Sandy Hook Elementary School, March 15, 2013. Image Credit:

Updated 1/16/15

By James F. Tracy

Several individuals have recently brought to the attention of MHB that Mr. Shanley was arrested on 12/31/14 on one felony and two misdemeanor charges. He is presently being held in the Corrigan- Radgowski correctional facility in Connecticut with bail set at $50,000.

For over one week now—since December 30—William Shanley has been incommunicado, failing to respond to emails or telephone calls. Shanley is the author, onetime filmmaker and Connecticut resident who filed a $1 trillion pro se federal lawsuit against big media for fraudulent and sensationalized coverage of the December 14, 2012 shooting event at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut.

Shanley filed the suit on December 22, 2014, naming several dozen defendants. The press release announcing the action was posted on MHB December 26, 2014. A few days later, on December 28, plaintiff Shanley participated in a recorded interview with Drs. Jim Fetzer and Jim Tracy. In the interview Shanley was well-composed, explaining how he was under psychiatric care and that his roommate was killed under unusual circumstances in August 2014.

Less than one week after filing the $1 trillion lawsuit Shanley announced a global “no money system” via YouTube that he will purportedly aid in presiding over. The video is an especially bizarre mixture of ideas, imagery, and verbiage. On December 29 Shanley appeared alongside Fetzer on “The Pete Santilli Show.”

The appearance on Santilli’s program prompted YouTube researcher Professor Doom1, who has considerable familiarity with the legal process, to contact Shanley and ask for a copy of the lawsuit. Doom telephoned Shanley, asking to interview the filmmaker and send along a copy of the paperwork. When no documents were electronically received Doom telephoned Shanley again, at which time it was revealed that Shanley had incorrectly transcribed Doom’s email address. “I still never got them after I corrected the email,” Doom tells MHB.

Later that day Prof. Doom interviewed school safety expert and fellow Sandy Hook researcher Wolfgang Halbig on his views concerning Shanley’s lawsuit. Halbig condemned the action. Doom then contacted Shanley via Skype and recorded the exchange. The discussion quickly turned uncivil, with Shanley yelling several prurient remarks while attacking Halbig for his unwillingness to be involved in the suit.

“It seems like Shanley has a split personality,” Doom notes. “He was absolutely clear and coherent at the beginning. Then as his anger level rose and he proceeded to name calling.” The YouTuber has since removed the video from his channel, although it is available elsewhere.

Such behavior does not lend itself to success in a legal process. “How’s it going to be in a courtroom when he’s being picked and probed by very skilled lawyers?” Doom asks.

Additional information solicited from one of Doom’s Connecticut followers suggests that Shanley lives in a New London neighborhood close to casinos and where illicit drugs may be prevalent. At the same time, over the past few years many individuals involved in the Sandy Hook massacre have turned up missing or dead.

Whatever the cause of Shanley’s absence, his flights of fancy, suggested in the pro se lawsuit and curious temper tantrums are likely unhelpful for coming to terms with and addressing what took place on December 14, 2012.

Leave a Reply

126 thought on “$Trillion Lawsuit Plaintiff Now Missing”
    1. Suspicious suicide of room? The roommate supposedly was seen jumping off the bridge. If he was seen swimming to a barge – perhaps he changed his mind. Poor soul. Far too young.

      It is interesting to me how this 28 year old roommate was described as a known to be homeless and a drug addict. I believe he has had run-ins with the law (viewable public records). Was Mr. Smith an actual roommate or was there another relationship between the two? It’s none of my biz, but interesting the fellow’s legal address (if he was Shanley’s supposed roommate) was not known. I thought about this as I watched Dr. Doom’s video chat w/Shanley and wondered about the young man behind Shanley. I honestly don’t care about what a person does behind closed doors but I would stop to question the company one seems to keep. Just saying…not judging. Maybe his nephew was sitting behind him, for all I know. Doesn’t explain the “roommate” though.

        1. So Mr. Shanley is the 50ish-looking man with graying hair in one of the photos above? And his former roommate is the very young man in the gofundme photo? And said roommate committed suicide, right? Now I am suspicious because of the unlikelihood these two men would choose to be mere roommates. That is usually not the case, and to me, a man’s character in every area of life is crucial to determining what is motivating him in a particular situation. I’m just sayin…………

      1. Beth, does it matter? Whatever the personal circumstances surrounding Mr. Shanley, or his room mate, he apparently had reservations regarding the SHES event. Regardless of what any of us think about the lawsuit, he acted on his conscience.

        I have no idea what the relationship between Mr. Shanley and Mr. Smith was, nor do I care. I have my own beliefs on certain relationships, but I have my own cross to bear, not someone else’.

        This effort at least focused some attention on the issue for a brief time. I certainly hope that someone didn’t pay the ultimate price for having done that. Whatever foibles or instability haunted Mr. Shanley, he was not incorrect about the unacceptability of SHES.

        The evidence is the evidence, regardless of who the messenger is. It is often the case that those with the least to lose turn out to be the ones willing to take the risks. I’m not sorry that he did what he did, I will be if it cost him his life. That’s not an uncommon fate for “prophets”.

        1. Sorry Lophatt…while I agree with you wholeheartedly (I’m not judging), I do have to wonder about a person who chooses to keep company with felons and drug addicts.

          Does Shanley have a drug problem? That may explain some of his conduct and rather disjointed verbalizations.

          I also think his supposed lawsuit is full of “beans” and it will be thrown out. There is more to his story than we have seen but I do not believe he is some knight in shining armor.

        2. Beth, no, not “a knight in shining armor”, but I’m not really looking for one of those. I agree, there may be many things about him that don’t look good from our end.

          All I was trying to say is that I hope he’s alright, regardless of whatever faults he may have. You can read what I’ve said about the lawsuit.

  1. Not impressed with the way this important news was conveyed here by Dr. Tracy, but what do I know? However, I am thankful to know about this concern. That is important news.

    “On December 29 [assume 2014] Shanley appeared alongside Fetzer on “The Pete Santilli Show.”

    I am dumbfounded that Dr. James Fetzer would appear as a guest on the Pete Santilli show.

    Pete Santilli totally set up and scammed Dr. Fetzer in an interview done about two years ago on that show.

    Then Dr. Morgan Reynolds was a guest on the Santilli show and said some very questionable things [looked a whole lot like Dr. Reynolds was saying Dr. Fetzer had something to do with the murder of Michael Zebuhr as I recall] about Dr. Fetzer which ended the long good 9-11 truth discussions those two frequently had on the Real Deal show and on Dr. F’s shows going back to late 2005 or early 2006 when Dr. Fetzer started going on radio on these matters.

    Then Dr. F. got Santilli kicked off having a show on that station because of the murder implication against him and the Santilli show moved to a new site (station or network). Dr. Reynolds really really liked Santille, and so did Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Reynolds close buddy on 9-11 matters, so now Dr. Reynolds, maybe still going on now too, has his own new show on the new Pete Santilli show.

    A woman (can’t recall her name right now) and Vinney both had pgood looking proof Santilli was a paid worker for the FBI but nothing came of that matter. Santilli still going strong. Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Wood still think Santilli a swell guy, and Dr. Fetzer who was treated horribly by all of them, now decides to go on Santilli’s show as a guest.

    Freakin unbelievable !!!

    1. daschielady, Dr. Tracy is doing all of us a huge service by providing an outlet for open source community journalism, by my count, the nascent seventh estate. Tracy has a finite amount of time and energy to pursue every lead and peer into every nook and cranny. We need to come together to aid this process any way we can, using critical thinking and big picture perspectives.

      FWIW, after reading about Dr. Doom’s encounters with Shanley, I spent a couple of hours looking for background on Shanley. What I found reinforced my suspicion of Shanley’s ideological bent as being connected to far left wing limited hangout writers in the alt media who for years: created fog around the 9/11 truth movement with endless “blowback” analyses; have been completely mute to the role of international central bankers in creating a global fascist debt-warfare economic system; or bothered to lay out the technocracy endgame. Ironically, the no money system Shanley is espousing fits nicely into the technocracy endgame and, in that regard, mirrors the Zeitgeist Venus Project (totalitarian) “solution”. Assuming any of this speculation fits the situation, Shanley could simply be a dupe. Regardless, he adds an element of chaos to our research. If we’re savvy, it might also be another opportunity to improve our collective learning curve.

      1. GWP,

        I appreciate your comments.

        I made two comments in my one comment on this article. One was a rather benign statement that I did not like the way in which Dr. Tracey wrote this news story. I am not going back to read it again to see if my initial impression has changed. All I remember is that it did not impress me as being completely objective. It seemed to not give enough emphasis to the admirable and enouraging things William Shanley said to we “researchers” on at least two radio shows as a guest of Dr. Fetzer’s, and two much emphasis to the recent erratic appearing behavior of William Shanley. It was a mild criticism and I was quick to add that I am not one who knows a great deal about journalism, though I do have some concept of what quality investigative journalism at least was meant to be and which it has not been for at least half a century since print media has been taken over by about 5 major corporate conglomerates and all of those entities have the same ideology that I call the one world death and slavery system for all.

        As I also stated on another story, I think ALL who are trying to “speak truth to power” are doing something very valuable even if that person is not in reality doing something admirable and courageous or does not actually intend to achieve a just outcome.

        The other comment I made was my absolute amazement that Dr. Fetzer, who I have followed since he came on the 9-11 truth scene in late 2005, a scene that I have been a “researcher” in since 9-11-01.

        (I really do not like to refer to myself as a “researcher” and do not like the term “movement” as in “9-11 truth movement” but I have quietly stopped objecting to those words, and other words and phrases I see as a manipulation away from truth. Even the word “truth” is making me feal queasy these days.)

        You use phrases regarding William Shanley such as

        “Shanley’s ideological bent

        connected to far left wing limited hangout writers

        created fog around the 9/11 truth movement

        have been completely mute to the role of international central bankers

        adds an element of chaos to our research”

        I can tell you that are at least 25 people who have been major players in the “9-11 truth movement” and later truth endeavors regarding the other major “false events” on U S soil since then include the top “researchers” who meet those descriptive phrases.

        Speaking of things people are completely mute about, the role of “international banking and Zionist ideologues” and the “PNAC – neocon-Zionist ideologue” major makeup of those ideologies and movements is something all but about 3 of these 25 have consistently and thorougly refrained from speaking about at all. To me, subjects that won’t be touched at all but are a real and powerful part of the “big picture” are a big clue to me how much “truth” and quality analysis is desired.

        I am a “conservative” I guess though and I hope to be judged as a true believer in Jesus Christ when I die. But I am not a “conservative” in the main way people think of that term. I also used to think I was a
        U S patriot, but the word “patriot” is another term that makes me run for the Tums these days. (I have stopped voting and will wait until there is a party whose main platform is anti-sodomy and anti-usury, two practitioners of which Dante placed in the same ring of hell.)

        Also, as I said I think we should be circumspect about Mr. Shanley’s past record, as we should be circumspect about all these top 25 truth researchers I mentioned who have similar backgrounds and records.

        I personally think we ought to be praying for Mr. Shanley and that is something we all should be doing, as we should be praying for Wolfgang Halbig and Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. James Tracy, but I know that is something I really should be mute about on MHB.

        1. CORECTION:

          CHANGE incomplete sentence…

          The other comment I made was my absolute amazement that Dr. Fetzer, who I have followed since he came on the 9-11 truth scene in late 2005, a scene that I have been a “researcher” in since 9-11-01.”


