People who have a more “fixed”
mindset, believing (more or less) that what they have been presented with by
mainstream news and “academic” sources is true, often scoff arrogantly at people
like me. I have scratched through the “surface reality” to reveal the murky
layer underneath. Perhaps the principle reason why they scoff is that they
assume there is no evidence to back up or prove the things they just cannot
accept are true – and it’s not worth their time to look.
Sometimes, as I work through and
review this material, I can forgive them for thinking “there is no nothing to
see here”. The reason I say this is because numerous false assumptions are being
made in many areas of “conspiracy culture”. This means that what is presented as
being true is sometimes not provable – at least, not to the extent that is being
One good example of this is the
chemtrail phenomenon – which I have studied in
some detail and written quite a bit about. A number of groups have whipped
themselves up, almost into a frenzy, because they assume that all the trails
they see in the sky are toxic spray – which is constantly raining down on them
and poisoning them. However, carefully reviewing the evidence seems to show that
the toxic spraying cannot be as widespread as people are claiming. I do not want
to write too much about this here, because it is not the thrust of this article.
For the moment, I will say that we have evidence that some toxic spraying
has taken place and we do have some
very, very strange videos and photos which clearly show weather, cloud and
contrail anomalies which cannot be explained in conventional terms. To leap from
there to a conclusion that “constant toxic spraying” is taking place is not
currently supported by the available evidence. Also, I think it is worth
considering the tendency for groups of people coming to an unsupported
conclusion can be utilised by those keeping secrets to help ensure that those
secrets are still covered up. Such is the power of disinformation…
With so much uncertainty in the
“conspiracy” or “alternative knowledge” culture, is it any wonder that some
people scoff arrogantly? When one reviews all of the information available, how
much of it is “open to debate”? Stop and consider how the language used within
the culture is peppered with phrases relating to uncertainty. For example,
common terms are “conspiracy theory”, “hypothesis”, “truth seeking” (implying
that the truth has not been found), “the truth is out there” (not “in here”).
Radio talk shows often have titles such as “out there”, “the unknown” or “planet
X”. When one becomes involved more deeply in the alternative culture, it often
seems like all certainties “melt away” and the whole of reality becomes more
fluid. Do we then become “conditioned” that certainty is no longer available?
What truth can we “truly establish”?
We can establish truth and
certainty when we have available evidence – and the more evidence we have
available, the more we can establish with certainty. Unfortunately, in
“conspiracy culture”, it sometimes seems “unfashionable” to establish anything
with certainty – it almost seems like establishing truth and certainty is
discouraged – due to the level of conjecture and the amount of information
which is interpreted in so many different ways. People seem to look to “leaders”
and there even seems to be a kind of “hero worship” – which can, at times, mean
that people don’t think for themselves enough.
I would like the reader to
consider that this culture of discouraging certainty is actively used and
promoted by those wishing to keep important secrets, which allow them to “stay
in the driving seat” of affairs on planet earth at this time. An area where
certainty can be established, if the reader chooses to review the
available evidence, is in relation to what happened at the WTC on 911. For many,
they simply cannot accept this could be the case – on the one hand, they assume
that they already know the truth, as told by the mainstream media and
“international experts” and so on. Then, on the other hand in “conspiracy
culture”, they sometimes assume the truth cannot be known – because there are
“too many conflicting theories”. Few consider, as I have suggested above, that
“conspiracy culture” itself can be used as a cover up for truths that can be -
and are already - known.
People reading this may already
know of my association with Dr Judy Wood who, through her meticulous research,
has established some profound and detailed truths (not theories) about what
happened to the WTC. So profound and world-changing are these truths, that many
methods and techniques seem to have been employed to keep people from seeing,
realising and comprehending these truths. What is the reason for this? This is
how a friend of mine recently put it:
[Dr Judy Wood] being victorious - in her message to the public - results in
the entire overthrow of our ruling elite - I wonder if she knows that - and
the consequent forces aligned against her.
Over the last few years, I have
tried to compile the evidence that shows certain people are working on behalf of
those forces – wittingly and unwittingly - to keep people from being certain
about what happened. I have published some of this evidence – and a commentary
about it –
in my free book/ebook called “911 Finding the Truth”. Overall, these forces
– the ones encouraging doubt and uncertainty - have been largely successful.
However, thanks to the efforts of a small number of folks in the USA and in the
UK (mainly), we have shown that these intensive and intricate PsyOps aren’t
working on everyone. My own efforts at summarising, compiling and distributing
all this evidence about what happened to the WTC and evidence about who is
covering it up - have not been without success. There is no denying, however,
that I am, all too often, “outgunned” by folks with collectively more time,
money and expertise in disseminating attractive or authoritative-looking
disinformation. Which brings me to the latest part of a psychological operation.
Some time ago, Jim Fetzer decided
to organise a new conference about 911 research - to which he invited Dr Morgan
Reynolds and Dr Judy Wood. Dr Morgan Reynolds declined to attend. Due to the way
Fetzer has covered up and muddled up important aspects of Dr Judy Wood’s
“911 Finding the Truth”), she chose not to even respond to the invitation.
An obvious question comes to mind
here – Jim Fetzer and many of the speakers from these 2 conferences are US based
– yet they have chosen to hold both of these events up in Canada. Perhaps they
are afraid of being prosecuted under
the Smith-Mundt act, which was related to how propaganda is allowed to be
used by the government in the USA. In 1985, an amendment to the act wanted to
“no funds authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information
Agency shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States, and
no program material prepared by the United States Information Agency shall
be distributed within the United States.”
* Clare Kuehn, “Were DEWs used to decimate the Twin Towers?” (40 minutes)
A University of Toronto graduate in history and student of philosophy,
mathematics and the arts, she will discuss Judy Wood, WHERE DID THE TOWERS
GO?, and will present evidence for the use of “DEWs” as “Directional Free or
‘Low-Input’ Energy Weapons”.
It must be realised that this
person was not recommended by Dr Judy Wood, nor has she given this person
permission to act as any kind of authority on her research, or a representative
acting on her behalf. It seems from the information above that Ms. Keuhn is not
even qualified to present the research with anything approaching the level of
expertise that Dr Judy Wood possesses. It seems, therefore, that this conference
is a very specifically orchestrated opportunity to introduce doubt and
uncertainty into an area where this should not and need not be done. Why
did Mr Fetzer invite Ms. Kuehn? Why did she accept his invitation? Clearly, it
remains to be seen how she presents the information – and what she omits.
However, the “pedigree” for this conference is not good. Another of the speakers
is Jeff Prager:
* Jeff Prager, “Proof of Ternary Fission in New York City on 9/11″ (40
Founder of an award winning magazine for Senior Citizens, in 2002 he tried
to prove 19 Muslims hijacked four planes and attacked us. By 2005, he
realized this was false, sold his business, left the US and began to
investigate 9/11 full-time. See 9/11 America Nuked.
You're a blithering, brainless, molecularly and neurologically challenged
idiot. You're known to the detectives and the police force in your community
as a complete idiot. You're known on the internet as the moron of morons,
the Mans Moron. For goodness sakes, uranium at 93 Bq/kg with strontium,
barium and thorium equally off the charts spells fission you twit.
So, Mr Fetzer has therefore
deliberately set up a conference which will not establish any truth – quite the
reverse – it will encourage uncertainty and debate. Perhaps surprisingly, Mr.
Fetzer essentially tells us that
this is, indeed, the purpose of his conference.
NOTE: None of these studies should be taken as conclusory but are instead
being offered as exemplifying the kinds of issues that will be addressed
during The Vancouver Hearings.
The definition of a hearing is... " A proceeding before a judicial officer
in which the officer must decide whether a crime was committed, whether the
crime occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and whether
there is Probable Cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime."
BIG QUESTIONS ? 1. Will there be a judge from the United States present ? 2.
Will there be territorial jurisdiction of the court in CANADA for a crime
that occurred in the United States? 3. Who will be deciding the crime issues
and definitions ? 4. Who is being tried ?
Hypothesis, Theory, Feasibility and Possibility
From the conference posting above,
and from previous postings by Mr Fetzer, such as those in relation to the Amazon
review of Dr Judy Wood’s conclusive study embodied in her
book “Where Did the Towers Go?”?, it becomes clear what his strategy is. It
is to insert doubt, confuse, confound and encourage uncertainty – perhaps,
almost, engineering ignorance. His actions would, in different
circumstances, result in him being charged with something like “conspiracy to
cover up a crime”.
Other posts by
Mr Fetzer characterise my writing of articles such as this as being “part of
cult”. Is this because he has nothing to offer in order to refute this
analysis and deconstruction of his actions? His writings are almost as desperate
as those (reproduced earlier in this article) by Jeff Prager (who quotes Mr
Fetzer in his own “911 Nuked” publication – similarly designed to introduce
doubt and uncertainty).
Those attending Mr Fetzer’s event
will probably be somewhat bamboozled by his false authority and articulate but
often meaningless “waffle”. Let me attempt to mimic his strategy, by presenting
a short hypothesis about why it’s not safe to assume that 1
+ 1 = 2. Here’s how a philosopher (i.e. someone like Mr Fetzer) might
attempt to persuade us that there is “room for doubt”…
“1 + 1 May Not Be Equal to 2”
In considering this most basic of
problems, it has always been assumed that the “1 add 1 is 2”. However, can we be
sure this is always correct? Some have said that 1 + 1 = 3 and others have said
1 + 1 = 10. So we need to study it further. Are there other ways of looking at
this problem which may reveal important truths that have not been analysed
closely enough before now? It is such an important issue, we need to be sure
that we are correct – otherwise all other things which follow from this cannot
be assumed to be true.
Let us start by considering the
notion of interpretation of notation. For example, in the English language, the
letter “I” has a similar notation to the digit “1” – therefore, it is possible
that “1 + 1” may not be what it seems (it could be “I + 1” or “1 + I” or even I
+ I). Additionally, there are circumstances under which 1 + 1 may be equal to
10. One such “special case” is in the form of binary arithmetic – here, using
base 2, the use of the digit 2 never occurs – it is represented as 10 (one “two”
plus zero units).
Hence, we have to consider such
issues as notation, representation and number base - it becomes clear that we
cannot always be certain the 1 + 1 equals 2 and so care must be taken not to
come to the wrong conclusion and we must establish the bounds of our hypothesis
before coming to a conclusion.
“1 + 1 Equals 2”
Perhaps the above example is too
simplistic – ridiculous almost, but hopefully, I have made a good enough job of
the “argument” (waffle) to illustrate how doubt can be introduced in an area
where it is wrong to introduce it. One thing I will point out is that, in the above “discussion”, I said nothing which was untrue. For those not familiar with Dr Wood’s
research, you can become familiar with it, in some detail, by watching the
The evidence presented in these
videos can only be explained by the use of an unconventional directed
energy weapon and it rules out all other “conventional” explanations –
including all those being presented at the Vancouver event. It removes
all doubt and makes debate pointless and worthless.
Importantly, what the study also
shows is that the evidence left over matches closely with evidence produced in
John Hutchison's experiments. This knowledge is very dangerous for the PTB
precisely because it is established as being true and is not conjecture at all.
It also directly implicates certain individuals and companies as having specific
knowledge about 911 and how it was done.
Now, after a number of years, no
one has been able to refute the evidence. Rather, individuals such as Mr Fetzer
have singled themselves out more and more clearly as people who want to divert
attention from what the evidence shows – and proves. They have become, and
continue to be, accomplices to a criminal cover up.
An Energy Weapon WAS Used To Destroy the WTC – This
is not a Theory
This is the truth – in the same
way 1 + 1 = 2. Suggesting 1 + 1 may not = 2 is dishonest. When the evidence has
been openly and honestly and fully studied, suggesting the WTC was destroyed by
something other than an energy weapon is dishonest. The destruction of the WTC
and all the terrible, horrible things associated with that were a crime.
Covering up a crime is itself a crime.
Characterising these discoveries –
these truths as “a theory” is precisely how Fetzer and those doing similar
things get away with continuing the cover up. He characterises it as a theory
"which he supports". This is how he retains credibility and diverts attention
away from the fact that he himself is an accomplice to the cover up. He can say
things like "Oh yes, most probably an energy weapon - but I don't know
the exact type.” All the evidence is available now for anyone with the means and
the motive to follow it where it leads - right into the heart of the Military
Industrial Complex – through companies like SAIC and ARA. (Isn’t it strange how
we never hear these truths being spoken of by ex-military Mr Fetzer and other
military figures like John Alexander – who is also familiar with the work of
The Towers Are Gone – Do You Care?
With the upcoming debate in
Vancouver (arguably a criminal cover up), those participating in it or
considering buying a ticket to the conference, could consider asking themselves
a few simple questions. Here is a Pop Quiz, suggested by Dr Judy Wood.
Were the towers once there? (yes or no)
Are the towers still there? (yes or no)
Did most (over 50%) of the towers turn to dust?
(yes or no)
a) If your answer to question #3 was "no,"
Please review the empirical evidence more
carefully or find someone who can.
b) If your
answer to question #3 was "yes,"
·Does there exist a mechanism or technology capable of doing this?
(yes or no)
answer to question #4b was "yes," we are in agreement.
answer to question #4b was "no," please explain your contradiction, claiming
something occurred that was impossible to occur.
“1+1 may not = 2”. QED. Save
yourself $25 or $50 – plus your travel time and expenses and read Dr. Wood's
book. Request your local library find a copy for you through Inter Library
Loan, borrow a copy from a friend, or buy your own copy. Watch the videos
linked above, or request DVDs and if demand is not too high, I will send them to
you - free of charge.