Wednesday, April 12, 2006


When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose
You're invisible now, you got no secrets to conceal - Bob Dylan

Funny, that, how the public face of the "Satanic Panic" flap was a black-clad Dr Evil with an Eddie Munster 'do, and its fearless vampire hunter an almost impossibly bumbling everywhere-man of the far right with an FBI backstory. And how the leading proponents for the "disclosure" of extraterrestials have been military careerists or intelligence assets, while the most noisome "researchers" supporting the ET hypothesis have also been disseminators of military disinformation. Or how, suddenly, the loudest voices for "9/11 Truth" are those of former Bush aides and lifelong Republicans, beating the drum for - dig it - no passenger aircraft having struck the World Trade Center.

It's more than just theme and content that evoke The Outer Limits. It's our uncritical digestion of dubious information that becomes our fattening hobby. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical.... Sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. If we're open to all channels and lack the discernment to know what we're watching, we're nothing but passive consumers of conspiratainment.

Ritual abusers aren't likely to be the overt occultist and the kid getting his hate on to Black Metal, but the priest in Toledo and the preacher in Ponchatoula; the prominent Nebraskan belting out the national anthem at two Republican national conventions. More often than not, the abuser isn't the self-marginalized outsider of caricature, but the insider: the one who already has power by the world's measure, and who means to gain more of it. But that caricature is too good to let go, and on all sides, because on all sides can be found the allies and the assets of power that encompass and define the discourse. And so the foolish and imprecise caricature becomes the defining image of the crime - likely to become an uncrime - for both those disposed to discount everything and those who eat it all up.

Who profits by the You're with us or you're against us essentialism of the advocates for the most contentious and spurious speculations on 9/11, and how far does it carry us from the scene of the crime and its high criminals? The pods, the holograms, the missiles, the demolitions: how did we arrive at this familiar position of irrelevance, and who do you think means to keep us here? Popular Mechanics, CNN and the great Anglo-American dailies don't shy from drawing strawman caricatures of conspiracy and then delight in setting them ablaze with all of us supposedly inside like some springtime wickerman sacrifice, yet the meat of the case for criminal intent rots on the offering plate. Why do you think that is, and who do you think might like it like that? The conspirators, who create both a false opposition and a false conspiracy, remain invisible and free to deal more death.

It's a conceit of liberalism to believe knowledge is power, and it's a deceit of the "Information Age" to mistake information for knowledge. Gone missing, for the greater part, is wisdom. Find that, and maybe we find our power.

"Big Brother is watching, so learn to be invisible." That's some advice dished out early on in Grant Morrison's The Invisibles. It's a comic book from the mid-90s, a knowing caricature of a guerrilla war waged by the "Invisible College" against an occult elite that Morrison claims was determined by his own abduction/shamanic experience in Kathmandu. It also happens to contain more wisdom about the world than yet another cut and paste contending that the hole in Tower Two was too small for a Boeing 767. Art can do that. Even comic art.

A few years ago Morrison said, "Fuck man, I tell you when I was a kid I read Robert Anton Wilson and all this shit and here we are, we're standing here, talking about this shit and it's real!"

If the popular culture - even the popular alternative culture - gives us little but caricature, at least we have a good comic book.


Blogger tim said...

Keep up the good work, Jeff. Your wisdom and powers of discernment have been infectious.

4:08 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I get the same feeling as the kid who read Robert Anton Wilson except my author was Eco and the book was Foucaults Pendulumn. It shouldn't be a surprise that the artists are ahead of the rest of us and yet I'm surprised.
Given the shitty choice of living in Wilsons universe or Eco's I would go for Wilsons but I fear we're in Eco's.

5:02 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conspiracy must be understood in cybenetic terms, information control, distortion, etc etc are all quantifiable. I say this only because Human Conspiracy, i.e. win lose buisness as usual, fails in the long run and those strategies are simple to spot. However, there is a evolutionairy conspriacy, perhaps controlled simply by nature, or DNA, that simply has the last word on how humanity will play out her term on earth. There is both a conscious and unconscious conspiracy to elevate humanity to the next level of evolution, life extention, intelligence increase through non zero sum global administrative orders and vast win win networks, migration into technology and then outer space.

Funny when you think that when the world was at war in 1942, the technologies that made the rest of the 2oth and 21st centuries what they are were developed when we were trying to kill each other...

Now that's a conspiracy that only mother nature could pull off.

5:10 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Funny when you think that when the world was at war in 1942, the technologies that made the rest of the 2oth and 21st centuries what they are were developed when we were trying to kill each other..."

You mean those technologies which our controllers have been insisting since the Industrial revolution would result in more free time for humanity ?

More time to reflect on the nature of our existence, and help us to work out the obvious - namely that killing one another is like pointing a gun at our own heads in the greater scheme of things ?

Whatever happened to that ? Too funny .

War is progress, and beneficial ?

For whom exactly ? The usual suspects would be my best guess. The people who dont want you to think about the bigger picture. Those who would have you believe their actually is no bigger picture, and which subsequently perpetuates the grab it while you can mentality that reduces us all to the ignorant savages that we arent - if we were only given time to understand that of course.

Cui Bono, Cui Bono, Cui Bono ?

5:39 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was a dichotomy in the 60's that still trips us up. Either you bought in to the prevailing narrative or you dropped out entirely. There was no third way.

But buying in is moral death and dropping out -- which is to say, rejecting all accumulated wisdom and morality -- is cultural death.

I've been brooding over this problem for 30 years, and the best answer I can come to is that we have to reclaim the heartland. Rather than shying off from the fundamental documents of our culture, we have to become incarnations of them. Rather than being as wild and wacky as imaginable, we have to be utterly and uncompromisingly sane.

I'm not talking about "conventional knowledge" here. Conventional knowledge is soul-death. I'm talking about "the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life." I'm talking about heart-knowledge -- and by that, I don't mean knee-jerk emotionalism. I mean the kind of knowledge that comes out of complete attunement to the universe.

Jeff understands this, I'm sure, but the way he's pitching it might be taken as pragmatic guidance -- at least by us superficial and self-interested American types. In fact, there's nothing "pragmatic" about it. It isn't a question of "whatever works." It's a question of "What is truth?"

Conspiracy theory is not a flavor of the month. It's a deadly serious matter of discerning truth from lies and purging the falsehoods from our collective system.

How real do you dare to get?

6:09 p.m.  
Blogger #1 Sniffer said...

"...suddenly, the loudest voices for "9/11 Truth" are those of former Bush aides and lifelong Republicans, beating the drum for - dig it - no passenger aircraft having struck the World Trade Center."

Thanks for "refuting" the crazy theory of some of us that no passenger airliner hit the WTC and for being so worried about less sophisticated theorists getting so easily caught up in the clever disinformation traps set by nasty Bush aides and lifelong Republicans. And lucky we have one who by his regular mentions of his shamanic connections guarantees us such a link to universal truth and is here to straighten us out.

But may I enquire (and hopefully without links for answers but in plain words for all to read), not just what did not happen which you've broadly hinted at quite a lot, but just what DID happen on 9/11/01 ? Presumably to say what did not happen means you know what did.

And can you tell us your belief whether 911 was an inside job and were the 19 Arabs patsies?

6:10 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Classic stuff, Jeff.

And great comments, Starroute. I'm with you all the way. I brood on that exact same topic. I sometimes feel like discerning up from down is impossible.

The only thing even close to an answer that I've found has come from studying buddhism - particularly zen. There, the focus is on moment by moment authenticity and a trueness (sic) to the world around us. You 'just sit'. You see what comes up. You acknowledge it. You let it be. Similarly, you 'just cut the carrots'. You just cut them. That's all you do. It's very simple and very beautiful. Just be there, utterly present. This practice does change things.

I'm wary of saying it 'tunes you in' or giving it some other label but it certainly alters the frequency of perception (another label, sorry).

I wonder if we're in danger of erring in this age where our intellects can get so much exercise but midst all the clammer it's ever harder for our 'beingness' to just be?

How real do you dare to get? It's possibly the biggest question facing all of us right now.

6:54 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the 9/11 truth narrative is just a distraction, is the RA narrative also just a distraction? Why is one a distraction and not the other, is it the background of the distractor that makes one more valid than the other? Or is it more complicated than that? It seems to me that 911 truth movement whistleblowers and RA witensses/victims alike all come from a variety of backgrounds. Even if all the 911 truth storylines are disinfo and hoax meant to mislead, don't they ultimately serve the purpose of attempting to identify the real perpetrators? It's not like we'll ever know anyway, the real bad guys are never going to willingly give themselves up. Any admission of involvement would most likely arise from hubris in an unintentional moment of candor and just vanish in the ether, like GHWB's usless eaters commment. I suppose you're right, it all makes for a good comic book.

8:23 p.m.  
Blogger Tate said...

Petition by physicists on nuclear weapons policy - You can sign under non-physicists and under institution many people wrote "Student" or "Self"

Petition by physicists on nuclear weapons policy, September 2005 As physicists we feel a special responsibility with respect to nuclear weapons; our profession
brought them into existence 60 years ago. We wish to express our opposition to a shocking
new US policy currently under consideration regarding the use of nuclear weapons. We ask
our professional organizations to take a stand on this issue, the Congress of the United States to conduct full public hearings on this subject, and the media and public at large to discuss this new policy and make their voices heard. /

Will The U.S. Nuke Iran?

Professor of Physics Highlights The Dangers....

===NO ONE in the reality-based world could ever be prepared for the foreign policy of this administration. In a sense, it’s the perfect storm: bigots, a population of disinterested, seemingly decorticate workers clinging to their jobs with a hope and a prayer (for those outsourcing said jobs), greedy economic ideologues, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and Muslim nutjobs,and the reins of government of the most powerful nation on the planet held by a group of people so severely pathological it’s amazing they’re able to function. Now what training could every prepare anyone for that?

===pertinent here as well. (re NRFE *ilson #19)

When Truman faced the decision of whether or not to use the A-bomb in 1945, no one outside of the project (except numerous Soviet spies) knew about it. HST himself didn’t learn about it until he was informed (by Stimson, IIRC) a few hours after FDR died. Also, obviously, no one had any idea of the long term affects such as fallout, etc. But the key factor was that he was getting estimates from the JCS that the invasions of Kyushu and Honshu, planned for October, 1945 and Spring, 1946, respectively, would likely result in 500,000+ KIA for the US forces alone. This, plus growing concern about the geopolitical implications of the Soviet Union entering the war against Japan, led to his decision. If he had not used it and the casualty rates of the invasions of the home islands had been in accord with projections he would have been villified.

Things are very different now, and there’s no excuse for the use of nuclear weapons, even
“tactical” ones, not being dismissed out of hand. In today’s environment there is no such thing as a “tactical” nuclear weapon because their use would have profound strategic blowback. In this I disagree with Billmon’s awsome post of yesterday.

Anyone morbid enough to want to pursue this topic should check out The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes.

====BC, i keep on mentioning this, but no one has picked up on it yet. If there is an order to nuke Iran, this will have to go to officers who are especially trusted. Who are those?
People like Boykin—crazy, end-timer christians who want to bring on Armageddon, whom Bush will use for his own purposes, whatever they are. I really think that if there is a way to look at recent officer promotions for suspicious
patterns, it would be worth doing.

=I try to keep up with Prof. Cole and others as often as I can. All of my int’l relations studies never really prepared me for a foreign policy analysis of an Administration THIS out of whack. SIGH

===And while we’re discussing Iran and nuclear weapons, Mr Preznit really needs to get out the bubble.

His saber-rattling appears to be causing a crisis of conscience in the military’s officer corps.

Apparently some general officers who would have to counter-sign an order to use WMD have announced they would not do so. I know quite a few of the ROTC cadets on our campus and the more thoughtful among them are trying to figure out what to do.

I’ve never heard ROTC cadets questioning the command authority before. Not even during the Vietnam wind down.

8:50 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to expound on what tim in san francisco said: Your wisdom and powers of discernment ARE infectious and it gives me hope. a reinvigoration of positive energy, positive everything. and i'm working toward following my words that i have written here in recent days. basically, to live responsibly, a hard thing to do. a core reason why this country is falling.

its springtime in america once again and people will begin to become more aware, i pray (prayer through action) that more people will. i think you have too.

but, in response to the issue at hand, i do find it interesting the idea that the no plane theory seems to have a major pal on its side.

but even further..we must move forward..these are distractions.

days after 911 happened president bush urged america to shop and portrayed for us, as a nation, a framework for the future of america into a simple manichean, dualistic model: you are with us or your with the terrorists. it is a completely irresponsible and manipulative idea.

and everything leads off and away from there. this simple dualism is the way the PTB wanted us to continue to exist in, the way we had consistently existed through out history.

i remember in the months after 911 i had this glowing hope that the world would change for the better. that this event would birth a third way, or maybe a fourth, i don't know. that we as a country atleast would learn to get along in a productive manner. to actually help the world NOT invade countries in some imperial march of revenge. i knew exactly the potential for change that would exist for only a short time, maybe a year. every fucking country on earth said how sorry they were that we were attacked. this scum bag of a president squandered it all.


but this was before i knew what this was really about.

it was the pearl harbor of the information age. a catalyst for the distruction of sanity. a chaos created in order to inject a false understanding of reality, even if the order before it may have been strange too.

it was the twilight zone before, now it is the outer limits manifested.

with 911 the 'debate' was narrowed to a single issue: security. and thusly everything else was exploitable. fear was exploited to eat up peoples rights so that we could feel 'safe'.

and its just grown from there. we are now actually talking about the merits of torture, the boundaries of executive powers, the nuking of a country and the impeachment of a traitorous president in the coming months...

honest, sober and reasonable intuiton/wisdom is our way out of this maze.

and as the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy says: Don't Panic.

i like what starroute said: we have to be utterly and uncompromisingly sane.

we have not let fear cloud our judgement.

