You are browsing the archive for World Trade Center.

Avatar of MatthewCCox

by MatthewCCox

A Problem That Resolves Itself

May 3, 2012 in Opinion, United States, World

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.

SolutionsIf 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.

Why?

I’ll look at the reasons in tomorrow’s article.

Tags: , , , 1 Comment »

Avatar of MatthewCCox

by MatthewCCox

Responding to Criticism

May 2, 2012 in United States, World

As an information junky, I have developed regular sources for acquiring data. In addition, I keep my eyes and ears open for anything outside of these sources that may provide me with interesting intelligence.

CriticismMore often than not, the best data comes from sources that are the most criticized. I’ve learned that the more someone is criticized, the more I should pay attention to what they are saying because, apparently, they are a threat to someone.

In some cases, this criticism seems to be well-planned, as if someone was attempting to accomplish a specific agenda. In fact, I actually know people who set up Google Alerts to email them whenever a certain topic appears in a new blog post so they can go to the site and discredit that topic.

Therefore, when Terry commented on last Friday’s article, I assumed he was a Judy Wood debunker. Of course, it is sometimes difficult to determine if someone is a debunker or a genuine searcher.

In an effort to determine a person’s perspective, my standard reply when someone appears to be debunking is to point to the facts. This allows me to sort out the professional debunkers from those genuinely looking for answers.

My intention is to uncover what is really going on with a situation rather than argue about opinions. I know that if someone will take the time to look at the facts and get back to me, then we can have an intelligent discussion in which we both learn something.

I was pleasantly surprised when Terry commented on yesterday’s article and told me that was exactly what he did. In fact, I suggest you click on this link and read Terry’s well-written comment.

I’m thrilled that he did the research, drew his own conclusions, and raised his own questions. I believe these questions need a deeper look.

As a result, I’ve decided to answer those questions before writing the additional information I promised in yesterday’s article.

The first question Terry raises is, “Why won’t Dr. Wood call the results of her research a “theory”?”

I have several clients who are professional scientists and science educators. They love to discuss puzzling information. However, they often correct me when I use the words “theory” and “proof.”

Apparently, these are borderline sacred words in the scientific community. Therefore, for a theory to exist there must be proof to support it. My scientist friends patronizingly explain to me that, “Evidence is not proof because evidence can be circumstantial and circumstantial evidence is not necessarily proof.”

Based on this, my clients have explained that it is “bad science” to compile evidence into a theory if there is no proof for it. At first this seemed like semantics to me. However, I think I now almost understand what they are saying.

For example, in Dr. Wood’s work, there is lots of evidence to support the fact that fire, thermite, or bombs did not cause the towers to disappear. However, she has no direct knowledge (proof) of what could have caused so much material to turn to dust. This information is classified and “if someone told her, they would have to kill her.”

Based on her body language during presentations, I suspect she has been threatened. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone had said to her, “Listen, you are really close to the truth. However, we are not going to let you ever tell the truth. Here are the guidelines you must stay within if you want to stay alive.”

This message, combined with her scientific training, motivates her to make less than definitive statements about her data. Therefore, she doesn’t present proof to support a theory. She presents evidence.

This also partially explains the answer to Terry’s second question: “Why don’t we have genuine debate towards resolving the mystery of the disappearance of the towers?”

The discussion would reveal information that could result in tremendous outcry from the general public.

For example, consider the public’s response if mainstream media suddenly reported that, as a result of thorough investigation, it had been discovered that a secret energy weapon, developed through United States funding, was used upon American buildings on 9/11 or something similar.

(WOW! Can you imagine?!?!)

Of course, alternative media is already saying these things.

And, it has been written in numerous, well-documented books.

I’ll consider one of those often criticized books tomorrow.

Tags: , , Comments Off

Avatar of MatthewCCox

by MatthewCCox

Exploring the Signs

May 1, 2012 in United States, World

If the World Trade Center towers were not taken down by fire, thermite, or bombs, what caused them to disappear?

Based on the evidence I have seen and the technology I know about, I don’t know.

Dr. Judy Wood says she doesn’t know either. However, she describes this technology’s capabilities.

World Trade CenterIt is capable of pulverizing steel, marble, granite, glass, concrete, and carbon-based life forms. It is not capable of pulverizing paper.

