“When an honest man, honestly mistaken, comes face-to-face with undeniable and irrefutable truth, he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” – Amicus Solo
I suffer from the illusion that people will actually look at the evidence in matters of criminal behavior, especially the major events of our time. But they don’t. That’s my bailiwick. Most people get their opinions via absorption of mass media. Consequently, evidence can scream at them but they will not hear it.
For example, take just one small matter, that of the murder of Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. The coroner’s report by Thomas Naguchi said that RFK died from a gunshot wound fired at close range directly behind his right ear and leaving powder burns. Sirhan was in front of him and too far away to have fired that shot.
There you have it.
But here’s a critical point: Hardly anyone knows about what I just wrote there. It passes into a void of fear and silence, and anyone with a public reputation who brings it up will come under severe attack. That’s why I conclude that there is considerably more power exerted in covering up these crimes than their actual commission. The culture of fear we live under is as oppressive as any Stalinist state, and don’t get me wrong here: I know Stalin had people murdered who knew too much. I am not being hyperbolic.
Here’s but one small example, an unimportant person, comedic actor, legendary dissipator, Charlie Sheen. He’s not even terribly bright, but he did have some swagger and had the balls to appear on Alex Jones’ Prison Planet (did I mention that Charlie is not that bright? Jones is nothing but a gatekeeper, in my opinion.) He said he did not believe the official story of 9/11.
We’re conditioned never to connect dots, but what happened to Charlie after that indeed was a direct result of his speaking up. He lost his job on Two and One-Half Men, Where I enjoyed his work, and later found himself locked in a closet in Manhattan covered in cocaine and surrounded by hookers. I assumed at the time that Charlie was supposed to be killed that night, but have since reconsidered. Our spooks are so goddamned good at the art of killing, if they meant to kill him he’d be dead. Charlie merely received a message:
Celebrities have more impact on public opinion than politicians, and certainly more than academics and intellectuals. That’s why Charlie was singled out. His Jones appearance got the attention of a lot of people. He had to be silenced.
More importantly, any other celebrity who did not have his mind right got that message. That’s our culture of fear.
We had a lengthy discussion below, and I am pasting a redacted and long comment I made for the simple reason that it is the evidence contained in Dr. Judy Wood’s book Where Did the Towers Go? Like the bullet that got Bobby, people will shy away from knowing about this. Many will stop reading right here. But I am putting it up here anyway because just like a dog barking in the night, it may recede into the background of your consciousness, but will not go away. If you read this, it will trouble you.
Good bye, then.
In answer to XXX, above:
Since you refuse to go to the evidence, I’ll bring it to you. XXX never looked at her book, easily discerned, which is why I called bullshit on him.
The reason is obvious:
First, Dr. Wood used very little math in her work, and is almost exclusively examining physical evidence on the ground at Ground Zero and trying to explain it. …
Here’s some of what she has done:
- She used a billiards ball example as evidence that the buildings could not have collapsed under their own weight, and that there had to be a massive injection of outside energy. But that’s mere arithmetic.
- She examined the near-pristine state of the “Bathtub,” that reinforced wall that holds the Hudson River at bay and keeps Manhattan’s financial district and subways from flooding. The debris suggested a near scalpel effect, with massive buildings destroyed but the Bathtub unaffected. Massive collapse is not controllable, so that that effect is highly unlikely.
- She examined possible sources of outside energy, including conventional explosives, nuclear bombs, “nanothermites”, and found them wanting. The quantity of explosives would require tens of thousands of bombs placed strategically throughout the buildings. There’s no evidence to suggest that ever happened, and more so, not enough debris. There is not enough heat to justify a nuke. The chemical signatures in the debris, specifically the high presence of tritium, suggest a cold fusion process at work.
- She examined seismic data and compare the events of that day to others in terms of strength of signals. She found that a much smaller building, The Seattle Kingdome, left far larger seismic signal and more debris, suggesting that much of the buildings had simply turned to dust.
- She examined photos and movies of the buildings in collapse, trying to understand the process before her eyes. Where Did the Towers Go? is the title of her book for good reason.
- She examined the phenomena of 1400 cars that burned, including one whole parking lot blocks away that did not catch any debris, and yet where cars incinerated.
- She examined the vehicles themselves, and found that the fires did not behave like normal fires, but rather seemed to exhibit a cool process and were stopped from spreading by mere plastic seals.
- She examined the phenomenon of 1200 people voluntarily jumping out of the buildings even as it was not clear that collapse was imminent. That is not how people behave normally. They either wait for rescue or try to save themselves.
- She wondered how workers could walk over supposedly molten debris, how hoses could lay on top of it, and not burn up. She wondered why, even as cars were burning up, paper under and around them did not.
- She examined magnetic signals in the earth’s field and found that right around the time that the two building that fell “got their holes” (she does not assume planes hit them, as there is no aircraft debris at Ground Zero), and found that there were huge influxes of energy at that time.
- She wondered about the presence of Hurricane Erin off the coast on Manhattan/Long Island that day, and why it was not reported on the news.
- She examined the debris of all seven buildings that were destroyed that day, all bearing the prefix “WTC,” trying to understand the large circular holes in Building Six where offices were still intact, coffee cups still on top of desks, even as a clean hole was cut.
Dr. Wood states at the outset of her work that she is not going to get into who or why, but rather only focus on “what.” Consequentially, her book, 485 pages, names no names, postulates no theories on who or why, and simply asks “What happened that day.” It is an exhibition of evidence, everything left to the reader, no conclusions drawn except that there was an energy force used, a kind of directed energy, that we had not seen before. She did not use the term “beam,” and offered no clues as to its source, which are mysterious to this day.
You, XXX, take but a mere glance at the evidence, turn away, run to a debunking site, and then start hurling invectives at her and us, as if we are stupid and incapable of your level of insight – this as you have not even look at the evidence!
There’s nothing new or different in anything you’ve said or how you have reacted. You’re just like everyone else. You are professional person, if I read you right, so that you do have some technical skills that you can bring to bear on a complex problem. But you refuse to even try. You refuse to look at the evidence!
That’s fear, sir. You are perhaps different than most in that you do possess problem solving skills, but just like everyone else, you are afraid of the implications, and are a product of group think.