WTC Demolition theory challenged by Cambridge University engineer

K

Kieran

Guest
anart said:
In addition, you seemed to not have understood my simple points - both buildings FELL PERFECTLY INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT - at very close to free fall speed, had this happened once, it COULD have been a fluke of perfectly, uniformly, failing supports - since this happened twice it can only logically point to controlled demolition.
Absolutely correct. I agree entirely.

And let’s not forget that it was THREE towers that collapsed into their own footprints … one of which (WTC 7) was not even impacted by a ‘plane!

(Although WTC7 was possibly intended to be hit by Flight 93 … which possibly managed to somehow over-ride the external ‘remote control’ and fled from the airspace … only to be shot down in the Shanksville area, Pennsylvania, by a ‘black ops’ fighter … before they could land and ‘spill the beans!’)

So we have THREE BUILDINGS. A lot of people forget that … and some never even seem to have taken it on board at the time, and don’t realise it now!

Also, the last ‘official’ pancake theory computer video simulation that I saw actually left the steel columns still standing as the floors ‘pancaked’ down.

It’s a bit like those old gramophone players on which you could stack several 45 rpm records, and when one finished playing the next would drop down to be played. But the central spindle – obviously – always remained standing!

So how did the 47 re-inforced steel columns of the central core of each building collapse?

Why were they not left standing up – like the ‘gramophone spindle’ referred to above – as the floors ‘pancaked’ down around them … and even as shown in the official computer generated video???!!!!

Did 110 foot steel columns also ‘pancake down’?

No indeed. They conveniently arranged themselves into cleanly cut 30 foot sections – for easy transportation to China as ‘scrap metal’ – where they were (and presumably still are being) re-cycled into cars, kitchenware and household goods.

Hmmm. A stray thought about removal of evidence from a crime scene raises its head …

China! ‘Most Favoured Status’ indeed!

This is all so ludicrous we shouldn’t even have to keep arguing it!

What an unbelievably surreal world we do inhabit.

Kieran
 
H

Hildegarda

Guest
Kieran said:
[
So we have THREE BUILDINGS. A lot of people forget that … and some never even seem to have taken it on board at the time, and don’t realise it now!
Again, WTC 7 is an entirely different matter. It HAS NOT been hit by a plane, but it HAS been demolished, we have proof of it in the words of the building owner and time line of rescue efforts (firefighters were told to step away from the building 30-40 min before it came down) -- see the video link I have provided.

If they could do it to the WTC 7, setting it up in advance, than it has also been possible for the towers, one might argue.

No indeed. They conveniently arranged themselves into cleanly cut 30 foot sections – for easy transportation to China as ‘scrap metal’
– where they were (and presumably still are being) re-cycled into cars, kitchenware and household goods.
I am not sure which columns those were, but there WERE some pieces in the structure that could have naturally ceated fragments of that length. If those were parts of the outer core, it would make sense. The outer core is modular (//http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html), and the modular column piece length is 3 floors = about 30 feet. That means that they wouldn't have been cut, just have failed at the junctures.

hoangmphung said:
You seemed to imply that just a little explosive to initiate the initial failure was needed and then the towers would fall on their own.
I am not implying anything, I am not sure how this has worked. I do know that thermate residues have been found in the WTC dust by Steven Jones, and that they were there prior to when the rescue operations have started. This with the other features pointed out by him (presence of some molten metal, color of the flames etc) present concrete EVIDENCE that thermates were used.
 
H

Hildegarda

Guest
anart said:
[ As has been covered here, and on the associated web pages, and many other places, the collapse does indeed look very unusual to a vast number of 'experts'. Up to this point, it has appeared that only those experts who benefit in one way or another from seeing it as 'not unusual' have come out publicly stating such. Certainly you are not unaware of this?
This is exactly the point, and I think that you have used parenthesis for the word 'experts' appropriately.

You, I or my husband may have an opinion on the subject basing on what we have read or what we have studied, but we are only 'experts'. And not the bona fide Experts with plenty of credentials, who will publish papers, will be invited to talk at conferences, or conduct an official investigation.

Again, those people are trained to think in a certain way. They will see what's happening and try to model it using the tools they have. If it looks more or less like they would expect -- close enough for horseshoes -- and the model explains the mechanics behind it, then hey, that's great, it works. And it gets published.


both buildings FELL PERFECTLY INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINTS
this is exactly what you would expect in case of 'pancaking'. It would look very similar to implosion. There are no forces that would bring things apart, so it would only have to go down.

at very close to free fall speed
will have to look into it more closely to have an opinion. This does seem to be the sticky point, and it is what Seffen is trying to deal with in his paper.

I'm thinking at this point that, perhaps, I am seriously misunderstanding what you're trying to say
yes, you do seem to be missing my most important point.

The fact that some model shows that something is possible doesn't mean that it is exactly what happened. It may very well be that the WTC towers have collapsed on their own. It could be that the process was engineered -- there is some material evidence for that. Regardless, it is obvious that it has been planned and that there are groups of people who benefited from it.

In this respect, the major impact of Seffen's paper's is NOT in his calculations or possible errors in them. It is a political move that came in the anniversary of the catastrophe to silence the dissenting conspiracists and sweep away all other terrible things that happened. And there was enough of clear, unarguable foul play elsewhere during the 911 events.

Just because of it, it is suspect, even if his conclusions may technically be right. Think of it this way -- if it has been let out, it is 'safe' to let out and the real smoking gun is elsewhere.
 
K

Kieran

Guest
freetrinity said:
Again, WTC 7 is an entirely different matter. It HAS been demolished, we have proof of it in the words of the building owner and time line of rescue efforts (fire-fighters were told to step away from the building 30-40 min before it came down) -- see the video link I have provided.
Can you specify again the video link you are referring to?

I’m sorry. But I seem to have missed the point of what you are saying …

… so how long does it take to prep a 47 storey building for controlled demolition?

Preparing to demolish even a moderate sized building takes weeks of preparation; a building as large as WTC 7-- a 47- story skyscraper-- must have taken at least as long. Therefore, the idea that the building was demolished in response to fires spread from the Twin Towers is not a satisfactory response, as the building could not have been set up for unexpected demolition in only a few hours, much less while fires burned inside.
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/220407_kerry_wtc7.html
And if WTC7 was prepped … why was it? For what reason?

What was anticipated by the ‘powers that be?’

What was known in advance?

Why should a building that apparently contained lots of CIA and ‘secret’ info – plus records of the SEC regarding insider dealing – be prepped for demolition????

Or are you saying the case is proven that the demolitions were an inside job?

freetrinity said:
The fact that some model shows that something is possible doesn't mean that it is exactly what happened. It may very well be that the WTC towers have collapsed on their own. It could be that the process was engineered -- there is some material evidence for that.
You talk here of possibilities.

OK. Then you say:

freetrinity said:
Regardless, it is obvious that it has been planned and that there are groups of people who benefited from it.
Now you talk of certainties – your own – in the same paragraph.

You follow with:

freetrinity said:
In this respect, the major impact of Seffen's paper's is NOT in his calculations or possible errors in them. It is a political move that came in the anniversary of the catastrophe to silence the dissenting conspiracists and sweep away all other terrible things that happened. And there was enough of clear, unarguable foul play elsewhere during the 911 events.
You seem to be saying here that Seffen is COINTELPRO:

freetrinity said:
It is a political move that came in the anniversary of the catastrophe to silence the dissenting conspiracists and sweep away all other terrible things that happened.
Then you state something which, quite frankly, stunned me:

freetrinity said:
Just because of it, it is suspect, even if his conclusions may technically be right. Think of it this way -- if it has been let out, it is 'safe' to let out and the real smoking gun is elsewhere.
What on Earth are you talking about???

… even if his conclusions may technically be right.
How are they?

There are more holes in his conclusions than in a farmyard of gruyere cheese!

Think ‘free-fall’ collapse speed – NO RESISTANCE ALL THE WAY DOWN!!! – even resistance of a 1/4 second per each of 90 floors would have increased the collapse time from 9+ seconds to 22 ½ seconds!; think manageable chunks of steel core – quickly removed; think nice sharp, angular (so they slide!) cuts on steel segments that we saw; think signature of thermite/thermate on steel samples analysed by Dr Steven Jones; think no pile/stack of ‘pancaked floors’ after they had all collapsed; think pulverisation into dust particles of the entire structures; think ‘squibs’ ejecting from localised areas in the towers just ahead of each collapsing floor. Above all THINK!

freetrinity said:
Think of it this way -- if it has been let out, it is 'safe' to let out and the real smoking gun is elsewhere
I’m lost again.

What has been let out? Why is it ‘safe’ to let it out?

And why do we need to seek the ‘smoking gun’ elsewhere?

There are so many ‘smoking guns’ its like the aftermath of Waterloo!

Now look freetrinity …

… if we have a situation in which there is nothing to hide and everyone genuinely wants to find out the truth, then all points raised about the matter should be welcomed by ‘the truth co-ordinating authority’ as opportunities for confirming and proving the truth.

Nothing should be feared.

Because, after all, we all want the truth.

This approach does not appear to be favoured by the current US administration.

(I think I read somewhere that about $60,000,000 was spent on researching Bill Clintons predilection for oral sex with his female staff … and about $600,000 dollars on researching the ambivalent ‘facts’ surrounding 9/11!)