8:54 p.m.  
Blogger Garth said...

Conspiracy has many levels.
The greater conspiracy seems to me to be the proliferation of peurile theories (some now accepted as fact in many circles) -The X-files type stuff that leads us nowhere except away from where all the real shit is going down.
The truely frightening conspiracies are the ones that are reaching fruition in the current activities of the American Empire. It appears that the corruption of power is absolute and it requires no further justification for what it does. The media conjecture on the motivation behind the actions of those in power is meaningless - these guys are running headlong at the abyss - tomorrow does not exist for them; they are living in a collective mid-life crisis where they refuse to contemplate their imminent demise and therefore have no problem in the annihilation of millions (if not of everything.)
Get them out now.

9:01 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. The problem is that in an age when information is cheap, wisdom is in short supply. Mainly because it's hard work and there are some scary characters out there stirring up shit. I would be a whole lot easier to dismiss it all, or believe every word. Then you aren't responsible for your own errors in judgment or some fact that you over looked.

It doesn't help any that math and physics have advanced to the point where everything I was taught in grade school is wrong. And I mean just about everything. I am kind of a nerd and have always kept up, or tried to, but man... when compter scientists talk about computing with quantum knots and cosmologists about M-brane theories and multiverses and the set theorists say that everything we know is but one archipelego in an infinite fractal sea.... my head starts to swim. I start thinking "It sure would be nice to let someone lese tell what to think 'cause I sure don't know any more."

But then I snap out of it and try once again to slog through it all and put the pieces together myself. Bleggghhh!

9:19 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

poe said...

Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written about "conspiracy" in the following way:

The very label serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.

The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. "Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.

Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It's an old game.

America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term "national security state" to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.

9:19 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Jeff,

Love the reference to Grant Morrison and The Invisibles. It's interesting
how much truth is revealed in caricature.

I think the time is coming where we, including and especially, the scientific community, will have to embrace future causality.

The current paradigm is not holistic and perpetuates division. It cannot explain our circumstance. We are collectively a dog chasing its tail, going in circles with each new hypothesis.

11:01 p.m.  
Blogger toothache said...

Thinking and learning helps clear the windshield, read the map. The motor is the energy we commit to it. The soul is driving, and the soul needs regular prayer - choose your prayer, explore it, and use it's creative power. We are more than witnesses, we are actors. Use prayer.

11:10 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone else here find it at all odd that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, continues to goad the West?

First it was "the Israeli leadership should be wiped off of the map", the the holocaust is a myth, and now this?!

It is as if he is trying to entice the U.S. to bomb Iran....

Would it not make more sense strategically to develop this nuclear weapons capacity "quietly"?

11:16 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anonymous 11:16...wouldn't it be interesting if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was doing that as part of a plan as directed by those who shall not be named in the military intelligence occult industrial complex.

11:52 p.m.  
Blogger ericswan said...

I am astonished that some of the posters here think a nuclear threat is even a remote possibility. Get out more. You're stuck in EE and everybody else moved over to ZPE.

There is no nuclear threat. It's way over. Move along. Get the threat. It's over your house every dam day.

11:55 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Jeff, another beauty. "The Wickerman" WAS great, eh?


2:05 a.m.  
Blogger Sounder said...


Your head is swimming because abstractions of abstractions based on a false premise will never provide a proper picture of reality.

6:19 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Cynthia "everybody needs a hero" McKinney a Scientologist or just completely unaware of their evil ways (yeah right)?

".. Such events and conditions have prompted concern and outrage from many U.S. Congressmen and officials including U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) of the Congressional Arts Caucus, who urged the State Department to make the “plight of American and German Scientologists in the Federal Republic of Germany” a top priority for the State Department’s Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad....“

from a couple of sources, this one pro-scientologist

also, on a somewhat related note, did anyone catch John Judge being spoofed on the Ali G show. (guess it's not only Daryl 'CIA' Gates who can get tricked).


7:04 a.m.  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

Haven't seen John Judge on Ali G, but from this it sounds hilarious:

"I'm amazed it even aired," said John Judge of the Washington Peace Center, who was interviewed by Ali G for a panel on corporate control of the media. Judge said he was paid for his appearance and told it would reach 4 million people in Britain. "It was perhaps the most surreal interview I have ever done."

Answering questions via e-mail, Judge recalled that before the show, Ali G asked him to spell his name and then crossed out the "d" in Judge, explaining that this was so he could pronounce it. Judge said he was also surprised when Ali G asked the panelists why people still read books when everyone can now afford television. After telling Ali G that he had read thousands of books, Judge said that Ali G "told me not to be 'bragging' about it and asked me to name one" to prove it. "In the final analysis," Judge concluded, "either this fellow is as dumb as a box of rocks" or "he was, as they say, just having us on."

7:23 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone remember "Thats my Bush". By the mob that did South Park?

That disappeared real quick come September 2001.

I can imagine Bush organising 911 to get that off the air.

8:25 a.m.  
Blogger cabdriver said...

Ali G is one of the funniest humans alive.

9:20 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff said:

"Who profits by the You're with us or you're against us essentialism of the advocates for the most contentious and spurious speculations on 9/11, and how far does it carry us from the scene of the crime and its high criminals? The pods, the holograms, the missiles, the demolitions: how did we arrive at this familiar position of irrelevance, and who do you think means to keep us here?"

Pods - ok
Holograms - ok
Missiles - hmmm, probably, though a lot of those eyewitnesses are a bit suspect:
Demolitions - !?

I find your blog very interesting, informative and fantastically well-written, Jeff, but that's the second time recently I've seen you disparage theories that refer to the possibility of a controlled implosion at the WTC on 9/11 without offered any reason or link to support your remarks.

As far as I know (having only stumbled upon this forum recently, though I have gone through a lot of the old posts) you have never said what you think caused WTC building 7 to collapse. This, to my mind, is the Achilles Heel of the official conspiracy theory, as it's collapse does not fit in there; hence the inconsistent and always vague explanations of how it came down or (more often) banishment of its destruction from the narrative. If ordinary American citizens are to be convinced that the official conspiracy theory is untrustworthy, I think this is the best place to direct them to look. This is why your sneering of the demolition theory as "spurious" and "irrelevant" troubles me; I personally can't come up with (and have not come across) a better explanation of what happened to WTC building 7.

So, Jeff, could you kindly tell your readers what your take on the implosion of building 7 is? From what I've read here so far, it seems you generally ignore such requests, which I find rather disingenuous. If I am mistaken, please direct me to the appropriate post and accept my apologies in advance.

10:38 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm inspired by starroute also. 30 years well spent. Reminds me of a song by the Flaming Lips. Fine music for the conspiracy minded (from the Soft Bulletin):

-Putting all the vegetables away
That you bought at the grocery store today
And it goes fast
You think of the past
Suddenly everything has changed-

Funky bass grooves, bizzare pneumatic drum, Wayne Coyne falsetto, groceries.

10:44 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union Speech, President Bush uttered 16 words that have since come back to haunt him. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Bush was quoting a statement by the British, "There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civilian nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium." This quotes came from a document issued by Number 10 Downing Street titled, "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The assessment of the British Government". This document has since become more widely known as the "Dodgy Dossier" following exposure that it was written from plagiarized student thesis papers. In one case, information in the Dodgy Dossier was 12 years old, dating from before the UN sanctions on Iraq, hopelessly outdated and obsolete, but included because it portrayed Iraq as heavily armed with banned weapons. Prime Minister Tony Blair has since apologized for this document.

Bush made his claim about Iraq buying uranium from Niger even though former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who had a great many contacts in Niger, had traveled to that country in February of 2002 to verify the accusation and on his return had reported the claim to be without foundation. Following Bush's speech repeating the Niger claim that Wilson knew to be false, Wilson went public, writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times in July of 2003 that exposed the claim as deceptive. As part of a campaign to discredit Wilson and prevent him from further exposing the truth of the matter, Joe's wife, Valerie Plame was revealed as a CIA operative. Not only was Plame's career ruined, but the company she worked for, Brewster Jennings & Associates, was exposed as a CIA front. In one of the ironies of the scandal, Brewster Jennings & Associates' mission was to track nuclear weapons in other countries. Since compromised and shut down, this has left the United States without the means to track just who does and does not have nuclear weapons.

Originally, George Bush tried to dump the blame for the Niger claim on the CIA's George Tenet. The CIA then demanded an investigation into the outing of Plame. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft stalled for months, then handed the investigation to Patrick Fitzgerald.

However, months before Joe Wilson's article appeared, the International Atomic Energy Agency had examined the documents which had surfaced in Italy purporting to document the sale of uranium to Iraq and determined that they were forgeries, and indeed, very clumsy ones.

This is the scandal behind the scandal. The outing of Valerie Plame was not done out of revenge, or as the Washington Post reports, part of a feud between Karl Rove and the CIA. Joe Wilson's article started to focus attention on the fact that the documents used to claim that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger were fakes!

The fact that the Niger documents were fake is hard proof that the lies that tricked this nation into war were not an accident, not "misinterpreted" or "bad" intelligence, but deliberate falsehood with malice aforethought.We The People were lied to intentionally to trick us into supporting a war of conquest against an innocent nation that had done us no wrong.

Where did the forgeries come from? The documents had first surfaced in Italy, and in July, 2005 the Italian Parliament released a report naming four men as the likely forgers of the documents; Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi and Francis Brookes. Ahmed Chalabi is the former bank embezzler who was at one time expected to lead Iraq in the post-Saddam period. Of the remaining men, Michael Ledeen deserves special note. Shortly before the forged documents surfaced in Italy, Michael Ledeen paid a visit to the head of Italy's secret service, SISMI. Ledeen's entourage included Larry Franklin, since exposed as a spy for Israel operating in the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, an operational partner to the White House Iraq Group charged with "selling" the war in Iraq to the American people. Larry Franklin has confessed to handing classified information to AIPAC, the Israeli lobby. Presumably the information went from AIPAC to Israel. Less discussed is what disinformation flowed back from Israel through AIPAC, to Larry Franklin. What is known is that the claims regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that came from the Office of Special Plans were as groundless as the claim that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger.

Larry Franklin is not alone in handing classified documents to Israel. Larry's boss at the DPB, Richard Perle, likewise was caught giving classified information to Israel in 1970. Yet another official caught handing America's secrets to Israel is Michael Ledeen himself, as a result of which he (briefly) lost his security clearance. Ledeen was hired by Douglas Feith to start up the Office of Special Plans. As a side note, it was Michael Ledeen who arranged Jonathan Pollard's job with the US Navy, which led to US Nuclear Deterrent Secrets being given to Israel, who in turn traded them to the Russians for increased emigration quotas.

The exploding Plame-gate scandal is more than just the illegal outing of a CIA agent and her associates. It is more than just the shutting down of Brewster Jennings & Associates, leaving the US without a means to track foreign nuclear weapons. It is more than the extent to which the people of the United States were lied to in order to trick them into a war. Running through every single aspect of this horrible mess are the clear traces of a foreign spy operation that has infiltrated the government of the United States to the highest levels and subverted the nation to the purposes of that foreign government.

As of this typing, the men who gave classified information to Israel are still in their positions. AIPAC, the Israeli lobby implicated in the spy scandal, still donates money to US politicians. US Politicians, more damning still, continue to take it.

The following actors in the Niger forgery imbroglio have Ties to JINSA , The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs 1) Dick Cheney ,Vice-President of the United States 2) Michael Ledeen , former Pentagon consultant to Doug Feith , head of Office of Special Plans 3) Ahmed Chalabi ,former Head of Iraqi National Congress , deputy prime minister of Iraq 4) Major General Amos Gilad , head of Sharon's Office of Special Plans 5) Duane Claridge , JINSA member , military advisor to Iraqi National Congress 6) General Wayne Downing , JINSA , military advisor to Iraqi National Congress 7) John Bolton , UN Ambassador , touted forgeries in State Department "Fact Sheet" 8) Antonio Martino , JINSA defence minister of Italy 9) Michael Mason JINSA Assistant Director of FBI /Head of Washington Field Office.

Americans are the victims of the greatest and most deadly hoax in history; lied into a war of conquest. As we are Americans, and as we are at heart moral and just people, we cannot allow a single person who took part in that lie to remain in a position of authority or public trust, whether in government or in the media.

12:04 p.m.  
Blogger blogbart said...


I, too, ask if you could provide clarification on what you are implying regarding controlled demolition(s).

I couldn't give a hoot about pods, holograms or missiles. Mere trivialities for the teams of evidentiary experts at the trial.

As for the issue of explosives being used to bring down the three towers: it is there to be seen. Just see it.

I am with David Ray Griffin; the fact that the three buildings collapsed at all is enough reason to doubt the "official" story.

12:48 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Grant Morrison never went to Nepal. The whole abduction thing is bullshit. Dude wants cash period. Page of of the interview where bullshit turns to money is more what his stuff is about.

Words don't lead to action. Action leads to action. Which is the point of the post. The comic book is BS, the board is BS, Filth is a giant mockery of the comic book reader and by proxy the rigorous intuition reader. The passiveness of fantasy experience never substitutes for real experience. Masterbation is not sex.

Rigorous institution is exactly like the comic book man people's fanatasy safely locked away in digital ink.

1:43 p.m.  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"Grant Morrison never went to Nepal"

Have anything to back that up? I have no objection to being persuaded I'm mistaken or misled.

More from Morrison:

"What happened to me in Nepal was NOTHING like any other drug trip I've ever taken, including those on DMT and other high-dose tryptamines.

"What constantly shocks, disappoints and amuses me is that people constantly assume I'm lying or mad without even trying the techniques TO SEE IF I'M NOT. I'm very baffled by people and their lack of curiosity."

1:54 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's our uncritical digestion of dubious information that becomes our fattening hobby.

Isn't that -- in a nutshell -- how we got into Iraq?

I don't understand how you author a blog called "Rigorous Intuition" without having some very rigorous, very intuitive objections to the official version of 9-11.

You seem to mock those that call to question the illogical and never-proven tale told by the government -- but base your objections on the culture of conspiracy, not on anything "factual".

I've been a 9-11 skeptic since about 10:30 am on 9-11-01, when the second tower collapsed in the same manner as the first, evn though it had sustained sifferent damage, at different height and different angle.

My intuition gave me a RIGOROUS kick in the gut as I watched this happen. It seems that the govt has done nothing but confirm my intuition in the ensuing years...

The 9-11 Truth movement is a response -- so many are trying to figure this out...

2:12 p.m.  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

As for the issue of explosives being used to bring down the three towers: it is there to be seen. Just see it.

As I've posted before, my point is this: I've seen "9/11 Truth" be hijacked by speculation, whether valid or not, and the best and hardest evidence for conspiracy neglected.

I know what the collapse of the buildings look like, and I have questions about WTC 7, but we have answers about other things re 9/11 that I consider to be much more dangerous to the conspirators if only they could get some traction.

I'm talking about things like the coincident wargames including the live-fly simulation of hyjackings; the al-Qaeda-ISI-CIA triangle and Omar Saeed Shiekh; Ptech; insider trading, Cheney taking on the new role of coordinating a response to terror attacks on US soil in May, 2001; the standing order for shootdowns changing in June 2001, discretion taken away from field commanders and entrusted to the Secretary of Defense (the order was rescinded after 9/11); names like Dave Frasca, Mahmood Ahmed, Wally Hilliard, Randy Glass, Michael Springmann, Robert Wright, Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh; Atta's drugs and spooks Florida odyssey; the destruction and cover-up of evidence; Jeb Bush's hand in purging flight school records, and on and on - that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. That's the kind of stuff I wish I was reading when "9/11 Truth" hits corporate media, but it's not, is it? (Or not usually. I'll give credit to Alex Jones: I saw his appearance on CNN a couple of weeks ago, and he really gave it his all to show there's much more to the case than suspicion of demolition.)

Do the people arguing the loudest for demoltion, who suggest I accept the "official story," even know half this stuff?

2:37 p.m.  
Blogger #1 Sniffer said...

Jeff, again two implications you keep slipping in just don't add up to me and are important enough to ask for clarification on:

1. That wild theories about demolitions and such were really created by "bad" Bush and longtime Republicans to fool us.

2. That these same nasty Republicans want to fool us about the official versions of 911 they themselves relentlessly disseminated, to fool us.

Jeff said... "Have anything to back that up? I have no objection to being persuaded I'm mistaken or misled." regarding "Grant Morrison never went to Nepal"

Jeff, "Have anything to back that up" that demolitions are false?

Interesting your reply to the Nepal post was lightning fast Jeff (12 minutes), but on my deeper question of 911 raised yesterday, which others raised too, we are still waiting.

2:49 p.m.  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

About being "lightning fast," I've been out all day and responded first to the last thing I read. It's also the first time Grant Morrison's come up here, and I feel like I've beaten around the 9/11 bush on these issues enough elsewhere.

"Have anything to back that up" that demolitions are false?

My point, again, is not whether it's true or false, but unproven and speculative, and so irrelevant and disruptive. There is so much more of greater merit. It's a tragedy that so few seem interested in that these days.

3:03 p.m.  
Blogger #1 Sniffer said...

Jeff I was writing my last post while you were posting yours immediately before mine.

To respond to your insinuation we advocates of demolition are uninformed, I for one DO know about all these other aspects of 911 that you mentioned, and suspect most advocates of demolition do too. Most if not all seem very valid issues, to be expected in such a vast coverup.

But I think demolition keeps getting most of the attention because it is simple, rests on fundamental laws of physics verifiable by anyone and without sophisticated instruments, and on it's own proves 911 was an inside job (using the establishment's own video clips).

Therefore I am baffled how you could respond it is "unproven and speculative, and so irrelevant and disruptive."

Dr. Steven Jones, tenured professor of physics at BYU published a paper on this at the BYU web-site:

How is this "unproven and speculative, and so irrelevant and disruptive" in the slightest ? (and this is just scratching the surface)

The other points of 911 you raised are much more complex requiring much contextual knowledge that most of the public (not demolition advocates) are not willing to digest, plus on their own they tend not to prove 911 was an inside job.

I notice you again dodge taking a position on the truth of demolition and again only try to discredit those who see it as a valid issue.

3:16 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"pods, the holograms, the missiles, the demolitions"

Demolitions in the same category as holograms? When we know in '93 they bombed the bottom of the WTC?

3:27 p.m.  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

Let me ask you this: if it were established that there were explosives planted, what would it prove? How high would it necessarily go? Why couldn't bombs be just as easily ascribed to "al Qaeda"? The WTC was bombed before after all.

A coincident, live-fly simulation of hijacked aircraft has been established. What does that suggest, and how high must it go? Do you recognize the difference in evidentiary value, and their consequences, and why some parties would like us to circle jerk over certain arguments to the neglect of others?

And that's all from me on the subject.

3:41 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Does anyone else here find it at all odd that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday..."

I don't find it 'odd', I find it obvious... The money power is setting the world up for WWIII.

"Love of money (power) is the root of great evil."

Really, how long are we going to keep saying and thinking things are 'odd' and such. We need to get past this language. Let me illustrate with a perfect analogy.
In Peru and vicinity are the huge pictographs that span miles of the desert landscape. To the unaware observer on the ground, stubbing his toes on the rocks and geography of the pictograph, he might notice an 'oddness' of the layout of the surface details of the land. Then again, how many people would just pass thru, or even dwell there and never notice much at all? But the observant would notice an 'oddness' about apparent pathways, yet may remain mystified as to the the meaninglessness of these vague pathways going nowhere in the desert. But to those whose perspective has gained sufficient altitude, the 'oddness' is replaced with obviousness. Once one has viewed the 'Big Picture' the surface details are no longer odd. Not in the least. The significance of the surface details has become obvious beyond question. The details are indeed odd - for those who are not yet aware of the full perspective. But now, once the big picture is seen, for all those having done so, it becomes absurd for them to return to the details and stand around remarking "how odd".
So, if you don't get the big picture yet, I fully understand how odd the details seem. But for those who 'get the picture', it is tantamount to denial for them to continue using the language of ingnorance regarding what is now obvious. For those, it should no longer be 'odd', but rather damnably obvious what those senseless pathways compose.
Please, no retorts that no one knows everything. I know that. I certainly do not know everything about it all. Far from it. And likely a good thing too for my mental health. But I also know the 'odd' details make a picture.
The Iranian is part of the set-up. Another incompetent, reliable puppet, playing his role, following his cues.

3:52 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"Why couldn't bombs be just as easily ascribed to "al Qaeda"? The WTC was bombed before after all."

Silverstein and the previous WTC bombing would just add precedence to this current case. WTC7 and the physics of the situation make demolition the only logical conclusion. Whether or not it's important to focus on this is debatable, but calling it speculation is just plain wrong.


The Invisibles rock.

4:02 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Let me ask you this: if it were established that there were explosives planted, what would it prove?"

Because then you could start tracing WHO rigged the building. WHO hired them. WHO looked the other way. WHO was watching and then lied about it. WHO paid them.WHO was connected to the '93 attack. WHO protected all of these people for 13 years.

The war games are already PROVEN. You can look them up in CNN articles. But for whatever reason we are having a hard time proving they were intentionally used as cover. The majority of people don't want to consider that possibility.

Rigging the WTC with explosives has only one purpose. To take them down. Knowing it was true would mean:

1. It was an inside job (like the OKC bombing?) where the involvement of some is being protected/hidden

2. You can no longer deny the intentions of any connected to it... unlike the wargames, there is no secondary reason for taking down 3 skyscrapers other than to kill people.

4:11 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jeff said...

....we have answers about other things re 9/11 that I consider to be much more dangerous to the conspirators if only they could get some traction."

I think it's important for readers to fully understand what Jeff is saying here. Focus on what is obvious, rather than detailed speculation. This would be far more revealing and damaging to McGuffin Inc.

It's not that the controlled demolition may or may not be true, but by focusing on that, we diminish our case and allow the other side to eventually sweep all commentary to the fringe where it will finally be catalogued with other conspiracy theories, not even worth a footnote in history.

That's what these guys are good at. Charlie Sheen? C'mon. Talk about a McGoof peddling a McGuffin. Hilliard, Jeb B. and friends are having a hoot!

4:19 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on Anony 4:19, we're already in the fringe here. Do you ever read this site? (No offense Jeff)

4:37 p.m.  
Blogger Effwit said...


A coincident, live-fly simulation of hijacked aircraft has been established. What does that suggest, and how high must it go?

I talk to spooked up people every day, and there is really only one logical inference to be taken from the real hijackings occurring at the same time as the exercises.

The hijackers--on whoever's payroll--knew about the exercises ahead of time.

If it really was al-Qaeda--and it probably was--the real clue to the whole 9-11 mystery lies in the tipoff about the exercises.

4:43 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a link to an activist (don't know him personally, but he's convincing) that could tell ya about 911truth being infiltrated:

I spent a lot of time on a link one of the other anonymouses left sort of endorsing webster tarpley in the comments to a post you did a couple of days ago. Alas, webster doesn't identify himself as being affiliated with the crypto-fascist Lyndon Larouche on his website, but I shoulda figured it out as soon as I started reading an excerpt of one of his books at his site talking about "British" financiers having been behind the economic manipulation of this country. The guy may have lots of good information and research, but his stuff seems as much a territory strewn with mis and disinformational landmines as anything that comes out of the larouche camps. i wonder if the anonymous poster knows about this stuff or just sincerely thinks tarpley is the most credible information source on the stuff going on re: 911 and the war on terra. anyway, suffice to say, it sure felt like synchronicity to read your new post after getting through my digging and questioning of my own susceptability to getting sucked into the negative, hypnotic pull of certain "alternative" info sources and authorities, all due to one link to mister tarpley.

and eye third starroute about information not being knowledge, necessarily, and a need for wisdom. damn, do I sure need--as to many others-here and elsewhere. time to get back to the challenging work of looking within.

4:53 p.m.  
Blogger AJ said...

"Do you recognize the difference in evidentiary value, and their consequences,..."

Excellent, Jeff.

And Starroute's:
"How real do you dare to get? "

I don't think there is a day I don't wake up with a start, hoping it was all just a dream, and I can go back to believing:

"America is not good because we are great, but America is great because we are good."

I must credit RI and company for those nasty bits of revelations, and eye openers from a few years ago.

I almost wish I took the blue pill.

5:04 p.m.  
Blogger blogbart said...

Jeff, your points are well taken. I am aware of the other trails you have pointed out. But take Sybil Edmonds for instance. From what we know (e.g. Vanity Fair article last year) her testimony is explosive - there couldn't be better evidence - yet no action yet.

Hard for buddy sitting in front of television to get his head around her allegations and push for traction on the issue. But it is easy for the average working family to understand things that go boom.

Once understood for what it is, you can guarantee that the families of the victims will be running in the streets with pitchforks .. the fury these poor people will feel will know no bounds. They will know that officials destroyed those towers with their husband, sister, son standing helplessly on the 85th floor pathetically trusting in those same officials to save them ..

5:05 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE jeff:

"Let me ask you this: if it were established that there were explosives planted, what would it prove? How high would it necessarily go? Why couldn't bombs be just as easily ascribed to "al Qaeda"? The WTC was bombed before after all."

1. the ptb story says jet fuel and shitty trusses destroyed the WTC's. what if all of a sudden it becomes apparent the buildings were destroyed?
look, WTC 7 WAS OBVIOUSLY IMPLODED. Precision blasted. it fell onto its own footprint.

2.IT TAKES WEEKS TO SET EXPLOSIVES UP TO DEMOLISH BUILDINGS - FACT. how could they even have the time to do that? they didn't.

just sayin..

but yes you are right, its been 4 and a half yeears and we are still trying to deduce the how of and not the how is.

5:54 p.m.  
Blogger #1 Sniffer said...

Jeff you are simply stunning me to death.

Jeff said... "Let me ask you this: if it were established that there were explosives planted, what would it prove?"

This is really incredible coming from one so intelligent and gifted in subtlety.

First of all, demolition is proven! (see link I provided in my previous post).

And second, this proof proves everything!

It proves the government did it, and proves Arab terrorists didn't do it.

This is because since planes couldn't and didn't do cause WTC to collapse, only demolition could, and only the government had the means, opportunity, and skill to make it look like the planes had something to do with it (and motive); nobody else on this whole earth had all that.

It means the timing of the planes and the demolition of the WTC were not coincidental unrelated events. It exposes one event (planes) was launched to coverup the real event (demolition).

Had the government not done it, their control over the crime-scene would have enabled them to find the truth and tell us who really did do it; instead they blamed some patsies, invented novel pancake theories, destroyed evidence, and took part in the mother of all coverups (lies).

Everywhere they went afterwards they left their DNA, contradicting their cover story.

Why they did it is an important discussion and I have my own views on that, but that they did it is beyond discussion at this point, IF DEMOLITION IS LET OUT FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE.

I think they did it because it's about massive profit and geopolitical dominion (empire) comes from wars that some staged "terrorist" attacks against us can justify, and the fact is that somewhere along the line, the government became mafia or mafia became the government.

The details of how some types of sausage is made is unknown to me, all that I know is that it was made.

Why they launched 911 is also about enhancing the police state, which protects the ability of government to inflict future 911's and get away with it (i.e., Patriot Act).

5:56 p.m.  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

Hard for buddy sitting in front of television to get his head around her allegations and push for traction on the issue. But it is easy for the average working family to understand things that go boom.

Sure, everyone loves fireworks. But I think this tact is condescending and perilous. Is it valid and just to win someone over with a sexy yet suspect argument? And what happens when it loses its sex appeal?

I'm not going to stop anyone from doing it. I just won't do it.

5:57 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Blogbart hits the nail on the head there, Jeff. It's about what is easiest to sell to generally uninformed Joe Sixpack. He's not going to draw the line from wargames/ISI/insider trading or whatever to those smug grins on the TV screen; these are highly suggestive pieces of evidence but don't conclusively prove anything on their own and can easily be 'explained' away if someone is determined to do so. Through experience, I find the WTC7 route is the quickest and most effective one to take if you want someone who instinctively trusts the system to sit up and take notice, and we desperately need a lot of that very soon. I can see why you consider it condescending, but at this stage I think the effectiveness of an approach in shaking people out of their stupor is more effective than how good you feel about the approach. The 'destroyed evidence' angle is very useful in conjunction with this though.

As an aside, I don't know if it's been mentioned here before, but Silverstein did actually elaborate on his infamous "pull it" comment which caused so much pointless debate. On September 9, 2005 a statement was issued by Silverstein Properties spokesperson Mr. Dara McQuillan, which supported the conclusions in FEMA's report (i.e. that fire probably caused the collapse) and cast a new spin on Mr. Silverstein's comments in the 2002 documentary:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001."

So, apparently, Larry now wants us think that by "pull it", he meant "pull the firefighting team from the building", not "pull the building", an interpretation that had been doing the rounds for a while before this.

Unfortunately for him, FEMA's report states that, with regard to WTC building 7, " manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY" (section 5.6.1) and "...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires..." (section 5.5.3), which would seem to indicate that the above statement contradicts the official story.

Furthermore, one life was lost that day; Secret Service Special Officer Craig Miller's body was found in the rubble of WTC7. It was claimed that "he went back into the towers to help the wounded" and then "lost his life when the building collapsed" (according to a resolution passed by the House of Representatives on April 23, 2002), which sounds a mite suspicious when you consider that there was no one else left in the building to help, it having been evacuated many hours before the collapse.

It's something that I presume has been noted before, but its always worth mentioning, as that Silverstein comment and all the meaningless debate that surrounds it comes up a lot in other places; at least now we have an unequivocal lie to attribute to him. "If nothing suspicious happened then why did Larry lie?" is always good to pull people back to.

I have to say Jeff, I honestly don't understand your reservations about the WTC7 argument as it seems fairly rock-solid to me. I don't think people will ever be able to pin the implosion of WTC7 on the official bad guys outside of the fire theory as the building was so full of government agencies that to suggest evil arabs got in and planted detonators will never fly with anyone, no matter how gullible (I hope!). Thanks for addressing the topic anyway, though.

6:11 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



how do you respond to this?

6:18 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1 Sniffer, dugoboy, Czarner, et al:

We all agree that demolition is not speculation, but simple undeniable fact and that comparing it to pods and holograms is ridiculous. Jeff doesn't agree with us and he doesn't have to. So let's just drop this. We've said all we need to say and so has Jeff. This disagreement doesn't detract from the 99.9% of Jeff's stuff that we've been coming here for. Salome.

6:32 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


One more small point; it's not so much that I'm convinced of the truth of demolitions angle (who knows what fancy equipment they have that we don't know jack about), but of the impossibility of the official story of fire taking it down. That's probably what we should all concentrate on, but some people just won't listen unless you can propose an alternative hypothesis, and the controlled implosion's the best we've got right now.

But I agree, Jeff's under no obilgation to respond or agree with us; it'd be nice to know why he's so suspicious of this angle, but it doesn't detract from how good the rest of his writing and information is.

6:45 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


No doubt.

6:51 p.m.  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

it'd be nice to know why he's so suspicious of this angle

Perhaps it's not the angle so much as it is some of the anglers.

I balk at the insinuation that If you don't see this, you're one of them, and there is a lot of it coming from those pushing demolition to the fore. A number of the most prominent are on the Right, and Republican, including a "former Bush team member."

I also distrust movements, because I know that attempts will be made to infiltrate, subvert and demolish any of value.

Also: Is there a structural engineer in the house? I know it looks like a controlled demolition, and I know witnesses heard what sounded like explosions, but how many other examples of 767s at excess speed striking structures of the towers' construction do we have against which to measure our expectations? The opinions of theologians and astrophysicists and philosophers are all very interesting, but what do professionals in the field say about why the towers fell? (Towers, not WTC 7.)

I've speculated before that at some point during the New York and Washington flights on 9/11, the hijackers were themselves hijacked by remote control so only the desired damage would be accomplished. For me, this best explains Hani Hanjour's sudden aeorobatic skill, the 270 degree turn to hit the virtually unoccupied and hardened face of the Pentagon, and the deception regarding the recovery of the black boxes. But that's speculation, and I don't lead with that. And I don't say that if you don't think as me, you think as them.

Kennedy's dead 43 years and there's no justice, while researchers are still sifting the sands on the grassy knoll. Microanalysis is the death of this work, and good intentions are easily misdirected.

Where do you think "9/11 Truth" will be in 40 years? (As if we have that long.) Do you see 9/11 Justice? I don't at this rate. And without justice, this is all just a good wank, isn't it?

8:36 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Starroute said:
There was a dichotomy in the 60's that still trips us up. Either you bought in to the prevailing narrative or you dropped out entirely. There was no third way.

Actually, Gandhi presented another way - non-violent resitence and upholding the hindi directive to be a householder and uphold civic and cultural duties.

Kris Millegan

8:49 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The thing I find most telling is the UL report on the towers desecration and the action within the insurance business. Have insurance rates gone up for steel buildings? Basically mine frames built upward insted of down.

The twin towers, for my money, were part and aprcel of the "mystical hoodwink/bondage" spells that the cryptocracy weaves.

Where was Kennedy going when he was murdered? The Dallas "Trade Mart." And some of the conspirators were involved with setting up "Trade Marts/Centers. Most Americans outside NY cared little about the twin towers. Part of the op (and it was/is a long -running op) has been to "place" the WTC as an "archetype" within the American psyche. Because by 'attacking" archetypes one shatters "reality" and then puts it back together in a way mo' bettah


10:36 p.m.  
Blogger brisa said...

CIA-ISI = Al Queda

10:41 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i think i understand jeff. i'm no right wing hack though.

btw theres a new theory that thermite took the towers down.

Physicist says heat substance felled WTC

lol, never ending huh?

11:27 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YI, The 6 retired generals calling for Donald Rumsfeld to resign:

Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack
Major Gen. John Riggs
Maj. Gen. John Batiste
Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni
Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold
Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton

11:35 p.m.  
Blogger Unknown said...

Maybe it's too late to jump in here, but in all of the commentary I've ever seen on 9/11 and CD, I've never seen my personal theory. If someone has seen it, I would appreciate it if you'd direct me to it.

OK, it goes like this: Yes, of course it was CD, and the PTB had to cover it up, but not for the reasons commonly stated. Imagine you're building the largest structures on the planet in the midst of huge population centers. What if something unidentifiable or unforeseen does happen and the structures threaten to collapse? Not only would the building itself collapse, but many, many more surrounding it would--unless it could be brought down by CD first. What if, at some point, either while being built or in some later, more paranoid time, it was decided that it would be wise to rig up these huge buildings with explosives to avoid potentially greater damage and loss of life?

If this were the case, and most giant public buildings in densely populated areas have the option for CD built into them, the government or whoever is making these decisions could not, of course, let this information become common knowledge, for a variety of reasons. For one thing, terrorists could take advantage of the fact. For another, people would panic at the thought that they work in a building designed to blow up easily. For a third, those who brought down the buildings would be seen as murderers, even if, perhaps, bringing them down were for the greater good and saved more lives than had they not.

Thus if the towers were brought down by this built-in feature, there would have to be a massive cover-up.

I don't necessarily subscribe to my own theory, BTW, but I find it interesting to speculate about, especially since it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone else. Maybe there's some really good reason it hasn't--like it's dumb! It also doesn't account for many of the ragged edges of a long-term plot we seem to find, and that Jeff points out often and in the commentary for this post.

Still, it seems to me that often we can be right about the facts while being wrong about the motive. Good people do bad things, not realizing they're bad, duped by other people with different motives.

When examining the mechanism of conspiracy, we have to allow for elements of natural chaos. We're not working with a closed system here. The chances of error, especially human error, are great, and greater still when more people are brought into the system. As complexity is layered on, predictability declines. Minutely examining fragments of evidence can become an exercise in infinite regression, leading us further and further away from the Big Picture (cf. the Nazca lines post, above). On the other hand, perhaps the fragments hold within them all the answers, as they might well do in a holographic universe.

Hm, sorry to become so discursive.

I remember quite clearly, watching the news that day, that they were discussing about possibly bringing down building 7 with demolition. The anchors discussed it with an expert, even. They said that the structure was on the brink of collapse anyway, but that everyone was most likely evacuated so that some sort of CD was a good option. I got the impression that this could be done on the fly, contrary to what people usually say about CD. Perhaps the "C" part of CD would be less likely if done quickly, but it would still be preferable to having the building collapse on its own.

I also remember hearing them say that there were reports of snipers on the roofs surrounding the WTC complex. For hours they talked about it, it seemed to me.

It's always those little details, reports that persist or just stick out like sore thumbs amongst the rest...when events give us live reporting like that, it pays to pay attention to those sorts of things. Maybe it's true, maybe not. Maybe important, maybe not. Maybe what it seems, maybe not.

Again, I apologize for the discursion--these are things I've been needing to get off my chest for a while and I don't get over here for stimulating discussion nearly often enough.

12:06 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jeff says: Kennedy's dead 43 years...Where do you think "9/11 Truth" will be in 40 years? (As if we have that long.)

we don't have nearly that long. by 2043 (after the jfk-equivalent interval), the ecological process will have run most of its course.

i think that cheney knew all about that process and what it portends, and i think that he has done things in part because he could and in part because he felt that he had to.

years ago i was greatly affected by robert heilbroner's book "an inquiry into the human prospect," which was written during 1972. in it he said, with anguish, that the ecological situation that humanity would encounter in a few decades, which he anticipated pretty accurately, would necessitate authoritarian forms of government.

heilbroner seems to have meant that authoritarianism would be needed in order to implement policies that were in the public interest. but in the actual event it appears that elites are getting ready to save themselves and probably to do some winnowing among the rest of us.

jeff's excellent thumbnail of the 9/11 case in his 2:37pm comment is a reminder that there isn't one piece of it that is going to bring the public around, at least not yet. we don't know what will come to light, but thus far the case is more or less on the jfk track.

meanwhile we encounter the peak and decline of oil and gas production, the probably peak and decline in production of other minerals, the depletion and poisoning of topsoil, the depletion of fossil water, the continuing growth of the population, and unpredictable climate change.

all of that will overtake us before we can find enough 9/11 truth to affect the course of history.

12:33 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The argument that authoritarianism may be necessary to carry out unpopular policies during times of crisis may be one of those semi-plausible falsehoods that only play into the hands of would-be authoritarians. In fact, it seems far more likely to me that a fully-informed citizenry with agreed-upon goals is the essential prerequisite for major shifts of cultural direction.

There was a somewhat odd opinion piece by economist Joseph Stiglitz in the Guardian today, headed "Development in defiance of the Washington consensus: China has carried off the world's largest reduction in poverty by grasping that market economies cannot be left on autopilot."

After going on at some length about China's attempts to lift its people out of poverty, reduce economic inequality, and attend to its environment, all at the same time, he reaches what I take to be his real point:

With such a clear vision of the future, the challenge will be implementation. China is a large country, and it could not have succeeded as it has without widespread decentralisation. But decentralisation raises problems of its own. . . . To translate its vision into action, the Chinese government will need strong policies, such as the environmental taxes already imposed.

As China has moved toward a market economy, it has developed some of the problems that have plagued the developed countries: special interests that clothe self-serving arguments behind a veil of market ideology. Some will argue for trickle-down economics. And some will oppose competition policy and corporate governance laws. Growth arguments will be advanced to counter strong social and environmental policies. Such allegedly pro-growth policies would not only fail to deliver growth; they would threaten the entire vision of China's future.

There is only one way to prevent this: open discussion of economic policies to expose fallacies and provide scope for creative solutions to the challenges facing China. George Bush has shown the dangers of excessive secrecy and confining decision-making to a narrow circle of sycophants. Most people outside China do not fully appreciate the extent to which its leaders, by contrast, have engaged in extensive deliberations and consultations as they strive to solve the enormous problems they face.


Now, I don't know what Stiglitz's own agenda may be -- or the Guardian's in publishing him -- or to what extent his rosy vision of Chinese policy-making corresponds to reality. He may even be using China the same way European social critics used it in the 18th century, as a heavily idealized object-lesson in policies they wished to recommend to their own governments.

But what did jump out at me from these paragraphs was a striking contrast: that the United States can afford to move towards authoritarianism and secrecy only because it has no shared vision and isn't asking its people to aim for any demanding goals, whereas autocratic China is forced to become more open and more decentralized in its decision-making precisely because it is asking so much of its people.

That notion is in striking contrast with the idea so widespread in the US (including among liberals, though they tend to decry it even as they subscribe to it) that authoritarianism (or torture, or any other aspect of state coercion) may be the only way for a government to respond quickly and efficiently in emergencies.

At the very least I'd like to see it given greater consideration.

1:15 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi all,

I know I've posted in the last couple of entries about this, but since the discussion is so relevant here, I wanted to point out that many of the more damning points of evidence Jeff listed earlier are discussed in All You Need To Know About 9/11, the 93-minute first episode of WakeUp, a new podcast which will circumnavigate the various tentacles of the octopus before flying right up out of the water and discussing physics, astronomy, geology, consciousness and more, in an attempt to empower the listener with the biggest possible picture of our situation and, most importantly, what we can do about it.

I disagree wholeheartedly that we are running out of time per se, but every day we stand by and let the police state take over is one day closer we get to
barbed-wire fences pointing inward
to herd us methodically into the massive gas-fired ovens created by companies founded and contracted by the criminal elite occult Nazi bastards who have taken over the System and are now flaunting their treasonous fascist intentions for all to see and cower before.

They think they channel the dark powers of Lucifer or whoever, but whether they really do or not, they certainly don't have what the Greeks and JW's call agape on their side, and that's about the only thing humans have to use against them, and our one remaining truth in this increasing sea of uncertainty. David Icke may be a polarizing figure, but he's not wrong about the human experience of "infinite love" being the only thing that isn't a holographic illusion. I feel it, and I doubt I'm alone.

When Antonin Artaud said "there is no more firmament," I think he had simply lost sight of the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, the quantum super-state of existence, the Oneness of all being, and those damned little DMT elves who are, as we speak, dilligently maintaining the intricate machinery which comprises the fabric of reality. :-D

We have more control than we realize, and I hope to effectively document this evidence on WakeUp. for the next wave of truth seekers just joining us, especially the increasingly-aware friends and relatives of the contributors to brilliant blogs and discussion groups such as this one. I hope my podcast helps people spread the truth a little faster and easier, and hopefully with as little disinfo as possible.

Thanks, Jeff, for everything you've ever written, and also for RI Radio -- if you give the first episode a listen, you'll know why. :-)

Take care and take heart!

1:20 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Your photo collages are becoming more and more impressive with each passing day. I would lean on the blur tool a bit more around the edges, however. That might help get those aliasing artifacts under control.

2:20 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


As a belated comer to the debate I would just like to say this to you: having looked back at your previous posts on the subject I can understand your reluctance to "go the way of the Kennedy reaearch" with 9/11 by falling into the trap of micro-analizing physical evidence. BUT, every case IS unique and the uniqueness of 9/11 is that a building collapsed (WTC7) in front of our very eyes in a manner of a controlled demolition without any explanation. THIS IS THE CHINK IN THEIR ARMOUR - WE HAVE TO GO FOR IT ... AND IT's NOT JUST THEY WHO HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS - Jo Blogs of "I'm not going to believe in any of this conspiracy shit" also HAS TO GET HIS HEAD ROUND WTC7.

7:09 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Odd. I would have thought a site such as this one would be a place where the idea that there were no planes at all on 9/11 might be easily accepted - as a possible world, not a hypothesis that urgently requires rigorous verification (or debunking for that matter), as that task might be perceived as too complex or a waste of time, if not impossible.

Things are not what they seem, there are layers of reality, interpretation and intuition must be marshalled to gain any undertanding, be it interpretive or objective or whatever one fancies.

But no! CNN showed planes. That’s it. Like it or lump it. It is often said that those who claim there were no planes are fantasists, self-agrandising conspiracy theorists, disinfo agents, governement shills, hysterical groupies, and other suspicious people. Which goes to show how one can selectively use the ‘conspiracy’ meme, turning it into ‘distraction’.

Besides being epistemologically shortsighted, it seems to me that such an attitude is pragmatically misguided. How this crime was carried out is not only intimately tied to who carried it out but understanding the means may serve to bring the culprits to justice.

I highly recommend carrying out an exercise in the imagination: What if in fact, there were no planes? Where does that lead us? Is it not a measure of sanity to question the media and the Gvmt? To entertain possibilities?


Demolition wakes people up. It serves as a starting point, and moreover latches into the intuitions of many people - they somehow could not believe...but then did as ‘it was so’...and now someone is saying what they thought all along! Demolition, too, can enter the public space because it is neutral as to guilt, it points the finger nowhere and leads to no (few) conclusions, except for the fact that the Gvmt. scenario is false. That’s an important step, if in some ways frustrating, because on has to ask, what next? However that the 9/11 truth community has through explicit strategy and because of the sway of public events adopted Demolition as a ‘wake up call talking point’ is clever.

It is clever (and was carefully thought out, I assure you, let me give some of the reasons...), because the evidence is very compelling, very strong, it is visible and physical, material; it concerns images that were seen; the debunkers will be scientists, people of some credibility and status.

Morevoer how the buildings fell or were originally damaged cuts to the heart of the event.

Demolition (whether true or false) adresses the only core, rock hard, certain, material result of the events of the day. (I mean no disrespect to the dead, but the dead are an outcome of planes or bombs or melting steel or whatever). The most parsimonious and brief description one can give of the event is that “WTC 1, 2 and 7 fell down”. This is incontrovertible fact. Everything else can be questioned, has been questioned, or seems tangential, or may be unrelated, etc. (I am not saying all other things are, just that they can be considered to be so.) So the reasoning is, and this is very important, one starts from the result (insofar as it is known, can be described, etc.) to then address *causes*. The first cause sought is the most *proximal cause*. This is how logicians and experimental scientists think. And the concensus, for the moment, is that the proximal cause is demolition, and not planes. And certain conclusions follow from that. If you sweep away one unknown, you gather some knows.

As for my knowledge of 9/11, lets just say it is considerable.

7:27 a.m.  
Blogger Unknown said...

I admit I don't have the knowledge that many on this board (and certainly Jeff) possess on 9/11. What I'm wondering at this moment is this: are whole, unedited tapes of real-time media coverage on the day and day after readily available anywhere?

I'd like to verify my memory of one news outlet or another (I frantically switched between them all that day) saying that *someone*--gov't, NYC, don't know--was considering demo of building 7, and they had an expert on to discuss the possibility. I recall the expert as being off camera, either via phone or simply because there was a nearly uninterrupted stream of images broadcast.

I'd also like to verify my memory of reports of snipers on the roofs around the area.

Can anyone help me out here? Thanks, in advance, if you can!

8:46 a.m.  
Blogger Tate said...

That is a very good question Fat Lady. I would very much like to know if there are recordings of all the coverage. I didn't think of it and that is an enormously important point on the evidence and the changing story when it happened.

10:10 a.m.  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"Odd. I would have thought a site such as this one would be a place where the idea that there were no planes at all on 9/11 might be easily accepted"

If we mean to pursue unconventional knowledge, then we need to aspire to a higher order of critical thought that supercedes material rationalism. If not, we're just telling each other campfire stories, and we may be gullible fools if we believe them.

Newtonian parapolitics can't account for Magonia, but that doesn't mean the hijackers were carrying Magonian passports.

10:42 a.m.  
Blogger #1 Sniffer said...

Thanks Jeff for finally taking some firm and revealing positions. By your own words:

You reject demolition caused WTC collapse.
" admit belief planes caused the collapses.
" " " a plane slammed into the Pentagon.
" " " Hani Hanjour piloted that plane.
I could go on and on.

Your position is then much closer to the Bush regime official version in 911 than many if not most of ours'. You even tell us the Bush and oldtime Republicans are behind our views of 911.

To top it off, while disagreeing with us you've preached to us on what strategy NOT to pursue (demolitions) to prove our belief the government was behind 911. Thanks for the help. A bit disingenuous?

This has been a most enlightening thread.

11:43 a.m.  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"I could go on and on."

Well why don't you? Why stop short if not to misrepresent me?

11:49 a.m.  
Blogger blogbart said...

Sure, everyone loves fireworks. But I think this tact is condescending and perilous.

Hey, this is self-deprecation because I am buddy sitting at home in front of tv. I am the guy who struggles to make sense of AIPAC, early UK-US memos, Sybil Edmonds, Larry Franklin, affaire Plame, mailed anthrax, dead microbiologists, torture, theft of 100's billions, deep politics as true political reality, and on and on. I am also the guy that is now amazed to see the towers are exploding now, whereas before they were "collapsing" due to fire.

Is it valid and just to win someone over with a sexy yet suspect argument?

Sure it is. I do it every time I flirt with a woman : )

And what happens when it loses its sex appeal?

It will never lose it appeal because I am the one for her. (see above re flirting) Seriously though, it is a specious argument to not pursue something for fear it will be a bust later especially when you believe in it.

James Fetzer of 911 Scholars for Truth writes of the dissenting positions on various aspects of members of their association, that it is normal for a field to have dissenting views (he was specifically referring to a "former republican", Morgan Reynolds). Fetzer is absolutely correct to accept that dissenting opinion occurs within movements. Science is all about theory and hypothesis. To help separate dissenting opinion from outright bollocks, Fetzer has proposed, and I believe is in process of putting together a proper journal for 911 studies with an editorial board and review.

So, sure movements have their susceptibility to subversion but where would we be without cooperative, social efforts? Better to have tried than not.

12:47 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If we mean to pursue unconventional knowledge, then we need to aspire to a higher order of critical thought that supercedes material rationalism..."

"Newtonian parapolitics can't account for Magonia..."

Jeff I love this site precisely because you are attempting to map uncharted territory in "Magonia." But what bothers me a bit is that I get the feeling that you take the concept too far sometimes by disregarding cold hard reality in favor of some type of soft reality that you feel is being bent by Cthulu or somewhere.

Personally I think science is the only way to know the truth about 9/11 because any other path will simply take us down a road of he said/she said magical thinking in which the truth can't possibly ever be known.

So let me suggest another way of looking at "Magonia". Have you ever considered the possibility that high strangeness and synchronicity is not the work of some unknown beings out there but the workings of the unconscious mind which itself is a part of reality?

Personally, I believe that parts of our govt. in collusion with other govt. were involved with 9/11 and they are being protected because it would expose widespread shady dealing in D.C. I ALSO believe that there is a strange trickster effect occuring precisely because people fear the truth.

If you read books on synchronicity you will see that this trickster effects tends to manifest itself at times of extreme change or stress in peoples lives. I think the same thing is occuring to our country as a whole(of course in addition to the hidden trickery by some that is helping to manifest it).

So the difficult part is figuring out what is Magonia and what is parapolitics. Alot of things related to 9/11 fit into that murky Magonia area of coincidence where it is hard to determine if something was just a coincidence or was actually planned that the whole wargames thing... I believe it was planned to be used like a trojan horse... but the question I can't resolve in my mind is : planned by WHO?

Proving demolition would bring us out of that murky Magonia space down to hard reality. And yes there is a cold hard reality out there. It's the thing that causes most of us not to be millionaires although we would like to be.

So I don't think reality is being bent or warped... it is simply being misreprensented or concealed... akin to a magician's stage trick. There is nothing magical about synchronicity other than that material things can come together in space in time in a way that you can't *physically* explain. The magic of it is to understand that you and the world in which you exist are ONE and that in such a world strange coincidences in space and time can and do happen from a deeper source.

Still love the site although I disagree with parts of it. You are still charting new ground and that is a good thing!

1:17 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I could be mistaken, but I haven't gotten the impression that Jeff has ever come out and said 'I don't believe controlled demolitions were used to bring down the 3 towers.' What he's said is that without hard physical evidence, he would be very reluctant to use that for the main basis of arguing for an alternative explanation for the events of 9/11/01.

To me, it sure as hell looks like demolitions were used, but I'm not an engineer. And yes, there are engineers and scientists who have presented very compelling arguments that demolitions were used, but unfortunately, the government doesn't seem to have any trouble producing scientists and engineers who are willing to back up their version of the story as well (sort of like medical doctors making supportive statements for tobacco companies).

I personally don't see a problem using some of the 'sexier' stuff to help shock people out of their usual frame of reference (even if it isn't proof positive), as long as you've got other, if not quite as shapely, legs to stand on. The main point, I think, is to get people to realize that, regardless of how water-tight the alternative is, it's painfully obvious that the official story has holes you could fly a 757 through, and it's up to each of us to determine the best way to do that from our own perspective. And, this being Jeff's blog, it's up to him how he wants to frame his argument.

And to tie this back into topic....

I've been circling the rabbit hole for some time now, but have been reluctant to pass the event horizon. Fact is, though I've known several people who claim to have witnessed paranormal events, I've never personally experienced anything other than the occasional wild synchronicity or deja vu, and I'm reluctant to believe that which I haven't seen (been burned by blind-faith before).

Sooo, the RA stuff has always been one of the hardest things for me to swallow. Not sure exactly why, because I have to concede that people do some amazingly fucked-up things, but I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the messengers have always seemed a bit too hysterical/crazed for me to take seriously, and so I never pursued it. Anyway, what originally drew me into the Rigorous Intution site was Jeff's 'Coincidence Theory' post. From there, I began perusing the High-Wierdness/Military/Occult stuff, and I have to say that, though I wouldn't call myself a 'Believer', I strongly suspect that SOMETHING is going on, and it appears to be organized and firmly entrenched in the halls of power (regardless of wether you believe these people are actually contacting dark forces, or if they believe that they are, or are just using this all for mind control and political blackmail).

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the way you deliver your message is just as important as the message itself, and that not everyone is going to be reached by the same approach. In this case, I needed someone with Jeff's particular touch to allow me to seriously consider the RA stories. Everyone needs to be free to tell the truth as they see it.

2:38 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

exactly blogbart.

i was a little shocked by jeff's comment about movements.

i mean it's a very idealistic and adolescent idea to just completely disown the idea of joining a movement simply because you think it will inevitably be infiltrated. the fact of the matter is, you must grow a tough skin, you have to use your brain. you have to work for what you believe in.

jeff, what other option do we have but to organize?

nothing ever changes unless a group of people who are organized, with a common goal raise awareness.

or do we just sit at home, staring at computers being armchair revolutionaries?

lol, come on.

2:39 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i must also ask you jeff, why do you even do this weblog if it isn't about waking people up?

you, whether or not you wish to believe it, are someone many people look up to. what you do is expose truth many other people wish you didn't.

you are part of a movement to expose the lies subjugating most of humanity at this time. you are part of a movement, a response to the 'dark side' as it were leading toward a kind of renaissance of awareness leading toward the greater goodness.

jeff, what is this blog then if it isn't about waking people up and thusly apart of a movement?

2:52 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9/11 was the boldest move these mindless individuals have EVER pulled, this is why it fuckin matters.

2:56 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oops. Just realized I wasn't posting to 'Conspiracature' and not the more recent 'Egg Hunt', so the RA stuff wasn't exactly on-topic after all. Oh well...

3:12 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

scroll up:

jeff, what other option do we have but to organize?

jeff, what is this blog then if it isn't about waking people up and thusly apart of a movement?

5:02 p.m.  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"jeff, what is this blog then if it isn't about waking people up and thusly apart of a movement?"

I'm uncomfortable with the "waking people up" metaphor. We each have to be responsible to wake ourselves, or else we may not be inclined to remain awake. And that's the trickiest part.

5:56 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" that the United States can afford to move towards authoritarianism and secrecy only because it has no shared vision and isn't asking its people to aim for any demanding goals, whereas autocratic China is forced to become more open and more decentralized in its decision-making precisely because it is asking so much of its people.

That notion is in striking contrast with the idea so widespread in the US (including among liberals, though they tend to decry it even as they subscribe to it) that authoritarianism (or torture, or any other aspect of state coercion) may be the only way for a government to respond quickly and efficiently in emergencies."

This raises some real issues about totalitarianism. (And ultimately about getting apublic response on 911 and any govt complicity/responsibility).

Ultimately successful authoritarian powers need the support of the people. Nazi Germany could not have started ww2 if it had been torn apart by internal strife (IMO) simply because at the start of the war it was so organised and efficient. To compare the US today and Nazi germany may be valid on many levels, but the Germans would have probably not made the same mess of Iraq.

They would never have entertained the idea that Hitler was going against THEIR INTERESTS. He appealed to their spirituality, and used that to fuel the excessive nationalism of the time.

If the majority of the population feel they have neither the strength nor the wit to achieve what someone claims "must be done for the national interest", but that someone else does, perhaps they are willing to submit to that authority, because they feel that they have no strength themselves.

War focuses the collective mind, for millenia it has been a matter of survival, a matter of first with the most wins. It creates a sense of unity and a sense of purpose. It puts the ego in perspective against the tribe or nation. Many of the things that spiritual discipline and the like do for individuals, war does.

Maybe not for the soldiers in battle. But for those people who feel the soldiers "represent" them.

If that sense of pupose and power have been unleased in the US psyche, does anyone really think any evidence of anything is gonna make a shred of difference.

War possesses souls. It fills up all the empty space that their (self perceived) inadequacy has left. You can protest for or against the war. Feel the outrage or the bloodlust, but iof it moves you to such emotional extremes, the war has possessed you. Given you a greater emotional range that you thought you were capable of without it.

Grief and compassion are the only suitable responses to war, (and joy where you can find it) but since grief, joy and compassion are probably the most suitable responses to most things...

War is about possession, of territory, of assets and of souls. It even convinces pacifists that agressive emotional intensity is OK so long ass its against "the war".

So my thoughts on 911 are this, and I guess are similar to Jeffs in that regard:

"Let me ask you this: if it were established that there were explosives planted, what would it prove?"

It would simply prove that explosives were planted.

Its already 5 years ago, so lets be careful about how we use the word "proof" (legal, scientific and mathematical proof all have different standards).

It would open all sorts of cans of worms about the trivial details of the explosives.

Its a bit like busting people on a street corner for a $10 bag of crack, in the hope of leading to Pablo Escabar or whoever has taken his place.

The path from the event on the street to place or production/origin is to complicated and back and forth to ever be of any use in tracking our ultimate target.

In some ways whether the Dubya administration was even complicit in the attacks is irrelevent. Their actions afterward have been base and treasonous to someone outside the US looking in. Yet no one wants to deal with these issues. (IE the US treatment of its own military in the process of a blatent grab by its officials for cash.)

I suppose, if nothing else 911 was incredibly traumatic, and the focus on it as some key to all the fascism that followed makes sense.

But now its a distraction from the reality of what is happening now. I mean why are you still whinging about 911. What about Katrina for Vucks sake.

8:31 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Have you ever considered the possibility that high strangeness and synchronicity is not the work of some unknown beings out there but the workings of the unconscious mind which itself is a part of reality?"

Ultimately such distinctions are also a distraction. Does it matter if the effects in the world are caused by one or the other?

Not really. Become responsible for your actions, seek to cultivate yourself and develop the talents you were born with.

However for those people that understand the high weirdness concept and its implications, what would you say. Ignore those things cos they are only unconscious projections of your own mind?

Perhaps high ritual is a process that only involves engagement of those areas of our mind that we are normally unable to access. Not all "altered states" are involved with high weirdness. I have played sport for years, at a high level and have also been involved in many life threatening situations with various causes and threat levels.

To be successful at the first, one must engage the mindset or pathways that become active in the second. Often referred to as "fight or flight", this state of mind would more accurately be called hyper situational awareness from my perspective. Time moves at the pace you choose in this state of mind, physical limitations are there, but far beyond what you might normally assume were posssible, and information processing is so far beyond what it is in my current state of mind.

The ordinary capabilities of a human are so beyond what we normally give ourselves credit for, they are often referred to as magic, usually in awed tones.

The extraordinary capabilities of a human can verge on the godlike.

A simple example is Aussie Rules football. The ball is oval shaped and follows a random pattern when bouncing on the ground. If you focus on it totally, you know where it will bounce. You see it hit the ground, you notice the shape, the forces and where it will bounce to.

Doing this seems magical to onlookers. But it simply using your hand eye coordination to its ... its doing what its designed to do. You don't have to do the maths to work out the trajectory of the ball, its done for you, by some sub or un conscious part of you. You are given the results and that is the only part of the process you need - the knowledge of where to be when the ball gets there.

However, there are times when you know the ball is beyond your reach, you can see it bouncing away you know you can't get there. In those cases sometimes it seems as if...

Ok I call to the ball with will and desire and it comes to me. Its rare, but it happens. The ball seems to disobey the laws of physics. Usually something spectacular follows.

Every good footy player I have ever seen has done this on more than one occasion.

Is that an unconscious manifestation of the mind? Or of amgic? Whats the difference.

To misquote or paraphrase Micheal Franti:

"Anything is too big for one belief system or explanation."

9:04 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW Micheal Franti just came back from Iraq.

He went to iraq with some friends, a guitar and a video camera. Spent the days walking around playing music for people, and getting them to talk about their lives since the war on camera, and show him something to film and show the rest of the world.

He's been flogging the film on JJJ radio in Australia.

That is a sane compassionate and gutsy response to war.

Lets face it. It would be great to stop the war, but what about if we all did what he did, just upped and went to make some human connection with people who have suffered so much.

He is releasing a film about the whole thing.

He said some interesting things. The iraqi guides he was with warned him not to film the American troops, as that was a sure way of getting shot.

He also said he was shitscared the entire time, except when he was playing music, it was the only time he felt safe, cos he knew no one would hurt him while he was playing music.

Hows that for a stand, Charlie Sheen can say what he likes about shit, lets see him go to Iraq and do street theatre or something. (That would be good for a laugh, he'd last about a minute).

"Sometimes I feel like I can do anything.
Sometimes, I'm so alive."

9:18 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When any event seemingly defies reason or far surpasses even the worst of probable or most likely outcomes, or in the case of the WTC goes literally beyond the bounds of all previous knowledge and experience, it is certainly neither reasonable nor logical to insist that such an anomalous event be simply accepted at face value.

It has been stated by more than one former tenant of the WTC that missed the fate that was planned for them on 9/11, that all the security systems at the WTC had been completely overhauled only a little more than a month beforehand.

They have also stated that while that occurred there was a period of at least two full weeks during which there was no genuine security system or cameras operating at all in which they were advised to take extra precautions with their own suites.

Meanwhile all the entrance ways and exits to the buildings were fully open and accessable to literally anyone as numerous technicians moved throughout the buildings tearing out and removing old systems and carting in and installing their endless crates of new "equipment" and stringing wire throughout the complex.

So lets not pretend about any inability to possibly plant explosive charges throughout either the WTC or any other structure when it comes right to it.

Time and opportunity could either be fortuitously had, or made, or even bought, by anyone with right kind of knowledge, connections, planning expertise and sufficient cash behind them.

The problem here is that what we know even in the most common sense from daily life directly clashes with what we've witnessed. I also personally believe that that particular "psychological effect", and the continuing debate that it has engendered was the only true purpose for the purpetration of the crime.

Living in the heart of one of the largest cities in North America for more than half a century now I have seen more than my share of skscrapers both being built and torn down. Some for many months on end right outside my 20th story balcony.

Now it's no easy or simple matter to take down any building and besides using controlled explosives it's always an extremely difficult, time consuming and very much a piecemeal affair that only increases in difficulty the closer it gets to the ground.

Buildings are built from the ground up and from the inside out, layered, overlapped, reinforced and layered some more. The whole being incredibly stronger and far more unyielding to any exterior forces than the sum of it's parts might ever suggest.

Their internal resistance and strength is by no means uniform either, but a graduated affair from the tremendous strength growing from the base that bears the entire weight as well as the immense windforces thrown against all it's sheer surfaces to only modestly tapering off as loads and stresses diminsh very much higher up.

Should any building fall from the top down that increasing resistance heading downwnward would also just as increasingly and quite dramatically slow the progress of any collapsing materials from above, not simply go with the flow.

Now none of these simple facts or observations can just be set aside regardless of any appearances to the contrary no matter how obvious the situation simply looks.

I, as you likely do too, also know that jetliners, even the jumbos, for all their imposing size are little more than lightweight buses with wings that could certainly damage the looks of any tall skyscraper but by no means ever level one completely to the ground. This too should be patently obvious to any thinking mind.

So the jets themselves couldn't have caused any more damage than they did on impact. If the buildings didn't immediately fall to pieces when they were first hit there was no reason for them to fall later unless something else entirely accounted for it.

At this point it is both prudent and reasonable to discount any damage caused by the planes altogether, just as the firemen on the scene did. The damage was localized on the affected floors themselves and the superstructure wasn't compromised.

All that leaves is the fire itself. Now there have been more than a few skyscrapers of similar design that have been completely gutted by fires. Those fires generally took days to bring under control or burn themselves out and none of those buildings ever fell or had their steel frameworks or concrete floors even compromised.

Similar skyscrapers have even been shaken by massive earthquakes which have twisted, distorted, and even partially caved-in portions of them but once again none of ever them simply collapsed to the ground like some house of cards.

We know or should know that neither a plane nor a fire nor even an earthquake can or would disintigrate a skyscraper in the fashion that was witnessed. Not singly or even collectively. Not even once let alone twice and within mere hours. In the case of WTC7 there is nothing at all to supposedly account for it.

The speed at which these massive structures are supposed to have been completely compromised simply flies in the face both reason and all known experience.

That speed also defied the reason, experience and quite professional assessments of hundreds of professional firefighters and emergency workers who staked but nevertheless lost their lives with the odds clearly on their side.

So what else could have escaped observation by all those trained professionals and just how could so very many of them end up "dead wrong" as consequence?

Their assumptions about both the structural damage and the fire were both first hand and ongoing throughout.

Are we to merely believe that their judgement was that uncritical or unsound or is there reasonable suspicion for some other unpredictable force at play?

Explosions were, however, reported by many witnesses. The janitor in one of the towers not only heard an explosion in the basement he dragged a badly burned victim from the basement and into the streets only seconds before the building came down.

No one apparently wants that fellow's testimony or that of the numerous witnesses that both saw and helped him to do it.

Now the main reason an elaborate and controlled demolition is significant is that it places the planes themselves in a far different context. They are not the event, merely the rallying call to come and see it.

Not just a simple circus act in two parts to impress New Yorkers with the outlandishness or reckelss abandon of any mere terrorist hijackers. It becomes a contrivance to draw as many people and as much media to the scene to witness the buildings coming down.

As a matter of fact as soon as that attention could be seen to have reasonably peaked the first building was blown.

After giving the shock and dust just enough time to settle even if people's wits hadn't, the second one followed to reinforce and hammer home "the message".

So the conspiracy that needs to be tracked and found is not just the one to blow the buildings but the one determined to create and use the "psychological effect" from that to maximum advantage.

11:07 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hows that for a stand, Charlie Sheen can say what he likes about shit, lets see him go to Iraq and do street theatre or something".

Everyone can do their bit ... The guy playing music in Iraq certainly is to be commended 110% Iraq is a scandal and disgrace that show the Bush govt in its true (ugly) colours.

Charlie Sheen has got a lot to loose and he's put his kneck well over the parapit. His celebrity probably protects him from their darkest machinations (although uf I were him I'd stay out of private planes for the time being) but he's gone and made a stand in his way as a patriot who does not want to see his beloved country completely overrun by the Bush junk.

He HAS to be commended for this not sneered at. We as the alternative community have to recognise that every stand has a value of its own. It's when all those little values get put together that we start to move foward - en masse.

7:40 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" it is certainly neither reasonable nor logical to insist that such an anomalous event be simply accepted at face value."

Nonetheless it has been accepted at face value and wars waged because of it.

"They have also stated that while that occurred there was a period of at least two full weeks during which there was no genuine security system or cameras operating at all "

"so lets not pretend about any inability to possibly plant explosive charges throughout either the WTC or any other structure when it comes right to it.

Time and opportunity could either be fortuitously had, or made, or even bought, by anyone with right kind of knowledge, connections, planning expertise and sufficient cash behind them."

So even Al Quaida could have prepped the world trade centre. And who knows what damage the 93 attack actually did, perhaps the building was slightly more unstable. (Reason and logic are away for the eater hols remember).

"At this point it is both prudent and reasonable to discount any damage caused by the planes altogether, just as the firemen on the scene did. The damage was localized on the affected floors themselves and the superstructure wasn't compromised."

This is not necessarily true.

If the firemen die in the process of saving 2 individuls, perhaps they would see their sacrifice as worth it. Regardless of structural safety there are people in danger from fire, right now above 50 floors somewhere.

Your job is their safety, you are paid and trained to do life threatening work, in the assumption that if you do it right you will save lives and not lose your own. Perhaps you can enter the building and get everyone out before it falls. Perhaps you expect 2 minutes warning, and the order and control you will bring to the situation mean more people do get out in the time you spend in an unsafe building.

That assumption is neither reasonable nor prudent given the situation and the fact that emergency workers are trained to do heroic things for a living.

"So the conspiracy that needs to be tracked and found is not just the one to blow the buildings but the one determined to create and use the "psychological effect" from that to maximum advantage."

Perhaps, or perhaps things were as they were and what you are saying is part of the psychological effect of a horrible random event and a governments(Remember Dubya was a joke before 911, "Thats My Bush" and all that) inability to protect us from it. We live in the illusion of security after all. Remember Katrina? Compared to Larry, where they knew they were basically "on their own".

Follow the money. What is insider trading? What inside?

Silverfox, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I agree, or at least part of me feels that way. Part of feels that 19 people with box cutters destroying the symbol of global capitalism is pretty significant, and that saying the US government or some other non al quida conspiracy is responsible takes away from the power of ordinary people who are committed to their cause.

Pity about about all the dead people tho. Dunno if the price was really worth it, probably not to be honest.

My point is that I agree with you on some levels, questions about the collapse of the towers are there. But I am on your side and can find those possible flaws in your arguement.

Anyway the questions that shouldn't go away are:

What is insider trading?

What is the inside?

One of the many ironies of 911 (some downright fortean) is what had happened on that date in the previous few years, and what movements were silenced as fundamentalist Islam was presented as the only alternative to "western Democracy" bush style.

Too much weirdness surrounds 911. A very down to earth friend of mine once remarked "I dreamt about planes 3 days in a row before sept 11th. No plane crashes, violence or horror, just dreams of planes.

He didn't even think about it till afterward. His l;ife is about as far from NY and planes and stuff as is possible, and it meant nothing till afterward.

People moving money around in prior knowledge of the event has a whole higher level of meaning. Much greater significance.

As Sam Vimes says "follow the money".

7:48 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He HAS to be commended for this not sneered at. We as the alternative community have to recognise that every stand has a value of its own. It's when all those little values get put together that we start to move foward - en masse. "

Yeah fair point.

I was just impressed, cos I like most of M Franti's music, and I am glad to see him living up to the concepts he seems to sing about. Seems a rare thing, that sort of integrity. Maybe integrity is the wrong word. He has a sense of self as well as his image.

Good on Charlie Sheen, but I wish he'd follow up abit. One outbusrt could be put down to a little to much coke. Consistancy over other stuff, like money trails, would really improve his standing in my eyes, thats just me tho. And generating momentum, he could if he made more noise I guess, but then maybe hes having doubt's about some of the details.

I guess that is why Jeff goes on about the money trail being the one to follow. Details are one thing, cash tells its own story.

7:57 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jeff, your blog does help wake people up, most people never research anything. i'm sorry to dishearten you, but its the truth.

1:26 p.m.  
Blogger blogbart said...

Just to make it clear: I don't fault Jeff Wells for not putting towers' demolitions front and centre. Those who have should look at the things he has put forward as more worthy of investigation.

He has signficant justification to consider pursuing the following as more important:

"Omar Saeed Shiekh; Ptech;Dave Frasca, Mahmood Ahmed, Wally Hilliard, Randy Glass, Michael Springmann, Robert Wright, Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh Jeb Bush's hand in purging flight school records."

I concede gladly that these things (and many others) have more substantial in terms of actual documentation and people ie whistleblowers, actual investigations, than do the purposeful demolition of the WTC towers 1, 2 & 7.

I am just saying the towers' collapses were seen by nearly everyone. Just see them for what they are!

But pursue the others things too.

1:44 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's to second the above. Ultimately Jeff is right, the more sophisticated evidence and the more holistic viewpoint on 9/11 is what is needed. It is only really by looking at it in the round and reading the deep, and real, shit like Ptech that one begins to find out what is REALLY going on. BUT keeping to demolition (and focussing on WTC7) has two advantages: it can serve as an entrance portal for the unitiated (some people thrive on being chucked in at the deep end - and Ptech IS the deep end - but MOST like to go step by step) and 2/ it has the great advantage that THEY START OFF ON THE BACK FOOT. Their explanations for WTC7 are counter-physical, counter-intuitive, manifest bollocks. As anyone knows, in normal/conventional forms of combat it's key to get your opponent onto the back foot and then press home the advantage. For whatever reason (folly/hubris or whatever) THEY HAVE GIVEN US THIS ADVANTAGE!! (WE MUST NOT BE NEGLIGENT IN EXPOINTING IT - NEXT TIME THEY MAY NOT LEAVE SUCH A GLARING FLAW IN THEOR CASE!)

4:43 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Jules...

Your "doubts" and mistrust of your own judgement in the matter is part of that overall "psychological effect" I was referring to.

It's like some spreading disease that weakens the cognitive processes with feelings of inadequacy and uncertainty about the ability to judge or determine the truth of things for yourself.

What I'm trying to tell you is the event was staged to get the maximum emotionally shock AND just as importantly be incomprehensible, inconcievable, or simply astonishing at the same time.

My point to you is that it wasn't any of that in reality. None of it. Not the ruse to keep the hijackings a secret, the timing of the planes crashing, and certainly not the "piece de resistance", the blowing up of the buildings.

The whole thing was planned and scripted from start to finish right down to it's mind (and body) blowing climax for maximum psychological effect and minimal risk for those who actually staged it.

There was no blind "luck" or anything left to chance about any of it.

Everyone was set up like pins in a bowling alley with a little "high" human drama and some arial action scenes worthy of Hollywood to keep them looking up.

Meanwile the ball that was silently rolling down the alley right at their feet had a fuse on it and they never knew what hit them when it went off. Most still don't.

More than two thousand people were deliberately and brutally blown to bits and incinerated right before the eyes of a completely unsuspecting audience. Just think about that...hmmm?

No warning at all. No normal creaking, groaning or rending of steel or popping of glass. No bending, shaking or tilting either. Just "Prest-o-change-o!" and just like magic a huge piece of reality just dissappears forever in a collosal puff of smoke!

And just in case you missed what a really fucking nifty trick it was you got to see it again and the second tower went kabango the very same way. Not to be outdone as a parting gesture these magicians even sneeringly tipped their hand and took WTC7 with them too, but people were just too dazzled and frazzled to notice. They still are.

All any mind could think of is "I don't believe this...", "This can't be happening..." but it was, and it was real people just like you and me that were permanently dissappeared in their thousands right along with them too....

You don't want to believe it. You still can't believe it. No one could possibly ever be as rotten, despicable, callous, and inhuman enough to cold bloodedly calculate and carry out something like that...hmmm? Staggers the imagination, doesn't it?

There just has to be some other explanation even if it's bizarre or freakish, as long as it's got the remotest possibility it's damn sight better than having to imagine or think about that...hmmm?

Well I have news for you. There are ruthless bastards who can and do do those kind of things all the time. Not only that, there are whole agencies chock full of them on the payroll of the US government who will do that and a good deal more for the "America" they happen believe in.

Now if you want to co-opt and completely control something the size of the United States, push it towards a fascist dictatorship, wage unlimited wars for fun and profit and be able to walk away from it all at the end of the day with a smile on your face and having wrung just about everything and anything you possibly can out of it, that's exactly what you do.

You simply deliver a massive and crushing blow to both individual and collective psyches while everyone is totally off guard in the honest and deep felt concern for what they are aleady intently watching and they're putty in your hands after that.

And don't forget how Bush even helped to push that hopelessnes and being out of it along by telling people essentially that there was really nothing they could even do. He said the best thing to do was "go shopping" for God's sake!

Perhaps to wander the streets and malls utterly stunned by just how completely powerless and out of the loop they really were to have nothing better to do about it than that...hmmm?

Well you're only "out of the loop" if you don't realize what you're actually dealing with and what depths the real monsters behind this will stoop to.

The event has already forced far too many as it is to simply defer or abandon their personal power and judgement to "someone" or the "experts" or higher "authorities" who simply must know better...hmmm?

If people can't trust their own eyes and judgement on this key element they can't trust themselves on any of the other equally important things that were served up right in it's wake, or question or logically challenge the altogether disturbing oddities and anomalies in them either.

So the Patriot Act, the war and so forth all roll forward, despite the fact that they're not quite making any real sense either and minds are all still locked in that same damaged pattern of looking for a bizarre or freakish excuse any excuse rather than face the reality of what they are too.

Now in the little matter of rescue workers, firefighters and other emergency workers. They are NEVER allowed to place their lives directly in harms way regardless of who or what is at stake, nor do they ever allow themselves the luxury of being anything but practical and level headed even in the worst possible scenarios imaginable.

They are literally "drilled to death" on their methodolgy and always aware that to deviate from it in any way can only make things worse for all concerned. Every risk is carefully balanced, every avenue of escape duly noted and confirmed. Equipment and additional staff are all well placed ahead of everything and based on options. There is NEVER any move forward towards that danger without enough of those options on the table to ensure they all come back alive.

2:50 a.m.  
Blogger #1 Sniffer said...


Demolitions is a powerful Hegelian Dialectic tool for us to give the New World Order a taste of their own medicine, i.e, Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis; or Problem, Reaction, Solution.

Thesis = Problem = "3 Demolitions occurred on 911."

Antithesis = Reaction = "People everywhere wake up, and get very angry."

Synthesis = Solution = "Innoculation from further manipulation, catch and punish the criminals, & restore freedom in America."

The beauty of it is it's a true thesis (unlike the Illuminati's normal thesis' like 911 itself, all founded on webs of deceit).

The more they try to debunk demolitions with false arguments, the dirtier they look, the more attention they give the demolitions, the more others wake up, and the more angry everyone gets. At some point the anger will explode and be unstoppable.

The terror of 911 is being replaced by anger, not at innocent Muslims but at domestic parasitic tyrants who hide behind them.

Therefore let us CONSTANTLY play the hand that we have, especially if it's a good one like demolitions is.

911 was immensely bold and clever but as a crime it will fail miserably because it's arrogance forgot to cover all the DNA traces leading to the foul rabbit hole.

9:07 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Folks -- Rudy Giuliani here.

Now is the time to admit that it's true. We did demo WTC7. You see, the building was on fire, and we couldn't stop it before it spread. We had to keep the demolition on the down low because the place was loaded with asbestos and we didn't exactly have the proper permits. (Now there's probably going to be a lot of lawsuits, but oh well.)

As for it taking "weeks" to plan a demo, nonsense. Blowing up burning buildings is a standard Fire Dept procedure for a century, and they've got the necessary plans for everything in lower Manhattan.

I gotta hand it to you conspiracy dogs hounding us on this one. The truth may never have come out! I take full 100% responsibility.

As for WTC 1 & 2, let's just say that some Sicilian families were involved in the construction. Before my time! I suggest you consult your Conspiracy Almanac of 1975.


2:19 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Good job staying the course in the face of all these trolls who seek to derail our collective train of thought. Or should that be a train of collective thought? You can tell these thread-jackers are intentionally trying to derail you, not only because they bring up 9-11 regardless of what the discussion is currently centred on, but, more importantly, by the trollish way they ignore (or show their ignorance of) your nuanced arguments and perspective on 9-11 which is laid out clearly in many past posts. If you feel like writing an article on WTC#7, go ahead and do so; but, do it when you're ready, if you want to. Your blog, your writing, your thoughts are nothing except what you choose for them to be. Reminds me, though, of a phrase I love to quote from time to time: "The mind has no firewall" (attr: US mil, or course).

While I'm in the middle of ranting and rambling, let me give a shout out to starroute, dougoboy, kris, and all the others who consistently make the comments worth reading!

1:11 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Material rationalism has its uses, or its relevance in the minds of many, so .. anyway I am rather attached to it!

As for passports, the passport found in the WTC rubble was reported as that of Satam al Suqami (many alternate spellings.)

It was found by a NY cop and turned over to the FBI, as found passports are supposed to be given in to ‘authorities.’

Now, I am not an expert on Arab names. But a short burst of google will show that many Arab names in their shortened Western versions boil down to very common ones, equivalent in English to John Roberts, Alan Smith, James Brown, and so on, as the second or surname adopted is often a tribal one. Tribes can be up to 100 000 strong I have read (no personal knowlege.)

For example, the distinctive and unique (?) Mohamed Mohamed Elamir Awad Elssyed Atta becomes MOHAM ATTA on a flight manifest.

Found passports and so on are splendid red herrings, accidents created by busibodies, hype, poor (or on the spot) reporting, Gvmt. silence and the indignation of nay-sayers who are very cleverly never corrected.

Silverfox has it right I reckon.

Ppl can’t believe it. They just well...can’t. If they believe in conspiracy, it is Ptech, foreknowledge acquired by reckless or canny traders, many other things, but the fullblown ‘reality’ of the WTC 1,2,7 being brought down by planes is *just so*. (Never mind the bombed out WTC 6, and more.)

P. S. Magonia went right over my head. never heard of it it.


3:08 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I originally came to this site shortly after discovering the "Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11", but your far-ranging, essential work continues to draw me back.

As you said, we ARE responsible to wake ourselves up. To pretend to be more "awake" is to , but unless there is something compelling to get them out of bed, they'll go back to sleep. And the sound of thermite from across the river may indeed be a wakeup call to some, but once the fireworks have subsided, is it time to pack up the lawnchairs and head home, or

LHO was the lone gunman is to the JFK story.


Controlled Demolitions is to the 9/11 story.

Computer artists who "recreate" Dealey Plaza, proving that a kill shot COULD have been fired from the Book Depositiory, do nothing to invalidate LHO's past as a CIA and FBI asset.

Computer artists who "recreate" airliners impacting the WTC, to prove a foregone conclusion do nothing to invalidate Atta's visit to Jack Abramoff's gamblin' river boat, or the $100,000 that Mahmoud Ahmed sent to him a month earlier.

If one is to use fireworks to wake up a slumbering friend, I always recommend having a hearty breakfast ready for them, before Morpheus reclaims them.

4:21 p.m.  
Blogger greenmahn said...

Starroute said:

“How real do you dare to get?”

That’s what I posited, in my own fashion, in my comment at/near the end of the Abaddon thread.

I believe the collective pent-up emotional energy being denied by most individuals can shift this planet’s situation for the better if released SAFELY. Blame, but do it in private. Pure wordless Sound vibrates change. Read my other comment for more context.

We need more of us to be practicing this. This is a very real, practical thing we can all do to change it Out There. In the privacy of our own rooms, cars, etc.

4:56 a.m.  
Blogger blogbart said...

You can tell these thread-jackers are intentionally trying to derail you, not only because they bring up 9-11 regardless of what the discussion is currently centred on, but, more importantly, by the trollish way they ignore (or show their ignorance of) your nuanced arguments and perspective on 9-11 which is laid out clearly in many past posts.

Guilty as charged, it is not wilful.

But, hey man, I am just some chump who sees something wrong, wants to make it right. Don't confuse my singlemindedness and lack of elegance with trolling.

I do confess to often leave a post thinking, aw damn, I am off topic. Its not that the subtleties escape me; I can't articulate them like Jeff can. That's why I am here.

Jeff, that's what you get when you talk to Philistines : )

Please don't lose that subtle feeling. I am listening.

1:00 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello these are interesting comments. May the holy Lord bless you in his Word.

Former Rep. Charles Key of Oklahoma stated the fact that it is an outrage that the US gov't is investigating itself. This relating to the 9/11 tragedy. Yes we are charging the US gov't with organizing, subcontracting, and covering up the terrorism of that day. People in high places of the State Dept., FBI, Wall Street, and military being the prime suspects along with the executive branch in Washington. But this will never be tried in a criminal court. The federal gov't will not indict itself.

I'd like to share some uplifting thoughts. On December 8, 1999 a Memphis civil court jury had ruled in favor of the Martin Luther King Jr. family's wrongful death lawsuit versus Loyd Jowers "and other unknown co-conspirators." Loyd Jowers was never their primary concern though. The Kings and their lawyer William Pepper charged the US intelligence agencies - particularly the FBI and Army intelligence with the death of Martin Luther King Jr. The twelve jurors after the historic 3 1/2 week trial ruled that the federal government is guilty as charged.

Historic is an understatement.

This knowledge is on the web at The Ratville Times.

So what do you think about that? Guilty as charged.
Guilty as charged.
Guilty as charged...

2:25 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many issues into the Invisibles are you?

Because you just accused Morrison of being a proponent of very ideas he is challenging within the story

The whole Us vs. Them rhetoric in the first issue is, and was always supposed to be, a red herring. The point of the story is that there is no conspiracy and that the ones fighting the "establishment" are just as much a part of it as anyone else.

And about the RA Wilson and alien abduction thing. One of the key things in the Invisibles is not that there is an alien conspiracy and all the goofballs out there are right, but that some kind of collective consciousness shift was going on where everyone suddenly became obsessed with this idea.

Morrison has said it again and again that he is full aware that what he witnessed in Katmandu may well have been a product of his imagination. The point is, that doesn´t make it any less interesting or revealing of his own psyche. So to simplify things, he simply refers to it as an alien encounter for lack of a better term.

I may be putting words into Morrison´s mouth in some cases here, but the gist of what I´m saying has already been "revealed" numerous times in countless interviews with the man so that people like you that have a problem grasping things like "subtext" and "ambiguity" can get all the help they need.

I recommend tracking down some of these interviews.

Next time, read the thing before you start blabbering on about things beyond your ken.

Grant Morrison has anticipated everything you could say about his theories. You are seriously outclassed, my friend.

8:34 a.m.  
Blogger Unknown said...

mengapa kencing perih dan keluar cairan nanah kutil di sekitar kelamin kutil di sekitar kemaluan kutil di vagina

11:17 a.m.  
Blogger Arjunane Denature said...

obat wasir ampuh tanpa menguras kantong obat alternatif kemalua keluar nanah pengobatan herbal nanah keluar dari kemaluan pengobatan alat kelamin keluar nanah

2:43 a.m.  
Blogger Unknown said...

tanda tanda wasir atau ambeien wasir pada wanita obat kelamin keluar nanah obat menyembuhkan kemaluan keluar nanah

11:28 a.m.  
Blogger Unknown said...

penanganankutildibibirvagina bahayakutildivagina gejalakutilkelamindanpenanganannya pengobatandenatureindonesiakutilkelamin

4:36 p.m.  
Blogger Unknown said...

penyebab kemaluan keluar cairan nanah cara mengobati kemaluan keluar nanah kemaluan keluar nanah di sertai perih saat kencing mengobati kemaluan keluar nanah pada pria mengobati kemaluan keluar cairan nanah pada pria mengobati kelamin keluar nanah mengobati kemaluan pria yang keluar nanah nanah keluar dari kemaluan cairan nanah keluar dari kemaluan obat cairan nanah keluar dari kemaluan obat untuk cairan nanah yang keluar dari kemaluan obat ujung kemaluan keluar nanah obat ujung kemaluan keluar cairan nanah cara mengobati ujung kemaluan keluar nanah ujung kemaluan keluar nanah di sertai perih saat kencing penis keluar cairan nanah dan kencing perih penyebab penis keluar nanah cara mengobati penis keluar nanah obat alat kelamin keluar nanah obat cairan nanah keluar dari kemaluan obat cairan nanah keluar dari kemaluan mengapa kemaluan keluar nanah cara mengobati kemaluan keluar nanah obat kemaluan keluar nanah

1:05 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home