          The other comment I made was my absolute amazement that Dr. Fetzer, who I have followed since he came on the 9-11 truth scene in late 2005, a scene that I have been a “researcher” in since 9-11-01, would consent to be a guest on the Pete Santilli show in 2014, considering what has transpired about the record and behavior of Pete Santilli and his well documented alleged receiving of under-the-table payments from the FBI during his radio show presences and Mr. Santilli’s behavior toward Dr. Fetzer. No one on this MHB cared to comment on that comment of mine and it is perhaps off topic but still it was something that I simply was dumbfounded by and makes me wonder about Dr. Fetzer’s objective seeking of “truth” in the “movement.”

    2. despite consensus here, fetzer has more than likely defected from his unprecedented research on jfk to a reimbursed agent of controlled opposition. these types expose themselves when cornered, as their emotions get the better of them.

      don’t misconstrue this to mean there isn’t an abundance of other reasons fetzer et al are frauds. I would be happy to provide sourcing – that is, if this even makes it passed m0deration.

      1. Reprehensor, I am tending to agree with you…I have been reading through some of the blogs and a couple of people like to muddy the waters, mentioning 911 with the ‘who and why’ theory., is that more important that evidence?. its logical to find out what happened first, who did it is a secondary question which is speculation, but its obvious Bin Laden didn’t have the technology or the resources to do this, once you investigate the evidence.

  2. […] By James F. Tracy For over one week now—since December 30—William Shanley has been incommunicado, failing to respond to emails or telephone calls. Shanley is the author, onetime filmmaker and Connecticut resident who filed a $1 trillion pro se federal lawsuit against big media for fraudulent and sensationalized coverage of the December 14, 2012 shooting event at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut. Shanley filed the suit on December 22, 2014, naming several dozen defendants. The press release announcing the action was posted on MHB December 26, 2014. A few days later, on December More… […]

  3. It would be helpful if Shanley turned up and explained his blackout, too. There is concern for his welfare. Meanwhile, I fail to understand why the names of Fetzer and Woods are constantly appearing together here. Whereas, on Fetzer’s website, there is much criticism for his doggedly sticking to an unproven, non-peer reviewed theory. Sophia never enters into the discussion either on this topic and her video is diametrically opposed to their position.

    Still waiting for Jame’s theory on Paris.

    1. “Still waiting for Jame’s theory on Paris.”

      I think you will have a very long wait. Has he ever proposed a theory about any of the events discussed here?

      What he does is to present questions, and updates as new developments unfold. Perhaps the vigor of the conversation, and the theorizing done in the comments section, can be easily mistaken for Tracy’s viewpoint, but it’s not.

      I, for one, appreciate his objective distance.

      1. Hi Patrick ~ I just wanted to say that I sure miss hearing our good friend, Dr. Stan. Have you heard anything more on the sudden death of William Kennedy? I have yet to find a single mention of what actually caused his death. It’s odd.

        1. Dr. Stan, in his last days of broadcasting stated several times that he considered Kennedy’s death suspicious. Dr. Stan had Kennedy on his show regularly as a guest.

          Lots of people meeting mysterious demise these days and I am not excluding Dr. Stan and his rapid onset of T-cell lymphoma.

          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

        2. Because of Stan’s show, Mary, I became friends with Barry Chamish, and have guest hosted his own show, as needs be. One time, Barry was quite sick, and had no one lined up, and expected me to find a guest. I had no idea what to do, so I called Stan, and he lined up William for me. It was a great blessing, and a great show. I asked him about his book, Lucifer’s Lodge, that documented the veracity of Malachi Martin’s Windswept House. He told me that the Boston Globe essentially wrote the book for him, because it was all published materials in the MSM. He was a little surprised that I had read it; it was his first book.

          No, I don’t know what happened to him, although I have little doubt that his presence was causing the established order too much trouble to endure. His web site was a cornucopia, and almost all for free. Great stuff.

          On the other hand, when I conducted that interview, I mentioned the Boston smoke bomb hoax, and he completely believed it. Evidently, he lived a few blocks away from where the ridiculous charade took place.

          I have thought of that strange experience many times since then. For a man so discerning regarding other very serious evils to not see immediately through the obvious nonsense that was Boston–and him living right there–well, I can’t comprehend it. Our esteemed contributor musings, who also lives nearby, has mentioned a few times that place the second smoke bomb went off, The Forum, has no where near the sidewalk cafe yardage portrayed in the photographic record; she has gone there, and examined the scene of the hoax. Presumably, William would have done the same. Knowing his willingness to face down evil plots, I remain astounded that he believed the official story.

          Was there a connection? Did someone get to him, and he was trying to demonstrate his willingness to “play the game,” in order to stay alive, when I interviewed him? I have asked that question many times. If so, it was evidently too little, too late. Poor guy.

          Me, I put my face and my name right out there, just as he did, but I have not been nowhere near as effective as he was, so no agents have given me any offer I can’t refuse. I just haven’t tried hard enough, evidently.

        3. The link below is to a forum that discusses William Kennedy. Scroll down for his last interview with Dr. Stan on August 6th, 2013. Ten days later he was found dead and now Dr. Stan is gone as well.

          Not long ago I started to compile a list of men and women who were not afraid of exposing evil amongst us, and who died too soon – early sudden deaths or fast on setting illnesses. I gave up, it became too depressing because there were so many of them.

          Wonder if William Kennedy had information on St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church in Newtown.

        4. Anne, I must have missed your comment earlier. That’s a rather cryptic announcement. Do you know if anyone followed up as to cause?

          He’s pretty young to just pass away with no prior indicators. People would be wise not to underestimate these groups. They don’t like exposure.

        5. There appears to be no public information on the cause of William Kennedy’s death. His brother Terrence Kennedy is a lawyer in Everett, MA. The obituary:

          William Kennedy was the last to die of the foursome who started
          collecting information on Catholic priests. Excerpt below was written prior to Kennedy’s death. He was found on August 14, 2013 and may have died the day before. I suppose we can leave the Kennedy curse out of this, although he was member of the famous family.

          ~A trio of priests–Fr. Malachi Martin, Fr. Al Kunz, and Fr. Charles Fiore–became aware that something was seriously wrong in the Catholic priesthood and began collecting data. William Kennedy came a bit later to join in the investigation, making it a foursome. Today all but Kennedy are dead. Fr. Kunz’s death in 1998 was sudden and bloody; and the crime has not been solved. Fr. Fiore’s health as well as Fr. Martin’s declined immediately after the murder. Within 16 months Fr. Martin was dead, and Fr. Fiore was not well enough to continue the investigation. He died in March 2003. Kennedy states that a mutilated calf also found the morning that Fr. Kunz’s body was discovered is the calling card or signature of Satanists.~

          From Wikipedia:
          Father Alfred Joseph Kunz, (April 15, 1931 – March 4, 1998), was a Catholic priest who was found with his throat slit in his Roman Catholic church in Dane, Wisconsin.[1] The still-unsolved murder investigation has been described as the most expensive and time-consuming investigation in Dane County’s history.[2]

          Malachi Martin died of a cerebral hemorrhage due to a fall in his apartment in Manhattan in 1999, four days after his 78th birthday.[12] His funeral wake took place in St. Anthony of Padua Roman Catholic Chapel of West Orange, New Jersey, before the burial within the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, in Hawthorne, New York.

          Father Fiore has no Wikipedia information, but I found his date of passing here:

          “Editor’s Note: Father Charles Fiore, a good friend of CFN, died on February 18 this year (2003). A month before his death, at his own expense, he mailed the book The Devil’s Final Battle to a hundred of his friends and accountancies (I helped organized the mailing). What follows is the heartfelt cover-letter he sent with the book.”

    2. Why is it important? If you don’t like Fetzer and/or Wood, that’s fine. Nobody here (hopefully) is going to “choose sides”. I’ve said what I think about both of them. I still do.

      The “everybody’s an idiot who doesn’t agree with me” school of thought is counterproductive and illogical. Obviously, “peer review” is terribly important, for some reason. I could list quite a few “peer reviewed” theories that turned to mush in my lifetime.

      There are plenty of sites that pride themselves on setting up that dynamic. Thankfully, this isn’t one of them. My advice is, if you require everyone to agree with you, there are better places to accomplish that. If you respect others, you won’t portray anyone who believes differently as “an idiot”. This isn’t a situation where the most caustic “wins”.

      1. I’ve never read any critique or article on this blog that contradicts Woods and by extension Fetzer, so there already is a point of view expressed that is a dictum.

  4. I don’t consider it helpful to worry about “choosing sides” with other’s opinions or denigrating those with whom we don’t agree. For example, if someone find Dr. Wood’s opinions objectionable, that is merely their opinion. The same goes for Dr.s Fetzer and Tracy, for that matter.

    I have my own opinions on many subjects, the correctness of which are not dependent on consensus. Whining about people’s beliefs in the hope of starting a clique of “true believers” led by a guru is not a productive ambition.

    In the instant situation, I can understand how many are frustrated and want to see something done to remedy an out of control situation. Mr. Shanley presented himself, initially, as a coherent person with a willingness to use the justice system to correct a wrong.

    Later, it became apparent that something was wrong. While I had, and continue to have, serious reservations about using such an approach, I certainly understand why any potential avenue of redress would be welcomed by some.

    It is far worse to discourage discourse than to accept other’s ideas and methodology for what they are. It is up to each of us to make our own judgements and conclusions. I take no joy in seeing another’s suffering.

    I sincerely hope that Mr. Shanley is alright. We are not obligated to believe what anyone tells us but we should try to be tolerant of others shortcomings and misfortunes. Everyone is free to form their own opinions and to act on them.

  5. I received an email about a week and 1/2 ago asking me to Skype him as he had run out of phone minutes. I tried to Skype him later in the day and received no response. I’m wondering if he just doesn’t have an Internet connection either if his funds were low. He would usually send me one to three emails every few days but have not received any except for the ” please Skype me” message. The last time I spoke with him on the phone was nearly three weeks when he called at 4 am Saturday morning to tell me about his Earth Share idea which he was thrilled about. I hope he is ok and just low on funds. Does anyone happen to have his address, perhaps I could write him via snail mail?

  6. I posted this exact comment from the other bog here on MHB.
    So Shanley’s been offline for a week and he has disappeared?
    Also the article says he filed December 22, 2014.

    He said in his defense to Dr. Doom he had to filed on 12/14/14 because that was the last day under Connecticut laws.

    I’m defending this guy but lets keep our facts straight and we should help anyone who is doing something. They say in Hollywood any news is good news to promote themselves.

    Remember how Wolfgang Halbig got his butt handed to him by the community only to find he has really tried and actually has his FOIA requests being addressed by the proper authorities?

    As I said, I’m not taking sides but I haven’t done anything. I can’t. Can you?

    If I lived there I really would but I don’t. I’m 2000 miles away. If they pull this SH%T here in LA, Ca I promise I will sweep every corner.

    Here’s my comment from a previous article here:
    Don’t Hurt Me..haha

    Ric says:
    JANUARY 5, 2015 AT 3:29 PM
    I finally found and listened to the video where everybody was saying William Shanley is a nut case yelling at Dr. Doom, ect.

    I also listened to Dr. Dooms (Dan) conversation with Jim Fetzer after he had argued with Shanley…

    1. Mr. Shanley was pretty T’d off and maybe rightfully so, but he is certainly not crazy. I’m sure he regrets getting so mad and saying some of things he did but all of us have been guilty of the same at one time or another.
    Yea, He’s a little too New Age for my taste but he comes off to me as a very smart man and he describes his lawsuit in great detail.

    2. Jim Fetzer in his conversation with Dr. Doom is very level headed and makes a lot of sense too, As did Halbig’s.

    I think everyone should kiss and make up. We’re all on the same side.

    As for Shanley’s “I’ve been up 2 days” comment. I’m sure he was speaking figuratively because he was working day and night on a new project as he stated.

    I’m taking no sides but please,”can’t we just all get along”

    1. OOPs I meant to say I’m NOT defending this guy 2nd paragraph.

      If Pat can correct his oops so can do so can I..haha

      One wrong word can change an entire thought.

      God Bless Pat and I’m just using you as an example for corrections and all the GREAT People here on MHB.

      No Lophatt, I didn’t forget you..haha

  7. Yeah, Prof… Don’t understand all I know about this. Hmmm… Tilting at windmills comes to mind. Shanely had a good idea in theory and in practice comes up short like a lot of great ideas. I would rather have him pursue this than not, knowing he is likely not to get that far, though rattling some cages is better than doing nothing. Sound like Wolf is battening down some hatches by distancing himself from this.

  8. Where’s Waldo?

    If Mr. Shanley’s forensic evidence is as overwhelming, indisputable, and conclusive as Dr. Wood’s then he shouldn’t have any problems. However, my opinion, as well as the court of public opinion, is meaningless. Endless Internet articles and videos on this subject are meaning less too. Only forensic evidence presented to a court of law, as Dr. Judy Wood has done, is meaningful. Legitimate lawsuits are performed in a court of law and not in a public venue. BTY, Dr. Wood did not solicit funds for her lawsuit and had no support from “9/11 Truthers”. And while we are being distracted, the powers that be are stripping more assets away from us. That’s the big story.

    Did the Obama administration make a deal with the big derivatives banks like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo by repealing key portions of the Dodd-Frank Act signed into law on December 16th to save them from Secretary of State John Kerry’s clandestine economic oil warfare against Russia and Iran by exposing 14 TRILLION at taxpayer expense?

    Russian Roulette: Taxpayers Could Be on the Hook for Trillions in Oil Derivatives by Ellen Brown*

    *Ellen Brown is an attorney, president of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her websites are Web of Debt, Public Bank Solution, and Public Banking Institute.

        1. Perhaps you did not understand my question, bri (in any event it was not directed to you, whoever you are). It is about Ellen Brown’s philosophy, not the way modern central banking works.

          Not to go very deeply into it, she pretends to hate the Federal Reserve, but she in fact LOVES central banking. For her, and people like William Still, money and value have no connection. It is only faith in the usefulness of currency units that matters. These people are statists. They love and trust politicians to create money out of thin air, by authorizing mysterious bankers to type the digits into existence, because they have total faith that those politicians can always be trusted to be Goldilocks, and ensure that the “money” supply will always be “just right.” Because central bankers and politicians are the priests of the statist religion, and are inherently trustworthy.

          People like Brown hate commodities that are in finite supply, as a means of providing money that has intrinsic value. They hate this idea because they are deluded. They can’t remember a time when a purely fiat system was not in place. No one can, really, because the value-backed system ended with the First World War. But these people are especially pernicious, because they trick people into believing the imaginary, value-free, fake “money” all countries create out of thin air in our time is a wonderful discovery, and the key to eternal wealth.

          They will never apologize for their folly when the inevitable crash and burn happens.


    1. Conclusion of lawsuit is here – so what’s your purpose here? This lawsuit hasn’t proven anything.

      The defendants’ motions to dismiss, filed in each of these three eases, are granted. All three complaints are dismissed with prejudice.2’1 The Wood v. Applied Research Associates. Inc.. et ai. 07 CV 3314 (GBD); Reynolds v. Science Applications Int’ a!.. 07 CV 4612 (GBD). and Haas v. Gutierrez, et al. 07 CV 2623(GBD) actions are hereby closed.

      Dated: New York, New York June 26,2008

    2. So where did Judy Wood’s lawsuit go? And when will Halbig’s FOIA requests be honored? It is good that citizens and professiomal truthers have evidence of crimes and misdemeanors, but there is still no vehicle to push that initiative under our rules of jurisprudence.

      All avenues are blocked, all doors closed unless you are part of the ruling establishment.

      And enrollment is tightly controlled; access,
      open to only those who pay in money and tribute. Haven’t you watched the movie, “Eyes Wide Shut.” a
      clue on how the world really works.

      William Shanley went way, way out on a limb; the least we should do is give him a thumbs up and three
      pip, pip, hoorays…Pray his conrollers AND gangstalkers
      don’t have him suicided.

      The price one pays for breaking ranks with evil spirits
      is sometimes the ulimate sacrifice. I think Shanley went too far down the rabbit hole, came eye-to-eye with the ultimat evil,did not blink nor cave—my definition of a man.

      1. It’s the Don Quixote effect. You can’t bring an overbroad action against a blob called government and the above lawsuit doesn’t necessarily prove any truth about its topic.

  9. Please forgive me if it’s already been posted, but could someone kindly post a link to Shanley’s actual lawsuit/document, one that does not require special access or login? Thank you!

    1. I saw you posted something very close to this previously.
      You keep on knockin, but they won’t let you in.
      Perhaps the suits have not been filed.
      You would think someone commenting here would have access to someone that “has special access”.
      If that person is you, drop a dime, access these filings, and post them.
      Or just email them to Professor Tracy.
      Surely he would like to post them here.
      It certainly has the element of exclusivity going for it.

    2. A lawsuit for 1 trillion dollars is absurd and will be treated like a joke. I find it hard to believe that the lawsuits will survive a motion to dismiss. Short of making a showing for intentional infl. of emotional distress, I find it hard to believe that; 1) Mr. Shanley has standing to bring this suit, 2) that he can show that the media has a direct legal duty to him. Regardless, this reaks of yet another attempt to discredit the movement for truth.

      Unfortunately, too many people confuse speculation with evidence. The way to attack this is to show the inconsistencies in the offical report…attack their representation of what took place. They admit to having the DNA of someone taken from the envelope/christmas card to the Students of Sandy Hook. A few months ago the authorities to forced to adress this, claiming this envelope was a hoax mailed to SHES, except the DNA report is identified in the report as being found at the Lanza residence in her bedroom, and is listed as part of the evidence collected at the Lanza home, identified with the case number for the Lanza home crime scene. There are probably 30 other inconsistencies.

      In addition, scrutinizing the police scanner, whether you believe it to be a true representation of what took place, the Ct State Police have authenticated it, so like the report, their own story reaks of inconsistencies. For instance, from 11:07 a.m. until 11:40 there was an APB for the “purple van” with what the police characterize as “possible suspects”, as many of you know. Despite being important enough to devote over 1/2 hr to finding this van, with a man in a mask and occupant dressed as a nun, and warnings posted to be careful because the drive has a “carry permit”, there is no mention of this anywhere, not even in the report. I’m not genius, but that sounds improtant enough to identify in the report, even if it turned out to be a false lead.

      The witnesses also identify 3 different shooters depending upon the room they saw the shooter.

      Discredit the official story with their own words, not with ‘trillion dollar’ lawsuits. No judge will take that seriously.

  10. Great thoughts, Ric, Lophatt and gwp and all. I have a great tolerance for people who think outside the box, and never wish to dismiss them out of hand. To gwp, both my parents were journalists, and I like the open source journalism practiced here as well. Praying is also cool with me, and I don’t mind a bit of chaos. I am slowly learning the beauty of waiting and not reacting to the information presented, but considering other factors that my be relevant, but still rush in quixotic quite often. Thanks everyone-

  11. In my opinion, the discussion on memoryholeblog meets very high standards for rational exchange. Just to clarify a few points, Judy Wood advocates the theory that Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) were used to destroy the Twin Towers, while I believe it was done with mini or micro nukes. I published a highly favorable (5-star) review of her book on, where I observed that she had overlooked the USGS dust data, which reveals the presence of multiple elements in correlated quantities that provides powerful proof that it was a nuclear event. For that, I have been attack around 5,000 times by Emmanuel Goldstein and others in (what I have described more than once as) her cult: they have a sacred text (WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?), a mystical leader (Judy Wood), a praetorian guard (savaging anyone who strays from their official dogma) endlessly praising themselves as having exclusive possession of the truth of 9/11. Heretics beware!

    With regard to Pete Santilli, I was invited onto his show years ago only to be subjected to a brutal verbal assault. I learned from his producer, who was appalled by his performance, that Judy Wood was texting him via Skype the questions to ask, which he did over and over and over again. It was unbelievably awful and I published an article about it, “Lunatics ‘R Us: The Sunstein/Santilli/Wood Gambit”, which I recommend for those who think she and I are on the same page. When he called me a month or so ago, I was floored to hear from him. But he explained that he was featuring Shanley on Sandy Hook and that William wanted me to come on with him. Santilli asked if we could put our differences of the past aside for the sake of Sandy Hook Truth. After pondering my dilemma, I decided it was better to move forward by our addressing an audience we had not reached before, which is consistent with my efforts to get out the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing.

    It was a very good show and I am glad I did it, but I certainly appreciate why some of you may have been puzzled that we were there on the air with him. I do lots of interviews with shows large and small, where I am simply doing what I can to get the word out, in this case about Sandy Hook. Let me mention my most recent, “Rejoice for Christmas: No one died at Sandy Hook or at the Boston bombing”, especially since a patsy is being framed for a non-existence crime. We have video of the police using a bullhorn to announce, “This is a drill! This is a drill!” We have tweets from the Boston Globe explaining that a demonstration bomb will be set off and a second stating it will explode in one minute opposite the Boston Public Library as part of bomb squad activities. We have footage showing blood only showed up on a delayed basis–and even then it was fake blood. And we have a Hollywood producer/direction identifying one of the key players as an actor he had cast in one of his own films, where what was taking place is known as “hyper-realistic filming” to create a scene that is as realistic as possible to give inexperienced troops, for example, a sense of what they will encounter in combat. It was staged!

    I appreciate those who suggested praying for William Shanley. Like the rest of us, he is a fallible human being. But he has extended himself to expose the sham of Sandy Hook and for that we should all be grateful. I wish it were not so, but I am concerned that something bad has befallen him for making too many powerful people uneasy that his law suit might have a ghost of a chance of prevailing. The Judge issued a protective order for him and police were dropping by periodically to check up on him. But if I am right, he has now become one more in the long list of individuals associated with this enormous hoax to disappear or have their lives dramatically shortened. Let us hope that I am wrong, but as often as we have spoken in the past, this abrupt cessation of contact is completely uncharacteristic. I have had no contact with him since 30 December and I fear he has been taken out, alas, to remove the threat his suit poses for the most powerful and influential media in the world.

    1. Well, I have a theory that both methods were used to bring down the two massive twin towers. The JUdy Wood DEW explanation and the mini nukes possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Why not deploy both and other
      means to get the goal accomplished: to topple the damn
      things. They had to go to sell the Islamists meme in order to justify the ‘Middle East’ strategy: blood for oil. As I recall, even conventional bombs were set in place to begin the process that fostered the ‘pancacking’of floors effect. Correct me if I misstated the facts.

      Chill, everyone…

        1. Me too, Andy. Jim Fetzer’s remarks, above, are consistent with my thoughts. It is “suspicious” that some can look at what’s there, speak of it, and refuse to speculate as to the “who” and “why”.

          I have read many things that were ultimately gibberish and found “gems” in them. It is not uncommon for a person to have a perfectly cogent argument but a bad premise.

          Even Judy Wood did not include ALL the evidence in her study. I believe that she misunderstood some of what she observed by her refusal to consider a different source. That is what happens when someone stakes out a position, i.e., “there are no nukes”, and then attempts to explain phenomena that are classic indicators of just that.

          I give her credit, however, for what she did. To me the disturbing part is when experts are used for their “credibility”, and mislead. The NIST report is a great example. In the case of A/E FT, they are quite capable of calculating certain things from a professional standpoint that would be impossible to deny. The same goes for Judy Wood, who has a specialty in materials science. Steven Jones understands physics.

          So, one is left with the question, if they know better, why do they not clarify their positions? It is hard to imagine that all three groups have “blind spots” that prevent them from seeing the obvious. So the question then becomes, “are they deliberately doing this?”. If so, why?

      1. Marilyn, there is one absolutely essential fact that has to be borne in mind when it comes to 9/11, and so far as I know only Judy Wood has faced it directly. Every building with a WTC in front of its name was destroyed that morning.

        lophatt is persuaded by the tiny-little-nukes model that Veterans Today has fleshed out, and that Jim Fetzer alludes to here, and no one holds lophatt in higher esteem than I do. And I acknowledge that those articles have endeavored to explain building 6, which looked after the event like a huge post-hole digger removed its core. But all the other buildings were destroyed, too.

        So I kind of side with you, when it comes to the notion that multiple technologies were used that morning. Building 7 sure looks like a controlled demolition in the conventional sense–although Wood points to the “fuming” as she calls it, which is incredibly strange–which would explain why so many cameras recorded the collapse. Whereas the twin towers justified, not collapsed, building 7 definitely went down like a Vegas casino.

        I have long held that Tesla technology has been developed. UFO phenomena are clear evidence of this. Wood’s speculation that that’s what we were observing on 9/11, weaponized, makes sense to me on many levels. But what if they were not certain that it would really do the trick, not having ever done such an ambitious demonstration of its use ever before? They certainly knew what their hand grade-sized nukes could do. Can these people spell “overkill”? Why not have multiple, redundant, systems in place to not only test the Tesla weaponization, but ensure that the job would be done.

        People felt unnatural cold. People were levitated.. Wood interprets the pictures of the “jumpers” as evidencing what one might be experiencing if one were in a microwave oven. The “toasted” cars, the fire that does not burn paper, the trees whose leaves were unaffected. The people who survived in level six of the South Tower stairwell, and were shocked to emerge with no rubble above them, seeing clear blue sky where a hundred stories of office tower should have been piled up. Wood is completely justified in attributing this complain, irrefutable evidence to an exotic technology that has never been officially revealed.

        And, again, what about Building 3 and Building 5? If 6 can be (partially) explained by mini nukes, what about THEM?

        As for the radioactive elements associated with fission events that were found, I’m fine with mini nuke’s explaining them, but what if Tesla technology, weaponized, produces the same? Since we have never been allowed to see it, we simply cannot know. But we DO know what Tesla invented, and the bad guys have had a century to develop it further.

        Whatever Wood’s problems, she has been fearless in presenting the very, very, weird evidence almost everyone else has ignored. Certainly, that’s why Fetzer’s review of her essential text book was so glowing. Where else can we turn to see all that evidence, and all in one place?

        1. in paragraph three “justified” should be “dustified”, a coinage of Dr. Wood. My point about the cameras was that the pageant-masters wanted us to have clear, documentary, evidence that it was “controlled demolition,” and by inference the twin towers were also removed that way. Chess involves anticipating many moves in advance.

          In paragraph five, “complain” should be “compelling”.

        2. Patrick, you are far ahead of me on the technical aspects of all things we are considering. Thanks for filling in the gaps. It is comforting to know there are friendly faces out there in this crazy world who have our backs.

          It is my belief only Divine intervention can save us from ourselves at this point. So I remain hopeful and prayerful.


        3. I agree. 9-11 was simply too big and important not to have multiple back-up systems in play in order to ensure completion. The situation was prime for new weapon experimentation. Other governments of the world were likely put on notice that this is what we can do to you know if you try to stop the moves that will follow (e.g., the war on terror).

        4. patrickchatamiably, perhaps you can assist with this question. It troubles me that, while A&E911 promotes nanothermite (which by itself cannot have brought about the demolition of the Twin Towers) and Judy Wood the use of DEWs (which may have contributed to their destruction), they focus only on the question of HOW and ignore the WHO and the WHY. I have other questions about their versions of the HOW, but why should anyone take them seriously if they don’t explain the WHO and the WHY?
          I have done that many places, including:

          “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots” with Preston James, Ph.D.

          “James H. Fetzer: 9/11 IRAN REVIEW interview”

          “James Henry Fetzer: 9/11 was created by CIA, Neo-Cons and Mossad”

          “9/11 and the Search for Truth”

          The problem, as I see it, is that, by focusing on the HOW and ignoring the WHO and the WHY, they are thereby in effect functioning as limited hangouts, which keep attention focused on an important but only partial piece of the puzzle. Indeed, while A&E911 admits that other explosives may have been involved, they do not identify what those may have been. And Judy Wood goes to far as to insist that the HOW has to be resolved before the WHO and the WHY can be addressed! But that is misleading since research can be conducted on these issues simultaneously. Here are two article in which I question them on these grounds:

          “On C-SPAN, Richard Gage leaves 9/11 Truth in a ‘time-warp’”

          “Limited hangouts: Richard Gage, A&E911 and the Journal of 9/11 Studies”,

          This is a perfectly general question that does not require sorting out the exact mechanisms that were used to destroy the World Trade Center. I even agree that it was probably a mix of methods, where nanothermite, DEWs and mini-nukes were all involved and mini-nukes did the heavy lifting. But it seems to me even their most ardent supporters ought to be concerns that neither A&E911 nor Judy Wood is pursuing the WHO and the WHY. Surely over a decade later, they should have at least tentative answers to these questions. So why should anyone take them seriously when they do not ever address them?

        5. My friend was watching from Greenwich Street across the park and saw flashes of light that were internal all around an upper floor, then watched as Building 7 fell in its own footprint in seconds. Any engineer will tell you that was detonations. The lobby had eyewitnesses including the now missing Barry Jennings to already having been blown out much earlier. Eyewitnesses are important. It seems very difficult for this site to accommodate any other point of view besides Woods, which seems to contradict the reason for having a blog about the inadequacies of the main stream media. Even when Crockett Gabe offered to do an article here, he was refused.

        6. Dr. Fetzer, those are, indeed, interesting questions. The Jones camp clearly cannot account for the evidence. Judy Wood’s group insists, as you say, that the method leads to the perpetrators. In a way, that may be so. Not many private citizens possess nuclear devices.

          While I completely agree with your and “Scholars” assessment, any of the alternative theories clearly show conspiracy. If one is “in for a penny”, they may as well be “in for a pound”. The “directed energy”, in this case nuclear, is the only methodology I’m aware of that fits the evidence.

          As to the reasons and the perpetrators, you have covered the likely suspects. I’m fond of saying that these think tanks are not bashful about publishing their goals. “Cui bono” is the logical first question when faced with an event such as this. The destruction of liberty and accompanying surveillance, torture, wars, etc., would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, without the signature event.

          I find the study of the methodology very interesting. However, ANY method would have required planning, engineering and execution. Avoidance of the obvious does not lend credibility to their positions.

          Most of us realize that sublimating heavy steel, as well as all of the other materials contained in the structures, requires energy far in excess of conventional explosives or energetic materials. As part of the engineering associated with the operation it would not surprise me if thermite, and other forms of explosives, were used as well.

          The engineers and architects should know that even conventional demolition has never been done with buildings of this size. They would also be aware of the expected size and height of the debris field. Woods categorically denies the use of nukes (why?), and the continuing reactions resulting in pools of molten metal. If she is willing to look at the rest of the evidence, why not this?

          I certainly don’t have to tell someone who has taught logic why I find Judy Wood’s contrary and conflicted premises disturbing. I admire what she has done with most of the evidence, why the reluctance? You can’t very well argue that “I have no idea what caused this”, but “I know it wasn’t nukes”. Alternatively, “I won’t say what caused this, but I know a guy named Hutchison…”.

          So, your question remains. I don’t know if those groups are frightened of the truth and the consequences of exposing it, or they have other motives. For me it isn’t hard to know who is behind this. I may not know precisely who wired what, but I think I know where to look.

        7. Thanks, lophatt, Very interesting article. The technical details, being far beyond my expertise, I simply have to assume make sense. I’d like to know how that freon business was channelled into both towers though, twice, an hour apart–the two towers’ demise certainly LOOKED like they both met their demise by the same technique.

          One problem with the article is the assertion that the pentagon was hit with a cruise missile (near the top of the article). That is impossible. If you examine the schematic if the columns in the destroyed part of the pentagon (near the bottom of this Dave McGowan newsletter:, you will see that there was no straight path cleared leading to the “exit hole.” Note also the “slab deflected upward, right in the middle of the destroyed area. Whatever did the damage, it wasn’t a missile.

          As you know, I have no problem with the nuke theory, and I understand your position that it fits all the evidence. Perhaps it CAN account for the levitated people and the fire that does not burn paper and the sudden drop in ambient temperature and some of the other really weird evidence. I have no way of knowing. I also understand that you cannot justify postulating a technology that we do not have technical knowledge of. I just call it Tesla technology and feel very confident that it exists and has been weaponized. It certainly did exist when Tesla was inventing it a century ago. It does not HAVE to have been used to destroy the WTC.

          As for Dr. Fetzer’s interest in the WHO and WHY, and his complaint that researchers who focus only on the WHAT and HOW are somehow damaging the field of inquiry, I don’t have an opinion about that. Whatever motivates these people is beyond my ability to know. I tend to avoid casting aspersions, even when I strongly suspect that such people are intentionally hiding something. Maybe its because I have that luxury, not being one of the researchers myself.

          That being said, I find the search for the WHO and the WHY very interesting, and agree with Fetzer that more investigating of those things would be a good thing. Certainly the Israel connections Duff points out in the VT article are compelling. But for me, the WHY and the WHO is very easy to answer. Kubrick told us WHO in the film Eyes Wide Shut: if you know their names, they are just servants and messenger-boys. The REAL who are the Watchers, the “sons of God,” who were responsible for the completely corrupted, purely evil, world system that made necessary the Global Flood. They are back, and using human henchmen to recreate that state of affairs. And they WILL succeed; Jesus said “as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man.”

          Don’t get me wrong, I am interested in knowing who the agents of this evil plot actually are. I just keep my focus more on the power that is energizing them, and driving them. To get a world government, the nations have to be eliminated. 9/11 was designed to destroy what remained of fealty to the Constitution at home, and to instigate a World War, using the moslem world as an excuse. The intelligence world has been stirring that pot ever since they destroyed the Ottoman empire. That’s why they gave the “credit” for 9/11 to Arabs.

          But it is not mere men who are behind these plots. And those human beings who are directing these changes to the world, the ones directly collaborating with the Watchers, are nameless–we cannot find out their identities. If we think David Rockefeller and the rest of the Bilderbergers are the top of the pyramid, we are deceiving ourselves. It says so right there, in the Bible.

        8. I find it odd that so many commenters here still find the need to resort to scientifically unsupportable theories to explain the collapse of the world trade center buildings on 911. Both the mini-nuke theory and the directed energy theory have been thoroughly debunked. See this:

          and this:

          Patrick’s concern about the hole in building 6 Is addressed here:

          In fact, everything we witnessed on 911 can be explained by the use of both conventional high explosives and thermite. Other than the fact that the twin towers were the largest buildings ever taken down by controlled demolition, the explosions and dust we saw are easily explained by the conventional laws of physics. Richard Gage, of AE911Truth, does an excellent job of doing this. His recent interview on C-span is a perfect example of the level headed appeal of this persistent and courageous advocate for truth. Gage wisely avoids trying to explain the who and the why questions and has focused his efforts on getting the American public to understand first and foremost that a very serious crime was committed on 911. Buildings were intentionally demolished with people, including first responders, inside them. This is the biggest hurdle which the 911 truth movement faces.

          For those who wish to look further into who did this and why, there many good books on this dimension of the conspiracy. Kevin Ryan’s “Another Nineteen” is powerful and convincing look at the culpability of those is a position to have means. motive and opportunity. David Ray Griffin has written extensively on the subject, as have people like Peter Dale Scott, Graeme MacQueen, and others.

          While it may be instructive at first to look at something as controversial and mysterious as the destruction of the twin towers with a completely open mind, there comes a point at which we need to apply the scientific method to the whole inquiry, and here it is important to seek some kind of consensus, so that this issue can be brought before a wider public. What we do here is a part of that. The more the conversation is blurred and muddied by unnecessary and unscientific digressions the longer it will be before the sleeping masses in the American heartland wake up to the atrocities which have been committed both against them, and in their name.

        9. Well, Christo, I’m not one to ask about the micro-nukes theory. The one who haunts this place with the explanation to that one is lophatt. But since you addressed it to me, I will briefly answer.

          Your first link contains these words: “Mini-nukes are not needed for the observed concrete pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers. Chemical explosives such as RDX, HMX can cause controlled demolition along with concrete pulverization; most of us have observed such demolitions using chemical explosives and the large dust clouds produced.”

          Most of that article is obtuse, intentionally, I deem, but this quote seems intentionally so. No things survived the event. Toilets are porcelain–nothing can make them simply disappear, each and every one inter thousands. File cabinets are steel–there were no melted remains of such objects. Pipes, desks, telephones, carpet, duct work, elevators. Nothing remained of these things. All transformed into dust, and blown away with the wind. How anyone regards Jones as credible in this matter is beyond me, and this article, if it is supposed to represent his bona fides, certainly cannot bolster his case.

          I regard most of the second article you link to as similarly problematic, as a point of argument. For instance, it says “For example, in WTC 6, an eight-story building with a large hole in which all eight stories appeared to have collapsed”. Well, no, it doesn’t. It looks like a giant post hole digger repeatedly scooped out the contents of the building’s center, leaving the periphery alone. The mass was removed. No pile.

          Your third link failed to show up. You must have mistyped, or something, so I could not look into it.

          I really don’t care if anyone wants to believe there was a pile of debris spilling over into the streets of New York equivalent to the mass of those buildings–even when it obviously was not the case. Anyone can hold to the controlled demolition idea if they wish. What do I care? Believe what you want. Me, I can see that the buildings went away, dustified and blew away. I don’t know if it was Tesla technology or micro nukes, or a combination, but it sure as hell was not extremely bright curling charges and conventional explosives, because that is simply not possible. If you want to believe a fantasy, be my guest.

          I am so tired of this subject.

          I feel confident lophatt is equally weary. How much longer must this tiresome debate continue?

        10. Once again, my neglect to proofread requires a couple of errata notes (and this one is in moderation for some inexplicable reason, so you might be reading this before the actual post shows up).

          First, it is “toilets in their thousands”

          This damned Mac, always “helping” m

          Second, I intended to write “bright CUTTING charges”. Thermite/thermate is a physically impossible explanation for what happened that day. How anyone believes it is beyond strange.

        11. Patrick, re: response to Christo; Thanks, couldn’t have said it better myself. You know from experience that I am not trying to make converts. I have simply stated my current beliefs on the subject and the reasoning behind them. If someone disagrees that is perfectly fine with me. The only objection I have is when someone says, or implies, that I’m an idiot.

          If someone comes along tomorrow with more compelling evidence that it was done by Venusians, and can show how all that fits the evidence, I’m fine with it. I don’t expect that to happen, however.

          Lastly, I too am tired of the non-argument. I keep saying that I do not feel compelled to defend my belief. I do believe that it is better to approach this from the perspective of what appears to have happened, rather than the warm fuzzy blanket offered by some others. It may be reassuring, but it is inaccurate.

        12. I, too, think that the exotic explanations of mini-nukes and directed energy are unnecessary. The collapse of the towers is adequately explained with nanothermite and conventional explosives, and looks just like the demolitions of the Seattle King Dome and H.H. Hudson Building on the website of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., which I would point Dr. Fetzer to, if he hasn’t seen those videos. CDI also partially answers his “who” question. We know this company was involved in the clean-up of both the WTC and Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, too.

          Another partial answer to the “who” question, as well as “why,” is Larry Silverstein and his asbestos problem. The tab for asbestos remediation in the WTC was in the billions. While this motive may seem prosaic, I think the cost savings may very well be at bottom here, and that everything else–the “movie”; the stock plays on United and American airlines and their insurers; the big payout fund handled by Feinberg; the pretext for war, especially for fat military contracts–was icing on the cake. It had something for everyone.

          Avoiding legal–and very costly–asbestos remediation is something the 9/11 perpetrators have in common with the Sandy Hook crowd, too. Both concocted elaborate fictions apparently to avoid the expensive requirements of legal remediation, and got the insurance companies, charitable funds, and/or the government to pay the hoax participants handsomely. (I say “apparently” only because, in the case of Sandy Hook, there were asbestos contractors on site in 2013. I recently got the reports made to the state health department. I have not gone through them yet, but note that it looks like the fastest remediation in history–and asbestos remediation is NOT fast; it’s painstaking and time-consuming and would normally take years in a building that size.)

        13. As for the “missing toilets,” we know nothing about the interior of the towers as of September 2001. They may have been completely vacant, all furniture and fixtures removed by then. It would be logical that such items would be taken out through the basement, so not noticed by the public. (Moreover, they have value.)

          In the “why,” I of course did not mention the endless need of our sociopathic and criminally controlled government to restrict our civil liberties, and appropriate our resources to themselves. That almost goes without saying. One thing I’ve thought a lot about since rewatching the movie “Bugsy” is the takeover of the government of a single state–Nevada–by organized crime, beginning in around 1947, which I think could very well have led to the complete subversion of our institutions we see today.

          Finally, Patrick’s continued reference to “Tesla technology” leaves me scratching my head. He never explains it, just puts it out there as the solution to all problems, which the elites possess and won’t tell us about. Reading online I see it constitutes “free energy,” somehow harnessed without the use of wires or power grids. All I can say is that I was a physics major at Cornell as an undergraduate, and we learned nothing about Tesla. We DID learn about Faraday, Maxwell, Ampere, Henry, etc., as far as electricity and magnetism go, and those scientists’ explanations and equations are adequate, to say the least. Indeed, they are comprehensive. You need wires to conduct electricity where you want it to go and you need an electromotive force (voltage drop) to basically push current around to do work. You need a power source. It is highly doubtful devices could be designed to power appliances without electrical current channeled and flowing in a wire.

          The “Tesla devices” I’ve seen are just demonstrations of static electricity. I am highly doubtful that my professors would have kept us in the dark about such an important divergence from accepted theory as “Tesla free energy” if it indeed had merit.

        14. “All I can say is that I was a physics major at Cornell as an undergraduate, and we learned nothing about Tesla.”

          Well, dino, that is not remotely surprising. I’d be amazed if his name was even mentioned.

          “We DID learn about Faraday, Maxwell, Ampere, Henry, etc., as far as electricity and magnetism go, and those scientists’ explanations and equations are adequate, to say the least.”

          Not so much. In fact, not at all.

          “Indeed, they are comprehensive. You need wires to conduct electricity where you want it to go and you need an electromotive force (voltage drop) to basically push current around to do work.”

          Tom Bearden ( )has spent a lifetime disproving this assertion. You can order hundreds of hours of videos from him, and read his books.

          “You need a power source.”

          No, you don’t. There is infinite energy in every cubic centimeter of the vacuum. It only needs to be tapped.

          “It is highly doubtful devices could be designed to power appliances without electrical current channeled and flowing in a wire.”

          It is not in doubt. At all. Tesla did it a hundred years ago. Many people have done it since then. (Many have been killed because they became too public, sadly.)

          “The “Tesla devices” I’ve seen are just demonstrations of static electricity.”

          Too bad. Go down to Alabama, and meet Bearden.

          “I am highly doubtful that my professors would have kept us in the dark about such an important divergence from accepted theory as “Tesla free energy” if it indeed had merit.”

          Right. And I’m betting they told you the Apollo actors walked on the Moon, too. Hah!

          If you think the physics they teach in college (even Cornell) is the real thing, dino, you are not as bright as we all know you to be.

        15. Patrick, I too was a moon landing skeptic for quite some time. I was convinced 60’s technology couldn’t have come remotely close, the van allen belt was too damaging, and the space race was too important to lose.

          Then I came across somebody in a forum that actually was non-confrontational about it and stated that many countries tracked the object all the way to the moon and back with radar.

          I was taken aback at how simple the argument was, and how I never thought about something so fundamental (I mean, I thought Russia was in on it, yada yada).

          After a little googling, it was all there – plain as day. Which left the only other possibliltiy would be un-manned, but that would be harder to pull off then just sending up the astronauts.

          That said, I am also interested – not so much with free energy – but electro-magnetism and all the proponents that claim that EM theory will replace relativity by solving for dark matter and to an extent, gravity.

          After the moon landing evidence, I have been careful about separating entertainment (tesla) from reality as I am not a physicist, just a fan. Sometimes I notice I project my dismay of one event onto a universal mode of thought that assumes EVERYTHING they tell is a lie. Whether this is the truth or not, I try to avoid turning every topic into conspiracy – especially the ones I am not expert in.

        16. Thank you, Patrick, for reminding everyone of the absolute precision of the destruction of the World Trade Center. Only World Trade Center buildings were destroyed completely. That is an essential starting point in analyzing what actually happened. The immediate explanation was that the twin towers were hit by airplanes. We all believed it. I certainly did, as I watched from the 21st floor of my office building as the second plane flew directly at the second tower.

          Amazingly, it was not until years later that I learned that every single building in the complex was destroyed – while only two planes were seen. That was when I began to question the official narrative, as there did not seem to be any evidence that the towers tipped over and fell onto the adjoining buildings. This precision is uncanny, and unsettling, and must be addressed by all who profess that they know what actually took place.

          I am so glad to see that so many intelligent people are still trying to unravel this sordid tale. God speed to you all.

    2. Dr. Fetzer, I appreciate all that you have contributed, in so many ways, to the spirit of truth. I realize that you do this at no little risk both to your reputation and even your person. You could have adopted a comforatable, sedentary retired life but remain prolific in your efforts. It is much appreciated.

      Frankly, I am puzzled by Dr. Wood’s behavior. I too very much enjoyed her book and, overall, her analysis. I too believe that nukes were the cause of the destruction (I won’t say “collapse”), and, possible some “cutter charges” were employed ancillary to the nukes.

      Patrick, here at this site, and I have discussed this several times. “Directed energy” can take more than one form. Frankly, nukes are a form of “directed energy”. Judy Wood took such care to record her observations and exhibited reservations when questioned as to “cause”, at least initially She has a blind spot for some of the evidence that is crystal clear and obvious. She also categorically denies the possibility of government involvement.

      While I find the “Hutchison Phenomenon” interesting, it certainly cannot be described as “controlled” or “directed”. It is curious that such a trained observer with a scientific mind seems to abandon her discipline entirely in support of a difficult hypothesis.

      All that aside, the petty infighting among “truthers” (as opposed to….?) must make the psyops guys cackle with glee. No matter what any of them choose to believe as to cause, it is irrefutable that it did not happen ad advertised. That realization alone, coupled with all of the other phantasms we discuss on a regular basis, should unite them in opposition to the master manipulators.

      As always, the answer lies in MORE discussion, not stifling others opinions. It is much easier to be a critic than it is to make a film. Also, I pray that Mr. Shanley has not joined the growing list of the “disappeared”. He delivered what is needed, attention, to the matter. The more become aware of what they are being exposed to on a daily basis, the less impact it will have on their lives.

      Again, thank you for your past and continuing efforts. They are much appreciated.

      1. The most important reason for focusing on the HOW is that the methods and devices used would provide clues about the WHO and the WHY. If the WTC was destroyed using high tech devices, such as free energy technology, as she insists, then insofar as these capabilities are only available to the government, what sense does it make for her to claim or “categorically den(y) the possibility of government involvement”? I think you have put your finger on the crucial incoherence of her position. It is not only incoherent but unscientific and even irrational. She places all her emphasis on the HOW, but the HOW she advocates implicates the government (including the military). By categorically denying the most obvious implication of her work, it is rendered inconsistent and makes it impossible to solve WHO by deny the obvious WHO that accompanies her HOW. This tells me that her position is, by design, a limited hangout.

        1. Precisely. The same applies to Jones. He certainly knows enough about physics to know that sublimation of steel and other materials cannot occur within the spectra of conventional energy sources

          To ascribe those effects to “Thermate”, a sulphur-infused iron oxide, is beyond ridiculous. It makes an excellent “cutter charge”, but doesn’t account for the “dustification” of steel, concrete, people and toilets.

          The test samples clinch it. There are known decay patterns and the samples verify the source. I could understand a “normal” lay person being ignorant of the physics involved, it is unexplainable by simple ignorance for scientists who have advanced degrees in these matters

          As you say, you can’t get a group together, run to the local hardware store and buy either “Tesla devices” or “nuclear” ones. The source could be problematic as the Israelis have been supplementing their supplies with “stolen” American ones. The source of the material would track back to the U.S..

          In any event, they will never come clean on this. When one considers the sheer magnitude of an operation like this being performed with at least the compliance of our government, it is mind boggling.

  12. My posts keep disappearing as I type–aarrgghh!

    Myron May–FSU shooter–perfectly cogent as he supplied proof of gangstalking to various addressees. But after the fact, portayed as a nut case. MSM is allowed to frame and spin facts to fit official narratives.

    The elitists can hit us with attacks from a thousand different directions. And as our esteemed president {sic} joked at a presser regard a drone strike, “You
    won’t see it coming.” (He fancies himself a standup comic now.) Cute?–NOT!

    The comments on MHB are awesome; I often feel uninformed and want to follow up all links, want to
    research all suggestions.

    In summation: don’t be surprised at our collective
    confusion on these complex issues. That is the plan– to derail and obfuscate progress toward actual resolution. Stay the course!

    IMO, Shanley is a TI being gangstalked and this would contribute to his moments of psychic disorientation.

    So off I go to track down something that piqued my curiosity…

    1. Hereis he vfideo referrenced above. Made some misrtakes; it was the White HOuse dinner for the media a few years back that he cited the Jonas brothers, warning them to stay away from daughters(they are barely into their teens.) The remark is unpresidential and inappropriate at a public gathering. Doubly offensive considering Obama’s prolific use of drones in Afghanistan.

    2. And thus far no police reports have been received from Tallahassee or FSU Police Departments. While the Tallahassee City Attorney’s office confirms it will send the report to me shortly (officers were exonerated of any homicide charges on 12/17) FSU administration is entirely evasive and non-committal to release of such records.

  13. I am vastly ignorant about the explosives used in the Trade Center buildings, tending to accept the evidence of two research teams of scientists that thermite or thermite was found in the surrounding earth. This apparently is used in controlled demolitions to cut the steel structure of the building. However there has been a new form of explosive that has been reported in the media, and this might, or might not, have some relevance to the discussion of the explosives.

    Apparently the most valuable resource found on the moon is something called helium-3, which can be used to make thermonuclear weapons without the usual radiation. Apparently very small nuclear weapons can be made. They apparently have been made. I wouldn’t know if this has any relevance to the Trade Center destruction, but it might.

    1. In my opinion, Dr. Wood did an invaluable service in pointing to the evidence. Put another way, “what do we NOT see”. We do not see a debris pile adequate to account for the mass of the structure. We see anomalous damage. The nature of the debris and lack of debris can only be accounted for by “unconventional” forces.

      The material was sublimated and “dustified”. That requires enormous levels of molecular activity. If one wanted to duplicate those results using non-nuclear methods it simply could not be done. “New” aggregates were formed that do not occur naturally, and cannot be made to occur conventionally. Resistant materials simply “disappeared”. File cabinets, computers, toilets, humans, etc., were simply “gone”. Up in dust and blown away.

      While I cannot rule out some sort of DEW device, I am not aware of the existence of a reliable device that the perpetrators would risk using on an important operation like this one. The phenomena observed is consistent with past nuclear observations. I can assure you that you could not duplicate the results using conventional explosives or highly-energetic materials.

      It is the physics that seal the deal. It is not necessary to know the exact methodology. It is interesting, however. It is a “smoking gun” that demands an explanation. Forming “camps” on this issue is counter-productive. No one involved has credentials sufficient to override the evidence. While I do not understand the resistance to the obvious, I recognize that it exists. I did not WANT to believe as I do, either. I have no choice. I do not want to believe that anyone would do this by ANY means, but they did.

      If someone presents another source of energy sufficient to account for the evidence I’m certainly willing to entertain that. I am not aware of one, however.

      1. I think the wisest thing we can do, is to admit we simply do not know, but point out that the facts as presented by MSM, the investigation, etc. simply do not add up for the reasons given. I think the smoking gun and weakest link, is the hijacker ID found under all this rubble, and again how quickly the evidence was whisked away. Always a telltale sign of false flag events. Look at what happened in JFK, 911, Sandy Hook, France, Osama Bin Laden, suspects all killed and mysteriously disappear before they could be tried in court. How convenient!

        1. To quote the person who will perhaps become the next Empress of the Realm, “what difference at this point does it make?” Whether the towers fell from nano-thermite, mini-nukes or army ants, the fact is we know that they were not taken down by fire, planes or AQ. It is this endless quibbling over inconsequential details that always tends to discredit legitimate attempts to find the truth in questionable events.

          Does identifying the shooters in Dealey Plaza or exposing intimate details about LHO’s alleged “girlfriend” or claiming alterations to the Zapruder film change the fact that the JFK murder was a coup d’etat that forever altered the U.S. political landscape? The basic truth of this event was generally known by 1968, yet the debate over details has gone on for half a century, creating a cottage industry of researchers, most of whom by this point are controlled opposition simply muddying the already murky waters even more.

          Are Wolfgang Halbig or a misguided lawsuit, brought by a highly questionable character the key to exposing the hoax at Sandy Hook? The courts representing the current power structure will never allow any legal remedy. It is delusional to think otherwise. Just as delusional is the idea that somehow the MSM will suddenly see the light and start writing the truth.

          It is not the duty of researchers to reconstruct these crimes in minute detail. The duty is only to expose the fact that they could not have happened according to the official stories, and by doing so hopefully raise doubts among the general public that hopefully will some day reach a tipping point. And finally, ask yourselves why it is always Jim Fetzer involved in stirring up all these pots to the extent that well-meaning people eventually end up at each others’ throats. It is he who has continued to tout the likes of Judyth Vary Baker, Judy Wood, Wolfgang Halbig etc. We don’t need these red herrings to help us understand these events.

        2. Responding to Joel: I agree–and have made this argument many times, myself–that all we need to do is show inconsistencies in the official version, to prove it didn’t happen the way they said. We don’t need to prove what actually happened (and maybe will never be able to).

          However, it DOES make sense to do such things as analyze dust from the demolished towers to find out what’s in it. If indeed “mini-nukes” can be implicated, then so can the government. Like the weaponized anthrax, no one but the government has access to such material.

          I have no problem with Jim Fetzer trying to get to the bottom of things, interviewing people who make certain claims to find out what they know, to figure out what really happened. This is what historians, and people interested in the truth, do. Wolfgang Halbig has performed an invaluable service simply by asking good, informed questions. That the government has not provided documents to answer these questions is a powerful admission that its story is false (meaning, there WERE no custodians, lunchroom workers, hearing/air conditioning service, bills sent or paid, etc., all establishing that the school was not operational). This goes far to prove the official story is a hoax. Judyth Vary Baker has added to the picture we have about Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie, and what was going on in New Orleans in 1963. As for Judy Wood, I have yet to listen to Fetzer’s interviews with her, but certainly have no problem with him bringing her information and viewpoints to the public. Certainly the mainstream media are not doing so.

          So, these are not “red herrings,” and the fact that it is “always Fetzer” exploring these things only highlights the ludicrous toadying of the mainstream press. We owe Jim Fetzer a lot for trying to get to the bottom of these events. If, by weighing in with our own interpretations of the data, we give him ideas for new directions to explore, so much the better.

      2. I am glad to see further references to Judy Wood’s work. In her book the chapter on Hurricane Erin struck a nerve – as a worker-bee New Yorker who was in my office on 37th Street and Fifth Avenue when the buildings were struck I had never heard word one about a hurricane hurtling toward midtown, nor had anyone else in the city. Not only had we not heard about the hurricane in our vicinity, the fact that it turned away from the city precisely when the Towers were hit is fascinating and creepy. Does anyone here know of any efforts that have been made to address Hurricane Erin issues?

        1. I know of no one, but it has been of intense interest to me, ever since I read Wood’s book, hot off the presses. It is not Wood’s best work though, this mentioning of that obviously engineered hurricane.

          I say this because she implies that it was the energy source for whatever weapon she postulates was used that morning to destroy the WTC. She implies it, obliquely. Yet she’s a scientist. That’s not how science is done.

          I have spoken with one prominent 9/11 investigator who has pressed Wood on this question, and I am told that she (Wood) was frustratingly evasive, refusing to explain her theory about the meaning of Erin in the manufactured 9/11 event. I do not like this, and it cannot help but taint my impression of Dr. Wood, however highly I regard her wonderful book.

          Another point that should not go without mention is her discussion of the wild;y anomalous magnetic fluctuations that exactly matched the movement of Erin and the dustification of the towers. Both of these are brought up at the end of a very long book. Perhaps she started to fear the book growing too long. But these things seem very important, and not giving the reader an idea of what she would propose they mean, as a theory of what was done to the WTC that day, is, in my opinion, gravely problematic. And as I say, the researcher I spoke with about it, who pressed the issue, live, got nothing. Judy Wood put it in the book as an important feature of the events of that day, and did not explain what she really thinks it means, and she refused to explain it to a very well known researcher (I won’t say who, because it was a private conversation).

          I have always held Wood’s book up in these pages as a very important document that everyone interested in 9/11 must read and take very seriously. And Hurricane Erin seems like a very important element–no storm of that category barrels straight west, approaching land, and then stops and reverses course. New Yorkers were experiencing a beautiful, blue-sky day, completely unaware that a storm of the century was about to slam them. And they never found out, because it slammed into reverse at just the last minute.

          Why has not Dr. Wood fleshed out this exceedingly strange discovery of hers? As Dr. Fetzer pointed out, she has had plenty of time. As I mentioned, I am not inclined to speculate as to why she has refused, after all these years, to address the WHO or WHY questions. But this is a plate she herself has set spinning, and I cannot excuse her for refusing to continue probing what it means, and how it aids her argument. Is her scientific mind no longer functioning? She can’t bring such provocative, fascinating, possibly vital, facts to the fore, and more than a decade later simply leave us hanging, without us asking disturbing questions.

        2. Patrick, I think Dr. Fetzer has a point. I have watched three video interviews with Judy Wood. As you say, she can be quite evasive. As someone with a background and materials science, and therefore physics, I have no doubt that she is at least passably aware of the effects of nuclear energy on materials.

          She knows what forces are required to strip valance electrons from atoms and cause them to form new bonds that are not possible under normal circumstances.

          The question comes down to whether she is deliberately doing this out of fear, or by direction. The ruse of the DEW (and I call it a ruse because it is at least only the second logical conclusion), points the observer in a nebulous direction rather than to the source of available materials.

          At a minimum, she does not want to be identified as someone listing nukes as the source of the observed phenomena. She goes to great lengths to dismiss that out of hand. I would guess it is the same for the molten steel. That would be hard to explain in terms of DEWS.

          So, the concept of a “limited hangout” is not out of the question. It could be a backstop in case it starts to spin out of control. “Oh, well, yes, it may not have been as we described, THEY did it this way….”.

          Whoever planned and executed this took considerable time and effort with the engineering. Destroying those buildings in the tight confines of Manhattan was no easy feat. Even if DEW weapons were completely developed, would they risk something like that on an untried weapon? How would they control it?

          If the event happened as described in the official version, why would they care about confining the damage? Wouldn’t it be “better” to take out as many other buildings as possible. More “shock and awe”?

          Lastly, if she had no intention of hypothesizing a cause, why did she go to the trouble to point to the evidence? In pointing to the evidence, why did she ignore some of it? She doesn’t deny it, she just dismisses it. I know that she knows what rust is. “DEW” or no DEW, oxidation is oxidation. What caused that?

          Something is definitely wrong here.

        3. “Whoever planned and executed this took considerable time and effort with the engineering. Destroying those buildings in the tight confines of Manhattan was no easy feat. Even if DEW weapons were completely developed, would they risk something like that on an untried weapon? How would they control it?”

          My feeling exactly, lophatt.

          I”f the event happened as described in the official version, why would they care about confining the damage? Wouldn’t it be “better” to take out as many other buildings as possible. More “shock and awe”?”

          Again, precisely the point. They wanted to give credit to the Arabs, and the media complied, so the message was sent, but they did not want to disrupt the financial goings-on in lower Manhattan for more than a couple of days. Business as usual, but the Arabs were planted in the public mind as civilizational enemies, permanently. Perfectly done.

          “Lastly, if she had no intention of hypothesizing a cause, why did she go to the trouble to point to the evidence? In pointing to the evidence, why did she ignore some of it? She doesn’t deny it, she just dismisses it. I know that she knows what rust is. “DEW” or no DEW, oxidation is oxidation. What caused that?”

          Again, very well stated.

          “Something is definitely wrong here.”

          Oh, boy, is there.

          This is the biggest thing of all. It is, in my opinion, the cosmic trigger for the last stages of the end times, and anyone who has gotten involved in trying to get to the bottom of it has faced genuine evil, the likes of which the Earth has not witnessed in millennia.

          And to think, most people still believe that a few moronic, hapless Arabs who could not fly, were the cause of it all.

          We, those of us who have discovered what can be known about that event, we who laugh at the idiocy of the official story, and can see how the moslem world is being used as a tool to launch the next world war, and how 9/11 was the calling card of the elites who are implementing the last stages of the New World Order, have to be saddened by the refusal of almost anyone around us to face the truth. There are lots of commentators I genuinely love, who take the official story as a given, and proceed to analyze current events completely wrongly because of it. For instance.

          I often wish I were one of them, but immediately realize that no one would hire me. Because everything I would like to say, I can say here, at MHB, and could not say anywhere else. No one wants to know the true truth. They only want a version of the truth that suits them. Sad.

        4. Patrick- you and lophatt are starting to sound like a tag team. Would either of you like to address the evidence I presented with the links in my previous comment- I.e.- that there is no real science behind either the mini-nuke theory nor the directed energy explanation for the destruction of the twin towers? Here’s the source of my information:

        5. Very nicely said, as usual. In a sense, I think you and I are in somewhat of the same predicament. We have, ultimately, a theological “cause” for this, but like the media example you provide, no one wants to hear it.

          So we are left to discuss lower order players. That is certainly necessary, but, they are but employees. We know that this event was designed to be audacious. The magnitude of it shatters most people’s illusions of the world they inhabit. In reaction, they simply refuse to process it.

          The perpetrators gambled on a well-known phenomenon. The fear was so intense that people abdicated their responsibility for logical thought to their “leaders” in the hope of being “made safe”. That was precisely the plan.

          Had the reaction been different, and the onlookers questioned the realism of the event, it could have turned out completely differently. If the response would have been “wait a minute, that could not have happened that way…..”, the fear may have been directed elsewhere.

          It isn’t in the event that the danger lies. It is in the subsequent manipulation. Even thousands sacrificed in this manner do not equal the countless victims of directed chaos. It is the reaction to these things that must be controlled.

          Had the reaction been one of suspicion rather than false patriotism, events would have taken a much different turn. In watching all of the sequels to this performance, it is hard to imagine how people cannot see these things for what they are.

          When I look at myself and wonder why I’m able to see these things in the way that I do, I keep coming back to always having had an abhorrence of being manipulated. Whether it is in the big things or the small, it instantly “gets my back up”. I do not seek to manipulate others and I’ll have nothing but the same for myself.

          If I am correct, the parasites who pray on humanity concentrate on that weakness. For many, “belonging” is paramount. It makes them putty in the hands of manipulators.

          I once had a Congressman say to me, “but I had to vote for it. They would have called me unpatriotic if I didn’t. I voted with grave reservations…”. I said, “you make me sick” and walked away.

          It seems pretty obvious that the parasites are rapidly killing the host. I suspect that is as planned. Be that as it may, it won’t be with my cooperation.

        6. Thank you, Patrick and Lophatt for your comments. I have great respect for Dr. Wood and wish that she would concentrate on continuing to analyze the evidence concerning the events of 9/11 and describing what actually happened in writing. She should avoid making public appearances, as unfortunately she cannot communicate her ideas well on the stage.

          I take her at her word when she says that she has no idea as to the “why” or the “who” behind the string of events, and I don’t think we can expect her to answer those questions. She doesn’t have the skill sets needed to address such issues, which involve policy at an international level and scientific expertise that is not available in the best university library, Consequently, I believe It would be most helpful if she were to use her skills to analyze what happened at the Pentagon in the same manner that she approached the World Trade Center site. Perhaps a similar in-depth review of that situation would throw some light on the validity of the entire narrative..

        7. I won’t step through your message here, lophatt, because it is too lovely in every verse, and I can’t add anything to it. But I will mention this: anyone who feels “called” to run for Congress is a person we must hold in the most suspicion. I have known some of them over the years, and most people I associate with endorse these fellows. I keep silent, most of the time, because, again, no one wants to hear the truth.

          I’ll give an example to the contrary. Mitch Daniels was the governor of my state for eight years. He set the place right. He made real enemies in doing so, but he didn’t care. He’s independently wealthy, and only wished to to do the right thing for the people of Indiana, even if he was hated by the people who wished for the status quo to continue. Many people wanted him to run for president, based on his record as governor, but he had no desire. Able to do nothing if he wanted to, he accepted the offer to become the President of Purdue, a public school of great esteem.

          He made himself a lightning rod of tremendous hatred. The university has had no increase in tuition since he has been there. He has cut everything to the bone. It is a gift to be cherished, a marvel to behold. He cares not that the academicians under his lordship hate him.

          And he cares not that many people wish for him to try to wild power on the national level.

          Such people are rare. We are lucky when they accept roles in the public sphere, at all.

          As for Christo’s comment, first, my computer can’t open the link you most recently provided, but second, if you honestly believe that “that there is no real science behind either the mini-nuke theory nor the directed energy explanation for the destruction of the twin towers,” as you say, there is no point in talking to you. You have not been listening. ALL the evidence points there.

          Finally, lophatt, Sofia would like to chat with you. Please give James an email address where she can contact you.

        8. Fogey, I’m not ignoring you. That’s interesting that no one knew of the hurricane in NYC. I really have not explored that angle. It would be logical to assume that, if a hurricane were headed your way they would issue warnings.

          My cursory thoughts were that she was making use of that to show that the “Tesla” technology was at work. There is a whole school of thought related to “scalar” energy that basically says that this huge power source is all around us and can be tapped at will. Perhaps she was trying to get her readers to draw conclusions from that.

          I am interested in the scalar research, but don’t know enough about it to be comfortable discussing the details. I have the most rudimentary understanding at this time.

          Outside of Judy Wood, and now you, I can’t recall anyone discussing this. When I think about it, it is hard to imagine it not being of consequence to those researching this early on. I know that there were measurements made of the dust that relied on drift patters, etc..

          I would imagine that a hurricane would have an impact on “drift patterns”. If my recollection serves me, it was a clear day. I suppose from her book she is trying to say that the weather pattern observed was actually evidence of a DEW.

          I’m going to look at that a little harder. To me, if the weather guessers were reporting a hurricane, and it just vanished, that would be newsworthy in itself.

        9. ” I suppose from her book she is trying to say that the weather pattern observed was actually evidence of a DEW.”

          When she spoke about Hurricane Erin originally she seemed to be trying to say that the hurricane was acting as a Tesla Coil and that the DEWs interacted in some way with that energy Tesla Coil energy.

          I conveyed this to Dr. Fetzer and he questioned her for clarification and he got the usual tap dance from her.

          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

        10. Chemical reactions

          Rust is another name for iron oxide, which occurs when iron or an alloy that contains iron, like steel, is exposed to oxygen and moisture for a long period of time. Over time, the oxygen combines with the metal at an atomic level, forming a new compound called an oxide and weakening the bonds of the metal itself. Although some people refer to rust generally as “oxidation,” that term is much more general; although rust forms when iron undergoes oxidation, not all oxidation forms rust. Only iron or alloys that contain iron can rust, but other metals can corrode in similar ways.

          The part that always gets me is “long period of time”. Then I think of storms, and hurricanes. Then I think Space-Time. Then I think about how long the bad guys have had to work on it. Lastly I see two buildings age 10,000 years before my eyes. Crazy, I know, but, never mind.