So please explain to me why there is such convoluted bullsh*t flying around about pancaking floors at free-fall speed that pulverize each other into particles of dust in respect of skyscrapers collapsing from carbon fuel fires that burn at a maximum of about 900 degrees centigrade when their steel cores are made to withstand temperatures of 1600+ degrees Centigrade and this had never happened before and on 11 September 2001 happened 3 times in one day including a 47 story building that was NOT hit by an aircraft and jet fuel and this has not happened since in fires that burned for 24 hours in steel core skyscrapers of a similar design and there are recordings of firemen saying ‘send up a few lines’ because they knew they had it under control just like the Empire State Building in 1945 and many on the spot witnesses who heard subterranean explosions which is the starting point for controlled demolition of a high rise building … etc … etc …etc….

I mean … what does it take to register?

Can you at least agree with me that: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!”

Kieran
 
H

Hildegarda

Guest
Kieran said:
Can you specify again the video link you are referring to?
I will provide it again for your benefit. But in the future, please make an effort to go back one click on your own, and obtain the information you have missed at the first reading. From this request and your other statements I am getting the impression that you are not even taking time to read what I am saying:


\\\http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awcqSy_UsXs


My understanding is that the firefighters were called back 30-40 min before the WTC 7 collapse simply to clear the way. Prepping the building for controlled demolition, indeed, takes days.




why was it? For what reason? What was anticipated by the ‘powers that be?’ Why should a building that apparently contained lots of CIA and ‘secret’ info – plus records of the SEC regarding insider dealing – be prepped for demolition???? Or are you saying the case is proven that the demolitions were an inside job?
Some of these questions are rhetorical, others have no definite answers. Of course I don't know why exactly what CIA and SEC info was buried there. WE cam only guess. AS for whether it was an inside job -- I think yes, it's pretty much certain: 1) prepping time is necessary, 2) building owner knows about it, 3) building owner participates in the decision to 'pull it', and 4) building owner gets a handsome insurance settlement; + 5) various inconsistencies in the way it's been burning and has collapsed, as described elsewhere. It is IMO also pretty certain that whoever managed\prepped WTC 7it knew in advance of some major catastrophe in the area.


kieran said:
You talk here of possibilities.[..] Now you talk of certainties – your own – in the same paragraph.
Yes, I think that WTC towers being demolished or aided in collapse is a strong possibility, because of some material and circumstantial evidence. While the fact that the PTB have greatly benefited from the WTC collapse and FROM THE WHOLE 911 INCIDENT is certain. Do you agree with that?


You seem to be saying here that Seffen is COINTELPRO
I have no knowlesge of that. He may, or he may not be.


There are more holes in his conclusions than in a farmyard of gruyere cheese! Think ‘free-fall’ collapse speed – NO RESISTANCE ALL THE WAY DOWN!!! – even resistance of a 1/4 second per each of 90 floors would have increased the collapse time from 9+ seconds to 22 ½ seconds! think signature of thermite/thermate on steel samples analysed by Dr Steven Jones;
Have you read the guy's actual paper? You will only be able to make the first conclusion after having read it.

I would like to look at the free fall calculations myself and compare them to Seffen's paper. Truth is all about checking and rechecking, right?

You make it sound as if I don't know about thermates. However, if you go back and reread the discussion, you will see that it was I who brought up the thermates and Steven Jones into it. I have also stated that the pancake collapse theory doesn't take it into the account. This is one of its weaknesses, along with the issue that the fire has to be in the core. Free fall issue was pointed out by others.



kieran said:
What has been let out? Why is it ‘safe’ to let it out?
Again -- I think that whatever happened to WTC, it has been done naturally enough to pass scrutiny of mainstream experts-specialists and be modeled. This is why it is 'safe' to let out.



There are so many ‘smoking guns’ its like the aftermath of Waterloo! [..]
I mean … what does it take to register? Can you at least agree with me that: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!”
Honestly, it puzzles me why you are getting so worked up. Please reread everything I wrote and point out to me where I stated that 'nothing is rotten in the state of Denmark'.

As it happens, I stated repeatedly that something is really wrotten in the state of Denmaark, and there are a lot of smoking guns lying around. So many, in fact, that my opinion of the 911 incident doesn't change depending on how exactly the WTC buildings came down -- whether by demolition or aided pancake collapse.
 

anart

The Living Force
For what it's worth, once explosives are involved, it is no longer a 'pancake collapse'. The whole 'pancake collapse' theory is inapplicable due to the energy required to result in the pulverized concrete and free fall speed, not to mention the molten metal in the rubble, and the initial tilt in the top of one of the towers that, had it fallen naturally, would have resulted in a very different pile of rubble. Have you not read all the material available, at least on the forum, on this, freetrinity? I realize it is a lot of material, but it really does explain it much more fully than I can in one post, or even several posts. I realize it does not conclusively answer the question, but it covers a lot of what you seem to be considering as plausible.

The MIT 'truss failure' paper was covered as well at some point. It smacks of a rather desperate attempt to fit the theory around what physical evidence there is - but it fell short, to my recollection, due to exactly the same factors that have been brought up repeatedly. I've not the time nor inclination at the moment to look up the links for you , but I know it was either covered on the forum or on the Sott page at some point.
 

Peto

Jedi
freetrinity said:
hoangmphung said:
You seemed to imply that just a little explosive to initiate the initial failure was needed and then the towers would fall on their own.
I am not implying anything, I am not sure how this has worked.
Apology but the tone in your earlier post seemed to trivialize the role of explosives in the tower collapse. Hence my questioning.

freetrinity said:
You, I or my husband may have an opinion on the subject basing on what we have read or what we have studied, but we are only 'experts'. And not the bona fide Experts with plenty of credentials, who will publish papers, will be invited to talk at conferences, or conduct an official investigation.

Again, those people are trained to think in a certain way. They will see what's happening and try to model it using the tools they have. If it looks more or less like they would expect -- close enough for horseshoes -- and the model explains the mechanics behind it, then hey, that's great, it works. And it gets published.
Why do you assign credentials such importance and belittle your own critical thinking? You know that anyone, including the experts, can be bought, influenced or manipulated to spread disinformation. So credentials mean nothing here. However, as you are so inclined, if you took just a cursory look, you would find many experts who had taken the opposite view.

freetrinity said:
Think of it this way -- if it has been let out, it is 'safe' to let out and the real smoking gun is elsewhere.
What if they know that it was too blatant to be successfully covered up so they let it out and use a flurry array of experts to muddy the water?
 
K

Kieran

Guest
hoangmphung said:
Why do you assign credentials such importance and belittle your own critical thinking? You know that anyone, including the experts, can be bought, influenced or manipulated to spread disinformation. So credentials mean nothing here. However, as you are so inclined, if you took just a cursory look, you would find many experts who had taken the opposite view.
That, my friend, is an excellent summation and response to the many people one encounters who desperately try to find an ’expert’ to support their point of view, and then feel satisfied that it has been proven.

What you have so eloquently and precisely phrased in a single paragraph I would probably have ‘stormed’ on about for a full page …

… and got everybody’s ‘back up!’ Lol!

Ah well … maybe some of us who can’t seem to help but ‘stir the pot’ with a bit of ‘passion’ provide a useful function ...

Kieran
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Thought I would modify something I wrote in a blogpost some time back for this subject:

This is modified from: How The Media and Establishment Brainwash The Public

There are two broad categories of theories about 911: first, are those who believe the Official Conspiracy Theory about 19 Arab hijackers doing the kamikaze number to paradise taking a lot of unwilling victims with them. This OCT has a lot of "baggage" in terms of unbelievable coincidences, but I won't go into all that now.

Second, are those who think that 911 was an "inside job" - a False flag operation and that the culprits can be known by examination of the data. There are actually several different camps (i.e. different theories) within this latter group, and there are hybrid groups (i.e. hybrid theories), but let us assume there are only two simple groups.

To visualize the two different camps, suppose there is a large field and there is a fence that bisects the field and you are standing at one end of the fence looking down the fence. On the right side of this fence are the Official Conspiracy Theory advocates (the people who make up the "establishment" and are ruled by the politics of the day because that is how they get their funding) and on the left side of this fence are the "911 Was an Inside Job" advocates (the people who disagree with the "establishment" point of view).

You have the choice of siding with the establishment or the renegades.

In some cases this choice could affect your job. For example, if you taught history or science or political science or just about anything in a public high school, and you taught "911 was an Inside Job" in your classroom, you would lose your job. If you are only looking for the benefits, and a promotion, then there is no question as to what theory you will teach. The Official Conspiracy Theory side of the fence has virtually all the benefits.

Suppose you want to know the truth (as best as you are capable of honestly determining as an "open-minded" person) - is the Official Conspiracy Theory correct based on the evidence currently available?

Suppose that you decide to start your decision making journey by talking first with the OCT crowd; because everything you have heard in school is that the OCT has been proven to be true. So you head to the right side of the fence and start talking to an OCT advocate.

Suppose this person tells you all the reasons why 911 happened according to the Official Conspiracy Theory. He might go into "well-understood principles", or claimed "clear observational records" and claims that "that everyone knows what happened", and so on.

After this conversation, you start to walk away, but the person stops you. Then this same OCT advocate starts telling you all of the things that are wrong with the "Inside Job" crowd. He tells you one theory after another of the IJ group, such as their nonsense about the free falling objects, thermate, small holes and missing planes at the Pentagon, and why each theory cannot be true and what a bunch of goons they are.

After this conversation, you now feel that you understand both the OCT's and the IJ's theories of 911. You decide it is not necessary to go to the left side of the fence and talk to a IJ representative because you already think you understand their views and why their views are wrong.

A Common Mistake

If you made such a decision, you would be making a common mistake: you have heard both sides of the issue, but from only one person on one side of the fence. You have really only heard how the people on one side of the fence feel about the issues. But you haven't heard the arguments of the IJ, from an IJ expert, nor have you heard why the IJ advocates think that the OCT's are wrong.

There are actually four categories of the two sides (these are the four things you need to hear to make an informed decision):

1) pro-OCT (from the OCT side),
2) anti-IJ (from the OCT side),
3) pro-IJ (from the IJ side),
4) anti-OCT (from the IJ side).

In other words, from the right side of the fence you have heard the Official Conspiracy theory arguments and also from the right side of the fence you have heard all of the anti-Inside Job arguments. But note that you have not heard the pro-Inside Job arguments, from an Inside Job expert, nor have you heard the anti-Official Conspiracy Theory arguments, from an Inside Job expert.

You have only heard two of the four categories because you have only heard from one person who is on one side of the fence.

Do you really know both sides of the issue?

No you don't! You only know one side of the issue and two of the four categories. Until you go to the left side of the fence and hear about the pro-Inside Job views, from an IJ EXPERT, and you hear the anti-Official Conspiracy Theory, from an IJ Expert, you don't have a basis for making an objective decision.

And what is at the root of it all?

A media that is controlled by political elements for a definite and specific agenda, and it ain't in your best interests, nor has it ever been.

Take that to the bank.
 
H

Hildegarda

Guest
hoangmphung said:
Why do you assign credentials such importance and belittle your own critical thinking? You know that anyone, including the experts, can be bought, influenced or manipulated to spread disinformation. So credentials mean nothing here. However, as you are so inclined, if you took just a cursory look, you would find many experts who had taken the opposite view.
I am rather trying not to get carried away by wishful thinking. Credentials mean a lot to PTB and determine what will published and promoted. To us it means next to nothing, obviously -- knowledge means a lot more. And in this particular instance, the phenomenon of thermal stress is poorly understood, and the buildings are simply never designed to be resistant to it. Few people have adequate knowledge of it. Because of this some of the things that don't seem plausible may be; and those that don't seem plausible IMO require a more careful scrutiny, to point out exactly where the theory doesn't hold.

I will certainly look at the suggested reading. Perhaps it will shift my interpretation of what is plausible or what isn't; I don't think there was disagreement in a spirit of things to begin with, and my larger point about the role of Seffen's paper, I think, stands.

Thanks everyone for the discussion,
 

John G

The Living Force
One thing that has slightly confused me, is what the Cs said:

(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.

It didn't confuse me enough to mention it previously but with this related discussion involving only people I think of as colinear, I'm curious what the Cs meant by structural weakness. In the interest of protecting free will the Cs can use rather broad definitions for terms but is there any more clarifications on what they meant by saying "structural weaknesses" and not "internal sabotage".
 
K

Kieran

Guest
Hi John G

You wrote:

One thing that has slightly confused me, is what the Cs said:

(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.
This is a bit of a shocker!

I have read all of the ‘Wave’ series – books 1 to 4 – and I became aware that not every one of the C’s communications was included …. because I found additional ‘communications’ posted on the website.

This did not disturb me, however, because I found Laura’s writings to be cohesive and logical and assumed that she had concentrated on the salient transmissions.

However, I have not come across the above.

Can you provide a link?

I do not know what to make of this, if it was a communication from the Cs, because there is SO MUCH evidence that the Towers and WTC7 were demolished by planted explosives!

In fact, even going just on the evidence before my layman’s eyes, it seems screamingly obvious to me that none of the buildings fell ‘naturally’.

Kieran
 

John G

The Living Force
Kieran said:
However, I have not come across the above.

Can you provide a link?

I do not know what to make of this, if it was a communication from the Cs, because there is SO MUCH evidence that the Towers and WTC7 were demolished by planted explosives!

In fact, even going just on the evidence before my layman’s eyes, it seems screamingly obvious to me that none of the buildings fell ‘naturally’.

Kieran
It comes from the transcripts in the files section of the casschat yahoo group. You do have to register to view the files section. It's from the 011013 transcript (10/13/2001).

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/casschat
 
K

Kieran

Guest
Thanks John G.


And here is the full transcript of 011013:

October 13, 2001
Ark and Laura, BT
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Loriea.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: My first question: People are talking about, and are concerned about, what is to be the proper attitude, or the proper action - if any - or behavior, or response to the current situation in the world: terrorist activity, the increasing controls of the government, that sort of thing. In other words, they are wanting to know if they should take action, or if they should just observe. Or, should they be guided by their individual situations. People are concerned. Can you respond to these concerns?
A: Most people will not be harmed in direct ways.
Q: If most people will not be harmed in direct ways, does this mean that the idea that the United States may become the target for an all out... (A) Before you ask, "most people" is an imprecise term. "Most people" could be just over half. That leaves a lot of room for "people" being harmed. (L) Can you be more precise?
A: Force will not get out of hand yet.
Q: (A) Which I read as a "negligible number of people will be harmed" in global terms. (L) Is it true that only a negligible number of people will be harmed in the upcoming period?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) But, of course, if one is among that "negligible number," it can be up-close and personal. Can you give us - do we dare ask for a number? (A) No, because then we would have to specify the country and work our way through all the details. You see, four thousand is still negligible in global terms. (B) Will the primary harm to people be psychological?
A: Partly but also real strictures.
Q: (L) Do you mean greater control and loss of freedoms? Is this stricture going to be physical, or a stricture on our freedoms, or a combination of both?
A: Both.
Q: (L) Is there going to be a witch hunt in this country for people who the government wishes to identify as being potential terrorists, or anti-American, like the McCarthy era?
A: First there will be controls by laws. Then more force.
Q: (L) Is all of this going to culminate in some plan that is being activated at the present time? Is this all directed to a specific outcome by the powers that be, so to speak?
A: Mostly; but unexpected twists and turns from opposing forces.
Q: (L) And who are these opposing forces? Are there good guys, or is it just like another "gang," as in global gang wars? Using "gangs" metaphorically here.
A: 4th density STO will manifest help for some 3rd Density groups.
Q: (L) Do any of those 3rd density groups that are going to be helped include us? [Laughter.]
A: Close.
Q: (L) BT wants to subtract himself from the question to see if that narrows it down? In other words, do you mean that help will come to Ark and me in particular, excluding others?
A: Same as a group.
Q: (L) See, same thing! Okay, so there are going to be twists and turns. Can we know any of the highlights of these twists and turns in our global or national situation? It sounds like an interesting show? Is it better that we don't know? If the STO forces are planning something, maybe it's better that we don't know so that it remains a surprise. Is that true?
A: Close. Just know that help is near.
Q: (L) I think that BT and I have a question that we discussed earlier. We want to know if Terri Burns and Vincent Bridges have been in cahoots since as early as September 9th and 10th?
A: He was planning. She fell into plans later.
Q: (L) Were they in communication with each other throughout this past month?
A: Yes.
Q: Were they in communication with each other before Terri came here to visit?
A: Yes.
Q: Did Terri come here with the intent of acting on VB's behalf?
A: Yes.
Q: (B) Was she doing it consciously?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Well, that's not nice. (A) Well, remember, doing something consciously only means part of the consciousness. Another part was playing games. One part of the consciousness can set a goal, and then turn off. (L) Is Terri one of Andrija Puharich's "whiz kids" who were programmed as "agents" many years ago?
A: A different branch.
Q: (L) What is our best response? What response from us will produce the best STO result in the end?
A: Ignore them.
Q: (L) Well, that is what we thought up to the present. Next question: Is the anthrax that has been contracted by several people around our country a terrorist act against our country by foreign terrorists?
A: No.
Q: Where did the Anthrax come from?
A: U.S. government.
Q: (L) That's not very nice. (A) Well, the "U.S. Government" can mean any of many parts that all fight with each other. (L) Okay, when you say "U.S. Government," is that the government that we consider to be our government, or is that the secret government - some maverick branch that is operating without the approval of our elected officials?
A: Latter.
Q: (A) Well, that's imprecise. I am sure that at least one elected official is in on it. Certain questions have more or less known answers. What we know is that it comes from some part of the U.S. government. A maverick part. We don't know, and I don't know if we want to know from which part. (L) Probably not. (A) So, probably when they start to look for tracks of the Anthrax, it will certainly point somewhere abroad - to Afghanistan or somewhere else. (L) Right. That will give the government a reason to go and bomb somebody else. (A) So, is this reasoning correct? (L) Are they going to try to blame it on some foreign element?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, if they are going to try to blame it on some foreign group, can we have any idea of which group?
A: Iraq.
Q: (L) Are we ultimately headed toward bombing Iraq?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Notice however, one complication: groups all over the world, as we are now noticing, have started protests against America. People are going to the streets in Europe to protest. So, in order to avoid this protest, probably America will have to produce some new evidence. Maybe an explosion of anthrax - maybe something completely new. (L) Is that something that is going to happen?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And what might be the next major act of terrorism be that will... (A) It may be somewhere in Europe to convince the European countries. (L) So, whoever is protesting the most is the one that is likely to get hit in some way. (A) But, on the other hand, it may not be easy for America to produce something there, since it is much easier to produce "terrorist" events in America where they have complete control of everything. (L) If they try to do it elsewhere, they are liable to get caught.
A: France may be hit next with nuke.
Q: (L) Well, that's not friendly! (A) Well, that may make sense. There is this connection between the Afghans and Algerians and France. Algeria has already terrorized France in the past, so that may be the set-up. (L) That would certainly get their attention. Is there going to be an outbreak of terrorism on the 31st of this month as has been circulating on the grapevine?
A: Not likely.
Q: This Sollog guy made predictions about a certain series of events a few years ago. He claims that he predicted the plane hitting a big building, followed by the death of the Pope, followed by the death of a sitting American president. If this is true, he did make a "hit" on the "big building," and we certainly have a very aged Pope who is likely to go at any time now. That leaves the question of an American President dying in office. Is there any likelihood of that happening in the next year or two?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Likelihood can be 1 %. (L) Okay, is there a high probability of that?
A: No.
Q: (BT) Well, the thought that went through my mind, in such a scenario, is related to Cheney. Could he be part of the maverick group pulling the strings?
A: Close.
Q: (L) He may not even be conscious of it. I have the idea that most of them aren't. They are just like everyone else: manipulated puppets. (BT) Well, somebody has to be conscious of it, for this faction to be involved. When you were asking the question about Bush, the thought about Cheney just jumped to the fore. (L) Are any of these people in the government, those in the public eye, the decisions makers; are any of them consciously aware that they are furthering the agenda for the STS takeover of the planet? The main players.
A: No.
Q: (L) Bush is just a puppet. He's like Pinnochio. Every time he opens his mouth his nose just gets longer and longer. Pretty soon his nose will be so long he won't be able to walk across the room. (A) In Poland, we had this guy Jaruzelski, who introduced Martial Law. He was a general. Well, my mother was in favor of him because he was military. But I could see through him. (L) Well, it is easy to get upset with Bush until you realize that he is as much a dupe as anyone else. He seems to be going around in a fog. All the jokes that are made about him being so dull are true! How can you get mad at a complete puppet? I've never heard the guy say an intelligent thing that wasn't written down for him, and even then he sometimes manages to screw it up. (A) Yes, it seems so. Because those leaders who have proven NOT to be stupid in the past, have proved to be... (L) ...dead. (A) Or, they proved to be able to kill millions to stay alive. (L) Yup, seems to be so. (A) Yes, they can be stupid in a very intelligent way. (L) Are all of these people going to be exposed, caught, shown for what they are?
A: Ultimately.
Q: (BT) Yeah, and that can be part of the STS program anyway. Expose 'em and replace 'em with something worse. If everybody relies on the government to save us, and then find out that the government is not only not going to save us, but that they are guilty of harming us for manipulation, that is a manipulation of a higher order. (L) Yeah! And then who will the people cry for to be in charge? Aliens? (A) It's a "free" choice. [Laughter.] (L) Well, it's a terrible thing to feel that way about your president who is supposed to be the representative of your country. (A) I'm surprised that some Americans... (L) ...actually believe that he's doing a good job and telling the truth. (A) Yes. (L) I would like to know what is the REAL percentage of Americans who think that Bush is doing a good job. I know they put up the results of polls, but I have observed that polls are often published to sway public opinion, and are not an accurate representation of it. What is the real percentage?
A: 53 %.
Q: (L) Just a little over half. Well, even that figure is depressing. Are we in danger of Anthrax?
A: Most likely not or anything else.
Q: (L) Well, we ordered a micron filter for the air unit just in case! (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.
Q: (A) Well, we still we have one problem: the problem involvement of Israel. We were worrying about what is going to happen in Israel. At present, all the anger is directed at the United States.
A: America may shift blame.
Q: (A) Well, there was a Russian journalist - a woman - whose husband was known to be Mossad, and they were known to be in Afghanistan and doing something there. Little things are emerging. (L) Okay, I wanted to ask a few things about the egroup. My idea has been that one of the main things that the group ought to be dealing with is how to learn to read when programs are activated around them. There are plenty of groups that can discuss politics and conspiracies and so on, but the real work on the self is quite a bit more difficult. I have been thinking that the most important thing we need to do is learn how to free our energy and increase our frequency thereby. Can you give any guidance about how to best go about this other than what we have already learned or what we are already doing? Any further guidance?
A: Help others to read programs in themselves.
Q: (L) Well, we just had one guy, J**, who had a definite program running. It was pointed out to him numerous times that he was manipulating and running some kind of energy sucking game in the group, and he accused Ark of running a "power program." My thought was that this guy was just simply not there to learn anything. Is that assessment correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Why did he join the group?
A: To subvert and confuse.
Q: (A) That suggests that he joined with a certain mission. The question is, who was pulling his strings?
A: 4th density STS.
Q: (A) Is there, at present, any person in the group who is dangerous for the mission of the group and who should be identified and removed?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Can you help us with suggestions as to what to look for to identify such persons and what kind of action to take? Our idea was to look at responses to our call for help and keep only those who responded... (L) Can we tell by those who responded as to whether or not they are in a true "network mode?"
A: Close. Help is STO.
Q: (L) And STO gives all to those who ask. (A) Well, that means that only about 20 people would be left. (L) Well, there are many who aren't there yet... but have potential. Of course, there were many who didn't respond at all. (A) It seems that those who don't respond must not have enough motivation to participate in the process. They have other cares that take precedence. (L) Okay, well, anything we should have asked that we didn't ask, consider it asked.
A: Patience.
Q: Goodnight.
A: Good night.
End of Session
I thought it would be useful to post the full session.

And I do recognse it now from within the wave series. At least, much of it is familiar to me.

I'm pretty tired at the moment, so will wait till I can think more clearly before I possibly comment on the section you drew attention to.

Kieran
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Kieran said:
This is a bit of a shocker!

I have read all of the ‘Wave’ series – books 1 to 4 – and I became aware that not every one of the C’s communications was included …. because I found additional ‘communications’ posted on the website.

This did not disturb me, however, because I found Laura’s writings to be cohesive and logical and assumed that she had concentrated on the salient transmissions.

However, I have not come across the above.
The Wave was in it's present form well before 911.

In any event, now is as good a time as any to put together the various bits and pieces that may even remotely relate to 911 from Cs.

25 February 95

Cs: There will be a terrorist attack in the U.S. month; bomb.
Q: (T) There is going to be a terrorist attack in the United States in a month?
A: Yes!!! [planchette flies off board]
Q: (T) In a month?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Where in the United States?
A: Washington D.C.
Q: (T) Well, they filed bankruptcy now they are going to blow it up and collect the insurance.
A: Trial ongoing.
Q: (BP) O.J.? (TM) Oh, that's because of the terrorist trial? (T) Yes, the terrorist trial in New York. (TM) Yes, they are guarding Wall Street heavily because they are threatening to blow that up. (J) Oh, okay. (BP) Is the CIA or the FBI involved in this terrorist bombing?
A: No.
Q: (T) Do they know about it?
A: No.
Q: (BP) Is it Moslem terrorists?
A: Yes.
Q: (BP) Are we talking about a nuclear bomb?
A: No.
Q: (T) We should be so lucky. (J) Can you pinpoint where the bomb is going to be in Washington? (BP) Congress?
A: No.
Q: (BP) Will it be in the Capitol?
A: No.
Q: (BP) Will it be in the White House?
A: No.
Q: (BP) Will it be in a federal office building?
A: Maybe.
Q: (BP) So, it is variable as to whether it will be successful or not as well as other aspects?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Do the authorities have an idea that this is going to happen yet?
A: Some.
Q: (T) Some authorities or some idea?
A: Idea.
22 April 95

Q: ... (L) I want to go to the terrorist bomb attack that just happened. Can we talk about this?
A: You can always ask any and all questions, no need ask for permission, if unanswerable for any reason, we will let you know.
Q: (L) Okay. We received a prediction on this terrorist bomb attack on February 25th, at which time you said there would be a terrorist bomb attack in Washington D.C. within a month or thereabouts, which was related to an ongoing trial which was identified as the one of the Moslem terrorists who bombed the Twin Towers. Can you tell us if this is the bomb that was supposed to be set off in Washington, but was then moved to Oklahoma because of security intensification?
A: No.
Q: (L) Well, no terrorist bomb attack took place in Washington. Can you tell us why?
A: Yet.
Q: (L) It is yet to happen?
A: Open.
Q: (L) The bomb in Oklahoma is being connected to the Patriot movement. Is this, in point of fact, who is behind this attack?
A: There is no unified movement as such, in either purpose or direction. This is extremely fragmented!
Q: (J) I read that it may be related to the Branch Davidians. (L) Is that true?
A: No.
Q: (J) Loose cannons? (T) Are the one world government people behind it?
A: No.
Q: (L) Were the guys who did this just loose cannons?
A: Close.
Q: (L) So this was just... (J) A couple of fruitcakes got together and... (L) Fruited?
A: It is very easy to be manipulated, thus be confused and see demons where there are none and the opposite.
Q: (L) Are you saying that these guys were manipulated?
A: Yes.
18 November 95

Q: (L) Is there any relationship between all of the terrorist bombings that have been taking place in Paris recently, and any stepped up alien activity?
A: Open.
Q: (L) Is there anything we can obtain on that subject by formulation of correct questions?
A: USAir-194 crash; United Air crash, Colorado Springs; Connection? Get voice recorder tape transcripts.
23 November 96

Q: (T) About Flight 800. Pierre Salinger claims that the info floating around on the internet is accurate. He says that the Navy downed the flight.
A: Close. Pierre Salinger is an impeccable journalist and not one to "fly off the handle."
Q: (T) Very true. And that is why I am amazed that the rest of the journalism community is attacking him.
A: Why should you be amazed? They are "bought and paid for."
Q: (T) What did happen to flight 800?
A: This was the result of an experiment gone awry. So was KAL "007" in 1983.
Q: (L) What was the nature of the experiment?
A: Testing of secret impulse guidance system using civilian airliner as an arbitrary "bounce" guidance target. Instead, it became the "homing" target, and a different aircraft became the bouncer. This was because the programmers did not anticipate the lower than expected altitude of the 747. Warning: this must stay in this room for the present!!!!!!!!!! The facts will eventually be discussed by others. At that time, the danger is lifted.

[At this point, it has been discussed in the exact same terms as described here in a reputable, national magazine.]

Now, about KAL 007... that one is not dangerous to know. The plane was deliberately instructed to fly off course in order to trigger the Soviet's Pacific air defense system, to "see what they were made of" in that area. The plane was lost, but the experiment worked. They did not expect them to shoot down a civilian airliner.

Now, all moving targets create electronic impulses. These can be "read" by the proper extremely high tech equipment. Older radar guided systems are subject to malfunctions in weather conditions that are severe, as one example. Also, the impulse system is an offshoot of the electromagnetic pulse experiments being carried out at Montauk, Brookings and elsewhere as part of the HAARP project!

In connection with Pentagon missile tests, HAARP has many interesting tie-ins, not the least of which is your cell phone towers.

Now, the homing target can be any moving object. It can be whatever is entered on the computer. It can be a squirrel in a tree, a jogger on the beach, a building, whatever you want. The system looks for any moving target in order to establish recognition to the computer, in order to establish recognition of match pattern of pulse.

TWA 800 was flying at the exact same altitude that was supposed to be designated for the "drone" craft. The drone plane was farther out at sea. The "bounce" target was to be any moving object in the air within 400 square miles.

Q: (L) So, TWA 800, through a series of problems, happened to find itself at the right altitude, a restricted altitude, within the parameters of the experiment. Anything further on this?

A: Not for now.
14 Sept 01

Q: We have a series of questions about this recent event. Was the attack on the World Trade Center undertaken by Moslem Terrorists?
A: No.
Q: Who was behind this attack?
A: Israel.
Q: Is it going to become known that it was Israel? Will they be exposed?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this the event that is going to lead to the destruction of Israel?
A: Yes. [...]
Q: Are there going to be further terrorist attacks of this kind at any time in the near future in the U.S.?
A: No.
Q: Is this the beginning of WW III?
A: No.
Q: Is the US. Going to bomb Afghanistan?
A: Possible in future.
Q: Well, you say there aren't going to be any further attacks; can we believe you?
A: Up to you.
Q: (A) You say that Israel will be exposed; in what time perspective?
A: Month [before first hints emerge.]
Q: Expose Israel? How?
A: Yes, open. Perhaps sooner.
Q: (A) What mistake did they make?
A: Infiltrated.
Q: (A) They seem to be so smart with their god behind them, and they did such a big thing, only to make a mistake. (L) I guess we can only wait to see how it turns out. It's a spooky idea. What do countries do when something like that is discovered and they have had a long-term diplomatic relationship? They talk to each other, they pat each other on the back. What do they do? It's like having to get a divorce when everybody thought you had such a happy marriage. And when it's like this? It's like having to get a divorce after discovering that your partner has murdered your children and buried them in the back yard. (A) Yeah, but it's not so clear, because when you say "Israel," it's not one thing. There are different parties, different factions, they are fighting. We don't know.
A: Gore is pushing buttons on Capitol Hill.
Q: What does Gore have to do with anything? He lost the election. Well... (A) He had this Lieberman as his running mate. He was in bed with Jews. What kind of buttons? Huh. (L) Is he pushing buttons to expose, or pushing buttons to expose?
A: To suppress.
Q: Well, that's the damnedest thing I ever heard. Did the U.S. Government shoot down the fourth plane as some people are suggesting?
A: Yes.
Q: Did the United States know about this attack at any time in advance of it? Did any of our people in any position to do anything, know?
A: No.
Q: Were they blindsided?
A: No. But not expecting.
Q: (A) So, they knew it was going to happen, but they didn't know when and what exactly? Is that it?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it truly a "failure of intelligence?"
A: Yes.
Q: So, the infiltrator must have learned something, but wasn't in on the whole thing?
A: Close.
Q: (A) What is the most probable scenario. There were infiltrators, they had some knowledge, and they communicated this knowledge to some part of Intelligence, but this part of Intelligence did not press to communicate it to the higher parties?
A: Yes. And it was not known plan.
Q: So the infiltrator did not know the specific plan. So, they overstepped. Hubris. (A) Which part of Israel government was behind it? (L) Probably some deep level orthodox bunch like Kochav.
A: Yes. [...]
Q: (L) Well, I am assuming that I ought NOT to put on the website that Israel is behind this attack, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Was this guy writing these posts on the newsgroups the same as Sollog, the so-called prophet?
A: Yes.
Q: Is he involved with the Israelis?
A: No.
Q: How did he know about this event?
A: Fourth Density STS contact.
Q: Is this another instance of when they can be stunningly accurate when they choose?
A: Yes.
Q: So, this guy was not an insider in the plot?
A: No.
Q: Well, I find that hard to believe.
A: Patience.
Q: Was he being set up to look accurate so people would buy into his rant?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, Sollog did predict that this would happen in 1997. But then, then, the guy on the newsgroup predicted that something was going to happen in seven days... That was bizarre. He didn't say what, but the message was headed with 9/11. If he had known what was going to happen, I think he would have at least hinted. (A) But that would be too dangerous for him.
A: Yes. More like a miss.
Q: How did they get those guys to agree to fly those buildings into those planes and commit suicide?
A: Mind control.
21 September 01

Q: (L) Is this bombing of Iraq that George Bush wants - is there any way to stop this gang from going to war?
A: No.
Q: (L) Are all of my efforts in that respect wasted?
A: No.
Q: (L) Well, if my efforts to stop the bombing are not wasted, and yet the bombing is going to continue, what's the point?
A: Efforts will result in different return.

[...]
Q: (L) If we move, does that just mean move from this house to another nearby, or out of the country?
A: France.
Q: (L) I thought you said France was going to get hit by a nuke?
A: Still possible but less probable.
Q: (L) Is the United States going to be hit by nukes?
A: No doubt. [...]
Q: (L) If we move, does that just mean move from this house to another nearby, or out of the country?
A: France.
Q: (L) I thought you said France was going to get hit by a nuke?
A: Still possible but less probable.
Q: (L) Is the United States going to be hit by nukes?
A: No doubt.
13 October 01

Next question: Is the anthrax that has been contracted by several people around our country a terrorist act against our country by foreign terrorists?
A: No.
Q: Where did the Anthrax come from?
A: U.S. government.
Q: (L) That's not very nice. (A) Well, the "U.S. Government" can mean any of many parts that all fight with each other. (L) Okay, when you say "U.S. Government," is that the government that we consider to be our government, or is that the secret government - some maverick branch that is operating without the approval of our elected officials?
A: Latter.
Q: (A) Well, that's imprecise. I am sure that at least one elected official is in on it. Certain questions have more or less known answers. What we know is that it comes from some part of the U.S. government. A maverick part. We don't know, and I don't know if we want to know from which part. (L) Probably not. (A) So, probably when they start to look for tracks of the Anthrax, it will certainly point somewhere abroad - to Afghanistan or somewhere else. (L) Right. That will give the government a reason to go and bomb somebody else. (A) So, is this reasoning correct? (L) Are they going to try to blame it on some foreign element?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, if they are going to try to blame it on some foreign group, can we have any idea of which group?
A: Iraq.
Q: (L) Are we ultimately headed toward bombing Iraq?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Notice however, one complication: groups all over the world, as we are now noticing, have started protests against America. People are going to the streets in Europe to protest. So, in order to avoid this protest, probably America will have to produce some new evidence. Maybe an explosion of anthrax - maybe something completely new. (L) Is that something that is going to happen?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And what might be the next major act of terrorism be that will... (A) It may be somewhere in Europe to convince the European countries. (L) So, whoever is protesting the most is the one that is likely to get hit in some way. (A) But, on the other hand, it may not be easy for America to produce something there, since it is much easier to produce "terrorist" events in America where they have complete control of everything. (L) If they try to do it elsewhere, they are liable to get caught.
A: France may be hit next with nuke.
Q: (L) Well, that's not friendly! (A) Well, that may make sense. There is this connection between the Afghans and Algerians and France. Algeria has already terrorized France in the past, so that may be the set-up. (L) That would certainly get their attention. Is there going to be an outbreak of terrorism on the 31st of this month as has been circulating on the grapevine?
A: Not likely.
Q: This Sollog guy made predictions about a certain series of events a few years ago. He claims that he predicted the plane hitting a big building, followed by the death of the Pope, followed by the death of a sitting American president. If this is true, he did make a "hit" on the "big building," and we certainly have a very aged Pope who is likely to go at any time now. That leaves the question of an American President dying in office. Is there any likelihood of that happening in the next year or two?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Likelihood can be 1 %. (L) Okay, is there a high probability of that?
A: No.
Q: (BT) Well, the thought that went through my mind, in such a scenario, is related to Cheney. Could he be part of the maverick group pulling the strings?
A: Close.
Q: (L) He may not even be conscious of it. I have the idea that most of them aren't. They are just like everyone else: manipulated puppets. (BT) Well, somebody has to be conscious of it, for this faction to be involved. When you were asking the question about Bush, the thought about Cheney just jumped to the fore. (L) Are any of these people in the government, those in the public eye, the decisions makers; are any of them consciously aware that they are furthering the agenda for the STS takeover of the planet? The main players.
A: No.
Q: (L) Bush is just a puppet. He's like Pinnochio. Every time he opens his mouth his nose just gets longer and longer. Pretty soon his nose will be so long he won't be able to walk across the room. (A) In Poland, we had this guy Jaruzelski, who introduced Martial Law. He was a general. Well, my mother was in favor of him. Because he was military. But I could see through him. (L) Well, it is easy to get upset with Bush until you realize that he is as much a dupe as anyone else. He seems to be going around in a fog. All the jokes that are made about him being so dull are true! How can you get mad at a complete puppet? I've never heard the guy say an intelligent thing that wasn't written down for him, and even then he sometimes manages to screw it up. (A) Yes, it seems so. Because those leaders who have proven NOT to be stupid in the past, have proved to be... (L) ...dead. (A) Or, they proved to be able to kill millions to stay alive. (L) Yup, seems to be so. (A) Yes, they can be stupid in a very intelligent way. (L) Are all of these people going to be exposed, caught, shown for what they are?
A: Ultimately.
Q: (BT) Yeah, and that can be part of the STS program anyway. Expose 'em and replace 'em with something worse. If everybody relies on the government to save us, and then find out that the government is not only not going to save us, but that they are guilty of harming us for manipulation, that is a manipulation of a higher order. (L) Yeah! And then who will the people cry for to be in charge? Aliens? (A) It's a "free" choice. [Laughter.] (L) Well, it's a terrible thing to feel that way about your president who is supposed to be the representative of your country. (A) I'm surprised that some Americans... (L) ...actually believe that he's doing a good job and telling the truth. (A) Yes. (L) I would like to know what is the REAL percentage of Americans who think that Bush is doing a good job. I know they put up the results of polls, but I have observed that polls are often published to sway public opinion, and are not an accurate representation of it. What is the real percentage?
A: 53 %.
Q: (L) Just a little over half. Well, even that figure is depressing. Are we in danger of Anthrax?
A: Most likely not or anything else.
Q: (L) Well, we ordered a micron filter for the air unit just in case! (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.
Q: (A) Well, we still we have one problem: the problem involvement of Israel. We were worrying about what is going to happen in Israel. At present, all the anger is directed at the United States.
A: America may shift blame.
Q: (A) Well, there was a Russian journalist - a woman - whose husband was known to be Mossad, and they were known to be in Afghanistan and doing something there. Little things are emerging.
24 August 02

