Sandy Hook — Creating Reality

A TNN Redux of a Sofia Smallstorm Presentation

When I saw ‘Unraveling Sandy Hook in 2, 3, 4 and 5 Dimensions’ by Sofia Smallstorm I could finally see partially-formed explanations for Sandy Hook and realistic, possible motives. I got a rush from once again feeling that the veil was lifting. I’m always balancing on the edge of fact-finding mode and taking-action mode.

All of my uncertainty acts to keep me researching away, which does help prevent the spinning of wheels or making mistakes that can’t be reversed. When I begin to have clarity it’s like being at the par-course. I know in which direction to go and get excited about the prospects of taking action. It’s also exciting to learn, as corny as that might sound.

Sandy Hook isn’t my first experience with manipulated events on a national scale. 9/11 was my introduction and the Aurora Batman theater shooting event was the last straw at which time I knew that I would have to start researching. It was just basic survival instinct.

After creating a blog and pumping out between 40 and 50 articles on an array of topics without taking a moment to promote them, my blog became a ghost town. My YouTube channel was the Internet calling out to me, to try my hand at videos covering the same topics I had been blogging about.

After Sofia’s video presentation hit the Web, and while everyone shared their opinions of the information and praised her for the effort, I set out to redux her presentation, to amplify and catapult it. So I made an attempt, and now you can see the result of that. Thankfully and with great thanks to Sofia, she approved of my idea and even consulted just to the point of keeping my version consistent with her findings while allowing me to apply my unique frame to what is nothing less than a work of alternative media art.

Now I see, as I hope others here will that putting together enough pieces of the Sandy Hook puzzle like a Prosecutor building a case is possible. This is true, despite the State and the media assuming the authority to keep most unbecoming details a secret. There is hope, and it will never be too late. It may not be possible to know exactly when, but world-impacting events do and will happen again. Maybe something presented here will be the spark that begins the unraveling, a word that I credit use of to Sofia. Imagine what the impact of unraveling Sandy Hook might be. Would it leave in its wake a trail to Aurora? Would that, then lead to the final pieces needed to reverse 9/11? It might.

Peter Klein
staff (at)

279 thoughts on “Sandy Hook — Creating Reality”

    1. There is alot of interesting information in the appendices to the report. Lanza’s “suicide shot” apparently went in the rear part of his head and exited the front upper part of his head going through his hat. How did Lanza shoot himself in the back of the head ?

      Additionally the report indicates that Lanza was found in room 10 yet in the preliminary interviews Lt Vance stated unequivocally that Lanza was found in the hallway.

      The report asserts that the last shot was at 9:40 am yet review of the police audio and 911 calls clearly have shots well thereafter. My approximation is at about 9:46:50 am was the last shot I detected. FYI

      Newtown was recently covered with snow. As of yesterday several people evidently visited the grave sites of some of the children buried together in the local cemetery.

        1. Soon after the event they showed some of the families having burials in the towns that they originally lived in. The one I have the clearest memory of is Emilie Parker and family.

        2. “Are all the children supposedly buried in the same cemetery” – is one of those simple but profoundly meaningful questions which opens up huge possibilities.

          I want to go back and see if they are mostly buried together, because to me that would indicate intent to deceive, given that each child had a fairly affluent family and mass graves are not the rule for people with families in peace time.

          Each of those graves is going to be exhumed if there is ever an investigation into this. To my knowledge, there was not an allegation of cremation, was there? Perhaps to some religions (Jewish observant) and others trying to be traditional, this would not be permitted, so to stay in character they would have to stick with tradition, even if the bodies were mangled.

          But we are not trying to prove this happened, only that the underpinnings of any fictional event like this can never go from 2-D to 3-D without loss of sense. 3-D cannot ever exactly fulfill 2-D, not even on Property Brothers.

    2. A few additional observations:

      The Parker family picture at 41:32 was analyzed and the individual doing the analysis demonstrated that Emily’s hair on the right side was perfectly aligned at the pixel level further augmenting your conclusion that she was pasted in.

      Vicki Soto’s picture with her family appears to have the same linear track on her right arm. see 44:10

      The Dr. William Begg avoided answering the question when asked if he treated the victims- he said ” I was there when the victims came in”.

      The picture of Ann Marie Murphy at 43:23 appears to be a different person by the same name. That woman apparently is an officer in a town called Darwin.

      1. Two small contributions, Carl, to your observations…in the Parker family photo-shopped photo, re the middle child’s hands, the one in her mouth (said to be an Illuminati sign), is much smaller than the other one. These gaffs are meant to throw it in our face as a joke, I would say. The pixel line of inquiry isn’t as noticeable to the untrained eye, but the hands stand out.

        Second, the Doctor’s (Begg) testimony shows him to be a worse actor than Robbie Parker. He is so unconvencing, it is laughable. And it is only laughable because if you couldn’t laugh, you would weep at how far our country has fallen. And weep that no one gets it; that most are so self-satisfied within their bubbles, they don’t care. That is why the PTB don’t worry about us. We are a minor impediment to power.

        1. I find it interesting that Dr. Begg came right out and said “Dunblane Dunblaene!” which is exactly the scenario this event was attempting to recreate. All semi auto firearms were confiscated and the Port Arthur version did the same in Austrailia. The people handed over their guns in masses and they fully expected to get away with that here. Bit this is America baby from our cold dead hands you’ll get them.

  1. Regarding all the helicopter footage and the photos of all the goings on outside the school and fire house. Do we know if that was even filmed the same day? Also police radio recording, everything? Could that have been shot on a weekend? BTW, the parkinglot is in very poor condition, much worse than any of the other schools in CT I have looked at via Google Maps…

    1. “Do we know if that was even filmed the same day?”

      What’s more important. perhaps, is that the camera was set up to record it. Why?

      “BTW, the parkinglot is in very poor condition”

      More than one person here has pointed out that the handicap parking is still remarked in yellow at that place, when for years it has been changed to blue; no school would not be at the van with that kind of thing, especially such a rich world as this.

      It’s all fake.

      1. All right. I did not proofread this; so rather than allow it to remain a complete embarrassment, I will fix it and present the original idea, expanded (forget the one this replaces):

        “Do we know if that was even filmed the same day?”

        What’s more important, perhaps, is that a camera was set up to record it. Why? If it was the same day, sure, I guess a fixed camera (but not really “fixed”, because it zooms, and does other things, but the point is it is there, and stays fixed most of the time) is odd enough; why was a fixed camera there? But, If it was recorded another day, why would they make it look so fake?

        “BTW, the parkinglot is in very poor condition”

        More than one person here has pointed out that the handicap parking is still marked out in yellow at that place, when for years the new standard has been changed to blue; no school would fail to be up to date with that kind of thing, especially such a rich one as this.

        It’s all fake.

        1. It would be impossible to get a film crew in the air to film anything at SHES while it was happening, such as the men on film running in the woods. From the initial time of the “9-11” calls to the men captured on film in the woods was no more than seven minutes. I do not know of any air response that could be done that quickly by a film crew that was not already there in the first place.

          Yes, Sandy Hook Elementary School was nothing more than a Drill. I find it remarkable that all of the cars in the parking lot are govt type four door sedans in black, gray, and dark blue. No sign of any Toyota’s in that parking lot such as Red Prius’s, yellow Corollas, no soccer mom mini-vans, just the drab colors of communist cars, lol! The only cars addressed is the one belonging to Christopher Rodia, (how on earth did Lanza get access to that car, lol!) and the one with the fake bullet holes assigned to Lauren Roussert, the Canadian.

          Some day, someone’s conscious has to get the best of them and they will come forward with real, damning evidence.

        2. You’re right, and I never thought of that before about the helicopter footage. Same thing with the Robbie Parker “leaked” clip of him smiling and then getting into sad dad mode for the camera. That footage must be immediately traceable by the perps. It got out so fast, and was a key piece of media that caused a lot of people to question the event. How many layers are we talking about here? Drill within a hoax within a psyop.

        3. I challenge anyone to locate a current interview, either written or video, of Gene Rosen. I have not heard of him since January in any circle. My concern is that he fouled up so badly in his interviews that he received the hypothetical injection between his toes and suffered a fatal heart attack. I do believe that some died not at Sandy Hook but because of Sandy Hook. When the government deems you no longer useful, well loose ends and loose lips need to be forever silenced. The probability of key witnesses in the Newtown area who we will never hear from again is very high.

        4. Gene appears to be running a petsitting service, but he changed the name from the first one he had. Search on “Gene’s Trusty Pet Service, LLC.”

        5. The fixed camera I was referring to was the one observing the Fire House, where we see people leaving the front, wandering around to the back to reenter the building, and start all over again. i

        6. I had judged the “fixed camera” of the firehouse footage to be not from a helicopter but from a drone. It was a very stable image. Also, I only recall seeing one woman motion to another that there was something airborne overhead.

          Either the folks on the ground were used to hearing the helicopter sound overhead and were unusual in that the didn’t look up…or, the footage was filmed from a drone at height.

          Drones are used a good deal now in movie production due to the cheaper operational cost and flexibility, so this is not a completely “out-there-conspiracy-theory” idea.

    2. I think what we can conclude is that the chase occurred after SWAT cleared the little shed because the door was open. Hence it occurred sometime later than the initial activities. Many people erroneously assume the confrontation on Crestwood occurred (two shadows running past the gym) at the time these individuals were running into the woods on the helicopter video. We know that is not the case because the two shadows running past the gym was prior to any LE arrival.

    3. I think all of the video footage we were shown was filmed well in advance of the hoax. To me, the “landscape” all says early autumn, not mid December…at least not in the northeast. The people walking around aren’t wearing what I consider to be winter coats, and they don’t appear to be cold either. When I first saw the video of the press conference with Dr. Carver and his band of merry men, that was supposedly filmed the day after the event, I noticed they too…especially Carver…were not dressed for temperatures in the 30s. Carver is wearing a flimsy lab coat and the police aren’t wearing winter coats either, yet none of them appear to be cold. I live in the south, but I know that even here it is cold in the middle of December. Of course, this is trivial information compared to the much more serious problems displayed in that video, i.e. Carver acting like he belonged in the mental institution that was once nearby, police officers trying not to laugh, Carver saying they left the bodies in the school and removed them during the night, not to mention the impossibility of the time frame he gave for when they finished their work and moved all of the bodies to Farmington around 1:00 a.m. The lies and deceit that surround this whole tawdry tale are too many to mention!

      1. On 12-14-12, the High Temp was 46F and the low was 21F in Newtown, CT….

      2. It could have been filmed around Nov 30, 2012 when Eric Holder visited Newtown, CT. At that time, the afternoon highs were in the upper 50s with lows in the 40s. It appears that is what the temps were when this Drill was filmed, based on attire, demeanors, etc.

        1. It is right from the government’s own website…. it was 11-27-12 to be exact… USDOJ: Project Longevity Launched to Reduce Gang and Gun

  2. I’m glad this was assembled to focus on some of the worst anomalies – like the image of an Advent Calendar as an organizer.

    Medical Examiner Carver when I first saw him, after the fanfare before wheeling him out for the press conference (if that’s what it was) merely seemed to be trying to convey hard-boiled professionalism with his inappropriate humor. Then it became clear this was “improv” and he knew he was probably pulling contradictory evidence out of his ass, so he waiting for a cue from reporters. One of them reminded him that the long rifle he said was the weapon had been found in the car and not on the scene. So perhaps he would later fudge and hand-wave. I believe his next remarks were designed for this contingency – where he limited the number of victims he actually saw to a small sample. He didn’t get rid of his contradiction – the long rifle – but he obfuscated so someone on his alleged staff who “to a man” showed blah, blah professionalism (as opposed to what – do medical examiners dance with corpses in selfies when they are not being professional). This guy is winging it in the interview, and he is not enough of a sociopath to carry it off perfectly.

    1. I reviewed this interview with Carver and it seems that the remark about the long rifle came after he praised the professionalism of men under his command. But then the subject turned to caliber of bullets and nature of injuries, so it is hard to say what prompted the “reporter” or reporter to ask the question then on what may have actually been a “closed set” rather than a real interview situation. What could be the need here prompting contradictions? Perhaps it is to make the story seem too complex to be faked, to put shading into it so that it resembles reality and not a memorized script? Perhaps it is to show that in spite of Carver’s long experience as a coroner, he was flustered by the mass casualty event, though not so much as to disqualify him for real ones in the future, although from looking at him, he appears to be on the brink of retirement and thus his performance would not be so critical as in a guy with a career ahead of him.

      1. Very interesting comments. I spent a lot of time on various parts of this video, as you can imagine. In doing so, I did catch something that although not definitive in any way still helps me to more accurately understand that press conference.

        When asked by the reported which caliber of bullet had caused the injuries, Carver turns his head to the right, to Vance who answers on his behalf. That part isn’t likely uncommon, as Carver himself said right in his statements that he knows better than to get into the criminal details of the investigation. What I noticed though, was how when the question was asked and when he turned and allowed Vance to reply his expression became similar to that of a child, looking for acceptance or possibly a guilty expression seeking forgiveness.

        I hope a shill doesn’t come along and leave a sarcastic remark implying that I can only be making a mountain of a mole-hill. That would really be devastating. 😉 Check it out, though. I’m not convinced, however that the reporters present were all reading from a script. It appears to me more likely that most were authentic. I leave it up to you and others to gauge how accurate the meter of authenticity is amongst the reporters recognized by officialdom.

        1. The perception of authencity would have been more throughly achieved had the Medical Examiner worn an identification badge on his clean and neatly pressed white lab coat.

      2. I’m sticking with my long held theory that he had dropped acid, and he was tripping at the time. Is there a better explanation of his behavior?

        1. He is nervous, cos he has been trapped in a bigger crime than he anticipated. The psyop was hijacked by local nut jobs. He is definitely the most competent person in this crappy farce, and to him it is obvious that the local idiots have deviated from the original script and are now risking the whole operation: “… crash on the had later”.

        2. Patrick, I feel like I dropped acid and am tripping. If I had known the rabbit hole would take another leap to this level here I would have perhaps waited to adapt before going all rabid dog on the holocaust issue. Glad to see you are already on it, Nobody can say pyramidiots are not good for anything.

          Once again, am I ever weirded out. and I am used to weird things. It must be tough on people who stumble onto this and are not used to weird things.

  3. Peter, thank you for taking the time to make this embellishment of my talk, and thanks also to JFT for putting it up here!

  4. One question not completely addressed – were the participants in Sandy Hook on mind control autopilot to spread disinfo? It’s hard to believe so many would participate without a heavy dose of hypnotism to chase away any moral compunctions. They looked looped on CBS. They could easily have been turned into sociopaths. If as Sophia points out they had gov issued cars, hypnotism by the gov could have been de riguer.

    Here’s the worst piece of journalism yet from Alex and Paul but they do raise the issue relating mind control and public consumption shootings and bombings. Their main topic is so poorly covered they don’t even mention that Tamerlan was no where near the smoke bomb sites and said on a video he didn’t do it to police pointing weapons at him……, and with Holmes they fail to mention he let others in the theater who shot the place up. These details are important. Still waiting for Alex and Paul to cover Sandy Hook.

    1. Is there anything worse than the smug self-satisfied drone of Paul Joseph Watson’s voice? All he does now is pretty much pathetically attempt to debunk conspiracies. Pretty soon the Alex Jones empire will merge with that of Drudge. What a joke.

      1. Alex Jones, although having addressed many false flags, including Sandy Hook, has never come right out and called it what it is….a complete Hoax. I do find that somewhat troubling since this is the only false flag that has been perpetrated in the past decade that is a complete slam-dunk of a case for being a complete Hoax.

        1. Alex Jones in not always the most serious person, often he stretches the “truth” and spreads inaccurate details, and even complete BS. But he is definitely not a shill! He is far more intelligent than most people, and there is a bit of a gap there between himself and much his audience, and I think that is one reason why there are so many misunderstandings that he is a shill etc. AJ deals in wholesale not retail, small details does not always concern him!

        2. If he would say it was a psyop, the MSM would use that agains him (w o mercy), and he would have no way to defend himself. MSM decides what is reality!

        3. Yes he is a shill. Don’t give me some BS excuse that they can’t come out and say this. They aren’t on the MSM. They’re job (allegedly) is to tell the truth. Tracy investigates the hoax angle. The media goes after him. But he doesn’t care. Now go mull that over while you drink some Enerfood mixed in some water out of your Big Berkey while you count the gold you bought from Midas Resources. Because it will save you in societal breakdown, well maybe if you use a gold bar as a weapon. The Big Berkey is probably a good product, just sayin’.

        4. But does he have to say it wasn’t a hoax? There are 20 ways to tell the story—why go down that angle. Watson has categorically stated this event was not a hoax. Why?

          This is where any defense of Alex Jones has to stop. If he only wants to cover certain aspects of what happened, that’s fine. Cover the Brothers of the Boston Marathon and not Jeff Bauman’s inability to bleed and magical hair. But don’t tell me cries of a hoax are from mentally ill mouths. Cover Adam Lanza by debunking the assertion that it’s impossible for a scrawny kid to complete such an assault. Don’t go into disinformation about mind control and super drugs for a man that has not be proven to exist. This implies he does exist and did carry out the impossible.

          PJW has become rather suspicious. I’d rather not get into suspecting everyone but what can you do. Maybe he’s a simpleton; maybe worse.

          The comment about Jones wanting to merge with Drudge says something. Listeners of the show who really listen should note some major changes in the Infowars project in the last year or so. Jones has even said nutty things line Drudge is on the front-line of the infowar. Only as a partisan disinformation specialists, he forgot to add. What exactly has Drudge done to spread the truth about the NATO death machine destroying Syria? Nothing. He’s come up zero on almost every important account. But he gets lots of hits so I’m supposed to feel belittled? Ah—no!

        5. I’m thinking that because the event was focussed on dead children AJ might not have wanted to offend any listeners still sitting on the fence. Also, sometimes it’s a pretty scary thing to come out and say exactly what you believe. For example, are you posting under your real name? I’m just saying, it can be tricky.

        6. I would bet the farm that this was a 100% hoax, every single bit of it, and I am not afraid to tell anyone about it.

      2. no way, paul was the most articulate person on the crew before he really started to be alex’s lapdog and go with the no hoax angle on all these latest false flag’s. it is really too bad that they value public perception more than truth, but whatever.

        1. There has been a noticeable deterioration in what Alex and Paul are permitted to say in the last few months. They only give so much of the story if it’s about a hoax and not the full truth – just enough to maintain their following and sell books and products on the website.

  5. Very nicely done, thanks.

    Just to add my thoughts to those above, in my opinion, the actual existence of “Adam” is questionable, yet alone his “suicide”. How he met his “demise” (whether in this veil or on the cutting room floor) is unresolved.

    As Don says “the appearance of the event and the reality of the event are two separate things”.

    I believe the helicopter footage was probably shot at another time. Logic would work against it magically appearing on cue. There are reports of earlier drills and it isn’t that difficult to intersperse footage. Think of the “St. Rose of Lima” shot of the Stasi rushing the building. That was another drill.

    As to the infamous Carter interview, there is another version I ran across. I haven’t been able to relocate it. It had the same basic footage but was longer. In that one you could see Carver joking with the “reporters”. It was obvious to me that it was a staged part of a drill. The reason he seems so strange is that people often feel strange when they are ad libbing a made up story. I think it was a part of a drill where he was supposed to be doing the “presser” and he was just “shooting from the hip”.

    As to “mind control”, that is indeed an interesting question. Certainly not all participants would have been subject, at least not directly. My suspicion is that different actors had different ideas as to what their participation meant. Some were volunteers for the drills. Some were paid actors. Some were agents. That this was conceived, collected, presented and sustained is insulting and frightening.

    Of course there’s the gun confiscation angle, but that is much too simplistic and obvious. This was practice for them as well as us. Some degree of trust and faith is required to respect any government. The “press” was designed to act as a “watchdog” to enable us to know what the government was up to. We have reached a point where the old Pravda and TASS would blush.

    It is undeniable that they “pushed the envelope” with this one. Ridiculous characters, storyline, and social memes seemed designed to test the limits of credulity. This is more than a local “tragedy”, it is a national insult. It shows the utter contempt with which the current crop of controllers hold their victims. This, along with its sequel in Boston, is revolting.

    1. For what it’s worth Lanza was previously verified on the selective service website. His social security number and birth date were readily available on the internet. His birth date and age were confirmed at 20 years old. For whatever reason he can not be verified currently. I don’t know if they purge files after death, purged him specifically, or if the web site has problems but I cannot replicate that verification. Local High School kids stated that in fact the video of him dancing on the DDR game at the theater is in fact really him. I was also told there is a photo of him out there somewhere with some of the local high school girls however I have not been able to locate that picture.

      If I could I would FOIA his drivers license picture because I don’t know why the media uses the photo shop fabrication of his face. There must be a reason they avert the use of his license picture.

      I think the dash cam videos will provide some good insight but I wonder if those will be released.

      1. Carl,

        “Local High School kids stated that in fact the video of him dancing on the DDR game at the theater is in fact really him.”

        Is this YOUR quote? If so, you need to not only make that clear, but you need to be much more specific.

