Previous Update

Updates Index



MIDDLE EAST UPDATES
(if there are any to speak of)
April 1 - 6, 2015

The Skudra I Never Knew
or
What's with the Heraldic Tongue?
or
Why We Should Discredit the Boston-Marathon Trial
or
Re-Visiting the Pennsylvania Plane Crash on 9-11



For a reader hopping into an update for the first time, there is not much I can say in an introductory paragraph to explain everything needed before proceeding. The only readers able to follow are those taking the time needed to get a solid idea of the entire scope. It is probably impossible to follow unless the heraldic Coats are loaded and viewed. It would be helpful to have a photographic memory, or to at least spend some time to get to know Coats, and to understand what I'm saying about them. I did the work over years to be able to present to you the relevant Coats, and you need only decide whether I am correctly interpreting the evidence and the codes. It is far best that you load Coats on a separate browser(s) rather than clicking back and forth from the update page. It might take longer for one to read an update than the week it takes me to write it, but that's what it'll take for a solid understanding of what I'm doing. I know that few have the time to follow this in that way. My hope is...actually, I should have no such hopes as I should just allow God to do what He wants with this. One of my goals at this time is to discover the parent(s) of Josephs Caiaphas, and in the meantime to prove that heraldic masters and leading Templar families knew that all of heraldry had, at its foundations, Caiaphas and his circle of Christ killers. These updates are jot-down format (sub-titles don't usually reflect the roaming topics well) making it hard / impossible to have a pre-plotted storyline. I'm no longer doing final proof-reads, please excuse the imperfections / mistakes.




It can't be said that the United States refuses to arm Kurds because Iraq opposes it, for Germany has given weapons to the Kurds:
The leaders of the Kurdish Peshmerga are like generals anywhere: they feel that their troops are doing all the fighting [against ISIS] and deserve the best equipment.

...The German government delivered two brigades' worth of weapons and equipment to the Peshmerga in the last four months, including 4,000 sets of personal protective equipment (helmets and body armor), 700 radios, over 16,000 assault rifles (with 6 million rounds of ammunition), and 270 light anti-tank weapons (with 4,000 missiles).

In contrast the Kurds are still frustrated by the slow arrival of armaments and equipment from the United States..

...As KRG Minister of Foreign relations Falah Mustafa told the author on March 10, four months later "hardly any made in USA equipment has arrived".

...Alongside tangible support the Kurds are seeking symbols of friendship from the United States, which they are willing to reciprocate in the shape of near-term assistance in the clearance of Mosul and long-term basing access for the US military in its fight against ISIL in Iraq and Syria.

..."If the US doesn't want to help our troops to protect themselves," Barzani told the author, "then maybe we should not risk our Peshmergas lives anymore."

http://www.kurdpress.com/En/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=9972#Title=US support to Peshmerga: Too little, too late? / Michael Knights

That would be fine with Obama, for he wants to strengthen ISIS, and I've just read that it has grown larger in the past four months.

The article below is troublesome because World Net Daily has apparently sponsored a pro-NATO article. It's about Obama reportedly refusing to see Jens Stoltenberg, the new NATO chief, as he just visited the United States. There could be multiple reasons for this shameful O-ttitude, and one of them could be Obama's lack of support in fighting ISIS, or something similar.

Count on it, Obama is still in the pits after losing the last election to the lead boxing gloves of Republicans. All of his dreams were wiped away. At this time, he's trying to convince the world that his taking a friendly tack with Iran was the best option, and he thinks that failure to make a deal will make him look like a loser on that score too. But some are thinking that there's more to this deal than his merely looking successful. I still believe that the Russians were not lying when they put out a story saying that Hillary was in a plane crash on an Iranian runway in late 2012, at the time that she had her head injury. The idea was that Obama was sending her to Iran to continue talks, and we can gather that she was previously having talks with Iranian officials over emails, a thing that Obama does not want the world to know, of course.

I realize that Russians are capable of lying to make the U.S. look bad, but reporting a complete fabrication concerning Hillary's crash in Iran would have been far over the top, as it would make the West sour on Putin with nothing for Putin to gain. Putin did NOT want such a thing at the time, for he was then seeking world-popularity as Mr. Get-er-Done. Yes, he was angry at Obama for Libya and Syria, but things had not yet reached fisticuffs levels, as they are now. I say the Russians knew that some Western leaders were privy to Hillary's crash in Iran, and so he allowed the Russian story to get out. Releasing the story as a truth is far different than releasing it as a fabrication. The latter was too risky, in other words.

