9-11-01 Bits and Pieces

yes, the energy weapons has no legs. Neither has nukes, mini or otherwise IMO. Missile and or demo combined makes the most sense.

Given Pentagon = no plane wreckage yet obvious high speed impact / explosion (video and aftermath) and Shanksville = no plane wreckage yet obvious high speed explosion (possible impact but not necessarily) and BBC TV horizon footage showing no in bound 2nd craft in one pan and momentarily later 2nd in bound craft having traversed a significant distance across horizon that is not possible given duration of camera pan AND given 2 of 4 impacts (or explosions) were clearly not aircraft why conclude remaining 2 would be different causes?

Multiple B.S. stories. Doesn't matter which one you subscribe to so long as you subscribe to one.

Arguing over the how is time consuming and entangling. Review the material, make a decision and move on. Point new comers to the info you consumed but don't become entangled. Many people you encounter will be agents looking to tie people up in the various what ifs and doubt seeding theories.

In the intervening years say between the event of 2001 and the Sandy Hook event of 2012, for example, I looked back at 9-11 and saw much more data that looked faked or contrived that I did not see that way in the beginning. We really do not have much what I consider hard evidence and the best we can do is rule out what is presented to us as true that is not true, by the laws of physics or whatever.

I postulated that when we see that THEY kill someone who had proven certain important information, then we can presume that the information was factual and with profound ramifications of the official story.

But really I am beginning to see how even killing someone can be used to make the people deliberately conclude, as I did, something that may not be true. THEY may be killing people for many different reasons or no reason at all or just to mislead the masses. That is what I call a Sunsteinian- strategy. For example, I think Alex Jones' Infowars operation is being somewhat "persecuted" as far as his First Amendment rights, but I also see how Alex uses that persecution to play the role of a suffering, singled out, martyr for the cause of liberty, and that is a shtick that definitely sells. Heck, Alex may even be in cahoots with Sunstein and company to let that stuff happen to him so he can use it. I never conclude that Alex Jones is being unjustly persecuted because he exposes so much "bombshell" true information.

I know, I'm getting pretty cynical these days.

Still, right now, in Gerard Holmgren's case, he discovered and proved the truth of no planes and he died a very suspicious death as a young person in good health so I do connect the dots on this one.

Some people do not seem to be aware that our "government" (THEY) has been doing evil things to innovent people who are "about to testify" with indisputable facts for decades and when there are clear cases where this can be pointed out, it is something to, as they say, wake people up, and that is a good thing.

yes, agreed. Any crack in the veil you can get people to look through it useful. But the minutia can be time consuming and sometimes a point of mental entrapment. Halting progress. The key is to prove that a group is responsible for all these events regardless of the small details and reveal them for all the world to see. Only then can something be done about the group as a whole. Stop them and all the other problems are solved. Then the only concern is to prevent re-emergence. This of course is the point that they are at if you flip the coin. Prevention of the re-emergence of truth as a life principle.