Previous Update: Dec 20 - 26

Updates Index

December 27 - January 2, 2012

Comparison of Obama photos with Fake-Osama photos
911 Evidence Re-Visited
Threats from Kurt Sonnenfeld and Tom-Scott Gordon
Until Now They are Only Theats -- What's Going on?
Jack White's Crafty Exposures of the Pentagon Lawn on 911

I've just witnessed two compelling videos claiming that Obama's face is the same that of Osama bin Laden. However, if there is any truth to it, I would suggest that Obama is merely the fake Osama who posed for the pictures needed and used by certain fiends of the Western kind -- the same that got Obama elected -- who forged his birth records, and covered his history for him in other ways.

When watching the facial comparisons between Obama and Osama, though convincing, remember that the producers are stretching the truth too far (i.e. that Obama is actually Osama), and that tricks can be played with video. Tricks played in 911 videos will be featured for much of the last half in this update, but then conspiracy theorists are able to abuse video too.

I would suggest you spend significant time on the video below. Let it run it's full course, then run it again with music muted so that it does not have bearing on your decision. Put the video on pause the second time around, and move from frame to frame with mouse on the red bar. Do the facial comparisons asking whether the producers of the video are playing tricks, and if not, ask what the ramifications are for the world if true that Osama posed as Obama bin Laden to manipulate the American populace for tolerating/supporting plots in the Middle East during the Bush administration.

I can't make out definitively whether the two are the same man, but the facial comparison is very close to the point of difficult to rule out.

In the video below (warning; terribly graphic but not really), it is shown that a living photo of Osama bin Laden was given a computerized make-over to make it appear that he had been killed. We are being lied to by the American government once again, for that government had an obvious role in producing the photo of the "dead" Osama. Imagine the idea of Obama appearing on television to claim credit for the death of the Osama that he himself posed as. The photo is not so graphic when you realize that it's a computer fake; it's not real blood.

Why the same "scar" on both sides of Obama's head??? Did he have an operation requiring all the skin on the back of his skull to be lifted? Hmm, maybe there are microphones behind his ears for when there aren't any teleprompters (kidding. or maybe not kidding).

Not long after claiming that the anti-Christ and/or False Prophet (late 2008 and throughout 2009) would be a mouse entity, there appeared this video of a mouse running out to the podium where Obama would exit to speak seconds later:

At the end of this update, a Chestnut(t) surname is found to be, likely, part of the 911 plotters, a surname much like the Chaine/Chaney/CHESne (Masci wing) and Chenu/Chanut surnames that I've come to view as a mouse-and-cheese entity. You know exactly what I'm implying: Dick Cheney on 911. (When Bush was first elected, I supported both him and his team. I was not an anti-Busher in the beginning. 911 changed my views.)

Obama has another success story. His first was putting America into irreparable debt to central bankers that rule us. Now he has Egypt to celebrate over: Egypt Islamists take two-thirds of 2nd-round vote It's win-win for anti-Israelis all over the world.

Look at who's pressing Putin to step down and encouraging Russians by the army-truck load to vote against him:

Mikhail Gorbachev called on Prime Minister Vladimir Putin not to seek a third term as president next year.

He told the Moscow Echo radio: "I would advise Vladimir Putin to leave now. He has had three terms: two as president and one as prime minister. Three terms – that is enough."

Mr Gorbachev, 80, has been virulently critical of the elections that took place on December 4. Soon after the poll he said that the results of the poll should be annulled and new elections held due to "numerous falsifications and rigging."

'''The former president was considering attending the march in central Moscow today, to which thousands ventured. He was, however, unable to appear but passed his greetings to the protestors.

Gorby's working for someone in the West, isn't he? Putin could be correct, that the uprising against him is a Western plot.

Suppose Mitt becomes the next president. There's a headline" Mitt Romney: Vladimir Putin 'a threat to global peace'. Is Obama's going to run on making peace with Russia for world-security purposes? Is he going to make Romney-ites look like powder kegs? Or has Obama made an agreement already with Western invisibles to push Putin out? Obama's language on Russia at this time should reveal where he stands.

Keep Exxon in mind as you read the following, for the corporation pulled out of oil-field deals in southern Iraq recently and made an illegal deal with the oil people (= the Kurd government) in Kurdistan, a region officially belonging to Iraq. What gave Exxon the impetus to make such a risky deal? At the time, just weeks ago, the writing was well on the wall for an end of America's Iraqi occupation.

No sooner are Americans gone that the implosion of the Iraqi government has taken place. It's an excellent opportunity for the West to side with Sunni and Kurds in northern Iraq, and together to undermine Maliki's Shi'ite government. The question is what Putin will do about that opportunity in his first few months while Obama is pre-occupied with saving his political skin.

Barely had the last American soldier stepped across the border into Kuwait than the fragile Iraqi political structure the US military left behind began to fall dangerously apart...

The most dramatic symptom of the exploding crisis is the fact that Iraq's most senior Sunni Arab politician, Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi, is effectively a fugitive, with an arrest warrant on terrorism charges hanging over his head.

While he hides out under Kurdish protection in the north, the entire al-Iraqiyya political bloc to which he belongs has pulled out of both parliament and the cabinet.

...Much will depend on the outcome of the current struggle in neighbouring Syria.

Some analysts see the Syrian conflict, coinciding with the US withdrawal from Iraq, as a major factor in the emergence and timing of the Iraqi crisis.

...the collapse of President Bashar al-Assad's government in Damascus would inevitably mean the empowerment of Syria's Sunni majority [Obama's wish, I suspect].

The areas of Iraq adjacent to the country's long border with Syria are almost entirely Sunni-dominated.

As the crisis in Syria deepened in recent weeks, there have been two significant developments in Iraq.

Sunni-majority provinces which had previously shunned the idea of setting up Kurdistan-style autonomous areas, as the new constitution allows, have begun to embrace that idea, to the clear displeasure of the Shia Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki.

"Maliki and the Shia are paranoid about the emergence of a Sunni Syria with Baathist and Salafist tendencies", said one senior Iraqi politician.

...Sunni sources in Iraq say that arms are being smuggled across the border from the Mosul and al-Anbar areas to anti-regime activists inside Syria.

...Sunni leaders accuse Prime Minister Maliki and his Shia allies of being hand-in-glove with Iran, and bent on turning the country into a Persian satrapy.

...In another sign of the gaping rift between the Shia and Sunni leaderships, Mr Maliki has formally asked parliament to impeach Mr Mutlak, his own deputy, because of such incendiary statements.

...The White House has said it is deeply concerned by the current crisis and has been in touch with all sides.

Speaking of powder kegs. The fuse is already lit here. It may even be that the Syrian insurgency was concocted in Sunni/northern Iraq and of course favored by Washington. The fact that Hillary spoke out against Assad tells that she was compelled to show support to others involved in the rebellion. But when Russia showed a fist in Hillary's face for that event, Hillary spoke out against Putin too, with the effect, Putin claims, of accumulating the monkeys on his back (my phrase).

Obama may see an opportunity to upset the powers in the Russia axis, and may go for the jugular while he yet has political life. That is, if he can pull himself away from a vacation. Recent developments predict that Putin will retaliate, not just by speaking out against the O-dministration, which he has done already, but in the Syria and Iraqi situations. What are his options for saving Assad and Maliki from a Western-backed toppling of their governments?

1) A stronger relationship with Iran, but as secretly as possible. 2) A stronger relationship with the Sunni of Syria and Iraq.

How will Putin purchase the friendship of the Sunni? How will he persuade them to shun the West and choose him? Who has the better ticket for getting inside the Baathist party, Putin or Obama? It's the Baathist party that counts now, isn't it? I would be surprised if Putin did nothing while Assad pleads for his life. Didn't Assad give the nod to allow Russian naval ships into Syrian waters recently? Doesn't Putin have the Syrian Baath party in his hands already? Can he use it to get Iraqi Baathists on-board an anti-West platform? Couldn't Putin fund a Sunni invasion of Kurdistan's oil?

Am I suggesting that Putin and Baathists are going to invade Iraq? Not yet. But if Assad falls to a pro-West Syrian replacement, it could explain why the Bible speaks on an invasion of Syria by the anti-Christ. In such a scenario involving Putin, he would be fighting to get Assad back in power. Before seeing an Iraq invasion by Russians, I expect the diplomatic entry of Gog into Iraq. Now is the time for Baathists to turn to Russia for help.

I'm assuming that the Hamas leader, Mashaal, under the protection of Assad in Damascus for years to this point, would lose his protection and join the Russian plan too. After all, Russia is already friendly toward Hamas. The simultaneous animosity shown to Putin by Hillary and others in the West is apt to make Putin swing the way of Iran too, and suddenly we may hear some slightly anti-Israeli overtones from him in an effort to shore up an Iranian alliance.

Yes, I realize that Mashaal has a Massey-like surname, but until now I've refrained from viewing him as a prophetic personality. I assume that the leader of the Russian army is still surnamed, Makarov. He's one I'll be watching as a potential prophetic character if Putin goes into an invasion. But if the anti-Christ is to enter Iraq, or at least enter Iraqi affairs, diplomatically, then I can't see Makarov as the anti-Christ. Putin's foreign minister makes more sense in that scenario. Yet I tend to view the anti-Christ as a military man, in which case Putin's foreign minister makes no sense for filling Gog's army boots. Where am I going wrong?

Then there's the mystery of how the anti-Christ can begin "small" in Iraq as per Daniel 11:23, while winning fighters hearts in order to grow huge. That doesn't sound like the Russian government at all, but more like a small terrorist group. Is it possible for a Russian president / leader to be the anti-Christ while using a small terrorist group as his gun? I can't answer that, no. The current situation seems ripe for Putin-backed fighters in northern Iraq.

Is the tiger of Russia coming to the Tigris with all his Gomers? Will the tiger of Russia remove Exxon's Tony the Tiger from Kurdistan? Or will they form an alliance there?

The anti-Christ will be an Assyrian "king of Babylon," according to Isaiah 13, but in line with the Roman emperors according to Daniel 7 and Revelation 13. Under these circumstances, in which God clearly wants everyone one of us confused until it happens, we had best keep predictions down to a skinny cat. If we wag our tails to the right, we'll be wrong, and if we wag them to the left, we'll be wrong. God made this hard for a reason, so that Gog himself will not know, so that those who bring him to power will not realize. Someone's bound to predict it right; trouble is, the one who's got it right doesn't really know it until it happens.

To facilitate some form of interference in Iraq by outsiders, Maliki is making an odorous stink of himself:

Hundreds of people have been arrested all around Iraq in an operation launched by the security forces against members of the banned Ba'ath party. The crackdown came a few days after U.S. President Barack Obama announced that U. S. forces will pull out from Iraq. The operation is one of the biggest of its kind in post—war Iraq. More significantly Iraqi officials introduced it as a pre-emptive strike against an alleged plan to overthrow the government and the whole Iraqi political order...

