Secret Government, Deep Events, and the Emerging Police State

By Patrick Murphy

Most will likely agree that 9/11 is a qualitatively different event from the Sandy Hook massacre and Boston bombing. Nevertheless, with such highly questionable events the first question that must be asked is, “Did something happen?” The second question is, “What happened?” These questions lead us to ask why such events happen, what parties are behind the events and what are their possible rationales.

With 9/11, it is a certainty that something happened, because the World Trade Center Towers turned to dust and disappeared. What caused that is a subject of considerable debate. In any event, people definitely died because one could see them being ejected from the towers and falling through the air to the ground.

With Sandy Hook, there is absolutely no evidence that anything happened–just words out of peoples’ mouths, and much of that talk is demonstrably false. Until we see video, until we see still photos of the bloodied classrooms and of all the claimed spent rounds and guns piled up on the floor, until we see proof that a person called Adam Lanza ever existed, until we see death certificates and the coroner’s reports, all we have are the claims of untrustworthy government officials and propagandists.

With Boston, something obviously happened, but it is unclear what took place. It can be thought of as a hybrid of 9/11 and Sandy Hook: like 9/11, there is a great deal of photographic and video evidence that demonstrates that the official explanation consists mostly of lies.

If an impossible event is claimed to be true, it remains impossible. However, government officials make such ridiculous claims and broad swaths of the public find them acceptable. Concerning Boston, since the whole Cowboy Hat Guy story line is not possible, regardless of what anyone says, the reality of the whole event must be questioned. Until we see open casket funerals and death certificates, and actual proof of amputations–not just words out of the mouths of very questionable talkers–we have to conclude the whole thing is fake.

The third and fourth questions can only be worked on after the first two are settled: Why? and Who? With these probable false flag events, it is possible that the answers to these questions can never be known, but there are ways to narrow the options down.

For instance, with 911 if what was used to destroy the WTC Towers involved weaponized Tesla technology or some similarly sophisticated set of methods, we have to ask, “Who could have developed such a capability?” Certainly it would be very expensive, and the incredible secrecy under which that technology was developed points to Deep Underground Military Bases. But is that what we think of as “the government”? That any politician is allowed to know anything about the detailed operations of the secret government strikes me as laughable. The people that make up the secret government are, for all intents remain nameless, as do the agencies they use to carry out their agendas.

Which brings us to, Why? What are those purposes?

Again, it is very difficult to know with certainty, but one thing all false flags seem to have in common is to advance the elements of the emerging police state; the systematic destruction of our liberties. Whoever these people are, they are showing their hand by the changes wrought in the aftermath of these major events.

Kennedy’s murder started it; the destruction of Richard Nixon continued it. This was an era of increasing control over the media for propaganda on behalf of the secret government. Such forces direct the narrative and shape public opinion by defending obvious lies while simultaneously subjecting independent analysis that contradicts the official story to scorn and mockery.

Kennedy and Nixon were both successful coups–successful, because no matter how obvious the truth was, the political system went on according to the wishes of the coup plotters. Both Kennedy and Nixon had defied the deep state and were made to pay. With the exception of Reagan, who attempted to be autonomous and arguably got shot for it (Bush ran the show after that), never again would the selected president attempt to actually think and act independently on behalf of the polity.

Oklahoma City started a new phase in false flag events, where large-scale catastrophes, blamed on “terrorists,” could be used to justify totalitarian legislation. This phase also constituted a systematic tweaking of the use of media to shape the narrative and send the initial reporting down the memory hole. It strikes me that these events were largely tests to see how stupid the public had become, how willing to forget they now were to forget what was initially reported and seamlessly accept as a “given” a completely different set of “facts.” However contradictory the facts taken as a whole may be, they almost invariably replace the ones that were presented initially. Such events have become part of a broader process to shape the public to precisely to the mentality Orwell describes in 1984.

Since 9/11, the American people seemingly will believe anything and cheerfully accept any reduction of their freedoms. That was proven in Boston, when the region’s inhabitants earnestly agreed to stay in their houses or be frog-marched into the street by soldiers in full Robocop. They then amazingly cheered their oppressors after being released, with chants of, “USA! USA! USA!”

Since the false flags appear to be coming faster and faster, and the news media now almost monolithically and unquestioningly work to promote whatever preposterous story the secret government wishes the public to believe, one can only wonder if the experiment is nearing its end. If so, a wholly unbridled police state will be upon us very soon.

___________________
Patrick Murphy is a small businessman living in Indianapolis and the author of How the West Was Lost: Coping with Life in a Strange, New Civilization (2005). He is presently working on a followup volume. Murphy holds a degree in Computer Science from Southern Illinois University in Carbondale.
0

Leave a Reply

68 thoughts on “Secret Government, Deep Events, and the Emerging Police State”

  1. The USA is the garrison colony of Europe.
    Our job is to conquer the earth for our masters: European Nobility.
    This explains, for example, our involvement in Vietnam Nam. When our students did not want to play their proper role of the garrison colony, they were shot dead at Kent State in Ohio.
    When did 911 happen?
    It happened after the end of the Cold War, with the talk of a “peace dividend.”
    The peace dividend drifted away with the pulverized cement of the once glorious Twin Towers.

    1. “Our job is to conquer the earth for our masters: European Nobility.”

      No, not European Nobility, but the global plutocracy, more like.

      How else are the Chinese, the Russians the Indians to be brought on board? The elite of every nation must betray their own nation by subordinating it to the anti-democratic instruments of the new global elite: the WTO, the UN, the EU, etc., all easily controlled by the money power without reference to public opinion.

      The transition to global empire requires an end to democracy, since the people of every nation oppose the destruction of their identity, their religious traditions and their racial and cultural unity.

      Hence, the pseudodemocracy that has emerged in the West: the elite dictate how the masses think by every means of propaganda including state directed acts of real or phony terrorism.

      Since a majority consists of no more than 50% plus one, the elite need only control the minds of the stupids. This is the real horror of the New World Order. The educated middle class are targeted for destruction.

      Read Carroll Quigley, the historian of the New World Order conspiracy. In Tragedy and Hope, he quite openly expresses his contempt for the middle class.

    2. I think that if you look at American history between the earliest part of the 17th century (at least in the 13 original colonies) starting with Jamestown and the Pilgrims, yes it was a set of garrisons, with French and Dutch putting pressure on the English, to such an extent and with such uncertain outcome, such lack of determinism, that historical memory for it wasn’t much reinforced in classrooms of the public school system, perhaps because it would raise too many confusing “what if”‘s.

      But when two events took the Dutch and then the French out of (open) control of the colonies, it became possible to establish something independent of Parliament (while still remaining dependent on the City of London for big investments?), and we had our Revolution. It was a pretty conservative affair as revolutions go, however.

      One motive for Benedict Arnold’s going over to the British was the introduction of necessary French allies to the cause. He hated the French and so did many people from his region, whose family histories were full of Indian massacres led by French and approved in Paris, conducted by Quebecois with the day’s heavy weapons, and their Indian scouts (Deerfield Massacre is a notable one). That left a long bad taste in the mouth against the French. Earlier, the Dutch used the Indians for the same type of things, the way Western nations use insurgents today. Same old, same old.

      The Revolution having been won, by the early 19th century, it became all right again to meet socially with the Brits, especially in places like Philadelphia, and to marry them even if you came from revolutionary stock. The “pond” was crossed back and forth thereafter by top levels of society in both countries. One effect was that (except for very recently) Brits never called Americans “foreigners”. That term was reserved for all the other people of the world who didn’t come originally from the British Isles.

      But how do we remain a “garrison colony”? There is only one serious contender for Mother Country, and its influence is pervasive and ongoing, entangled with us in every way. That is Britain (and the City of London’s financiers).