Below is RT sharing a Reuters article claiming that the Germanwings plane crash was not according to the media storyline, a real possibility for two reasons: 1) the video was found in the crash site; 2) the crash / controversy somewhat alleviated Hillary Clinton's scandal. It appears that they even had someone appear on CNN to announce that the video, supposedly taken inside the plane just before the crash, was faked. I personally don't think a cell-phone memory card could survive such a crash with data receivable, but the other side is of course saying that it's possible under certain situations. Therein you have the controversy.
http://rt.com/news/245797-germanwings-plane-crash-video/

Paris Match claiming the video to be authentic, and yet, so far (as of Wednesday evening), isn't sharing it online. It's blurred so that no one is recognizable, what one may expect in a faked video. The French police, I'm reading, are saying that the video is a hoax. Perhaps the French government is not involved in this, as could be expected if the crash were set up by Democrats to cover Hillary's troubles. Do we think Bill has the connections to set such a thing up?

If it were just another crash without the video, it might be ho-hum, nothing enough to take the spotlight off of Hillary, but if a controversial / suspicious part of the event were to be released, on go the bloggers. The Guardian: "Paris Match and Bild describe 'blurred and chaotic' scenes in video said to show plane's final moments, but French police say story is false" Don't you just want to read about it, and talk about it?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/01/germanwings-passenger-video-authentic-paris-match

The French authorities want to know why this video was not handed to them. On the question of why Paris Match didn't hand it over upon request: "...Paris Match was not in possession of the footage, but had simply viewed it." Should we assume that Bild is in possession of it? "Bild reported that the video had been found by 'a source close to the investigation' and had been retrieved from the wreckage." Hmm, so why isn't this "source" giving the video to the French authorities? Will we ever discover his/her/their names? If the source is indeed "close to the investigation," shouldn't it know enough not to pick pieces of wreckage up, and carry them away without informing the people in charge of the site? I wonder who found the black box.

One pilot goes to the bathroom, and the other pilot thinks to himself, "Here's my chance to crash this plane. There's an good, hard mountain, perfect." That's the picture told by the black box. Credible? Intriguing? Are the French authorities sticking with that story? Is the black box in their possession? Paris Match released the black box conversation too, and said that the box was in the possession of, a "special investigator."

Whom do the French authorities suppose are behind the faked video? I don't imagine anyone faking it aside from the perpetrators.


Skudra and Sukkot

I'd like to show added reason for deeming that MacAbee's/MacCabe's, not as "son of Cabe," but as Maccabee liners who took on the Irish-Scot "Mac" front for one reason or another. Maccabee's, on-shore from where Mackie's/Mackeys were first found, can now connect to a viking named Maccus, who was introduced in the 4th update of February:

In 973 [after raiding Northumbria and Cheshire], the Chronicle of Melrose reports that Kenneth, with Mael Coluim I (Mael Coluim mac Domnaill), the King of Strathclyde, "Maccus, king of very many islands" (i.e. Magnus Haraldsson (Maccus mac Arailt), King of Mann and the Isles) and other kings, Welsh and Norse, came to Chester to acknowledge the overlordship of the English king Edgar the Peaceable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cin%C3%A1ed_mac_Ma%C3%ADl_Coluim

So, we have Maccus, son of Arailt, as king in the Isle of Man, home of the Manx, a term like the Manick surname that was looked up as per a variation in the Manningham surname. Why was I on the Manninghams? I'll tell you in a moment, but first, I'd like to say that the Manicks/Mannix'/Mangans/Managhan/Manahans smack of mythical ManANNAN, who was a Danann entity on the Isle of Man. This is going to connect to the two Herods banished from Israel (by the Romans). If correct, it adds to the evidence that MacAbee's were Maccabee liners.

Maccus' family is said at Wikipedia to have invaded northern Wales (Mona), and even deeper toward its south. His brother invaded Powys, where Conteville's had a Commins location that will soon be shown linking, in an extraordinary way, to Comminges location of Herod Antipas. But first, let's ask why the Manick/Managhan Coat -- in MacAbee's colors -- uses the white-on-green stag (same design too) of the Powers surname. These stags must be the MacCarthy/Arthy stag because that surname was from Muskerry / Cork, where Manicks/Managhans were first found. Therefore, one can see that the Irish Maghans/Manns/Mathuna's and Scottish Maghans/Manns/Mathie's apply to this line from mythical Manannan. They didn't give him the name, Man, alone, but added an "Annan" to the backside. It looks like they knew something.