...General Hussein Kamal, the deputy minister of interior for intelligence affairs, announced that the Ba’ath party still forms the most dangerous threat to the national security..."With its members still active within many departments in the government including the security forces, the Ba’ath party will always try return to power. But we will not let that happen."...

...As part of their announcement of the recent crackdown, the Iraqi authorities repeated their argument that there is a strong link between the Ba’ath party and al-Qaeda and its Islamic state of Iraq (ISI). Al-Assadi elaborated that the former is planning and taking care of the logistics while the latter is executing the attacks. The Ba’ath party and ISI deny such a bond...[tt_news]=38618&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=927e3cf84b9f60b6e4549b1bd5a05065

Suddenly, events are taking place in a shape of prophetic expectations. It's time to watch again.

The next deadline is the end of 2012, for an Israeli-Palestinian peace-deal solution, fostered by the Quartet. There's an easy prediction there: Obama is in too much trouble election-wise to make Israel do anything by force. And with the re-set button experiencing a short-circuit, with some sparks to boot, what can we expect from Russia in the way of a proper Quartet role? Let's just say that, for the time being, Israel has only experienced a close shave from the barbershop quartet, who are singing way out of tune with one another. Israel is escaping the wrath of the world-representing Quartet, and that situation just can't stand for long...unless a pro-Israeli president of the United States takes over in the next election late this year.

The quartet deadline, by the end of this year, may have that possibility in mind. If it appears that Obama will not be re-elected -- though unfortunately there are some 40 percent of Americans who will vote for him just to keep Republicans from power -- then the Quartet may decide to "burn" Israel as quickly as possible with the hottest face cloth in its steam machine. What that burn may look like in the real world is anyone's guess, but it just could be the first steps of the anti-Christ invasion.

On the Kirkuk oil:

In a nutshell: Iraq needs an oil and gas law badly -- right now -- but the Iraqi central government and provinces are unable agree on the way to go about signing oil contracts.

...In October, the Kurdish Regional Government signed an agreement with ExxonMobil, the huge American oil company, based on a Kurdish government law that was neither approved nor based on the central Iraqi government's laws and regulations.

As a result Exxon was commissioned to develop oil and gas in six locations in the northern region of Iraq, sadly without the consent of Baghdad.

All this is taking place as the country is on the threshold of a new era, without US troops on the ground.

Some may think that the US is standing behind Exxon as its interests are the same as those of Washington.

...The US State Department said lately that it had warned ExxonMobil and other US firms of the risks of signing contracts in Iraq without nationwide approval, but would not say [aha, secrecy] whether it talked with Exxon before it struck the controversial oil deal in the Kurdistan region.

Because many people see ExxonMobil as an extension of the US State Department, some analysts believe the deal must have been approved by it.

At a media briefing, the State Department denied any knowledge of the Exxon deal [no kidding, we're so surprised]...

Baghdad has also announced that ExxonMobil would be excluded from the next round of bidding for further contracts [Exxon must have known this, and yet it streaked into Kurdistan anyway. Did it know the plan for northern Iraq?].

Exxon silent

Exxon for its part has not commented on the deal or on the threat of cancelling its contract to develop Iraq's 8.7-billion-barrel West Qurna Phase One oilfield in the south.

Royal Dutch Shell [= Rothschilds] has also held talks with the Kurds about potential investments over the past year, several officials and oil executives said.

You just know that Putin doesn't want these Western oil giants in Kurdistan. There is much incentive for him to get involved as soon as he's the next Russian president, in just a couple of months. But Medvedev may facilitate some Putin-ary action in the Middle East even before then.

How should we interpret the following Christmas-day article? Obama being malicious toward the Iraqi government? Might he desire an Iraqi-government collapse no matter what images are portrayed to the contrary by his people? Why would U.S. officials even mention the re-entry of troops when Iraq hasn't been asking for them? Is it a message to Maliki's government, "Tough luck, you made your beds, now sleep in them""

...US officials told the Times that President Barack Obama was adamant that the United States would not send troops back to Iraq, adding that even an American military presence likely would not have prevented the political crisis and coordinated attacks plaguing the country days after a US pullout.

"There is a strong sense that we need to let events in Iraq play out," a senior administration official said. "There is not a great deal of appetite for re-engagement. We are not going to reinvade Iraq."

But US military counterterrorism personnel could return to Iraq under CIA authority, if approved by the president [but for what purposes, really?].

"As the US military has drawn down to zero in terms of combat troops, the US intelligence community has not done the same," a senior administration official told the Times.

...Vice President Joe Biden, Obama's pointman on Iraq, has been in close contact with leaders of the country's rival sects...urging them to mend their fences.

The Times said several other Obama administration officials have spoken on the phone with Maliki and other Iraqi officials all week in a bid to resolve the stalemate after the Shiite president accused his Sunni vice president, Tareq al-Hashemi, of hiring bodyguards to run a death squad.

CIA Director David Petraeus, the former top US commander in Iraq, also visited Baghdad for talks with Iraqi leaders.

It just isn't right to go in asking the rival parties simpleton-like to mend fences when the accusation against the Sunni vice-president is the running of hit squads in political activism. If that's true, then of course there should be no mending of ties, but rather a new direction altogether. In an article on al-Sadr, a leading Shi'ite who handed Maliki his Iraqi throne several months ago, he's now calling for a new Iraq election based on the lacking integrity of Maliki. The latter may feel quite naked at this time as he blasts out his rhetoric for staying in power. We also read in this article that the Sunni block quit the Maliki government BEFORE the Sunni vice president was charged with crimes, as though the Sunni side of the government couldn't wait another day after the American pull-out to start a pre-planned schism:

His arrest warrant was issued just days after the Iraqiya bloc suspended its participation in Parliament amid claims it was being cut out of the political process. The cross-sectarian as well as Sunni-backed bloc castigated the al-Maliki government for shunning cooperation despite the power-sharing arrangement.

It said it is considering sending a request to parliamentary leaders to withdraw support for al-Maliki and come up with a new prime minister to form a post-occupation government.

Iraqiya is the political party once led by Allawi (I read that's he's been bowed out of government business for some months), the one who truly holds the joker card in the Iraqi poker game. Maliki was gunning for a full house, but had to bluff it, and by comparison, Al-Sadr's four herds couldn't win him the throne unless he was able to draw another herd. Allawi only had three yaks, but with his joker, slipped from the bottom of the deck by the dealer of the house -- one lame Obama -- Allawi had the ability to win the game. But Allawi withdrew from the poker table before calling the round. Apparently, he may want to call Maliki's hand now. It appears that Maliki won't get his full house after all. From the 3rd update in November, 2000:

...And so it turned out that the last card in the deck, the wild Joker, was not played at all, because Allawi folded his hand, even though he had three yaks, which beat Maliki's pair of king-makers and would-be queens. Allawi thought that Maliki already had a full house because he was acting like it.

El-Sadrs four herds wouldn't have won anything without the wild Joker to give him a flushing Mahdi army. That Joker might yet need to be played, and it could very well flip to el-Sadr's hand, giving him the greater powers in Iraq after all. Abdul MahdiMan, who held a pair of asses, can only have three asses at best with the wild Joker, which would beat el-Sadr's four herds. That would make MahdiMan, with French connections and an Iranian ally, a potent force in Iraq. But, as I said, MahdiMan and el-Sadr look like they're playing footsies under the table.

And the reason that they're looking like they're playing footsies is to communicate the signals being given to MahdiMan from Iranium [i.e. Ahmadinejad, Iranian leader], who is standing in a dark corner of the saloon behind a cloud of smoke [i.e. play on a mushroom cloud] that makes him even harder to recognize. Plus, he's very short. He's leaning against the wall, right beside the door with a sigh reading, "Mushroom." Inside are the Toilets and the Kinks, and all sorts of bad bands, including the I-Rock Baathtubs, and Glad Jihad and the Pipes.

Iranium's hat is tipped well over his face, but one eye can just be made out, peeping toward MahdiMan. In the other corner stands CoManiac under a plutonium metal hat, and wearing a fake mustache, sending atomic signals to el-Sadr concerning Allawi's three powerful yaks.

Allawi felt so afraid for his life with these crazy-looking strangers in the room that he folded...The dealer fell asleep stoned out of his mind from the smoke of the eight-month long game, so Allawi took a peek at the face-down card after folding, and mumbled, "That's not really part of the deck. What's it doing here? Nobody told me there was a Joker in the deck."

It was the prediction there that the Joker, the anti-Christ, would ultimately chose the next ruler of Iraq (aside from Maliki), and that Allawi would be become his agent. I had Obama secretly playing the Joker into Iraq as a depiction of the Biblical alliance between False Prophet and anti-Christ, but that was when I was more sure that Obama is the False Prophet. I no longer think so. Still, the O-team could have much to do with getting the O-choice for the next Iraqi leader in the present power struggle, and so I'm looking for signs that Obama disfavors Maliki. Should we predict the rise of Allawi?

What's mysterious is that I don't read in articles the destination of the soldiers who have left Iraq. Apparently, they left into Kuwait, but did they stay there, or are they elsewhere? Is Obama holding them in Kuwait, just waiting for Maliki to beg their re-entry into Iraq? Is the West creating a situation that would have Iraqis begging their re-entry? If and when needed, it won't cost much to ship soldiers and uniforms back to Iraq, from anywhere in the world. The shipment of military equipment is what soaks up dollars.

How much military equipment remains in Kuwait, we might ask? The Americans didn't build their largest embassy in Iraq because it wanted to leave politics and other business to Iraqis. The country must be fully spiked with spies disguised as workers. Maliki should check under his bed for a mic. In a 2009 article:

The American withdrawal from Iraq marks the beginning of one of the largest relocations of military hardware and manpower in recent years. But much of the equipment will not be returning to the United States.

Instead, some will remain with the Iraqi security forces and some will be shipped to Afghanistan. But as important, millions of tons of armor and weaponry will be used to restock huge U.S.-run warehouses across the Middle East -- in case it is needed in the future.

The plans follow a pattern set by the military for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and again for the troop buildup in 2007, when the Defense Department drew on equipment stored around the Persian Gulf region, including in massive facilities in Kuwait and Qatar.

Equipment removed from Iraq will be sent to those warehouses, officials said, to ensure that the military is able to respond to a variety of contingencies, including possible Iranian aggression or renewed violence in Iraq.

We could have guessed. The world should seriously consider what would happen if these weapons get into the wrong hands.

Consider the cost to American tax payers as American globalists seek to save time in preparing armies for potential hots spots around the world: "In the next few years, DoD plans to significantly boost the amount of equipment it has prepositioned in areas of potential conflict, particularly the Persian Gulf region and South Korea." What a windfall for weapons manufacturers to have countless military warehouses the world over "just in case" there's a war or riot involving American interests. The greater the American interests around the world, the greater the financial windfall. It's a big sucking sound from the pockets of American tax-payers. The world is hardly conquered yet. What would be the final cost of such conquest? Ask Russians on the streets.