      Are we a garrison colony of Britain? Or are they our poodle? Don’t we agree that their development of mideast oilfields gives them some say as to how they continue, in spite of the “natives”? Haven’t we been “all in” on their adventures there? Aren’t we completely joined at the hip with Israel, one of their spin-off’s (even if it thinks it isn’t)? Isn’t it the Three Musketeers?

      Who is the dominant one? I’m not sure we can ever tell.

      So no, I have to conclude that we are not a garrison colony for Europe, but we might as well be an open member of the British Commonwealth because in so many ways, we are. Who has the upper hand? Nobody but the bankers.

      1. There were no indian massacres, the settlers shot members of Tecumseh’s tribe along the rivers for sport as they floated down to steal new land. When the indians with what little weapons and numbers they had lash back it is not a massacre, it is called trying to survive.

        As far as who has the upper hand, well London is still printing the money, the Federal reserve is not federal. Who has the gold makes the rules. How it can be debated that America is not puppet the crown and the U.N. push for global control is inexplicable to me.

    3. More on uncle Rusland!

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/20/graham-fuller-uncle-ruslan-the-cia-and-the-boston-bombings/

      jedmarlin is so correct here. The crown heads of Europe also. the emperor of Japan,(star of Jerusalem is on the palace) the top of the food chain in Tel Aviv, and 42 presidents of the Uniteds states all shared a unique, (Y-DNA-haplogroup 1b1b blood group. It is how they recognize each other. It is neanderthal in origin and promoted as royal blood.

      They print the money, own the banks, media, gold, monsanto, and pretty much else of value. Both Napoleon and Hitler shared this blood trait. They funneled the slaves to North America to help the colonist dispossess the indians, dig the gold and send it back to London town in exchange for worthless paper. The fed is not federal.

      Now they are really on a roll, a war that is never going to end. If you see something say something.

  2. Patrick Murphy and Professor Tracy thank you.

    Bombing of USS Liberty and The Levon Affair are other false flags in the past. There are others.

    Because history repeats itself it is important to re-visit them.

  3. In my opinion the ONLY reason for these actions is to control the masses by creating a culture of fear and mistrust. In the real world MOST people are good, MOST people can be trusted, MOST of your neighbors also can be your friends. If you keep this in mind, then we win, not “them”. They can’t control, if we don’t fear.

  4. I suggest everyone read The Black Eagle Trust Fund pdf ( if you haven’t already) to see what it suggests are the reasons behind the *why* of 9-11. Those floors targeted in the towers were not random hits nor was the skilled loop the pilot executed that provided a direct aim at the section of the Pentagon that was newly remodeled and had just had the all the financials moved in to those offices.

    And did you all catch Donald Rumsfeld’s announcement on 9-10-2011, yes, the Sunday before it all happened, in which he said that it was discovered that 2.3 TRILLION dollars from the Pentagon can’t be accounted for????

  5. I don’t agree with everything in this fine piece, but I still argue for its fineness. It presents quite a bit of reasoned thought and argument and some opinion and that’s all good.

    Especially it approaches and presents the outstanding problem of techno-totalitarianism and overt (and covert) domination by the few (the most technically and intellectually elite) as they counter and disturb natural life processes and the creative and perceptive abilities of each individual entity from high to low as these entities or organisms (not just people, mind you) unfold upon this planet and biosphere, in search of their own growth and purpose and being.

    Let us also all understand that articles can be written in fine ‘King’s English’ with good grammar and spelling and a high standard of ‘spit and polish’ and intellectual ‘boot lick’, but comments should not need to be held to similar standards. Why???

    And there is nothing wrong with a truly shitty shoddy written article appearing except that it would embarass the site owner I imagine and take too much of his time to then defend from others who are embarassed by it as well. Wasting time is such an evil thing (for the elite who are always in a big hurry). Ummmmm.

    I continue to like this stie, but I will also post criticism of it. This is partly what I do.

    FREE SPEECH.

    Thanks everybody.

    Keep up the good work.

    Ned Lud

    (All comments subject to moderation.)

  6. The FBI’s bombing in Boston simply shows that the US is heading for another deep event, one that will finally destroy the illusion that we live in a democracy. Only then will people realise their rights have been eroded into meaninglessness. Unfortunately, this realisation will happen too late for most Americans once martial law has been declared and the full apparatus of the police state is in force.

  7. 9/11 was the ‘biggie’, for all the world to see. The ‘War On Terror’ now seems to have taken a more direct approach primarily aimed at the American public. The sequence of events, can only be described as being more insular, orchestrated and direct.
    Operation Northwoods was definitely a sinister operation, rejected, but nevertheless sustained in its ideals.
    I sincerely hope that I’m wrong in thinking that the current mind hoaxes that are taking place are a new agenda, in which, Obama unlike Kennedy is absolutely complicit.

    1. I doubt very much that any president ever has much knowledge of these events. They are essentially powerless figureheads, so far as I can tell.

      It’s true that the Bush family is deeply connected to the secret government (Skull and Bones, Trilateral Commission, CFR, Bilderberg, the whole collection of invisible planners), and I’d allow that George H.W. knew some of the deeper things–but I’d be amazed if W. was told much of anything.

      Obama, so far as I can tell, doesn’t know much about subject in life. I guess that makes him complicit in everything. He’s a sock puppet. He reads anything they put in the teleprompter, and acts as if he understands what it means, and gets away with it because the press protects him by never testing to see if he has any real understanding. The few times he’s been put under even a little pressure he’s demonstrated petulance and anger, like a child who has never heard the word “no” and does not know how to accept anything but praise.

      So he’s complicit in everything in that he never defies his masters, no matter how horrible they behave; he’s there to sell the story they write for him. But he certainly is not consulted before the fact.

      Kennedy, as I argue in the piece, saw all this coming, and tried to put a stop to it. The OSS was a nasty bit of business, operating pretty much secretly under the cover of WWII–a TRULY nasty business. The OSS was given a more or less visible form after the war, and renamed CIA. The United States government had been selected by the dark forces that rule the world to “globalize” the human race, and the CIA was the germ around which that activity would grow.

      Kennedy was not supposed to be president. His dad used his mob connections to steal the election from Nixon, the establishment’s anointed. I assume that the powers that truly rule assumed that the boy president would get with the program. He didn’t. When he gleaned the things they were planning, he tried to stop them at every turn. They have been careful not to let that happen ever since.

      Nixon finally got his turn, but he was a bit too clever (they tend not to like that in their tools, unless they are utterly without a moral compass, and thus can be trusted to obey). Nixon’s life in the 60s was spent as a Rockefeller man, and he was assured that 1968 would be his time–and it was. But he saw what was happening when Agnew was dispensed with, and he was told to appoint Nelson Rockefeller to replace Agnew. Nixon knew what being a heartbeat away from Rocky taking over meant, and he defied his masters. I suppose he could thank them for not simply killing him for it, and I suspect they let him live so long as he agreed on Ford as a substitute (just for laughs, I can’t help but wonder–he’d been a rubber stamp in the Warren Commission; the elite have a unique sense of humor). I don’t think Nixon saw Watergate coming; he certainly never expected to resign. Sadly for David and the gang, his brother died before he could replace Ford. But Carter fit the bill just fine.

      Reagan eschewed Washington, and stocked his cabinet with his California pals, who were all portrayed in the press as a pack of loons who were trying to turn the world upside down. The trouble is, David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger had made it clear after he’d won the primary that if he did not accept Bush as VP he’d be destroyed in the press, and never be president. Hinkley, it turns out, was the son of one of George HW Bush’s best friends. Another elite joke, I’m guessing. In any event, all the California gang was dispensed with after Hinkley shot Reagan, and Bush (through Baker) ran the show from then on. Ron gave lots of nice speeches, and looked very presidential. Love him or hate him, he played his part really well.