Q: (L) Okay, I have a question before we launch off on this other subject. We have been considering putting our collected material on the attack on the WTC and the conspiracy of the government together into a book or a small booklet form or something rather than putting it on the web site and subjecting ourselves to hackers and all that kind of stuff. The question is how to do this without stepping on toes here? (A) By doing this, shall we remarkably cross the line?
A: Lines can be crossed if done carefully.
Q: (A) What would be crossing carefully involve in this case?
A: Give attention to phrasing in an ambiguous way.
Q: (L) What constitutes ambiguity in this case?
A: Indirect references.
Q: (L) Well, in the sessions where we discussed this attack your answers were not ambiguous.
A: Yes, but we aren't 3rd density either. We can take the heat. You might get burned. Let us do that part, you just ask "can it be true?"
Q: (L) So in other words we can publish such a little book, but we don't have to declare that it's true. (A) We don't know, we are asking questions, right? (SB ) Yeah that's about as ambiguous as you can possibly go. (A) Uh huh, which is true, we don't know. Alright, so in the sense this is an invitation to both kinds of answers, no it isn't true, yes it is true, right? Okay. Then we are open to reason right? Okay.
A: It would also be a good idea to present both sides of the story. Along with a little "history" of the claimants and participants so the reader may have a foundation on which to judge who is or is not likely to be truthful.
Q: (L) Well, let me think. So if I include a little bit of history about a few related things and then point out: here's what's happening now and this is what's going on, that will do it. (A) Okay, any particular subject that needs to be avoided?
A: Do not yourselves enter upon the "Jewish question." Let our comments stand.
Q: (L) Okay, now, $64,000 question: what caused the fire and explosion at the Pentagon? Was it a 757?
A: No it was very close to what you have surmised: a drone craft specially modified to give certain "impressions" to witnesses. Even the windows were not "real."
Q: (S) What is a drone craft? (A) It's a guided craft run by a computer. There is not even a seat for a pilot. (L) Alright, the $64,001 question, what happened to Flight 77?
A: It was landed and now resides, in part, in fourth density.
Q: (L) What do mean "in part," how can it be in part?
A: As we have mentioned before, certain bases have this property due to direct interaction with denizens of that realm.
Q: (L) And they talked about bases that have levels underground. (A) Well, 'in part' can mean mechanical part or the human part. (L) Also, once they talked about bi-density beings that can move back and forth between 3rd and 4th density. So, exactly what do you mean by this 'in part?'
A: Let us just say that the "human" part now resides at 5th density.
Q: (L) Well, the soul is what goes to 5th density. So that means that the bodies are still - well, somewhere. Did they later use parts of these bodies to produce evidence at the crash site of 'remains?'
A: Parts is the correct word. Do you think that any of them could be "allowed" to survive?
Q: (A) I have a technical question because if it landed somewhere, question is, whether the standard military surveying satellites, or whatever it is, know the place, or it disappeared completely before landing from normal satellite, or rather military, observation?
A: It landed in the normal way.
Q: (A) Okay, then that means the military, and perhaps also the White House, knows that it landed and knows that...
A: White House knows little of what transpires in any case.
Q: (A) Right. But there are other spy satellites; some other countries may know that this story with flight 77 crashing at the Pentagon is...
A: At those levels, there is only one "Master."
Q: (L) Those levels? What levels?
A: Levels that can hand down orders to bury or suppress.
Q: (L) So you're saying that even, for example French, Russian, Chinese satellites that might have noticed something, that there is some level of control that can order such information to be buried or suppressed...(A) And the order will be respected? Why?
A: Those who are at that level have been bought and paid for by both giving knowledge of upcoming cataclysmic vents, and promised survival and positions of power after. It is not difficult to realize the there is a body of such types in positions of power already. Power is not only attractive to such types, they are the kind most easily corrupted by it.
Q: (SB) So they've been bought and paid for by...(L) Telling them what's going to happen, telling them this is the only way to survive and that they will be helped to survive. And then, telling them that once it's all over with, they can be in charge. Well, if they were going to kill the people anyway, who were in Flight 77, why didn't they just simply use this Flight 77 to crash into the Pentagon?
A: Because the damage would not have been controllable otherwise.
Q: (A) Yes, this is rather clear. If you let real hijackers and real pilots in there, who may start to fight just before the crash or something, God knows where it might hit. (L) So it was real important for this one to be carefully controlled. It had to hit a very specific target for a very specific reason. (A) Yeah. All this jet fuel will start burning, uncontrolled fire...(L) Can't have that. (S) Well also there might have been a specific area of the Pentagon that was more expendable; that they were focusing in on one specific spot in that building. (L) Well that has something to do with what L** found out because she discovered that most of the people in the Pentagon who were killed were low-level female workers. All bigwigs were somewhere else in the building. (A) Well, what will be the consequences for publishing this book? If we are supposed to add this stuff, what's the point of publishing it?
A: You asked.
Q: (A) I asked what? (L) We're the one who asked about publishing it, they're not the ones who suggested it. (A) Oh. Is it a worthwhile investment of time publishing such a book?
A: Who is going to put the pieces together reasonably and coherently if you don't? Everyone is seeking truth. What's wrong with putting it out there?
Q: (L) Well sometimes putting the truth out there gets you in deep doo-doo.
A: And some times not putting it out there gives some others hopes of stopping you from doing so. Once it is out, you are safer since at that point any "attacks" only justify and validate.

[...]
Q: (LA) I was thinking about the Space Camp thing. Did anything happen to the kids there?
A: Such programs are precursors to deeper black projects. Avoid at all costs. Also there are many other such portals in your life.
Q: (S) Oh my god! My son J** went to space camp. (SB to LA) I went to a camp too. Did you go to a camp? (LA) NASA puts on a Space Camp for the kids. I went as a chaperone. (SB) The one I went to was sponsored by the state of Georgia but it was called Exploration Camp and the second year I don't remember anything.
A: Read Dolan and use your imagination to perceive just how such programs can be utilized. Just knowing the capabilities that you suspect with good reason regarding Flight 77, should give you some concept of how the Consortium operates. Imagine a "group" going to Space Camp on board that plane. Handy, eh?
Q: (L) So that's how they select out, maybe program, get them set up, have all kinds of groups ready and set up to be prepared to utilize at any point and time. Next question, or are we all getting depressed? (LA) You can tell huh? (SB) That's an understatement. (L) Well what seems to be so is that right here and now the planet is really kind of in deep doo-doo. We have a drunk at the wheel of the planet and nobody seems to be big enough or brave enough to really tell him he's drunk and take the keys away from him. On top of that, we have a lot of people, of course, who choose to think that drunks drive better when they're drunk. I mean there are people who subscribe to that idea and there are others who really want to get out. I know the C's have always said sit back and enjoy the show. I guess it's going to be pretty dramatic. Is there a positive aspect to any of this?
A: We have mentioned transducing of energies by groups. We have mentioned "help" to certain groups. You speak regularly about "butterflies and hurricanes." If you are patient and persistent, it will pay off in a way you cannot even conceive of at this point.
14 September 02

Q: (A) I want really to know what kind of mechanism is behind this 911 number coming up in the NY lottery. (V) Yeah, me too, and it wasn't only that it was something with the...
A: Warning. It ain't over!!!
Q: (A) Who was warning?
A: Mass consciousness signals to self about clear and present danger.
Q: (A) Makes sense. (C) That we created it our own selves? (L) No, that mass consciousness is sending itself a signal about a clear and present danger...clear and present danger of what?
A: Wait and see.
Q: Might it have something to do with Iraq?
A: No cheating.
Q: (V) Okay. I'm a little curious, and I don't know if it's been asked before or not, what is China's role in regards to Iraq, is there any...
A: Big question mark, eh?
Q: (V) Well, it just keeps popping into my mind, and popping into my mind, China, China, China, China. They're so quiet at this time right now, I don't hear them saying anything...
A: Indeed...
Q: (V) Are they supplying them with the chemical and biological weapons?
A: And...
Q: (V) Nuclear weapons?
A: ?
Q: (V) You can't, you can't say that?
A: Nope.
Q: (A) In fact there is an answer. The answer is yes. I mean if you were China and you had nuclear weapons and you needed a LOT of money, what would you do? (L) And there is somebody who needs what you have, and there is all that oil and all that money, are you kidding? Saddam wouldn't be being as cocky as he is if he didn't have a really big boom-boom lined up. And it's aimed at us, I can guarantee. (V) Now does our government and their so called intelligence know that this is happening? (A) Of course! (V) Okay. (L) Sure. (V) Are they in cahoots with them? (L) Sure. (A) On a certain level everybody's selling everything. (L) At those levels above they are because their objective is to decimate the Earth's population. (V) Is China the only one feeding Iraq weapons? (L) Why should they be? The US is feeding them weapons. I mean it's so dirty it's inconceivable. They're all in bed together. (V) Is Laura right, the world leaders, the 10 % that want to get rid of...
A: That is the plan.
Q: (A) But you must remember, if one country is selling weapons to the other country, that doesn't mean it's weapons are going to work. Selling is one thing, using is different thing. Once in a while they will fail. (V) What a mucky game, huh? (L) Oh it's awful.
A: On that pleasant thought, goodbye.
18 January 03

Q: (L) What is driving Bush to have his war with Iraq?
A: Orders. Bush knows little in any respect as to what or why he does anything.
Q: Is the war drama merely a play being put on to keep us all distracted and in a state of fear?
A: More or less.
Q: Yet, you said the United States would be bombed, and on another occasion you said there would not be a nuclear war.
A: "Bombs" are not all "nuclear." And, there are "natural bombs."
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 brain 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.
Q: (A) Well. (L) Maybe the heads of these other countries are all like George Bush. They don't know why they do what they do. It's all been scripted from somewhere else. (A) Question is: there is Europe - how can France or Russia or whoever, win against this kind of technology? Apparently, since there is only one center, and this center of technology is the U.S, it seems pretty hopeless.
A: Remember Perseus and David and Goliath. Besides, help is drawing near.
Q: (A) Help. (L) Sometimes I have the feeling that when they say "help is drawing near," it really means that that our "future" is getting closer and we are going to be the ones doing the helping! [Laughter.]
A: Close, but not all.
Q: (A) That means there are surprises waiting for us. (L) I think that people concentrating on the anti-war thing is a waste of time. I think they ought to be concentrating on the "impeach Bush" issue. But then, what good would it do to impeach Bush. Same thing would have happened with Gore. Until people wake up to the reality of 4th density manipulation, we are all in deep doo doo.
A: True.
Q: (L) I guess they are all gonna gather together there on the battlefield and when they are all there, something is gonna happen to scare the bayjeezus out of them...
A: Maybe...
Q: (A) The point is, that people have no choice. They are backed into a corner. The only thing they can do now is just impeach Bush. If they don't do that, there is nothing else they can do. Because if they don't do anything, they will bear the blame for doing nothing - the same way Germany did after Hitler. All the signs are here now: it is exactly like it was in 1939 in Europe.

(L) Well, anything we do, we cannot anticipate the outcome. We can't even know if it will be helpful. We just have to do what is right from one moment to the next based on what we know using our best efforts. For all we know, if we keep pushing the "impeach Bush" issue, we may end up in jail as "enemy combatants."

(A) What did we learn? That there is this help on the way. We know that we cannot quit working. We are helping the help, so to say.

(L) Well, I wrote to some people pointing out that the anti-war stance is only more divisiveness. There are people who are for the war to support Bush, and there are people who are against the war who don't support Bush. It is a question of supporting Bush. Everybody agrees that Saddam is a stinker, but they can't agree on whether how Bush is handling the matter is appropriate or not. They forget that what is happening here is that they are all being put into an oppositional stance against each other, and Bush, himself, is coming out on top clean. If they would concentrate on the REAL issues: that Bush is a liar, that he is not even our legal president, that he stole the election by nefarious means, that he is a criminal from a criminal family, making it clear and plain with facts and massive media coverage about who and what Bush really is, then the whole issue would be focused where it belongs: on Bush and the Consortium that has put him in power to serve its agenda. But, instead of concentrating on the problem - of which Bush is only the representative, the real issue being the Consortium - people are not seeing that the whole situation is being manipulated for the benefit of the Industrial-Military Complex just as Eisenhower foresaw. Bush is only the puppet for this Consortium. If that could be seen as the real danger that it is, if they could impeach Bush - who is their creature - and get somebody into the presidency who was uncorruptible, who could kick butt and take names like Kennedy tried to do.

Well, we have learned. Kennedy didn't take the danger as seriously as he should have. If he had, maybe he could have carried through what he wanted to do: disband the CIA, tie the hands of the military, make things more equitable for the common people, enhance civil rights and civil liberties. If we could get somebody in the White House who was smart enough to not get assassinated, and who was clean and not tied up with the consortium, things really COULD change.

(A) The problem is only in America. If America would just stand down, Saddam would be dealt with appropriately. Nobody likes the guy. He doesn't have anything. He is no danger to anybody. But Bush is a danger to the whole planet. He has created this crisis and the whole world has gone to hell in just a few months. (L) And the reason he is able to do what he is doing - which is basically that he is going to destroy the whole damn planet - is because of the media. The media is controlled by the Jews who have only one agenda: to own all of Palestine and revenge. And so, they dangle carrots for Bush to follow without even knowing that they are signing their own death warrant. They are following the script of the Consortium which wants, above all other things, to see all Semitic peoples destroyed, and their hubris won't even allow them to see it. For that reason, the Jews have helped George Bush plunge the entire world into chaos. And they will wonder why, at the last moment, everyone hates them just as Americans will wonder why they are the most hated nation on Earth. Blind hubris.

(Ark) Well, there is this Game Theory, and they are employing it to the max. They are playing a game. They know where the buttons need to be pushed, to steer the delicate equilibrium where they want it.

(L) No one in the world of politics is clean. No one. They are all dirty, and if you know all the dirt, you can do what you want. As much as it seems to be a horrible thing to lay at the door of the Jews, that's where it ends up of its own. You can't help it. You follow the threads, and that's where they take you: the Zionists.

(A) So, if something comes along that destroys their game theory...the whole operation will collapse. Game theory is based on data.

(L) It's like Vincent Bridges. His whole game was based on pushing our buttons, trying to blackmail us, saying things like "I'll tell the whole sordid story." Well, guess what? I'll tell it first! I'm not perfect and I have certainly made mistakes. But nobody is going to use it to control me. If other people could do that, if they could get over their fear of being judged for making mistakes, there would be nothing that anyone could hold over their head anymore.

(A) Okay, there is Bush and his Skull and Bones. And then, there is the Illuminati. And they are looking for something. So, probably somebody behind Bush is also looking for something. So, the only way for us to help, is to work on this project. And then, hopefully, these people will halt this mass destruction hoping they will get what they are after: grail or whatever. Because if they destroy the world, they will get nothing.

(L) And then meanwhile, there is the North Korean guy - the mirror image of George Bush; everything he says and does is modeled from George Bush. It is actually comical to watch them. "I'm going to blow up the world!" "No you're not, I'm going to blow it up first! I'm going to turn America into a sea of fire." And Bush is saying "I'm going to bomb Iraq back to the stone age." "No you're not! We're going to bomb YOU back to before the Stone Age!" They are like two identical characters! Crazy! We are in a hell of a mess. Any comments?
A: The situation looks bleak indeed. But remember the Achilles heel of STS: Wishful Thinking.
Q: In this case, how is wishful thinking going to help?
A: There will be a big miscalculation made. It will reveal the "Man behind the curtain."
23 October 04

Q: (J) 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: (H) Will this have to do with 911?

A: Yes. Oh, yes!

Q: (J) 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.
9 January 05

Q: Were there passengers and crew on both planes that hit the WTC?

A: Yes

Q: Where 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: Where 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: Not really, 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: Is there in-fighting among those in high levels over how to proceed?

A: At various levels, yes. But you know the old saying about incompetency seeking its own level like water.

Q: What does this mean?

A: Those at the top are there because of an agenda that each is concealing. They are waiting for the opportunity to act to influence. However they are learning that Bush is becoming more difficult to manage.
6 August 05

Q: (J) How many troops have actually been killed since the beginning of the Iraq war?

A: 7,500

Q: (H) What percentage of the US population actually supports Bush?

A: 36%

Q: (H) What percentage of the US population thinks there was complicity on the part of the US government in 9/11?

A: 47%

Q: (H) What percentage of the US population actually thinks at all?

A: 12% if you define it rigidly.

Q: (group amazement at this figure)

A: What do you expect with HAARP turning brains to tapioca

Q: (J) So it's a Zombie nation then?

A: You took the words right out of 6th density.

Q: (J) so does HAARP only affect the US population?

A: Mostly.

Q: (J) In terms of our group members, the only solution would be to get out of the US then? Is that true?

A: Or be aware and network.

Q: (Scott) I have to ask; how many have seen the Pentagon Flash now?

A: Going on 500 million

Q: (J) Who carried out the Madrid train bombing?

A: Our favourite false flag gang

Q: (H) And were they also behind the London train bombings?

A: MI5 involvement there. Lack of professionalism shows. [...]

Q: (J) Are the world's oil resources dangerously depleted?

A: Not even close.

Q: (H) So, as we suspected, the whole peak oil thing is a political manipulation to get people behind the Reich?

A: Distract and conquer.

Q: (Jon) Is Tony Blair acting on his beliefs or is he being blackmailed?

A: He has been promised a place on the "rapture special."

Q: (Ing) Why are the French putting so much energy into the Int. Thermo-Nuclear Experimental Reactor? Supposedly because we are going to be short of oil...

A: It keeps people busy and it keeps the Bush gang happy. You don't think France "buys" all that nonsense do you? It has to buy time and space to maneuver.

Q: (J) So they are playing dumb in terms of the "end of the world"?

A: Dumb like a fox!

Q: (Ing) So are there two groups, one in France and one in the US and they are not allies?

A: Not at present. But everyone has to consider that fun gang of stooges for Yahweh. They don't play nice.

Q: (J) Is there any update on the possibility of some form of germ disbursement and is something like that imminent?

A: Expect a good round this fall

Q: (J) Is there anything we should be doing to prepare?

A: Stay healthy

Q: (Jon) Is this germ warfare going to be strictly in the US?

A: It's already starting

Q: (J) Is it going to be worldwide?

A: Spottily

Q: (J) Are we talking about a deadly form of flu?

A: It will be eventually.

Q: (J) What was the cause of crash 587?

A: Covered up. Can you spell MOSSAD? Just call it a "reminder."

Q: (J) They seem to have monopolised the market on false flag terror attacks.

A: That is their speciality.

Q: (Ing) What was the influence behind the French "No" vote?

A: Mostly free thinking.

Q: (H) So what percentage of people in France can really think?

A: 59%

Q: (Ing) Is Sarkozy associated with any occult group?

A: Absolutely.

Q: (Ing) Can you specify?

A: Let's just say that he is very much influenced by Kabballah.

Q: (J) Did anyone else other than Barbara Olsen survive Flight 77?

A: 2

Q: Was one of them the ex- IDF guy who had made a website for Rummy's department in the Pentagon?

A: Good possibility.


Q: (H) There have been rumors on various web sites that the special prosecutor (Fitzgerald) is going to bring down charges against the Bush gang. Is this just more disinfo?

A: Lots of negotiation going on at present. Most likely that Bush will prevail.

Q: (J) 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.").
20 October 05

Q: (R) I am interested in how the 94% of the population being used as containers or parts for a new race relates to the comment that “all of this will fail”. How can those two things happen at the same time or are they mutually exclusive?
A: Just because 94 percent may “die” does not necessarily mean success for STS forces. The energy of “containers” can be utilized positively or negatively. Also, notice that the plans were revealed prior to the efforts of the present company. Remember the flapping butterfly wings.
Q: (J) So there you go. Nothing is certain. It depends upon what you do, R****! (R) Thank you for that. (L) Flap your wings. (J) 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: (J) 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: (J) What did it look like? What kind of craft? (Laughing) A UFO? (Everyone laughs)
A: More like the “Osama special.”
Q: (J) 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? (J) 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: (H) Were the many phone calls that were reported from Flight 93 real phone calls or were they fake?
A: Some were real.
Q: (J) Were the real calls reported in the media?
A: Yes, but with “enhancements.”
Q: (J) Let’s get some of that real-time voice morphing technology! (H) Did Barbara Olson really phone?
A: Oh yes!
Q: (H) 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: (H) That means there was a double-cross! (J) 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: (H) 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? (J) The entire operation was not meant to include Flight 77.
A: Correct.
Q: (J) So let me get this straight in my head. So why did it include Flight 77? (L) A double-cross. (H) The Israelis did it to take a hostage and to turn the tables on the US. (J) 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.” There’s going to be some little thing going on here. So they 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. 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.

(J) 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… (J) Like a little Cessna or something with some bombs in it. (L) It was supposed to actually look like something that came from Osama.

(J) 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, that’s fake. They have another plan that includes Flight 77 and the drone craft. So the entire operation is split between two groups. (H) 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. “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. (J) And we’re going to put it on TV and then people will see that it was Osama. (H) 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: (J) 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) (J) 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 (J) And they’re running around going “What the hell happened!”. (W) That explains why the cover-up on the Pentagon has been poor and why it’s so obvious. (L) If it had been planned, they would have had something better planned. (A) Were there some unusual weapons used on the WTC?
A: It was a fairly simple “hit,” with a specially prepared building.
Q: (J) 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. (H) But we’ve asked about explosives in the building, and they’ve said it was more something to shape the… (S) Yes, EMP (J) Conductors with shaped EMP. (H) That means that using shaped EMP waves is “fairly simple”. (Laughter) (J) If they could take down the Columbia… (H) Was it the same technology as with the shuttle Columbia?
A: Yup.
Q: (H) Did it come from the same source? (J) Space-based satellite?
A: Now you are getting into warm water.
Q: (H) I guess we don’t want to get into hot water… (Laughter) (A) It’s not our business. (H) Curiosity killed the cat.
A: Let us just remind you that it scared even George.
Q: (J) Was Robin Cook murdered?
A: What do you think, Laura got a herniated disc. How about a herniated heart?
Q: (J) But the interesting question is then, if that was deliberate, obviously, where was the concentration of negative energy coming from?
A: There must be a “local conduit.”
Q: (J) And that then may lead to a question about Italy. What was the cause of the spontaneous fires in Cannetto 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: (J) You know these pipes that were bursting into flames? (A) Yes. (L) Metal was bursting into flames. (J) Metal pipes. Electrical appliances. (H) And then steel beams in the WTC. (J) A couple of years ago. (R) 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: (J) 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) (J) You’re in hot water! (Laughter) (R) I have a question about Anna Lindt, the Swedish Foreign Minister. (J) That was Mossad. (L) That’s easy to figure out. (J) She was anti-American, anti-Iraq war. (R) So how did they make the killer do it? (J) Sirhan Sirhan. Oswald. (L) That’s all out there. Manchurian Candidate. Did you ever see it? (R) Yes. (J) 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!
Q: (L) I would say there is no specific significance. With them everywhere, the odds are good that you’re going to bump into them once in awhile. Did you feel you were being specifically targeted? (J) Yeah… (L) Well, it’s a possibility. Now that we have some kind of tradition of stopping there at the pool to soak our feet on the way home, they could probably know that and have somebody there…. (H) What about the guy I met at the airport in Paris? Was that just a “coincidence”?
A: No coincidence there.
Q: (J) He was there to try and lure you away, Henry. (L) (In a sinister voice) He was reading you. He was taking a profile. (J) I want to know about these strange formations on the radar image of Hurricane Rita.
A: 4th density “battle.” Also includes some “practice.”
Q: (L) They’re practicing with new weapons. (J) Some people said Katrina was the product of HAARP heating up the waters in the Gulf.
A: We’ve already dealt with HAARP and weather. Read transcripts.
Q: (W) (Quoting transcripts) “HAARP has nothing to do with the weather or EM associated with same.” (H) Which suggests that there is EM associated with the weather. There could be some EM stuff associated with the weather that isn’t part of HAARP. (L) 4th density. (J) Were any of the storms manufactured from 3rd density or was it a natural storm?
A: Mfg in 3D? No. As we have said… 4D battles represent as weather. But the “veil” is thinning.
Q: (R) So if there is more weather it is due to more battles, and it being thinner. (J) Possibly. The thinning of the veil creates more natural… (L) Or unnatural, depending upon how you look at it.

(S) So, I have a few questions. In the last session the C’s had said that 47% of Americans think that the government was complicit in 911. They also said that 12% of Americans can actually think. So, assuming that the 12% that can think are part of the 47% who think the American government was complicit in 911, that would give 35% would think the government is complicit not because they think but because they have been programmed to think it. If that is the case, then why are these people being programmed to be suspicious or against the Bush government?
A: They are not being programmed to be suspicious of Bush et al, the contrary.
Q: (L) In other words, it is the ones who think that Bush is not complicit that are being programmed. The ones who don’t think it, even if they’re part of that 35%, they’ve simply never been programmed. (R) Those who are programmed are programmed to not be suspicious. (A) You can be suspicious, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you can think. (L) The ones who are not suspicious are the ones being programmed, but it doesn’t mean… Ops can just be Ops. They don’t have to be bad or evil, they’re just the ones who, nobody’s gotten to them, there’s been no opportunity…maybe they’re just people who don’t want to watch television so much. Or they are contrary in a certain way. They see that there is a group of people who are suspicious and they follow along with them rather than following along with the ones who are not suspicious. (S) They said that Bush “will try” to become a fuehrer, that he’ll continue on as president until he dies. Does that mean that someone will… Bush will be tossed out and someone else will move in and become fuehrer?
A: Warm water. It would not serve your best interests to know this.
I think I got 'em all...
 
Top Bottom