It causes automobiles to spontaneously combust. However, the damage to some vehicles may be resisted by rubber seals on doors.

It produces glowing metal not hot enough to burn paper. In addition, it produces high energy readings that some instruments record as incredibly high temperatures. However, rescuers are able to work in those conditions without experiencing the recorded heat.

Dr. Wood is careful not to draw conclusions about what it is. However, she provides information about laboratory experiments and patents that replicate similar results. These include videos and documents that describe the “Hutchison Effect,” a phenomenon researched by John Hutchison.

As I listened to Judy’s presentations, reviewed her documents, and looked at the pictures, I thought to myself, “This sounds like Tesla-type technology.”

DISCLAIMER: This was MY thought. Please don’t say I’m saying Judy Wood said this. She didn’t. In fact, Judy has been careful to talk only about technologies that have been patented or can be recreated in demonstrations. This is why she often talks about George Samuel Piggott’s work (It is patented.) or references John Hutchison (He is still alive.).

As I was mulling over the implications, a link to this story from the Idaho Observer showed up in one of my subscribed blog feeds. The article describes the relationship between Nikola Tesla and George H. Scherf Sr.

Scherf was Tesla’s accountant and business manager. He was also a German spy, assigned by Hitler to swipe Tesla’s technology for Germany’s use.

(On a side note, Scherf’s son, George Jr. was a curious and obnoxious little man and, according to the article, provided the inspiration for the name of a children’s cartoon character, “Curious George.” Apparently, Tesla was an acquaintance of H. A. and Margret Rey.)

When Tesla died, Scherf ended up with Tesla’s writings and technologies. It is unclear if Hitler benefitted from this information. However, it may have served a purpose for the Scherf family.

The reason I say this is, according to the Idaho Observer, somewhere along the line, Scherf Sr. changed his first name to Prescott and the family changed their last name to Bush.

Prescott’s son, AKA George Scherf Jr. (Curious George), AKA George H. Bush, served as head of the CIA, Vice-President to United States President Ronald Reagan, and the 41st President of the United States.

Prescott’s grandson, George H. W. Bush was the 43rd President of the United States and was in office on 9/11. Most of us remember the absence of shock on his face when he first heard news that the towers had fallen.

Is it possible that he didn’t look surprised because he wasn’t surprised?

Is it possible that the Bush family had access to Tesla’s technology?

Is it possible they helped develop it for use on 9/11?

I compared the picture of the Scherfs in the Idaho Observer article with pictures of Prescott and George H Bush. There were enough similarities for me to say it was possible the Scherfs were the Bushes. In addition, the numerous contradictions in the history of the Bushes, as documented in the footnotes of the article, certainly leave a lot of holes in Prescott’s childhood.

Of course, this is pure speculation on my part. I’m only looking at the observations made by Judy Wood, commenting on an article written in the Idaho Observer, and making a possible connection because this information showed up in my life at the same time.

Did it really happen this way?

I don’t know. I don’t have enough evidence to prove it.

Is it worth consideration?

I believe it is because it coincides with my personal philosophy of following the signs that show up in my life.

What is the peaceful response?

I won’t panic. I won’t jump to conclusions. Instead, I will continue to evaluate this idea based on other information that shows up in my life.

…and a lot of information has shown up in my life over the past week or so.

I’ll start writing about that tomorrow.

Tags: , , , 3 Comments »

Avatar of MatthewCCox

by MatthewCCox

The World’s Biggest Applecart

April 30, 2012 in Finance, United States, World

What we believe determines what we say and what we do. Therefore, if we are to understand how we got to where we are as a society, we need to identify those beliefs. Then, if we want to change our society, we will need to change our beliefs.

This is why I have taken several days to talk about upsetting and resetting applecarts (belief systems). I know that evaluating belief systems is a critical part of conscious living. To me, it feels like spring cleaning for the soul.

Yesterday, I took a look at how my belief system concerning 9/11 has evolved over the years. This article continues that look.

I believe our perception of 9/11 will determine how we vote in the upcoming elections. It will determine whether we participate in the new financial system with resistance or acceptance.

In fact, I have observed that one’s perception of that day often determines a person’s entire world view.

Therefore, it is critical to understand what happened that day….

…and what didn’t happen.

This brings me back to Judy Wood’s work.

World Trade Center dustDr. Wood’s presentations of the information from 9/11 is methodical and thorough. (If you want to see them for yourself, search her name on YouTube. There are numerous videos of her presentations.) She points out that the twin towers transformed into powder. She shows videos of building parts changing to dust on the way to the ground. She shows images of automobiles that spontaneously caught fire that day, some of them on the opposite side of Manhattan.

This mystery of the buildings turning to powder is not unfamiliar to those who followed this story. This video from mainstream media contains numerous questions about what happened to the hundreds of thousands of tons of building materials that converted into powder before landing on the ground.

Judy’s presentation, using The Socratic Method, eliminates many of the initial ideas about 9/11. For example, if bombs, thermite, or fire had felled the towers, there would have been a pile of building materials left.

There wasn’t.

There was only powder and paper.

Even though Dr. Wood only presents information, she certainly has her critics. In fact, when I first mentioned her name on this website, a comment showed up, almost immediately, criticizing her work. This detractor pointed me to a discussion group where a heated debate was taking place over whether or not Judy’s conclusions were valid.

As I reviewed the discussion, I realized those people hadn’t read or listened to her work. Or, if they had, they didn’t understand it.

They were claiming Dr. Wood’s conclusions are unsupportable. However, Judy doesn’t draw conclusions. She asks questions, based on the evidence, to help the listener form his or her own opinions.

Other critics say the buildings could not have fallen the way she says they fell.

Dr. Wood’s response is to ask if the buildings are still there. After all, she is only observing what happened.

The more I studied the evidence presented by Dr. Wood, the more I came to realize that we don’t know exactly what caused the buildings to fall. Judy admits that she doesn’t know either. She just knows that, based on the evidence, it wasn’t fire, thermite, or bombs.

Therefore, it must be something else.

The exploration of this something else must take place if we are to understand the ramifications surrounding this pivotal point in our modern history.

I will continue this exploration tomorrow.

Tags: , , , Comments Off

Avatar of MatthewCCox

by MatthewCCox

Questions From 9/11

September 15, 2011 in World

I didn’t intend to spend the morning of September 11, 2011 doing anything different from what I normally do on a Sunday morning. My plan was to get a cup of coffee, check the internet for anything interesting, turn on ESPN to get ready for the opening day of football season, and do a little writing.

As I checked my Twitter feed for news, I noticed that WikiLeaks was re-releasing over half a million text pager intercepts. The intercepts covered a 24-hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington. They were broadcasting, “live” to the global community. The messages were synchronized to the time of day they were sent. It was fascinating reading… and troubling.

Some of the troubling thoughts came from reliving the emotions from that Tuesday in 2001. More troubling was the slew of messages that came through that day which seemed to support some of the alternative theories to the 9/11 story. For example, one message showed that an alarm went off at 4:45 that morning indicating that the hot water supply temperature at Building 7 was out of range. Was this insignificant or was this somehow related to the collapse of the towers, which came from significant heat?

Another troubling message was the story of a car bomb at the State Department, located across the river from the Pentagon. The story was widely circulated and reported around the world. Apparently, that didn’t happen.

World Trade Center rubbleOther texts reported numerous bomb threats and speculative rumors. In fact, many of the messages did not report plane crashes. They reported bombs. Several texts reported the “third and fourth blasts at the World Trade Center Complex.”

I understand that rumors happen during moments of crisis. However, the things I read demonstrated there are a lot of inconsistencies in the reporting of what happened that day. I was previously aware of the inconsistencies that appeared during the subsequent investigation. I had never considered that many of the things reported as facts on that day were subsequently removed from the story.

I had to wonder if the initial reports were removed because they were inaccurate or inconvenient. The official word is that they were inaccurate. However, with so many reports from so many sources, were ALL of them inaccurate?

There certainly are a lot of unanswered questions. I can easily see how theories other than the official story have arisen. I’ve looked at these theories and  the official story. I don’t have enough information to determine what happened. I don’t believe anyone does.

In spite of this lack of knowledge, the events of 9/11/01 have been used as an excuse to expand the legal system and eliminate many freedoms previously taken for granted.

Some people believe we are about to enter the next phase of the system’s expansion. Others believe we may experience the system’s collapse.

What do you think? Where are we headed as a world? What is the most peaceful manner to respond? I’ll propose a possible direction in an upcoming article. Feel free to leave your suggestions below.

Tags: , , Comments Off