      Since then, the elite has taken absolutely no chances. They get their man in place, even if 146% of registered voters vote 100% for the same candidate in key districts. Of if a few hanging chads have to send the thing to the Supreme Court.

      1. It’s hard to remember the Ford, Agnew, and Rockefeller roles around Nixon.

        Did you assume Rocky was Nixon’s vice, or were you merely saying Nixon nixed Rocky (fearful of getting the MacBird! treatment) and asked for Ford as insurance he would stay alive?

        Ford came in to substitute for the crooked Agnew, one year into Nixon’s second term. Thus, when Nixon resigned, one year into his second term, close on the heels of Agnew’s fall, Ford needed a Veep. He chose Rocky, former Governor of NY and also a sometime contender for the Republican nomination for Pres.

        Ford only served the majority of one term (three years), but lost to Carter. Rocky was alive at the 1976 election, but chose not to run (he died in 1979). Thus the Ford/Dole ticket lost the only election they ever ran in, so Ford had the distinction of having been both Vice President and President without having been elected to either office, but only appointed by his party.

        I fail to see the vast power of the Rockefellers in this, but I grant that when governor of New York, Nelson wielded a good share of the power of the Northeast. Is his brother David one of the last of the big WASP bankers? It seems hard to believe but he is still alive (at 97).

        His son and namesake, a former musician, is now in banking as well. Rumor has it the family are not as wealthy or influential as they once were. Recently a genuine Rockefeller, one of Nelson’s grandsons, a student at Boston College, was arrested for trashing a sorority house with other of his frat brothers. If he had anything to do with the Marathon bombing, he is succeeding in hiding behind an effective facade. Like the Kennedys, most likely, each generation produces a certain drift from the founding patriarch in passion and purpose.

        1. Forgive me for my lapse, musings, in putting Nelson’s death during Ford’s presidency.

          The point I am trying to make is that the powers behind the throne are often glimpsed, but almost always invisible. Nelson Rockefeller, for a moment in time, was where the visible and invisible secret government overlapped. Nixon was in his way.

          The Rockefellers indeed possess “vast powers,” but they rarely misfire. They have ruled American politics for at least a century, mostly silently. Banking is the least of it. David has long claimed that they are not a political family, which is largely true, because they won’t usually stoop to becoming politicians. They fly far above, like eagles, acting as kingmakers. Nelson, well, he was an exception.

  8. Madness is a moment that is sometimes worth waiting for. When it arrives, few seem to be aware it is already in the passing. Only the trained eye and mind see it for what it was.

    Great blog and do not be deterred to keep up the exposure! The matrix minded are doing a great job in letting us all know who they are by their meaningless statements against you. The jigsaw will eventually show all the true picture.

    Till the next moment arrives…

      1. I’ve been wondering that too, Mike. Anyone know what that vehicle is? The news report says that police were in SWAT gear. Could it be a SWAT vehicle? I’ve done a Google search for images of SWAT vehicles and don’t see any matching this image. There’s an LAPD vehicle that looks a bit like it – it also has a large flat object above the vehicle. (What is this? A ladder? A shield? Something else?)

        The bomb threat seems to have provided a handy excuse to show off this fancy new vehicle. Another gratuitous show of force, it seems.

  9. These events are representative of the current political-industrial-complex model that rules the U.S. and seeks global dominance: destabilization, in the name of self-defense, in order to justifiably re-stabilize in a way that protects the interests of the power cartel.

    1. True, and succinctly put.

      However, in the perpetrator’s move to “re-stabilize” to ensure global dominance there are increasing numbers of individuals and countries (Russia, for one) that are quite aware of what is “real” and what is not “real.”

      As we watch the press swirl around President Obama with a bevy of scandals, one does wonder if this is pressure being applied for him to put troops on the ground in Syria. I also wonder if the AP scandal has less to do with leaks and more to do with where the Press gets its marching orders for the stories it broadcasts.

      It is all very cloak and dagger.

  10. Here’s a nasty thought I just had. Hope I’m wrong.

    The American middle class is already gone, the police state is already in existence, and these “reality TV” shows are just the modern version of state entertainment/control. It’s just like the good old days of public executions: lots of drama and gore, along with a helpful warning not to step out of line. Feel manipulated, condescended to, and treated with contempt? You’re right. Your opinions officially no longer matter. While you were busy watching the show, your wealth was quietly siphoned away:
    http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?g=3&c=ufb1
    Maybe the whole thing – President, Congress, judiciary – is all a grand performance to keep y’all thinking you still live in a functioning democracy. The country is really owned by a handful of plutocrats.

    Anything ringing false here? Ouch. Sorry. This whole false-flag thing is really getting me down.

    1. I could not agree more, Skeptical. In fact, I think it is far worse than the video you so helpfully linked to indicates. But however unimaginably rich our masters actually are (official statistics about the wealth of the very richest almost certainly understate it), in the end, it’s not about money. It’s about unimaginable power over the human race.

      Tesla, a century ago, tried to give us free energy. It would have meant genuine freedom for humanity, had the dark forces not stopped him. Free energy means antigravity technology, faster than light travel, and in essence a completely different world of genuinely empowered humans. Socialism is leveling everyone to a modest state by government, at the point of a gun (refuse to cooperate, and the robocops will break down your door; refuse to be taken by them to a cage, and your family will next be calling the undertaker). Free energy would elevate everyone in the world to a life so fantastic we can scarcely imagine it. Can’t have that.

      I am persuaded beyond doubt that 911 was a demonstration of that technology, weaponized. It was also a test to see how stupid we have become as a people–to see if we wouldn’t even notice it. Building 6, which almost no researcher ever mentions, cannot, it seems to me, be explained any other way. There are lots of other air-tight proofs, but almost no one notices any of those, either. Our masters proved that morning that they could turn massive buildings into dust, as all the world was watching, and tell the most ridiculous lies about what the people saw happening, and be believed. Now, THAT’S power.

      The fact that we are denied this technology for good, and that it is now openly being used against us for ill, tells me that we are cattle. Those who have the power to do this, own us. We are owned, and moved about in bovine fashion, and we have no idea.

      It really is, in fact, just like the movie They Live. In that movie, humans sell out for a pleasant income and life situation. Near the end, one such craven apologist makes his case by arguing that there’s no point in fighting back; the aliens have the whole deal sewn up, we may as well drink champagne while we are still alive.

      When you mention Washington, with its greco-roman buildings and 18th century political trappings, I again concur. To me, these politicians look just like actors in a Shakespeare performance. It is a distraction. It has nothing to do with the REAL government. When Ron Paul held up a silver Eagle coin in the face of Ben the Bernank a year or so ago, we saw a glimmer of the gap between the two governments, but of course, it did not matter that the Bernank was thrown off his game for a moment or two. He sweated a tough afternoon, sure. But then he went back to the office and troopered on, good, well paid soldier against the rest of us, that he is.

      1. Check out the Journal for 9/11 Studies and you will see 60 peer reviewed articles and scant evidence for Tesla but much for explosives that were set and detonated.

        You neglected to mention Clinton’s indiscretion and inability to function thereafter as a form of impeachment.

        1. I know nothing of “peer review” as a point of commendation in this regard. The first question that must be asked is this: where did the mass of the buildings go? It was all transformed into dust, and blew away. That is 100% evidence of technology similar to that with which Tesla was experimenting. “Scant”? Hardly.

          Explosives break up mass. Then, it falls to the ground. There is zero evidence that happened on 911. None.