The Powers Crest uses the same brown stag head as the Clare Crest, (if it changes, know that the two are identical today), indicating that English Mathie's/Matthews are likewise part of the Man-Isle line, because Clare's use the triple chevrons of English Mathie's in colors reversed. Matthews and Mathie's are thus suspect from Mattathias HasMONean, father of the five Maccabee brothers. Some Maccabee line (or two or three) obviously got to the Scottish Isles as pirates, vagabonds, thieves, and loyal-to-demon killers.

It's important to know that the Clare write-up traces the family to TONbridge, where Clare's had hooked up with (i.e. married) Meschins from Cheshire. The family of Maccus had been at a meeting in Cheshire, as we read above, with the ambassadors of the Saxon king. The reason that Tonbridge should be important is that the Manick surname was come upon, in the first place, when starting with a look at the TONG(ue) surname. It happens to use a version of the Pulley/Pullen Coat (both surnames first found in Yorkshire), but more importantly for this discussion, it looks very linkable to the Apple's / Applebys and Mountains. The Mountains are the ones who married the Clermont-related Claviere's who were traced to "Glaphyra," wife of Herod Archelaus (brother of Antipas above), but also a wife of Alexander Maccabee.

The APPLe's / Appleby and Mountains can now be expected at AVALon, which was Bute, right beside Arran, home of MacAbee's, and also beside Kintyre, where Alexanders -- Maccabee suspects -- were first found. To assure that Tongs apply, they have a "Steady" motto while Steads/Steeds, first found in the same place as Tongs, use the full-blown brown stag of Clare's and Powers, and head and the feet positioning of the Stead stag matches that of the Powers / Manick stag. It is used also by Eustace's, and to help prove that they were from Eustace II, father of Godfrey de bouillon, that martlets of the Tongs, as well as another type of bird in the Tong Crest, are all called, simply, "birds," code, obviously, for the Birds/Burds using the Bouillon cross in colors reversed.

The Stead Coat uses muzzled bears, a symbol of Barwicks who themselves have another stag in Crest. The Berwickshire bear traces to the muzzled bears of Mackays, the latter having a "Manu" motto term assuring that they, too, were likewise linked to lines from king Maccus on the Man-Isle. Saxons had earlier been at Berwick as rulers of Bernicians, suspect from "Berenicianus," brother of Julius Alexander Maccabee, whose family ruled at Cilicia. For new readers, the latter Mr. Alexander (descended from Alexander and Glaphyra) had a daughter married to QUADratus Bassus, himself suspect with the Mackay-related QUADE's. My story here is becoming undeniable; you won't read it anywhere else because a cover-up has taken place, for the dark side has known, all history long, that few would tend favor these bloodlines. Human garbage produced historical garbage to cover up the realities, and have now become the globalists, still thieves, still liars, still the bottomless stomachs.

The stag in the Barwick Crest has head and feet positioning identical to the Stacey/Eustace. In the Stacey Coat, the ANNAN(dale) saltire as used (i.e. with gold Shield) by the Arms of Ayrshire, the place where Mackie's/Mackeys were first found, a place facing out to sea at the MacAbee's of Arran.

It should be mentioned in passing that the rock in the Tong Crest is likely code for Rookbys (branch of Rocks) of Yorkshire, tending to identify many heraldic rocks with that line.

Tongs are said to be from a manor of Manningham in Yorkshire, and that's why Manninghams/MANIGfords (Yorkshire again) were looked up. They use the peacock, nearly the same design as that of Dutch Paws, but then German Paws, likewise using a peacocks, are also "PAUER," meaning that the two Paws surnames do link to the Powers who use the Manick/Managhan stag. And as Maccus' brother took Powys while the Powys surname uses a bear paw, it's clear that Paws and Powers were Powys liners.

The Clements, first found in Powys, even come up as "Clermonts" because it can be seen that Clements use the French-Clair Chief. And that's how Clare's can figure, again, into the Maccus-of-Man line. One might start to glean that king Maccus was of the Sinclair vikings to begin with.

Next, we want to take a look at the Mannings, who happen to have been first found in Cheshire, making it likely that they were a line of the Manx into Cheshire (roughly beside Powys). The Manning motto, "Esse quam videri," is used by Sheriffs, an indicator that the Scarfs of Yorkshire were involved. In fact, the latter share the wolf-head design of Irish Mackays, Quade's, and Glaphyra-suspect Claptons, while Claptons use a patee cross in the colors of the Manning patee (Mannings call it a "patonce"). As Scarfs are honored in the Trabys/Sadowski scarf, it's notable that while the Arms of Traby (Poland) use ostrich feathers, the Mannings have feathers PROPER in their Crest while Propers/Robins use an ostrich. The Manning patee is in the colors of the same of Bennett (major topic of the last update).

The Monks (COCKatrice) have been in the background of this discussion, who not only trace to Monaco, but were first found in the same place as both Power surnames. I've been expecting a Man-Isle trace to Monaco, in the land of Ligures, because mythical Manannan was paired with the Irish sun god, Lug, who went to Man with Manannan. The Manicks are said to derive in "manach = monk," but that's garbage and they knew it. It's garbage, but code for the Monaco > Monk bloodline.

I've traced Monaco elements to nearby Grasse a few times, and also lumped Monaco elements in my theory that Antibes named Herod Antipas, who was banished to LUGdunum Convenarum. Antibes is about 25 miles down the coast from Monaco, and about half as far from Grasse. It just so happens that the Mannings use the same cinquefoils as one Grasse surname.

It's interesting that the Monk lions are in the colors of the Tool lions, for the greater Comminges area around Lugdunum Convenarum is at TOULouse. Lugdunum Convenarum came to be called, St. Bertrand de Comminges, but there is a question on what named Comminges, a term like "Comana," where Glaphyra's family had a religious cult. It's also like "Commins," in Powys, probably no coincidence. That is, it seems that king-Maccus elements in Powys were somehow linked to Comminges elements, and one can now glean, in this extraordinary way, that the myth writers who invented Lug were including a line from Lugdunum Convenarum. This is especially likely because Herod Archelaus is said by Wikipedia to have been banished likely to Vienne-Isere, beside Lugdunum (no Lyon). There seems to be a Herod connection between both Lugdunums.

One can now expect that the Harald/HEROD surname is yet more evidence of a Herod trace to king Maccus, whom is thought to be the same as Magnus HARALDson. I'm not yet sure on whether to agree on the two men being the same, but perhaps they were of one family. Haralds/Herods are also "Hurl," traceable to HERLuin de CONTEville, ancestor of the Meschins, and suspect in "Convenarum." That is, as Herluin's family ruled one or more Comyns locations (the Comyn/COMMINGs write-up mentions Commins in Powys), it could be expected that Comminges was named after this family, and so "Conte" may have been a corruption form "CONVEN(arum)."

I'll admit that there is a problem where "Convenarum" seems to mean, "place of convening = meeting" while "commingle" means "to gather together." It looks like Comminges could not have been named by the Comyns/COMMINGs surname. However, it may have been the other way around, which, if correct, is a whopper of a revelation. The Convenarum term may have been the earliest form, followed by "Cone and Conte" (both use antlers), and "Conan" too, the latter surname sharing the engrailed Sinclair cross. "Conan" and "Conven" both have two 'n's. It's starting to look good. Later, after Convenarum was re-named, the Cones' / Conte's / Conans carried the Comminges term to their own family. This explanation makes sense out of the apparent contradiction, and moreover implies the possibility that Conteville's were Herod-Antipas liners.

It just so happens that Scottish Conans were first found in the same place (Aberdeenshire) as Tarves, where the Chives' had a branch who share a black-on-white cross with Conans. But Chives' were first found in the same place (Devon) as Powers and Monks. I was expecting Antibes elements to link to Antipas, and here's one way to do it.

As we saw Eustace's link to Powers and relevant others, so we need to repeat here that Eustace's use the cross of Irish Burghs while the last update shared a quote on the Conteville's owning the cross of Irish Burghs (because Herluin de Conteville had John de Burgo as his father). The Irish Conans happen to have been first found in the same place (Kildare) as Eustace's, tending to prove that Sinclairs, Conans and Conteville's were rather identical at the time of Eustace II.

Some of these conclusions should explain why French Clairs are likely using the Chives-Crest leopard. But the leopard in the Rhodes Crest is suspect because the Rhodes' use an engrailed cross like that of Sinclairs / Conans. I think that the Rhodes cross links to the Mander saltire, suggesting that Manders (Devon again) were related to, or part of, a Man-Isle line. Now is the time to mention the mythical Hercules Danaans who trace, partially with the Danaans of Lindos in Rhodes, to the British Danann to which both Manannan and Lug belonged. I not only traced Hercules (years ago, long before these findings under discussion) to northern Wales, but later gleaned that Hercules' partner, Poias/Poeas (symbol of human sacrifice), was the namer of Powys. The original name of Lincolnshire, where Rhodes' were first found, is like "Lindos." It was named by the Lindseys who share the black swan once showing in the Coat of French Josephs, and then the Comyns/Commings share the garbs in the Coat of English Josephs.

The Boofima cult (same as Baphomet) used gloves in the form of real leopard paws when conducting human and goat sacrifices. The Powys surname is using the bear paw for that reason, meaning that the Rhodes' / Clair / Chives leopard traces to Boofima. As that cult was operated by an Imperi peoples, they must have named Imperia, about 35 miles from Monaco, and part of Liguria to this day. This is where the Nagle's come in, for Imperia was also Oneglia, and then the Nagle's are in the Dutch TENG/TengNAGEL surname. I feel sure that the Tongs/Tongue's (in Teng colors), who might be honored in heraldic tongue's, link to Boofima liners, therefore.

The Tange's/Tenge's/Tanchs (a "tench fish" in Crest) share the TANCred / Hawthorn chevron (Hawthorns were Hauteville's), while the write-up of Tancreds (Yorkshire again, same as Tongs) says that they were of the Tankerville's...of TANERdevilla, suspect as Tanners and therefore with the "the tanner" of Falaise, whose daughter married Herluin de Conteville (there's a Conteville location in Calvados, where there is a Falaise location). By what coincidence did the Conteville's figure into the Tong discussion while they crop up in the Tange/Tenge discussion? Here's the last sentences of the last update:

French Calvins/Cauvains (share the Meschin scallops) are said to be from Cauville in the Falaise area of Calvados, and share black-on-white martlets with Glenns, thus making these lines traceable to the Glina tributary of the Colapis/Kupa. The Calvins/Cauvains even use the Shield-and-Chief color combination of Tanners, proving that Tanners are from "the tanner" of Falaise.

The Tancred write-up speaks on a Tancred character in 912, the year that France concluded the treaty of St. Clair-sur-Epte with Rollo. The Tankerville Coat is a version of the Chadwick and Chadock Coats, but substituting eight white-on-red cinquefoils for the eight same-colored martlets, both used as a border feature in the way of the eight gold-on-red cinquefoils in the Grasse Coat.

To help prove that Tankerville's are using the Chadwick Shield, we read that the Tankerville treasurer of Henry I (England) married a daughter of the D'Arques, while Darks/D'Arques share the strongarm of Italian Mavis'/Mavica's (Bologna). Chadwicks were first found in Mavesyn-Ridware (Lichfield, location of St. Chad). This jibes with a trace of potent-cross users (which includes the Chads) to the Setta area of Bologna. The Wests (Devon again), for some reason, use a "ma vic" motto phrase like the Mavica variation of Mavis'. Scottish Maves'/Murfetts, who link well to the Maurovi variation of Italian Mavis', use a saltire in colors reversed to the same of Darks/D'Arques.

The Tange's/Tenchs can be linked to the Rothes, both first found in Shropshire, because the Rothes lion-head design was once showing for Mousquette's who now use the red lion heads of Tange's/Tenchs. The Tange variation might just betray derivation in the idea of D'Angulo, from the Angulo character in the Nagle write-up. These Rothes are expected to be proto-Rothschilds from Rothesay (Bute), and to help prove it, the Tacks, said to be from Tancreds and Tankerville's, are showing the gold-on-blue estoiles of the Bute's/Butts. Moreover, there is a single arrow in the Tack Coat (see Rothschilds/Rothsteins) upon a green Shield, the colors of the Shields of proto-Rothschild Bauers and Bowers. The arrow in the Mackie/Mackey Coat is with a raven, symbol of German Rothes, and the Mackie's/Mackeys were on the Scottish coast facing out to Rothesay. Therefore, I think this update has established a close king-Maccus connection to the Rollo Sinclairs, and going also to the Guiscards.

In fact, the Guiscards (Sicily) are shown in this portrait with a pulley at their feet, code for the Pulleys/Pullens using a version of the Tong Coat! That proves all-the-more that the pulley is code for the surname, and that Tongs are a line of Tancreds, known ancestors of the Guiscards. Tancreds (same place as Pulleys and Tongs) share the red scallop with Pulleys/Pullens, and the latter are traced in their write-up to a Mr. Pullen of Poole, Devonshire...linkable to Poole of Dorset.

The "PALLEscere" motto term, and the pelican of Pulleys shared with Arthurs who in-turn use an "imPELLE" motto term, has signaled that it's time for showing a new theory. This one is thanks to Mr. