I just got done viewing a video link I suggested others watch in the post below. Such suggestions are always done tongue-in-cheek, as if I’ve learned anything in nine years of blogging, it is that people do not want to know things that upset their belief systems. I must be different in structure – that’s all I can make of it, as I love to see cherished beliefs torn apart. I no longer hold on to anything as sacred. I must be growing up emotionally and intellectually at once.
But as I watched the video, which I’ve not seen for a couple of years at least, I once again realized the levels of deception that went into the planning of 9/11. Beyond the events there is a highly sophisticated cover-up, including the so-called “9/11 Truth” movement, an Intelligence operation designed to mislead the curious of mind. As Andrew Johnson, a man I deeply admire, says in the video, good disinformation is 90% truth, with the 10% held back being the essential evidence we are all denied.
I wondered how on earth the average citizen can ever penetrate the levels of deception? People are busy working jobs that drain their energy, and on top of that have families and relationships to maintain. They’ve been brought up to trust the very authority figures they need to mistrust if they are ever to get a grip on things. Add to that the vast amount of entertainment and propaganda we are immersed in … how does anyone ever find out anything true?
The answer is … they don’t. Even if you in the upper 10% on intelligence, even in the upper 3% or even 1% … you are going to get your chain yanked. It is too damned sophisticated to overcome.
Anyway, perhaps you are on in a hundred who will view the video beneath the fold here. Do it for your own enlightenment, but don’t imagine you can turn on anyone else. That does not happen.
I’ve been reading the book Drugs as Weapons Against Us by John L. Potash. It’s a remarkable compendium of things already known, with nothing new. The author misses some very important details, such as the probable intelligence connections of people like Bernadine Dohrn and Obama’s good buddy, Bill Ayers (and, by the way, Sharon Tate … another Mathis discovery). Looking into Potash’s past I found that he is Jewish, graduated Columbia, and apparently has parents with no names or backgrounds. That all adds up to exactly nothing, of course. But I wonder if he knew Obama when Obama was a ghost student at Columbia.
The “con” in “con game” stands for “confidence.” The artist behind a con game can pull off any stunt if the “mark” believes him to be sincere and honest. I’ve often been a victim, less often as I get older. Even so, any time I turn on the TV or enter a retail store, I am exposed to confidence games. (“Loyalty cards, “coupons” and “mattress sales” on Presidents’ Day are all con games, for example. It’s a way of life for Americans.)
One such con game is American “news.” It is only effective to the degree that people trust it. It is comprised of outright lies and half-truths (along with many other fractions). It serves more as distraction, keeping our attention on some events and off others, just as a pickpocket hires a shill to distract the victim while he is removing the wallet.
Con man
Brian Williams, a very talented actor/comedian, was removed from the lead spot at NBC news because he was caught in a lie. That he lied did not matter. Getting caught did. If Americans sense that he is lying, which he does as a matter of routine, then we might lose confidence in him. The game is up. That’s why he is on hiatus.
________________ Wikipedia is an important information source. It too is a con game. It is supposed to be the encyclopedia of the Internet, a place to go to look up anything. I use Wikipedia when I need to know things like celebrity birth and death dates, the history of rock groups, or other non-political matters. It’s fairly reliable.
But we live in a National Security State (NSS), and all our information is controlled. Unless we are aware of that fact and take steps to leave the mainstream to search for information, we are blissfully uninformed. Do you imagine that in our NSS that a powerful tool like Wikipedia is allowed to work free of control?
I have read Wiki’s version of the events of 9/11 and the Boston Marathon false flag event. Wiki is under harness, and parrots the official state line. I don’t bother with it. The lesson is this: If you choose the path of least resistance for news, you’ll be kept in a state of ignorance. The NSS, knowing that we use least-effort procedures to obtain our “news,” will give us the business.
If you rely on Brian Williams for news, you’re uninformed. If you rely on Wikipedia … you’ll have stars and dates and even some astrophysics and math, but for the important events of our time, forget it. It’s a confidence game.
________________
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez is a man after my own heart, bouncing from rock to rock, and not so inured to official truth as to be completely brainwashed. He once trusted Obama, and doubting the official story of 9/11 immersed himself in the “9/11 Truth” movement. He joined Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” not knowing it was but a front group.