          The Towers were built inside the Hudson river, which was held back by what is called the “bathtub,” a sort of sea wall. The bathtub is easily damaged. The crashing down of all that mass would have broken the bathtub, had explosives destroyed the buildings. But the bathtub was unscathed.

          The buildings were built on bedrock, seven stories below sea level, inside the bathtub. Down there were seven sub-basements, some of which subway stations passed through. The uppermost, just below street level, sported a shopping mall. None of these places were harmed by the crashing down of two half million ton buildings. How is that possible?

          As I don’t know how to place pictures into this text, I’m going to have to ask you to click here: http://drjudywood.co.uk/wtc/, and scroll down to section “C”. Look at those pictures.

          Then go to section “D.” Tell me how Building 6 acquired those holes. It looks exactly like a 12 foot wide post hole digger pulled out most of the center of the building, over and over.

          Explosives explain none of this evidence.

      2. It’s interesting that you mention the promise of Tesla, which makes even transmuting base metals into gold seem like an uninteresting, primitive exercise, while on the other hand you point out the conflict between those who want to rein in government with sound money like silver.

        Isn’t it funny that the guys who make money from thin air at the Fed should be the bad guys, while infinite and un-meterable energy is a good thing to have on tap (but it’s somehow held back)?

        I’m not against what you say or even calling it a contradiction, but I am wondering how this all plays out. I think you are saying that we are being forced to live within the boundaries of finite fossil fuel resources, which some are able to secure with “funny money”, basically stealing those resources from people able to pay an increasingly rare honest dollar for it.

        But the infinite energy source (which is somehow hidden from us) is the key. This would tend to leave out precious metals as a store of wealth, because then who would need them?

        What you seem to say is that : if we are stuck with finite resources, then the money better be finite too. If we are stuck with carbon-based fuel, then only precious metals should be able to buy it, not power-based funny money (dollars). That is the proper way to control the use of it until something better comes along.

        1. You read me rightly, musings. You’ll never find Ron Paul, or most hard money folk, arguing that free energy is being hidden from us. All that realm of though stays within “conventional” boundaries, and I expect that to remain the case. Ron Paul was calling out Bernanke within the confines of the model we are stuck inside of, which was amusing, and got attention. Had he started talking about Area 51, no one would have ever listened to him again. That’s just the world we have to live in.

          As for me, I expect martial law and a cash free society to be our future. I love libertarians, but when they talk optimistically, I laugh.

        2. Suggest you read the peer reviewed nanothermite paper at either 9/11 blogger or at Journal for 9/11 studies. Judy Wood’s theories have not been endorsed by the main band of knowledgeable people – Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth – close to 2000 members – and there is a lot of detail in their movie, at their site, that you should watch. Pulverized dust doesn’t prove Tesla. How can you sound off about what caused the WTC to come down when you have never read the main research paper or even followed all those who who done a huge amount of research into the topic?

        3. How can you know what I’ve read, Marzi?

          The evidence of 911 indicates a physics that is not taught in school. That long list of skeptics you reference were taught that free energy is impossible. Is it surprising that they process the event through the grid they were taught to think within? If what they’re looking at is something completely different from what they have been trained to analyze, what are they going to do? They know something’s wrong with the official story, and once they learn that lots of their peers are in the same skepticism boat,and find one another, they soon recognize that they all have the same problem. Does it seem to you unlikely that they’ll work together to find a way to make the evidence fit the store-bought grid they all live within?

          Judy Wood did not do that. She refused to buy store-bought. She said to herself that the off-the-shelf physics they teach in school does not match the evidence, and concluded that there must be another one that explains the evidence. She never caved. Good for her. This makes her, if I may be so bold, the James Tracy of the academic 911 skeptics. She is academic who simply refuses to bow to peer pressure, and continue to think independently. And she’s ostracized for it.

          An honest analysis must ask the basic question: If any form of explosives were used, 100% of the mass of the two towers would still be there, only in suddenly smaller pieces, and would immediately crash to the ground; why did not a billion tons of building not crack through the ground floor? The shopping mall just beneath street level was left intact, as were the subway stations. That would have been one impressive ceiling those basements had protecting them.

          But you have to ask another question. Where did the buildings go? How could pictures be taken directly through where they used to be, at street level, looking at the street on the other side, just after the event, if half a billion tons of mass (each building) had just fallen there?

          Earlier, I urged a look at the pictures posted here: http://drjudywood.co.uk/wtc/ (scroll down to section “C”) to see these street level photos. I also urge you to look at section “D”, to look perhaps for the first time at pictures of Building 6. Why does no one ever look at the evidence Building 6 represents? Building 6, in my opinion, is Cowboy Hat Guy of the 911 event, in the sense that it ends the conversation. How did the building acquire those holes?

          Tell me if any of the papers you mention answer those questions (hint: they don’t). Reread those papers, asking those questions, and wonder why they hate Judy Wood.

        4. Dear Ms. Marzi, (my apologies if I guessed incorrectly on your gender)

          Nanothermite is a distraction that fails high school chemistry and math in explaining ~all~ of the 9/11 evidence, such as: duration of under-rubble hot-spots, tritium, energy & brissance required for pulverization, etc.

          Simplify the math to a single hot-spot burning only four weeks (although multiple hot-spots were present and some burned longer). Using nanothermite’s burn-rate, calculate backwards from the duration to determine (a) its quantity and (b) configuration [e.g., packed into an imaginary garden hose so it’d burn like a fuse.]

          Ignoring the diameter of that garden hose, don’t be surprised if the math crunches out an imaginary garden hose several hundred THOUSAND miles long that ain’t Occam Razor. More brissanty chemical explosives (like RDX suggested by Dr. Jones as being mixed in) only makes it LONGER. And remember when contemplating the source of the hot-spots, this represents materials UNSPENT-FROM-THEIR-ORIGINAL-PULVERIZING-PURPOSES.

          Sure, if you want to believe that nanothermite was involved in the destruction because they found it in the dust, I can be made a believer, too. But whereas nanothermite was the only thing that a certain nuclear physicist found in the dust, it was not the only thing he should have found. Nope. Dr. Jones should have found correlated elements that spelled out a nuclear fission [ala fission-triggered-fusion] as given by Jeff Prager.

          Dr. Jones built up a nice strawman with his no-nukes peer-reviewed *cough* paper that tried to stilt perceptions into large & powerful nukes leaving huge radiation signatures. Where does he mention “neutron bombs”, which are essentially fission-triggered-fusion devices that allow highly energetic neutrons to escape (and be targeted upwards DEW-like), thereby reducing explosive yields to tactical levels and leaving short-lived radiation? Dr. Jones doesn’t. Another massive Fail.

          Free Tesla-energy? Shoot, I want to be a true believer on this, as well, but I’m not. Dr. Wood — whose book & disinformation vehicle I highly recommend — has ~not~ made a case for it being operational, let alone deployed on 9/11. Just lots of dangling innuendo, while she side-steps a rational and detailed nuclear analysis that should have been obvious. I agree with the critique from the Anonymous Physicists who essentially said: “Dr. Wood’s job was to gather all of the evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event and wrap it under a kookie umbrella for easier in-one-go dismissal.”

          It is easy for even the eyes of non-science-challenged thinkers to glaze over when reading Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood. Solid foundations of truth they build upon… before the disinformation & steering get inserted.

          I am a supporting member of A&E for 9/11 Truth, but they screw up as well. IMHO, Ain’t nobody who has made it to the top of the 9/11 Truth food-chain who doesn’t ultimately end up spewing disinformation (maybe to save their own skin or that of their family members, so I’m not begrudging them.)

