Peter Myers Digest: Laurent Guyénot film on 9/11: Inside Job or Mossad Job?

(1) 911 cf Sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines
(2) Laurent Guyénot film on 9/11: Inside Job or Mossad Job?
(3) Laurent Guyénot documentary to be live streamed on Sunday, Oct. 9th
(4) Botched Nordstream bombing could rebound disastrously against the perpetrators i.e. Uncle Sam – Kevin Barrett
(5) Discussions with Larry Romanoff
(6) China’s Surveillance System was created to ensure that there’s never another Tiananmen 89

(1) 911 cf Sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines
by Peter Myers, October 8, 2022

The Sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines shows that the US Government is quite capable of doing its own False Flag operations. Did it do so on 9/11, at the cost of thousands of American lives? Or did it outsource most of that operation to Mossad? Or could Mossad and the Neocons have hijacked a US False Flag with their own grander scheme?

The last of the above scenarios – nested conspiracies – is what Laurent Guyénot film argues in his documentary titled Was Israel involved in the 9/11 attacks?

It’s to be live-streamed on Sunday October 9, followed by a panel discussion and questions. If you have an interest in this topic, you should register now, at

In item 4 below, Kevin Barrett, the host of Laurent Guyénot’s documentary, considers whether “winning the Cold War” went to Uncle Sam’s head, creating the illusion that the Empire could get away with anything it wished. Or, alternatively, might Israel and the Neocons have taken over Uncle Sam’s mind, and diverted it to their own ends.

One difference I have with Barrett is that item 4, he casually claims that Sars-Cov-2 was a US attack on China. In this, he is following the line of Ron Unz and Larry Romanoff. No contrary view is allowed on Ron Unz’s site .

My own discussion with Larry Romanoff is at item 5. I’m told that some of this material is nowhere else on the internet.

The alternative dissident view, that I endorse, is that the Governments of the United States and China colluded to create Sars-Cov-2.

This view is presented by Robert F. Kennedy Jr in his new book
Wuhan Cover-Up: How US Health Officials Conspired with the Chinese Military to Hide the Origins of COVID-19 .

It can be pre-ordered at .

It’s also the view of Francis Boyle, author of the Bioweapons Act. He says that the U.S. and China collaborated on the development of the COVID-19 gain-of-function bioweapon:

Geopolitics & Empire

June 3, 2022

Francis Boyle discusses how the U.S. and China collaborated on the development of the COVID-19 gain-of-function bioweapon. The elites in both Beijing and Washington have more in common with each other than with their own people due to their totalitarian mentality.


Boyle’s last point, that “The elites in both Beijing and Washington have more in common with each other than with their own people due to their totalitarian mentality,” resonates when one considers the surveillance regimes that both governments have introduced.

China is a little further ahead, with its Social Credit scheme. If you jay-walk across an intersection, a camera takes your photo, matches it with a Facial Recognition database, and issues demerit points on your Social Credit score. This is straight out of 1984, and the World Economic Forum is trying to lead us down the same path.

(2) Laurent Guyénot film on 9/11: Inside Job or Mossad Job?

From: Laurent Guyénot <>
Subject: 9/11 and Israel’s Great Game

Informing you of the Live streaming of my film « 9/11 and Israel’s Great Game » on Sunday October 9th, followed by a panel discussion with Kevin Barrett, Greg Felton and Bonnie Faulkner:

(3) Laurent Guyénot documentary to be live streamed on Sunday, Oct. 9th

From: No Lies Radio <> Subject: Was Israel involved in the 9/11 attacks? — New documentary to be live streamed on Sunday, Oct. 9th

Live Stream Broadcast Time:

Sunday, October 9, 2022 9 am Pacific * 12 noon Eastern * 5 pm London * 6 pm Paris

Brisbane: 2am Mon Oct 10.

On October 9th we will be live streaming the English version of Laurent Guyénot’s new film “9/11 and Israel’s Great Game”.

