Show #15: No Ordinary Inside Job: The 9/11 Psy-Ops

[Cosmos]

I found the page on Dr. Wood's website that I was referring to previously. On it, she has several pictures shown as evidence of possible levitation. Most of the Katrina pictures were taken within 5 miles of where I stand, at this very moment. I can confidently say none of those were the result of levitation by a force other than water. My own van ended up a quarter mile from my home, in a cow pasture, with its tail end propped up in a tree. The waters reached a height of about 15 feet there, enough to have water on my second floor. When the levees failed, or were blown, the storm was already dying down.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin3.html

Can you point out exactly wich of those Figures from 16-24 you can definitely account for being caused by flooding istead of "levitating"?

Notice also that on top of the page it saying "This page is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION."

Figure 16, 18, and 20 were definitely taken in my parish. Notice that you can even see the water lines on the cars.

Figure 30 is also interesting. It is a picture of flooding outside East Jefferson Hospital. Her question, "Why are there still leaves on the trees?" I'm really boggled by this question and don't even comprehend where she was going with it, really. Not all leaves will be torn off of trees, even in a very powerful hurricane. You can have trees next to each other where one is ripped to shreds and the other is relatively unscathed. This can be the result of variable turbulence and micro vortices.

Edit: spelling

What I'm thinking is that a lot of what ended up in the book was first gathered on her website and she later compiled and selected things out of there to create the book? Maybe she gathered all she could on the net and elsewhere and put that up on that website for later contemplation and investigation, sort of a storage base for further investigation?

The statement "This page is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION." certainly could speak for that and also because she only used two of those "levitation" pictures in the book. And as far as I know Figure 30 is not mentioned in the book either.

Most of those pictures you see on that specific website you mentioned did not end up in the book.

But Figure 16 and 17 ended up in the book as suggestion of possible levitation (see page 438) in storms.
So did you actually see that car of Figure 16? Or do you remember that specific house being under water? How certain are you that this specific picture is from flooding from Katrina? And where do you exactly see the water line on the car?

I'm also asking because in the book she is refering to both of those pictures as being from Hurricane Wilma...
I've made a google search on Figure 16 but can't find the source and time it was orginally recorded.
From a google search Figure 17 seems to be indeed from Hurricane Wilma.

 

[Seraphina]

I found the page on Dr. Wood's website that I was referring to previously. On it, she has several pictures shown as evidence of possible levitation. Most of the Katrina pictures were taken within 5 miles of where I stand, at this very moment. I can confidently say none of those were the result of levitation by a force other than water. My own van ended up a quarter mile from my home, in a cow pasture, with its tail end propped up in a tree. The waters reached a height of about 15 feet there, enough to have water on my second floor. When the levees failed, or were blown, the storm was already dying down.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin3.html

Can you point out exactly wich of those Figures from 16-24 you can definitely account for being caused by flooding istead of "levitating"?

Notice also that on top of the page it saying "This page is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION."

Figure 16, 18, and 20 were definitely taken in my parish. Notice that you can even see the water lines on the cars.

Figure 30 is also interesting. It is a picture of flooding outside East Jefferson Hospital. Her question, "Why are there still leaves on the trees?" I'm really boggled by this question and don't even comprehend where she was going with it, really. Not all leaves will be torn off of trees, even in a very powerful hurricane. You can have trees next to each other where one is ripped to shreds and the other is relatively unscathed. This can be the result of variable turbulence and micro vortices.

Edit: spelling

What I'm thinking is that a lot of what ended up in the book was first gathered on her website and she later compiled and selected things out of there to create the book? Maybe she gathered all she could on the net and elsewhere and put that up on that website for later contemplation and investigation, sort of a storage base for further investigation?

The statement "This page is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION." certainly could speak for that and also because she only used two of those "levitation" pictures in the book. And as far as I know Figure 30 is not mentioned in the book either.

Most of those pictures you see on that specific website you mentioned did not end up in the book.

But Figure 16 and 17 ended up in the book as suggestion of possible levitation (see page 438) in storms.
So did you actually see that car of Figure 16? Or do you remember that specific house being under water? How certain are you that this specific picture is from flooding from Katrina? And where do you exactly see the water line on the car?

I'm also asking because in the book she is refering to both of those pictures as being from Hurricane Wilma...
I've made a google search on Figure 16 but can't find the source and time it was orginally recorded.
From a google search Figure 17 seems to be indeed from Hurricane Wilma.

Do I remember that specific house being under water? Pashalis, my entire parish was under 10-15 feet of water. Those sights were everywhere to be seen. There were houses picked up from their foundations and carried down the street (one of those was the street parallel to mine. We had boats on roofs.

Also, it's not like this information is hard to find, especially for researcher who is going to use these photos as "evidence". For her to leave these things on her website and even use some in her book does not bode well for her critical thinking skills. And this is me just going by what-I-know-that-I-know.

 

[Seraphina]

Here's another vehicle magically placed on a fence in my neighborhood (photo at top of article)
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/The-parish-that-feds-overlooked-Canadian-group-2609002.php#photo-2095919

 

[sitting]

I am not sure of comparison of energy levels from molecular disbonding through information induction w.r.t pure 3D level energy usage for forced breaking of bonds.

I don't mean to mystify the situation.
The manipulating phonon stuff with modulating over carrier frequencies is a mind blowing concept in itself. I haven't read this one yet.

They( 4D or 3D through hierarchy ) can map the area of target at the molecular level including 1D to 3D (just like our CAD software for building but at molecular level including every thing in the area) and create modulating frequencies and scoop it out and release crumbles.

This makes the antics of entire NWO gang as useful idiot acts ( a setup) - like changing hands for the insurance, advanced stock market future trading, dubaya reading book to school children, subsequent patriot act imposition etc.

This israel security company worked weeks before is a facilitation instead of collapsing itself and shutting down the air traffic security to avoid complications.

At the end, we are 3D, can only explain in 3D terms possibly with technology that is bordering 4D. Fascinating to think of possibilities - A Mass abduction in front of billions of people to create 911 religion( MSM followers) ?.

I think that's pretty much 9/11 in a nutshell.

Yes! And I would recommend reading seek10's outstanding post in its entirety.

 

[Seraphina]

Most of those pictures you see on that specific website you mentioned did not end up in the book

That's kinda beside the point. This is what she shows in her research, publicly. Her quality of research is what I question. If she is making that kind of glaring mistake in things I'm sure of, then how many more is she making that I may not be able to prove directly. I can pick apart a lot of those photos she shows and come up with a more practical reason for their occurrence. Then further down that page she also comes up with a term, "selective rustification", on an overturned truck who's undercarriage has been exposed to the elements. Really? She's making this up as she goes. Oxidative metals rust.

The water line on the car? On fig. 16 you can see several dusty horizontal lines. The dirty water receded slowly leaving a succession of those dusty lines. You can pm me on fb sometime, I'll show you the water lines inside my current house, in a pic taken a few months after the storm. In fact, it's already in one of my albums.

 

[aragorn]

Most of those pictures you see on that specific website you mentioned did not end up in the book

That's kinda beside the point. This is what she shows in her research, publicly. Her quality of research is what I question. If she is making that kind of glaring mistake in things I'm sure of, then how many more is she making that I may not be able to prove directly. I can pick apart a lot of those photos she shows and come up with a more practical reason for their occurrence. Then further down that page she also comes up with a term, "selective rustification", on an overturned truck who's undercarriage has been exposed to the elements. Really? She's making this up as she goes. Oxidative metals rust.

I agree. A responsible researcher, especially an university professor, should check what kind of information she puts in public view. That's why I collected some of her research papers, to see how she has reasoned in the past. As said, all the papers are done by research groups, so it's hard to say.

 

[Cosmos]

Most of those pictures you see on that specific website you mentioned did not end up in the book

That's kinda beside the point. This is what she shows in her research, publicly. Her quality of research is what I question. If she is making that kind of glaring mistake in things I'm sure of, then how many more is she making that I may not be able to prove directly. I can pick apart a lot of those photos she shows and come up with a more practical reason for their occurrence. Then further down that page she also comes up with a term, "selective rustification", on an overturned truck who's undercarriage has been exposed to the elements. Really? She's making this up as she goes. Oxidative metals rust.

I agree. A responsible researcher, especially an university professor, should check what kind of information she puts in public view. That's why I collected some of her research papers, to see how she has reasoned in the past. As said, all the papers are done by research groups, so it's hard to say.

I agree. And it doesn't make her research approach look that good either as Laura said...
The reason why I'm asking about this specific Figure 16 is because, as I said, she depicts it in the book as coming from Hurricane Wilma instead of Hurricane Katrina...

I know that there was heavy flooding all arround in Hurricane Katrina, wich certainly can be the origin of this photo. I just don't seem to be able to find anything concrete on google on that specific picture (Figure 16) , wich she also used in the book, that would suggest that it actually is coming from either Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Wilma as she claims in the book. She presents Figure 16 and 17 side by side in the book and is saying that they both come from Hurricane Wilma and suggesting that they both could have been caused by wind or "levitation". While it seems to be true that figure 17 is actually from Hurricane Wilma (I googled it) I haven't found any proof that Figure 16 actually is... That's why I'm asking.

So either she has or knows information that this figure 16 is actually from Hurricane Wilma (wich I haven't found any proof as of yet) or she just assumes it and has put it into the book... Or consciously used it, while not knowing its origin, and claimed it to be from Hurricane Wilma...Or consciously used it, while kowing its origin, and claimed it to be from Hurricane Wilma... Or thought it is coming from Hurricane Wilma while actually not presenting or knowing if it is actually the case...

So can somebody find a concrete reference for this figure 16 on the net wich can tell us more about its origin? (I haven't found anything concrete on google).
Because I'm wondering how and why exactly she came to the conclusion and presented it in the book, as coming from Hurricane Wilma...

 

[Olesya]

Hi, Pashalis! Can you take a look at this photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WestendWoodFenceCar.jpg. I think it's the same car. The markings on the car are exactly the same, osit. The color difference maybe due to a different angle and lightning?

Below the photo there is this: "New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina" and " In formerly flooded West End neighborhood, a Dodge Intrepid still sits half atop a wooden fence. Driveway has been cleaned of silt, but flood lines are still visible on car and parts of building."

Photo by Infrogmation.

 

[Cosmos]

Hi, Pashalis! Can you take a look at this photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WestendWoodFenceCar.jpg. I think it's the same car. The markings on the car are exactly the same, osit. The color difference maybe due to a different angle and lightning?

Below the photo there is this: "New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina" and " In formerly flooded West End neighborhood, a Dodge Intrepid still sits half atop a wooden fence. Driveway has been cleaned of silt, but flood lines are still visible on car and parts of building."

Photo by Infrogmation.

Thanks Olesya!

Yep indeed it is the same car and the flood lines are clearly visible both on the car and the garage door from this angle. So it is almost 100% clear now IMO that it is in fact a car that was set on top of the fence not by wind or "levitation" as it is suggested in the book, but because of flooding. Or it is the much more reasonable explanation...

Further if we can trust the description under the picture you posted (wich I think is resonable to suggest), it is in fact from Hurricane Katrina and not from Hurricane Wilma as she is saying in the book...

So now the question is, why is that?

So those are some possible answers to this question:

[...]

So either she has or knows information that this figure 16 is actually from Hurricane Wilma (wich I haven't found any proof as of yet) or she just assumes it and has put it into the book... Or consciously used it, while not knowing its origin, and claimed it to be from Hurricane Wilma...Or consciously used it, while knowing its origin, and claimed it to be from Hurricane Wilma... Or thought it is coming from Hurricane Wilma while actually not presenting or knowing if it is actually the case...

[...]

 

[Mal7]

At 31:18, Dr Wood says, regarding the dust that went up in the air:

". . . we know that a significant amount went up because initially it blocked out 100% of the sunlight for several minutes and people couldn't see their hand in front of their face so we know it went up because it blocked out the sun . . ."

We do know from photos and satellite images that a lot of dust went up, but the above argument for why it went up doesn't seem to make sense to me. People at ground level not being able to see their hand in front of their face implies a very low visibility, of say 1m or less. That is consistent with most of the dust falling down and forming a thick layer (with under 1m visibility) close to the ground.

 

[Olesya]

You're welcome, Pashalis!

Hi, Pashalis! Can you take a look at this photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WestendWoodFenceCar.jpg. I think it's the same car. The markings on the car are exactly the same, osit. The color difference maybe due to a different angle and lightning?

Below the photo there is this: "New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina" and " In formerly flooded West End neighborhood, a Dodge Intrepid still sits half atop a wooden fence. Driveway has been cleaned of silt, but flood lines are still visible on car and parts of building."

Photo by Infrogmation.

Thanks Olesya!

Yep indeed it is the same car and the flood lines are clearly visible both on the car and the garage door from this angle. So it is almost 100% clear now IMO that it is in fact a car that was set on top of the fence not by wind or "levitation" as it is suggested in the book, but because of flooding. Or it is the much more reasonable explanation...

Further if we can trust the description under the picture you posted (wich I think is resonable to suggest), it is in fact from Hurricane Katrina and not from Hurricane Wilma as she is saying in the book...

Here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation we read, who is Infrogmation, the author of the photo in the above link:

I'm a sysop on en Wikipedia; my Wikipedia user page. I'm also an admin here.
I live in New Orleans, Louisiana.
After a month in exile due to Hurricane Katrina, I came back to my beloved devastated home town. My main contributions here since have been to Category:Hurricane Katrina aftermath in New Orleans and associated pages, and more recently chronicling the city's history, culture, and revival.

Here _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation it says :

I am a New Orleanian who started contributing to Wikipedia in September of 2002, became an Administrator in February of 2003, and a year later became Wikipedia's 7th Bureaucrat.
Since the great levee disaster of '05 I haven't done much Bureaucrating, but should another Bureaucrat be needed in a pinch in the neverending battle against evil and such, give me a call.
At writing, the vast majority of the images in Category:Hurricane Katrina aftermath in New Orleans and its associated pages were taken by me.

Well, now I'm a little bit confused. So, maybe some photos are not his? I don't know what to make of it... Which ones are his?

Here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hurricane_Katrina_aftermath_in_West_End,_New_Orleans I found the same photo seen here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WestendWoodFenceCar.jpg. in the photo gallery in the category: Hurricane Katrina aftermath in West End, New Orleans (it's at the bottom of the page), but the photo # 16 as posted here _http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin3.html was not there.

Interesting, where is the figure #16 came from, osit? I couldn't find it.


So now the question is, why is that?

So those are some possible answers to this question:

[...]

So either she has or knows information that this figure 16 is actually from Hurricane Wilma (wich I haven't found any proof as of yet) or she just assumes it and has put it into the book... Or consciously used it, while not knowing its origin, and claimed it to be from Hurricane Wilma...Or consciously used it, while knowing its origin, and claimed it to be from Hurricane Wilma... Or thought it is coming from Hurricane Wilma while actually not presenting or knowing if it is actually the case...

[...]

My impression ( and surely, I could be completely wrong) is that she's trying to fit the evidence into her theories. How come she doesn't think that people will check her "evidence", only a complete narcissist or a psychopath would do that, osit. I'm not saying that she is. Doesn't she care about her reputation? Or someone made her do it? Yes, it's puzzling and not enough information to make any conclusions, osit.

 

[Joe]

At 31:18, Dr Wood says, regarding the dust that went up in the air:

". . . we know that a significant amount went up because initially it blocked out 100% of the sunlight for several minutes and people couldn't see their hand in front of their face so we know it went up because it blocked out the sun . . ."

We do know from photos and satellite images that a lot of dust went up, but the above argument for why it went up doesn't seem to make sense to me. People at ground level not being able to see their hand in front of their face implies a very low visibility, of say 1m or less. That is consistent with most of the dust falling down and forming a thick layer (with under 1m visibility) close to the ground.

That's typical of the muddled way she expresses herself. The dust went up but also subsequently came down.

 

[Mal7]

From 19:12 - 20:38:

Dr Wood: In order to solve a real problem you must begin with, number one, determining what happened. And then, and only then, can you determine how it happened. You have to define what it is before you can solve what, how it happened. And then number three is who did it or who planned to do it. You still have to determine what it is that got done.

Ark: Okay let's start with step number one and let's see where the evidence leads to.

Dr Wood: That's scientific.

Ark: And then we can go on with steps two and three, but indeed step number one is evidence, hard facts, what are the observations, concrete observations.

Dr Wood: The reason why we are being so rigorous about that is because that is why no one can solve it. Because they begin with step number two, three, or four and they assume what step number one is, so they only solve an assumed problem. And, you know, it may sound a bit odd and, you know, self-serving, but, it is not: My book is the only determination of what happened that is out there in the public domain. And that includes the NIST report. The NIST report, what they did was assume a problem. They solved a hypothetical problem. They did not determine what happened. So let us determine what happened.

I think steps number one, what happened, and number two, how it happened, are not necessarily disparate. Philosophers of science like to talk about the "theory-ladenness of observation". What people observe depends on their theoretical beliefs. For example, two people may look through the same telescope, and one sees canals on Mars, while another just sees random marks on the planet's surface, depending on whether or not their theoretical beliefs include the possibility of water-formed canals on that planet.

 

[sitting]

i.e they froze the time, did what they want to do and edited the time frame and released the 4D movie ( 3D reality). that explains 8 sec free fall instead of 11 or so seconds free fall(if it free fall at all), All dustified except one elevator full of people like anamolies etc.

If this is true, isn't easy to create leave some crumbles or create some crumbles so that who ever doesn't fall under MSM magic will have some crumbles ( hutchinson effect iron, paper, some dust, australian reporter reporting collapse before it actually collapsed etc.) to work with and get lost.

You bet!

Like Laura said, no matter your religion, color or creed, there's a specific disinfo line created just for you. No reason to think Judy's any different. Wood herself often used the Easter Egg hunt analogy. Children delight in their magnificence in finding such. Little do they know. She probably picked one up herself.

That said, there is a saving grace. "They" were arrogant enough to stick it in our faces that day. Daring us to see. Front and center. Two 110 story towers transformed movie like...cartoon like...magic like...before our eyes! It was "Go ahead! Make my day!"

Trouble is, we made their day. The world looked, and 99.9999999 percent did not SEE. But somehow she SAW. And then in her flawed and awkward way, tried to make us SEE. She will go down in the Akashic records (for eternity) as one of the few who SAW that day.

And speaking of movies, I honestly think we were given hints. Though from which "side" I'm not sure. Think "independence Day". Non-human influence, non traditional energy or information involvement. Then remember the guy who made that film. And know that Roland Emmerich also brought us "The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012".

One scary dude.

 

[seek10]

It might be a good idea to take all the Cs Transcripts on the 9/11 WTC Complex events, then place them side by side with relevant or supporting evidence/eyewitness testimony from Wood's book. Anyone with a copy of her book want to get started on that?

I haven't received her book yet, but I compiled the C's comments for others to plug in. I copied the session into individual files and manually searched (on those files) on key words like 911, wtc, plane, flight etc. so it is quite possible I missed some. If it make sense to post it in another thread please shift it. I will try to post it multiple posts to make it easier. some comments may not be directly related but interesting.

2001_09_24

Q: (L) You said last time that Israel was behind the attack on the WTC. They are collecting evidence that Osama Bin Laden and company are behind it.
Are they manufacturing this evidence?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is the truth going to come out?
A: Yes.

2001_10_13

(A) I would like to ask about how this building collapsed and why. There is more and
more discussion about it, and theories are flying. (L) Well, let's ask again just to be clear. Were the WTC buildings collapsed by internal sabotage, or simply as a result of being hit by jets?
A: Airplanes.
Q: (L) There was no internal sabotage?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What caused the buildings to collapse?
A: Structural weaknesses.
Q: (L) We watched one film that showed a strange, dark object, shooting down towards the ground. What was that?
A: 4th Density energy surge.
Q: (L) Where was it surging from and to?
A: Dome of destruction energy time lock to ground.
Q: (L) Are you saying that there was a dome of a time lock over this area? Do you mean that they put a "time lock" over this area so that they could
"harvest" bodies or energy?
A: Close.
Q: (BT) Was there any other purpose besides harvest?
A: Gathering records, gold, soul extraction, he said.
Q: (L) What does "he said" mean?
A: Journeyman.
Q: (L) Who or what is a "journeyman?"
A: Informant.
Q: (L) So there is a "journeyman" who is the informant from whom you obtained the information regarding the question?
A: 4th Density STO observer.
Q: (L) What did they want the gold for?
A: 4th density uses gold for technology.
Q: (BT) Well, that is in many myths about the "gods" mining gold in antiquity. (L) Were they gathering records in the sense of material objects?
A: Partly.
Q: (L) Might these records also have been an extraction of "records" from people as they were dying?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) For what purpose did they intend to use the souls that were extracted?
A: Remolecularization.
Q: What will they used these remolecularized beings for?
A: Insert them back into building to escape and be rescued.
Q: (L) Are you saying that this was an opportunity used as a very traumatic screen event of a mass abduction, so to say?!
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What was done to these people who were abducted? Was there a specific reason for a mass abduction?
A: Turn on the programs.
Q: (TB) So, those who "escaped" are very likely programmed individuals turned loose in our society. People with programs set to make them run amok at
some point?
A: Close.

2003_01_18

Q: (A) I want to ask about the collapse of the World Trade Center. There is evidence of seismicity and unusual pulses that seem to have simply disintegrated matter.

A: Very good observation, but that does not mean human sabotage either. There were certainly "pulses." They were of a "natural" source that was "sculpted" or "shaped" and directed.

Q: What do you mean by a 'natural source?'

A: Energies of the planet artificially collected and disbursed. An artificial earthquake sort of.

Q: But we are still talking about technology. Where is the operational center for this type of thing?

A: 4th density technology.

Q: This we know. But there are human brains involved. What brains are behind this?

A: Did you ever wonder why the pentagon is a pentagon? Hint!

Q: Is that why they specifically included the Pentagon as one of the buildings to be hit in the 9-11 attack; to allay suspicions?

A: Yup!

Q: Are there 4th density sections to the Pentagon?

A: Absolutely. It is a "deep cover" kind of place.

Q: (A) There is this Pentagon, then there is another superpower - Russia - and still another - China...

A: There is only one. The U.S. just happens to be the center.

2003_02_02

Q: One of the first questions we want to ask tonight is about the event of the Space Shuttle that was lost. First, was it an explosion, or was it just disintegration, or breaking up?

A: It was a "direct hit."

Q: A direct hit by what?

A: EM pulse.

Q: (S) What was the source of the EM pulse?

A: 3/4th density Consortium.
Q: Well, I thought Bush was a puppet of the Consortium? (A) Well, we know that the military are scrambling planes to go after UFOs...there are even reports of firing on them and there have been reports of military jets being disintegrated by UFOs. The UFOs are, somehow, in cahoots with the consortium. It seems that Bush and the gang are not in control of the Consortium and maybe they needed to be "reminded?"

A: It is not so much that he needs to be reminded, as he needs to be stimulated to react.

Q: (L) You once before said that Bush knows very little anyway - or that the "White House" level is pretty much in the dark about the plans of the Consortium - even if they are carrying them out. So, you are suggesting that they are being driven by forces of which they are unaware and do not understand?

A: Exactly. Bush is a "reaction machine."
..

(L) Exactly. Okay, you say that an EM pulse brought down the shuttle. (A) Where did the EM pulse come from?

A: From space based satellite.

Q: (A) Does NASA know about the cause?

A: There are some who suspect.

Q: (L) Which explains why they are so anxious to convince everyone that it was NOT sabotage. Like Wellstone's death, there was "no question" about it being a terrorist attack. The likelihood is that the Bush Junta was behind Wellstone's death. In both cases they "know" the cause and want to divert the attention away from it. But, in the case of the shuttle, they aren't "dirty," but they most definitely do NOT want anyone to realize that they also are not "in charge." It makes me think of the remark the C's made a few years ago about the reason for the Military Industrial Complex build-up and manipulations. C's said that the REAL enemy is "out there" and that war was just a "cover" to prevent the masses from realizing what they were really doing. Maybe Bush and the gang are really convinced, in their own minds, that they are acting to "protect" humanity from this threat. Meanwhile, they are simply being driven to fulfill the agenda of the Consortium. And it is so interesting that the shuttle broke up over Palestine, Texas... as though it was saying to Bush: this is what is going to happen to you: Palestine is going to be your destruction. But, of course, Bush would be incapable of perceiving it in that context. Is it so that a message was intended in this event?

A: As always, confusion is the mask.