But he did not stop there, and like me, came across the works of Dr. Judy Wood. He bought and read her book, a 500-page compilation of evidence covering everything from the impossibility of a pancake collapse to the barely-reported existence of a major hurricane off the shores of Manhattan and Long Island that day. She found hundreds of cars that had been “toasted” by some cold process, and examined seismic evidence. She found odd behavior in the earth’s magnetic fields that day that coincided with the Twin Towers being “hit by planes,” or as she puts it, “getting their holes.” She found “fire” (plasma) that toasted metal but did not affect paper, as with the cars shown below. She found that 1,200 people had jumped to their deaths that day to escape whatever process was underway inside the buildings. And more. Much more.
Cars parked blocks away from the World Trade Center on 9/11 – notice all the unburned paper.
Curious as to A&E’s take on Dr. Wood, he emailed its founder, Richard Gage, who is (as I see him) a government agent. (A&E’s function is to catch skeptics and misroute them.) He asked about the group’s position on Dr. Wood’s work.
What happened next surprised him – he was removed from the mailing list, and his membership was canceled. A&E later offered to refund his membership dues if he would shut up about the matter, but he was a bit too proud to be bought for $80.
Oddly at peace
Rodriguez then moved on to Wikipedia, and put up a page on Dr. Judy Wood’s work. In very short order, the page was taken down by the overseers. He asked what was up about that, and got no answer, and so appealed the decision to remove her page. That process, which is supposed to be open for five or six days, was shut down after twelve hours.
After that, he found that his own Wikipedia account was closed. He could no longer access it. Not only was Dr. Wood banned, so was he. (Note: I searched Wiki for her name prior to writing this. It appears one time, mentioned in a Qui Tam* court case against NIST brought by Dr. Morgan Reynolds. Dr. Wood’s own Qui Tam case against NIST is not mentioned there.)
The note below is a screen grab of an email sent to Rodriquez by “Hooperbloob, an anonymous Wiki overseer.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Interesting that the NYTimes and Bloomberg are considered “really good references.”
Dr. Judy Wood is not part of the “9/11 Truth” movement. The official “truth” movement has marginalized her, attacked her. If you are interested in her work, you’ll have to take steps to see it for yourself, as you won’t find it mentioned in all the right and wrong places. It is removed from view, as our NSS does not want you stumbling on it.
This links to her web page, her book. This is a link to a YouTube about how the BBC censored her work. Please understand, you cannot be harmed by exposure to information that you don’t like or agree with. Your brain will still function afterwards. So if you’re bored, have a look at it!
I warn you, however, that you might walk away troubled by what you see and read. That state of mind, also known as cognitive dissonance, will open some doors otherwise hidden from view.
______________________
* “Qui Tam” is a whistle blower’s tool used to sue people who use government resources to tell lies. Dr. Wood and others found that “NIST”, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, lied in its offical reports on the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers One, Two and Seven. Because the private corporations who wrote those reports profited thereby, she sued them. Her case was dismissed (the judge asking her if she had a “death wish”), but we can gauge her honesty by the fact that she is willing to put her work on court record under oath. Other leaders of the “Truth Movement,” like Richard Gage of A&E, refuse to do that.
Most of what are seen as breakthroughs in our civilian sector have existed long before in the military sphere. Examples are GPS and, of course, the Internet. The latter was an ARPA project from the late 1960’s that was gifted (without public process) to American corporations for exploitation in the 90’s. This is Noam Chomsky, speaking in early 2000:
An even bigger giveaway — this one is incalculable, you don’t know how to measure it in dollars — is the giveaway of the internet. That’s very recent. Four years ago, in fact, it was commercialized, handed over to private power. A year before that, in 1994, Bill Gates, for example, was so — saw so little potential in the internet that he refused even to go to conferences about it. In 1995, he figured what he could do with it. This has been developed for thirty years within the public sector, at public expense, and it was handed over to private power, and it’s now considered, you know, kind of like the leading edge of the economy. (Interview, Democracy Now!, 2/3/2000)
The Bill Gates example has long intrigued me. One, I don’t believe he is any kind of genius of visionary. The success of Microsoft has been mostly due to its ability to scout the horizon for technological advances and gobble them up. In this regard, Gates, if he is anything more than lucky, is simply adept at predatory capitalism.
