I believe that within every disappointment, heartbreak, or failure is something of equal, and usually greater, positive benefit. My observation is that the greatest obstacle to this benefit is one’s resistance to receiving it.
This raises the question, “What benefit from 9/11 are we resisting?”
My latest reading material is Michael Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon. I introduced Ruppert a few days ago in another article.
Ruppert, a former LAPD detective, uses Rubicon to thoroughly connect the dots between oil, drugs, money, government, banks, and the 9/11 attacks. There is no doubt in his mind that the CIA, with the endorsement of top United States government officials, orchestrated 9/11 to accomplish several goals. These include controlling the diminishing oil supply, ensuring liquid cash from the drug trade, and an excuse for domestic repression during an anticipated resource shortage.
The premise of Ruppert’s thoughts centers on a concept he calls “Peak Oil.” It is the idea that mankind has passed the time of peak oil production. He argues that consumption of oil continues to grow while production has started to decline. He believes this will eventually lead to the collapse of humanity.
Of course, Ruppert has his detractors. Google his name with the word “crazy” and more than three hundred thousand hits appear. If we look into those criticisms, it is difficult to find any that dispute Ruppert’s research.
The reason is simple. Ruppert, like Judy Wood, carefully documents his statements.
While reading the first hundred pages of Rubicon, I noticed something else.
If we link Ruppert’s research with Judy Wood’s discoveries, we get a problem that resolves itself.
Rupport claims government used 9/11 to gain control of oil supplies and liquid cash from the drug trade while implementing domestic repression during upcoming resource shortages.
Wood implies government used an alternative energy source on 9/11.
Do you see what I see?
Wood’s evidence opens the way to overcome Rupport’s resource shortages. It makes control of oil and cash a non-issue.
If the energy source that turned the twin towers to powder really exists, – and we have to assume it does because of what happened – why couldn’t it be used to resolve the forecasted energy shortages?
If an energy field can be created that turns one million tons of building materials into dust and causes automobiles to spontaneously combust, why can’t it be used to generate electrical power?
If this energy source could be used instead of petrol, the United States military would no longer need to control foreign oil fields. This would free financial resources and cash reserves to be used on sustenance items.
Is it possible that the destruction on 9/11 has distracted us from the bigger story?
Is it possible that the disappointment and heartbreak of 9/11 holds something of greater, positive benefit?
I believe it does.
I believe that positive benefit is an alternative energy source – and possibly several – that, if made available for the use of the general public, could turn into the so-called “free energy system” that many people claim has been hidden from the general public.
Ruppert clearly shows us that government officials were complicit in the acts on 9/11.
Wood clearly shows us that an alternative energy source was used on 9/11.
Now, it is up to the general public to take this information, hidden in plain sight, and find a way to implement it in our day to day lives.
In spite of all of this information, it appears we are hesitant to receive this benefit.
I’ll look at the reasons in tomorrow’s article.