        11. Thank you lophatt and dachsielady for your comments on Hurricane Erin. I am glad to see that this question spurs interest in such careful researchers. What is amazing to me – putting aside any reference to the immense forces represented in a hurricane of this magnitude and whether they could have been drawn upon for the events of 9/11 – is how it was “arranged” that the newscasters who cover the weather in the newspapers, radio, and television did not mention this threat to the metropolitan area. As you know, they love to focus on such stories normally, and yet in this instance they ignored it. Who has the power to stifle such a major story? Just trying to solve this problem – which needs no scientific credentials, just access to the weather reporters themselves – would give us a large clue in trying to address the “who” and “why” questions we all have. Judy Wood’s chapter on this issue was very well done and I give her great credit for noticing this subject and trying to bring it to the attention of others who would be in a better position to follow-up on it than an engineer like her.. .

    2. I want to speak on the who, how and why discussion regrading 9-11. The what is easy: a combination of techniques some of which had never been witnessed by the public before. The why is easy: to implement a “new world order”, via the war on terror. The who is easy regarding where to start: the Mineta testimony is a clear indictment of Cheney.

      The discussion regarding the “how” details, while noteworthy, does not serve to rectify anything as far as I can tell.

      The machine may be too big to stop using conventional means. In my opinion, the only way we will ever see 9-11 justice is through an unconventional action or turn of events that no one could have predicted.

  14. Best case scenario is that it was a holiday-enhanced temper tantrum and he is now nursing a wounded ego. Hopefully, he will bounce back with some hard-earned wisdom, since he does have a lot of experience and knowledge to contribute. We don’t really know what demons and pressures he has to deal with, but enough frustration can bring out the worst in creative types, especially when dealing with such heavy issues and risk.
    More cynically, could be a pre-planned attention grabber to coincide with the release of the no money shebang, of course.
    I noticed he made one last Facebook post early on Dec. 31st, right after midnight. Before that, he was claiming the NSA was playing games with his online activity. It is possible they are, of course, but it is also easy to drift into paranoia or even to have it purposefully triggered.
    He also apparently has some “woo woo” type ideas, and/or religious tendencies. Paranoia and delusions of grandeur can interweave, but again I will add these sorts of states of mind can be purposefully triggered, at least according to targeted individual sites I’ve studied.
    Despite his explosive episode (all of the details leading up I’m also not privy to), I would like to point out he isn’t even close to Stanley Kubrick in weirdness. However, I fear that both of these men pushed the wrong people’s buttons as well.
    I’m a believer myself, so I will of course pray for him.

    1. Since we are on the topic of The WTC destruction, how about the recent revelations concerning the cozy relationship between Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie? Many have been wondering aloud why Jones and Christie have been so lovey dovey lately, with Christie seen palling around with Jones at the last several Cowboys games, the last of which Christie was flown to in Jones’ own private jet. It turns out that Christie was instrumental in the awarding of a contract to run the observation deck at the new World Trade Center tower to a company co-owned by Jones called Legendary Hospitality. Insiders project 835 million dollars in revenue over the next 15 years. I wonder if Jones is acquainted with WTC (pull it) lease holder “Lucky” Larry Silverstein who acquired the property in July 0f 2001 and took out a new insurance policy months before the “terrorist attack”? What is that old saying about – Birds of a feather, flocking together?

      1. Has anyone else here seen the HBO series “Boardwalk Empire”? Bela’s comment made me think of it. Art certainly imitates life, and it’s funny how these shows (books, movies, etc) are dangled under our noses with few making any correlation between what we’re shown and our own circumstances.

        I, too, was a great lover of The Arabian Nights when I was young. The stories captured my imagination like few Western stories ever could.

        1. Re: “Boardwalk Empire”: Bela’a reference about Chris Christie and Jerry Jones (two same-letter names)…the behind-the-scenes cavorting is what got me to thinking. How much must go on that we don’t know about: ball games, indeed!

          I have only recently stumbled on the show, but it captivated me and I’ve been binge-watching. I’m only halfway through Season 2, so I’m not too far along. But if one were to take the shenanigans of 1920s Atlantic City and just fast-forward to the modern day and apply globally…well, it kind of gives one a different perspective than is generally presented.

          (I’ve been posting on a mobile device, and it’s very laborious and often frustrating. Don’t know how kids do it.)

      1. “I know you have really been traumatized by this situation. But I ask you, when you walk out of this courtroom, leave it here. There is a path forward for you and you have what you need to go forward.”

        This quote from the judge in that rape case, sounds pretty murky. He must be referring to a secret settlement. “you have what you need”. I’m sure the PD there is scouting up a fresh batch of girls for the next installment in the program. They will never learn as long as the payoff money is stolen from the tax payer.

        1. Ha, ha! Devlin, the philosopher judge. Sounds a lot like “Sandy-babble”. It’s good to know that someone is looking out for these loyal officers. Who does she think she is, allowing herself to be raped like that?

          And, stealing from the dead? It’s an old tradition. How else are these defenders of freedom going to put food on their families? Sort of ironic that they put “seasons” on wild game. I guess it’s “open season” on us all the time.

        2. Thanks for the wonderful laughs, Lophat. This has been a great thread with lots of wonderful thread drift.

          I think Dubya said put food on your families. Dubya had some people from Mongolia over for dinner at the White House and he called them Mongoloids.

          “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.” John 1:5

  15. You appear to have a point about Trade Center ‘dustification, Lophatt. The Bush administration carted away the steel right away, but what happened to the rest of wreckage. I suppose Drs Fester, Woods, Jones, etc have to butt heads for a while in the hope of eventually coming to a consensus that is generally acceptable. It does require specialist knowledge, and is a specialist part of a general common sense view of the false flag. It is also conceivable, even likely, that all forms of explosives are not declassified.

  16. Re: William Shanley:whereabouts

    Marzi said: (January 8, 2015 at 7:56 pm)
    It would be helpful if Shanley turned up and explained his blackout, too. There is concern for his welfare.

    According to his YouTube channel, he subscribed to someone’s video “one day ago” i.e., yesterday, so it would seem he’s somewhere out there, still able to internet.

  17. Well speaking of missing persons and the government’s total disregard for the freedom of information act, this author has uncovered mysterious clusters of missing persons in the park system.

    Some were found in areas not humanly possible to get to on foot, and have no memory of what happened. Many news reports cover the initial reports of someone missing and then drop the story entirely. If you have a million dollars, the government may provide the missing data to a well published author.

    1. Skirt, that’s creepy stuff. I ran across this a couple of years ago. I didn’t get his book but I’m thinking about it now. I read some excerpts from it and some of the stories are very weird.

      In general the records kept on missing people, including kids, are not very good. I think many would be surprised to learn just what sort of numbers we’re talking about.

    2. I remembering hearing this man on CtC years ago. The majority of callers were concluding it was alien-related. I believe this story’s purpose is to further plant the seed of alien abduction. Considering how many network stations carry this story, I’m highly suspicious.

      1. Bethtwo – Your suspicions are probably correct. No doubt there are kidnappings and persons purposely running away from their situations, but it is odd this is the only author, based on a quick search, that covers the subject.

        Once I saw the huffpo picked up his story, that convinced me this is more manufactured news reinforcing the fear that you could just disappear without a trace or that the government has cancelled the freedom of information act.

        Took my daughter camping a lot and felt much safer there than in the big city!

        1. Skirt. Actually this guy’s been at this a while. I don’t have an opinion, per se, on it, but he has some bizarre stories. I spend a lot of time in the woods. I’m usually more wary of two-legged critters than the four-legged variety.

          Some of his tales, especially related to children, are hard to explain. I haven’t formed an opinion about them yet, but he has them pretty carefully verified. If one is observant, many things happen in nature that are hard to explain in conventional ways.

          Becoming alert and maintaining that alertness is good for us. It gets us back in touch with our instincts. The world is not a safe place, anywhere.

      2. Hi Bethtwo! I think the majority of listeners of that particular show are into alien stories. Unfortunately, it probably swayed the course of the interview (I’m guessing).

        I have long been interested to know just what the heck happens to all of the people that go missing every year.

        I think there are a certain number of people who just want to go missing, some who have legitimate accidents, some with chemical dependency / mental illness and simply wander off and some who just happen to cross paths with unsavory characters. But the sheer number of missing in certain areas seems to go outside of what one might consider normal.

      1. Attorney hired by the privacy loving Sandy Hookers is Donald Papcsy who bills himself as top personal injury lawyer in Connecticut. He has a fondness of suing municipalities and winning. He himself was sued not long ago.

        As we can see here, and again and again as the state is so small, they’re all connected somehow.,_Esq.

        “His partner, Donald Papcsy, is a regular guest on TruTV as a legal commentator and has also appeared on Nancy Grace, as well as CNN, most notably involving the Michael Skakel trial and Martha Moxley murder in Greenwich, CT.”

    1. The drill continues. Here we get a little “credibility” (and it pays). It’s a shame they bulldozed the school. They could have gotten the contractor back for another bite of the apple to fix the “deficiencies”.

      This is truly the gift that keeps on giving. I have a mental image of fat men sitting around a table piled with money smoking Cuban cigars (they’re legal now!). More pine trees for Israel, or cedars for Pakistan.

    1. bren, thank you for the link. In case this does not print out, Jonathan Reich is awaiting plea and next activity is scheduled in Hartford Community Court on June 14, 2016.

      2016 – you read that right.

      REICH JONATHAN 1990 Hartford Comm Court Awaiting Plea 06/14/2016 10:00 AM H14C-CR13-0116876-S

  18. Shanley’s kooky behavior is the hallmark of a government shill.

    Other examples of “legit” characters:

    Nakoula Brassley was the “Christian movie director” who made the short film INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS. Obama blamed that 3-minute YouTube video for “triggering Benghazi.”

    But when public scrutiny heated up, CIA vanished Brasseley by……. ARRESTING HIM on bogus charges and putting him out of view.

    They made a wise choice because Nakoula Brasseley turned out to be a MOSLEM agent hired by CIA to play the role of Christian filmmaker as a cover story for the Benghazi attack.

    The propaganda lesson was supposed to be “Don’t criticize moslems, or else they will riot and kill people, and it will be YOUR fault for speaking out about moslems.”

    Other FedGov shills include Loretta Fuddy who was installed as Hawaii DOH Director to release Hussein’s forged birth certificate. After serving her purpose, Fuddy was vanished when her plane splashed down off Molokai and she walked off the plane, then “dropped dead.”

    The government redacted Fuddy’s autopsy, then changed the cause of death. Months later, they changed the cause of death again.

    In other words, Loretta Fuddy isn’t dead.

    Another example is Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone reporter whose Mercedes exploded into a fireball, sending the engine block 150 feet from the car.

    MSM printed the same frantic talking points, emphasizing that Hastings was “working on stories about CIA Director JOHN BRENNAN” when he frantically emailed a friend to say FBI was investigating him, so he needed to “go off the grid for awhile.”

    Late that night, Hastings supposedly died in a bizarre car explosion.

    In other words, CIA planted Hastings to scare the Media into believing “We better not print stories about the government or else they might car bomb us too.”

    When those deaths got stale, CIA magically found “video” of the Fuddy splashdown and the Hastings crash for the TV audience. Why did it take months for TVNEWS to “find” those videos? B/c CIA was busy manufacturing those videos.

    Hastings isn’t really dead.

    Fuddy isn’t really dead.

    Shanley is a shill who wasn’t fooling anyone — so CIA ended his storyline by “arresting” him before his terrible acting (from the GENE ROSEN Drama Academy) embarrassed the government any further.

Leave a Reply