          Case in point, if AE9-11Truth (Dr. Jones, David Chandler, Let’s Roll Forums, September Clues, or 9/11 Blogger or, or, or…) were being completely straight with us, they would be able to do, say, a section-by-section book review of Dr. Wood’s book for the good, the bad, and the ugly. They don’t and haven’t ever and avoid the the good like the pest, because it has far too many inconvenient truths and evidence that their pet-theories (e.g., nanothermite) can’t address and exposes how they’ve been playing us.

          Dr. Wood’s book presents no cohesive theories — a bad. I can point to other bad things. However, all in all, she is not as wrong as her detractors make her out to be. She’s right: that it took lots of energy; that it was directed energy (but from multiple neutron bombs or ERW); …

          Talking through my hat, I’d guess from having read it cover-to-cover that 95% of Dr. Wood’s book can’t be debunked: it is what it is. 5% is wrong or misleading, mostly because a distinction has to be made (and she doesn’t) between valid concept and concept applicable to 9/11. Like I said, “lots of dangling innuendo” in Dr. Wood’s disinformation vehicle, while all of the big boys are too afraid to reach into it and grab onto any of the good for re-purpose elsewhere and proper framing: ANOTHER MAJOR FAIL! A glaring red flag!

          Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager

          9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW By Señor El Once

          9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2) By Señor El Once

          Disclaimer: I wrote the last two articles. I use information from Dr. Ward and Mr. Prager.

          //

        5. Mr. Once, I read your two articles when you linked to them a few threads ago, and find them quite intriguing, although I’m not convinced of your thesis. A couple of questions:

          You say Dr Wood’s book is 95% correct–which is an astonishingly high percentage; few could hope to strike such a mark in such a huge tome. Yet you say it is “disinformation.” This implies she is consciously trying to lead her readers astray. I have listened to many hours of her being interviewed, and she has never given me that impression. I am convinced that she really is sincere. She has personally witnessed the Hutchison Effect, and is convinced that it matches the weird, anomalous, phenomena of 911. The question is, are you saying she wants to mislead, or, if your model is the correct one, could she simply be mistaken in the 5% you claim is wrong? “Disinformation” is a very harsh word.

          Second question: if very small neutron bombs were planted in Building 6, why does the damage look like the result of a 12 foot wide post hole digger repeatedly pulling out core samples from the center of the building?

          Thanks.

        6. Dear Mr. Patrick, you wrote:

          You say Dr Wood’s book is 95% correct–which is an astonishingly high percentage; few could hope to strike such a mark in such a huge tome.

          I’m a bit confused at what you are driving at, Mr. Patrick. Are you saying that her book (or any book of that size) is significantly less that 95% correct? If you want to go down that road, I’ll agree.

          Actually, I wrote [through my hat] that “95% of Dr. Wood’s book can’t be debunked.” The hair split that I make between your wording “95% correct” and my wording “95% can’t be debunked” is that Dr. Wood does have errors: lots of broken links; her analysis of one firetruck suggests the engine was melted when in reality that particular model has the engine sitting further back; her analysis of a ladder truck suggests it was “wilted” when in reality it had a large piece of debris removed that she failed to research and find out what the firemen said; her analysis of the police car at the bridge because it was towed there and not damaged there; her analysis of the spire that relies on one view of its demise when other views show it telescoping and falling; etc.

          When I say “can’t be debunked”, I refer in part to her chapters on Hurricane Erin, Tesla energy, and to be gracious maybe even Hutchison. As chapters extracted from the whole, they are what they are: probably correct. However in the realm of applicability to WTC destruction, they probably aren’t relevant. And she probably knew this which is why she offers scant little theories or over-arching concepts that would connect together all of the chapters of her book.

          Yet you say it is “disinformation.” This implies she is consciously trying to lead her readers astray.

          Indeed. On this front, I point to her chapter on hot-spots. I believe that the satellite images from the government were tainted somehow; could be as simple as giving the wrong date to an image. Dr. Wood does not question any aspects of her source, accepts it verbatim, and then builds her ideas on top of that. Why? In light of NIST’s efforts, she should not have been accepting anything at face value.

          I’ve already mentioned the police car (2345 I think) that was damaged in location X (images are readily available) and then towed to the bridge. Astute researcher that Dr. Wood is (as well as students who helped her), she should have known this. Yet she deliberately spins the disinfo yarn that a directed energy beam hit the vehicles at the bridge as well as the power substation.

          Having had more than a year to digest Dr. Wood’s book, I am extremely dissapointed that she didn’t do a “literature review”, which is a normal part of a scholarly effort. Why doesn’t she build upon (or tear apart) the work of the Anonymous Physicist? Why doesn’t she address the criticism of Dr. Jenkins? Why didn’t she fix blatant errors?

          Not only is her dismal of nuclear means thin and weak, but she doesn’t offer anything operational that could P O W E R  the devices hinted at with her destruction theories. Tesla energy? How do you snag it? How do you transform it into something “useful”, like a pulverizing blast wave?

          I have listened to many hours of her being interviewed, and she has never given me that impression. I am convinced that she really is sincere.

          I bet you say that about all actors, news anchors, other public speakers, and good used-car salesmen. Guess you forgot this tidbit from high school speech class: the more often you practice your speech, the more natural & convincing it becomes.

          She has personally witnessed the Hutchison Effect, and is convinced that it matches the weird, anomalous, phenomena of 911.

          Yeah, and others have witnessed David Copperfield’s wonders. I believe that neutron bombs (ERW) would match the anomalous things of 9/11.

          The question is, are you saying she wants to mislead, or, if your model is the correct one, could she simply be mistaken in the 5% you claim is wrong? “Disinformation” is a very harsh word.

          I want to cut Dr. Wood lots of slack. I want to believe that she was “given an offer she could not refuse” (e.g., permission to print a high quality book with lots of correlated colorful images of 9/11 destruction AND be alive to promote it) providing that she doesn’t draw any conclusions, plays up Hutchison, downplays hot-spots, and dangles some innuendo about energy from space or hurricanes. [One of her students who was responsible for her website died under mysterious circumstances.]

          I think that Dr. Wood wants to live; her handlers want her “to live to mislead.” She created a compromise that she slipped under their noses and that will put her in good esteem with her Maker. Crafty Dr. Wood tells us repeatedly — even in a sticker placed on the inside cover — to look at the evidence, because it doesn’t lie.

          Second question: if very small neutron bombs were planted in Building 6, why does the damage look like the result of a 12 foot wide post hole digger repeatedly pulling out core samples from the center of the building?

          Neutron bombs can be configured as directed energy weapons (DEW). Although the persistent frame of a neutron bomb is valid for what highly energetic neutrons can do to life forms (as well as steel embrittlement, etc.), that frame needs to be expanded for how neutrons can be targeted, maybe precisely to avoid damage to life forms in a collateral pattern. In targeted the neutrons, you also are tactically aiming the scaled-back blast and heat waves. You achieve exactly what you describe.

          In another posting, you write:

          The mass of the buildings went away.

          No it didn’t, or at least not to the extent you are implying. It changed form.

          //

        7. {2013-05-21 attempt failed. 2nd attempt.}

          Dear Mr. Patrick, you wrote:

          You say Dr Wood’s book is 95% correct–which is an astonishingly high percentage; few could hope to strike such a mark in such a huge tome.

          I’m a bit confused at what you are driving at, Mr. Patrick. Are you saying that her book (or any book of that size) is significantly less that 95% correct? If you want to go down that road, I’ll agree.

          Actually, I wrote [through my hat] that “95% of Dr. Wood’s book can’t be debunked.” The hair split that I make between your wording “95% correct” and my wording “95% can’t be debunked” is that Dr. Wood does have errors: lots of broken links; her analysis of one firetruck suggests the engine was melted when in reality that particular model has the engine sitting further back; her analysis of a ladder truck suggests it was “wilted” when in reality it had a large piece of debris removed that she failed to research and find out what the firemen said; her analysis of the police car at the bridge because it was towed there and not damaged there; her analysis of the spire that relies on one view of its demise when other views show it telescoping and falling; etc.

          When I say “can’t be debunked”, I refer in part to her chapters on Hurricane Erin, Tesla energy, and to be gracious maybe even Hutchison. As chapters extracted from the whole, they are what they are: probably correct. However in the realm of applicability to WTC destruction, they probably aren’t relevant. And she probably knew this which is why she offers scant little theories or over-arching concepts that would connect together all of the chapters of her book.

          Yet you say it is “disinformation.” This implies she is consciously trying to lead her readers astray.

          Indeed. On this front, I point to her chapter on hot-spots. I believe that the satellite images from the government were tainted somehow; could be as simple as giving the wrong date to an image. Dr. Wood does not question any aspects of her source, accepts it verbatim, and then builds her ideas on top of that. Why? In light of NIST’s efforts, she should not have been accepting anything at face value.

          I’ve already mentioned the police car (2345 I think) that was damaged in location X (images are readily available) and then towed to the bridge. Astute researcher that Dr. Wood is (as well as students who helped her), she should have known this. Yet she deliberately spins the disinfo yarn that a directed energy beam hit the vehicles at the bridge as well as the power substation.

          Having had more than a year to digest Dr. Wood’s book, I am extremely dissapointed that she didn’t do a “literature review”, which is a normal part of a scholarly effort. Why doesn’t she build upon (or tear apart) the work of the Anonymous Physicist? Why doesn’t she address the criticism of Dr. Jenkins? Why didn’t she fix blatant errors?

          Not only is her dismissal of nuclear means thin and weak, but she doesn’t offer anything operational that could P O W E R  the devices hinted at with her destruction theories. Tesla energy? How do you snag it? How do you transform it into something “useful”, like a pulverizing blast wave?

          I have listened to many hours of her being interviewed, and she has never given me that impression. I am convinced that she really is sincere.

          I bet you say that about all actors, news anchors, other public speakers, and good used-car salesmen. Guess you forgot this tidbit from high school speech class: the more often you practice your speech, the more natural & convincing it becomes.

          She has personally witnessed the Hutchison Effect, and is convinced that it matches the weird, anomalous, phenomena of 911.

          Yeah, and others have witnessed David Copperfield’s wonders. I believe that neutron bombs (ERW) would match the anomalous things of 9/11.

          The question is, are you saying she wants to mislead, or, if your model is the correct one, could she simply be mistaken in the 5% you claim is wrong? “Disinformation” is a very harsh word.

          I want to cut Dr. Wood lots of slack. I want to believe that she was “given an offer she could not refuse” (e.g., permission to print a high quality book with lots of correlated colorful images of 9/11 destruction AND be alive to promote it) providing that she doesn’t draw any conclusions, plays up Hutchison, downplays hot-spots, and dangles some innuendo about energy from space or hurricanes. [One of her students who was responsible for her website died under mysterious circumstances.]

          I think that Dr. Wood wants to live; her handlers want her “to live to mislead.” She created a compromise that she slipped under their noses and that will put her in good esteem with her Maker. Crafty Dr. Wood tells us repeatedly — even in a sticker placed on the inside cover — to look at the evidence, because it doesn’t lie.

          Second question: if very small neutron bombs were planted in Building 6, why does the damage look like the result of a 12 foot wide post hole digger repeatedly pulling out core samples from the center of the building?

          Neutron bombs can be configured as directed energy weapons (DEW). Although the persistent frame of a neutron bomb is valid for what highly energetic neutrons can do to life forms (as well as steel embrittlement, etc.), that frame needs to be expanded for how neutrons can be targeted, maybe precisely to avoid damage to life forms in a collateral pattern. In targeted the neutrons, you also are tactically aiming the scaled-back blast and heat waves. You achieve exactly what you describe.

          In another posting, you write:

          The mass of the buildings went away.

          No it didn’t, or at least not to the extent you are implying. It changed form.

          //

        1. Agreed. I’ve seen Judy Wood’s presentation in person and then saw her presentation completely refuted by Crockett Grabbe using real physics.

        2. The mas of the building did not crash to the ground, CanSpeccy. The “bathtub” was unharmed. The ceiling over the shopping mall was not broken. Thermite is a cutting charge. It cannot make mass go away. The mass of the buildings went away. This has to be explained. If facing that fact gives us a bad name, then who cares? Sometimes “heretics” are the only ones who are facing the truth.

          Tesla proved that free energy is readily available. It is a physics that has been systematically hidden since the late 19th century. Maxwell’s equations were intentionally “dumbed down” to conceal the implications. This is fact. Why is Tesla so little known, and his dim rival, Edison, lionized? Because the things Tesla discovered, and wanted to bestow upon the human race at no cost, would utterly undo the power structure that enslaves us, that’s why. Can’t have that. If saying so earns one a “bad name,” I’ll wear it proudly.

        3. ” Thermite … cannot make mass go away.”

          Faster than light travel? No prob. But turning a building to dust with explosives is somehow impossible?

          LOL

          Just look at the many videos of controlled demolitions, e.g., the Landmark Demolition.

          You think they used space-based beam weapons for that one?

        4. You are not a serious person. And your “laughing out loud” is fake.

          In controlled demolitions, steel is NEVER transformed into dust. It crashed to the ground. You NEVER can look through the former building, at street level, to cars on the street on the other side of the building. there is ALWAYS a huge pile of what used to be the building impeding the view.

          Why did the shopping mall survive a million tons of falling steel? Why did the Hudson river not flood all the subways of New York and New Jersey, when the impossible load broke the “bathtub”? Answer: another kind of physics was at work. The mass of the building did not fall.

          Incidentally, faster than light travel just happens to be another aspect of the different physics that has been weaponized and was demonstrated on 911.

          Tesla proved all of this. What part of that don’t you get?

        5. You are not a serious person.

          But I am a perfectly serious person, and scientifically educated. I graduated from a fine university with first class honors and the faculty prize. I worked as a scientist for three governments, held academic appointments at three universities — briefly all of them at the same time — and during the last twenty-five years ran my own company selling a service to the scientific community in over 50 countries.

          As for steel from the WTC towers, it was not, as you absurdly claim, transformed to dust. The dust was, presumably, concrete and dry wall. Of the steel, 185,101 tons are said to have been hauled away from Ground Zero, much if not all shipped to China and recycled.

  11. I would re-think the whole “people flying out of the buildings thing” since that too had a precedent in an earlier “performance art” exhibition where they seemingly prepared to do just that…

    Some theorize every permutation of the event, but I think, for my money, 3,000 people dying is not the likely event, and they in fact counted on that horrific and unlikely act by government being part of the cover-up.

    Here, in 2013, we seldom here the bold chorus that grows louder by the day that talks of the use of fakery, but the recent episodes of Sandy Hook and Boston now only make such interpretations of 911 a kind of brilliant analysis early on, when the paradigm was not allowing such volatile ideas.

    But I learn that Boston is even worse than we thought: combinations of CGI, animatronixs, blood packs, stunt men, you name it… wow…
    I personally felt Boston was quickly ordered up after Sandy Hook to change the narrative and this time double down on the blood, which they took to be too lacking in their last drill.

    So that is what we got. And it seems to change by the day. Pictures embellish as I write. It is actually funny to me. And I can’t see why the other people don’t see it, or why those people cannot see it during 911. How it was empty, all a big plan, a put on, a hoax. Not a massive terrorist attack in any sense…

    Unless you mean only in the psychological sense, and against the American people; other than that, it is just the greatest bank robbery of all time. And they all know it, and they all pat their backs on it. Meanwhile, we have a cottage industry of self righteous truth activists who are just downright incredulous they could murder 3,000 people. Forget the fact that the 3,000 people have some serious credibility issues, and the forensic proof is pretty much just a bunch of posters placed outside on a wall… Oh, the genius!

    Genius!

    1. What’s this about performance art involving jumping out of buildings? I haven’t heard about this before, and haven’t been able to find any references to it. Do tell.

  12. “Such forces direct the narrative and shape public opinion by defending obvious lies…”

    “Such forces,” eh? Patrick Murphy, I’m no Jim Fetzer expert in deductive reasoning, but can we at least give it a shot who they are?

    FBI translator Sibel Edmonds listened to wiretaps of powerful people under investigation for treasonous, unAmerican activities. These people, she discovered, were protected from prosecution by no other than the Attorney General of the United States.

    Let that sink in. Some of these people, in the highest levels of our government, were selling U.S. nuclear weapon technology to foreign entities, including Israel. Who are these bad guys and enemies of the state? And why didn’t the U.S. media cover this powerful and important story?

    And what if one of these bad, bad people was directly connected to the Boston Bombing and good old “Uncle Ruslan Tsarni?”

    George H. W. Bush called them “The Crazies” and tried to avoid them at all costs. His son embraced them. Carl Bernstein told us last week that they lied us into the Iraq War. They call themselves “NeoCons.”

  13. This unseen force that carries out these false flags and deceitful historical events is the same cabal that instigated the two world wars against Germany and duped the American public into fighting with the communist USSR. The German nation developed their own system that was against the global NWO and their Rothschild banking system, who by the way declared war on Germany long before the shooting and bombing began. They set out from the onset to specifically destroy Germany as a nation. Lies and propaganda about the German people, its system, and its leaders turned world opinion against them. What is passed off as truth and history is deceptive. It continues to this day. Germany was a fighter against this cabal and against the communist who this cabal created. Though most people have been conditioned to vehemently despise Germany and Adolf Hitler it would be wise in today’s world to revisit what we have been told. The same cabal who controlled world events then is the instigator of what is unfolding before us today. Go to the website justice4germans.WordPress.com to gain some insight on what is behind the events of today and gain a view never told of true world history. See what JFK said concerning the man Hitler. The truth will set you free!

  14. I have to agree “the box” is where the mind control begins. Turn off the TV and start thinking again. Be selective on what you view. GIGO.

  15. One thing being talked about on a forum recently is how incompetently these events seem to be handled. How chaotic they are. How unconvincing the narratives are to anyone with the will to examine dispassionately. It seems unbelievable that people with such power at their disposal could do such a terrible job of being believable. We tend to wonder if the chaos and errors are part of some greater plan.

    Remember how everyone speculated that Sandy Hook was deliberately made implausible to entrap the doubters? Yet no such entrapment has happened to date. So is the incompetence just incompetence? After Boston I am really inclined to think the answer is yes.

    These narratives roll out like badly-written soaps, replete with self-contradictions, absurdities, obvious lies and gaffs, and totally reliant on the MSM to clean everything up, bury the mistakes and turn the story into what it was supposed to be.

    Do the perps know they don’t need to try any harder? Or is there something fundamentally incoherent and self-defeating at the heart of where these things come from?

    1. I concur with your third paragraph: somebody knows that the clean-up crews in the media will carry mops and buckets for them, and go to work on the contradictions and bloopers, will edit out the glaring inconsistencies. This is the nub of the whole problem.

      We have seen examples of post-bombing redesign of scenes in both areas where explosions occurred:

      We saw some benches intact at the Finish Line area, and then after some time (overnight?) they were deconstructed and the slats thrown around. The flags flying without a tear were pushed down at the Finish Line in what was interpreted as a desperate attempt to reach the wounded instead of actually parting a stage on them.

      We saw an intact tree at Forum after the explosion (visible in scenes with shirtless men gathered over what looked like a severed body part), not a branch broken – the whole tree later destroyed, simply to cover up the very lack of damage to it.

      The timeline of the second part of the event, the day of the chase of the suspects, was changed over and over, in response to obstacles which would have made the original scenario impossible.

      Real victims of carjackings do not talk the way “Danny” did to Boston Globe’s Eric Moskowitz only to produce the impression the crime was a scene out of a Quentin Tarantino movie. A more senior Globe reporter Kevin Cullen, is also a myth-maker. That’s how prizes are won.

      Lately, a friendly fire wounding (of Lt. Donohue), though admitted eventually, is now getting a new lease on life as a terrorist’s shooting as some reporters indicate “nobody knows” and “fog of war” as to why things are somehow inconclusive. There’s also the new story of the Dzukhar’s confession to the crime (basically that’s what it is) written on the inside of a boat when he was supposedly bleeding out. Is it true? Hint: he used the words collateral and retribution in his note written in the dark – and he used collateral in two different sentences, which isn’t easy for anyone to do.

      There are actually people who pretend to believe he wrote it. Well, I guess a comic super villain can do anything the cartoonist asks him to do. So yeah, in that sense, why couldn’t he write it? Anyway, the problems with its credibility will be ironed out, he’ll have found a pen and a flashlight, whatever he needed, by the time this finds its way into the permanent record of this historic event, the mini-me of 9/11.

  16. Let us not fall into the old left/right or conservative/liberal paradigm trap.
    That is too convenient a scam. Politics is much less simplistic. The thrill of it is in the chase. But what to do after we have won…

    Things start to fall apart when we lose focus; war certainly demands focus. But peace is even more challenging. (It takes much more imagination and character to deal with the humdrum once the parades have ceased.)

    I like listening to Co. L. Fletcher Prouty on deep intrigue. He sat in on meetings leading up to the Bay of Pigs fiasco, which, to his thinking, was a leading cause behind the JFK assassination. He was the inspiration for ‘Mr. X’– Donald Southerland’s character in the Oliver Stone film, “JFK.” The Dulles brothers figured prominantly in American politics through and after WW11. Allen was responsible for Project Paperclip, which imported ex NAZIs (ten to fifty thousand, depending on the source) as they openly denounced Communism or had specific skills.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz56WytRlqo
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz56WytRlqo

    Prouty has been roundly demonized for his positions. They don’t often square with official memos. Listen and decide.

    1. I would point out that Prouty was more than an inspiration for Mr. X, but also to a limited degree consulted and shared documents with Stone as the film took shape. Sutherland’s lines in fact were developed from a series of letters between Prouty and Garrison, so while the passage involved the director’s license as they never actually met, the observations drew closely on the Prouty-Garrison correspondences. Len Osanic of Black Op Radio maintains a substantial reference site, prouty.org, that’s worth consulting for those who may be interested.

  17. Something to be noted in regards to “terror events” or false flag events is an article in the WSJ from Friday 5-17. The headline is Victim – Aid Overhaul Pushed.
    It says “a push to create a single donation fund to benefit victims of future mass attacks in the U.S. is gaining momentum. A Washington DC -based (My comment…of course DC, eh?) nonprofit is offering to establish a “National Compassion Fund” that would begin to solicit money within a day of violent events such as the school shootings at Newtown, Conn., and the Boston bombings.” I like the “offering” part, it makes me smile. 🙂

    Oh, dear, it is always follow the $$, no? Blood and guts create handouts in the entitlement world. Somebody is going to make money from it!

    BTW, whatever happened to the $100 million that Clinton and George W were given control of after the Haiti earthquake to provide… uh… aid to Haitians? Have we received an accounting of our tax dollars??

  18. I live in S Fla. and can attest to the lynch mob which Prof. Tracy has been subjected. An entire letters to the editor section of the local news rag was dedicated to blasting him. The hip DJ working for Clear Channel and other radio commentators were also quick to pile on.

    On another note I want to compliment the authors on the integrity of the articles written, as well as that of the majority of comments posted. I am humbled and inspired.

    Critical thinking and logic were high jacked from the US curriculum a century ago. It is good to know that both are not extinct.

    Lastly, I hope that sometime in the future, Prof. Tracy and other academics provide an analysis of WW1. It may provide insight into current events.

    My apologies for going off topic and all the best.

    Mike

  19. “Boston Strong” signs have appeared like a rash all over Boston, associated with some of its most distinguished institutions. They are seen as high production value banners in front of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, as bold-faced print on posters for Fidelity Investments, as a banner over a suburban fire station in Newton, one of the cities locked down outside Boston. These sophisticated print jobs were seen with a week or two of the event, indicating that “rush to judgment” is still with us in a big way. I won’t go so far as to say it looks like all the anschluss banners in Sound of Music, appearing in Saltzburg, because except for the lockdown, the military presence has not been evident.

    Colleges are graduating their students this week and soon we’ll have Memorial Day to mark the sharp line between spring and summer in this region. The rail lines between New York and Boston are indefinitely shut down, but every other means of transportation is in use as usual.

    I have begun to wonder if September 2011 Occupy Boston which took place in the financial district of the city, and which proved very tenacious, put the idea in the heads of some that Boston needed a lesson as well as a blueprint for future reactions.

    The response to Occupy Boston (and the entire Occupy Movement) could well be Boston Strong.

    After all, they had the nerve to camp out in front of the Federal Reserve and that is not a thing to be taken lightly. I hesitate to give that as my final answer. It’s hard to tell. But perhaps the powers that be took this more seriously than anyone imagined. The organization continues to point out the inequities of the federal budget and wants to redirect defense spending.

    “Reactionary” politics is another word for fascism.

  20. The point is that people like Mr. Murphy are ready to believe anything.It’s a big problem with this subject.Dr. Judy is engaged in some really nutty speculations that defy common sense.

    And can someone inform the ubiquitous “Marzi”,a favorite of the exclusionary gatekeepers over at 911blogger.com,,that the “main band of knowledgeable people” over at ae911truth.org cannot even figure out that “pull”,in the context of a firefighting discussion between a fire commander and a building lease-holder,could never possibly mean “blow up”.

    Just check out their website where they dance around that malarkey like it’s a pile of hot coals.

    The devolution of 9/11 skepticism into the Controlled Demolition Movement has been a truly alarming thing to witness.

  21. Curious, Patrick, what do you think of the possibility of maybe the worst tornado ever in Moore, OK and maybe more to come, are actually manmade? Newscasters thought, when they rebuilt the schools after the 99 tornado, certainly they would of had good shelters, and now they are saying children where sheltered in place and are being pulled from the wreckage in their schools. Could it be just a distraction from the scandals of the day?

    1. If I could read the minds of the forces of darkness, I’m not sure I’d want to do it.

      My approach is to stand well back, and try to see the biggest possible picture, and detect patterns in the activities of the evil that rules us. I don’t like jumping to conclusions when an event is so new. If it is as you suspect, we’ll soon know, because the internet is full of people who will present us with the evidence.

      That said, artificial weather events can sometimes be obvious in how they fit the bigger pattern leading us deeper into a police state–“superstorm Sandy” is a likely example. For me, it is best to wait. I’m not a primary researcher. The arguments I make are the result of careful thought; I don’t mind if they sound outrageous, I can defend them. But if I speak too soon, I will probably regret it.

  22. I would love to see you write something about Cass Sunstein’s “cognitive infiltration” and how we deal with it.

    How do we know which of those among us in the “extreme right” are actually plants put there by the elites to spy on us and distract us?

    Are Alex Jones and Adam Kokesh genuine? How do we know if you are genuine? Is it possible to know?

    Too deep?

    1. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to stick to real evidence which you can deconstruct into the parts which demonstrate a lie. Zaurus Snape has done great work in that regard, in support of the larger picture which have already understood as fake.

      You could find out who in your world wants to live a lie. Decide if you wish to go along or whether you can hold onto knowing what you know, or whether you will decide to let it pass. You will often find that even with all the evidence freely available, many otherwise rational people will notice that their bosses and other powerful people accept the official story, so they’ll refuse allow the evidence to change their sense of what happened. The stress involved in going against the crowd is not possible for everyone. There is active resistance and passive resistance, versus going along to get along and repeating the lies as the premise of how you approach the world. Hint: embracing the lies is very rewarding, but it eventually requires some kind of sacrifice on your part, including the lives of your children, unless you are at the top of the food chain, in which case the rules do not apply to you.

      Soon after the Marathon explosions, I watched the Emily Rooney show which follows the PBS News Hour in Boston. She is the daughter of the late 60 Minutes curmudgeon Andy Rooney, and she has his same no-nonsense persona. But for a moment, as she hosted some local journalists who have a pretension to gravitas, she expressed her genuine trouble with the “truthers” which was that they went over ever piece of the story, bit by bit. She screwed up her face in imitation of their (our) microscopic probing. This represented to her a sort of trouble, that anyone would second-guess the authorities in Boston. One of the men sitting with her, very superior in bearing, very Harvard in style of dress, waved his hand as though dismissing a team of scientists from U Mass Amherst or something. “Just ignore it.” He could have added, “The fix is in.” It sure is. He was right that she had nothing to worry about. But I’ll bet most of the perps are really happy they did not have to kill anyone. I am sure they are happy their show is a hit, in spite of the subpar special effects.

      From the beginning I have been watching for how this event fits in not just with advanced methods of crowd management and propaganda, but with war aims in the Mideast. There are two distinct parts to it, aren’t there? I am seeing the Chechen meme as the Achilles heel of Caspian basin power for Russia. Remember that the “terrorists” came from the port city which Russia might use to supply Tehran in the event of an attack on their ally, Iran. If you look at the Caspian Sea as a clock face, Tehran is at 6 o’clock and Chechnya is at 9- 10 o’clock. Right now, there are bombs going off there and in Moscow, Putin says he has put down a Chechen plot to attack the people of Moscow. This will keep him busy and probably unable to trust any shipments of arms to Tehran through that area. We’ll accept it as a given that Chechens are bad news. We are arming them after all in Syria to go after another Russian ally, Assad. So yes, they are the baddest boys around. Like Boston bombers who forsook the fleshpots and bars and pot-filled dorms of Boston for jihad. Funny, they look Armenian to me, but what do I know?

      1. I like the way you think, musings. I hate the world you and I are stuck analyzing. But as Gandalf replied to Frodo: “Frodo: I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened. Gandalf: So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

  23. One meme or narrative that is worth examining is the fact that such a high percentage of the alleged medical personnel choose to liken the event at Boston to a “war zone” or “combat situation.”

    This list of medical witnesses illustrates that to a degree

    http://letsrollforums.com/alleged-medical-witnesses-t29615p4.html

    It’s odd because the photos show the scene actually *didn’t* look much like a war zone at all. More like a major car crash or minor natural disaster. Most medics would have seen similar and worse in their ER rotations. Yet *they all claim it was uniquely awful and they all point up the non-existent resemblance to combat.*

    Is it simply that things were scripted to look worse and more “combat-like” than they ended up being? Or is this meme serving some longer-term purpose?

  24. impossible lies is a situationist concept, but to really understand you have go back to edgar allen poe,
    ” it appears to me that this mystery is considered insoluble, for the very reason which should cause it to be regarded as easy of solution….in investigations as we are now pursuing, it should not be so much asked “what has occurred,” as “what has occurred that has never occurred before.”
    the murders in the rue morgue

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *