An anachronism

An “anachronism” is a chronological inconsistency, something that does not fit in a sequence of events or is out-of-place in a timeline. For instance, if we are watching a movie about the old west and see a man on horseback who also happens to be wearing a wristwatch, an astute observer might wonder if he is really just watching fiction.

Thus do we read the following in Le Figaro, 11 October 2001:

Dubai, one of the seven emirates of the Federation of the United Arab Emirates, North-East of Abi-Dhabi. This city, population 350,000, was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July [2001]. A partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai claims that public enemy number one stayed at this hospital between the 4th and 14th of July.

Having taken off from the Quetta airport in Pakistan, bin Laden was transferred to the hospital upon his arrival at Dubai airport. He was accompanied by his personal physician and faithful lieutenant, who could be Ayman al-Zawahari–but on this sources are not entirely certain–, four bodyguards, as well as a male Algerian nurse, and admitted to the American Hospital, a glass and marble building situated between the Al-Garhoud and Al-Maktoum bridges.

To the casual observer, this makes no sense, and so is shelved. But some of us know not to disregard anachronisms when events of a suspicious nature like 9/11 (or Boston, Charlie Hebdo, or the public execution of a president) occur. Seen in the proper framework, the CIA agent meeting with Osama bin Laden as he receives care for his very serious kidney condition makes perfect sense if …

… Osama bin Laden was a patsy. We know he had been in the service of CIA for many decades going back to the covert war in Afghanistan in the 1980’s. In July of 2001, a big event was on the horizon, scheduled for September, and the patsy had to be available to take the fall. So in the intervening months he had to be babysat. That’s part of a routine service provided by CIA, a full-service spook agency. They were tending to his health. He could not die before the event. (Evidence suggests he did die shortly after.)

How do I know this? I have spent countless hours trying to understand the events of that day, hundreds of hours listening to talks, watching videos, and even reading books. But we all know the truth is hard to come by. Those lectures, videos and books could be full of lies. So I deal in volume, and wait, patiently, for some order to emerge from chaos. And the babysitting of Osama bin Laden is part of that order that emerged over time.

The use of patsies is commonplace throughout recorded history. Famous patsies include Guy Fawkes, Gavrilo Princip, Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray. Also common is the construction of a false narratives designed to obfuscate, obscure, confuse and distract curious people from real events. Often the videos, lectures and books on the subject are part of the obfuscation effort. One has to be wary at all times.

Given all of the false leads and deliberate obfuscation that goes on, how do I know that the CIA meeting with Osama at a hospital in Dubai really happened? It could be that the Le Figaro article of October, 2011, is also a planted story, a “golden apple,” or false evidence meant to be found.

Nothing is 100% reliable. If we learn that CIA is just messing with us by planting the Le Figaro article, then it is back to the drawing board. The search for truth has no end and many detours.

I guess it would be easier just to turn off my brain and buy into the official story with all its inconsistencies, impossibilities, and anachronisms. That would sure make this vigilant citizenry business more manageable. However, for any who do not swallow whole on the official story, I can help by eliminating some unnecessary distractions. Those people who are telling us that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, nano-thermites, or by use of “mini-nukes” are part of the obfuscation crew, put out there to mislead. Part of the task in understanding events is to decide who is telling lies, who is not. There are a few rules, but no guarantees. One rule is that when a plane is close to its target, it tends to draw more flak.

CoverPage_blue_sWith that in mind, I urge anyone ready for some unsettling, disturbing and mind-altering drugs to read Where Did the Towers Go?, a 500 page exposition of evidence without firm conclusion, written by a professor of mechanical engineering who specialized in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. She does not claim to know who, or even how, and instead focuses on what happened that day. It is startling.

It appears to me that for all my hundreds of hours trying to understand 9/11, Dr. Judy Wood draws the most flak. She might be a golden apple, but might also be the real deal. My guess at this point in time is that she is closer to truth than any others.

But then of course, that could be wrong too. CIA and other spook agencies around the world, who know no national loyalty, are masters at the construction of riddles.

13 thoughts on “An anachronism

      1. Who knows what is real there. I suspect HAARP to be a real program to alter and control weather, but not for nefarious purposes. It’s a natural progression as knowledge of how the planet functions moves forward. The problem, and this is true of every new technology from cold fusion to weather control, is that there are always efforts to weaponize it at first, which leads to secrecy. That’s why we had a global positioning systems decades before it was released for use by the general public, for instance. It had military value until it no longer conveyed an advantage.


  1. Mark, the tip off that Dr Wood isn’t a CIA plant/golden apple is in the quality and the nature of her product, “Where did The Towers Go?” as well as her publicly available qui tam law suit transcripts.

    She is clearly, concisely, and completely on record. No one has produced evidence that refutes or contradicts her evidence, but they gratuitously attack her character, her sanity, her mode of dress, her manner of speaking, everything except her evidence. Her (mostly anonymous) detractors try to twist and distort and put words in her mouth but they won’t go head to head with her evidence. They won’t, for example, produce the receipts for the scrap steel assumed to have been ‘sold to China.’ They won’t show ‘the numerous cases of people burned’ by assumed high temperatures at the WTC, They won’t demonstrate that photos show a debris pile commensurate with the volume of the buildings no longer standing. They won’t produce seismic records that support a collapse scenario, they won’t show a working model of how 2 planes and jet fuel (kerosene) could disappear approximately 80% of the 7 building WTC complex. Or how fake planes and explosives/thermite could cause the observable results.

    I realize it’s tempting to leave ones self an out, in case one has been led down the garden path, but the holistic nature of Dr Wood’s investigation results and her adherence to rigorous scientific protocols and principals makes her work the best available at this point in time. No one is perfect, but her work points us in the right direction and informs us of the questions that need to be asked and answered.

    Hopefully, someday someone will expand and refine her work so that we know and understand the exact mechanism of a process that causes certain material to rapidly molecularly disassociate at low temperatures. Many people are working or have worked on understanding this process around the world, from pioneering inventor John Hutchison to Drs. Fleischmann and Pons to Dr. Ken Shoulders just to name a few of the hundreds of people researching various aspects of this phenomena.

    I’m going out on a limb, sticking my neck out, and endorsing the work of Dr Judy Wood 99.9%.
    But only because I believe she is the real deal. I don’t do that very often, usually preferring to maintain a slightly more conservative approach to certainty. I’m effectively certain that Dr Wood is on the right track here, both in what happened to the WTC and in how cover-ups are most effectively managed in our modern world. Those are two very big contributions to our world and I’m very thankful for Dr Wood’s impact on my life.



      “So, can I conclude that Jim Fetzer had somehow contacted Karoline Leach and asked her to write a piece to help “defend” Steve E Jones? After all, it was Steven E Jones and Jim Fetzer who originally formed “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” in 2006″. Perhaps because of the efforts of a number of people, including Dr Judy Wood and myself, there is something of a growing awareness of the parallels between 9/11 evidence and “Cold Fusion” (LENR) evidence – for example, the tritium data. They are also beginning to see the obvious role of Steven E Jones in these two supposedly disconnected fields of research. It is a very, very “dangerous” (revealing) connection for people to be making. The importance of covering up this connection must be enormous. So to keep it covered up, and with a new campaign to get money out of “truthers”, history would urgently need to be re-written.”


    2. Thanks. I’m reading it on line.

      After reading Dr Wood’s book and reading various other info i could scrounge up, i thought it would be interesting to see if there were similar limited hang outs employed in the JFK MLK, RFK assassinations, as there are in the 9/11 wtc events. etc. And lo and behold, there are.

      i used to listen to Mae Brussell as a teen and young adult.

      So I looked and found a whole pile of her recorded shows and her analysis is excellent. Lots of what she references and reports are still timely and relevant.

      Mark Lane was the first guy in print and to gather a following on the conspiracy to kill JFK. And who were the first guys on-line to gather a following in the conspiracy to demolecularize most of the wtc?

      Mae, though dead from fast cancer since 1988, still has a lot to teach, both in terms of research standards and facts, And in terms of how cover ups are run.

      Check out 37:09 in the first tape below It’s deja vu all over again. But check out the whole show, too. From 11-15-76

      this second tape is from just over a year later and by then she knows Lane is covering stuff up at the same time he claims to be investigating.


        1. Mark Lane was Gerald Posner’s attorney, he was an atty for The People’s Temple, (Of Jonestown fame.) And he explicitly warned Mae Brussell against researching US mind control experiments claiming “We don’t do it” and that she would make all researchers “look bad” if she didn’t desist.

          I haven’t made up my mind about Tarpley but I’m leaning toward unreliable, at the least.


        2. My experience with Tarpley has been overall quite good. Without him I would know little of Gladio, the patsy/mole apparatus, or of how police and military drills are used to allow people pulling off stunts like Boston access to government resources. If he is a limited hangout, his limits pushed me into new areas of awareness. That he has not embraced Dr. Wood does not bother me, as he’s spent precious little time on the what, and more on where he cut his teeth, Gladio and the strategy of tension.

          So I take him at a face.


  2. Other examples of Directed Energy (not necessarily used as a weapon) are radio waves, cell phone signals, TV remote control signals, wireless internet signals…etc.

    Those who want to cover up the evidence of what happen often falsely claim that Dr. Wood is talking about a specific weapon and a specific location of it (e.g. laser beam from outer space, or “spacebeams”). This disinformation campaign was initiated by Steven Jones on 11/11/2006 in a presentation he gave in California (available in the internet archives*), telling his audience that “Judy Woods (Wood) says it’s a laser or maser from space” while showing how difficult it is to hold his hand like a beam from space. Not only does Dr. Wood NOT SAY THAT, she actually RULES THAT OUT. The mechanism of destruction of a laser beam would be from heat and produce a bright and blinding light. But we know the buildings were not cooked to death. The term Directed Energy is used because energy is directed to do something different then it normally does and it is directed to do this within a certain geographic zone. [As a mental example, think of directing the binding energy of matter to repel instead of attract. A solid object would turn to atomic-sized dust. Direct this to happen within the WTC complex and not across the street.]

    At the end of Chapter 20 in Dr. Wood’s book, she explains why playing “name the weapon” game is counterproductive. Name dropping trendy terms is not synonymous with understanding. The easiest example is HAARP. The full capabilities are classified. But people often name-drop the trendy term to APPEAR to know something. A tongue-in-cheek definition of HAARP stands for High Amplitude Advancement of Real Propaganda. They are just substituting “HAARP” for “Bin Laden.”

    In Dr. Wood’s book, the closest she comes to “naming a weapon” is merely describing what it creates: magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions (page 365). But as soon as someone starts talking about a name, people will stop looking at the evidence which is another form of a cover up.

    Early on, Steven Jones created a website he called “The Journal of Nine Eleven Studies” or J.O.N.E.S. It is referred to as a “peer-reviewed journal” but the only peer-reviewing was to screen out true scientific work and post what he wanted his followers to believe. For the first two years, it was primarily used to promote disinformation about Dr. Wood’s work. For example, Jones recruited a patent attorney for the oil and gas industry (James Gourley**) to write hit pieces on Dr. Wood, refuting “ray beams from outer space.” This convinced his readers that “Judy Woods” must be talking about “ray beams from outer space” and that “such nonsense has been refuted.” Refuting false propaganda about Dr. Wood’s work does not refute Dr. Wood’s work — yet it creates the belief in the average person that Dr. Wood’s work has been refuted.

    Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins also claimed that it would take more than five times the world’s energy to destroy the WTC towers. Does that mean their thermite came from off planet or “outer space”? LOL Steven Jones used to ridicule Dr. Wood during his talks saying that “Judy Woods needs to make calculations to see if it is even possible to turn the buildings to dust”. But any reputable scientist knows that calculations are not a part of observing empirical evidence. What are the calculations for, to prove the buildings are still there or if the buildings are gone? Why not just look? No assumptions needed with empirical evidence.

    The bottom line is that no one has refuted anything in Dr. Wood’s book nor can they. They only refute their own false propaganda about her book, not her book. Other detractors claim that “she hasn’t identified the weapon that was used so she’s got nothing.” To the contrary. The evidence is PROOF that there exists a technology that can do what was done. It happened. That is, the fact that the buildings mostly turned to dust in mid-air shows that there exists a weapon that can turn buildings into dust in mid-air. It happened.

    The sub-title of the book, “Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11” indicates that the book contains evidence of what happened on 9/11 and it is indeed evidence that a technology exists that can do what was done. But this technology does not have to be used for evil purposes. It can be used to provide free-energy to the world much to the demise of the oil and gas industry. That is, Dr. Wood is noting that the same technology that was used for evil can also be used for good. It’s a silver lining in the dark cloud… while also trying to stimulate thought about “what are we doing here? learning new ways to kill or to live”?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s