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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you.” (Dr. Judy Wood)
I have a thing about books – I think they are clutter. I have a book shelf, and I used to keep some books in boxes too – until I realized that once in a box, a book’s usefulness is done. Even putting them on bookshelves has the same effect. So when I am finished with a book I either give it away, or throw it away. There’s a local book store up the road, and nice gentleman who is always happy to accept new offerings. I suspect he might throw many away, relieving me of guilt.
However, a few books are too important to toss, and Dr. Judy Wood’s Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11, is one of those. At 540 pages it is a little daunting, and more so because it is not a narrative. It is a glossy textbook, 540 pages of exhibits, photos, scientific formulas and data. However, Dr. Wood has the gift of the truly intelligent – to speak of complex matters in understandable terms.
But she is not Carl Sagan. She is not trying to make science accessible to children. This is adult fare, for people who have functioning brains. She is trying to help us understand what happened in New York City on 9/11. She examines the evidence, but does not tell us who did it, why they did it, and to a large degree cannot tell us how they did it. She writes only about what happened. It’s not at all what we were told that we saw.
Dr. Wood has given slide-show lectures in the U.S. and Europe, and I invite you if you have a couple of hours to view one or two. They are at YouTube, and if you look hard enough, you’ll find one of higher quality in terms of graphics and clarity of sound. This one is two and a half hours – it really takes that long to discuss everything that happened at Ground Zero on 9/11/2001. If you want to be up to speed, you need to invest your time and brain into this matter. It is not simple whodunnit.
Or, you can buy the book. It costs like $60 used on Amazon, or $40 directly from her. The story of getting it published is a trip by itself. At one time the price on Amazon approached $400, indicating that someone was behind the scenes buying up copies, and not for resale. But it appears she has had additional print runs since that time to bring the price down.
I won’t do a blow-by-blow on the book, but will hit some highlights in the coming days. I’ll start with a topic that has sidetracked many skeptics, the idea that the buildings fell in a “pancake collapse.” This particular chapter is called “The Billiard Ball Example.”
The two buildings falling that day created seismic events that lasted ten and eight seconds. Using a billiard ball, Dr. Wood demonstrates that at free-fall speed, it would take from 8.79 to 9.22 seconds for one dropped from the top of WTC1 to reach the pavement below. In other words, we are told by NIST* that the buildings “pancaked” at “free fall” speed.
But if the buildings collapsed of their own weight, that could not happen. Each falling floor encounters resistance from the one below, or in her hypothetical example, every billiard ball must hit another to set it in motion. If indeed we witnessed a “pancake” collapse, at a minimum it would have taken 100 seconds for the event to complete. Even if ten floors were pancaking at once instead of one at a time, it would still have taken thirty seconds.
So we did not witness a pancake collapse. That is not physically possible. We saw something else. For the buildings to go “poof” before our eyes at what appears to be free-fall speed, some other process was at work. After all, the top floor, 110 stories above, would have had to hit the ground without encountering resistance from the 109 floors below. That is not possible.
The evidence is speaking. Are we listening?
*National Institute of Standards and Technology, an organization that Dr. Wood sued for science fraud.
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 …”→