranical controls on freedom of speech and movement we are beginning to see in the western world are not so much the end goals themselves, but rather in preparation for something else.  

People hear the alarm bells of an elite plan for "One-World-Government" all the time these days and many surely think 'oh-gawd, another "conspiracy theory".  But global governance has long been a goal of the people who really run things ...  Aaron Russo talks about this in several interviews made before his death, relaying what he learned from his friend Nicholas Rockefeller; and Federal Reserve architect Paul Warburg's son, James Paul Warburg, stated in front of the the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in February, 1950:

"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

No joke, that's a quote from the congressional record.

These people, those who already own and control so much (you can find many of them at yearly Bilderberg Group meetings), are pushing toward that goal in earnest now - 9/11 was the kick-off.  The financial crisis is a part of it, and we are already seeing a move toward a new international currency.  

Whether it takes them another 10, 20 or 30 years, by the time this is all over everything will be digitized, there will be no national currencies or national sovereignty to speak of.  We may even all have chips in our arms to carry our data.  

One big "global village" of orderly sheep.  ("Behave, or we'll turn off your chip.")

I hate to be negative, but presently that's the course we are on.

Sumer, the Constellations and Draco the Dragon

Why is any of this relevant??? - part 1,
'Kick-off' 2001

Why is any of this relevant? - part 2,
The heritage of the ruling elite - 5000 Years Old???

Ancestral Roots of the Vikings

The Huns

The Huns: Addendum

The Tribe of Dan

The Franks


Melissena: Addendum