CNN reported that there are thousands of American security workers (I read that as body guards) in Iraq protecting American workers in Iraq, and of course it's not low-level workers who get to have body guards. How many of these workers and body guards are spies for Obama, or operatives with the express purpose of shaking things out as the O-lluminati has decided to shake them? If Obama doesn't even care for the interests of his own people, does he care about Iraqis? Obama is a communist, and communists use the peoples as money bags. Ask the Russians on the streets.

Things are changing on the Egyptian streets:

Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Badei welcomed [Hamas prime-minister] Haniyeh at a joint conference and said that his party was concerned with Palestinian issues.

...Haniyeh responded with: "The Islamic resistance movement of Hamas, by definition is, a jihadist movement by the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian on the surface, Islamic at its core and its goal is liberation [from Israel]."

...On the eve of the tour, Hamas reiterated its opposition to renouncing violence and recognizing Israel’s right to exist.

The Western world has given these enemies of Israel new impetus and life by frowning on Israel and siding with Palestinian statehood. The outspoken leaders of the West think wrongly that a Palestinian state will end the violence against Israel from these groups.

The God of Israel is offended that Israeli leaders mesh with world powers to effect security and prosperity. The leaves on the Israeli hedge are suddenly dwindling, and the branches are rotting from the bad breath of Arab militants peering through what remains of the hedge. The protection that Israel had a year ago on the Egyptian border has been trimmed by one Obama in support of the Muslim Brotherhood. What hedge can remain for Israel in this? One might even predict that Obama will be re-elected just to keep that ailing hedge from being re-leaved by a Republican president.

BUT, if Egypt goes to anti-Israelis, why would the anti-Christ attack and conquer it:

Egypt’s leading Salafi movement on [Dec 25] clarified the party's stance on diplomatic relations with Israel, saying that it would oppose an improvement in ties between the two countries.

"We will stand firmly against normalization [of ties] between the two countries in a variety of forms..."

Salafis represent a fundamentalist religious stream that seeks to create an Islamic state according to strict social codes and a legal system based entirely on Islamic law. The various Salafi parties have thus far been the biggest surprise of the Egyptian parliamentary elections, taking about 30 percent of votes to place second after the Muslim Brotherhood which garnered around 40%.

The announcement came a week after a spokesman for the group gave an interview to Army Radio, during which he said "the peace agreement with Israel will not be canceled."

Is that just talk for the time being while votes are yet being cast? We'll see. Besides, the Egyptian military may yet decide to de-rail the elections and take power their way. That would definitely create a situation in which the anti-Christ will need to invade Egypt.

One reason to believe that Zhirinovsky works for Putin secretly by appearing opposed to him at times is that he claimed recently to be opposed to having Russia enter the World Trade Organization (which Putin wants to enter), and then apologetically agreed to support Putin because Zhiro couldn't do anything about it anyway. From May 16, 2011:

A top Duma political leader caused shock waves in a recent television interview when he warned that Russia could deploy an arsenal of new technology to “destroy any part of the planet” and kill over a hundred million people using secret weather weapons if the United States, the UN or Georgia tried to stop Russia’s entry into the WTO.

...Saying that the American government in Washington DC had “no future” and would “collapse,” Zhirinovsky cited Russia’s supremacy in space and stated that the country had, “Lots of money, resources, and new weapons that no one knows about.” “With them we will destroy any part of the planet within 15 minutes,” he sensationally warned. “Not an explosion, not a ray burst, not some kind of laser, not lightning, but a quiet and peaceful weapon,” added Zhirinovsky, warning that “whole continents will be put to sleep forever” and that “120 million will die” if anyone interfered with Russia’s claim on the Kuril Islands...

Zhirinovsky also warned of a coming “third world war” emerging from the current turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa that would lead to the collapse of current global institutions like the EU and the WTO and the rise of a new international order led by Russia.

It's necessary for clowns to be real shakers and tumblers, eh? Otherwise no one would laugh. The problem is, he said these things while on the job as political leader, not at a pub with his nose red from whiskey. How could he say such a thing publicly while Putin holds the reigns of power? How are we to interpret such a claim? Perhaps he thought he was doing Putin a favor in scaring the West by a ridiculous method that Putin couldn't afford to apply. Does Putin need to take him back into the dog house to slap him silly to keep his mouth shut in the future?

If you'd like to revisit the 911 controversy, below is a starter video. It's supposedly live helicopter footage where the gaping hole in the first tower is shown for anyone to study. The woman speaking from the helicopter does not sound excited enough (i.e. as if not acting the part very well) when the second tower ignites. However, she was apparently speaking on the air with another woman not in the helicopter, and not heard. The second woman can be heard in another video to be featured below; she sounds more excited/horrified than the first woman, but even her initial, "Oh," sounds fake to me.

In the video above, as though the camera man knew the timing of the explosion, a zooming in begins toward the building already on fire, when, a fraction of a second before the other tower explodes, the camera turns slightly but distinctly toward it. Why? He/she didn't have any reason to do so unless it was known what was coming.

As soon as the woman is heard saying the final word of, "no doubt a lot of activity on the ground right now," a black missile/plane comes into view from the top-right corner. The woman in the helicopter mentions no plane coming in. There is no evidence in the camera positioning that the camera person saw the plane. I don't think there was a plane, which should explain why the helicopter is positioned on the opposite side of the building from which the "plane" hit. I do believe the explosions in the building were real, as shown.

The black object seems to disappear on it's descent toward the building as soon as it comes across the dark horizon line. The object then becomes visible at times, but ghost-like. It becomes more visible, as a dark/black blip, when crossing the small white buildings on the coast. Was this object added to the video by the 911 plotters to deceive us into believing that a plane did strike the building?

Some claim that there were planes, but that the passenger jets claimed by officials were not involved. They say that the planes/missiles that struck had to be erased from the footage released by the plotters, and passenger jets had to be added in. Could this explain why the object goes ghost-like i.e. impossible to make out its shape or model?

In any case, the plotters got more risky by providing plane footage of the same event in a close-up. That's where the plotters lost the credibility of a significant percentage of the world's population.

In the video below, clips of the video above are shown with far-less crispness (why?). In this case, the video comes from what's indicated to be a channel-4 station. However, the plane/missile coming across the white buildings, as seen in the video above, appears to be absent or removed. In the very first clip, and then in a close-up later in the video, some faint movement at the white-coastal buildings is yet noticeable, which at first seemed to me to be a computer effect from blocking the object from our view. With repeated study, however, the blur at the white/coastal buildings was found to appear a second or two before the object's arrival to those buildings (the object's timing can be pin-pointed by the words of the women). Moreover, there is no blur when the object is coming over the coastal buildings. I'm taking the position that this object was added by the 911 plotters, therefore, simply because there is evidence that the conspiracy theorists did not create it.

Nearing the midway mark of the video directly above, the same scene is shown that was discussed at the start of this discussion (where the channel-4 logo was not used because, I assume, it was the helicopter version of the video, not the television version). Seconds after the woman in the helicopter says, "no doubt a lot of activity on the ground right now," there is an object barely visible cutting across the white buildings on the coast. A small fraction of a second before the other woman goes on to say, "I assume," a faint dark streak is sometimes visible (depending on the angle of my screen) beyond the white buildings and flying smack into (not literally) the corner of the north tower.

One theory is that this video may have been wholly tampered with by the conspiracy theorists, who first added in the object to one video, then blocked the object out in another video version in order to provide (false) evidence that the plotters added the plane into the one version. But that's not logical because, if the live video started without a plane or object to begin with, there would have been no need for conspiracy theorists to blur/block it out. The conspiracy theorists would simply have shown the video without an object, which is what they did do (it just so happened that it had a blur, not necessarily suspicious).

In the close-up of the object (shown above), when it appears ghost-like, it seems at times to have no wings like those on a plane. Did the "conspiracy theorists" add the missile-like object? No, I don't think so.

The youtube video of the conspiracy theorists claims that no flying object appeared in the live telecast, and frankly I've got to agree with that because, if it were in the live telecast, many people would own the video to prove them wrong. Therefore, I'm taking the position that the object was not in the live telecast, and then added later by the plotters to make us believe that a plane came in to the towers.

In the following CNN interview, a conspiracy theorist lays it out exactly as I have concluded independent of his views. Something flew in, but not commercial passenger jets. I would add that, where a plane(s) did fly in, it/they didn't necessarily crash into the building(s).

The black object is seen clearly in the video below, taken from another camera that I don't know the owner(s) of. There is no or little indication to my eyes that the object has the wings of a plane. It could be a plane, I must admit, with wings not visible or easily visible.

In the video below, a Fox reporter, Mark Burnback is quoted as saying that the plane he saw crashing into the second/south building had no windows, suggesting a cargo or military plane. It's doubtful, therefore, that Mark is part of the plotters because he was, apparently anyway, contradicting their passenger-plane hijack version of events.

Mark's testimony could be interpreted as a contradiction to the claim of others that no plane at all could have entered the buildings apart from plane parts falling to the streets. But then Mark didn't say, so far as I know, that he witnessed the plane crashing into the building. It is my theory, furthermore, that Fox-news leadership (not necessarily all leaders) were partners with the plotters, and that leadership may have urged/coerced Mark to make the testimony in such a way as to say that a missile he saw was more of a plane. Mark may have seen a military plane (the one shooting a missile?) flying low for "witness" purposes.

In the video below, there is a flash of light, on or near the building's wall, a small second BEFORE the plane strikes it. That could indicate a missile, either from the plane itself or from elsewhere. The flash may be interpreted as, not the missile striking the building, but firing from the underside of the plane. However, with a plane smashing into the building, there should have been some aluminum-shell parts falling to the streets. Engines are heavy and may be expected to enter the building when traveling at aircraft speeds, but aluminum pieces in the process of being crunched and torn are light, and should not penetrate concrete or steel in its path, even when moving at 500 mph, much slower than a (relatively heavy-mass) bullet. That is, as a bullet cannot penetrate those steel beams, neither should pieces of aluminum.

Contrary to how it may appear, the video above is not necessarily taped live, but may have been a production before the event. Note that the fireman (in this proposed scenario, he's an actor) indicates a sound overhead, looks up and back for just a second but does not remain fixed on the sky when he should have due to the unusually low-flying plane. Instead, he quickly and TOO CASUALLY turns toward the camera man as if to indicate, "okay, my part's done, now it's your turn."

Why is the cameraman filming the fireman in the first place at that particular moment? Because the plotters want us to believe that a passenger plane struck the building, and so they arranged the event. If a plane truly did strike, everyone on the streets (i.e. not just the false witnesses provided by the plotters) would have heard it and turned toward it, in which case this fake film of the plane would have been unnecessary.

The cameraman -- who is supposed to have no idea in that first second where the plane will strike -- turns the camera a significant distance to the left, and quickly too -- as though he had rehearsed it several times -- DIRECTLY toward the twin towers...where the plane just happens to be in view, and positioned one second before impact. Lucky or rehearsed?

When one hears a plane in the sky directly overhead, it cannot be known, in the first second, exactly which direction it's flying in. The camera man, if he had not rehearsed, should have moved the camera around somewhat while seeking to find the plane. There was no such seeking. Instead, the camera goes directly from the fireman, and fixes exactly on the tower about to be struck. Obvious fakery.

In the scenario where there was no plane in reality, the flash of light at the building may have had nothing to do with a missile, but was not likely added into the video by conspiracy theorists, for too many others would possess copies of the video that could discredit the theorists (in this update, "conspiracy theorist" is not necessary a bad word).

The video above shows what appear to be four vivid missiles on the underside of a plane that struck the south tower, and yet the producers do not say that they are missiles, but point only to the dark area in the plane's mid-section. As the shot has been illuminated by computer enhancement, the missile-like areas may be reflections on the plane's round belly. The problem with the idea of missiles or fuel tanks on this particular plane's belly is that it requires the penetration of the building by the plane, and that's something I refuse to believe for the argument made above.

The flash may have been from an explosion inside the wall itself...that was part of the wing-like shape of destruction. But in order for this scenario to be true, renovations to set the explosives into the walls must have been performed. Much later below, the theory develops that these explosives were planted years in advance of 9-11.

In a third scenario with a bright flash and missile being the reality and taped live, but with no real plane, it would have required significant time in hours or days for plotters to insert the plane into the scene. It's known that the video was not fed to the world live because it belonged to a private French filming company.

Jack White (featured later below) mentions a plane, in take-off or landing, clipping a lamp post (event not related to 911) and losing part of its wing, killing everyone on board. How, then, could a plane smash into a building wall at a greater velocity than take-off or landing velocity -- a building wall much stronger than merely a lamp post -- and keep its wings on, straight through into the building??? I seriously doubt that planes went into the buildings, therefore.

In the video below, one can pause the plane's entry into the second tower just when the wings are supposedly midway through multiple steel beams. We're to believe that it's the beams that break (!!), not the wings that break and bend backward. Really?

One can pause the video when the plane is fully inside the building. Be witness, therefore, of not one piece of aluminum remaining on the outside.

Then pause it once again as fire begins to explode simultaneously on three walls of the building, as though explosives are planted in the walls...perhaps to weaken the building in preparation for the full take-down not long afterward. The first two walls to light on fire DO NOT include the wall penetrated by the plane. Shouldn't the fuel have exploded upon impact with that wall??? Yes, but if they arranged it that way, they wouldn't have had the excuse for exploding the others walls too.

The video below says that the plane striking the first/north tower was the only shot of that plane. It also tells that a French film-making company, the Naudet brothers, happened to be filming the firefighters that morning. Later in the video, George Bush is featured, heard telling the world that, while in Florida that 911 morning, he saw the first plane on television striking the building (he was at a school 10 minutes after the first tower burst into smoke, and may therefore have been in his limo when the tower exploded). But THE PROBLEM IS (I should be SCREAMING): there was NO LIVE FEED of the only video of that plane, for the video belonged to the French film-making company (Jules and Gedeon Naudet) and could not have been shown to the world live. Now you know that George Bush is a liar (he saw no plane), that he's no born-again Christian, and that he's part of the hideous attacks...that should never be shown with elevator music playing along.

Here's the French Naud/Naudet Coat, showing the same ship as the French Durant ship. The Naudets may therefore have been from the raven-depicted vikings traced to Canute/Cnut...and Notting-like surnames developing from him. Naughtons come to mind too. Later in this update, a Chestnut surname crops up that can be traced to Canute elements too.

The video below claims that there was an explosion or bright spot in the wall of the second tower the instant BEFORE the plane's nose began to enter. As with the plane in the first building, the bright spot is directly where the nose enters. The conclusion is that, once again, a missile, from the plane itself, was shot into the building during the plane's approach. The problem is, the bright spot in this second case is not low enough, and it's too close to the nose, to have come from a missile on the plane's underbelly.

As the first-tower video was not live, the flash could have been added to the video, though I see no purpose in doing so. I would rather argue that the planes were added in, and positioned exactly where the flashes went off? In this theory, the computer artists decided to leave the flash in the shot that was part of the reality.

It's possible that missiles were shot remotely into the building, producing a flash each where they entered, wherefore any media videos fed to the world live on 911 would have shown the bright spots. However, the bright spots appear only where planes enter the buildings (i.e. faked videos, in the opinion of many), in videos that were not shared live. I have grave doubts that, if the flashes were produced by missiles, that the computer artists (of the plotters) would have been directed to leave them in. Too risky; we might catch on. In other words, I'm leaning toward the idea that the flashes were created by in-wall explosives.

But then why were the two flashes left in at all? The timing of a faked plane could have been arranged to arrive at the flash point just before the flash went off, and the plane's nose could have been placed entirely over the flash to hide it. However, the gouges in the wall, where wings supposedly entered, needed to be produced by their own in-wall explosions. It would then have become necessary to bring the fake plane in to such a position as to match the gouges in the wall with its wings, in which case it was not possible to cover the entire flash (to the right of the nose) with the nose.

In the slow-motion video below, with an excellent view of the plane's entry into the second tower, try to imagine the scene apart from an airplane doing the damage, and ask what, if any, of the smoke and debris was added to hide explosions and/or flashes along the gouge. The engines can be seen to make holes in the wall all their own, and it might be that there may have been attempts to blast the two holes (in an inside-the-wall job) for the engines so that the fake plane had to be positioned just so. Jack White (photography expert that I trust) says that this was a fake plane with entry created by computer animation (his photo analysis on twin-tower videos has not yet come online; watch your back, Jack).

Did you see the two puffs of smoke where the engines entered the wall??? They may have been created by in-wall explosives, or they may have been added by computer. Jack might like to decide this matter.

Clearly, the central flash went off before debris/smoke appears along the gouge. It suggests that the central flash was pre-set to go off before the gouge was created by other explosives. It would have been a larger explosive because its job was to create a wider hole.

If a remote missile caused the flash, it would have been necessary to fire it through precisely where the nose had to be positioned, far too risky. What if the missile missed its central target by 20 or 30 feet? It would have ruined the fraudulent event without remedy.

The flash may have been left in, even though it couldn't be aligned perfectly with the nose, because the computer artists working on this particular project (the most-important project called for the best / most-experienced artists) were afraid to cover anything lest someone with skill could discover it. It may therefore have been decided to leave the flash in, and imply that the nose caused it.

After the wings in the video above have penetrated the building, a third puff of white smoke can be seen exactly where the central flash had been, to the right of the nose. The fourth puff of white smoke to appear is at the very tip of the right wing. It appears simultaneously with a puff below it but not along the gouge. My impression is that these two puffs were added by the artist because I don't expect an explosion outside the gouge. The artist was working with a premise to create explosions from jet fuel inside the rooms.

By the time that the forth puff appears, the left-wing part of the gouge already has grey/black smoke. That side continues to grow dark smoke while the right side shows more white smoke. We might wonder why the two colors, and the answer could be two different artists, both commissioned to create smoke, working in different places and not communicating with one another. If that doesn't sound correct, perhaps the black smoke is the original, and all white smoke was added. Best thing to do is wait for Jack's analysis.

If you look closely above the right wing directly above the engine, a flash or white marking appears just before the wing enters the building. I can't explain it.

The video below is a mystery for me. First, the plane is fuzzy, suspect for that reason. There's a black object moving with the plane, seen first in front of the plane's tail, and a split-second later behind the tail as the plane hits. While the plane remains inside the building, the black object penetrates and continues to move past the building. It exits significantly higher than when it entered, and then does a slight curve toward the ground as though losing sufficient velocity to do so. This all suggests that it struck something (i.e. the walls, for starters) to deflect it up, and slow it down.

The black object appears to our view at the plane's mid-section. If it originated from the underbelly and dropped by the plane, it would be moving the same velocity and therefore would not be first seen in front of, and then behind, the plane's tail. One explanation, if the object was part of reality at all, is that it's a missile coming in on a sharper angle/curve (i.e. more toward the viewer/camera) than the plane. Recall the ghostly object that started off black, that was indeed coming in on the tower with a curve.

My problem is, if the plane was added, why wouldn't the plotters have removed the black object if it was a part of their reality...that no one is supposed to know about? Following this reasoning, it seems that the object was added by conspiracy theorists (perhaps out to get Bush with some fake videos of their own).

In the next video (you might want to turn disturbing volume down), a white flash (in the shape of a line, you'll need to be sharp to see it, and the angle of your laptop screen might need a change), lasting no longer than quick lightning, appears horizontally from the far-center left and extends to the dark bit of black smoke near the closest tower. The white line/trail also extends to the right of the other tower. The video producers seem to imply by their red line that the white trail was from an object moving the buildings and the camera, but I see the white line going behind the buildings. Checking, the line turns out to be in the direct line of flight of the airplane, though appearing only seconds after impact. The flash can be seen just after the man says, "no don't touch it," and a tiny fraction of a second before the woman begins to say, "oh my God."

My suspicion is that the production team got sloppy, failing to remove the airplane's exhaust trail from perhaps a single frame of video. This suggests to me that the plane was directed to fly by the twin buildings while someone taped it with a camera. The computer artists would do the rest to make it appear that the plane went into the building. Yes, that now is making much sense, but the plane wasn't doing the fly-by on 911, but earlier. If this is true, the persons heard in the video are either actors, or the sound was borrowed from some other event.

At the end of the video, the small black object shooting across the sky looks too much like an all-seeing-eye to not be, acting as the signature of the true perpetrators of the crime.

What are the chances that, in reality, a devil's face would appear in the smoke as the second tower explodes? True, we can watch a string of smoke-filled explosions of any kind until a face-like image of some sort appears, but we won't find such a face in all of them. Look at how crisp the face is below, and how it's of a common devil image known to us all. We're expecting the devil's face here in a destructive string of acts by callous fools within the Illuminati.

One can also produce false witnesses claiming that planes did hit. In some video footage, as for example the one below, it sounds like a commercial to convince America to pay for a war.

A BBC anchor woman (Jane Standley) announced on that 9-11 day that a third tower, building 7 (beside the twin towers), had collapsed roughly a half hour before it actually did collapse. CNN and FOX reported likewise, as though there was a scheduled time for its collapse, with the plan being to have major media report it at a certain time (i.e. something went wrong and it was reported before the scheduled take-down). BBC removed that telecast from its archives, but nonetheless someone found it somehow several years later. An online story was done on it. Here is one offering of the newscast:

The anchorman you see above denied that he was working in the studio on 9/11, but when a copy of the telecast was presented to him during an interview, suddenly he had his memory back and confessed that he was working on the show that day. He was obviously lying previously (because he couldn't possibly have forgotten something like where he was on that day). Why had he been lying? Because he knew that BBC had removed the telecast from its archives; he was thereby sure that hardly anyone would be able to prove that he was doing the show.

Why was BBC so afraid of that telecast being found if the building-7 report was merely an error based on an incorrect or fabricated report that BBC had received by phone, fax, or email?

One conceivable reason to remove the telecast from the archives altogether (very risky because it's very suspicious to begin with), and for the anchorman to lie as he did (probably fed others the same lie wherever he went), is due to BBC's involvement in the plot. Why not? Why would this be too fantastic to be true? If we all agree that media are controlled, why shouldn't it be controlled by power-hungry fiends?

In the video below, the anchor woman claims that building 7 would inevitably go down. Soon after, it collapses while her camera covers it (why the bad image of the collapse?). But no building anywhere has ever collapsed due to fire. Building 7 did not receive any aircraft fuel, nor any shocks like that of the twin towers. Why would anyone predict its going down imminently? Because, someones knew that a controlled demolition had been prepared. As the major media did not emphasize this story nor have talking heads to discuss it, you know the major media is controlled by insolent and twisted souls seeking to suck our veins dry of blood if they can achieve it at a financial profit.

There must have been a reason that building 7 had to go down, and my understanding is that the nation's security people had their offices in there. In other words, much evidence to catch and condemn the perpetrators -- peoples working in the above offices -- was in that building's computer systems and other files. It would have appeared far too suspicious -- to the staff not privy to the plot, for example -- to suddenly remove many computers and have them destroyed and replaced. Best thing to do: bring the entire building down, and maybe kill some of the plotters inside it...who didn't always look very happy to be part of the scheme. We wonder how many plotters and fellow agents were murdered that day one way or the other in order to keep them quiet just in case.

Later below, Jack White will show you the planned destruction by internal explosion of WTC building 6, which you may never have heard about in the media. I didn't learn of it until this update.

The video below has the "owner" of the World Trade Center, with Hebrew surname (SilverSTEIN), looking like he's as guilty as sin. He purchased the lease of the buildings just before they fell, and arranged for an insurance policy to cover them for terrorists acts. As he won a $7-billion insurance policy after the destruction, it seems that even the judge and court system was pre-arranged to this end by the diabolical plotters.

AMERICA! How can you allow yourselves to soak this up from these destroyers? George Bush did not snatch the ability to spy on you to keep American Arabs in check, but to monitor the rise of common Americans who might expose the 911 plotters. You are not as alone as you fear. More than half the American military should have sense enough to stand up for the people rather than for such agents of darkness. The level of end-times persecution will depend on the loyalty of the military to the Illuminati. While the Illuminati may have the bulk of military leaders, they don't have the hearts of all the fighters. Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to perpetrators of 911 even when the latter are discovered to be parts of their own government, security, and military peoples. This war against the American peoples is only just beginning. The perpetrators haven't got much time one way or another. The military understands who they are more than you realize, more than the perpetrators realize. There are peoples the country over who have their eyes on them to repay them, to destroy them, at an opportune time. Expect it.

I now claim that the Illuminati in charge of America at this time seems to be from the circle of Nazis proper, who not only could care less for Americans and their country, but they corrupt its morals and seek vengeance for what the country did to Hitler's prospects for global rule.

The senior George Bush, while he was president, came before the American people asking them to serve the "rule of law" and "visions" (his words) belonging to the "UN's founders" (his phrase), and their "new world order" (Bush's phrase). Clearly, even in the tone of his words (see below), Bush was asking Americans to serve a foreign law from peoples who may or may not have been American citizens. Yet, Christians played the key hand in electing his son, and this Bush Jr played a key role in taking down the lives of tens of thousands of Americans on behalf of a new world order that is clearly a monster from the darkest jungles of humanity. You are electing and empowering your own destroyers, and they will enjoy raping you all the more under such circumstances.

The video below (showing a strange UFO at the twin towers while they burned) says that "BBC used Fox video on 911". That tends to make Fox news the leader amongst the media that's in cahoots with the plotters. Fox news is by far most-applicable to the phrase, "wolf in sheep's clothing." It seeks your support, Christian.

For the serious researcher, the video says that more info is available by googling 911 Television news archives."

None of the 911 videos shown above are by any means close to the bulk of material that was made available online to prove the hoax. In the video below, one can hear a false witness, or so the video producers claim. I had not come to this topic when in the last update the Hayer surname became large as per traces to mythical Haik/Hayk. The second cover story in this video features a Bush insider with Hauer surname expectedly pegging Osama bin Laden as the perpetrator. All the media pegged Osama bin Laden on the very first day, which only makes the crimes of the real perpetrators more gross because they framed others for their own bloody deeds.

I don't recall seeing the German Hauer/Heyer Coat before (in the colors of the Hower/Howard Coat). It uses the same lion type as the Holder Coat, which is itself too much like the Randolph Coat to be ignored (i.e. Obama is a Randolph). Obama chose Eric Holder as his attorney general.

We can know that some Pentagon officials were complicit with the plot (i.e. murderers of their own fellow workers) because the round hole in the Pentagon wall had no wing shape, and a CNN reporter (who was obviously not part of the plotters) reported (see video below) no large plane parts, and no wing parts, at the scene (Jack White later shows that much debris on the Pentagon lawn was added, after the 911 event, into the official photos released by the Department of Defense). Shouldn't the heavy engines of a plane have smashed into the Pentagon wall on both sides of the hole formed by the nose? Therefore, why do Pentagon officials maintain that a plane struck the building? Because they were either complicit, or, if not, they're going with the official version for fear of losing their jobs, family members, or lives.

The video above shows the hole in the Pentagon wall, hardly large enough for a passenger jet. Perhaps the missile that was sent into the building was calculated wrongly to blow open a larger hole. Imagine the American military shooting a missile into its own headquarters. If the military was not complicit, you can be sure that the military would have reacted far differently. As it was, there was a cover-up and much deception at the Pentagon lawn. There must have been multiple security cameras that would have caught the plane coming in, but the fact that acquiring the security video (from the Pentagon) was like pulling teeth, it tells the true story. One would think that, had the Pentagon nothing to hide, the security video would have been given up to further justify its war on al-Qaeda.

The following webpage is very informative, and includes this: "The size of a Boeing 757 is approximately 125ft in width and yet images of the impact zone at the Pentagon supposedly caused by the crash merely show a hole no more than 16ft in diameter [others say more like 18 feet]. The engines of the 757 would have punctured a hole bigger than this, never mind the whole plane."

The people of America ought to go to war, I agree, but they ought to go to war against the demonic men and women who carried out this brutal destruction. I can assure you that God will expose the plot for what it was, sooner or later. But the anti-Christ system must be Permitted to carry on and build its guilt until the Last Day. The people in the building who were burned to death may have died quickly, but the fires of hell reserved for the plotters will carry on in their souls like anguish knowing no pity. There will be Vengeance.

For two firetrucks at the Pentagon on 911, the men of which were not part of the plot, and for their photos revealing the pristine Pentagon lawn that day, see Jack White's pages 42-44, and read page 44!!! Compare that lawn to the faked lawn debris starting at page 65.

It was Jack White's photography expertise that convinced me 100 percent that the moon-landing pictures (see link at the bottom of this update) were faked largely by cut-and-paste photographic processes, and it's his expertise now able to convince you that cut-and-paste was use by the 911 schemers. You can discover this by reading at least to page six, starting at the webpage below. (If you click on "next page" while at Jack's pages, and nothing happens, go to the very bottom of the page for the real next-page button.)

Page 17 is a good example of faked photography. As the authorities were providing the pictures that Jack exposes, what other pictures were they altering? Why not also the videos on the Trade Center towers? It's very easy to alter them.

For comment on a downed telephone post in pristine condition, though hit by a plane's wing supposedly crashing into the Pentagon, see page 40.

Page 49 is also a good read telling that, after the two fire trucks put out all the minor fires, someone(s) kept lighting them up again for days afterward, for effect on the public mind. On page 98, it's told that the same firemen saw (and put out) the main fire/smoke coming from inside a dumpster, which again can be assumed to be for effect on passers by: an effect for faking a serious incident in a safe and very unsophisticated manner.

My wonder is why Jack doesn't use his evidence to take some key Pentagon peoples to court to put them away for life. Jack reveals many false witnesses posing for pictures on behalf of the murderous plotters. How can this all be? What organization on earth could muster such a thing? Only the Masonic "brotherhood." The demented, the sick, active in a power structure near you, wearing lamb's clothing.

Thank you Jack for all the terribly hard work; we can tell that you enjoyed most of it. Twin-tower comments start on page 109, though for several pages, starting on 116, Jack reports on something that I've not yet heard about, a massive explosion blowing out the center and front of building 6 (Customs House), occurring about the time that the south tower exploded. How many people were murdered in that building that few in the country know anything about??? Jack's report on building 7 starts at page 124; however, he has yet to report on it as of the date of this Iraq update.

Anyone, if you're thinking to use the internet to oppose the demons in humanitarian clothing, know that they have the moral deficiencies and personality disorders to murder you, and that if they can't get you, they might go for your kin. Make sure you have plans to protect yourself, even though these authorities operate unethically and at times great risks to themselves, and quite stupidly so. Consider how stupidly risky the 911 plotters were, saved thus far only by the sheer numbers of fellow "brothers" planted in the nation's legal, government, and military establishments.

If I wished to pursue my case, I could probably arrange to do some major damage to the Homeland Security officers that arrested me on a false criminal charge. I was saved from perhaps a lengthy prison term by the security camera (at the alleged scene of my assault) that could prove my innocence. My initial "crime" was raising my voice at one of the leading officers, though I was arrested after several hours during which his office went through my vehicle, where my computer sat. There was nothing in the computer of a nature suggesting criminal activity (which is why they used a false charge to arrest me), but my files on the tribwatch and Ladon books (both books oppose the Illuminati) were in there.

Perhaps God permitted me to have a taste of what these authorities are like so that I can share it with you, and to realize how careful we need to be in the future persecution. If I give more details on what happened to me, any Illuminatist agent assigned to my case for discovering my home address might be able to find which homeland security officers had dealt with me (the latter know my surname and one of my home addresses).

I launched a civil law suit (the judge in the trumped-charge case forced me to agree not to launch a criminal suit if I wanted to be released that day) against the Homeland Security office because they had committed a gross crime in arresting an innocent person on a false charge. After receiving a strange visit with a strange request from a stranger, I figured they were moving in. The law suit was allowed to go dead. I'm still alive. I assure you that, ever since my conversion to Christ more than 30 years ago, I have become a complete "angel" with no aversion nor desire to commit any crime or harm any human being...though I do detest the endless crimes and manipulations of Illuminatists. I sometimes have the zealous nature to speak out against wrongs in my midst.

In the video below, an American claims to possess FEMA video footage proving 911 to be faked, and he's wanted by Colorado and U.S. authorities (not necessarily 911-related Illuminatists) for committing a gun-shot murder of his wife (who knew too much?). Argentina is currently protecting him. His name is Kurt Sonnenfeld.

Wikipedia: "[Sonnenfeld] claims that these recorded images will provide evidence about the nature of the Collapse of the World Trade Center when scrutinized by 'experts.' As of August, 2010, he is seeking such experts to review his footage."

As Sonnenfeld and his associates at FEMA were the only ones permitted to record the WTC after the destruction, there is a good chance that Sonnenfeld was in cahoots with the at least keep the secret. Or, FEMA officials were in charge of overseeing the Sonnenfeld team, to assure that nothing taped could be used to harm the plotters of the disaster.

"On June 14, 2002, prosecutors dismissed first-degree murder charges against Sonnenfeld in the early New Year's morning shooting death of his wife [hmm, it's January 1, 2012, as I write here]....Prosecutors wouldn't comment on specific reasons for the dismissal..." I doubt very much that his wife shot herself (murder story here). I'm thinking that his release may have been due to pressure applied on the state by the "brotherhood." It's highly unlikely that the 911 plotters had her killed to frame him because there was a suicide note written, reportedly, in the dead woman's handwriting. Prosecutors suggested that the case was dismissed due to finding her suicide note, but as the case was dismissed the day before the trial, how could the suicide note (probably fraudulent) not have been entered as evidence from the start of the investigation?,Kurt.shtml

The page above claims that the footage and still-shot photos from the FEMA team was passed on to CNN. It was here that the plotters needed to assure that only certain material got passed on. Ask why other camera teams from different organizations were not permitted to capture the wreckage on record??? Sonnenfeld said: "Any other cameras that were within that [ground-zero] area would have been confiscated and the person carrying them arrested."

As official videographer for the U.S. government, Kurt Sonnenfeld was detailed to Ground Zero on September 11, 2001, where he spent one month filming 29 tapes... He never handed them over to the authorities and has been persecuted ever since. Kurt Sonnenfeld lives in exile in Argentina, where he wrote El Perseguido (the persecuted). His recently-published book tells the story of his unending nightmare and drives another nail into the coffin of the government's account of the 9/11 events."

When interviewed by an Argentina press, Sonnenfeld says:

At that point I realised that they were after something else: the tapes of ground zero in my possession.

...What I saw at certain moments and in certain very frightening, I don't know how to put it in words, what I saw leads me to the terrible conclusion that there was foreknowledge of what was going to happen. The precautions that were taken to save certain things that the authorities there considered irreplaceable or invaluable...

...Several offices of the US intelligence agencies were located in the WTC, including the second most important CIA building in the country. From some of these locations certain documentation that was irreplaceable was removed. I don't want to give too many details because our future, our lives, depend on this."

It sounds a little like fancy-footwork to me, but it does seem that the U.S. government, that of Obama's, wants his videos...which Sonnenfeld had hidden neatly in his house at Colorado and later shipped to Argentina.

In the webpage below, Sonnenfeld is said to be one of the two men who spied on Tom-Scott Gordon in various cities. Gordon supposedly holds the evidence that the 911 scheme was in effect from prior to 1986/87. Gordon's implication seems to be that the two men were agents of the 911 plotters.

Is Sonnenfeld withholding the video evidence to protect himself by sending the Illuminati the message, "back off, or else I'll expose"? Those responsible for the 911 plot are weakening at the seams, and their mettle is becoming softer, because there are disgruntled fellow plotters still alive who may expose them at any moment. Shudder, Illuminatists, at what you have done, for there is an All-Seeing-Eye in the Sky who saw every frightful face and spattering of blood from the crushing debris. Shake in your frames, Illuminatists, for it's your turn now, after all of your celebrations.

On the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 [this was very recent, in other words, just months ago]...a Little Rock, Arkansas architectural photographer, Tom-Scott Gordon provided what is possibly the most important testimony evidencing 911 was orchestrated by U.S. officials who indirectly hired him to unwittingly help plan the attack nine years before the operation was activated. Since then, Gordon became a targeted individual by U.S. officials and a leading 911 Truth group dismissed his testimony.

"As soon as I learned the North Tower had been hit, all I could think of was that I had personally seen the faces of those directly in charge of this operation," Gordon said this weekend in an exclusive interview with the Examiner...

...The two men [whom Gordon claims were spying on him], FEMA's Denver-based Region 8 Deputy Public Affairs Officer Jim Chestnutt and Public Affairs Officer Kurt Sonnenfeld, had been assigned the job of photographing the WTC after the mass murders there according to TV Technology News.

...The only crew at Ground Zero were Chestnut, Sonnenfeld plus two still photographers, Andrea Booher and Michael Rieger. [the Booher surname sounds Bauer-ish, and is said to be a variation of "Buhr" and "Bauer"; here's the Rieger Coat (stork on a green mound), surname first found in Bavaria]...

...[Gordon] asked Jim Chestnut point-blank; 'Why were you two assigned to shadow me in New York, Denver and now, here in LA?'"

"Chestnut said, 'This interview is over,' while Kurt Sonnenfeld turned for the door and they both quickly left.

After 911, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) quickly developed an early explanation of the collapses, that had become known as the "pancake" theory. It completed its WTC performance study in May 2002, declaring the "WTC design had been sound, and attributed the collapses wholly to extraordinary factors beyond the control of the builders." (Wikipedia)

Gordon believes the most important thing he saw on the job was the FBI clearing out every important record in Skilling's offices in Tower 1 in 1989 [i.e. he is laying blame for 911 on authorities back in 1989. George Bush Sr. was the president then].

...Jonathan Mark, editor of Flyby News, commented on Wednesday [September 14, 2011, I'm assuming] that the experience of Tom Scott Gordon "shows why the initiative introduced by Senator Mike Gravel, Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign is so important." (See:

"With a new authoritative investigation, witnesses denied access to the so-called official 9/11 Commission Report, could step forward in a real Hearing with Grand Jury Powers to provide testimony to what really happened."

Shudder, 911 plotters, from the cold, hard steel that you may need to relate to from your prison cells. Those bars will be your company in your many long moments of tormenting mental distress. And once out of prison, there will be the Prison of God to deal with, hotter, Americans hope, than jet fuel, and more crushing, Americans hope, to your skulls than thousands of toms of concrete and steel.

Gorden claims that the World Trade Center was built initially with the purpose of soon taking its buildings down, which is not in my mind out of the question, tending to imply, furthermore, that the take-down of the towers may not have required major renovations (for take-down purposes) shortly before 911. One idea, which at the moment seems far-fetched, is that the complex was built with in-wall explosives the purpose of which was to later create the excuse to invade the Middle East and force it's conversion to Western globalism. Or, the renovations may have been conducted in the 1980's; some evidence for that may be further below where Gordon speaks on the re-drilling of bolt holds on more than a dozen floors.

"My testimony explains that detailed plans to implode the Twin Towers were completed by 1987," Gordon said [George Bush Sr. was vice-president then, and elected president in the following year].

"My photo partner, Bill Charles, and I watched as Building #7 was being 'wired' by a secondary team after the steel framing was first completed.

But Gordon fails to mention what was wrong or suspicious about that wiring. Was it electrical wiring, or wiring for explosives? Thus far, his is the best explanation I've heard of for producing the take-downs of those buildings, because entering the buildings to implant explosives shortly before 9-11 could have been a suspicious and conspicuous difficulty. It just never occurred to me that the buildings may have been commissioned by Bush Sr. with the intend of pre-wiring them for destruction.

The two men that Gordon accuses as spies have the surnames, Chestnut and Sonnenfeld. The Chestnut Coat smacks (i.e. uses the same-colored chevron) of the Cheynu/Cheynut/Chanut Coat, and "Chestnut" smacks of the Chaine/Chaney/Chesne surname (using Masci wing) that has been featured in the last several Iraq updates as being anti-Christ important. I did not know of FEMA's Chestnutt character above until January 1, 2012.

There is a "Jewish" Gordon surname, and as the man under discussion uses the name Tom-Scott Gordon (I've never seen a first name hyphenated like that), have another look at the Coats of the Scott surnames...that I identified as Meschin-related Talbots. Scottish Gordons were first found in bear-depicted Berwickshire, home of Bernicians whom I trace to the Bavarian bear.

The Scott surnames were first found in Roxburghshire, where Kelso was located. The Gordon write-up: "The first Gordon on record was Richer de Gordum, lord of the Barony of Gordon in the Merse, who granted a piece of land and the church of St. Michael between the years 1150-1180, to the monks of Kelso." RICHER de Gordum? Didn't we just see a Booher and Rieger team at the 911 site??? Entering "Richer" gets what looks like a version of the Scott Coat...with Bauer-colored stars.

The Chestnut write-up: "Huguenot surnames...First found in Touraine in France, where [Chestnuts] were Lords of Breaux, Montay and la Doucinier, where they held a family seat for many centuries. Conjecturally, the Chestnuts were derived from this source, as we shall see. The Chesneaus were known as the Chesneau (du) de la Haugreniere and had branches in Maine and Lorraine. Guillame (William) Chesneau was Chamberlayn to King Charles VII of France. The family fled France when the revocation of the Edict of Nantes was effected in 1685, disallowing protestants the right to worship." The Corbins/Corbetts (ravens) have this write-up: "The distinguished surname Corbin was first found in Touraine, where the family was established in a seigniory, erected in 1331 for de Preaux." Compare "Preaux" (gets the Dupres/Duprey surname) with "Breaux" above.

The Chestnut Coat is filled with pellets, suggesting that the Pellet surname (same chevron as Chestnut Coat) is kin to it. The Pellet Coat uses the grails (in Shaw-grail colors) that had been linked to the English Pilatte/Pilette grails. Can we therefore trace Mr. Chestnut to the Pontius-Pilate line of Romans, and to the end-time line of Sadducees? Haven't the past several updates suggested strongly that the Masonic Illuminati was an amalgamation of several lines involved in the traitorous murder of Jesus Christ...that required false witnesses and trumped charges against one outspoken Jesus? Are we now finding the same lines involved in the 911 plots??? Should it really surprise us?

The surnames above are all easily linked to the Sinclair Rus, and then while entering "Sun" brings up the Sinclair Coat, entering "Sonnen" gets suns on a Shield smacking of the Meschin Shield (Meschins were from Sinclairs). Note that Sonnens use a Soming variation, for the Sonns/Soams (hammers / martels) use a single chevron in colors reversed to the Clare triple-chevron, and were first found in Suffolk, where Clares were first found.

Moreover, as Dutch BURGs also used the Clare triple chevron, while the "Committ" motto term of Sinclairs is code for the Burgo > Conteville line to Hugh Lupus and Ranulf le Meschin, note that Sonnens were first found in BERKshire while French Pilates and Chenus/Chanuts were first found in BURGundy.

