reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, rumors circulated about a group of Middle Eastern men seen near New York City. This led to speculation about Israeli espionage on US soil. A witness reported seeing three men on top of a van taking pictures with the burning Twin Towers in the background. The police later stopped the van and arrested five Israeli men. Some of them were connected to Israeli intelligence, which raised concerns at the FBI. The FBI wanted to know who these men were, why they were in that parking lot on September 11, and if they had prior knowledge of the attacks. The men claimed they were just taking pictures and worked for a company called Urban Moving. The company's offices were later abandoned, leaving behind boxes and computers. The Israelis were interrogated and given lie detector tests. While opinions differ, many investigators believe that the men were involved in some form of intelligence work.

Israeli spies were detained after being caught recording the 9/11 attacks. They later admitted on television that it was their job to document the event. They were then questioned again, this time about their alleged membership in Masai. They explained that they come from a country that faces daily terror attacks and their purpose was to document the event.

There were many involved in nine eleven—the Pentagon, the executive branch, and the CIA—with prior knowledge and investments. And then there was Israel. The dancing Israelis, who posed for pictures in front of the burning towers, told the FBI that Israel now has hope that the world will understand us. Over a 100 Israelis were arrested after 9/11; they were trained in military intelligence and explosives, posing as art students with fake IDs, infiltrating government buildings. The US response was to destabilize the Middle East and to start viewing the American people as domestic terrorists. This is known as a false flag. Netanyahu has made it clear he supports Hamas, and the evidence shows that they are also a creation of the intelligence agencies. Having helped to build up Hamas, Netanyahu has now vowed to destroy it.

In 1946, a terrorist bombing at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killed 91 people and injured 46. The attack was carried out by Israeli extremists, setting a deadly example for extremism in the region. The extremists disguised themselves as Arabs and detonated a bomb in the hotel, causing significant destruction. This event, along with other instances of Israeli aggression, raises questions about continued support for Israel by the UK and US. The legacy of Israeli terror has had far-reaching consequences, prompting scrutiny of the relationship between these countries and Israel.

In 1994, a car bomb exploded outside the Israeli embassy in London, suspected to be a false flag attack by Mossad. A senior Mi5 officer believed Mossad bombed their own embassy to increase security and disrupt a Palestinian support network. Two innocent Palestinians were framed for the attack, leading to their arrest and the collapse of the network. This incident had significant political implications.

In 1991, the Israeli Mossad planned to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush due to a funding dispute. Mossad agents intended to blame Palestinians for the attack. The plot was foiled, and a second plot in 1993 was linked to Iraqi intelligence, leading to missile strikes in Baghdad.

there was an incident where there was a white van in New Jersey across from the World Trade Center, and five Israelis, probably Mossad, were giving the high five after the World Trade Center was hit. The investigation was taken away at the Justice Department from terrorism and put in national security completely sealed off. You know, if you could look at it benignly, it was the Israelis who stumbled across this. the parameters of people knew about this of nine eleven in advance are there, and they need to be investigated. Is it possible that these Mossad assets were in place in New Jersey in order to film the first hit? And there's actually a lot of, reports that they were there set up before the first plane hit. They They were set up before the first plane hit. So you can confirm that. That's true. Yeah. Yeah. They were set up there before.

In 1994, the Israeli embassy in London was bombed. Two Palestinian students were arrested, convicted, and sentenced to 20 years in prison for conspiring to cause the explosion. An MI5 lead investigator, G91, assessed that Mossad bombed its own embassy to increase security around Israeli assets in London and to shatter a Palestinian political support network. A senior MI5 officer formally concluded Mossad carried out a controlled explosion. The bomb was sophisticated and destroyed forensics. The two Palestinians, Samar Alami and Jawed Botme, maintained their innocence and had alibis. They were linked to the bombing through a man named Rader Megrabi, suspected to be a Mossad agent, who disappeared after the bombing. The speaker and their ex-partner left MI5 and went into exile after deciding to report the crime. They faced arrests, as did family, friends, supporters, and journalists.

Speaker: The two cases that really got us. First of all, there was a false flag attack in London in 1994 where a car bomb exploded outside the Israeli embassy in the center of London. I remember this vaguely. This is we're talking fourteen years ago. It was huge at the time. There'd been an earlier attack against some Jewish interests section in Buenos Aires earlier that year as well. Similar sort of MO, modus operandi, with a car bomb driven and parked outside that exploded. Very minor injuries. That was all. Nobody was killed. And it was a very sophisticated device. It appeared to eat itself, eat all the forensics. Now, this is very, very rare. Even the IRA, which is a very sophisticated terrorist organization, could not make bombs that effective. So, it looked like a, you know, sort of fairly technical person who put that together. But what emerged from that, the senior MI5 officer who was in charge of the investigation into it and had seen all the evidence, but also all the intelligence, which isn't necessarily admissible in court, wrote his formal assessment at the end of the case. And he said he reckoned that Mossad, the Israeli external intelligence agency, had bombed their own embassy. It's sort of controlled explosion outside the embassy. And as I said, that was a senior MI5 officer, and that was his formal verdict. If you read that on the Internet now, you would say, that sounds like some mad conspiracy theory. But it wasn't. This was the official position of MI5. And he said that they did it for two reasons. One, they were always hassling MI5 for increased security around their embassy and other interests in London because, of course, London had a reputation of giving safe haven to Arab dissent from around the world at that point. And MI5 kept saying, well, there's no reason to increase the threat assessment. You don't need extra protection. So letting off a controlled explosion outside, of course, they immediately got what they wanted there. But, crucially, two innocent Palestinians were arrested, charged, and convicted of conspiracy to cause that attack. And they were very active in a Palestinian support network in London, political campaigning for the people on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And they were getting some traction in the media. So by arresting these people and framing them from attack and sticking them in prison, the whole network just shattered and hasn't got back on its feet to this day. So that will be a clear political advantage.

The speaker concludes that the Israeli Mossad was involved in John F. Kennedy's assassination because Kennedy tried to stop Israel from building nuclear weapons. The speaker claims that when they first presented this proposition, they were fiercely attacked by JFK assassination researchers who hadn't read their book. The speaker states that people misrepresented their argument as claiming that Israelis directly assassinated Kennedy in Dealey Plaza. The speaker clarifies that their actual suggestion was that pro-Israel elements in the CIA, connected to pro-Israel elements of organized crime and in the Mossad, were involved. Despite this clarification, the speaker says people preferred to attack them rather than pay attention to what they wrote.

In 1994, a car bomb exploded outside the Israeli embassy in London, causing minor injuries but no deaths. The bomb appeared to be a sophisticated device that destroyed all forensic evidence. A senior MI5 officer, who had access to both evidence and intelligence, concluded that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, had orchestrated the attack. The officer believed Mossad did this to pressure MI5 into increasing security measures around the embassy. Additionally, two innocent Palestinians involved in political campaigning for the West Bank and Gaza were wrongfully arrested, charged, and convicted, causing their network to collapse.

Subversion involves foiling plots against Israel, including political ones. A question arose about what to call the Mossad in English. Unlike the CIA, there’s no straightforward way to look it up. The term "Mossad" translates to "institute," but when communicating with agencies like the CIA or British intelligence, what do they refer to themselves as? After some inquiry, the prime minister's spokesman revealed that they call it the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service, which could be abbreviated as ISIS. This naming follows a model similar to that of British intelligence.

The discussion centers on the 1994 London incident: a car bomb exploded outside the Israeli embassy in central London, a highly visible false flag scenario at the time. Earlier that year, there was a similar attack against a Jewish interests section in Buenos Aires, using a car bomb driven and parked outside that exploded, causing very minor injuries and no fatalities. The device was sophisticated and appeared to “eat” its forensic traces, a level of technical execution that even the IRA struggled to match. What followed was a claim by a senior MI5 officer who oversaw the investigation and had access to all evidence and intelligence (not all of which is admissible in court). In his formal assessment, he stated that Mossad, the Israeli external intelligence agency, had bombed their own embassy in a controlled explosion. He gave two reasons for this assessment. First, Israel was continually pressuring MI5 for increased security around its embassy and other interests in London, given London’s reputation at the time for providing safe haven to Arab dissidents from around the world; MI5 had argued there was no need to increase threat levels. By conducting a controlled explosion, the operation immediately achieved the desired result of heightened security and attention. Second, and crucial, two innocent Palestinians were arrested, charged, and convicted of conspiracy to cause the attack. They were active in a Palestinian support network in London and engaged in political campaigning for people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Their arrest and conviction effectively disrupted and crippled that network, which, according to the officer, has not recovered to this day. The implication drawn is that the operation served a political purpose by dismantling a network and providing a significant strategic advantage.

The Lavonne affair was an Israeli terrorist operation in Egypt called Operation Susannah in 1954. Israeli elements planned attacks on British, Egyptian, and American targets, blaming them on Muslim extremists. A group of Egyptian Jews, known as Cyane, carried out the attacks. The plot was uncovered when a bomb exploded prematurely, leading to arrests and confessions. Israel tried to spin it as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. They scapegoated the defense minister, Penhas Lavonne, to protect the real group behind the attacks. Israel later claimed that the Egyptians were tipped off. This incident strained the relationship between Egypt, America, and Britain. The video also briefly mentions the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11, questioning the official narrative.

MI6, the British intelligence service, has a dark history that includes disturbing secrets. In the late 1940s, MI6 staged attacks on refugee ships to slow down Jewish immigration to Palestine. They also invented a fictional terrorist group to cover their tracks. In the 1950s, MI6 played a significant role in the Iranian coup, orchestrating a campaign to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadegh. MI6 was also involved in the propaganda campaign leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In Afghanistan, MI6 supported the mujahideen during the Soviet invasion, but the weapons and training they provided ended up fueling civil conflict and the rise of the Taliban. MI6 has also been accused of human rights abuses, including torture.

In 1994, a car bomb exploded outside the Israeli embassy in London. A senior MI5 officer believed Mossad bombed their own embassy to get increased security and frame two innocent Palestinians, who were then imprisoned. MI6 funded an Al Qaeda cell in Libya to assassinate Gaddafi in 1996, which killed innocent people. This illegal operation, lacking proper authorization, led to the speakers quitting MI5. False flag operations are standard for intelligence agencies. Alexander Litvinenko exposed KGB involvement in bombing Moscow apartments, blamed on Chechen rebels, as a pretext to invade Chechnya. Initial media reports blamed Al Qaeda for the Oklahoma City bombing. The media is controlled by spies and governments. The Iraq war was based on lies. The US administration tortured suspects to link Al Qaeda and 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. MI6 has an information operations section to manipulate the media. The speakers fled the country after whistleblowing. Their flat was raided, and they lived in exile. One speaker was imprisoned after a trial where he couldn't present his reasons or cross-examine accusers. The 9/11 attacks require a new independent inquiry. Three buildings fell, including WTC 7, which wasn't hit by a plane. The "war on terror" has eroded civil liberties. The UK has become a police state with laws allowing states of emergency and surveillance. The 7/7 London bombings also have anomalies. A counterterrorism exercise occurred at the same time and locations as the bombings. The official narrative about the bombers' train was false. The 9/11 Commission was set up to fail. The executive director defined the investigation's parameters. Nanothermite may have been used to bring down the towers. The speakers encourage people to educate themselves about 9/11 and false flag operations, question the media, and reclaim democracy.

The speaker lays out a narrative in which Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, is intricately connected to the CIA and to a longtime insider, James Angleton. The claim is that Mossad and Angleton formed an alliance “forever,” with Angleton described as “the mole” who was aligned with Mossad. In 1960, Angleton was the head of the CIA’s Directorate of Foreign Intelligence, and he is depicted as the person who was always searching for a Russian mole. The speaker asserts that Angleton was effectively the Russian mole because of his close friendship with Mossad, to the extent that he would share information with Mossad and Mossad would not relay it to Russia. The narrative then moves to 1963, referencing David Ben-Gurion, the Israeli prime minister, arguing that Israel decided to kill John F. Kennedy. The speaker quotes Ben-Gurion as saying that Kennedy’s threats of inspections of “demonic” (interpreted as a mispronunciation or coded term for dangerous issues) were unacceptable, and that Ben-Gurion said, “It’s none of his frigging business. I don’t wanna hear anymore from Kennedy. You kill him.” According to the speaker, Ben-Gurion issued this order to Mossad and then resigned so he could not be held responsible for it. The implication is that Mossad then went to Angleton, implying that the Kennedy assassination was not a CIA job, but was “greased by the CIA” because Angleton had his connections at Mossad. From there, the speaker claims that Corsican sharpshooters were hired by Mossad for the Kennedy assassination as part of a larger operation at Dealey Plaza, including the escape. The speaker asserts that public suspicion has misattributed the blame to the mob, Lyndon Johnson, or Castro, but maintains that it was Israel that carried it out. The stated motive is tied to Israel’s desire to avoid further inspections related to their nuclear program. The speaker claims this is connected to Israel’s nuclear and biological capabilities and asserts that plutonium was stolen from the United States to support their program. In summary, the speaker contends that the Kennedy assassination was orchestrated not by the CIA alone, but through a coordinated effort involving Mossad, James Angleton, and David Ben-Gurion, with Israel acting to prevent scrutiny of its nuclear activities by eliminating Kennedy, aided by Corsican shooters and a CIA-Mossad alliance.

Israel was knee-deep in the JFK assassination. The Mossad is about having information on the United States. The payoff for the assassination was that Israel wanted a bomb. They asked Eisenhower, who told them no. Then they asked Kennedy, who also refused and demanded to inspect their nuclear program. When LBJ came in, some uranium went missing in Pennsylvania, which helped Israel start their nuclear program. The Mossad trained the four Arabs to take the planes over and run them in the building on 9/11, which led to the Patriot Act. All of this is connected to current events with Jeffrey Epstein and now Diddy. The JFK assassination goes back to the root cause which was that General Groves wanted to nuke China and Russia.

This video claims that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, is behind the Brussels attack. It points out three main areas of suspicion: the source of information about ISIS claiming responsibility, the Israeli firm ICTS being in charge of airport security, and the supply of video footage by Israel's I24 news. The video suggests that these factors, along with other alleged connections to Israel, indicate Israeli involvement in the attack. It argues that Israel's motivation would be to retaliate against Islamic neighbors and further their own interests.

Mario opened by asking Professor (Speaker 1) for his initial reaction to the horrific shooting in Australia, noting Iran’s spokesperson condemned the attack. Professor 1 said the Iranians were swift to respond and suggested the western media’s speed benefits the Israeli regime; he noted early suggestions that one of the alleged culprits has a Salafi Wahhabi background, which he tied to allies of the United States and Israel, and said the Israeli regime has historically supported ISIS and Al Qaeda. He added that the immediate accusations against Iran by Israel and some Western outlets raise questions. Mario pressed Professor 1 on his tweets, asking whether he genuinely believes Mossad could be behind the Sydney attack or if he was critiquing others’ blaming Iran. Professor 1 replied that he wouldn’t put anything beyond Mossad and the Israeli regime, citing the Hannibal directive during October 7 and noting past high-profile conspiracies and investigations where insiders seemed to know more than the public. He referenced 9/11, claiming the attackers’ backgrounds and stock market movements suggested possible foreknowledge, and argued that a regime that carries out genocide could do anything. He asserted that the obsession with blaming Iran in various cases is a frequent pattern, and that the Australian media had started implying Iran’s involvement in the Sydney attack. Michael interrupted to challenge the framing, asking Professor 1 to distinguish between critiquing Israeli actions and endorsing unfounded claims about Iran. Professor 1 argued that for nearly fifty years accusations have often targeted Iran, while Israel’s actions — including genocidal traits and hospital bombings — have not faced equivalent condemnation, though he clarified he had not claimed Israel carried out every conspiracy. He asserted that ISIS and Al Qaeda were created by Western interests and Gulf regimes, and alleged U.S. and Israeli involvement in supporting extremist groups. He claimed Western policy and Saudi/Wahhabi influence underpin these groups, and argued Israeli and Western power shapes Middle East outcomes. Michael commented that the discussion should avoid knee-jerk conspiracism and noted the pattern of blaming Israel for many attacks, while acknowledging legitimate grievances against Israel’s conduct. He cited a May Washington, DC attack linked to Gaza motivations and argued this blowback results from Western support for extremist groups, including ISIS and Al Qaeda. He criticized using blanket attribution to Israel, stressing that this rhetoric crowds out rational critique of Israel and U.S. policy. He referenced Epstein as an example of alleged intelligence connections and warned activists to beware of being portrayed in compromising footage. The conversation shifted to Netanyahu’s statement blaming Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian state for the attack. Professor 1 condemned Netanyahu’s framing, calling him anti-Semitic for conflating Judaism with Zionism and arguing that Palestinians are Semites; he claimed the Israeli regime’s influence in Washington is substantial and that accusations against Iran distract from Israel’s genocide. He argued that many Jews oppose the Israeli regime, and that Zionism cannot be equated with Judaism. He reiterated that the regime’s policies, including alleged use of Wahhabism and Western support for extremists, have fueled blowback. Mario asked for final reaction on Netanyahu’s claim and the broader role of Western policy. Michael acknowledged the complexity and described Western-Israeli influence as significant, while insisting on avoiding unfounded accusations about any single actor. Professor 1 condemned terrorism in all forms but argued that the main culprits are those carrying out genocide in Palestine, with the slave-vs-oppressor framing underscoring his view of the Palestinian situation. The discussion closed with a note that both guests view Western policy and Israeli actions as central to global blowback, while cautioning against simplistic attributions of attacks to Iran or Israel without solid evidence.

In 1954, Israel initiated Operation Suzanna, a terrorist operation in Egypt, due to the US becoming friendlier with Egypt and influencing the British to leave the Suez Canal. The plan involved bombing Egyptian, American, and British-owned targets and blaming it on Muslim extremists to incite anger and damage relations between Egypt, America, and Britain. Egyptian Jews, referred to as Syanin, were recruited to carry out the attacks. The bombings began on July 2nd, targeting a post office in Alexandria. Further attacks occurred on July 14th, targeting US information agency libraries in Cairo and Alexandria. However, a premature explosion exposed one of the terrorists, leading to the breakup of the ring. Despite the investigation, further attacks were carried out. Following the plot's exposure, some attempted to dismiss it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Israel claimed Egypt was tipped off and scapegoated Defense Minister Pinhaz Levon to protect those who planned Operation Susannah. The speaker references Jack Bernstein's book and his assassination by Mossad. The speaker then compares the collapse of a building to the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11, suggesting it was a planned demolition.

Clayton discusses with Kevin Ship, a former CIA officer and author of Twilight of the Shadow Government, how false flags allegedly unfold and why they persist in public discourse. Key points: - False flags are planned for months in advance. Kevin suggests that covert operations typically identify a single boogeyman to avoid implying a broader conspiracy, arguing that a lone perpetrator allows authorities to claim “we got him” and deny wider conspiracy. - The pattern cited includes one individual who previously showed no criminal tendencies, who then commits a violent act, followed by quick attribution to a designated boogeyman, with the implication that the operation is over and left without further inquiry. - Specific incidents discussed include the Bondi Beach attack in Australia, with references to Mossad’s involvement and claims that Iran is behind the attack to push for war with Iran. The exchange questions the Australian government’s role and the relevance of Mossad’s presence in investigating the incident. - The conversation links these operations to broader intelligence ecosystem dynamics, noting a close collaboration and “frenemies” relationship between the CIA and Mossad. They describe Mossad as having a pervasive role in Middle East intelligence and describe a history of interactions where Mossad and the CIA share high-level information and sometimes operate in tandem, though at times Mossad may target the CIA as well. - The discussion points to prior examples of disinformation, such as the 9/11 events, where perceptions of evidence (e.g., a passport found near the World Trade Center) are presented as straightforward proof, while being described as an example of ineffective or misused disinformation to shape public belief. - In addressing media influence, Kevin references the CIA’s media liaison office and programs designed to influence how news is presented in the United States. He contends that “Mockingbird”-like media consolidation and complicit outlets help propagate these narratives, especially to audiences that rely primarily on television news. - The conversation notes a perceived pattern of actors or individuals appearing at multiple, unrelated events (e.g., a person claiming responsibility or being present at various incidents) as part of the alleged orchestration of false flag narratives. - They discuss the effectiveness of false flags: despite growing scrutiny and critical reporting, they argue that false flags continue to influence public perception, aided by psychological studies within intelligence communities and the reliance of many viewers on mainstream media for information. - Kevin reiterates his belief that the shadow government—particularly the CIA’s control of elected government and media propaganda programs—remains powerful, with ongoing operations designed to manipulate thinking and push narratives that serve certain geopolitical aims. He emphasizes that false flags are a recurring tactic and predict more of them in the future. - The conversation closes with Kevin urging readers to consider his book Twilight of the Shadow Government and to engage with his perspective on the CIA’s influence over media, politics, and public belief.

Americans, beware of being drawn into a war with Arabs by the Israeli Mossad, who can stage attacks to blame Muslims. This is known as a false flag, as detailed in a US army report released the day before 9/11. The report warned about Israel's tactics.

There are reports of a group of individuals, known as the "dancing Israelis," who were seen celebrating and taking pictures of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. These men were later found to have ties to Israeli intelligence and were suspected of being on a mission for the Mossad. However, they were not held accountable for their actions and were instead deported back to Israel. There were also suspicions of a larger Israeli spying operation in the US, but this information remains classified. The fact that these individuals were not treated as terrorists raises questions about their true intentions and the possible involvement of Israeli intelligence in the events of 9/11.

Clayton (Speaker 0) asks how false flags materialize and how the shadow government carries out clandestine attacks, citing Bondi Beach in Australia and Brown University, and notes observations like Google searches in Israel before a shooting. He asks Kevin Ship, who spent seventeen years in the CIA, how long these operations are planned. Kevin Ship (Speaker 1) responds that false flag operations are planned for months. He argues that the CIA plans these operations by always choosing a boogeyman, ideally one person, so there can’t be a broader conspiracy discussed. The boogeyman is hit with chemicals or directed energy to derail the mind, then the agency proclaims “we got him” and that there is no conspiracy. He points to Charlie Kirk’s murder as an example, saying, “There is the boogeyman. He did it. We got him. No conspiracy, nothing to see here.” He notes the pattern of a single boogeyman with no prior indication of criminal tendency. Clayton notes that in Australia, months before the attack there were reports of paid actors making threats against Jewish institutions, with Mossad now assisting the investigation and Iran being blamed, suggesting the boogeyman is Iran to push toward war. He asks why Mossad would be involved in this Australian case. Kevin replies that the more arrogant the operators become, the more stupid the disinformation appears. He questions Mossad’s involvement in Australia and asks what Mossad has to do with the Australian government and people. He claims Mossad has no ethics and will do anything to expand Israel’s power, stating Mossad is “whatever it takes.” He describes a frenemies relationship between Mossad and CIA, as they are “joined at the hip” and share intelligence at a high level, though Mossad may sometimes target the CIA to steal information. Clayton shows an individual who claims to have been in Israel on October 7, then appears in Sydney with bloodied selfies, claiming survival of October 7, and asks if this mirrors other false flag patterns where the same people appear at different events. Kevin agrees, citing examples like the same person appearing at completely unrelated events, suggesting manipulation. Clayton asks if false flags still work and if more are coming. Kevin says that the CIA studies how to manipulate Americans through media and disinformation, referencing the “media liaison office” as a division within the CIA that propagandizes and influences U.S. news media. He cites the 9/11 passport claim as an example of disinformation that was repeated to shape public perception, noting that many people accept it despite implausibility. Clayton asks if the CIA studies how to manipulate media budgets and public thinking; Kevin confirms there is a program to control thinking and propagate propaganda with complicit news outlets. They discuss mainstream media’s role in pushing narratives like antisemitism and the role of Mockingbird media. Kevin reiterates that false flags are still effective and that more of them are expected, making their work harder to debunk.