Beyond one man, however, the notion that scientific breakthroughs take place and are then immediately turned into commercial ventures – is simply beyond the pale. The technology is first quarantined and explored in a cloaked environment. It is used to gain advantage over global competition. If it can be made into a weapon, that becomes its primary use.
When finally a technology no longer presents a military advantage, the public gets to use it. Thus have we our cell phones.
In 1989 two scientists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, announced to the world that they had hit on a form of nuclear reaction that would occur at near room temperature. The official story now is that they were premature and that the results could never be duplicated.
However, a fellow scientist doing similar work had received a tip-off from the Department of Energy, and effectively submarined their work. He was BYU Professor Dr. Steven E. Jones. The “cold fusion” controversy of that time is muddled and discredited in the public eye. The technology, if it existed, was kept under wraps.
Dr. Judy Wood noticed that on 9/11/2001 that the Twin Towers and Building Seven, rather than exploding or collapsing or melting or being pulverized, were turning to dust in midair. She called the process “dustifcation,” and revealed her findings in an important 2006 book, Where Did the Towers Go?
The destructive process left behind a telltale tritium signature, a hydrogen isotope that indicates a nuclear process. The 9/11 event was not thermal event, nor is there evidence of introduction of outside kinetic forces (“bombs in the buildings”). It was not a hot process, as the massive dust cloud in the aftermath was cold, and people survived it.
Whatever force was used that day, its destructive power was immense. Absent in the debris were any of the thousands of filing cabinets, sinks, toilets, desks, computers, adding machines and safes. 1,200 people opted to jump to their deaths rather than endure whatever process was taking place in the buildings.
Dr. Wood came under attack, found her work subverted and labeled “space beams” by the same man who a decade earlier had subverted the world of Pons and Fleischmann. Dr. Steven E. Jones was put on leave by BYU after joining the so-called “9/11 Truth” movement to advance the absurd theory that the Twin Towers had been brought down by nano-thermites.
Dr. Wood is still attacked and marginalized by the “Truth Movement” a name as misleading as “cold fusion” and “space beams.” The technology used, directed energy, is a breakthrough. It has obviously been developed to immense capability. We know very little of it other than its observable effects from that day. Due to the efforts of Jones and “9/11 Truth”, is still being kept under wraps. But it is there, and thanks to Dr. Wood, we know about it now.
The larger point is that we suffer from the mythology that in a military state like ours innovation and invention are allowed to go on unimpeded by overlords. My advice for anyone who stumbles on something new, say, for instance, a way to make toast without nichrome wire, do not patent it. In so doing, you alert the authorities. If they see potential for a weapon, you’ll be kindly advised to give up your technology.
In the last post, concerning understanding of evidence, I highlighted how Dr. Judy Wood proved (a word I usually avoid) that the Twin Towers could not have “pancake” collapsed in 2001. Ergo, the official explanation given us by NIST of their demise is false. What we saw that day happened too fast and left too little debris behind. It was not pancake collapse.
Given the impossibility of pancaking, there are several other theories around about what happened that day. The so-called “9/11 Truth Movement” has latched on to them. The biggest purveyor of misinformation on the subject is a group called “Architects ad Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” That group claims to have 2,200 members, but I’d have to see the list to believe it. I do know that if you mention the name “Dr. Judy Wood,” they will boot you out the door.
Alternative theories advanced by that group and others are that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, nanothermites, nuclear bombs, mini-nuclear bombs, and mini-neutron” bombs.
Controlled demolition cannot be, as there was not enough debris left that day. There should have been thirty stories or so left behind as we see in earthquakes. Instead, there was but one or two stories worth. Where did the rest of the buildings go? (A side issue, that the buildings “pulverized” as they “collapsed,” but that would require that the kinetic energy used to pancake be used instead for pulverization. It cannot do both.
Nanothermites. This theory, advanced my Steven E. Jones, posits that a substance used by the military and industry to cut steel was used in sufficient quantity to cause what we saw that day. The sheer volume required, truckloads, would have taken weeks or months to put in place. When used it burns extremely bright and hot. Again, we are missing heat and light in the building’s demise. The sections of steel beams for the most part do not show any indication of cutting. In a building made of aluminum and iron, aluminum and iron residue, which also makes up thermite, would naturally be present. As Dr. Wood says, presence of those two metals in the debris is no more significant than finding chocolate chip cookies. Neither nanothermites or cookies brought the buildings down. Again, not enough debris.
Nukes of all varieties: Missing from Ground Zero that day were two essential elements indicating nukes in use – bright flashes and heat. Whatever process brought down the building was a cold one. The dust cloud that rolled out did not kill anyone. A pyroclastic flow from a volcano or nuke is quite deadly. That one was not. People were covered with dust, but did not suffocate or die from heat.
Given the absence of extreme heat and bright flashes of light, another theory advanced is that the buildings were brought down by “mini-neutron” bombs. The problem is that no one seems to know if such a thing even exists. It appears to be a made-up weapon used to explain the absence of heat and light flashes.
But there is one signature left at Ground Zero that indicates a some sort of nuclear process. That is the presence of tritium, a hydrogen isotope. Enough was there to indicate a nuclear process – but all the other evidence rules out a hot process.
This is where the above-mentioned Steven E. Jones plays big, the next chapter tomorrow.
We could spend the rest of our lives examining the details of the 9/11 false flag event, and no doubt in the coming decades the people who did it will feed that curiosity. If JFK is an example, they will allow new information to slip out now and then, keeping the machine running. Sometimes new information might even be real.
Movies and books and YouTube videos abound now, but it is very difficult to know who is genuine, who is a misinformation agent, and who is just stupid.
We are under control, even those of us who are genuine skeptics. Our activities are effectively quarantined by the “conspiracy theory” meme, a thought control device that squelches independent thinking. And we don’t even trust one another due to the abundance of government misinformation agents about.
Initially, according to General Wesley Clark, the U.S. intended to use the event to bring about regime change in seven countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,and Iran.) The dominant religion in that part of the world is Muslim, so Muslims were used as patsies that day. That enflamed focused hatred in the American public, and thus unleashed the American military juggernaut to go on a terror rampage.
It was successful – that is, the enflamed passions part. Most Americans hate Muslims and fear Arabs. Fear is an effective sales strategy.
The military operations perhaps have faltered, but who really knows? We are not privy to the inside dealings of the National Security State and its military/intelligence operations.
This much can be said with some assuredness: Even as they endured defeat in Iraq (and are still attacking it, now using ISIS), and even as they are yet to being down Iran, the military onslaught has not been slowed, hampered or changed by American elections.
That is an important point, something really useful to know. A positive side effect of 9/11 is evidence that national American elections do not affect American public policy. (The same is true, in my view, at the state level in Montana and Colorado, where I live and have lived, but I cannot speak for the other 48 states.)
Regarding 9/11 itself, is there any reason to stay in the rabbit hole? Are we not walking backward through history? Is there any point to finding truth?
No, and yes: There is indeed no point in unraveling the crime from a whodunnit it how-they-dun-it standpoint. They got way with it, they got their wars, and the people who did it will never be caught or punished.
But yes, there is a good reason to understand the event, even as we can never achieve justice.
It is hard to separate wheat from chaff, hard to know who is real, who is fake in the world of political intrigue, especially with the high intrigue of state-sponsored terrorism like 9/11. As Winston Smith learned in 1984, the man he relied on, O’Brien, was a mole whose job was to ferret out people suffering independent thought experiences*. The enemy of the Party – Emmanuel Goldstein – did he really even exist? Or was he too an invention of the state?
Dr. Wood is too smart to go chasing rabbits, and too much an optimist to concede defeat. Her main thrust, as I see it: The cat is out of the bag. The weaponry used to bring down the Twin Towers that day was a big ‘reveal.’ They unleashed a technology not seen before, at least at such a high concentration level.** It offers evidence of a source of free energy that can be used for good as well as evil.
I have decided to trust her, and those who support her. I have seen how she is attacked and marginalized within the co-called “9/11 Truth” movement, and so hope that indicates she is on the right path (flak intensifies as planes draw closer to a target). If I am wrong, if I am being snookered yet again, so what.
Tomorrow and in the coming days I will review some of the evidence that she has uncovered.
By the way, her resume’ is impressive, shown below the fold.
_____________________
*I have seen connections to a certain JFK researcher, Mark Lane, and the deaths of two prominent celebrities who wanted to use their platform to re-open the case. That would point arrows to Lane as an O’Brien-type agent.
**There are suspicions and evidence that the same technology was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 1996 destruction of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and 2007 destruction of a bridge in Minneapolis. Continue reading “Rabbit Hole 4: Leaving the rabbit hole …”→
Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others. (Groucho Marx)
So, you’re among the skeptics! Welcome. So you don’t believe the original story about Muslims with box cutters? Well, we have others.
Loose Change!
Loose change was 2005 documentary that received wide publicity and was widely viewed, was in fact an Internet phenomenon. Below is the three-minute trailer.
The movie was designed to rope in skeptics and lead us down a blind alley. It freely asserts that 9/11 was an American coup, which anyone with half a brain can understand. But then, in over two hours, the movie seals several false impressions designed to beguile and mislead, among them:
Planes hit the buildings. There is quite a long sequence trying to analyze a protrusion under the aircraft and a flash of light before the explosion. It reminds me of the old story of customs agents’ futile disassembling of trucks at the border trying to find smuggled drugs, when in fact it was trucks that were being smuggled in. It fails to ask the question, “What plane?”
Steel was removed from Ground Zero before it could be analyzed. Below is a LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) image of the topography of Ground Zero on 9/27/2001. What steel? It’s not been carted off. It is already gone. Where did it go?
Nano-thermites were found on site. The movie introduces us to one of the most devious of the misinformation agents, Steven E. Jones.
Wikipedia, itself a source of rabbit holes and back doors, does its job. It says that
The film’s main claims have been refuted by journalists, independent researchers, and prominent members of the scientific and engineering community.
That’s called Ad Verecundiam, or “argument from authority”, by the way, in case you’re tracking logical fallacies. Wikipedia is very good on celebrities and music. In matters of national security … it is part of the cover-up. It is riddled with back doors allowing access by agents of disinformation.
On the surface, it appears we are having give-and-take. But if 9/11 was a coup d’etat, why would those who planned the event turn around and allow open debate? Are they that stupid?
It is a diversion, a side tunnel in the rabbit hole. If we follow the movie down its logical path, we will end up at a place further from the truth than when we originally raised a skeptical eyebrow.
He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. (Thomas Jefferson)
Before viewing the movie, we were merely skeptical. After viewing it, we are thoroughly misinformed. Mission accomplished.
It is wise, then, to return to Ground Zero and set aside theories. We must examine the evidence, and let it speak.
Into the rabbit hole we went yesterday – it can absorb our energies for months.
Perceptions are part of the the problem. Ours are limited. Another part is the quality of evidence, and yet another the source of evidence, and our abilities to interpret it correctly.
A friend once remarked to me that our view of reality is like that of a ditch digger: we look over the edge and see very little. Yet what we see from this ditch is the whole of our reality, so has to do. A wise person accepts that we don’t see or know much.
Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980), spent his career analyzing our interactions with media. Each affects us differently. Some are “hot,” supplying high definition and requiring little viewer participation. Movies, with high quality images, put everything in front of us so that we can sit back and relax and enjoy the show.
Cartoons, on the other hand, are but crude outlines of reality. We have to supply almost everything so that characters come to life. What are Eric Cartman and Kenny, after all, but crude little animated circles?
McLuhan’s definition of a “cool” medium – low definition, high participation – applied to cartoons, telephones, speeches, and television.
Television requires that we look into the screen, but it is a flat presentation. In order to use it, we have to supply dimensions, depth and context. We don’t just watch our TV’s. We enter them. Thus does it have such power over us, becomes our reality. If it is on TV, it is real.
This was true Tuesday morning, 9/11/2001 – we did not observe the events of that day. We participated. They are etched in our consciousness. People get angry when skeptics say that the images were fake. Skeptics are saying that reality is fake.
9/11/2001 was a “psyop,” a psychological operation with images well-crafted in advance. Our news media actively engaged in fakery and deceit. But networks were nothing but the willing vessel. Behind those vapid faces and coiffured hairpieces are corporations that are wired to the military-industrial complex and who own and manage our reality.
What do we know for sure? The Twin Towers went away. The Pentagon had a hole. That is all we can say with certainty from the TV images. Since we’ve all talked now to witnesses, we know that World Trade Center complex was destroyed. That was real.
One image given to us, of an aircraft sliding through a building as a knife through butter, is something that cannot happen in real life. (By the way, notice how the building moves in relation to the plane in this GIF image!) There were no eyewitness accounts of that, but it was on TV. Since TV is reality, we have adjusted our reality to fit the images. Newton’s Third Law was suspended that day.
The television networks lied to us. This is proven (a word I seldom use) since the planes hitting the buildings could only go through them by mans of “CGI,” or “computer-generated imagery.” Physical reality does not allow that.
The television networks owned our minds that day, and served as the conduit by which other lies were fed to us in our traumatized state. We were fed a farcical tale of hijackers, a demonic image of a man in a cave, and “photos” of 19 “hijackers.” One of them, Mohammed Atta, was an obvious “Photoshop” creation, a Freddy Kruger-like image made to enter our nightmares.
Once we know that the television images were contrived for effect, our job is to get out of our ditch and find more and better evidence. But we cannot go places and see things, we cannot know the minds of those who contrived that event. That means that we must decide who we can trust, and who not.
Thus does the rabbit hole provide many turns and tunnels.
The events of 9/11/01 appear to have been intricately planned on a vast scale. There is evidence of outside energy directed at the seven buildings of the World Trade Center, and no others.
But only a small portion of the evidence was directed at the American public via their TV sets: buildings emitting smoke and fire and then collapsing. The accompanying narrative was that jet aircraft had hit the buildings.
This imagery targeted at us via our TV sets was accompanied by a story of an evildoer in a cave and nineteen suicidal cohorts.The crime was solved before the day was over.
A third building “collapsed” before our eyes later that day, Building Seven. It did not have the “hijacked aircraft” cover story, and so its demise was harder to explain. Consequently, to this day, most Americans don’t know about it, much less of the destruction of four other buildings bearing the prefix “WTC.”
The success of the caveman-Arab hijackers cover story, a conspiracy theory, can be attributed to the near religious faith that Americans have in their news media, and also to a blackout of evidence showing of a much larger and more sophisticated event. The success of the cover story in the years later is due to the continuing blackout of evidence in our news, education and entertainment systems. Events like the “killing” of Osama bin Laden in 2011 have the effect of giving the official story a booster shot.
To find blacked-out evidence, people have to take their own initiative and seek out other sources, such as books, lectures, YouTube videos and podcast. Most don’t do that. In fact we are warned away from doing so by the “conspiracy theory” meme, a thought control device.
Here are some of the phenomena of that day that I will cover in subsequent posts, as best as I am able. Some time back I offered some crude mathematics regarding coincidence – that related events can be paired to test the likelihood of their simultaneous occurrence, the “CO” in coincidence. Keep this in mind as we review the following – that is, it can all be explained, but why did it all happen at once?
A hurricane, Erin, that originated in the South Atlantic and traversed in a nearly straight line towards New York City, stopping and remaining stationary on the morning of 9/11, and then turning abruptly northeast.
Hurricane Erin at midday, 9/11/2001
The straight line on which the hurricane approached New York City in the immediate days before 9/11 was -15 degrees, or magnetic north.
The hurricane was barely mentioned on local news coverage even as we know that American television news reporters go gaga over hurricanes.
At the same time, a massive cold front approached New York City from the east.
Consequently, during the events of that day, the World Trade Center complex was between an extreme high pressure system (cold front), and an extreme low pressure system (Erin).
During this time, stations that measure fluctuation in the earth’s magnetic fields showed disturbances at precisely the times of the “events” in the complex: The North and South Towers being “hit by aircraft,” the two towers “collapsing,” and finally, around five P.M. Building Seven “collapsing” on its own without benefit of an “aircraft.”
After the Building Seven event, the magnetic lines returned to a more normal (though still disturbed) state.
During the whole of the day after the buildings experience the supposed aircraft hits, Building Seven was seen giving off fumes from its west side. The fumes defied wind patterns, and we’re headed upward at forty-five degrees and downward at the same angle, with a division line apparent at two darkened floors around the thirtieth.
At the time Building Seven “collapsed” at 5 P.M., it did so silently, registering no significant seismic signal – that is, it had been gutted of its mass.
Do you understand these events? Neither do I. Here are the problems: By not having the raw evidence of that day at our disposal, we don’t know even to wonder about what really happened. But even so, now having the evidence, we lack expertise in science and so are not skilled at interpretation.
So we have to look to ‘experts” to interpret data for us, and just as when the TV that day was spinning lurid lies about hijacked aircraft hitting buildings, we are at their mercy.
Piece of Mindful 