The falcon (on a "hawk's lure") in the Sonn/Soam Crest is used by Naughtens (first found in County Clare!), themselves suspect as kin to Naudets, the latter surname being found earlier in this update as per the French filming crew suspect as plotters in the 911 attack. Naughtons (also "Norton") are traced in their write-up to Aeneas Lally, suggesting the mythical-Aeneas line of Romans.

A hawk's lure (part code for the Lure surname) is used also by the CHEShire Coat, and it should prove true that "Chesne(au)" is a Cheshire element. I don't forget what God has led me to believe, that my hunt is for mouse and cheese elements in the Masci / Massey bloodline of Cheshire. I failed to realize the importance of the cheese symbol until a recent update, and until now I don't think I have realized that cheese-like surnames (some said to be from cheese makers) trace to "Cheshire."

By what coincidences are they that:

1) I trace the garb used in the Arms of Cheshire to the garb in the Arms of Gascony;
2) the French Martel surname was first found in Gascony;
3) the French Martels use the hammer design of the Sonn/Soam Coat;
4) French Martels use the crown design of German Kaisers/Keysers/Keisers;
5) the latter use variations much like the list of Cheshire-surname variations;
6) Cheshires and English Martels were first found in the same place, Essex;
7) I tend to trace both "Ches" and "Essex" to "Hesse" in Germany
8) Both the Germo-Austrian Hesse and Sonnen Coats use a sun;
9)English Martels use the same hammers / martels, in colors reversed, from the Sonns/Soams;
10) the latter use the hawk's lure, as do Cheshires;
11) the Hessler variation of Germo-Austrian Hesse's smacks of "Kaisler" which brings up the Germo-Austrian Keiser Coat (shown earlier) with Martel crown in Sonn/Soam-hammer colors;
12) the Cheese/Cheser surname smacks of Keisers and uses the same lion as Italian Ferraris, suspect over many of the last Iraq updates as a Pharisee bloodline;
13) I tend to trace both hammer symbols and Mascis of Cheshire to Maccabee blood;
14) the Germo-Austrian Hammer surname might user a version of the Ferrari / Cheser lion;
15) the Herod/Hurl Crest uses a hawk's lure.
16) septs of McLeods include the surnames of Lure, Herod, many Hurl-like, some Kais-using, and (Mac)Abee
17) MacAbees use the colors of English Hammers (see also "Hamar").

The video below is a treatment on why there was no Pentagon attack. There was a plane that day, according to random witnesses asked by Truthers, but the plane flew, not only over the Pentagon, but did not fly in the path of the downed lamp posts.

Going back to the Preaux location of the Corbins/Corbetts (one branch of the latter uses the elephant suspect as an Esau line), note that the Preaux Coat is the same bar/bend as the Champagne Coat (not to re-mention the bend of Hesse-related Chattans and Chatans), for while the Preaux surname is shown properly as "Dupres/Dupray," the Payen surname is supposedly the same as the Dupuy surname. Hugh de Payen (first grand master of some fiendish wolves in lamb's clothing) not only had some ChamPAGNE elements that were Templar-important, but the Payen/PAGAN Coat once again shows the chevron in the colors of the Chestnut and Chanut chevrons.

The Preaux/Dupray surname was first found in Auvergne, where the Bouillon surname was first found that also had a part in founding the lamb-like Templars...who helped massacre inhabitants of Jerusalem on behalf of their god, satan.

In the last update, the Shand-using variations of Chaines/Cheneys/Chandes was emphasized, and so see some variations of the Champagne surname: CHANpagne, CHENpagne, SHANpagn, and SHENpagne. As the white Masci wing is used on blue by Chaines/Cheneys, it may explain why Maceys / Mackays use the white-on-blue colors of the Champagnes (who use the Arms of Champagne) and Shands/Chands. We don't forget here, while asking whether Jim Chestnutt and/or Kurt Sonnenfeld are guilty in the 911 plot, that Dick Cheney had official command of NORAD (= airforce defense) on that 9-11 day (and for three months afterward), meaning that no one but Dick Cheney had the ability to order fighter jets to the 9-11 disaster. According to assessments of others, Dick Cheney took his sweet time, as did George Bush at the school he was visiting, to direct the air force to oversee the disaster.

At Wikipedia's NORAD article: "...NORAD is sometimes referred to as Cheyenne Mountain."

Let's go back to he Chestnut write-up: "First found in Touraine in France, where [Chestnuts] were Lords of Breaux, Montay and la Doucinier..." The Shand/Chand motto not only uses the "COMITE" motto term, but a "duce" motto term perhaps code for Doucinier elements.

The Naudet surname, first found in Champagne. The Nault and Neault variations of Naudets may link to stag-using MacNultys (of "Ulster" elements), or even to stag-using Noels (and therefore to Nobels / Knobels mentioned in the last update). Both Noels and English Champagnes use "cantons" in the top corners of their Coats. Noels not only use lattice in Sonn/Soam colors but show a "suum" motto term. It just so happens that French Noels use a Coat much like that of French Contes/COMITEs', while English Contes/Comitissas use antlers.

MacNultys use a green-on-white mound, as do Scottish Montays/Monts who use the Dupuy lion. Dupuys were first found in the same place (Languedoc) as Contes/Comites'. The Duce/Deuce(t) Coat uses lions in the same colors, and was first found in the same place (Staffordshire) as Noels. The Duce lion design is used by the English Stormy/Esturmy Coat (I suspected that FE's tip on that Coat would one day prove important) while the French Stur/Esturmy surname was first found in Tourlaville...smacking of Touraine! (It suggests that the Doucinier location of Touraine's Chestnuts/Chesneaus links to the Duce/Deuce surname.)

The Montay and MacNulty lions above are used by the Leys/Lighs/Leghs -- Ligurians -- and then the Naudet ship is that of the Durants that trace to the Durance river upon which lived the Salyes Ligurians. I trace Salyes to Sales-of-Masci, and then the Cheyney/Chainie/Cheney Coat (not the Chaine/Cheney Coat using the Masci wing) uses the same bar/bend as the Sale Coat.

This is your Templar-based Illuminati, world, that God (I think) has led me to report on, which will produce the False Prophet and/or anti-Christ.

What the world needs is a whistle blower whom God will protect and support. Is Tom-Scott Gordon that man:

It may interest the American people that this man has filed an affidavit with the world court regarding the 9-11 bombing.

Gordon speaking:

"The destruction of the World Trade Center, as witnessed on September 11th, 2001, was the result of an elaborately planned, Controlled Demolition." This is the conclusion of thousands of witnesses and hundreds of forensics experts. Given due consideration, these findings imply, that *US MILITARY* personnel are responsible for crimes that led to the murder of an estimated 3,000 innocent Americans [doesn't include WTC building 6 or the Iraq / Afghanistan wars].

As a living witness to these actions, as I have described herein, I do hereby officially charge those responsible, both for the execution, and for the '9/11 cover-up,' with the crimes of: Conspiracy, Treason, Genocide and Murder. Additional criminal charges also apply. Complete legal deposition document filed with the Hague War-crimes division can be seen and read at this site: See additional notes."

...It may interest you to know that this link was posted in a Venezuelan internet newslink several days ago...

Was Gordon's purpose (perhaps sole purpose) to frighten Sonnenfeld? What is going on? Apparently, Kurt Sonnenfeld has released some or all of the photos in his possession: here. It'll take time for analysts the world over to rake through them. But what about Sonnenfeld's 22 hour video (and related comments, we hope) that can condemn the plotters? Isn't that important enough? Hello, Kurt? Hello?

Could it be that the photos and videos amount to a trophy to Sonnenfeld because he was one Illuminatist who took pride in creating the disaster, took pride in fooling the people, in fooling the entire universe?

It might be our opinion that, had the liberal nation of America (no more liberal place is there than downtown New York) served God, He would never have allowed the plotters to get away with carrying out the 911 disaster. As it is, when a people turns back on God, they are at their wits end to create their own destiny, and God may feel required/compelled to stay out of their affairs in both celebratory and disastrous times. It's the law that liberals made for themselves: that God should mind his own business and not theirs. But God has arranged an End Time, when liberals will need to move over and no longer occupy his planet. It is His planet, isn't it? And His planet is His business, isn't it? And the righteous are His business too, aren't they? And so God does have a right to give the planet, and the land now called New York, to the righteous??? Yes, of course. The destruction of liberals is a necessary event to God's business of establishing righteousness in the earth. Luckily, God permits liberals to have a change of heart, to be spared his Wrath at the End Time, and to share the inheritance of the earth.

Could we imagine that the clean-up of the disaster was "awarded" to the friends and family of the plotters at a great financial profit? Of course, which is one reason for End Time. No culprit doing these things can stand up in a court of law and defend himself, let alone in the Court of God. The End Time will be justified on liberals, liberals who hated Bush because he claimed to be a Christian, the same liberals who might have claimed an inside 911-job in order to condemn Bush, the same liberals who might now deny the inside 911-job because Obama is in power, who appears to be of the same basic cloth as Bush after all of Obama's false promises and statements are stripped away.

Didn't Bush use false photo's of Osama bin Laden to further his Middle-East quest? Was that Osama the same person as Obama. The photographic evidence at the top of this update for that claim could grow in the coming months. Stay tuned.

Hear Mr. Gordon on his Roth friends that got him a job at the towers, but in the mean time ask if Gordon is making this story up to make Rothschilds appear guilty of the 911 disasters:

By Tom-Scott Gordon

In 1988, I moved to NYC., seeking architectural photography assignments from various key architects. Before moving there, I asked for help from my prior clients in Denver [= Sonnenfeld's turf]. One good friend and close ally, Herb Roth [Rothschilds???], suggested I contact his friends at "Emery-Roth Architects," (No relation) [really, no relations, hard to believe]. After the usual portfolio review and pricing discussions, Barry Roth, AIA, asked me to cover the "World Trade Center." This assignment, I thought, would be one of the greatest opportunities of my career!

It was widely known that "Ezra Stoller and Associates" and "Norman McGrath" had laboriously photographed the World Trade Center for a period of over one year [they are suspects, definitely]...They informed me that Ezra had actually photographed it routinely for something like 6 years.

...Carrying just my light-weight 35mm gear, I was singled-out from the regular building patrons by the lobby guards, which totally surprised me. I explained the nature of my business with a moderate degree of assurance, but was shocked when they reacted as though I had been expected, very matter-of-factly! One of them phoned upstairs, while another insisted he was sending a guard with me, "to insure that I would arrive at the engineering office in time for our meeting." The suite was labeled: Skilling & Jackson, P.C.. -whom I had knowledge of, but no prior relations with.

Had this been the leasing office, I would have understood the mix-up perfectly. Clearly, this was NOT a situation that could pertain to me in any way. I was not aware that Roth had an office in the building at all, but, like a true 'rookie,' I was feeling keen to discuss my abilities with their 'big guns,' since any contact with such people here could have lead me to major future assignments!