We will show the film followed by an expert panel discussion and then take questions from the Internet audience.

On the panel will be the film-maker Laurent Guyénot, Dr. Kevin Barrett, Greg Felton and Bonnie Faulkner of Guns & Butter who will also be the moderator.

Here is a short description of the theme of the film.

Today there are two main dissenting theories on 9/11: The most widespread theory accuses the American administration, or powerful elements within the administration, of having set up a false-flag operation to justify imperialist or neo-colonialist wars, already programmed since the 1990s. Another theory, less known to the Western public, incriminates a Zionist network acting from within the United States, whose goal is to lead America into wars against Israel’s enemies.

These two theories can be conveniently referred to as the “Inside Job” theory and the “Mossad Job” theory.

In this film, we will summarize the arguments of the “Mossad Job” theory, which has been steadily gaining ground since Alan Sabrosky, a professor at the U.S. Military Academy, expressed in a 2011 article his belief that the 9/11 attacks were (and I quote) “a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation.”

Any size donation is OK for this event. $25 is suggested. Donate more if you can. We have $4,000 to raise! Your donation is tax deductible per IRS regulations via No Lies Foundation (NoLiesRadio). The link and password to our livestream will be emailed to you on October 8th, the day before the event. Be sure to check your spam. You will be also be sent a donation receipt.

Register at

(4) Botched Nordstream bombing could rebound disastrously against the perpetrators i.e. Uncle Sam – Kevin Barrett

From: “Ken Freeland” <>
Subject: [shamireaders] Did Uncle Sam, a.k.a. Wile E. Coyote, Blow Up the Wrong Pipeline?
From: Kevin Barrett from Kevin’s Newsletter <>
Date: Wed, Oct 5, 2022, 4:11 PM
Subject: Did Uncle Sam, a.k.a. Wile E. Coyote, Blow Up the Wrong Pipeline?
To: <>

Did Uncle Sam, a.k.a. Wile E. Coyote, Blow Up the Wrong Pipeline?

And what’s behind the unending parade of acts of self-destructive imperial hubris?

After “parties not-so-unknown” bombed the Nordstream gas pipeline, Anthony Blinken celebrated the “tremendous opportunity.” He assumed the whole Nordstream operation was out of commission. That would have given US producers the chance to make billions of dollars robbing Europe blind selling overpriced gas.

But Blinken may have celebrated too soon. According toBloomberg News:

After the suspected sabotage of the network last week in a series of explosions, Gazprom said on Monday three of the lines were affected and one wasn’t. The gas giant has lowered pressure on the unaffected line B of Nord Stream 2 to inspect the link for damage and potential leaks, it said in a statement on its Telegram account.

An Unz Review commenter explained:

“The vaunted US Navy screwed up. In the murky depths of the Baltic Sea they planted their explosives to blow up the ***FOUR*** pipes of the NS 1 & NS2 gas pipelines. (You didn’t know there were four pipes, did you? Neither did I.) But they appear to have screwed up and placed two of the explosive packages on one of the NS2 pipes — line A — leaving the other pipe — line B — with no explosive charge, and subsequently ***NO DAMAGE***. Line B is therefore ***READY TO GO*** with a capacity of 27.5 billion cubic meters per year … which for comparison is 50% of total capacity of Nordstream 1, which as you may recall was recently reduced to 20% capacity before being shut down completely. (2.75 times the capacity of the newly-opened Norway-to-Poland gas pipeline).”

So if Germany gets annoyed at the arrogant American terrorists’ attempt to loot and wreck their economy, all the Germans have to do is cancel their sanctions on Russia and ask Putin to turn on the spigot, which could cause NATO to quickly unravel. If that happens, the Nordstream terror attack will turn out to be one of the worst own goals in strategic history.

Even if this worst-case scenario (from the US perspective) fails to quickly materialize, the botched Nordstream bombing could rebound disastrously against the perpetrators. Cutting Germany’s Russian gas lifeline and replacing it with inadequate quantities of overpriced US gas may have sounded like a good idea in the short term, since it will butress the dollar against the euro and keep the EU tethered to its US vassal status, cut off from the vast resources of Russia. But over the medium term, as non-Western nations continue to gain ever-greater shares of global GDP while the West declines, sabotaging the economy of your biggest vassal seems self-defeating, even in the unlikely event that the Europeans never decide to push back.

The Nordstream terror fiasco takes its place in a long series of stunningly stupid moves by the world’s erstwhile hegemon. The US could have thrived in the post-Cold-War environment by making win-win deals with all major nations and civilizations. Instead, as Putin observed in last week’s speech, it has managed to alienate most of the world with its psychopathic arrogance and blood-splattering vandalism. By looting Russia and pushing NATO eastward in the 1990s, launching a false flag war on Islam in 2001, and more recently alienating Russia, China, Iran, and the whole Islamic world simultaneously, the strategic geniuses running America’s national security state seem to be deliberately creating the mother of all anti-Western coalitions.

Does the Empire harbor a secret death wish? Is unconscious guilt (at betraying the American Republic and mass murdering millions abroad) driving the national security brain trust to self-destruct? Maybe. But first let’s consider two other explanations, one obvious, the other conspiratorial.

First the obvious one: The permanent US national security state has been absolutely corrupted by absolute power. When the Cold War ended and the US emerged as a unipolar hegemon, the managers of empire started to believe “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” That’s hubris at best, psychosis at worst. They started to think they could get away with just about anything. Such delusions of grandeur unleashed a feeding frenzy among those who gorge themselves at the military-industrial-complex trough. Corruption and incompetence danced off together in a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop. Nobody had to worry much about the real-world consequences of bad decisions, because “we” lived in “our own reality” of apparent omnipotence.

But US policy has been so conspicuously self-destructive that it’s hard not to wonder whether it might be intentional. Could some hostile power have taken over the American brain and driven the nation to self-destruction, the way toxoplasmosis parasites take over the brains of mice and make them fall in love with cats?

The nation poised to gain the most from self-defeating US policies is China. Whoever decided to export American manufacturing to China, then waste more than $7 trillion fighting Muslims for no particular reason, then pick a fight with Russia in Ukraine, might as well have been a Chinese sleeper agent. Even the belated anti-China trade war launched in 2019, followed by the apparent COVID attack on Wuhan, were so insanely ineffective that they could easily have been scripted by a CCP version of Dr. Fu Manchu.

But there is no evidence that the CCP is secretly running US foreign policy. If there is a toxoplasmosis type parasite steering Uncle Sam’s brain, it would be the Zionist neocons. These people are drunk on Leo Strauss’s self-styled philosophy of evil. The whole notion of win-win give-and-take diplomacy and negotiation is foreign to them. They never met an act of extreme imperial chutzpah they didn’t like. From 9/11 and the wars it was designed to spark, to the 2014 de facto declaration of war on Russia through the coup in Kiev, to the late autumn 2019 COVID attack on Wuhan and Qom, to the recent blundering attempt to take Nordstream permanently off-line, the neocons keep doing insane things ostensibly designed to strengthen the US empire, but covertly undermining it.

Are the Zio-cons scheming to destroy the US and then dominate the New World Order that arises from its ashes? Or are they merely so unhinged and fanatical in their pro-US-imperial hubris that they keep doing insanely counterproductive things?

(5) Discussions with Larry Romanoff

I had a number of discussions with Larry Romanoff from mid-2018 to mid-2019. He broke off the contact because I refused to accept that the Tiananmen Massacre of 1989 never occurred.

Since then, he has become a major influence on the leftists at Global Research, persuading them that the Tiananmen massacre of 1989 did not occur, and that Covid-19 is a US bioweapon attack on China.

His portrayal of Western history and politics, whilst embarrassing to those who would rather not have their dirty linen exposed, is penetrating but one-sided. His portrayal of China’s history in recent decades airbrushes the totalitarian aspects out of the picture.

I have released some details of the discussion between Romanoff and myself because his impact on world politics has made him a public figure, whose real agenda should be scrutinied.

Romanoff is part of the China Lobby. His strategy is to list all the sins of White America that he can, including its genocide of the Indians (natives) and its Jewish domination.

Yet at the same time, he airbrushes China’s sins away.

Michel Chossudovsky, editor at Global Resaearch, has taken up a number of Romanoff’s ideas. Israel Shamir and Ron Unz likewise have accepted Romanoff’s ideas.

Re Tiananmen 1989, I sent Larry this article:

Eyewitness in China

Eyewitness in China: The Events in Tiananmen Square May-June 1989

By Steve Jolly

13 June 1989 ==

His Reply:

Peter, I read through the article below, and I’m sorry to tell you it’s complete bullshit. […]

The person who wrote that article should be shot.

That article you sent me, made my angry as hell. I’ve seen dozens of those, all by people who were never there, in some cases never been to China, but were just writing propaganda pieces for the CIA and NED. You may have noticed the supposed student comments about how they were receiving a lot of money from outside the country. That part is sure true. The student movement may have been spontaneous at the start, but it was quickly hijacked by the CIA, and managed by Robert Helvey who now works with Gene Sharp in the Einstein Institute and whose claim to fame is the destruction of Jugoslavia with his Otpor manuals for government destabilisation. I have them on my website. Helvey had at the time just returned from doing in Indonesia what he was trying to do in China, working out of Hong Kong.

In any case, a significant number of prominent Western journalists have now come out of the closet to tell the world they were there at the time and that the student protest ended peacefully. ==


I agree with the philosophy of “Bend, but don’t break”.

Therefore, I think that the Tiananmen protestors went too far.

You & I will have to agree to disagree over Steve Jolly’s account.

Equally, I think that Mao went too far in the Great Leap Forward & the Cultural Revolution. It was left to Deng Xiao-ping to pick up the pieces.

China was in such dire straits, when I was there for a month in 1986/7, that everyone pulled together in support of Deng’s changes.

But once again, I think that China has gone too far. It’s behaving as an imperial power. Yes, the US does too; but China is the up & coming power; shades of Germany a century ago.

I find China, and the Chinese people (barring the peasants), quite amoral these days. I guess that the Cultural Revolution destroyed the traditional morality.


(6) China’s Surveillance System was created to ensure that there’s never another Tiananmen 89

The American-Trained Rocket Scientist Who Shaped China’s Surveillance System

Excerpt from ‘Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control’

September 6, 2022

Josh Chin

Josh Chin is Deputy Bureau Chief in China for The Wall Street Journal. He previously covered politics and tech in China as a reporter for the newspaper for more than a decade. He led an investigative…

Liza Lin is an award-winning journalist for The Wall Street Journal based in Singapore. Fluent in Mandarin, she has covered the region for almost 15 years, with eight of those years spent in Shanghai…

This excerpt is adapted from Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control, by Josh Chin and Liza Lin, St. Martin’s Press, © 2022.

The role Qian Xuesen would play in propelling China into a technological and ideological clash with the United States seems almost fated in retrospect. Born in Hangzhou in 1911, the year China’s last dynasty crumbled, Qian had traveled to the United States on a scholarship to study aeronautics and quickly impressed professors with his precision and imagination. The U.S. military granted him clearance to work on classified projects during World War II, despite his not being an American citizen, after mathematician Theodore von Kármán recommended him to the Army Air Forces as an “undisputed genius.” At age 37, he was named founding director of a new jet propulsion center at the California Institute of Technology funded by the Guggenheim family.

Not long after, his career plummeted back to earth. With Wisconsin senator Joseph McCarthy deep into his campaign to bleach any vestige of Communism out of American politics, federal agents visited Qian at his Caltech office in June 1950 saying they had seen his name on a list of Communist Party members dating to his days as a grad student. Despite Qian’s denials, the military revoked his security clearance. When the engineer, humiliated and unable to continue his classified work, tried to travel back to China with his family, customs officials seized his luggage and accused him of trying to smuggle classified documents to Beijing. Qian spent two weeks in a cell, then the next several years under federal surveillance.

With the FBI tracking his activities, Qian spent much of his time huddled in his home in Los Angeles, immersing himself in a new area of study built around revolutionary insights into the relationship between information and control. Known as cybernetics, the field was, as scholar Thomas Rid would later describe it, “a veritable ideology of machines.” It would have profound (if now largely forgotten) impacts on computing, telecommunications, neuroscience, military strategy, artificial intelligence, and dozens of other disciplines of critical importance in the 21st century. Qian saw in it a way to reimagine how engineers approached complex problems, which he described in a book published in 1954, and which itself would prove influential.

The year after the book’s launch, Beijing learned that Qian had grown disillusioned with the United States. The Chinese quietly negotiated with Washington for his release, reportedly in exchange for 11 American airmen captured during the Korean War. Undersecretary of the Navy Dan Kimball would later call Qian’s persecution and expulsion “the stupidest thing this country ever did,” saying the scientist’s value to the American military was “worth five divisions anywhere.”

Watching as Qian prepared to depart, a reporter asked if he ever planned to return to the United States. “I have no reason to come back,” Qian said. Perhaps hoping to hammer home to American readers what they were losing, Qian also said he wanted to correct popular perceptions that he was merely a rocket expert. “I am what is known as an applied scientist who helps engineers solve their problems,” he explained. “The science of rocketry is just a small part of this field.”

Shortly after arriving in Beijing, Qian set about building China’s ballistic missile program almost from scratch. But, true to his word, he also applied his ideas far beyond rocketry. As his career progressed, he would use the principles of cybernetics as the launchpad for an elaborate system that blended human with machine to solve what he saw as the greatest of engineering problems: human society. The idea was audacious, as well as shot through with hubris and utopian folly. It also fired the imaginations of Communist Party leaders, who would later adopt it as the beating heart of their surveillance state.

* * *

On April 15, 1989, the death by heart attack of popular reformist leader Hu Yaobang, who had been ousted as general secretary by conservative rivals two years before, set off what would become the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement. Thousands of students poured into the square and refused to leave. Other pro-democracy protests would flare up in more than 300 other cities.

On the evening of June 3, leaders in Beijing ordered troops back into the city, authorizing them to “use any means” to clear the square. China’s government has never accounted for how many people were killed by the volleys of bullets the soldiers unleashed. Estimates by survivors range from a few hundred to several thousand. Regardless of the death toll, the protests and the violence that ended them carved a wound in the Party’s psyche that forced a change in its calculus.

Qian stood ready to capitalize. On the same day as Hu Yaobang’s death, he published an essay in a journal run by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences that would later seem eerily prophetic. In it, he described Chinese society as an immense supersystem made up of economic, political, and ideological subsystems. It was folly to expect changes in one not to have ripple effects in the others, he warned. “If the development of these three facets of civilization isn’t harmonized”—Party-speak for made to work smoothly without conflict—“from the point of view of systems science, it will push the entire social system from order to disorder, chaos, and collapse,” he wrote. Shortly after the tanks left Beijing in June, with the Party believing it had rescued its rule from the brink of collapse, he publicly denounced the pro-democracy movement and referred to a prominent astrophysicist who had encouraged the students as the “scum of the nation.”

The following year, Qian took his ideas for managing society a step further. In an article for the Chinese Journal of Nature, he described human societies as an example of an “open complex giant system,” a category that also includes the human nervous system and galaxies like the Milky Way. These massive systems are made up of millions of sub-systems that interact both with each other and with the outside world. Compared to smaller closed systems, like those used to control rockets and satellites, they are vastly more difficult to predict and control with math alone. “Not even a supercomputer is up to the task,” Qian wrote, “and there won’t be enough computing power in the future to do this work either.” He argued that the solution was to add people (of a certain kind) to the mix. Sociologists, economists, political scientists, geologists, psychologists—experts in all fields—should be trained in systems science, armed with data, and enlisted in the building of models sophisticated enough to predict and optimize the complexities of societal change, Qian said. This “meta-synthetic” approach to social engineering, he predicted, would unite the natural and social sciences into a new discipline that would usher in the socialist dream.

As China limped into a post-Tiananmen world, accolades for Qian continued to flow. In 1991, he was given the First-Level Model Hero Prize, China’s highest honor for a scientist. Around the same time, propaganda officials launched a “Learn from Qian Xuesen” movement. His ideas began to be taught at the Central Party School, the country’s top training academy for political leaders in Beijing, and were credited by scholars with influencing the political theories of then-president Jiang Zemin. Later, he had an asteroid named after him.

The Party had good reason to celebrate Qian. The suddenness of the crisis the Party faced in 1989 had put many in China in mind of an old saying: “A single spark can set the prairie ablaze.” Most knew the line because Mao had used it in a famous letter intended to raise morale after a massacre of communists in Shanghai had led some in the Party to doubt the prospects for revolution. Once inspirational, the metaphor had now morphed into a warning. The Party had just barely escaped being engulfed by a fire sparked by the death of one of its own leaders. Top officials realized that another spark might come from anywhere: inside or outside the Party, from home or abroad. The ideas Qian had brought to China about how to manage society offered a way not just to fight fires but possibly to prevent them from breaking out in the first place.

Signs of Qian’s influence in this sphere started to become apparent in the early 2000s, when the Party instituted early versions of a “grid management” system to help police keep tighter control over urban neighborhoods. The system, which divided neighborhoods along a grid, was built to encourage a smooth flow of information and enable quick action to head off problems. Each square on the grid was assigned a manager, whose job it was to report goings-on to the police, take photos and video where necessary, and intervene when trouble appeared to be brewing. A series of efforts to build up digital infrastructure, collectively known as the “Golden Projects,” brought grid management into the digital age. They also reflected Qian and his protégé Song Jian’s emphasis on the importance of collecting data in order to grasp the nature of systemic problems.

The most impactful of the projects, the Golden Shield project, focused on exploiting information to neutralize security threats. One critical component, built using cutting-edge firewall technology from the United States and Canada, was a fine-tuned system for filtering out unwanted Internet content. The other key element was the construction of a computer network connecting the Ministry of Public Security with local police bureaus around the country, combined with a national online database containing the ID numbers and personal information of every adult in the country. On that foundation, the Party hoped to build a surveillance system that would incorporate tracking of Internet use at the individual level, closed-circuit cameras, and smart ID cards. Plans also called for the eventual incorporation of speech and facial recognition—a full 15 years before they would be put to use in the crackdown on Uyghurs.

After Qian’s death, the insights he and his students had shared with the Party helped it continue to maintain control, and thrive, in ways that have surprised the world. While most Chinese people have come to realize Mao Zedong was merely human, one Chinese scientist told Science magazine in 2018, “To a circle of scientists in China, Qian Xuesen is now, in their mind, the new god.” If Qian seemed prophetic after Tiananmen Square, however, putting his commandments into practice could be a challenge. In the Hu Jintao era, both grid management and the Golden Shield had short-circuited on several occasions, sometimes to a degree that made leaders in Beijing nervous. The Party’s effort to reboot its approach to control wouldn’t begin in earnest until after November 4, 2012, the day that it anointed a powerful new general secretary.