        If this information about the “Local High School kids” is something you are paraphrasing from somewhere, would you kindly cite the source.

        1. John

          I investigated the source of the original video and ascertained it was on the FB page of a local high school kid posted at or about June 2012. The video, apparently, was lifted and by someone else and posted on youtube. I contacted someone who has a kid in that circle of friends of the original FB poster. She told me that her kid had seen a picture of Lanza with some girls from the local high school (Not Newtown). The kid affirmed that in fact the video of Lanza on the DDR machine in the Lowes theater is legit- for what it’s worth

        2. Note the remarkable, scrupulous, detail Carl includes in his investigative reporting. “a local high school kid,” “someone else,” “someone who has a kid,” “her kid had seen,” “some girls,” “the kid affirmed.”

          The “Carl” persona won’t continue much longer. He/she will still be paid to muck up this place, but, I predict, will soon cease to plague us under that name. I don’t know if he/she can be as clever again as the “Carl” persona has been in tricking us for so a long time. It will be fun to see.

      2. The person on the DDR machine is a woman not a male person!

        Did you meet with these kids that gave you this info? where does it come from?

        1. Col Bat. My friend’s daughter is in a high school in an adjacent town. (for obvious reasons I am not referencing specifics-my comments you can take at face value for what it’s worth- I have no motive to lie and if I was going to lie it would be about much more interesting stuff)

          A boy with whom she is very familiar at the same high school took a video of the individual (allegedly Lanza) on the DDR machine at Loews theater in Danbury Connecticut. I actually found the post on his FB page in June of 2012. There is no reference to Adam Lanza the only caption is “this guy is sick”. So this was long before Adam Lanza became ADAM LANZA.

          The video was posted on youtube recently by somebody who copied it off of his FB page. I don’t know if anyone know’s the youtuber’s identity. My friend’s daughter confirmed that was in fact Adam Lanza and that there was also a photo of him with girls from her school. I could not locate that picture.

          Do I know for sure if that is Adam Lanza ? No. Based on what I learned am I inclined to believe that is Adam Lanza ? Yes. Is this at all significant ? Not too much IMHO but it corroborates that element of the police report.

          The Boy had a future as a dancer no doubt about it. A Chorus Line maybe ?

    2. This claims to be the full unedited press conference with Carver.

      Key questions they don’t ask –

      How usual is it for the pathology team to visit dead victims at the place of death?

      Why weren’t the victims transported to hospital, pronounced and then taken to the mortuary in the usual way?

      Who DID pronounce the victims?

      And when?

      1. I would say it would be VERY unusual if not never done. In most states (if not all), it has to be an M.D. that pronounces death. I suppose, just to play along, that he could be referring to those who took the alleged pictures. Under the circumstances, we all know they would have been evacuated to hospitals, dead or not. The post mortems would follow, no hurry.

        We have the E.R. doctor claiming to have seen lots of victims. We have the other story of two or three wounded. You choose. From the coverage it would seem that nobody was transported, kids at any rate.

        I have not seen this version. I saw another very much like it, but different. The angles of the shots were different, farther back, and he was laughing and joking with the ‘reporters”. To me it looked like part of a drill. He probably had to reshoot it.

        While there are so many holes in this story that it is hard to have a “favorite”, this may be it. Do people actually believe that they kept the EMT’s out and let the kids lie there? Where’s the blood. If they tracked back and forth all night in there you would see footprints.

        This alone is total B.S.. If they actually did this for real there would be people screaming for somebody’s head. Don’t you think one of the “parents” would sue? “How do you know little Johnny was dead?”.

        My guess is that the “presser” was part of the drill. The complete package was turned over to the MSM. That explains the lack of multiple angles, etc., from all the “reporters” present. The “reporters” were actors.

        1. Sandy Hook has a complete lack of lawsuits, from frivolous to bona fide. Not one single lawsuit with 26 supposed deaths and 2 injuries??? If it were real, there would be lawsuits up the yazoo!

        2. Considering that multiple teachers were unable to lock their doors you would imagine the attorneys would be bumper to bumper on exit 10 in Newtown trying to get to the victims families. Can you imagine what might be revealed if witnesses are deposed ?

        3. “Can you imagine what might be revealed if witnesses are deposed ?”

          Since there was nothing to witness, it’s hard to imagine anyone going under oath to testify, so no, I can’t imagine it.

        4. That’s not something easily proven. Like you, I appreciate that it would be impossible because it didn’t happen; but to claim there aren’t any lawsuits – without having proof – doesn’t really assist.

        5. Re: medical industry, for that’s what it is…a friend was in nursing school in the last couple of years, and reported to me that she was afraid, either before applying or during it I can’t recall, to challenge an abusive landlord in court because she was had heard that these schools and hospitals will often check for litigiousness on someone’s record. She felt this was related to the fact that the medical profession wants only obsequious nursing staff as MD’s are increasingly feeling that their godlike status is falling. I link it to the whole complex of Big Government tyranny, as common sense decency deteriorates and the ‘licensed professionals’ will have to toe the line more and more for the despots. It’s all related is what I’m saying, and lawsuits are probably not the only concern the medical establishment has when it comes to making sure the ‘lower level’ people like RN’s, etc., are not independent thinkers (which takes for granted that MD’s will have a monetary and psychological compensation for being tools of tyranny…)

        6. Should organize my posts better…but I think blood is a major taboo that needs to be acknowledged here. Even as I read recent comments I’m having to overcome the impulse to repress any questioning of the bodies’ status. Blood is a taboo I’d suspect in any culture, but in a puritannical anglo-based one especially there’s probably more latent repression than we realize inside of us. So they may have been counting on that block in our psyches to prevent any challenge to all the flagrantly obvious problems everyone brings up.

      2. I see no reason why the kids could not be presented to the parents (unless shot in the face). If they were as claimed shot with Hollow Point varmint loads, the destruction should be very local w o many, if any, exit wounds. Ive shot vermin with this kind of ammo and they usually have a small entry hole and no exit hole. The idea with this kind of load, is to preserve the coat so it can be sold w o any large holes in them.

        1. A .223 round will penetrate and exit a fully grown and fully dressed adult, even if hollow-point ammo when fired from a long barrel, and leave two small caliber holes, and continue travelling through wood, windows, desks, etc. until the round comes to rest. The ballistics report in Sandy Hoax Elementary School is total nonsense. The round reported has muzzle velocity of over 2700 fps, moderate energy, and extreme penetration. A varmint round is more akin to .17hmr, and .22-250 and even .22lr, all which can be quite deadly on their own.

      1. Thank you. My reason for mentioning the lawsuits is as John says above. Given the litigious culture we live in does anybody actually believe there would be none? None = no victims. Just like you can’t make blood disappear magically and nobody, even “professionals” who work around it manage to walk through a bloody crime scene without getting any on them or tracking it on the floor.

        When we get distracted by talking about the nature of “Adam’s” “suicide”, or some other meaningless detail we tend to forget that none of this happened. It’s made up. When you make things up you can invent anything you like. Did you know that “Adam” liked to skydive? No, really! He was more or less normal looking and really good at jumping out of airplanes. Did I mention that Nancy was an ace pilot? One day when she and Anderson Cooper were out for a hop with “Adam” he leaped from the plane. Given his “condition” he had failed to don his parachute. Luckily for him Anderson phoned one of his media buddies and a news chopper was able to intercept the hapless “Adam” before he reached terminal velocity. He’s worn that look ever since. Honest.

        1. I would totally agree that the absence of ANY lawsuit by anyone, not just the students who were directly affected would be highly unusual. The whole demeanor of the families, is kind of “Stepford” and I was watching The Manchurian Candidate the other day, what struck me was the consistency of the stories and affected manner of the families, as if everyone was told over and over again (i.e. brain-washed) to say the same things, to behave the same way. I don’t believe it’s just bad acting.

        2. Sometimes I wonder if Gene Rosen is really a hero, and not a villain based on his completely unscripted bad acting, perhaps done intentionally to send us a slam dunk message that wasn’t authorized. That is why we have never heard from or of him again.

  6. Just an observation. As Medical Examiner Carver is explaining to the media how pictures of the victims were shown to their parents and relatives for means of identification, watch how the short, balding Connecticut State Trooper to our left of Lt. Vance, clearly turns to someone and offers a knowing wink at 19:29 of the Sandy Hook- Creating reality video. I often find the behavior of the “extras” in the crowd almost as interesting as the front and center performers.

    1. I caught the wink, of the left eye of the bespectacled bald guy to the viewer’s right of Carver. It was a very deliberate one, which seemed to bookmark or to hit some mark about forensic identification through photographs. Later we are to hear from that “mother” who smiled about her daughter’s loss and how she was an angel with her whole class and principal, that the first time she “saw” her daughter was her white casket and that she’d brought marker pens so they could decorate it the way kids would a leg cast (hey, neat segue to Boston Marathon amputees!). Obviously there is a credibility problem with using photos to identify dead children, perhaps some violation of Connecticut and federal law, because it is not the best evidence for those making an identification. Even DNA doesn’t cut it, because DNA could be taken from a living person. This whole story is setting things on a framework of illegality and the participants are public officials.

      It isn’t a series of drills, it is a series of evidence of a coup d’etat.

      1. Oh, and one more thing. H. Wayne Carver II, as of February 2012, ten months before Sandy Hook, withdrew his resignation, which began with facing an enquiry in March, 2004, due to bodies stacking up at the state medical examiners office. Clearly, evidence was rotting on his watch and prosecutions would be harder to win.

        Take a look: he was facing BIG problems (all the way back in 2004)— “State Medical Examiner Withdraws his Resignation”
        Dated Feb 15, 2012. Ken Dixon author

        I think others made some observation about the backstory on this guy. But interesting if he was drawn into the Sandy Hook hoax about the time
        he withdrew his resignation in 2012.

        So a wink – might be about covering the promise made to him about participating here. It could be a lot more corrupt in that state than anyone realizes. This way, he can get his pension and go out with a clean record, because he did this favor.

        1. You’ll have to google the story to find it – the link disappeared. I have interpreted this my own way — his job was in trouble. There may be other explanations for his participation.

        2. Has this site explored the Aurora shooting much? Last I checked people questioned superficially, and mentioned the Libor scandal, etc., but I didn’t know so many seemed to think the whole thing was staged as some posters mention here and in recent threads. I believe it may have been seriously massaged, but not wholly staged, but am not certain. Alex Teves’ father and girlfriend so far present the main evidence supporting the idea that people did get shot – exactly who and by whom, etc. is up for grabs IMO.

        3. Sue
          My gut feeling is that this in another government staging of events. The family coming out, a reporter being seriously faced with jail time for not revealing her law enforcement sources that declared he told his doctor in advance of his plans. The obviously shaken reporter, was just one NY judge away from going to jail in CO. It is another attack on one of our rights – freedom of the press. The story was not supposed to be that our mental health system is totally …. not in the best interest of those they are supposed to be serving.

        4. Musings, all good points. I personally don’t put much stock in the action of the assembled Stasi. I almost appears to be “green screened”. It would be easy to do. He could shoot his action and overlay it. There are other shots that appear to have the same assembled cast in the same positions. Just an observation.

          It’s hard to decide what may have motivated him. I read that he threatened to resign over budget cuts. Maybe they offered him a “faustian bargain”. Participate in the drills, the drills bring federal money, and we’ll up your budget. Who knows.

          There is that other story of him at a convention in Las Vegas being liquored up and saying that “nobody died at SHE”. I don’t know how valid the story is but it would be a keeper.

          If this was a crime scene the first order of business, after securing the shooter, would be transporting the wounded. I suspect they would take some hasty photos for use later in reassembling the scene, and get them out of there. They certainly would NOT let them lie there any longer than it took to get them in an ambulance or chopper.

  7. Orwell was an Amatuer.

    I’m a little late to the party. My first investigations into SH just confused me so I kept going back to 911 for my psyop investigations, but a few days ago I saw the laughing guy getting into character leak for the fist time and and that changed it.

    Now I am 50 mins into this vid and……

    1. The key to any of these “fakes” is the evidence will quickly disappear soon after or be discredited (you’re crazy). Like Oswald, Osama Bin Laden buried at sea, towers crumbling to the ground, lone gunmen being murdered or “killing themselves” and schools being demolished, it all has the same effect.

  8. On “Creating Reality”

    Can we to speak in layman terms because I think you will lose a lot of potential interest. I mean, is it important to be in the intellectual group if the **** hits the fan – because we know what usually happens to them, right, if history is a teacher? Alternatively, you can speak in terms that the average person out there can understand and perhaps get the word to spread on the street, which is where life happens and change can happen – right here, right now, this dimension. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the intellectual aspect and the concepts you’re trying to convey. I just question the relevance in this instance regarding the Sandy Hook event that can simply be called a big fat lie. Your research is appreciated.

    And, unless I missed something in one of these blogs – and feel free to point it out if I have – everyone seems to be missing that some of the media released photos have this stamp on them “CATERS NEWS AGENCY”. Try looking that up.

    I keep reminding myself… You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

  9. To clarify my above statement regarding Caters News Agency – this appears on a very few of the media released photos of the children. The ones I found were on photos of Grace McDonnell and James Mattioli. So if this agency was involved (heavily, I suggest, if they were) that would account for a lot including why the “give me money for our tragedy” Websites were ready to go the day after the event.

    Please look them up – click on “about Caters” – “…guaranteed to get the world talking”.

    (Not that there’s anything wrong with that?)

      1. Hey CE,

        Thanks for asking!

        Here’s the link. Scroll down to the photo of “Grace” – I call it “there’s no Grace in lying” – in the GREEN and BLUE patterned dress. Caters News Agency is clearly printed at the bottom of the photo.

        I’d love to get some feedback on this because I found this back in Jan/Feb when I did some research and I haven’t heard of anyone noting it. If I’m not mistaken, I’m thinking it’s a rather important piece of the puzzle.

        (It would take me some time to find the photo of James Mattioli with “Caters News Agency”, but it’s out there. I will find it when I have some time.)

    1. Lori, I may not totally understand what you’re trying to say. The “Caters News Agency” is a UK outfit that aggregates pictures and stories and such. They syndicate photos and articles.

      I’ll give this more thought but the obvious involvement would be that they needed photos and went looking for them. If they were real the parents would have had to provide them. I suppose they could be so crass as to think they’d make money from them. Selling photos of your dead child is so tacky!

      Beyond that, maybe I’m missing your point. When confronted with mysteries like this all I can do is to put on my “devil hat” and try to think of how I’d do this. That is no guarantee of accuracy.

      How hard would it be to get your hands on some old photos of kids? Of course there may have been some consideration for resemblance to your “Up With People” moms and dads. Or maybe you’d make your choices based on emotional appeal and just send them over to “Crisis Actors” with a requisition. Either buying a syndicated photo or syndicating a photo later is strange. Can they be that greedy? You don’t have to answer that.

      I suppose it boils down to “what would normal people do if they were going to design something like this?”. Of course, “normal” people don’t do things like this.

  10. I second Lori’s suggestions. Even as someone fairly versed in some of the foundation and various pillars of what holds up the argument and evidence for hoax, I find it sort of challenging to zoom in and out of micro and macro focus without very accessible language and explanations.

    Also, someone above mentions a drill within a hoax within a psyop. The psyop for me has yet to fully reify. But the drill within a hoax is a concept I can grasp, and which seems like the base level of understanding the foundation. Can someone remind me of whether there actually was a drill for this type of shooting that was enacted near Sandy Hook and if so, where and when? Thnx.

    My understanding is the drill may have been sort of conveniently ‘moved’ when a ‘real crisis’ emerged…which explains how some of the drill actors didn’t know it was all fake. I suspect the young teacher’s ‘family’ was acting on this level of knowledge for some reason. Maybe because they put so little inspiration into their performance…

    1. Drill within a hoax within a psyop is including the idea that certain “leaks” or obvious anomalies were placed into public view on purpose, like Robbie Parker’s gaffe at the podium. I used to wonder who uploaded the original clip, were they caught? Punished? Was it released to mess with our minds?

      1. I have to wonder about the obvious gaffs as well, and think they are there only to determine who is awake and who is still asleep and how much dumb the American public actually is now. It’s a little scary to think so few even care about this issue.

    2. Sue,

      In answer to your question about whether there was an active shooter drill in the vicinity on December 14, this is from the memoryholeblog Sandy Hook timeline:

      “Active shooter drill” exercise commences by Putnam County Emergency Response Team in Carmel, New York, 45 miles away from Newtown. “By grim coincidence, even as the terrible events were unfolding in Newtown on Friday morning,” the Southeast Brewster-Patch reports,

      “the Putnam County Emergency Response Team (“ERT”) happened to be assembled for regular training in Carmel, and team members were at that very moment engaged in a mock scenario of an active-shooter in a school. The ERT is comprised of specially trained and heavily armed officers from the Sheriff’s Office and the Carmel and Kent Police Departments. When news broke of the Newtown shooting, the Putnam County ERT commander called Newtown Police and offered to have the ERT respond to the Sandy Hook school, but that response was not needed because Connecticut police had already secured the scene.”

      1. Yes, the drills are important. It is a way to get resources to a site without gathering too much attention. It is a good way to get “volunteers” and “official” participation. I think we have to understand that not everybody knows what’s going on. They are just playing their assigned role.

        In this one the “media” cut all of this in a way to make the story. I don’t think the point of researching these is to get the PTB to change. It is to help people resist the manipulation. It is like a magician’s trick. Once you know what they are doing you aren’t dazzled any longer.

        For some it is as simple as knowing that they lie. If you know that they lie, and they’re capable of expanding a lie to this degree, why would you believe ANYTHING they tell you? Even when they are partially telling the truth they “massage” it to fit some useful meme.

        1. Just to clarify my last post, maybe the MOST important aspect of having a “drill” is that you are there to CONTROL THE SCENE. It wouldn’t do to stage one of these, have the cops show up, and take over.

          If you have all your “authorities” right there you can “assert” jurisdiction and the others will obey. So any non-participants get sent to the perimeter while the initiates take care of business.

        2. Are you saying that the drill was intended to be moved even though ‘authorities’ claim it wasn’t and was just a coincidence? I assume that’s what you mean, these extras were brought in and a core of A List ‘inhouse’ actors did the main work. I think the poster who claimed that Nancy Lanza and that Annie person who showed up at the vigil was the same A Lister is right. Only the eye and teeth color changes, and the pic circulated of ‘Nancy Lanza’ was that one with her eyes closed while posing on a boat which always seemed odd to me. But there can’t be that many A Lister’s right…so some people have to be doubled…

          I’m still wondering if people think the young woman teacher’s family were A Listers or just random drill people. Maybe they were told they were just standing in for a real victim’s family…but then there’d be the issue of how to keep them quiet…

          I can’t piece it all together but feel certain it was all staged, as evidence seems to strongly support.

        3. Sue, the official narrative says that a drill was scheduled for a nearby town. There had already been drills in Newtown previously. A local stated (quite believably), that when he drove by the firehouse early that morning there were lots of black and grey official cars and ambulances already there. This was before the event supposedly started.

          What I’m saying is that they use drills to get action shots, transmissions, etc., and they can “borrow” from those wherever they occur. They don’t necessarily have to follow a sequential order either. Just like hollywood movies, they are not filmed in sequence. They do that in the cutting room.

          Whether the “A” list actors were present or spliced in later doesn’t matter much. They need the action scenes and the sense of chaos, etc., to build upon. They can get to the puff pieces later.

          One byproduct of the scheduled drill is that some cops were aware of it and could be easily kept out, if needed, thinking it was all part of the drill. It created confusion. It is important to them that they control the scene to keep the “real” cops out.

          If you watch a film from a distance can you tell if the people running around are really involved in a crime or just playing a role? Those who think they are playing a role went to all the trouble to get there and I imagine they will play their part to the best of their ability. Those late arrivals would go to the perimeter and may or may not know about the drill.

          Those who participated in the press conferences, etc. would have to know. But who do they have to worry about?

  11. So where do we go from here? We think we know what they know and there is no longer a department of justice, only corruptness. I’d say vote out all the lifers there and keep telling them why. Is there a chance it would make a difference, pray it is so. While it is clear most of what is reported is opposite from the truth, at least if we can consider the converse, we may have a better understanding. The ‘green’ folks are facing the reality that they like being able to turn on that light switch with !00% reliability and are happy to import their energy from those dirty fracking areas such as PA, TN and Canada. However, major pipelines need to be built, which probably ties into the thesis of others that major properties will have to brought into eminent domain to build those ugly gas lines. I understand this article to say, the first priority of the stressed gas pipeline would be to bring heat to the NE, secondary will be to the generators of electricity. Uh oh, if you do not have power, will your gas furnace turn on? Sadly, the cleanest power source was nuclear, but Harry Reid, decided to shut down Yucca Mountain, after many trillions went into safely storing the spent nuclear waste there, and all the plants had to scramble to respond to another gov renig and figure out how to store the waste on site, even though they had already invested in this long term storage solution.,0,6846784.story

    1. Kathy, where we go from here is to survive. Surviving involves confronting reality, warts and all. We don’t have to like where we find ourselves but there’s no one out there who’s going to ride to our rescue.

      One of the elements related to the houses at Newtown was the eminent domain issue. From what I can determine they had already seized the land that some of the developments are situated on including the land that SHE sits on. There was a court battle over this and the settlement involved providing some “green zones” IAW A-21 (of course) and, somehow, developers were allowed to build new housing on some of the land. Some of that housing was used to house our actors.

      The trendy term for what we’re seeing is “cognitive dissonance”. This is a condition that is necessary for proper mind control. There are various ways to achieve it but, one way is to present things in a manner where our eyes see something incongruous and out brains can’t make proper sense of it. When that happens the programming begins. There is someone there to “insert” the desired “reality” to make us feel nice and secure again.

      When we turn outward and start looking for politicians or heroes to solve these things for us we are playing right into the dynamic. We should have the same response to things like this as we do to a guy on the street who wants to sell us a “Rolex” for five dollars.

      1. You are one of the rare people who understand that some things can’t be changed. There is perhaps uniquely American notion that if we act we can change the future. Any future. Well, that’s delusional. The forces behind the sequence of fake and real-but-artificial traumas are powerful beyond comprehension.

        Whether your position is correct, lophatt, that a bunch of tiny little neutron bombs vaporized the WTC buildings, or my conclusion that Judy Wood is correct that it is Tesla technology, weaponized, either way it proves that these people have capabilities that are unacknowledged in public. It is a secret government, and it has built trillions of dollars of Deep Underground Military Bases, connected by deep underground high speed rail lines. This alone is enough to demonstrate that we are powerless to stop them. But add their complete control of the media, and the banking realm–and thus the world economy.

        What’s clear is that they have a plan, and they are very advanced in implementing it. Anyone who constitutes a genuine threat to their cloak of secrecy does not live for long.

        We CAN do as you quite rightly say. Prepare our minds. The only way to resist is to know what’s really going on. That’s some consolation. Maybe it’s not as satisfying as the conclusion of movie They Live, but at least we can keep the sunglasses on.

        1. Patrick, google tritium, deuterium, multiple myeloma, busby, wtc dust, and lowered birth rates manhattan, and you will probably come to hold new views on what happened to the world trade centre…

        2. If you spend time with Dr Wood’s thought–not just reading her book, but listening to interviews with her, you might not ask this of me.

          I recommend that you do that.

          I am well aware that much of the evidence, as lophatt and I have gone back and forth about in numerous other threads (you are new here, no?), indicates nukes. A large part of this evidence has to do with radioactive isotopes indicative of fission and or fusion at the ruins of building 6.

          I suspect it would be rude for me to link to the web site of Dr. Judy Wood. I have done it too many times. I don’t want to become a bore. Some of the people here laugh at my comments because they are funny. Some, because they think I’m nuts. The last thing I want is to be laughed at because I am a dullard.

          Dr Wood postulates that all the evidence has to be accounted for, and the best explanation of it is a physics not taught in school. If it hasn’t been officially recorded, doesn’t it make sense to guess, that these radioactive isotopes might appear after such a weapon was used, just as when a nuclear or atomic one is used? Who could know? It’s unrecorded.

          Objects, like cars, were levitated, and gently set down in improbable locations that morning (people, too). There was a shopping mall breathe the towers, one level below the street. Nothing was harmed in it. A subway station, too. We are told that intense fires were burning, for months, underneath that shopping mall, indeed that pools of molten metal were down there all that time. Yet, rain and fire hoses constantly poured into that gaping hole, and no steam ever arose, much less steam explosions. Why? Hydraulic machinery was in use at the surface; we are told that the surface was very hot. It this is true, the machines would not function; the hydraulics can’t function in high heat environments.

          So how can we reconcile this? Dr, Wood says it’s Tesla technology. OK. Fine with me. The people who were levitated, and carried city blocks away, and gently settled to the ground, reported that it was unnaturally cool when it happened. I was not there. It’s just anecdotal evidence. But it is very weird.

          We do have lots of photographic evidence of “fires” burning that are in the midst of piles office papers, yet none of those papers catch on fire. Why?

          The Bankers Trust building, across the street, had what seemed to be minor damage, which was repaired. But in the years that followed, they took away the new part, and discovered that deep inside the building the material, the steel that made up the building, was disintegrating. Why? They finally had to tear down the whole thing.

          Wood postulates it has to do with Tesla technology. She points to the Hutchison Effect–a guy who is demonstrating that work today. No one can top her, in my opinion.

          So no, teresa, I won’t be resorting to google.

        3. I can’t reply to you so I’ll reply to myself. Hope that is not tell-tale of what i’m replying to 😉

          Just to let you know I too have studied both Wood and the Micro-nuke theory, to quite some extent. I don’t really know physics above high-school so I can’t swear, but in my opinion there’s evidence for the nuke theory (the fallout element distribution, the severely lowered birth rates for manhattan for many years after, the burns people suffered, and especially the multiple myeloma and other cancers that have basically only developed to that massive extent in younger people in 3 other places in the world: Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl…)
          I was fascinated by Wood for a long time. But there’s too many loose ends. We don’t know anything about DEWs at all. We do know about atomic bombs…

          Also about the levitating people and things. I haven’t heard any interviews where people have stated that. I have read a lot of the first responders statements about all kinds of things, but I have never come across any levitation descriptions.

          Oh, enough about 9-11. Lets agree to disagree and continue with Sandy Hook.

        4. Let’s pretend for a moment that the owners of the buildings at the World Trade Center wanted to get rid of them. Let us suppose they had all the time they needed to evict tenants or let leases run out, to have floors cleared so they would put in explosives, etc. They could even create dummy corporations (child’s play in Wall Street) with fake lists of employees occupying some of the floors. Let us suppose they are so rich and connected, they can first buy the government and then use it as their mouthpiece along with the media.

          They then set off conventional explosives which they have hired the best people to control, people who are going to be on the ground helping them to haul away the stuff, a real Mafia of connected made men.

          Let us say that on the day the buildings collapse in their footprints, as they do all over the world, people even film the squibs shooting out the sides of the buildings.

          Let us sit down before these little facts like kindergarteners who don’t even know about the falsehood of a filmed moon landing. We never heard of Tesla or Mesla or Fesla. We’re just into blocks. We build a tower. We pull the lower block out real fast. Blocks all fall down!

          That’s where I’m at on this. In the crude pit which is New York City, which it always was and still is. The Big Apple has always had a worm, ever since Eve tempted Adam. It showed it wiggling there on 9/11. Don’t be a sucker. New York is all hype. They don’t do Tesla there because they don’t have to.

        5. Musings, the buildings or blocks didn’t just come crashing down, they turned to dust in a mid – air free fall, leaving hardly any debris on the ground below.

        6. So what do you think happened musings? You guys are hardcore. Ever read The Host and the Parasite; How the Israeli Lobby’s Fifth Column Consumed America by Greg Felton? In it he reports that there is *some* evidence that floors in the towers were packed with bombs at some point prior to 9/11 (Israeli owned – these reports according to him are not confirmed that he can ascertain). I have heard from a US military engineer mensa type that the buildings didn’t collapse according to the design and types of planes. But there’s no way of knowing if the construction company may have cheaped the materials, which is not unusual for construction.

          I think that certain elements within the government knew, or that the Israelis knew more likely, and supplemented it. But so far I’m in the it was real to an extent camp. Some on here think it was all fake. I have heard from someone working in government that he/she saw the planes which went into the Capitol and they were definitely US military.

          That’s all I know.

        7. Sue, in my model of the event, whether or not there were two planes – and as we must constantly remind ourselves, it was 3 buildings which imploded – maybe the third more conventionally because of the lack of pyroclastic energy, just a collapse – the plane (only one ever seen in seemingly real time – though now we know how complicit the media is so it could have been a movie made beforehand) was not the source of the collapse.

          The problem with constantly referring to unknown weapons is that you let them off the hook. Okay, I say pepperoni pizza was ordered, you say it was something with exotic mushrooms and kale. I don’t care. The delivery boy showed up and was paid for his services. It warnt no Ayrabs, and all the other things to make us hate Arabs or Muslims from the notes in the anthrax letters to the fake bombings on Marathon day —well, we shot ourselves in the foot on each of those occasions in order to bring about our invasions, drones, etc. and tell the rest of the world we were only defending ourselves (though God forbid we should have our own weapons to defend our homes). Motive? Perhaps peak oil and Israeli hegemony, etc.

          But getting trapped in the argument about space age weapons – I don’t know what that proves, only that you cannot actually say who did the deed. It’s whoever ordered the pizza.

        8. Patrick, I have one question about Tesla/911. My only position is that whoever did it was very creative, took pride in their work, and had access to the best toys the MIC had to offer. This could be Tesla, mini-nukes, nano-thermite and C4, ect.

          With the Tesla option, I guess it would have to be directed from overhead? If so, I find it hard to figure how the collapse started from the impact point in both case. I guess the top block could have been progressively taken out of the way with conventional weapons along with the start of the lower section, then Tesla applied when the top was out of the way, but it looks like the mushroom/powder effect was already starting before the top was out of the way.

          Is there a way to explain this?

        9. I wouldn’t disagree with your third paragraph.

          However, the general public is already in a trance (I was there as well once) where they believe what they see on TV, what they learn in schools. So, really, anyone – and it doesn’t matter who – was able to broadcast absolute proof of gov’t hoaxes I’m sure it would quickly be spun into something done to protect innocent citizens. Or – because I’ve been pleasantly surprised the odd time viewing programs with something close to the truth – people may watch the program, but will forget about it by the next day. “Man’s capacity to forget…”

          Besides, people are zoned out on either fluoride, “Real Wives of Wherever” or hard drugs/alcohol and really don’t care. We’ve been boondoggled for so long in so many ways, including the break-up of the family, that our lives are too hectic to branch out.

          Now, the break-up of the family – that’s another thing. That just keeps on giving, doesn’t it? Let me ask you, why the worldwide focus on women when it’s men who are out of jobs which ends up breaking up families and hurting women as a result. My guess is that it’s a control thing again.

          When men are out of work they’re less threatening and more dependent on government. When women are “empowered” they are less likely to have gads of kids. So I guess it’s two-fold… general control of the masses and population control.

          Feedback appreciated because I’m just rambling here…

        10. Well Patrick, nobody said we have to like it. I’m just a humble observer. You are quite correct to say that to believe we’re going to change this is delusional.

          I have an open mind and I keep it that way. To say that something “can’t” happen would imply that I knew “every” possibility, and I don’t. There are, I think, more plausible and less plausible explanations though.

          With regard to the 9-11 thing, as I said, I don’t have a “favorite”. In fact, I generally am not a “follower” of anybody or their theories. I can, however look at what’s out there and draw some tentative conclusions. I’m always ready to happily change an opinion if I hear a reason to do so. I don’t form them quickly so it sometimes takes some convincing.

          As a matter of fact, I’m quite content with having no theory. In this case I’ve been studying it for a long time and I’ve become pretty sure that nukes were involved. I am also aware that others have different thoughts. One of the problems I have with Judy Wood is that, if you invent some sort of “alternate physics”, you can invent anything you like to prove it. I’m not saying they don’t exist, I’ve just never seen sufficient evidence of that in a form that would appear that highly controlled.

          The trace evidence, as well as some obvious physical evidence, is present for nukes. I know that they can sublimate steel. I don’t know that Judy’s ray guns can do that. Maybe they can, I don’t know. But I do know that the elements are there in proportions that tell a tale.

          I confess to being skeptical of Dr. Wood. I don’t “want” to be, I just am. She plays the cold analytical scientist on one hand who doesn’t have a theory. Then she “slides” her friend Hutchinson (sp?) in there sort of obliquely, and adamantly KNOWS there were no nukes. How? I’ve also seen her get quite annoyed with someone mentioning government involvement. That’s a hard circle to square.

          While I admire her analysis of the damage, she categorically denies any lasting heat. That is silly. There is proof of the lingering heat. Why would she care? She claims it is photo-shopped. There are aerial thermography pictures that would tend to support the heat. What would be the point of contriving that? It doesn’t support their story.

          Lastly, in spite of the other fascinating observed effects, the “spire” is the most important to me. It clearly sublimated and blew away on film. Now, maybe that was a “death ray”, I don’t know, but a nuke would account for that more handily, I think. It would also account for the “craters” or “holes”.

          I think she may be on to something about the necessity of vaporizing them rather than letting them crack the “bathtub”. There had to be a reason for all that effort. It’s really quite remarkable. It’s like a live “action film”. Like SHE, it has to have a lot of individual things going on simultaneously to keep people from focusing on too many inconsistencies. Both were largely arranged in the cutting room. A few careful shots and a lot of cutting and splicing. Over it all, the “Voice of Authority” telling the citizenry what “good obedient global citizens” are seeing.

        11. We can also project and predict the future “fake” events. These events do have some common themes, patterns, and elements that are predictable, that alone will make our voice credible. The world is NOT going to end in 2013…but knowing even when the next little “fake” event will happen, can be very powerful.

        12. I would agree with most of that analysis. My only caveat is – I am not convinced of the coherence and consistency of “the plan”, or that there is even a truly monolithic “they.” I suspect it’s a lot more liminal, intuitive and bizarre. And I suspect a lot of different egos, varyingly psychopathic, all striving within this “they” for their own aims and ambitions. As I keep saying, the individuals involved are just human beings, and what they’ve created, however covert and malign, is limited by the same things that limit all human endeavor. Not only are they just people, they are basically psychopaths and other personality-disorered beings, not known for their coherent longterm thinking.

          What we are getting is what you would get if you put people like this in charge of anything. Games for the sake of games, rampant greed that eventually consumes itself, short term thinking, rage, self-pity, absurd narratives that change and shift with no regard for internal consistency. Having a lot of power isn’t the same as having a lot of imagination, intelligence or prescience. They are just malign kids pulling the legs off flies. Unfortunately, we are the flies.

    2. musings said this:

      “and as we must constantly remind ourselves, it was 3 buildings which imploded”

      Actually, all seven buildings whose names began with WTC were destroyed that morning, the most important one, in my opinion, being WTC6, which somehow acquired vertical holes that look exactly like a 12 foot wide post hole digger removed the mass of the building, over and over again. But all the other buildings that were not entirely gone had similar weirdness.

      Now, I have to say that lophatt is more able in this debate than anyone else I encounter, and his dispassionate stance is entirely admirable. I agree with almost everything you say, but your skepticism, at least the specifics of it I find to be kind of strange. She denies there was heat because people said it was very cool; because we have pictures of men in the (pretty much undamaged) Mall and the subway station, and allegedly there were pools of molten steel, a few levels below them; the absolute absence of steam and steam explosions: fire hoses and rain + molten steel = a whole ‘mother kind of disaster.

      The bathtub is indeed one of the essential keys to this mystery. It is fragile, but it was undamaged; if it had cracked, the entire subway system would soon be filled with the Hudson River. (The bathtub is the retaining walls that held back the River; the Towers were built IN the River. The bedrock upon which they were built is 70 feet below the surface–that’s the big hole we saw so many pictures of, once the debris was cleared away.)

      Musings, your belief that we need not focus on exotic (in which term I include the postulated hand-granade sized neutron bombs lophatt leans to) weapons, and allow for the possibility of conventional explosions, is wrong for four reasons:

      1) the mass never hit the ground–there was no seismic event

      2) the mass went away–there was almost no rubble (in the case of the Twin Towers, it should have been a pile more than 12 stories high, if it was controlled demolition, and a pile that huge would have spilled over into the street–but the streets were clear). In comments in previous threads I have linked to pictures taken right after the event where the photographer standing in the street snaps photos of the cars on the next street over– an unobstructed view, looking directly through where the Towers had been just minutes earlier. Another case is of the fire man who as one of the Towers was going away, had to take shelter with a few other people in a stairwell. I believe he was on the 6th floor. The buildings did not crash down and squish those people; when he made his way to a door, and opened it, instead being underneath a broken up pile the size of a thousand feet of building, he saw daylight. The building that had towered above him had simply vanished.

      3) The bathtub was not harmed in any way. If it had, as I say, the subways (which also cross under the Hudson and East Rivers) would be filled with water, and New York could never recover. If the mass of the buildings had not simply vanished, but crashed down, that fragile sea wall would have been destroyed. (Also, one level below the street, there was a shopping Mall, remember, the ceiling of which was undamaged.)

      4) Not one toilet survived. Tens of thousands of large Porcelain objects simply vanished. Heat from fire does not do that, and if the buildings were exploded, we’d have a whole lot of broken toilets to clean up.


        1. Patrick, it’s all good. I am not a follower by nature and I don’t think anyone has necessarily “cornered the market” on theories. I’ve read Wood’s book. I’m sorry to have to say it but, she places about the same degree of importance on the “levitation” as others do the “heat”.

          There is INDEED evidence of heat for weeks afterward. The fact that she ignores and denies it does not make it go away. I would have the same current conclusion if there was no talk of persistent heat.

          I can’t answer for the “levitation”. That is her idea. I know some people said they “felt” like they were lifted. The phenomena I’m describing does indeed have a blast wave. You would “feel” lifted if you were hit by it. There is also an EMP pulse wave. That is a really strange phenomenon in itself. The destroyed cars appear to be in a pattern adjacent to where it manifested.

          I don’t dislike Wood, I just don’t think her theory is superior. I would quite happily surrender mine if I saw a reason to. Why not? I absolutely do not know if they have such weapons developed to that state. That is part of the logical problem. When someone says that they do not know what happened, then obliquely suggests that it is a mysterious “alternate physics” at work, all the while INSISTING that it “could not” have been nukes, I’m suspicious.

          She quite clearly believes that “directed energy” was used. She should just say so. It would be helpful if some evidence accompanied that claim. Her website features pictures and various pieces related to that. In my humble opinion, it takes more to believe that than it does the nukes that we know exist.

          If the evidence is there for space aliens, I’ll go with that. But, to my knowledge, it isn’t. Among the nuke crowd there are some “bizarro” theories as well. Not because they don’t have such things, but because they would be difficult to use in the manner described. There are other theories involving them that are quite plausible.

          Most people think “bomb” (with accompanying mental image), when they hear “nuke”. They do not all work in the same manner. In a manner of speaking it is consistent with Dr. Wood’s theory. You are working at a level of physics that is not normal. It produces strange effects. These effects are known.

          Another form of resistance to this is that people don’t believe that they use these. They do. In fact, they use a form of them in the tunnel building you described elsewhere. They have advanced so far in this that they know how to control all sorts of effects. In fact, paper not burning is a classic sign of a nuke detonation. It has to do with the porosity of paper, its shape, and the fact that isotopes pass right through it without exciting the molecules in the paper.

          So, re. the cars, if you put floating paper in front of them during an EMP blast, the paper would be undamaged but the cars may be destroyed as a result of the interactions of the molecules from the event with the molecules in the dense stationary object. If they can’t pass through, they “rearrange” things.

          I think Wood’s theory is pretty “wowsy” and all, but it will take more than Hutcheson to make me a believer. If she had some repeatable experiment where he could tell us first exactly what was going to happen when he did something, that would warrant more attention.

          Lastly, you are correct that I am “dispassionate” about this. I don’t have to be “right”. I just think the nuke theory fits the evidence. If we find later that it wasn’t so, it’s fine with me.

        1. Åh, yes Patrick. I’m aware of that. I seethis is a brittish version of her website. That too is interesting.

          What I meant was levitation reports from first responders or the like.

          I don’t know what did that, of course. It sure would be interesting to find out.

          I’m curious that Huchison’s photos have equally bad quality as the SH class photos…

        2. I can’t speak for the Hutchison material; I think Wood includes it because it matches the strange effects seen in the 911 evidence. And the best levitation stuff is in Dr. Wood’s book. People were simply lifted up and carried many blocks away and set down. In the book, she shows wonderful pictures of similar effects in tornados. I don’t know if you have them where you live, but there are very weird effects surrounding tornados. A pane of glass with a slip of straw through it, for example. And a car, upside down, settled on a suburban privacy fence.

          The book is expensive, but worth ten times the price.

          The point is, most of the really weird evidence is unknown, and Judy Wood is the only one to force it into view, refusing to allow an explanation that does not include it all. I don’t know if nukes can explain the holes in the windows of the buildings that did not start with “WTC”. I don’t know if nukes can explain why people were lifted off the ground and carried away. I am not equipped with that training. Judy Wood, however, is. And she makes a compelling case that the only explanation has to point us to a physics we are not taught in school.

          She might be compared to Kepler.

          Beyond that, we know what Tesla demonstrated. We also know that when he died, the U.S. government absconded with all his research.

          We also know that Hitler’s scientists were working on Tesla technology, and we brought many of them here.

          Finally, we know that the Deep Underground Military Bases exist. What’s so difficult about drawing a line between the dots?

        3. The holes could also result from nukes place below ground level. Remember the janitor with his skin burned off? As a pure guess, I would think they would go top down every so many floors, but maybe they wanted to start a “furnace” in the basement to melt the lower floors when the top was “dustified”.

          They found deep holes that were “melted” rock under those locations. There are pictures of men standing looking down into them. Very strange. This is granite we’re talking about here.

      1. Patrick, toilets “dustify” too, even with nukes. One parting comment as I am painfully aware that I am doing a poor job of making my point. To see these effects means that materials were reduced to their elements or different elements. What does that IS energy. The nukes I’m referring to are not explosive devices.

        If Hutchison can make materials behave strangely through the use of electromagnetism, that is one of the effects of nukes, EMP. It is the same thing in the end. “Heat” is a byproduct, not a causative element.

        When we make materials out of elements we cause them to combine by using unnatural forces. We use chemicals, heat, pressure, etc., and we get two or more relatively stable elements to combine into something else. From that moment forward, for most materials, they begin to try to return to their original base elements. Some are so slow to do this that we refer to them as inert.

        If I beamed a ray gun at something and caused the molecules to become excited it would become hot. If I got them excited enough I would go beyond “hot” and my material would radiate. An EMP pulse does the same thing. It passes through materials that are porous and slams into those that are not. The atoms become excited and things happen. They recombine.

        So, whether its Hutchison on the roof with a ray gun or prepositioned devices the sublimation is apparent. I see nothing in the evidence that precludes a nuke. Why speculate on an unknown source when we have a known one that produces those effects?

        That’s it, I’m done.

        1. I appreciate the time you have taken to explain your position, lophatt.

          I am not trained in physics, so there is much I simply don’t know.

          What I DO know is the material in Dr. Wood’s book. If there is a book out there that does as good a job setting out ALL the evidence as hers does, and presents the case that lots of mini neutron bombs can explain it, I’d like to know about it. I’m persuadable.

          Judy Wood is the only person I am aware of who has talked about the strange mystery of the Bankers Trust building. The Bathtub. What she calls “toasted” cars. The fires that don’t burn paper. Millions of circular holes in glass windows of buildings all around the area. And lots of other strange effects. She went to the trouble of publishing a book explaining these largely unknown pieces of evidence, and documenting them with copious photographs, and it is very understandable. Is there a book that does the same with the theory you are persuaded of?

          The articles I have seen that argue the position you make are, as you advised, tough going. One of them has a schematic of Building 6, suggesting where the neutron bombs would have been placed. (Why they failed to vaporize the whole structure, and only made it look like a post hole digger gouged out the mass, over and over–I can’t remember if they speculated. Too few devices, was it?) But the point is, it wasn’t made very accessible. It may be all true, but until there is a book, Judy Wood is at least reaching out and trying to be understood.

          It is to her credit that she has emphasized the surpassing weirdness of the evidence. Almost every 911 skeptic thinks conventional controlled demolition is the answer, mainly because they have never been told about the massive amount of weirdness. You hold to a competing theory that addresses the weirdness element–which is great–but does it have a name attached? One scientist carrying that ball, or a team of them? Is it out there, competing for eyeballs? Why is it so little known?

          One thing I have to disagree with you about is your contention that it is not advisable to postulate an unknown technology if one we do know can explain the evidence. In most cases this is probably true, but not in this one. We do know that the secret government has been working on Tesla technology since the end of WWII, but we also know that when Tesla died, long before we collected our portion of the Nazi scientists, the federal government absconded with all his work, never to be seen again. And certainly, every free energy device patented has been bought up and shelved, or the inventor finds himself meeting with an unfortunate accident.

          Then we have the Philidelphia Experiment where fiddling with degaussing technology teleported a battleship, and the lingering aftereffects so destabilized it that it flickered in and out of visibility erratically.

          There are lots of other proofs that the secret government has been relentless in its pursuit of this field of knowledge. So to dismiss the possibility that 911 was primarily an act of triumphant demonstration of its perfection is, I think, ill-advised. It COULD be just that. And if it is, it tells us a lot about what is in store for us this century.

          Personally, I am convinced that all the UFO activity we see is this kind of technology–faster than light, anti gravity, craft, based in Deep Underground facilities. I think they perfected it for that purpose a long time ago. Now, if I’m right about 911, they have weaponized it. And they were just showing off that morning.

        2. Patrick, if I have any interest in “persuading” you, it is only because I think it’s what is responsible. Unfortunately, I don’t know of a single source for this information. It took me a long time to come to where I am at the moment.

          “Veterans Today” had a very good collection of articles on this. It doesn’t cover all of what I’m saying, but it’s a good start. Physics are involved, but they’re involved in Dr. Wood’s stuff as well.

          Much of what she observed has been observed in nuclear tests. That is because, at the heart of the matter, the observable phenomena are the result of molecular change. No matter what the source of that energy is, the results would be the same.

          I know that they have and are experimenting on directed energy weaponry. I don’t know to what extent they’ve reached with that. I don’t know how it would be used or delivered. I DO know, roughly, to what extent they have developed nukes. I understand the theory behind them. Any “directed energy” device would be attempting to do the same thing.

          The reason I’m skeptical about Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones, is that they are both materials experts in their own chosen way. Dr. Wood has a specialty in materials science and Dr. Jones is certainly familiar with physics, nuclear and otherwise.

          Regrettably, that can only mean that they are mistaken or deliberately misleading people. With Jones I’m pretty comfortable that its deliberate. With Judy Wood, I just don’t know. There is an element of irrationality about it. Of course, on the other hand, I can personally attest to the fact that just because someone has a doctorate degree doesn’t mean they know what they’re doing.

          I worked at a university for several years and there were many brilliant people there. There were also some that were, er…, not so brilliant. So, to paraphrase “the Colonel”, “Occam’s razor” is a major player here. In Dr. Jones’ case, I think that if one of his students came to him with “his” theses based on what we’ve observed, I doubt that he’d be preparing to defend his dissertation.

          In the case of Judy Wood, I wouldn’t leap into “alternative physics” or “directed energy weapons” until I had exhausted the available explanations. This does not exhaust those.

          So Patrick, for your own sake, take a look at the stuff at Veteren’s Today and maybe Ed Ward, M.D., and go from there. It really isn’t that important to know “how” they did it. They did it. I’m very sure the effects we see would be the same in either case.

        3. @lophatt – what is it about the physics of Jones you find so flawed you have to assume them either incompetent or deliberate disinfo?

          I’m not asking in a spirit of challenge, just in a spirit of clarity. I have never seen the need to invoke experimental, theoretical or nuclear technology to explain what happened to the towers, and I don’t see any documented effects that can’t be explained by the presence of thermite. But then I don’t claim to be a demolition expert and am willing to learn.

          Also – can I just ask is anyone here suggesting alien technology/time travel or reptilians are involved in this? Because I have to say there are lines there I would be loth to cross 🙂

        4. lophatt, it is always a delight to interact with you. I appreciate this comment in its entirety.

          Hilary, you wrote: ” is anyone here suggesting alien technology/time travel or reptilians are involved in this? ”

          Not so far on this site, and once it does, I won’t be spending much time around here anymore.

          The questions you asked lophatt about why thermite/thermate can’t be the answer are addressed in my 4-point response to musings, above. Whatever did it 1) did not cause a billion tons of mass to shake the earth, which conventional explosives would do; 2) the mass went away; there was almost no rubble after the event; 3) the bathtub was unharmed, and 4) no toilets were found afterwards.

          Lophatt’s preferred explanation might well be true. Whatever it was, it absolutely CANNOT be explosives that did it. And Steve Jones knows that.

        5. Hilary, Patrick has pretty much answered for me. Those buildings didn’t “collapse” from an explosion. They “sublimated” or “dustified” and the majority of their mass simply blew away. That was concrete, steel, desks, chairs, toilets, people, you name it. All turned to dust.

          Thermite or thermate (one has sulfur added) is not an explosive. It can cut steel, it can’t turn it to dust. I wouldn’t even rule out that they may have weakened parts of the structure using cutter charges made with thermate (although I don’t see why), and it is obvious that they used explosives at the start of the story.

          Dr. Jones has had some rather “interesting” responses to being presented with the dust sample findings. He is intimately familiar with trace elements and isotopic decay. It would not puzzle him. They only thing puzzling was his response.

  12. creating reality Joseph I Lieberman
    creating reality Adam Lanza
    creating reality Sandy Hook
    creating reality Connecticut
    creating reality Newtown

  13. Here is a list of the strange events in the 24 hours surrounding the Sandy Hook event:

    12/13/12 – Day before – Virginia Tech campus on “lockdown” because of a gunman on campus.

    12/14/12 – BEIJING, China A man wielding a knife wounded 22 children and one adult outside a primary school in central China as students were arriving for classes on Friday, the police said. Target was a primary school, with kids aged 6 through 11 and it was also early in the morning as classes began.

    12/14/12 – Alabama shooting – gunman injures three (including one officer) at an Alabama hospital. He was then shot by police.

    12/14/12 – Fort Hood police shot and killed a 1st Cavalry Division soldier early this morning after the man shot at them from his vehicle, according to officials at the post.

    12/14/12 – Las Vegas Police said a man opened fire inside the Excalibur Hotel near a concierge desk. A woman was transported to UMC Trauma where she was pronounced dead. The man died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

    12/14/12 – Chicago, 10 people shot to death that day.

    12/14/12 – Oklahoma student, 18, Alleged shooting in Oklahoma hours before the Lanza shooting.

    In the days afterwards….

    12/17/12 – Schools in Georgetown area, put on “lockdown” because of suspicious person near the Branchville train station.

    12/18/12 – Head O’Meadow School – closed today for an “unspecified” threat

    12/24/12 – Shooting in Webster, NY that results in a raging fire. 1 fire-fighter was shot.

    12/28/12 – 3 officers shot in a NJ police station. The shooter is dead.

    Because Sandy Hook took center stage in the media, the above items got hardly any attention. Not sure if this was on purpose or not, but if anyone can shed any light if Sandy Hook was a “smoke screen” to deflect attention away from something bigger? Any thoughts?

    1. The Webster NY fire that consumed seven homes on a small strip of land near the lake devastated the community. One crazed man who had served 17 years for murdering his grandmother with a hammer, intentionally set the fires that killed his sister who was trying to evict him from their [deceased] mother’s home. He laid in wait for the volunteer firefighters, killing two and wounding two before killing himself. Turns out, someone else bought the gun for him as he would not pass the background check.

  14. Hi Dr. Tracy, we appreciate your extensive coverage of this event. I think most of us ‘truthers’ have enough data and evidence to cause us to question the official story. I hope all of you are doing your job and talking to your friends and families about this event, and 9/11 likewise.

    Motive for Sandy Hook, and the other recent ‘false flag’ events, is the next step (besides criminal investigations). Many people call out gun control but I don’t buy it. I’m not sure I agree with Sophia’s analysis of motive. As I have stated before, I think this stuff is leftover from 9/11.

    It would be great if you could start a discussion that allows others to express their thoughts about motive. Thank you.

    1. Bill,

      Regarding motive. I just wanted to bring your attention to this in case you hadn’t read about it – the Dunblane School Massacre.

      Gun control was the result of that event and was, perhaps, a template for Sandy Hook.

      Also, though, I would submit that besides gun control there is a directly parallel motive and that would be squashing free speech.

      The continued use of people with “alleged” mental ailments and “radical views” in these false flags can only lead to threatening to identify and stream those with “different views”, thereby almost voluntarily relinquishing our freedom of speech and making us tattle tales on our friends and neighbours – all in the name of safety of the community. Sound familiar?

      Other motives can be touchy and people may hesitate to express their opinions openly online. But I agree that it would be worth a try.

      1. Still not sold. Remember the SF airplane crash? Or the lady who drove crazy around the capitol with her child in back before being gunned down? Both incidents suggest hoax. If your theory is true, that Sandy Hook is about gun control, then these other non-gun events would be ‘false’ false flags only to trick us that they are not setting up the gun control events. Get it?

        Boston wasn’t about guns either. Something greater is going on here. I think the entities that are responsible for 9/11 are flexing their muscles and showing folks in our government their power – a show of force to keep elected officials quiet. Or these events are being used to reinforce their powers, and grab new powers. For example, DHS was established by GW after 9/11. Is it possible that BO has little to no power over DHS, and that DHS is positioning itself to prevent a new 9/11 investigation??

        The recent news about the Saudi connection to 9/11, the pages scrubbed by GW, and the new requests for a reinvestigation – might be related. This might be more misinformation intended to derail the ‘inside job’ movement – or it could be a few brave politicians slowly prying open the can.

        I thought Dan Hennen had some good points and he questions if SH is a distraction, but my gut is now pointing specifically at 9/11.

        1. “I think the entities that are responsible for 9/11 are flexing their muscles and showing folks in our government their power – a show of force to keep elected officials quiet.”

          This is exactly right.

          A dying insider with a guilty conscience came clean on tape a few months ago about the secret underground bases; he said that Eisenhower threatened to use the American Amy to invade Area 51 if they continued to refuse to reveal what was going on there. The president was denied access to the place, and even denied an outline of the activities and purpose! This was the 50s! These powers are far more entrenched now.


        2. Patrick, while this video is entertaining, I am not buying the package.

          The reasons should be a little more than obvious given all the transparent inside jobs and hoaxes covered by any number of online sites. An opinion: the global cabal is readying the people for the future and that includes the usual war mongering tactics–but the focus will be on alien beings. One answer will be nonhuman robots to carry the flag of earthlings into space. For verification, observe all the off-planet scenaios conjured by Hollywood in more recent films. Art follows reality. And that reality can be skewed. The Pentagon has its own movie studio out in the California hinterlands.

          A ‘cute’ little Japanese robot in space is programmed to talk to an astronaut on the ground. Not a movie, but actual fact in real time. Just heard it on the radio this a.m. A thinking robot. Now that I consider this happening, I wonder, is there much difference in mechanical robots and robotic humans? Has singularity arrived on schedule?

        3. Of course, what you say is eminently sensible, and I think all the same things, too, mostly. I am very reluctant to broach the space aliens material in this place, and only added this because 1) Area 51 is real, and only the first of a decades long project of building Deep Underground Military Bases and 2) politicians–even presidents–have absolutely no access to these projects, and mostly are not even made aware they exist. “Need to Know.” Who determined that “need”? the people who are operating the secret government, of which the underground cities are an integral part.

          I wish this guy had not talked about the alien angle. I added the clip because there is no doubt in my mind that it would take a military invasion for a president to see into the secret government, but Ike was probably the only one with the balls to threaten it and be believed.

          That said, could this be false? Certainly. Do I believe it? Yes. To me, it rings entirely true.

          I have devoted a great deal of study to these issues, and am familiar with all theories about them. I side with Michael Heiser and Doug Riggs, if you want to know, but I think the topic is too big, and to tangential, to divert the conversation to it on MHB. If I misjudged in including the clip, I apologize.

          Still, my central point is a very important one. There IS a secret government that possesses technologies the rabble are not allowed access to, and they have stolen trillions of dollars from the federal government to develop it (one of the most amazing coincidences in history is that Don Rumsfeld admitted it to congress–on September 10, 2001. You can Google it.).

          If you dig into the monumental weirdness of the Denver airport, you will begin to scratch the surface (forgive my little joke?). They dug a vast hole in the ground there, for instance, built two huge office towers in it, and filled the hole around them. There is underground rail likes and many levels deep that the hoi polloi have no access to, much less awareness of. The problem with such research is the abundance of wackos who are attracted to it. It’s a great annoyance. But such is the case with the things you like to reference, too–the 300, Bilderberg, Club of Rome, etc. A lot of chaff, so little wheat–but there IS wheat, and it’s worth learning about.

          In closing I will say that I lean to the position that if we know their names, they are not part of the true inner circle. These people cherish the power of their invisibility.

        4. I am in agreement with Marilyn that we are being treated to a lot of propaganda about robots lately. It also strikes me, and not to put words in your mouth Marilyn, but I imagine the goal is that they are going to interact with people to the degree that we grant them personhood as we interact with them.

          That makes real humans even more expendable, especially in industry. Questions are not being asked. We have the movies to tell us it’s all good, though. In fact, there may be resources expended on these bots which should be directed towards sustaining human life. But eventually, it may be the case that choices will favor what brings more power to TPTB. Isn’t that how they’ve always done it?

          Drones are doing their thing, while all-terrain warriors which move like animals are being introduced at I am sure great expense to the human populations both to the targeted countries and to those who pay for this stuff. I am not sure how this relates to the recent fictional attacks on fictional humans, although the amputees may eventually shill for their new robotic limbs. I find the use of such as for paraplegics a good thing, but why not be honest about it?

          I imagine that exploring space with robots is going to be the safest way to handle the hostile, otherworldly environments. The biggest long-term danger is in destroying what life might exist on those other places in order to terraform and perhaps screw up at it. It would then tell you you can always foul your own nest and find a new one, when perhaps you cannot.

        5. Patrick, I am more leaning toward the side that says that the folks who pulled off 9/11 did not do it to keep elected officials quiet, mainly because government officials are basically owned by the folks who pulled it off.

          I don’t understand how you can draw such a distinct line between the secret and the visible entities. The visible need to be raised and trained in the ways of the secret unnamed, and they have to be in agreement or they don’t last too long.

          And why would anyone take the word of a dying insider who is supposedly coming clean? When someone is evil for so many years, why would you expect them to be telling the truth? I don’t get it.

        6. “The visible need to be raised and trained in the ways of the secret unnamed…”

          This is not true.

          It is helpful to read C.S.Lewis’ That Hideous Strength. It is maybe the best way to learn about the circles within circles.

          But until you read it, I can advise you to push Kubrick’s movie Eyes Wide Shut to the top of your Netflix queue, and watch it the day it arrives.

          The anonymous forces behind the unfolding of the New World Order observe ambitious people, and offer them opportunities, and depending upon how corruptible they are they are offered a slightly deeper level of opportunity. A schlub will never make it all the way in. These are bloodlines (mostly the royal bloodlines of Europe). Outsiders can’t change their blood. But favorite apprentices not of the bloodlines can be made to look to the outside world like deep insiders. Henry Kissinger is a good example. A profane, selected and groomed, elevated to high visibility by the invisible elite (and it really helps that he is a Jew, to add to the mix of deception). Henry knows a lot, I’ll grant you. Some of the apprentices really do get to know many of the deeper things. But this is very rare, and even Henry will never know the inner circle.

          Every circle is blind to the existence of the one inside it. Most apprentices are never going very much deeper than where they start out. No one is ever told the whole story.

          “why would anyone take the word of a dying insider who is supposedly coming clean?”

          You could not. But this is not an insider. He was a henchman. And people who have not sold their souls know that as they reach the point of death they had better face the fact that God stands waiting for them on the other side. The people they served on this side can no longer intimidate them. Coming clean before leaving this world might stand them in good stead with the Big Guy.

          I know that if I was a henchman for my time on earth, I’d come clean with a deathbed confession.

        7. @Patrick, what type of example would Obama and Bush be?

          And if the henchman in the video thinks he’s making things right with his maker by spilling the beans, he’s misinformed.

        8. Violeta, the way I see it is that politics is the surface. In America, no one is allowed to wield power who has not been chosen. This has been the case since Lincoln’s war ended. (The one exception is Kennedy, because his dad used his mafia connections to steal the election.) Very few are given any real understanding of the circles within circles.

          Idealists like Ron Paul very rarely are allowed to stay in office for a long time, and if they somehow manage it, they gradually stop being idealists. Although Paul was the exception, he was not allowed to change the direction of the Plan. He could only talk about it and poke the Planners in the eye.

          Earlier, I spoke of levitation. There has never been a more remarkable example of it than Obama, probably since the day Caligula made his horse a Consul. It is a certainty that nothing of any substance has been revealed to him. I doubt any of the people who surround him have been apprised of anything of substance, either. He’s just there to systematically prepare for the NWO by mortally weakening the country.

          The Bush family, since before Prescott even, have been deep insiders. Prescott, remember, helped to finance Hitler with Wall Street money; he certainly knew much of the plan to force the world back into war, and he probably knew why, and what the long term goal was. I don’t know how deep he went, but it’s far. He was one of the Skull & Bones members who dug up Geronimo’s skeleton and took it back to Yale, where it remains today. Why would he do that?

          GHW Bush’s was a deeply secret career, prior to his entering politics, mostly comprised of deniable CIA antics around the world (he used his little oil services company as cover). He was a key planner and orchestrator of Kennedy’s murder. After the attempt on Reagan’s life, he, along with James Baker, was the de facto president.

          With GW Bush, it’s hard to gauge how much he was allowed to know. My sense is that because he was Skull and Bones, he could be trusted not to reveal any secrets, but it was probably deemed safer to keep him in the dark. Certainly, he knew nothing of 911. But he dutifully followed orders when 911 was used as the excuse to relentlessly implement the police state. But just because he proved absolutely trustworthy in this it does not mean that he needs to know what’s really going on. It’s safe to say he knows only a fraction of what his Dad does about the Plan.

          Sue, of COURSE I believe there are secret societies. This is beyond dispute. The problem with using the term “illuminati” is that so many people define it so many ways, that it’s pretty unhelpful for rational conversation. Dr. Stan calls them “The Brotherhood of Darkness,” which is probably the best term for them. He explains what he thinks they are in his book. This is the lecture he gave that inspired the book:

        9. Patrick,
          Of course politics is just the surface, but whether some are in knee deep, such as Obama, or up to their neck, and know different amounts, they are still in it one way or another. Some might even be in it because they allowed something to happen and are now being blackmailed.
          I don’t know that people who make it as high as Obama are not raised to at least be mind controlled.
          And it does seem as thought the hoaxes are moreso the sheople than those in any part of the club.
          But to me the scariest part of your comment is that you think Ron Paul isn’t in the club!!!
          I do believe he is “their” alternative. Prepping has to go back many years before the “time for a change” occurs. And I do think that all roads are leading to either him or one of his proteges to be ushered in. That would mean that I am saying Paul is also one of their’s and is being used to usher in the NWO.
          Of course, only time will tell.

        10. Patrick,
          In your post of Dec. 21st when you talk about 9/11 being used to usher in the police state, I agree with you that that was a prime motive.

          You leave out what I think is an important point/motive and that’s a little thing called The War on Iraq and the consequential widespread hatred/distrust of Muslims and the spreading attacks and rumours of attacks on the Middle East. Have you considered an underlying motive in that respect?

        11. Lori asked: “Have you considered an underlying motive in that respect?”

          Yes. The world is being prepared for a global government. The way the Moslem world was carved up and organized by Britain and France in the wake of the fall of the Ottoman Turks a century ago had to be cracked apart for this to happen.

          The question was, how to do it? One tack came with the creation of Islamic terrorism. Britain started it as far back as the 20s, and the CIA more or less took over. Radical Islamism is a creation of the West (financed, to a large degree, with Saudi oil money). The other strategy was small wars that ruin the stability of already shaky dictatorial arrangements. So you used to see stability enforced by authoritarian strongmen who were being pestered by ascendent Islamism, but the system pretty much worked, because those dictators were so ruthless. The only way to break that ugly stability was by war, and the only country to do it was America–but the American people wanted no part of it. So 911 changed American minds about that.

          Once the entire Moslem world is in chaos, and the people there have nothing to lose, they will be used in some way to generate the world war that will end in a world government.

          The secret forces behind all this are heartless and inhuman, and the deaths of hundreds of millions will feel to them like normal people feel when they take their kids out for ice cream.

          Violetta, I’m afraid we couldn’t be farther apart on Ron Paul. He is a sincere believer in radical libertarianism. He wants, in his heart of hearts, the state to be reduced to what it was in 1787. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.

        12. Replying to Patrick’s post of Dec. 21st regarding global government and the Moslim world…

          I’m interested in any comments you may have about North Korea in regards to how that country will play out in terms of global government?

          (I’m all in on the theory/reality of global gov’t, Agenda 21, etcetera, just interested in your thoughts on North Korea.)

          P.S. Saw Ron Paul in Florida this year. I like the man and his philosophy. He was asked about Sandy Hook and guns by one of the students at this assembly – someone who thought it was reality – and there were no noticeable mumblings in the audience, which surprised me. Paul’s answer was non-committal and brief and focussed on gun laws – as you might expect from someone who knows it was fake. But this was only a few months after the event and, you know, involved children. I wish he’d planted a seed, though, regarding “official stories”. But, then again, the U.S. citizens were warned by police early on in the SH event against spreading “false information” (even when they, themselves, didn’t have correct information at the time).

        13. “Ron Paul = Fake.” Now, I agree 100%. I have not voted since I cast my ballot for Ross Perot back in 1992, as voting has been clearly fixed and meaningless since then, and probably way before that time. The only way to fix this mess is to get everyone onboard and to stay away from all elections. Noncompliance seems like the most valid way to at least halt this madness.

        14. As long as we behave like we have a functioning government that somehow represents us, we are participating in a dilution. Governments do no exist anymore, at least in the form we were taught about.

          These things are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the cabal of controllers who are ushering in their total control of everyone. They love it when people get all smarmy over Obongo’s speeches or Sprarky’s new leather jacket.

          Those creatures you see on TEE VEE are the paid, obligated front people for the New World Order. They are there to lead you into The Entity. They hope you’ll go “joyfully”, they are prepared for the eventuality that you resist. Make no mistake, we are headed there. In many ways we are there already.

          The only thing new about this is the scope. Psychopaths have always controlled. The “art” of controlling is keeping people right at the point of rebellion. It isn’t about money. Money is just a tool. It is about CONTROL.

          If something (say fear), makes you easier to control, they see that as a worthwhile investment. Their biggest fear is losing control. The rich do not acquire wealth because they want more, they acquire it to keep you from having any. If you acquired enough wealth to be independent, that would be a major problem for them.

          So, 9-11, like Operation Gladio, is primarily to instill fear. Fear makes people vulnerable and submissive. What better way to control? Create an event and they ask YOU to “fix” it.

        15. North Korea is too big and nuanced a topic to dive in here. Sorry.

          I spend a lot of time in Lew Rockwell’s world, that is the realm of Austrian economics, which is where Ron Paul resides–and always has. I have no idea how anyone could consider him a “fake.” He is more genuine than any politician in my lifetime. The problem I have with the Austrians, who call themselves “anarcho-capitalists,” is their absolute optimism. I think that is nutty, personally. I think lophatt agrees with me that the only reasonable stance is a realism that involves recognizing the our enemies of freedom are going to win, so our only actual hope is to retain control over our minds by being absolutely realistic, and preparing for what is going to come. These Austrians think the state is going to collapse under the weight of its size and internal contradictions, and they believe people want freedom. Their understanding of money and freedom is correct, and I endorse it entirely, but their understanding of the nature of the beast we are being devoured by is sadly flawed.

          Paul is one of those delusional optimists. Not a nefarious bone in his body.

        16. @Patrick – you say the middle east will be used to generate a world war that will then lead to world government. This is a mantra of many in this arena right now. Alex Jones talks about it all the time. But doesn’t this actually serve the very interests it claims to critique?

          It engenders both fear and helplessness, frightens people into either giving up or turning aside from the entire question. And most importantly it elides the fact that we already have a world government right now.

          It’s easy to see this is as simplified boogeyman analysis designed to terrorise rather than enlighten and I think we should be cautious of adopting it. You could argue that even if it’s true we only do their work for them by disseminating it, and if it’s NOT true then we disarm ourselves and others and encourage apathy when we ought to encourage empowerment, if only of the mind.

        17. Hilary said: “And most importantly it elides the fact that we already have a world government right now.”

          Not so far as I can tell. I can move to South America, and choose between numerous governments. Gerard Depardieu left France to live in Belgium, and took Russian citizenship. Edward Snowden is outside American clutches in Russia.

          I don’t understand anything you are saying about the Middle East. People who see what’s going on are supposed to remain silent about it? It somehow helps the engineers of the NWO to point it out?

          I’m afraid this might be the first time I have been accused of purveying a “simplified boogeyman analysis,” incidentally. I can’t imagine how detecting the plot and calling the plotters out does an of the things you say.

          The Moslem world is obviously being used and manipulated, by goading its most hopeless into synthetic terrorism, and those Moslem thinkers who understand that Islamic civilization is dying into cooking up crazy ideas of the inevitability of a new caliphate; and by wars to unseat the strongmen who have provided stability in an inherently fissiparous part of the world. There is a reason these hapless pawns are being pushed around the board this way, and because they are so impoverished, uneducated, and scared of the future, its easy to do. Noticing it is the first step on the road to preparing for the dark days on the near horizon. Denying it is the antithesis of empowering ourselves.

        18. @Patrick

          But if all you are saying is “accept the end of the word is nigh” you are not going to reach many people – and what is the point in trying? You say we can “prepare for the dark days to come.” But how exactly? Horde some canned food and lamp oil and hide in the basement? We don’t need a complex political analysis to achieve that. And if you really believe this is the inevitable end, why are you even bothering to contribute to this debate? What does Sandy Hook or anything else possibly matter if we are all just waiting for these guys to blow us up?

          I’m also slightly stunned you really think these olympian bad guys with their underground railroads and perfectly honed agendas are somehow confined by the geographical limitations of the USA. I mean do you really believe when you travel to Russia or Argentina, with the same stuff being sold in the same chain stores and the same banks offering credit, that the same people aren’t basically in charge? These guys aren’t parochial. They run financial institutions that control the wealth and poverty of the world. They move capital around at will. They install and remove heads of state as they choose. They incite rebellions, financial collapses, wars.

          This is basically a world government – only better. It’s a god-sim in real time. You get to play out dramas with one side against another. Why would you even want an actual acknowledged world government when you already have this? You’d just be losing the fun of fooling everyone that they had choice.

          Don’t get me wrong, I don’t doubt there are a few people in there who want a global war, or who are planning for when the aliens come or Jesus finally calls time out. But I think there are many others too with different, conflicting agendas, all competing for power, and I just don’t think there’s this entirely cogent, coherent group, all working together in some shiny subterranean base to finally take over the world. These guys don’t need to do that. They already run the world and always have.

        19. Hilary said: “I’m also slightly stunned you really think these olympian bad guys with their underground railroads and perfectly honed agendas are somehow confined by the geographical limitations of the USA.”

          Sadly, I live here, so it is my focus. But I certainly don’t think the way you state in this quote.

          My worldview is far more complex than you seem to believe, but that’s not really your fault; you don’t know me, and all you doe know about me is what I say here. This is necessarily a limited forum to express nuanced ideas.

          This business of “olympians” is kind of amusing, although it’s altogether wrong. It is a reality that is completely compatible with the one you describe, with competing forces on the surface, fighting for position. Both at the same time.

          The olympians you say I postulate, and who CS Lewis would agree exist, think of us as cattle. The Moslems are one breed, Americans another, Europeans, another, Russians, Chinese, etc. You should read Zbigniew Brzezinski’s horrifying book, The Grand Chessboard, if you want to know how this works (and you have a strong stomach). They thinks of the world as a game. They set plays in motion, and wait to see what the human reactions will be–but they pretty much know hoe humans react.

          Sorry, but I can’t imagine how you conclude my advice is to hunker down. I interact with the people here because there is real value to pushing through to an accurate understanding–even if there is nothing we can do to stop the inevitable. They can not own our minds. At least, not yet. Prepare our minds. That’s my advice. Because when a one world government arrives, and there is no where to escape to, all you will have, your only freedom, will be what is inside your mind. Use all the time you have today to prepare for that day, because then, it will be too late. They can take away your gold coins, stored food, fuel and generators. But until 1984 is in full force, you will still have the contents of your mind and will. That is the focus I advise people to keep.

          Always merry and bright,


        20. @Patrick

          Thanks for recapping your arguments re. WTC collapse. I was just watching this documentary about Jones and his theories.

          He doesn’t come over as a gatekeeper to me based on this. Gatekeepers either obfuscate or discredit by association. Jones just seems to make a good argument for controlled demolition, which in turn destroys the government’s official explanation. I can see an argument for Woods being a much more effective disinfo agent than Jones, because her arguments can so easily seem crackpot. But I’m prepared to be wrong 🙂

        21. @Patrick – Not wanting to get this discussion too bogged down in Wood/Jones as I tend to think the agreement on a controlled demolition is more important than the disagreement, but I found this discussion of the Wood v Jones situation. Can’t vouch for the reliability of anything there, but it’s interesting.

        22. Well, Bill, you’re right, Boston wasn’t about guns. I say it was about both fear mongering and – if you read my post again – identifying “radicals” or “extremists” and beginning the process of severely limiting free speech.

          When you’re talking gun control, I guess you have to look at who is using the guns in these events. If it’s the state “to protect us” then that’s great, eh? Isn’t that the message? But take away our power to protect ourselves. Trust the state. Relinquish your guns and your mind because the state knows best.

        23. “If it’s the state (using the guns in these events) ‘to protect us’ then it’s great eh?” As someone who lived through a day of “shelter in place” in a town near Boston on Patriot’s Day (when farmers once chased the British and their hired Hessians down the road by firing at them from behind boulders and farmhouses), and a few years earlier saw the entire center of Needham, MA shut down by SWAT teams hunting a drug addict who’d killed someone with a broken baseball bat, I have to say you get it. Cheering for your “protectors” while giving them your rights is really disgusting, but no effort is spared by news media to cheer you on in your surrender to slavery. “It’s what everyone is doing. Get with the program,” is what you are told by your very clever oppressors.

        24. I think you make good new points as motives, Bill, but I also think it’s all related. Unfortunately from what I’ve heard from people working in DHS there is zero chance of this 9/11 investigation going on at all. In fact, DHS is an ever more corrupt arm of the federal government conceived of and explicitly run by the zionists and their minions. I could concretize this but a) that might be dangerous and b) I’d get accused of ‘racism!’ for reporting dynamics that are going on in it.

  15. Since viewing the video of the Sandy Hook songsters at the Super Bowl, I’ve been pondering the objectives of the storytellers behind the event of 12/14/12.

    At its essence, Sandy Hook was a story aimed to make us believe we live in a horrible world where innocent children can be killed while in their elementary school classrooms… at Christmas time, no less. It was a story aimed to traumatize. The biggest target for this trauma is America’s children.


    We learn through stories. Always have. Always will. We shape our children and our future with stories.

    The best storytellers win.

    Well, call me a stubborn New England Yankee… but, I don’t believe the Sandy Hook story. It smells like horse sh*t. The “facts” don’t amount to much more than people on TV saying it was so. Seems those parent’s should have at least sued the school photographer for charging $30 a pop for unacceptably blurry photos in this age of digital SLRs. In a supposedly tony neighborhood such as Sandy Hook, parents are usually pushy about that kind of thing. Has the school photographer ever stepped forward to take credit for those gad-awful pictures we all saw on the News?

    No? Thought not. I wouldn’t either.

    So, on that fact alone. The Sandy Hook story is not credible.

    Sandy Hook is part of a narrative to shape perception of how America is, how it has devolved into such violence where we can’t trust our neighbor. Now, why would anyone want to tell a story like that?

    What if we didn’t believe the Sandy Hook story? What if we looked around at our own lives and saw that we actually do live in neighborhoods where we trust people? What if we actually believed that most people are decent?

    What if we asked that the Security contractor who had supposedly overhauled the Sandy Hook security system be named? What if the Security Contractor has not been named because… either they don’t exist, or because they might sue the town for defamation… because *nothing happened.*

    What if we asked why no one ever talks about the Security Contractor? What if we asked why this is such a dead end on every one of these forums?

    1. The thing that I wonder most about Sandy Hook is how many people have actually died in that area because they did not go along with the Sandy Hook Christmas Play???

    2. I agree with you for the most part, and nicely worded.

      My question to you regarding the security contractor is who are we going to ask? Secondly, if we got an answer such as Joe’s Security Company – then what?

      Just trying to say that there’s hard evidence out there, yes, but if we know right off the bat that the road of any particular piece is going to lead nowhere then I think we have to look at other evidence.

      I mean, I’m sure some of us here can identify the people involved but we can’t because of potential lawsuits, right?

      1. Richard Novia who happened to be Adam Lanza’s head at the Newtown HS tech club designed the security systems for their schools. Supposedly, they had a new system installed last year which remarkably does not include video recording capabilities. Why the High school got a system that does record seems an odd contrast, yes? It’s in the final report the CSP sent someone to the high school to retrieve the footage.
        Adam Lanza purportedly assisted in working on the school security systems during weekend “sleepovers” at various schools. I’ve never heard of such a thing.

  16. File this under “Crazy-making Moments” — WBZ Channel 4 News ( has just been awarded the Dupont Columbia award for their coverage of what — some really significant event with hard-hitting coverage — no, for the Boston Marathon Bombing.

    You have to retain a certain detachment with this kind of thing, and not just if you work for NBC or ABC, and you were trying SO hard to tap dance faster than the next guy.

    Because to others it is a kind of sucker-punch if they still want to believe in an old system where lies got found out and truth mattered.

    The nice thing about the Oscars is they are for fictional stories acknowledged as such. Sure, if you are doing a historical drama like Lincoln, you love it when people feel they are really seeing Mary Todd when they look at the former flying nun, Sally Field. But only small children and crazy people think they are really seeing a documentary in real time. The blurring of this distinction in media is truly pernicious. It will end in tears.

  17. For anyone reading the shillings of this user ‘Carl’ please be aware it is not me. I strictly post under the name of my youtube channel “PeaceBeWithYourSoul” or “The Dreamer” (or, before GLP perma-banned me for compiling two 30+ pages of incredible Sandy Hook research, “The ____ Dreamer”)

    The shills are so pathetically obvious.

    “Carl” – go tell Sheila N., and Plasman, and Tom Bit-Man, and Holden, that we see through you, and you must go back for training. Gosh, you are awful shills!

    1. It almost sounds as if he was instructed what to say in the event of an interview, sort of covering all bases and all directions with this event.

    2. If that’s genuine then it’s a real coup. It sure sounds genuine. But it doesn’t seem like this person and partner were part of a well-oiled machine. More like a hydra-headed situation, lots of different chains of command, lots of different levels of awareness, a certain amount of contradiction – “go here”, “no come back, go there.” Were there EMTs more in the loop than this one, or were they all just bewilderedly going along and having no clue?

      I’m also curious that she says she saw a couple hundred children. Nothing like that number appear on any vid of the firehouse or the school. I’d like to know more about that. Where did she see themI wonder.

    3. There are plenty of reasons why someone would pretend to give an interview like that, the most obvious- disinfo.
      You know the saying… “if it sounds too good to be true….”
      All in all, my B.S. meter tells me it’s another tall tale.

      1. I think it seems genuine – until the point where the first responder seems to believer there were hundreds of children involved. But what if s/he was also taken in by the appearance deliberately created of a lot busy-ness. I’m not convinced it has accomplished anything as disinfo, except possibly to reinforce the idea of lots of kids. There might be one other thing. If the event was a “closed set” then they would have been kept out. As we know, runners at the Marathon were held about a mile away, out of site of the “set” used in that event. What did genuine ambulance drivers do that day? Were there roadblocks? If so, then none of them would ever have gotten close to the set and participated in this farce. I’m not sure what kind of leverage was exercised to keep people genuinely interested in helping kids.

        I do know that it was reported in a weird way in New England. It was made to appear VERY minor for a long time, as they prepared to present the complete story to the public in one fell swoop. This would tend to keep ambulances from showing up spontaneously. Everything was over by the time anyone heard there might be a need for everyone.

        So it is possible this ambulance story is part of the fakery. Just not sure.

        1. Yes, that alleged memory of all those children jolted me too. I don’t see how “hundreds” of kids could have made their way to the firehouse and from the firehouse without the cameras picking up any but about ten of them. Has anyone actually counted how many individual children we get to see in the various pieces of footage?

        2. One of the key details of this event that has never made sense to me is… where are all the kids? Where did they go? We’ve seen dozens of videos from all angles, heights, distances… and if you to add them all together, there’s no way that 500+ kids (allowing for a normal number of absentees) were anywhere near SHES on December 14.

          There’s the iconic Shannon Hicks picture of the lineup of a handful of kids being led away (I count about 15, so I’m guessing it’s probably one class?), but other than that…. even if I surmise that the few “reporters” on the scene were carefully controlled, but allowed to do a few interviews and shoot a few short scenes, I still can’t imagine why there are hardly any cell phone videos out there.

          Cell phones (and they all have decent cameras now) are all over the place, folks. Haven’t we been paying attention? I was at the Danbury Mall around noon today and it seemed like one out of every four or five people I saw had a cell phone in front of his/her face, either texting, looking at emails or doing whatever it is people do with them… anything but paying attention to where they were walking.

          With all these cell phone everywhere, how is it that NO ONE took any videos or photos of the 500+ kids evacuating SHES?

        3. If they had images of “hundreds” of kids fleeing, we would have seen them over and over, ad nauseum. Either that school was shut down, or it was greatly reduced somehow. With everything else to look at I haven’t spent very much time on this, but I’ve thought about it.

          Just like the questions; “where are all the “normal” town folk”? If “hundreds” of kids went there, wouldn’t they have hundreds of sets of parents to talk to? The odds are against it.

  18. This may have already been discussed, but do yall remember the video interview of a man and woman that claimed to be friends of Nancy Lanza? The woman in the interview was later busted when she was caught being interviewed several times after the Boston Bamboozle. The man that’s with her in the Sandy Hook interview says his name is Dan Holmes, but he looks a lot like the man named Robert Hoagland, a real estate agent who was reportedly a citizen of Sandy Hook that was reported as missing this past July 28th and supposedly has not been seen since. I am trying to compare the man in the video at 0.50 here to photos of the missing man here, and they certainly do resemble each other. I would love for someone else to take a look and see what they think.

    1. Speaking of this couple being outed, is there anyone that can beverified as actually knowing the lanzas, or any of the victims’ families?

    2. Definitely the same guy in my opinion. You can see his teeth are equally jagged at 4:54, the obvious indentation between his eyebrows, the shape and direction of the ears, nose structure. This is without a doubt the missing real estate agent and should be looked into further in my opinion.

    3. So, sure, they could be the same person.

      Would you like the link to a person who very closely resembles Nancy Lanza? We can be a little more on target with the prime people involved, if you want. I’m just not sure of the legal implications, though, regarding using persons identifying themselves on the Internet. Seems like it would be okay, but I’m not sure. If anyone can advise on this it would be helpful.

      1. On a recent thread someone posted about her – and while I’m always skeptical of the face recognition sleuths, I have to say that ‘Nancy’ and ‘Annie’ do seem like the same woman. Only the color of eyes and teeth are different really, and the pic the media circulated of ‘Nancy’ had her posing with eyes closed, which I always found sort of odd. They couldn’t find any normal ones of her?

        It would make sense that there is a pretty discreet core of top level in the know actors here, so I’d think some really would have to double as more than one character.

        1. You don’t have to be an “actor” if it’s just a photo; for example, Nancy Lanza and Adam Lanza.

          Can you direct me to the place where this “Annie” person is mentioned?

        2. Thank you so much, John. I tend to agree with you. The one I found with a resemblance was here…

          This looks like a dated photo to me. I think there’s more of a resemblance with yours, and I agree with the connections you make.

          The eyebrows are a good match also between Nancy and Annie.

        3. Lori, I must be “thicker than normal” today. I don’t see the reason why they would need an actual person at all. In fact, that would complicate things.

          As I understand it now, the story is that she lived the life of a recluse with her sone, “Adam”. She was a divorcee with a rather large alimony or child support payment (despite the fact that she had been at least previously employed and her “son” was an adult).

          The story went that she was some sort of financial analyst or broker. The “nurse” is the only reference I’ve heard to her being a teacher. She apparently had expensive tastes. Her visits to the resort are not your average “working class” soirees.

          As with everything else about this tale, it is difficult to determine what is “real” and what is invented. This definitely applies to the Lanza’. “Peter” seems to have dropped off the planet. For a time he had a “spokesman”.

          “In the old days” the “media hounds” would have tracked down everyone who knew them, up to and including their postman. I don’t know about you but the clip above of the couple who “knew” her is about as convincing as a “Liar’s Club” monologue. Besides, being interviewed for TWO “tragedies” in a row is about as likely as winning the lottery.

          One “lead” I ran across had Nancy dating a High School teacher. He supposedly ran the “Tech Club” at the school and “Adam” and “Ryan” both won awards for computer-generated animation. I was unable to find any record of this. The story was that he had gotten into trouble at the school and was fired.

          So, she either worked, or she didn’t. She was a recluse, or she wasn’t. She went shooting, or she didn’t. And the only two bozo’s we can find who claim to know her are moonlighting in Boston.

          Now I don’t know my neighbors all that well. I’m not nosy, but I wave if I see them out front. I see them come and go. I would probably notice if they NEVER came out. People know people. It may be at the grocery store, or the gas station. How could you live in a small town without anyone knowing you?

    4. I don’t think it’s the same guy, Hoagland has a very square jaw and the man being interviewed not so much, but yes, they do resemble each other.

      1. Sue, me either. Hoagland is a strange tale though. He just “disappeared”. There was another guy as well. He was a local who was a photographer. He drowned in the river after falling in from his bike, TWICE!

  19. Dr. Carver, probably provided us with the most important clue, paraphrasing but – you can do amazing things with photographs, and we have some really good photographers here. Learned a lot about bad photo shopping following this assault to humanity, but even without that new knowledge, those school pictures are a blatant display of incompetence. Praying the photo experts find the time and patience to tie all the fraud into a non-disputable package that might somehow free these kids from their torture. Can’t help but feel for poor 3rd grader Louis on Dr. Oz being scared to death that he said they were having a drill. Went from being relieved the children were not killed that day, to concern about they are aware their younger likeness is being used to scam and what other child abuse are they still enduring?

    1. I saw Louie at the firehouse. He appeared on camera with a blonde, curly-haired older lady hanging on to him. They were just standing around, by the yellow tape. At the 1:51 mark:

      1. Poor Louie, It appears his caretaker is also doubling as a photographer at the parking lot where ambulances have no chance of escaping. Maybe we should start a charity to rescue this poor soul from his profiteers …. Sure would be interesting to know the timestamp of this video, the Oxford Ambulance is 24 minutes away, the Campion, Waterbury is 20 minutes away, and of course the Newtown Ambulance not in view must be present….

    2. That was a strange thing to say. But, then again, his whole performance was “odd” (to put it mildly). I imagine a Freudian could have a field day with that. Sort of projecting his guilt.

      Yes, the kids were used in this. Those not directly involved are being subjected to deep conditioning. It shouldn’t be lost on anyone here that their hope depends on this natural cycle. The old die off and the young have no memory of how things were. These guys take the “long view”.

  20. Okay.

    So just in case I’ve provided this information to a shill (see above) – sorry if you’re not – can I ask some other people here to check this out just so I know there are witnesses out there.

    Caters News Agency is printed on photos of a couple of media-released photos (James Matiolli and Grace McDonnell). Here’s a link to one.

    Scroll down to her photo in blue/green dress.

    THEN, look up and look under “about Caters” – at the top right. They’re a tabloid-type news agency “guaranteed to get the world talking”.

    If you were a group with mega funds – for example – this could be your media host.

    I believe this was the “media” on scene at the event and the agency which set up the Websites (for funds), etcetera.

    What do you think? Would love some feedback before this disappears from the Web.

    1. Lori, it appears to be a site in the UK that syndicates articles and photos. If you are looking for stock photos you could go there and pay for some.

      It could mean that either they went shopping for photos, or someone wanted to be paid for theirs. Either way, its pretty strange.

      My wife sometimes sells photos. They ask to use them for book or album covers, etc.. They pay for the privilege.

      I can’t say that I know the reason for this but it appears that the photos are their property. Whoever took them registered them with “Caters”.

  21. I can’t find the comment now, but someone mentioned the helicopter footage could have been shot from a drone…the first 15 seconds of this clip gives an indication just how far the camera was from the action. I have no idea if it’s a drone or not, but take a look. It was up there:

  22. @lophatt – thanks for the reply! Are you a physicist? I’m not, so ultimately I’m not able to assess the pure science value of the arguments, and all I can do is try and weigh both sides, but I found this article very interesting.

    It’s a pretty detailed refutation of the arguments you and Patrick have been making here re. the “bathtub”, absence of dust etc.

    It basically says Wood’s claim of absent debris is bad science and criticises her alleged failure to offer any actual data or calculations to back it up. It offers calculations of its own to show there actually was no missing debris. It also dismisses the “undamaged bathtub” argument as again being based on poor or absent calculations. It further alleges – with calculations – that using a high energy beam to achieve the destruction of those buildings would be difficult to impossible.

    I wasn’t familiar with this issue before I read your discussion, so I’m very much finding my way. Did you already know about this article and know of a refutation of the points it makes? if you’re a physicist can you evaluate the relative degree of good science involved? I wish I could!

    1. To follow up my own post, here’s a link to Wood’s website where she develops her “high energy beam” theory.

      What troubles me about it is that it isn’t a scientific paper, and isn’t presented in even slightly scientific terms. No hypothesis, no testing, no conclusions. No actual, measurable evidence. This contrasts strongly with Jones’s meticulously recorded and verified research. Has Wood ever published her theory in a peer-reviewed journal? Does she – anywhere offer real solid coherent data in support of it?

      Secondly, here is an interview with Wood. Does she come over as a credible scientist backed by serious research? I leave you guys to decide.

      If Wood’s theory has a coherent basis in maths and physics, I have yet to find where she sets it out. Anyone got any ideas?

      1. “Has Wood ever published her theory in a peer-reviewed journal? Does she – anywhere offer real solid coherent data in support of it?”

        Name such a journal. Name such peers. Judy Wood is hated, vilified, besmirched. Never given the benefit of the doubt. Why?

        Lophatt, around here, is the exception: one who thinks her excellent work is not the best solution to the problem, but nonetheless does not vilify her. There are very good reasons why she is attacked. Of course, anyone who has not spent more than a decade in these trenches would have a hard time understanding it.

        She published a book. It is comprehensive. It is accessible. It is large. It addresses ALL the evidence, which no one else does. Lophatt acknowledges that his preferred theory is one he put together from lots of disparate materials–and his theory might be the right one. I don’t know. But Wood is a scientist, and made the effort to prove her case–and anyone could read her book, to find out if she succeeds. But all the house negroes of the 911 truth movement do everything in their power to stop you reading it. As yourself why?

        Anyone who says a billion tons of mass struck the ground, with no seismic event to prove it, and refuses to explain how that might be possible, must be rejected.

        Anyone who says cutting charges and explosives destroyed the Twin Towers (and building 7), and refuses to explain the absence of toilets, must be rejected.

        Anyone who says a billion tons of mass struck the ground, and remained there, and refuses to explain the pictures that show a street to street view, right through the buildings’ footprint, hours after the event–when there should have been a twelve story high pile of broken building blocking the view, must be rejected.

        Anyone who denies that the bathtub holds the key to the mystery must be rejected.

        Anyone who says a billion tons of mass struck the ground, and can’t explain how the shopping mall and the subway station, mere feet below street level, were not smushed into nothingness, but remained largely intact, must be rejected.

        And anyone who rejects Judy Wood’s heroic efforts, yet absolutely refuses to talk about building 6, most especially, must be rejected.

        1. @Patrick – “anyone who rejects Wood’s heroic efforts…must be rejected”

          Ok, well I appreciate your position, but I’m never comfortable with using emotionally laden arguments to close down debate, so please try not to “reject” me out of hand without first taking on board my point. 🙂

          You didn’t comment on this page so I’ll repost the link.

          It presents a more critical POV of Wood and so (I suppose in your eyes) must be immediately “rejected”. But I hope you do take the time to read it.

          There’s also this article by a man called Szamboti on why the idea of a high energy beam destroying the WTC is unfeasible

          And this critique of Wood’s paper:

          The claims she makes about the lack of seismic activity, the absence of debris and the survival of the “bathtub” are all addressed here:

          I’m not suggesting this proves Wood wrong conclusively (though it might), but I do think it needs to be refuted. Has anyone refuted it? Are you a physicist? Can you tell me why these papers are wrong and Wood is right?

          While I don’t want to make any kind of accusations, I have to ask – if Jones can be a shill, then why can’t Wood? Her hypothesis is much more likely to bring ridicule on the Truth movement than Jones’s. It’s incredibly extreme and she puts it over in a borderline idiotic way (see the video above) that makes her and her believers look slightly retarded.

          Aaand she’s supported by Fetzer (who’s been denounced many times as a disinfo agent), and by that guy who is a “disillusioned” Bush administration worker.

          I mean there are a few red flags there, even if we extend the benefit if the doubt, no?

        2. Hilary, I am not a physicist. I don’t have to be a physicist to know something about physics. I don’t see this as a contest of competing theories. I am suspicious of some for various reasons. There is a difference between having a legitimate disagreement about something that we cannot absolutely verify and pushing a single theory that doesn’t fit the evidence.

          The absence of debris is undeniable. The nature of the debris is not explainable by any conventional method. Dr. Wood began by stating what was wrong. That was a perfect starting point. What is there and what ISN’T is obvious.

          Now comes the tough part. What CAUSED that? They did not “collapse”. What used to be massive steel beams, concrete, toilets, file cabinets, desks, people, etc. are now dust. So, when we eliminate what could not have caused this, we are left to speculate over what could do this.

          The damage is clearly done on a molecular scale. You can actually see a “spire” that consists of an enormous steel beam begin to fall and turn to dust before it lands. It simply blows away. It has instantly been “disassociated”. It used to be steel, it is now dust.

          It would take a couple of books to fully explain this. It takes enormous energy to undo bonds that were formed in making those materials. Just as the name implies, “directed energy” is a concept to do just that. It would require a power source sufficient to accomplish that “disassociation”.

          Some discuss “cold fusion” as a practical power source. It relies on a fusion reaction. Recently they have achieved such a reaction on a small scale. They used a laser as a triggering device for the fusion. The trigger has been the stumbling block.

          Fusion requires a huge amount of pressure. What they normally use is a fission device to initiate that. The signature of those are different from the signatures of fusion devices. In a way, a neutron device is a “directed energy” device as well if it is configured properly.

          So my discussions with Patrick have not been about whether the buildings “collapsed” (they didn’t) or were “exploded” (they weren’t), they have been about what the most practical source of that power is. Any other theory outside of that context could not possibly account for what we see.

          I know that there are beams that have diagonal slices that appear to be from cutter charges. I have a theory for that. It wouldn’t do to have a hole after the building disappeared, now would it? So, they had to have something of a pile. It is notable that underneath that surface pile there is nothing. The debris did not go there.

          I have to admit that I find it strange that people are willing to see that this is not as described but unwilling to look at the evidence and what it implies. Dr. Wood’s book does a wonderful job of that. Look at it and then tell me you think all of that was done by “thermate”.

        3. But look at that video of the controlled demolition of the Kingdome in Seattle. It looks just like the pictures of the collapsing WTC towers: Poof! Nothing but dust.

          I think I will stay with the controlled demolition/nanothermite explanation.

        4. Dino, the King Dome looks nothing like the Trade Center buildings. The amount of debris is consistent with a standard demolition. There are no “odd effects” and the amount of dust is incomparable.

          But, suit yourself. Conventional demolition would be the most reasonable explanation if the evidence was consistent. It isn’t.

        5. Hi,

          I have Wood’s book and listened to one of her main videos several times (while doing errands and such over time).

          I think it may be well to delineate between the hypothesis of some directed beam and the evidence not allowing other hypotheses.

          As an example, things like how much of the mass was reduced to very fine dust and what she refers to as toasted cars absolutely debunk any other possibility save I suppose mininukes (though not enough heat was present for mininukes, in my opinion).

          But, to look at that dust and those cars? Ain’t no way thermite/CD can do that. No way. Moreover, every building with a WTC prefix was destroyed.


        6. Are we so trusting of photographs?

          I have not looked at much of Judy Wood’s video, to be sure, but did so enough to see all this footage of people leaning out of windows before jumping, which surprised me. I wonder where that came from. I was glued to my TV the whole day of 9/11 and, although I kept hearing reports of people jumping, only saw video of one person falling head-down, and he was a long way away, so I couldn’t be sure that was even what it was. He had a bald head, black pants, and his knee was bent. I kept wondering where these hordes of people were who were supposedly jumping to their deaths.

          If you’ve seen the site “9/11 Clues Forum,” they dispute that there were any victims, at all. I personally think there were at least firefighters in the buildings, but this site makes an interesting case that there was no one else.

        7. @lophatt – thanks for a thoughtful reply. I have to say thought that many physicists who accept the likelihood of some kind of controlled demolition do NOT think that the absence of debris is undeniable and they have offered various critique’s of Wood’s conclusions. Here are some of the points made:

          1. she misunderstands the area covered by the WTC debris. She alleges it fell into its own footprint, whereas the ejected debris spewed out over an area *six times* its own footprint. If this is true then her claim of missing debris would be based on faulty calculations.

          2. the Kingdome is not a proper comparison as it’s mass/volume (being a dome) would be very different from the mass/volume of a skyscraper, which is designed to be mostly empty space.

          3. Wood OVER estimates how much steel was actually present in the WTC before destruction, and UNDER estimates how much was left afterwards.

          4. the debris is perfectly consistent with the use of thermate – viz powdered concrete and partially melted steel, and that parsimony rejects the need to look for more esoteric and scientifically speculative causes.

          I can’t vouch for the validity of these objections, but I’d need to see them refuted before I could comfortably say the “absence of debris is undeniable.” or that “the nature of the debris is not explainable by any conventional method.

          I can only ask again – have you read the critiques of Wood’s work? Do you know whether she has addressed and refuted them? if not, I would have to say science does not currently seem to favor her position.

        8. I think it is a good idea not to “reject” anything, siince that causes us to reject som very important other stuff with it. Or causes one to reject things because they have not been fully understood. I felt that way about “nukes” åt first. Because to me, nukes was the huge mushroom cloud and the devastating fallout. But when I studied further, I realized there is other nukes.
          Don’t reject. Consider and ponder all of it.

        9. The reason I say “reject” these specific things is because if something is impossible, we should not give it credibility, or if a theory has to ignore entire sets of evidence to work, it must be rejected. This is called sorting theories based on their plausibility. Nothing wrong with that.

          For instance, if cutting charges and explosives can vaporize every single toilet in two 110 story skyscrapers, the thermite/explosives crowd has not demonstrated how, to the best of my knowledge.

          Really, the missing toilets could be the one key factor to be used in determining if any given theory is worth spending time on. If it can’t explain THAT, it must be rejected, as a waste of valuable time.

        10. “…if a theory has to ignore entire sets of evidence to work, it must be rejected.”

          Very true. Regarding the rest of your post(s) we also have to consider that there are effects and physics events that we do not yet understand.

        11. Of course we do. The point is, all the evidence, taken together, is profoundly weird. Judy Wood is not afraid of facing it all, unlike almost every researcher. When she looked at the windows of buildings all around, for instance, and saw that the windows had millions of round holes in them, as if from a drill, she asked show that could happen? Likewise the profoundly weird, drawn out saga of the Bankers Trust building, which was repaired, then un repaired, and it was discovered that it was disintegrating from within; finally, a building with very little visible damage to its facade, supposedly easily repaired, had to demolished. Wood is the sole scientist to probe that mystery.

          She sees the weirdness and is reminded of tornados, where the physics of materials goes wildly haywire; a shaft of wheat plunges through a window pane and is embedded half way through it, a plank of wood mysteriously blends with a tree, cars gently lifted, carried along, and settled–upside down–on top of a privacy fence, etc. Conventional physics cannot explain the weirdness of tornados–or even where the energy comes from to generate and sustain them.

          So she turns to Tesla, and a modern-day imitator of the genius, John Hutchison, whose experiments generate effects that are eerily similar.

          Although she does not mention the Philadelphia Experiment, she is certainly aware of it. The scientists we acquitted from the supposed enemy in WWII were working on antigravity throughout the war, and “we” built for them Deep Underground Military Bases where they could continue their work, pursuing a REAL space program. She doesn’t mention that either, but she obviously is cognizant of it.

          Anti gravity and free energy are the expression of a physics they don’t teach in school, but that scientists like Tesla and Maxwell were very comfortable with more than a century ago–all their work was suppressed, of course, and modern science acts as if it does not exist. But Tom Bearden has spent his entire adult life documenting it, and he’s probably smarter than any of the official hacks in academia.

          This is not fantasy. The academy merely pretends it is.

          So it’s not at all far fetched that this explains 911, and it is entirely predictable that the people I called the “house negroes” of the 911 truth movement are determined to protect the paradigm of official science. All academic research in universities completely depends on the grant making power of the federal government and the great tax exempt foundations, and they damn well know what side their bread is buttered on.

          Steve Jones is a great example. These types know how ridiculous the official fairy tale is, and are hired to control and misdirect the curious away from the disturbing truth about the secret government. And their success in doing so has a lot to do with the ease with which appeals to authority can shut down the curious layman. All you have to say are the words “architects and engineers,” and all debate is drawn into question.

          The temerity Dr. Wood has had, in refusing to be a house negro, in refusing bow and scrape and say “yaayus, massa, suh” drives that bunch to distraction. Not only did she conduct a massive investigation of the event, all by herself, drawing conclusions the house negroes are forbidden to even think about, she had the effrontery to publish it all in a very large book. And instead if it being the usual impenetrable crap that passes for science in this country, any reasonably well educated person can easily understand it. The gall!

          So no matter what they did to block her (she had to publish the book on her own, with her own money, natch), her voice could never be silenced. So they smear her. They lie about her work. If they couldn’t stop her publishing the research, they can dissuade people such as yourself from reading it.

          Now, lophatt, although he greatly appreciates the effort she has made, and the wonderful document she produced, disagrees that 911 was a demonstration of a free energy, weaponized, use of Tesla technology. I have no doubt he knows the secret government has spent almost a century developing it, but it’s possible he is not aware of it.

          He understands neutron bombs, and knows that they have been miniaturized to the point they can be as small as a hand grenade. And he says that all the evidence Dr. Wood presents can be explained by that well known technology. I just have to take him at his word on that. He is quite an able thinker, and there’s no reason to doubt him.

          The point is that these are the only two theories that even address the weirdness factor of so much of the evidence. (So far as I can tell).

          Again, any theory that cannot explain the complete vaporization of each and every (tens of thousands) large porcelain object is a theory that must be summarily rejected.

          The fact that the question is never even addressed is very telling indeed.

        12. The WTC towers were full of asbestos and it would’ve cost $1 billion to abate the problem. See this site:

          The buildings were out of date, but could not be renovated without asbestos abatement. The site “September Clues Forum” examines many of the “victims” to establish that they did not exist.

          I think, as I said earlier, that “first responders” may very well have been victims. The respiratory problems they developed might be asbestosis, in fact, although that thought has only now just occurred to me for the first time (and may not be right, since I’ve heard it takes 25-30 years to show symptoms, ordinarily).

          There has been speculation, too, that the Rockefellers designed these buildings “for the express purpose of one day being demolished in a fake terrorist attack.” See this site:

          Another interesting “coincidence” is that the firm Controlled Demolition, Inc.–which demolished the Kingdome–I remember was also seen around the Murrah Building.

          In the end, it is immaterial to establish how the buildings came down, other than to say it was planned and controlled, and NOT the result of planes hitting them, as the government says. There is a very convincing video on the September Clues Forum site showing that all the photo footage of planes hitting the

        13. @Patrick – if a superthermitic reaction can pulverise concrete, why could it not pulverise porcelain/plastic toilets?

          This *is* a real question, not a rhetorical flourish. I’m not wedded to the idea that it *had* to be a conventional demolition, I’m just digging through the evidence.

        14. “@Patrick – if a superthermitic reaction can pulverise concrete, why could it not pulverise porcelain/plastic toilets?”

          Every single one? Not a trace of any of them? And as lophatt likes to include, every single filing cabinet, safe, desk, every scrap of carpet?

          If you are persuaded that could be done by conventional means, well, you are a dreamer, and I admire your capacity for unreasonable faith.

        15. What a surprise, Patrick is part of the Judy Wood cult. Here, I’ll dismiss what she’s saying and take on Building 6. What you saw of 9/11 was a movie. The area was evacuated, the buildings were destroyed, likely with conventional means, and you never saw it. And all the “evidence” Judy points to is CGI.

    2. Hilary, as I’ve said, I am not a physicist. I was a pretty good science student and I’ve continued to be a “student” all my life.

      I don’t like to engage in discussions on this topic as though it’s a competition. There are those with a vested interest in keeping the public ignorant. While I would much prefer that people come to learn as much as they can about this event, I know that it will not result in anything dramatic.

      For me I don’t have to be “convinced”. I have studied this since Day One. I continue to say that no one has “THE ANSWER” completely. I have also said that I will read anything. I have found “gems” in some very unusual places. I seldom agree completely with ANYONE’s theories.

      While it is certainly gratifying to have people agree, it is perfectly alright with me if they don’t. If they are impressed with Dr. Jones’ schtick, great. They should REALLY be impressed with the NIST report. It is full of calculations and other impressive mumbo-jumbo.

      I have not said that I believed that anyone used an “energy beam”. I HAVE said that what evidence I’ve been able to find strongly suggests a nuclear device, actually several. You are quite correct to say that this would require a very high level of energy, thus, the nuke.

      The question of “good science” is debatable. Undoubtedly Dr. Jones is qualified. What he does with those qualifications is up to him. Just because he’s qualified, or anyone else, doesn’t mean I’m obligated to agree with them. There are a gaggle of engineers and architects over at NIST and at NSTB that produced reports that are absolutely inaccurate.

      If I don’t understand the principles behind something I learn them. I don’t form opinions easily. I will consider what anyone has to say. If I know enough about the subject to form an opinion, I will. That usually takes some time and thought, however.

      I would offer that the reason for Dr. Jones’ following is largely due to this ingrained belief that affixing a suffix to someone’s name makes them brilliant and incapable of error or deceit. For what it’s worth, I have suffixes I am “authorized” to use behind my name as well but I don’t pretend to be omnipotent or superior.

      In defense of Judy Wood she was not “offering” a theory for review. I too have some “problems” with some of what she says. I would say that I admire her work in providing evidence. I don’t necessarily agree with some of her conclusions. That does not mean that the default position is to Dr. Jones or anyone else.

      There are “orders of magnitude” between Dr. Jones’ “theory” and Judy Wood’s observations. There are sociological and psychological reasons why those who specialize in certain disciplines are inherently “risk averse”. There are also economic reasons why someone who depends on research money for their livelihood would likely have problems supporting a controversial theory.

      I think it all boils down to this. If you think there was a pile of debris representative of the “collapse” of a 110 story building, fine. We can even ignore all the other anomalies (which are legion). I have no interest in playing ping-pong with Dr. Jones. Others have done that and their work is there to be seen.

      One oddity I find amusing is that Dr. Jones does the same thing as Judy Wood when confronted with evidence they don’t want to consider. They both declare that it doesn’t exist.

      1. @lophatt – of course science can be manipulated. That’s exactly why keeping it as clean of ad hom and “interpretation” as possible is best. But at root science is a reality. It obeys laws and can be replicated. This is why NIST had to lie and obfuscate – because science can’t be bent and twisted to tell any story. In it’s purest form it’s the friend of those who search for truth.

        This is why I want to see the actual science being argued by both sides – and not the grandstanding, name-calling and photo-waving. So far I can’t find much actual science that Wood uses – and this bothers me.

        If I may drill down into some of what you say–

        What do you mean about there being “orders of magnitude” between Wood and Jones? I don’t dispute it, I just don’t understand it. Can you develop?

        You say admire Wood for producing evidence. Ok, but has she dealt with the rebuttal of that evidence? It’s been alleged much of her data is based on faulty readings (for example she fails to realise the debris was spread over such a wide area and fails to allow for the massive amount of debris that fell into the sub-basements. It seems to me essential for her credibility that she has responded to and rebutted these key points.

        With the greatest respect it doesn’t boil down to whether I “think” there is an adequate pile of debris or not. That’s the beauty of science. If we know the mass/volume of the WTC pre-explosion, and we know the mass/volume of the debris pile post-explosion, we can calculate if there is likely to be a significant shortfall. The central core of Wood’s theory is that there is NOT enough debris. She needs to defend that vigorously and with physics. If she is not doing so then that’s a big red flag on the validity of her central claim.

        1. @Patrick – the reason I find it hard to see Jones as disinfo or a gatekeeper is his theory was one of the first to reject the official story and make it essential to accept that government insiders brought the towers down. As a credible scientist he instantly added a lot of kudos and weight to the Truther position.

          Wood on the other hand came along *after* Jones and made it her business to discredit him personally as well as to put forward a much more speculative idea.

          If either of them are gatekeeping then Wood’s MO seems a more likely contender than Jones’s.

          Put it this way – if you were trying the case in court Jones would be a great witness, and Wood’s and Fetzer’s actions have made it less likely we could use him effectively to win our case.

          I dont say this proves anyone is or isn’t disinfo, but it’s a point worth considering isn’t it.

        2. “Wood on the other hand came along *after* Jones and made it her business to discredit him personally…”

          Where did you get that idea? It’s not true.

        3. “for example she fails to realise the debris was spread over such a wide area”

          I am not lophatt, but I can deal with some of it.

          This part of the quote hilariously false. She strenuously argues that the debris went into the stratosphere, and was spread across many thousands of miles. It was in the form of minuscule particles of dust.

          Then there’s this part: “…and fails to allow for the massive amount of debris that fell into the sub-basements”

          This is laugh inducing. One level below the street lay a shopping mall, and a subway station. In her book she reproduces pictures of those places. The ceiling above them was not breached. They were largely in tact. How sub basements below them could be filled with “debris” would be an illusion worthy of David Copperfield. Remember, the Twin Towers were built on bedrock, in the Hudson River, seven stories below the surface. The Mall and the train station were the first of seven basements. How that one remained and the ones below them were filled with broken building is something no one has ever told me about before (maybe that’s where all the toilets went?).

          If it was controlled demolition, the pile would be twelve stories high. Yet, there are photos taken that morning at street level that look right through the space the Towers stood, just minutes ago.

          Look at these pictures:

        4. @Patrick – no I’m afraid you misunderstand orWood’s theory. Wood’s starting point is the claim there was not enough debris present after the towers fell, and that therefore some of it must have been vaporised by a high energy beam. She derives this from looking at pictures of the debris and concluding it’s not stacked high enough to account for everything that should be there.

          Her conclusions have been challenged by those who say she failed to realise the debris was scattered over an area six times its own footprint and was also piled up in the sub-basement.

          I think it might be good to re-check what Wood says about the sub-basments. I believe the photos of the intact shopping mall you are talking about were under buildings 4 and 5? I think the sub-basements under buildings 1 and 2 were said to house a lot of compacted rubble. Does Wood challenge this?

          Again the truth or not of your statement that the rubble pile would be twelve storeys high depends upon the validity of Wood’s original calculations. Wood bases her claim of the projected height of the rubble pile on comparing the WTC with the Kingdome and on the assumption the debris was stacked in its own footprint and not over an area six times this size. If her assumptions on relative mass/volume and distribution are incorrect then so is her conclusion.

          This is why I keep saying you need to discover if she has rebutted the critiques made of her theory. Just re-stating her claims and ignoring the criticism is not helpful.

        5. @Hilary, your statement:
          “Wood’s starting point is the claim there was not enough debris present after the towers fell, and that therefore some of it must have been vaporised by a high energy beam.”

          explained to me what you’re saying. Please excuse my earlier message.
          However, I would like to say that the whether Wood’s starting point claim is true or false wouldn’t make the conclusion true.

          There certainly is no way to prove the starting point claim true or false, so I guess it’s one of those things that anyone can use to make a point.

        6. I said :
          “Wood on the other hand came along *after* Jones and made it her business to discredit him personally…”

          Patrick said:
          Where did you get that idea? It’s not true.

          @Patrick. Jones published his first paper in late-2005, when did Wood first publish?

          As regards attempts to discredit Jones personally, I should have made it clear I am relying on unproven info. According to this source by the following summer after Jones published (2006) Wood was emailing people about failures in his research, but refusing to give details and further implying his involvement in the death of a colleague of hers…

          If this is true then it looks quite like character-assassination, and quite well-timed character-assassination of the kind our own professor here has had to deal with. But of course it might not be true. I certainly would not want to base any kind of claim on it. Which is why I prefer to stick to verifiable things like research.

        7. Hilary, I have to leave, so I can’t reply in full.

          For now, I will give you this, regarding the location of the Mall and subway, from everyone’s most authoritative source, wiki:

          Conditions in the Mall on 9/11[edit]

          A commonly reported story of eyewitnesses inside the mall at the moment in which the first plane (American Airlines Flight 11) struck the North Tower is of fireballs fed by flaming jet fuel shooting down the elevator shafts and bursting out at the lobby, many reaching as far as the mall itself. As stated in the 9/11 Commission Report,
          “The Port Authority’s on-site commanding police officer was standing in the concourse when a fireball exploded out of the North Tower lobby, causing him to dive for cover.”[1]
          Survivor Allison Summers describes the conditions in the mall at that same moment as follows:
          “I had almost reached the Uptown 1 and 9 station when there was an enormous explosion. The building shook. I heard people say, ‘Oh, no.’ Some, not many, were screaming. … I looked ahead past Banana Republic, past Citibank to the plaza outside. At that moment, there was a terrifying tidal wave of smoke filling the doorway. It began to shoot forward. The smoke had this enormous momentum that started to come towards us, as if it had a will of its own. We ran. We ran together past the Coach store. We ran to get out of the path of this enormous wave of smoke. It was like we were being chased. All the people on the concourse ran. We turned right, heading toward the PATH trains. As we ran, shop assistants were calling in doorways, ‘What happened? What happened?’ But we were running so fast we couldn’t answer them and they ran with us. Some people were crying; some people were screaming. We moved as one body. No one pushed and no one shoved. We all had the same intention: to get out of the building.”[2]
          Shortly after the first impact, water began spraying into the mall from the broken or activated sprinklers. As Erik Ronningen describes,
          “I drag my body down through the decimated main lobby [of the North Tower], through a waterfall from the Mall ceiling, and wade the darkened Mall corridor through 75 yards (69 m) of ankle-deep water to Tower Two.”[3]

        8. @Hilary,
          You don’t have to be a rocket scientist, or any type of scientist to realize that when the world trade centers went down, the pile at the bottom did not add up to what was standing there several minutes earlier. Basically, if you played with blocks when you were a kid you could come to that conclusion.

          If you could collect all the dust that all the materials had turned into and weigh it, I suppose (I don’t know for sure) that it would weigh the same as the weight of the materials before they were dustified.

          Some of it blew away, but the percent of the dust that fell took up much less space than the materials originally did, and someone else would have to explain that. It has something to do with the energy that was used and the loss of space between atoms (I think, anyway). It sort of reminds me of cremation, but of course is different in a way.

        9. @ Violeta. Wood makes the claim that there is not enough rubble, yes. Other physicists dispute her conclusions.

          Unless we know the mass/volume of the building and the mass/volume of the debris we can’t draw firm conclusions. Going by photographs of the rubble pile is not in any way conclusive as we can’t get any kind of accurate dimensions.

          Please do note though that I am not saying Wood is wrong necessarily. I’m saying we need more data than someone brandishing a photo and saying “does that look like enough rubble to you?”

        10. Yes, the debris is not there. Where did it go? Go to Veterans Today and look for the material on the dust samples.

          Frankly, I don’t care if Dr. Jones “came first” (or last), or he parts his hair on the right. It isn’t a competition. If someone wants to believe Dr. Jones, fine. I think he’s wrong, but fine.

          I’m not looking for a guru. I’m not impressed by any other research to date but Dr. Wood. She has problems (in my opinion), but that does not detract from what she shows in her book.

          Why this inspires such vehement denial is mysterious. I’m glad there are photos. If you look at them and see twelve or so stories of debris, you have your answer. If you don’t, and look at both the nature of how they “came down” and where the material went, you have another answer.

          There is far more dust than could ever be created by any type of explosive device. I don’t see this as something where I “win” or “lose”. I didn’t create the residue. I just observe it. If you have a plausible explanation for it other than explosives (which can’t achieve this result), I’ll consider it.

          I think I could quite literally fill a book on just this part of the operation alone. There are calculations of the “rate of collapse” that actually take into consideration the resistance to momentum from the lower floors. They don’t work because it didn’t collapse and the floors were gone.

          I would also wager that, if they had used any other method, they would have tilted and crashed over sideways. So, working backward from what was left, where did they go? Where are all the debris?

          It went up, out and away. It is dust.

        11. I said I would follow up, Hilary, when I got home. Reading what lophatt said, I’m just going to rest my case. He says it all. It is a mystery why Judy Wood draws such hostility. I, too, really don’t care what it is. I defend the importance of her book, but why should I go on repeating myself?

          My final word: you claim Wood is wrong that the mall and the subway were beneath the Twin Towers. Wiki agrees with her. the street level beneath a billion tons of mass was unaffected by the disappearance of the buildings, because a billion tons of mass turned into dust and smoke–it never hit the ground, as all scientists in the world know perfectly well, because seismometers did not record the event. A billion tons of mass would have certainly smushed the mall and the subway, if it had fallen. It did not. If you don’t like that truth, who am I to tell you how to think?

          No more from me on this.

        12. @lophatt:

          You say:
          “Yes, the debris is not there.”

          You say:
          “the percent of the dust that fell took up much less space than the materials originally did”

          But you just keep asserting this and never quote any actual data. I’ve told you a few times now that Wood’s original claims about this have been questioned. I’m not sure why you keep avoiding that and continue to talk as if her word was the only one that mattered. She may be right of course, but she may be wrong. How can we tell if we don;t examine both sides of the question?

          Do please read these papers and all the other mountain of stuff out there that critiques Wood and the “star wars” hypothesis. And then maybe tell us why it’s flawed?

          And I repeat agan, can you find

          You have to agree that noisily advocating faux or unproven certitudes is only to do our own disinfo work? It’s fine to entertain all possibilities but before we pronounce certitudes we need objective and well-sourced proof. We need figures. We need detailed info about debris dispersal. If we don’t have those we are all only guessing and possibly leading ourselves and others astray.

        13. I’m with Hilary. We don’t need Star Wars and laser beams. There is a company which has expertise in bringing down steel-framed buildings, and that is Controlled Demolition, Inc. (which “A Noble Lie” also implicated in the bombing of the Murrah Building).

          Have a look at this video: CDI holds the “world record for the tallest steel-framed building ever imploded,” the J.L. Hudson Building in Detroit, in 1998:

          Except we know very well that the J.L. Hudson Building ISN’T the “tallest steel-framed building ever imploded.” However, CDI has a little problem taking credit for the ones that were!

          There are more videos on the Loiseaux Group website. All these buildings came down the same way as the WTC.

        14. Patrick, me too. I give. All hail to the Great Jones (BHHN)! I feel like someone who’s been arm wrestling. I say thermate didn’t do it. It may have been Col. Mustard in the basement with a knife, but it wasn’t thermate, or any other conventional explosive or incendiary.

          I don’t know how Jone’s became the “default position” among those who are willing to question the story but unwilling to look at the phenomenon. For the record, I HAVE read the ping-pong match between the Jonesites and the nukies.

          For what its worth, they may have used thermite or thermate in there for some reason as well. I can tell they used cutter charges on some of the lower beams as well. I certainly never said they didn’t use it, I said it could not be responsible for the evidence.

          In all these “debates” with Jones it is always “all or nothing”. That in itself is a ridiculous position. In order to “KNOW” that something was not used you would have to know all things. Obviously he doesn’t, and neither do I. All I can say is if he ever tires of the thermate gig, he should go into cult work. There’s probably some acreage in Guiana that isn’t being used.

        15. @Hilary, maybe we could change the focus to who did it instead of how much debris and rubble were left since there never was nor will be any way to measure them precisely.

        16. Hilary, here’s the deal. I won’t speak for Patrick, but, at least to my obviously inferior standards, he makes sense. I doubt that neither he, or myself, intended to be “presenting a theory for peer review (you being the principle ‘peer’).

          I, for one, don’t feel obligated to convince you. We were having a discussion, not a competition. The haughty dismissal is more akin to some sort of “imperial review” than friendly discussion. I have not assumed the role of “authority” here. I suggest that you don’t either.

          I have no interest in convincing anyone. I don’t feel ashamed for not having “met your standards” or answered your questions in a manner acceptable to…you.

          I haven’t changed my mind, nor have I heard anything here that would cause me to reconsider. You are most certainly entitled to do the same.

    1. Are you suggesting that these buildings were entirely empty at the time? That, too, would be a novel theory.

      1. My family visited the WTC on 9-6-01 and it was business as usual that day. We took the elevators to the top and nothing seemed odd or out of place that day. My niece took many pictures that day, the old kodak variety. I have not visited a major city since then though.

        1. I’ve read that the restaurant, and whatever else was operating, on the top floor of the WTC was still functional, but the other floors were empty. No offices in there, in other words.

      2. Thanks all, and to the skeptics, I understand your skepticism and apologize for my inability to explain my thoughts better. There is a lot going on in these discussions. Patrick has an absolutely fine grasp of this. I will not try to address the motives of these “scientists” who seem so intent on ignoring or developing ridiculous explanations for the observed phenomena. If they were scientists, they would welcome the opportunity to study those. Instead, they want them to simply go away.

        So, I’ll just offer a few more thoughts and let it go at that. The evidence that Judy Wood points to in her book is there. You can blink all you like, or even call Dr. Jones (BHHN), and it will still be there. There is simply not enough debris by any honest calculation.

        You can SEE the effect during the destruction. All one has to do is LOOK. How that resembles the King Dome is a mystery to me. Whether people jumped or didn’t jump is interesting but not definitive.

        The material was disassociated. Explosives do not do that. You would not get the same effect if you used them, no matter how carefully. There is no other explanation for “The Spire”, which anyone can clearly see dissolving and blowing away right before your eyes.

        I did not want to subscribe to a controversial theory. It is simply the best explanation for an observable phenomenon. The fact that some with “all the right credentials” say something is not convincing to me. NIST has “all the right credentials” as well. If the theory there goes “we must suspend the evidence before our eyes because some one or some group of “credentialed” scientists says so”, I’ll bow out.

        To just add a slight correction to Patrick’s statement, I don’t deny the existence of “Tesla weapons”. In fact, I have been studying scalar energy but I don’t feel confident at this time to expound on it. I am much more confident that my nuke explanation is doable. If something happens to change that, I’m fine with it.

        The actual effects cannot be explained by “conventional” means. That doesn’t make them impossible, after all, it happened. “Toilets” is a very good example. I like to add desks, file cabinets, computers, people, shredders, generators, you name it. Where did they go? They went EVERYWHERE.

        So, all I’ve tried to do is determine what could have caused the damage. To do that I can rule out all of the “popular” theories. That may make some uncomfortable, but I can’t help that. As Patrick says, I think personally that Jones is carrying NIST’s water. There is a lot of ignorance associated with this and no little amount of deceit. There is no question of the fact that Dr. Jones knows better. I could provide several pages of material from other “authorities” on different subjects that follow the same pattern. Dr. Wood sacrificed her career for her convictions. It shouldn’t be like that, but it is. At least she had the courage to look at something and talk about it. Her conclusions, and they are tentative, may be right. I just think that the evidence is all there for nukes as the cause.

        1. Lophatt, I doubt anyone would say you didn’t make yourself understood. I recently compared our task to having spent a decade in WWI trenches; those who are new to the thing have no idea the subtleties involved. You have acquitted yourself quite ably.

        2. Theresa, yes, I’ve read the Fetzer bit on Khalezov. It’s a good example of what I mean when I say I’ll read anything. There are some real “gems” in there, but I don’t totally believe his premise. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about or that there aren’t a lot of interesting discussion items in there.

          I have independently confirmed some of what he said. When he discusses how Russia used to spot nuclear releases it is consistent with other sources. What he says about it being “pre-planted” as a demolition device, I’ll reserve judgement on that one. There are too many problems with that.

          On the other hand, there are holes in solid bedrock that are polished from melting. I DO think that something happened in the subbasement before the initial staged “airplane” thing began.

          He also talks about paper and how particles pass right through it. I have confirmed this as well.

          I don’t pretend to know every nuance of how they did this. It took some serious engineering. To my knowledge no one has ever attempted something of this magnitude before. I suppose, in a worst case scenario, they would have tipped over, done a lot more damage, and they still would have blamed the imaginary perpetrators all the same.

          Just like in SHE, once they have control of the scene, they have control. That’s one of the reasons they chased that photographer out of the country and he’s now living in Brazil. He is supposed to have some very incriminating pictures.

        3. It’s not Khazelov, though. It’s just a regular Joe who researched patent papers in technology possibly used to bring down the towers. I’ve listened several times, and can’t make head nor tail of it. It’s very interesting indeed.

          Also, the interview with Jeff Prager is a good start for those not at all up to date on mini nukes.

        4. Could someone spell out what the advantages of using nukes were?

          Did anyone see that video the two allegedly amateur men made which featured a pretty constant thumping sound that would have been the bodies of the people who’d jumped out landing?

          People jumping before detonation doesn’t have to negate nukes being used, does it? Since I am not at all a scientist, I can only try to listen to those who are and reason out the mechanics by figuring out what the motives or goals were.

          Also, is there much evidence that these planes really weren’t full of people? I’ve accepted that they were but TPTB allowed it to happen and bolstered the effects with bombs that were planted. Although I wrote earlier that i know someone in government who swears that the planes in DC were military and not commercial. I don’t know enough details though as it’s a secondhand source.

        5. For Sue:

          This is but one of several sites by people with computer graphics skills. It’s pretty good. It is worth the time it takes to read all of it. There are others.

          On his main site he has a video that does a nice job of summarizing the whole thing.

          As to the “advantages” of using nukes, that is not exactly what I’m trying to say. I’m saying that to convert all that disparate material to dust takes a change at the molecular level. That sort of change takes a tremendous amount of energy.

          The only source besides the “directed energy” that Patrick and Dr. Wood describe, would probably take a nuclear reaction. I don’t have any “fondness” for this, it is just a source of energy.

          Both Veteran’s Today and Ed Ward, M.D. have data on the test results from the dust fount in Manhattan at various locations after the event. Decay rates and the products they produce is very well known. The findings are indisputable.

          Now, I can’t say that using some scalar or other directed energy couldn’t produce the same residue. I simply don’t know. So the discussion is about cause, not the effect. The effects were there for all to see. I’d like to see someone duplicate those using kerosine or thermate.

        6. Just as an afterthought. I take for granted that people know what they would expect to see if this were a conventional demolition. “Thermite or Thermate (with sulphur), is not magic juju. It will cut steel. I have seen it used to cut railroad rails. It doesn’t do much, if anything, to concrete.

          Concrete has great compressive strength. It isn’t too good in the tensile strength category. That is why they put rebar and steel mesh into the concrete. If you painted thermate on the surface of all the steel beams in the building I would not expect them to melt entirely. If you placed “cutter” charges on the beams properly, they would probably sever the beams.

          Once that happened gravity would begin to pull them down. There would be tremendous resistance from the concrete. There would be an ENORMOUS pile of cut beams going this way and that and huge piles of broken slabs of concrete being held together with rebar and steel mesh.

          There would be every conceivable type of office equipment, people and, yes TOILETS, all piled together. It would have spread everywhere.

          Instead, we saw a “burbler”. It was like a fourth-of-July firework. The only in tact beams were from the lower floors. Under ground level there isn’t any debris. Where’d it go?

          The King Dome pile is exactly the right size because all they did was drop it. Any architect, engineer, materials expert, physicist, etc., that isn’t actively saying anything is completely ignoring what they know. Those who are supporting either the official tale or one of the “approved” versions is being deceitful. The aftermath, while weird, is one of the easiest things to prove that things are not as described.

          Neither the “blistering inferno” caused by the dreaded kerosine, or thermate (my heart be still!), accounts for what was there. “Ashes to ashes and dust to dust”. That is the fate of both men and toilets.

        7. @lophatt – it bothers me that you make such sweeping statements! –

          “The King Dome pile is exactly the right size because all they did was drop it.”

          You have to show the data before you draw the conclusion this isn’t true of the WTC!

          1. Is the King Dome mass/volume comparable to the WTC?

          2. Has the amount of debris at the WTC been properly calculated? Are those who claim Wood mistook the area involved incorrect? Did Wood leave out the mass of debris present in the sub-basements or not?

          If these questions can be answered with good data then I would agree with you. Until then it seems massively inappropriate to talk in such terms of certitude.

          “Any architect, engineer, materials expert, physicist, etc., that isn’t actively saying anything is completely ignoring what they know.

          Again – you need a solid basis for this. Wood’s original claims have been severely critiqued. She needs to come back and rebut the criticism before we just assume she is correct.

          If those strange “hurricane” effects you describe were present, then I agree that is curious. But let’s not go nuts. Can you tell me about any such specific instances?

    2. I inadvertently sent that last comment before I was done. I just meant to say the footage of planes hitting the WTC was definitely faked. The planes just “melt” into the buildings, and then a nose emerges from the other side. Planes don’t simply melt into buildings.

      1. Right. And it is also physically impossible for jetliners to travel at those speeds at sea level.

        This was a television show.

        1. Exactly so, “a television show”. I was skeptical at first too. I’ll qualify that with saying that I cannot ignore evidence or my understanding of basic physics.

          It is amazing to me that professional pilots (other than those in the one organization challenging this), could listen to this nonsense and not say anything. Non-pilots probably wouldn’t know the physics involved. Besides structurally ripping the aircraft apart, there is insufficient horsepower available at that air density to achieve those speeds. .

          Beyond that, in the game of “rock, scissors, hammer” between aluminum and steel, aluminum loses, every time. Think bug splat on a windshield.

          This has been studied quite rigorously. It actually ties to what we are looking at here in the SHE production. People WANT to believe. It is easy to forget that all the footage we saw was from the MSM. There were only about four or five pieces that received different treatments. It has been duplicated to precision by others with the skills to do it.

          When we enter this realm of “reality” we can make Abraham Lincoln appear next to Marie Antoinette. What’s the matter? You SAW it, didn’t you, DIDN’T YOU?

          With the buildings that was a different illusion. Recall that all the coverage kept repeating, “they’re COLLAPSING, see, watch them COLLAPSE”. That’s not what they were doing at all.

          So, just like airplanes can fly and maneuver at speeds far in excess of their design limits, they can enter steel buildings, cutting through enormous steel beams and girders and floor mats and concrete like a hot knife through butter.

          We’ve entered “The Twilight Zone” here folks. This isn’t any different than Klyngons talkine to Cdr. Kirk. You SAW that too.

      2. Everyone’s seen the footage. Nothing looked askew to me but I’m as I say no scientist. I’d think at the supposed speeds the planes would just ram through…although upon reflection maybe you’re saying the building itself would have ‘reacted’ differently…and perhaps even that the planes wouldn’t have been totally stopped, too.

        It’s interesting to note what people of science might pick up on. I was a top notch athlete who trained with Olympians, and I could tell you stuff about athletes who cheat in my sport that the amateur viewer would have zero sense of. Some feats that aren’t physically possible, and in some cases extremely subtle bodily differences (from in women’s cases using male hormones or steroids) that I could point out but which the untrained eye would never ever notice.

        So maybe TPTB were counting on most of the viewers to just go along with visuals, etc., that only seem feasible to amateurs.

        1. Yes, amateurs and the chronically incurious.

          So, can anyone link to a SH video by namesnotmary? I saw that channel mentioned in some thread and I could not find any.

        2. Thanks, watched it and some of the youtube videos of the crash and collapse. So are people suggesting that there were no planes and somehow the media outlets were totally in cahoots in faking them? I have a friend who was there, an acquaintance really, dropping off her kid in the childcare program in the basement of one. I don’t think she questioned whether planes flew into them, but she was sort of PTSD nuts for awhile after (she ran in and grabbed her kid after the first crash and then ran out of the area). My sister knew someone who died in the restaurant so I’m convinced that part was authentic.

          I’m just confused. Are people suggesting some sort of planes flew in…but not the passenger planes…maybe military ones. It seems like a pretty bold assertion to say that the media was totally coordinated in it’s visual faking of the crashes.

        3. Sue, that is EXACTLY what I am saying. People who were there would certainly have observed an explosion. In fact, there were several people who were not totally edited out of the coverage, who claimed it was an explosion and didn’t see a plane.

          Just like in SHE, they build from a few stock shots that have the graphics added. Those are what makes it onto the TEE VEE.

          If we allow the TV to determine what is “real” for us we will be misinformed. It is easy these days to “make reality”.

        4. Sue said: “So are people suggesting that there were no planes and somehow the media outlets were totally in cahoots in faking them?”

          When images we see on television are impossible, there has to be another explanation.

          A jet engine can’t breathe the thick air at sea level and propel a plane 500-600 miles per hour. And even if you installed special engines onto a conventional airliner that COULD do that, the plane itself would quickly be torn apart by the stress. They simply are not built for it.

          Furthermore, the nose of an airliner is not hard, like a missile. It is hollow, and very fragile.

          The Towers had steel columns all around the perimeter, and a core of steel columns surrounding the elevator shafts at the center of the floor plan. It is unlikely that any man made object, traveling at any speed, could do what we saw on television: plunge into a rigid steel structure as if it was made of jello, and partially emerge on the other side. Certainly, no airplane could do it.

          Everything about that television show is so preposterous that is’s amazing the secret government got the world to believe it. That’s trauma for you. And a testament to the advanced state of stupidity that characterizes modern society.

          Then there is the fantastic tale of the Arab halfwits who couldn’t even fly. One of them, we were told, rolled down the window of the plane he couldn’t fly and tossed out his passport, which was later found in pristine condition in the street. What an amazing detail to include in the drama.

          Thus did countless 911 skeptics spend lots of vital early research time chasing down the rabbit trail of the Saudi morons (some of whom, amazingly, are alive and well and living in Araby, having never been in America at all). Very clever of the secret government, including these grand time wasters, to keep the inevitable Doubting Thomases preoccupied.

          As for media coordination, there is live footage of the explosions with no planes that was shown on television, and the exact same tape shown later, with a plane included. Oops!

          If you worked for one of the networks, and you tried to tell the truth about that sort of thing to the viewing public, you would very quickly have a new title: former employee of the network. And if you pursued the story afterwards, you’d attain another new title: deceased former employee of the network.

        5. Okay, so scientifically from various angles what we ‘saw’ was totally impossible. Lophatt are you one who believes there were other planes that were not the passenger ones but instead empty military ones, or that there were simply none whatsoever, as Patrick asserts?

          My other question then is so who knew what? Did almost every media spokesperson know it was fake, or, were the people in the know in the media able to simply control the images to such an extent that most of the reactions were spontaneous?

          Remember that pregnant blonde wife of the man who supposedly died after his “Let’s do it” declaration…who flew all over the country in a crusade to teach americans not to fear. What do people think of her? I always considered her very very strange…that after losing my young husband I’d somehow fly all over the country to prove to everyone how safe it really was, especially if I were like 8 months pregnant or something. Besides it being bizarre, I’d have thought a doctor would have told her she stood a great chance of losing the baby just by flying around…

          I mention it because the physical impossibility of these crashes didn’t occur to me at all, but the human dimension of their lies did. I could also never get how the arab men went unnoticed in their flight school. But there are rumors that the teachers in them reported the arabs’ strange behaviors (not caring about learning to take off or land, etc.) at the school. Perhaps though those reports are a subtle, sophisticated form of disinformation…

        6. Sue, if you watch the movie “Loose Change” circa 2007, they show that the jets that hit the Twin Towers were in fact military jets, with clearly discernible markings underneath the bellies of the planes.

        7. I am comfortable with the physical evidence; less comfortable speculating about how the conspirators got large numbers of people to participate, and how the veil of silence operates. I’d love to know these things, but doubt I ever will.

          But when it comes to the media, one thing to keep in mind, it’s a guild. If you are “in,” you hope to rise. There was a wonderful time when reporters reported, they were “ink stained wretches” who hated the swells they reported on. They were working class guys who hung out in the neighborhood tavern.

          Now, media types graduate from journalism college, and LOVE the swells they puff about; they rarely do any reporting. One media job leads to the next, and all the while the goal is to be invited to the cocktail parties of the powerful. They, if fact, think of themselves as one of the ruling elite, and can’t wait to get a TV show of their own–so that they can be paid enough not to be embarrassed because they are poor, mingling amongst the rich.

          In such an environment, when a breaking event like 911 happens, a lot of real reporting does go on in the early hours, because the lowly want that Pulitzer–or at least to be invited onto the Sunday bore fests. Maybe someday they will be George Will! So when the corporate directives start coming in, as the conspirators clean up and shape the narrative, all that inadvertent truth goes down the memory hole, and doublethink takes over: they know the truth and they also know that future invites to cocktail parties on the Upper West Side and Georgetown depend on proper conformity. They will choose the career.

          Judy Wood could almost be another species, so in contrast does she stand to that willing soul suicide.

          There is lots of speculation about the passengers on the planes that took off. It’s a big topic. I know my favored, most likely one, but it’s all so speculative that I won’t open the conversation here. Sorry.

          The Arab morons are a fascinating question. I’m guessing the CIA selected the dumbest guys they could find, sent them to half-hearted flight school lessons just for the story value, and disposed of them some way. Again, who can know?

        8. Also, there’s the very interesting function of “compartmentalization”. If you were a news anchor or journalist, and something was happening “right now” and you were reporting just what you were being fed by the reporters/technicians out there, and the imagery was what was being fed into the studio and on the air. Would you stand up and say, “Stop, is this actually happening?” You probably have no reason to doubt it in the very moment it was happening. I think it will take very few people “in the know” to actually feed in the false footage and reporting. Remember the BBC lady reporting on the fall of building 7 while it’s seen in the background (blue screen?). She probably had no idea, and just parroted what she was being fed. I think that’s how it must work when it’s live on such a large broadcasting organisation.
          Gist is, I think very few people knew the whole story. Those who knew parts, had no idea how that part fit into the whole. Those who saw no planes, begin to think they just missed it, or remember it wrongly.

  23. There IS really REALLY weird s@#t swirling around all these events. It become incredibly hard to tread the line between being too dismissive and too credulous. We all probably fall on one side or the other at various times. I know I’ve dismissed things tat have later come to seem unavoidably true, and believed things that later were discredited.

    When it comes to 9/11 there are claims of no-planes at all, claims of missiles, claims of holograms. Some say the buildings were taken down at a different time and the video is all fake. Some say the buildings were nuked. Some say they were dropped by some kind of super-thermite.

    They can’t all be correct. Some are probably deliberate disinfo. Navigating between them is difficult if not impossible. This is why I hate to see extreme or heated language being used. This is no place to start saying “everyone who doesn’t think this is a fraud.” Because speaking for myself what I think is still fluid and forming and can change all the time, as evidence is considered. There’s room for accusation of lying and gatekeeping – Chomsky for example is highly guilty on both counts – but let’s use them carefully?

    I think the laws of physics can help us here, so let’s not be too quick to abandon them.

    Having said that, I’m increasingly open to the possibility they are more guidelines than laws. :), yet we open one hell of a can of worms once we start to consider that don’t we – and it becomes almost laughably easy to dismiss us all as nuts.

  24. @Patrick:

    Patrick said:
    –“It is a mystery why Judy Wood draws such hostility. I, too, really don’t care what it is. I defend the importance of her book, but why should I go on repeating myself?”–

    I agree absolutely. I wish you would *stop* repeating yourself and actually answer some of my questions. 🙂

    I also have no interest in why Wood or anyone attracts hostility. I *do* have an interest in the facts of the case, and I dislike blurriness and emotional pleadings and hand-waving. If Jones’s theory is “schtick” and Wood’s has merit I would like to be told why – with evidence, not just vaguely bludgeoned with your personal convictions!

    Patrick said:
    –“you claim Wood is wrong that the mall and the subway were beneath the Twin Towers.”–

    No, I don’t. I said *other people* claim it, and asked you if you have any counter-evidence. I’m trying to remain as objective as possible and not form any firm opinions.

    Patrick said:
    — “Wiki agrees with [Wood]. the street level beneath a billion tons of mass was unaffected by the disappearance of the buildings, because a billion tons of mass turned into dust and smoke–”–

    Could you give me the link to the page on Wiki where it says that?

    Patrick said:
    –“it never hit the ground, as all scientists in the world know perfectly well…”–

    I have yet to see any evidence to support such monumental certitude. You certainly have not offered any, even though I have asked you repeatedly, and it’s beginning to seem your conviction is based more on emotion or intuition than any kind of study.

    Patrick said:
    –“because seismometers did not record the event.”–

    No. seismometers DID record the event (both of them). Wood doesn’t claim they weren’t recorded, she claims the recording wasn’t large enough for a building the size of the WTC. This has been countered by those who say she is assuming all the rubble impacted simultaneously, when of course it wouldn’t. It’s another one of the counterpoints you just keep ignoring – just as Wood seems to.

    Patrick said:
    — “A billion tons of mass would have certainly smushed the mall and the subway, if it had fallen. It did not. ” —

    Well, this is not clear to me atm. When I watched a presentation by Wood the intact sub-basments she was referring to were under WTC 4 and 5. Can you link to photos of the intact shopping malls etc under wtc 1 and 2, so I can get my bearings? Are you saying there was no rubble in the sub-basments of WTC 1 and 2?

    Patrick said:
    –“If you don’t like that truth, who am I to tell you how to think?

    No more from me on this.”–

    I love the truth, Patrick, but I like to find out for myself rather than rely on the person with the loudest voice and the strongest opinions to tell me what to think 🙂 . I can’t say for sure that Wood’s theory is valueless. It seems to me there are several weird things about WTC 1 and 2 that are hard to explain, but that doesn’t change the fact that currently her theory is low on data.

    1. I personally have no idea what happened and very little basis for forming any remotely solid opinion. Patrick’s arguments sounded convincing to me if true, but how would I judge the likelihood of them being physically accurate? I can’t.

      I have spoken with a friend who is one of those highest IQ’s in the world types with a physics degree. He tells me that nothing he saw on TV violated the laws of physics as far as he understands them. He even thinks the planes were real passenger ones, but not the ones alleged to have bombed the Capitol. He explained stuff about concrete, steel, motion, heat etc. and about the specs to which the towers were built to me, but like I said how could I judge…

      He thinks the massaging of this event went on more politically than materially.

      OTOH I know mensa as opposed to the highest IQ bracket, military engineers who disagree with this source I reference above completely. In short, this seems impossible to figure.

    2. I meant to add, the dissenter I mention was mentored by Sagan, had epic fights with Gould…he didn’t just get a physic degree but worked in the field, although also in other scientific disciplines…so who knows…

  25. lophatt said –
    “Patrick, me too. I give. All hail to the Great Jones (BHHN)! I feel like someone who’s been arm wrestling. I say thermate didn’t do it. It may have been Col. Mustard in the basement with a knife, but it wasn’t thermate, or any other conventional explosive or incendiary.”

    I can’t believe you and Patrick are responding this way! You are talking as if I’m some kind of Jones groupie! But I’m no fan of Jones. And all I’ve done is ask you *for the evidence underpinning your opinion*. This is just normal, everyday discussion isn’t it? You and Patrick are the ones making didactic observations and proclaiming certitude and telling everyone that anyone disagreeing with this or that must be “rejected.” Yet as soon as you are asked to defend your certitudes with data all you do is bluster and then retire.

    Just to make it clear – I am not wedded to any fixed belief about what brought the towers down. I don’t think Jones is “great.” I can see he easily might be wrong partially or completely. All I’m asking for is some good data to back up the assertions you make. That’s all.

    Lophatt said:
    “For what its worth, they may have used thermite or thermate in there for some reason as well. I can tell they used cutter charges on some of the lower beams as well. I certainly never said they didn’t use it, I said it could not be responsible for the evidence.”

    Well, that’s interesting. I agree that cutter charges must have been used on some of the beams. I hear what you say about thermate/thermite not being able to explain all the evidence, but I would need to ask for more specifics. Can nano-thermite pulverise concrete and marble? is there any real data to suggest the steel was pulverised and not just broken up?

    Lophatt said:
    “Hilary, here’s the deal. I won’t speak for Patrick, but, at least to my obviously inferior standards, he makes sense. I doubt that neither he, or myself, intended to be “presenting a theory for peer review (you being the principle ‘peer’).I, for one, don’t feel obligated to convince you. We were having a discussion, not a competition. The haughty dismissal is more akin to some sort of “imperial review” than friendly discussion. I have not assumed the role of “authority” here. I suggest that you don’t either”

    I am slightly amazed you find it so odd and offensive that I asked you for evidence! How do you normally discuss these things if not by reference to data? 🙂 And if you look back you can clearly see I haven’t dismissed anything at all. Only you and Patrick have done that. On the contrary I was and am open to all possibilities, and all I ask is that someone proposing a theory backs it up with evidence.

    Lophatt said:
    “I haven’t changed my mind, nor have I heard anything here that would cause me to reconsider. You are most certainly entitled to do the same”

    I have no firm opinions as to exactly how the towers came down so “changing my mind” doesn’t come into it. I’m quite sad you have both withdrawn from the discussion as I had a lot of questions to ask you about the various aspects of Wood’s theory. Though as you seem to regard being asked for evidence as some kind of insult or judgement I guess the discussion would never have gone anywhere.

Comments are closed.