When we arrived at the door to this suite [he goes on to say that this was a very make-shift operation, not truly a full-fledged business]

"Everyone sit down and be quiet."..."Listen carefully, nobody gets out of this!"

"Each of you were called here to sign an affidavit of non-disclosure. None of the information from our project can find it's way into the public-eye. Absolutely nothing that we have learned from this project can be revealed to the public...Some of you have enjoyed 10 years of service on this project for our client...

"I know this transition will take you by surprise, but there was no other way to handle it. You are all terminated from this project effective immediately! This means you need to clear your desks and surrender all of your files by the end of the day.

...This was like a military operation, yet no one in the room knew I didn't work for their firm!

..."What do you suppose we've done wrong?" ...Each in turn revealed:

"The fact is, we all know that the buildings can't stand safely for over 40 to 60 years. It's not the sub-soil, that's granite. They must have received the completed demolition report, which we all knew to expect. It was supposed to be finished months ago. Clearly it looks bad. Well, I'm sure we all know the real implication- that the owners can't get their money back...

I asked: -"Why, what do you mean?"

It will cost $____ Billion to erect the two scaffolds to surround both buildings, that's the only known way to take these baby's down. We'll literally have to re-build them, then un-build them, twice! Now it's obvious, bottom-line is that the developer will have to sell them soon, or take a serious bath. (I forget the actual figure)

...[The buildings] are much too big. It's a piece-by-piece problem. They simply can't be imploded, we know of no other way. Why do you think they hired me for 10 years to find other solutions? I'm not a structural specialist, just an architect!

...Finally, pushing my luck, I prodded again: "So tell me about the electrolytic issues."

Everyone went quiet, but realised they were in deep. They began a patent narrative which was clearly not about to go anywhere, since I think they knew that I knew as much as each of them about the composition and arrangements of these metals. I had effectively blown my cover.

..."Again, son, tell me who you are?" -One of the senior associates asked...

..."You are not to tell anyone about your employment here, ever!" -he said.

...A couple of guys took their seats by the North window, but I was nervous and I stood with my back to them as I starred down on the un-finished looking iron-work of building #7, which had just been 'topped-out' with a ceremony the day before. [i.e. the building's construction was officially finished the day before]

...He stood up, evidently really angry, and said quite unpleasantly; "Yeah good old #7, the building that never should have been built!"

The room went silent. His tone was immediately received as a threat by the boss. He separated the three of us and called my contact at Emery-Roth who then acknowledged that I was hired to shoot the building. Neither discussed any details, so I was off the hook in a way. He dismissed me and said I was not to talk to any of the other participants on the way out, not ever again. An armed guard escorted me down to the street.

Within a few days I called Ezra Stoller, in White Plains, who, speaking about WTC, innocently revealed that he; "Wasn't allowed to shoot any more pictures of it." That was a very funny thing to hear him say. No one ever "doesn't allow" a photographer to get a better shot. I didn't say what had happened to me...


Based on a true life experience I had at the World Trade Center, I offer this document now, to those who may be searching for " key potential motives" behind the actions that led to the 9/11 attacks. I do not intend to imply that any of the parties that I will mention here were directly involved in the coordinated effort to destroy the building.

However, it is clearer to me, over time, that this information would have provided a pre-eminent, and utterly untraceable 'blue-print' to the group that finally engineered the 9/11 attack.

This document was originally released in 2003, and was ammended for accuracy, on: 1/18/2004.

This information is entirely true and this is its first public release....

Supporting Facts, Assumptions and Curious Questions:

I would speculate that in 1989 through 1993, as the downtown real estate market was falling, there were perhaps reasons to suspect that the WTC owners might have contemplated the first bombing. After Battery Park attracted their biggest tenants, the property quickly lost it's viability. (At the time, Geoff Parker reported that a friend of his was given a whole floor in the South tower to use as a drumming studio, for free!) By 1996, the internet had decentralized the financial industry, further diminishing the lease/return opportunities of this property. ( I don't know the actual math, maybe it was going up again.) The building cost about $1.5B to build and was worth about $4. to 5.B at its peak. But, it would have cost about $20B to un-build it in 2010 dollars, or as it neared its 1/2 'safe' life. Obviously it HAD to be imploded and there was never going to be a 'break-even' point for the owners.

......Richard Roth Jr. was in charge of his dad's firm when he retired. He is friends with lots of conservatives. (Carnegie Mellon group, like his dad.) He is friends with Saul Steinberg, Stephen Roth, Jeffrey Levine, lots of famous Jewish folks with dubious Israeli connections.

When the building was sold to Silversteen, Stephen Roth, (with Vernado Realty) worked to take the bid as high as possible, offering $750,M more than the next lower bidder. Did he even have the money? Two months before the official auction, he withdrew the ridiculous bid. Could this have been a mistake on his part?

Isn't this the same Stephen Roth who runs the "Anti-defamation League" in Israel. They track all persons who threaten the sovereignty of Israel. Interestingly enough it was established in 1991! Suddenly, after that, there were lots of reported 'neo-nazi' groups springing up in Germany and the UK. His group gave rise to the importance of stopping these 'Right- wing terrorists' at all costs, and he may serve as the eyes and ears for the CIA, or Massoud. Either way, he's got to be an insider with Sharon.

Tom-Scott Gordon

Architectural Photographer/currently A/V Systems Integrator

I'm not at all jumping to believe the story as told by Mr. Gordon. It might be true. What I think he's saying is that false stories were offered to the photographers and others surveying the neighborhood: the buildings were defective, non-profitable, too expensive to dismantle piece by piece, and all sorts of related sob stories were offered to them to justify their employment and presence on those rooftops. Finally, they were dismissed with those stories firmly imbedded in their minds, and we are being led to believe that the buildings' owners plotted to take the buildings down by controlled demolition in the way that we saw them drop on 9-11.

There are various reasons to suspect that Gordon fabricated his account, but then it might be due to his writing style, or something of that nature that makes the story hard for me to swallow. He clearly pegs the Roths of Defamation-League background as the perpetrators. Although I do suspect Rothschilds to be behind the 911 attacks, yet Gordon's story seems too good to be true, for he too easily catches the Roths with nearly a smoking gun, with the trigger cocked and ready to fire. If Gordon is a Nazi element, out to frame pro-Zionist Rothschilds when in fact Nazi-based Illuminatists took down the towers, his story could then be understandable.

I say the Bush presidents were Nazi agents, but also pro-Rothschild. However, there must be schisms in the Rothschild family, and some of them might have supported Hitler. I say Bush Jr. was pro-Rothschild of the kind that wants a Palestinian state, but some Rothschilds could be understandably opposed to that idea. Gordon claims that the Roth family gave him his job at the towers. Prove that to be true, and perhaps we can begin to believe Mr. Gordon's account.

He turns the story from one of creating the excuse to go to war in the Middle East into a sob story for saving de-construction costs. At the page below, he says:

Over the years, the process known as 'galvanic corrosion' had structurally degraded these buildings beyond repair. Supporting statements to this effect had been compiled, and were presented by the engineers to the building owners during the time-frame that I have described. Subsequently, both Mayor Giuliani's Office, and the New York Port Authority, had allegedly received an order for the buildings to be completely dismantled, by 2007."

He even claims to have the knowledge that: "Through the continual effects of wind-sheer and {flex-fatigue} this [galvanic corrosion] process had eroded the bolt-holds... ... at roughly floors #7 through #25, that fulcrum-point where the lateral pressures were inherently sustained." I find it spectacularly hard to believe that the bolts would have been compromised by galvanic processes. It sounds more as though Gordon is working for the owners of the building so that, when the family is brought to trial, whether in the court of public opinion or in courts of law, they will not be deemed as guilty as they would otherwise be for sending American soldiers to their deaths in globe-trotting operations around the world, and in the meantime de-stabilizing the world to the point of bringing on something akin to a prelude for Armageddon.

Gordon continues in a second account (webpage above) of his experience in the meeting mentioned earlier:

I asked; Is it not feasible to simply put a sleeve in with the bad bolts, to separate the metals?

With this, they all joined in, and I got all I needed to know.- There were a total of about 15 floors which had received new bolts, each bolt-hold requiring a noisy core-drilling which had caused the project to cease, because it caused a 'ringing' that transferred the noise, vertically throughout dozens of floors. This infuriated the tenants and thus it became an unacceptable and impractical approach.

This is why I don't believe Gordon's story, that bolts were suffering galvanic corrosion, for it seems fundamental that all bolts should be installed into bolt holes made of the same metal from the very start. And what drilling could he be talking about, since replacing a bolt does not require new drilling? The old threads would be just fine. If the bolt holes were per chance of another metal, then it merely required that the old bolts be replaced with new ones made of the same metal as in the holes.

BUT, anyway, surely, the people speaking to Gordon were feeding him false stories to the effect that would make him believe that the building needed to be trashed. Either Gordon believed that report sincerely up until the webpage above was published, or he's helping the perpetrators circulate the false story. Perhaps the better theory is that the bolt holes were re-drilled to deliberately make the holes larger and easier for the bolts to slip and fail on 9-11.

Gordon then writes:

As presented to the U.S. Senate Oversight Committee, and others:
"The destruction of the World Trade Center, as witnessed on September 11th, 2001, was the result of an elaborately planned, Controlled Demolition." This is the conclusion of thousands of witnesses and hundreds of forensics experts. Given due consideration, these findings imply, that *US MILITARY* personnel are responsible for crimes that led to the murder of an estimated 3,000 innocent Americans.

But why didn't he include, in the list of accused entities, the Roth family that got him the job and permitted him to stay in that secret meeting??? And what evidence does he possess that the U.S. military was responsible for setting and detonating the explosives in the towers? Shouldn't the buildings owners and related persons be responsible for such things? The presentation to the Senate Oversight Committee therefore seems to me like a sham. It doesn't even appear that Gordon has attorneys for this job. He says his sole purpose is to advertise his story to the public,

He says: "The following statements are completely true and faithful to the actual events, as I am best able to describe them. *All critically sensitive photographs have been withheld from public view.*" BUT WHY, Mr. Gordon, if you are so patriotic and zealous to reveal the crimes, would you not release the evidence before someone kills you, and removes your opportunities to release it???

Whenever you see a media production on television claiming that Arab hijackers were responsible for 911, the producers are being complicit with the plotters in their cover-up. Media people are well-read and knowledgeable, knowing for a fact that large and obvious plane parts should have been in and around the hole where flight 93 supposedly crashed, and at the Pentagon. If just one of these two crash sights is so easily interpreted as a con-job, then all of 911 is easily interpreted as such. The media is lying to you; the media is your enemy, America, an enemy of all the free world. This is the wolf in lamb's clothing, to make themselves appear as though they care for you, that you might join them and take on their world views.


Especially for new or confused readers
shows where I'm coming from.

For serious investigators:
How to Work with Bloodline Topics

Here's what I did when I had spare time on my hands:
Ladon Gog and the Hebrew Rose

On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence -- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find -- that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.

The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents