Rumsfeld: The One Human Being “Unaware” Of Building 7?

By Jerry Alatalo

RethinkAlphabet Some people have, as most journalists experience, various levels of negative opinions of Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change. But try to name one other journalist who’s gotten directly into the faces of Rothschild, Kissinger, Silverstein etc., and now – Donald Rumsfeld. Mr. Rudkowski recently ran into the former Secretary of Defense during the time of 9/11 in 2001, and asked him about World Trade Center Building 7, the 3rd skyscraper to collapse on September 11, and about which virtually every man, woman and child on Earth knows about.

Consider this:

In response to the “smoking gun” controversy surrounding Building 7, Rumsfeld told Luke Rudkowski: “I don’t know anything about that.”

There are people who’ll see this short three-minute video and react with laughter, or get some kind of “kick” out of hearing Rumsfeld, frankly, lie through his teeth. Unfortunately, what Rudkowski captured on film and audio is far, far from a laughing matter. It’s impossible to describe this encounter, this historical record, in any other manner but as deadly serious business… Because those responsible for 9/11, including Donald Rumsfeld, have yet to face prosecution for the profoundly negative-consequence war crimes they’ve committed.

Metaphorically speaking, and to illustrate how preposterous and disturbing Rumsfeld’s statement is – it’s as if he is saying he’s unaware that the sky is blue, or that the grass is green. Rumsfeld’s words were beyond the point of – far beyond the point of – ridiculous, and in a world with the slightest sense of morality and justice would produce loud and unanimous, across-the-board and directly clear, demands for a necessary, new, real investigation of 9/11.

In what might seem to some as an insignificant though gutsy effort at revealing the truth, Luke Rudkowski’s confrontation with Donald Rumsfeld was a truly courageous journalistic act, and…


(Thank you to We Are Change at YouTube)


The Uber-Cartel: True Or False?

Posted March 20, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“They say that knowledge is power. I used to think so, but I now know that they mean money.”

– Lord Byron (1788-1824)

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAYesterday we posted an interview of retired head of U.S. Army Strategic Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine. In that interview Mr. Stubblebine, the highest ranking U.S. military person to publicly state that the official 9/11 Commission Report was false, shared his experience of having his entire world perception shaken to the core. With the ability he developed from 32 years in the U.S. military, with a particular emphasis on photographic analysis, his study of the damage done at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 led him to believe that the official government story was wrong.

Now, for a man with Mr. Stubblebine’s military experience to publicly state that the government was in effect lying about the events of September 11, 2001 is at the very least disturbing. If any person reading this has researched Albert Stubblebine and can share your opinion here, please do so in the comments. I have only just discovered his interview and would greatly appreciate your honest opinions.

Since posting the 19-minute interview of Albert Stubblebine yesterday, I have found one other interview that was slightly over an hour. The comments after that interview were varied but perhaps 80-90% seemed to express the belief the Mr. Stubblebine is truthful, and that what he is saying about September 11, 2001 is what he believes is true. He is over 80 years old, an elder, that segment of the population many spiritual traditions hold in the highest respect because the elders have attained wisdom.

So, it is difficult to believe that a man over 80 years old and moving closer to the great transition commonly called death could falsely contradict the government and people that he spent decades serving. In the over hour-long interview he notes that he has decided to decline interviews with any person but person(s) that he trusts, because interviewers broke promises to let him watch interwiews before publication. He shares in that interview his experience of removing the “blinders” and “earmuffs” – after he retired from the military, he talks about “waking up”.

Alfred Stubblebine seems like an honest man who, because of his public statements contradicting the official story on September 11, has received blows to his reputation and honor. And would an octogenarian make a choice to intentionally lie and cause confusion? In other words, either Alfred Stubblebine is telling the full truth or he missed his calling as a dramatic actor. When one considers his age of over 80 years, his 32 years of military service, and the way he speaks in what seems like without pretense, it becomes hard to conclude but that he speaks truth. Once again, please either agree or disagree here, including details about why you agree or disagree, to provide clarification for myself and readers. Thank you.

Please share any opinion or knowledge you may have of Major General Albert Stubblebine’s wife, Dr. Rima Laibow, who in the following video gets interviewed by “We Are Change” and Luke Rudowski. Luke Rudowski is a fellow who I admire for his guts and courage in confronting the powerful. Dr. Rima is a woman I’ve listened to just today after looking for more interviews of her husband. Just the same as her husband, I listened to another over one hour-long interview of Rima Laibow and find her as intelligent and credible.

Having only just found this husband and wife and their astonishing messages in the last few days, without researching them, one finds it hard to remove the last feelings of doubt about the truthfulness of what they are sharing and asserting. With regard to Rima Laibow, there is a certain amount of agreement based simply on my reading of naturopathic books in the past.  So, I concur with her on the subjects of pharmaceuticals (she says she has never prescribed them to patients), vaccinations (not because of any scientific knowledge I have but I sense that they are not good), GMO because of my modest research, and geoengineering (although no governments have even admitted it is occurring, or why), with thousands of homemade videos of planes spraying extended contrails around the world for view on the internet.

Her connecting of pharmaceutical, agribusiness, medicine/health, and chemical companies through interlocking directorates, and her use of the term “Uber-Cartel” seems understandable from the standpoint of having read Ben Bagdikian’s book “The Media Monopoly”, where he explains the interlocking directorate scenario of media conglomerates.

The most difficult aspect of Rima Laibow’s assertions to deal with is her claims about eugenics or depopulation. Is it possible that those in the Uber-Cartel have plans to reduce the number of human beings by 90%? Frankly, it’s hard to even type the question, as it suggests a level of diabolical thinking that is in many ways – in all ways – unthinkable. Based on the sense of honesty in Albert Stubblebine’s voice, one would think that if he’s honest so is his wife.

So, with regard to Major General Albert Stubblebine and his wife Dr. Rima Laibow, there is no doubt that what they have and are saying is nothing but astonishing. Is it overwhelmingly false or, God forbid, overwhelmingly true? I sincerely ask for comments on these folks from you, because, if their information is false I have to take down their interviews – this blog is intent on posting only the truth. Either Mr. Stubblebine and Dr. Laibow have no problems with leading people on the wrong, dishonorable track of lies and disinformation or…

What comes after “or” is beyond humanity’s worst nightmare.


(Thank you to WeAreChange at YouTube)

Toward Healthy Energy Solutions.

Posted February 17, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“Science is the search for truth – it is not a game in which one tries to beat his opponent, to do harm to others.”

– Linus Pauling (1901-1994)

smoky mt-1In the United States shale gas was 2% of the total natural gas produced in 2000. In the year 2014 that percentage has risen to 40% of the total natural gas. Gas from hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has become a phenomenon in America, and remains a controversial subject due to limited knowledge of the process by the people.

For those men and women who have concerns or wish to learn more about fracking, an organization “Physicians, Scientists, And Engineers for Healthy Energy” was formed to allow people to study transparent non-biased information on important energy topics. Their information comes from a multi-disciplinary framework with contributions from educated men and women in various fields on all aspects of energy production on Earth.

The group focuses on producing highly vetted knowledge on one of the most important subjects in the world: energy, its sources, the hazards and promise of the various energy production options, as well as societal concerns from those optional forms. Energy is essential for every human being in the world, so this organization, one of the first, if not the first of its kind, offers the public, government officials, and business an excellent source of accurate study on the consequences, negative or positive, of different energies available.

People in the states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, and New York, where the giant Marcellus shale deposits are located will be especially interested in visiting this organization’s website, because the future in this region may include fracking wells numbering in the hundreds of thousands. People in states considering fracking would make the right decision by spending some time on the groups website, as the knowledge offered there is important and highly relevant.

Given the global dimension of fracking, people around the world would do well to learn at as many nations have either begun drilling, are considering it, or are experiencing regrets about deciding to frack.  PSE for Healthy Energy offers a unique and important source of top-notch scientific research and study.

Some facts about fracking:

Wells get drilled to depths from 5,000 to 10,000 feet

3-5 millions gallons of fluid are required per well

2-3% of the fluids consists of chemicals needed for the process

Companies are not required to report all of those chemicals

To a large extent, fracking companies cannot be sued for damages due to the “Cheney Rule”

Methane from fracking is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2

Comprehensive environmental impacts have not been conducted and determined

In the state of Pennsylvania 7,000 wells have gone up, of which approximately one-half have been fracked. The state has seen a significant number of complaints about the effects of fracking, mostly about drinking water contamination. Pennsylvania projects for the future that 100,000 wells will become drilled, and since the relatively small number of wells that have been fracked has resulted in a large number of citizen complaints, the urgency of intense research and study only increases.

This is where absolute relevance of an organization like Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy becomes recognized, because education on fracking and alternatives is essential for citizen’s awareness of the issues, and offers the best chance for good decision-making going forward. In America there are very few, if any, news organizations educating the public on hydraulic fracturing – the positives and negatives. On the one hand there are economic positives, and then there are negative consequences – most importantly drinking water contamination from fracking chemicals.

The work done by PSE for Healthy Energy is critically important because the best minds on the issues of energy production are making sincere efforts to get the science right in the one or two decades most scientists feel are left to reverse adverse environmental effects from fossil fuels.

The greatest danger facing humanity is higher temperatures which accelerate an already melting permafrost in the Arctic regions, threatening the Earth with massive methane releases of catastrophic dimensions. Given the great increase in fracking around the world it is important that science is relied upon for good knowledge of its consequences.


Mr. Jake Hays of PSE for Healthy Energy gives a short talk from January 2014 in the following video. If you have concerns about future decisions regarding energy production options for the men, women, and children of the world, please visit


(Thank you We Are Change CT @ YouTube)

“Russ” Brand Versus “Jake” Rothschild. Debate Of The Century.

English: Facade of The American Idol Experienc...
English: Facade of The American Idol Experience attraction at Disney Hollywood Studios at Walt Disney World (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Posted October 27, 2013

by Jerry Alatalo

“This thing must be put bluntly: every man who has more than is necessary for his livelihood and that of his family, and for the normal development of his intelligence, is a thief and a robber. If he has too much, it means that others have too little.”

– Romain Rolland


French novelist

Some remember the 1974 classic boxing match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman in Zaire, where the aging Ali faced the young ultra-powerful knockout artist. Ali used his strategy of “rope-a-dope”, lingering on the ropes for extended periods of time while allowing Foreman to bang away on his body, until after several rounds into the fight, Foreman had punched himself out and Ali attacked, stinging the rubber armed Foreman into defeat. It was “The Rumble in the Jungle”, one of the most memorable boxing events ever.

As athletic competitions are all about a combination of physical agility, strategy in the form of playbooks, practice sessions to maximize performance before the games, psychology and squeezing the 110% effort out of the players when the game begins etc., debates are competitions of ideas.

After watching the recent viral video of Russell Brand on a British news program, then reading a transcript, I imagined him debating one of the trillionaire Rothschilds, perhaps the oldest, most experienced and mature “Lord” Jacob Rothschild.. In the viral interview Brand called for a “revolution” reminiscent of the Beatles song. He conveyed his thoughts on what many millions of people around the world have come to view as a problem: the unequal distribution of wealth between the so-called “haves” and the “have-nots”.

One can see in their mind’s eye a new television program on the lines of “American Idol”, where instead of contestants competing with their singing voices, the competition has its focus on ideas for creating a new and better world. What would the title of such a show be…? Perhaps “Great Debates 2013” or “World of Ideas” or, here’s a catchy title-“American Ideology”. Yes, “American Ideology” would be precisely perfect.

Ideology is defined as “beliefs of a group, especially political”.

Imagine how immensely popular such a “show” would be if it came to be produced and a reality, when viewers can then “tune-in”. You can envision the advertisements which market the premier show, featuring the debate between Russell and Lord Jacob, “Russ” and “Jake”. I am somewhat surprised that (of course I’m not surprised) a hot-shot director of program development at one of the media monopoly corporations hasn’t brought such a program to air. It would sweep the ratings. It would be the most popular, most viewed television show in the history of the medium.

The premier show with Brand versus Rothschild would shatter the record books, drawing more viewers than the Super Bowl or the Oscars. Each subsequent show, because of the tremendous “buzz” generated by the profound Brand-Rothschild battle of ideas, would continue breaking the record for “most viewed” as the show builds huge, huge audiences. Corporations wishing to place advertisements would face ad prices that are higher than those of the Super Bowl, as the number of weekly viewers around the world surpasses a billion.

Heck, “Jake” could out-do Donald Trump in the arena of self-selling media by producing the show, and reaping the amazing profits that become generated through advertisements and associated marketing of mugs, t-shirts, baseball caps, and “American Ideology” lunch boxes. Imagine the effect on young people who will find their curiosity, their wish to know more about how the world of ideas becomes created, where the girls and boys around the Earth step up their reading of books on philosophy, science, government, economics etc. of those authors mentioned during the debates. An accelerating, tsunami-like evolution of ideas will occur on the Earth.

One can see young people coming to a point where those who spend time engaging in computer games shall be seen as “uncool”. The young people will no longer be whining to their parents about the latest computer time-wasting product – but reading the great, classic books of history in an addictive way, mirroring what they used to do with video games.

Why haven’t the owners of the media monopoly conglomerates yet moved to produce such a sure-fire television show “hit” of all “hits”?

I have thought about this question at times and see that such an ideas-based show would be a monster, runaway smash hit. Could the non-production and absence of shows which are about the expounding of so-called big ideas be because of media owners’ concerns about “riling up” the citizens of the planet? How is it that media owners have historically steered away from intellectually stimulating, debate format programming, when (I have to believe) they are aware of the possibility and potential, especially in the arena of making profits?

So I guess this may be considered an invitation to the media monopoly owners, a suggestion which may hit that part of those owners which will appeal to their profit motive. To those owners: you own the company and can do whatever you want with regard to programming. Simply arrange for producing “American Ideology”, just like any other one-hour weekly show. Cancel one hour of your lowest rated prime-time shows and plugin “American Ideology” there. Have a big publicity-generating, buzz-creating press gathering to announce the new show, your plan to invite Russell Brand and Lord Jacob Rothschild as the first debaters, and watch the cash registers “ka-ching” like never before in the history of television.

Russell Brand would be up for it. Getting Lord “Jake” to participate might be another story, as he doesn’t seem like much of an “extrovert”-not a real talkative fellow. Perhaps “Jake” could be persuaded through appeals to his wish to inspire people to realize his considerable success in life. Surely that would seal the deal and “Jake” would agree to debate Mr. Brand, confident that his way of looking at life, tuxedo-required events and all, will easily overpower Mr. Brand’s ideas, and ensure continuation of the historical status-quo on Earth, no need for worry or change.

In a gesture of goodwill, the network owners will donate all profits from the premier of “American Ideology” to the United Nations for efforts to help men, women, and children war refugees.