2004_10_23
2005_01_09
2005_10_20
Q: (Galahad) Were the planes that hit the WTC the actual commercial flights as the official story says?
A: Yes.
Q: (Galahad) So there is a lot of disinfo out there trying to confuse and disrupt those who want to get the truth.
A: CIA confusion is apparent.
Q: (Galahad) Were there any explosives planted in the Pentagon?
A: The plane delivered the explosives.
Q: (L) Was it, as I suspect, a plane specially constructed for the job? One that was not only constructed of special materials, but als had its own internal bomb designed to blow those special materials to smithereens so there would be no evidence?
A: Yes. Exactly.
Q: (Perceval) You mentioned before about a scandal at the Denver Airport. Is this still on or have things changed?
A: Yet to come. Just keep flapping.
Q: (Galahad) Will this have to do with 911?
A: Yes. Oh, yes!
Q: (Perceval) Does it have to do with the flight simulators?
A: No.
Q: (L) Is it that they landed Flight 77 at Denver?
A: Very possible.
2005_01_09
2005_08_06Q: Were there passengers and crew on both planes that hit the WTC?
A: Yes.
Q: Were any of the alleged hijackers on the planes?
A: No.
Q: If there were passengers and crew on the planes, were they conscious up until the time of impact?
A: No.
Q: Were the planes that struck the WTC being controlled by helicopters or other planes nearby?
A: Not even necessary. The onboard computer does it all.
Q: So how did the passengers and crew lose consciousness?
A: You have already speculated about gas released via onboard ventilation system.
Q: Is Barbara Olsen alive?
A: Now that is a very interesting question! Let us just say that she is busy making the bunker "homey" for the housewarming.
Q: Was there a second emergency landing at Cleveland after Delta 1989 landed?
A: No, that was just to confuse the issue.
Q: So it was just more of the intelligence agencies sowing disinformation in real time. Which would suggest that Flight 93 did crash in Pennsylvania?
A: Crash?
Q: Well, crashed after it was shot down. So, was it shot down?
A: Absolutely. You had it from the "horse's" mouth.
Q: If so, was it shot down because the passengers were getting ready to take control and that would have brought something to light that they didn't want to happen?
A: Yup.
Q: So why weren't these people gassed like the ones on the WTC flights?
A: Mechanical glitch. Wishful thinking will get you every time.
Q: So where was Flight 93 meant to be going?
A: White House. The fire was started in anticipation and had to be extinguished and covered up.
Q: At the time there were reports of fire at the Pentagon before the plane hit, was this the same thing as at the White House?
A: Yes.
Q: Did Flight 77 land at Reagan Airport in Washington DC as Dick Eastman suggests?
A: Try Wright Patterson.
Q: Did it go on anywhere else after WP?
A: Only piecemeal.
Q: But wasn't it said in a previous session that Flight 77 landed at Denver and that this might well be the source of the Denver airport scandal? [Discussion of what "piecemeal" means. Conclusion is that plane and passengers were "taken apart" and plane pieces were moved somewhere else - possibly Denver]
A: So, see?
Q: Were there any other plane crashes that day that the public was not told about?
A: You can research this and find conflicting info. But, no.
Q: Was the strike on the Pentagon for the purpose of taking out the people involved in legitimate training exercises who would have known the truth of the events of that day?
A: Now, another interesting question! What is up with the Navy?
Q: What is up with the navy?
A: Maybe they know things they don't tell. Maybe what they know gives them a certain respect for "nature" and a hesitancy to meddle.
Q: Can you clarify?
A: Let's just say that the navy wouldn't play with the bullies because they know about bigger bullies. The navy learned a lot from the Philadelphia experiment. George Bush senior tried to get all the data about the things he heard and saw, but failed.
Q: What is the navy doing now?
A: Flying under the radar and waiting.
Q: Was there some sort of double-cross involved in the 9/11 attacks where one party of the plans attempted to blackmail another?
A: Indeed, though there were glitches.
Q: So if the Denver airport scandal is going to expose the government; is the government going to be deliberately exposed by some other party?
A: We have already said that airports are used by both STS and STO.
Q: (Perceval) Were there really explosions at the WTC as reported by firefighters on the 24th Floor and in the basement by civilians?
A: Yes, but not necessary to plant charges. Only necessary to plant "conductors" for "shaped" EMP.
(Discussion about what these might be and of previous session where they mention that towers were felled by natural wave that was "contoured.").
2005_10_20
Q: (Perceval) So there you go. Nothing is certain. It depends upon what you do, Foofighter! (Foofighter) Thank you for that. (L) Flap your wings. (Perceval) Get some wings and flap them. Did the drone craft that hit the Pentagon fire a missile prior to hitting the building? Just before hitting the building?
A: Yes.
Q: (Perceval) Excellent. I want to know if a drone was scheduled as part of the plan to hit the White House?
A: Yes, but sans shaped charge. Also, a quite different appearing craft.
Q: (Perceval) What did it look like? What kind of craft? (Laughing) A UFO? (Everyone laughs)
A: More like the “Osama special.”
Q: (Perceval) The point is that Flight 93 was not supposed to hit the White House.
A: Probably not, but the “neocons” were not in on the whole “plan.”
Q: (L) Talk about a dirty, double-cross huh? (Perceval) It was said there was a glitch in the gas release on Flight 93 and that is why it was shot down. The gas didn’t release. Was that the only glitch or did they lose control of the plane and that’s why they had to shoot it down, or were there other glitches?
A: They had to shoot it down because it was no longer under control from many angles. No one could be allowed to survive.
Q: (Galahad) Were the many phone calls that were reported from Flight 93 real phone calls or were they fake?
A: Some were real.
Q: (Perceval) Were the real calls reported in the media?
A: Yes, but with “enhancements.”
Q: (Perceval) Let’s get some of that real-time voice morphing technology! (Galahad) Did Barbara Olson really phone?
A: Oh yes!
Q: (Galahad) If she was in on it, why would she phone?
A: She was “in on it” but it was not supposed to include Flt 77.
Q: (Galahad) That means there was a double-cross! (Perceval) Hang on, let’s not jump to conclusions! Is Laura correct in her hypothesis that she was in some way kidnapped or being used as insurance… is that the case?
A: Close.
Q: What would make it closer?
A: Insurance, blackmail, and the “bearer of bad tidings.”
Q: (Galahad) So it seems she was phoning to let her husband know that things were not going as planned. (L) Boy, talk about being hoisted on your own petard, huh? (Perceval) The entire operation was not meant to include Flight 77.
A: Correct.
Q: (Perceval) So let me get this straight in my head. So why did it include Flight 77? (L) A double-cross. (Galahad) The Israelis did it to take a hostage and to turn the tables on the US. (Perceval) So that suggests there were two groups involved in it.
(L) Think about it, if the US and at some level, the Israeli agents with these neocons and whoever, the neocons said, “Oh yeah, that’s a great idea” because they’re thinking in their mind “Oh yeah, we’ll let Israel do that. It’ll get us into the Middle East, and then we can stomp on the Israelis, too. We can take everything. We can turn the tables on them and get the whole thing.” And then the Israelis are thinking, “We know what you’re thinking. You think you’re going to help us and then you think you can blame us after it’s all over. Well, guess what? We’re going to fix you.” So the Neocons planned to have the “Osama special” hit the Pentagon. It was supposed to be a precision strike, yes, but it was supposed to be painted up to look like something quite different. Meanwhile the Israelis are painting something up to look like an American Airlines plane and they have the plan to take another plane as hostage. And then they make sure for whatever reasons, by appointments, dates, that Barbara Olson gets on this plane that’s set-up. Then they have Barbara Olson. She’s chosen because she’s young, attractive, a TV person. And then they hit the Pentagon with a plane that is literally a US military plane that’s painted up to look slightly like an American Airlines plane. (Perceval) That’s the thing. They couldn’t explain how Osama got a US military plane. In the original plan, it was going to be hit with an “Osama special”. Which is what? (L) It’s something that’s probably smaller, lighter, and less lethal… (Perceval) Like a little Cessna or something with some bombs in it. (L) It was supposed to actually look like something that came from Osama. (Perceval) Like some kind of a plane that he had access to, right? And they tell them this. This is part of the plan. We’re going to hit the Pentagon with a plane loaded with explosives. But while the Israelis are saying that to the neocons, they are lying. They have another plan that includes the plan to take Flight 77: the drone craft. So the entire operation is split between two groups. (Galahad) I wonder about the WTC. Was that part of the original plan, or was it part of the double-cross?
A: The WTC was the original main “plan.” Its symbolic value was needed.
Q: (L) So in other words, what then happened was they say that we’re going to do this….but we’re going to keep you… Just imagine what Mossad is saying to these neocons in the Pentagon. “OK, you’re going to stand down, but somehow we’re going to have to cover you. Here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to make it look like you’re being attacked, too, and then nobody will ever suspect that you’re involved. It's the oldest psychopathic trick in the book. Attack yourself to "prove" your innocence. (Perceval) And we’re going to put it on TV and then people will see that it was Osama. (Galahad) Was Flight 93 in the original plan?
A: Yes, but with a different target. How about the Washington Monument and lots of innocent civilians?
Q: (Perceval) So they were planning to use another type of “Osama special” on the White House and they didn’t. Why?
A: Left Bush with his drawers down didn’t it?
Q: (Laughter) (Perceval) They had Bush and the neocons jumping through hoops. They told them a plan that was radically different… (L) And then they did the old switcheroo (Perceval) And they’re running around going “What the hell happened!”. (DW) That explains why the cover-up on the Pentagon has been so poor and why it’s so obvious. It was all contrived on the fly, so to say. (L) If it had been planned, they would have had a better cover story planned. (A) Were there some unusual weapons used on the WTC?
A: It was a fairly simple “hit,” with a specially prepared building.
Q: (Perceval) What did they use then to make the steel beams collapse in the way they did, so completely? Did you have a question about that? (A) Well, specially prepared is essentially explosives that would cut the beams. But there are many. (Galahad) But we’ve asked about explosives in the building, and they’ve said it was more something to shape the… (Mr. Scott) Yes, EMP (Perceval) Conductors with shaped EMP. (Galahad) That means that using shaped EMP waves is “fairly simple”. (Laughter) (Perceval) If they could take down the Columbia… (Galahad) Was it the same technology as with the shuttle Columbia?
A: Yup.
Q: (Galahad) Did it come from the same source? (Perceval) Space-based satellite?
A: Now you are getting into warm water.
Q: (Galahad) I guess we don’t want to get into hot water… (Laughter) (A) It’s not our business. (Galahad) Curiosity killed the cat.
A: Let us just remind you that it scared even George.
(Perceval) And that then may lead to a question about Italy. What was the cause of the spontaneous fires in Caneto over the past two years on a couple of occasions?
A: Shall we say “practicing” and refining tech. Imagine, metal pipes that burn; steel beams that “dissolve.” Connection?
Q: (Perceval) You know these pipes that were bursting into flames? (A) Yes. (L) Metal was bursting into flames. (Perceval) Metal pipes. Electrical appliances. (Galahad) And the steel beams in the WTC. (Perceval) A couple of years ago. (Foofighter) We were looking at the videos from the WTC and we were wondering where the beams came from. (A) Still, I want to know what kind of physics is behind this because I can’t imagine any.
A: The nanotech you read about is going in the right direction.
Q: (Perceval) You were reading about nanotech? (A) I was. Then I am in warm water. (L) Uh hmmm. (Laughter) (A) OK. What is the next question? (Laughter) (Perceval) You’re in hot water! (Laughter) (Foofighter) I have a question about Anna Lindt, the Swedish Foreign Minister. (Perceval) That was Mossad. (L) That’s easy to figure out. (Perceval) She was anti-American, anti-Iraq war. (Foofighter) So how did they make the killer do it? (Perceval) Sirhan Sirhan. Oswald. (L) That’s all out there. Manchurian Candidate. Did you ever see it? (Foofighter) Yes. (Perceval) Is there any significance to that fact that we met those Americans at Ax les Thermes? They just fit the bill. (L) Art students?
A: They’re everywhere!
