Trump’s 9/11 and Tales of Holocausts to Come by Paul Walker
Following the collapse of the twin towers, it did not take long for a truth about 9/11 movement to begin its probe of the event. For the Syrian gas attack, the probe stared even earlier, with even mainstream establishment figures raising doubts about the attacks being authentic because they made no sense for President al-Assad to commit suicide by Trump at the exact moment when the US was going to leave him be and move on.
Deep State forces behind the neo-cons wanted his removal, so there was a motive for staging a false flag attack. But, was the attack really false? Apart from the gas attack making no sense, and opposing claims that the chemical weapons were held by rebels, what positive refuting evidence is there? This is like the physical evidence used to show that 9/11 was a false flag.
Michael Savage, having a PhD in epidemiology, has said that the alleged gas attack could not have been sarin as Trump said it was, because first responders attended without gloves or protective gear, and if this had been a sarin attack, they would have quickly died: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-08/michael-savage-turns-trump-says-syrian-gas-attack-was-false-flag-operation.
Another site has the revealing comments: “An examination of a White Helmets video, conducted by Swedish medical doctors, specialists in various fields, including paediatrics, have revealed that the life-saving procedures seen in the film are incorrect – in fact life-threatening – or simply fake, including simulated emergency resuscitation techniques being used on already lifeless children.” See: http://theindicter.com/swedish-doctors-for-human-rights-white-helmets-video-macabre-manipulation-of-dead-children-and-staged-chemical-weapons-attack-to-justify-a-no-fly-zone-in-syria/.
It is noted in this article that the intracardiac syringe procedures performed on some of the “beautiful babies,” would, if they were alive, probably kill them: “Dr Leif Elinder, a known Swedish medical doctor profile, author and specialist in paediatrics, summarised the following in his reply:
“After examination of the video material, I found that the measures inflicted upon those children, some of them lifeless, are bizarre, non-medical, non-lifesaving, and even counterproductive in terms of life-saving purposes of children”.
Further, I received a detailed clinical statement from Dr Lena Oske, a Swedish medical doctor and general practitioner. In her statement, Dr Oske referred to the presumed, adrenaline injection, performed in the White Helmet video (excerpt in the photo above). Her specialist opinion dismisses the procedure conducted in the White Helmet video, as unqualified and incorrect. Furthermore, she describes the earlier assessment of the procedure by a colleague who had exclaimed:
“If not already dead, this injection would have killed the child!”
Excerpts from Dr Lena Oske’s statement to SWEDHR:
“Intracutaneous injection with adrenalin may be used if any other resuscitation measure does not succeed. Especially under precarious circumstances – such as in field emergency settings– where safer ways for the administration of medication (i.e. endotracheal, intravenous, or intraosseus) might be difficult or unavailable. But not in the way shown in the video”.
“In order to perform the injection, CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) has to be interrupted, and then the CPR resumed immediately after. Which is not done in the procedures shown in the video.”
And, referring to a correct medical procedure, the Swedish specialist MD adds:
“The technique is simple. Long needle, syringe with 1 mg adrenaline, find the 4th or 5th intercostal space and insert the needle just adjacent to the sternum, left side, deposit the medication after checking you are in the right position (aspiration of blood and no resistance), take out the needle and immediately resume CPR! So, the doctor who wrote the comment, ‘If not already dead, this injection would have killed the child’ was right! What a macabre scene; and how sad.” 
[Both colleagues, doctors Leif Elinder and Lena Oske, are senior members of SWEDHR, and on behalf of the SWEDHR board I fully endorse each other’s statements.]”
There is also evidence of “staging,” getting things “right” for the camera, for film to be given to the UN:
“The final scene of this “drama” is the closed-door session at the UN Security Council, where the White Helmet video we have referred to, took centre stage at a performance by former US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power.
Predictably, the shocking scenes of children’s lifeless bodies being crudely manipulated and “arranged” combined with the theatrical and entirely ineffectual “life-saving” interventions – as depicted by the White Helmet movie – emotionally impacted upon the UN decision makers. In Samantha Power’s words:
“I saw no one in the room without tears. If there was a dry eye in the room, I didn’t see it” 
Unfortunately, UN officials were so distracted by the macabre performance they had just witnessed, that they did not think to ask for a translation of the various instructions being issued by the “medics” in the film. A rudimentary element of any investigation process must be to clarify context, particularly when the results have potential to precipitate a terrifying conflict escalation between the US and Russia on Syrian soil.
SWEDHR took the time to get the dialogue in the White Helmet movie translated. At 1:16 the doctor in full light green and a gray & black jumper says:
”Include in the picture (meaning in the film or the frame -translators note) the mother should be underneath and the children on top of her, hey! Make sure the mother is underneath.”
Perhaps, if the video had been subtitled, the UN officials might have queried this overt staging of an event that one must assume, was chaotic, harrowing and stressful. Perhaps, they would have found it strange, that in the midst of a “chemical weapon” attack, one of the medics, attempting to save the lives of three Syrian children, would be concerned with the positioning of their bodies for the camera.”
We can expect more detailed analyses like this one coming soon, if Trump continues down the neo con road, which now seems certain. Reports of Trump planning a full-scale invasion of Syria to destroy al-Assad (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-military/), apart from igniting war with Russia, has the obvious problem attached of who to replace him with. US interventions in the Arab world have always blown up in their face, and this one will be no exception. What will come will be another Islamist theocratic regime operating under sharia law, because most of those opposing al-Assad, want this rather than American-style libertarianism.
That, is the best case scenario; the more likely one will be war with Russia, one which the US will lose, since the US has spent the Obama years worrying about transgender bathrooms, while the Russians have prepared for war, and prepared their people for it too: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/russia-prepares-nuclear-war-wwiii-2016-10.
Not only is Trump preparing to fight on this front, but he is getting ready to take on North Korea as well. The North Korean threat is no false flag and is indeed a real danger to the world, but the question is how best to handle this crazy nation with nukes. In fact, nukes may not be the immediate concern, since North Korea has about 20,000 rockets and missiles on its border with South Korea: http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/how-does-us-military-power-stack-up-against-north-korea-china-and-russia/news-story/bd16adca452e9738adad3ffdca749f18. Many of these weapons can be shot down by US technology, but is unrealistic to suppose that nothing would get through. North Korea could devastate Seoul, and kill millions of people: http://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-nuclear-attack-donald-trump-kim-jong-un-south-korea-seoul-china-584671.
Then there is the ultimate issue of how to end North Korea’s nuclear program, given that it will not surrender it without a battle to the death. North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure are buried deep in secret underground facilities, that probably could not be destroyed by conventional weapons, even the recently exploded GBU-43B bomb, which was used against ISIS in Afghanistan: http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/us-drops-mother-of-all-bombs-on-isis-in-afghanistan/news-story/19565f20d5e0fa57517160b4dbec4b95. The Russians have a bomb which is four times more powerful: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3334130/putin-has-a-secret-bomb-which-is-four-times-as-powerful-as-the-mega-weapon-trump-used-to-blast-isis-and-its-dubbed-the-father-of-all-bombs/. Still, all this may not be enough, depending on how deep underground the North Koreans have dug.
In all of this China has not been roasted for its enormous effort in creating the North Korea that now confronts the West. Indeed, it capitalises on the situation, gaining leverage from its ability to keep the attack dog on a leash a bit longer.
There is no easy answer to the problem of North Korea, because, like most things, it has been left unsolved for too long. There may not be an answer, as it charges ahead to create long-range nuclear missiles that will be launched against the West, one day soon.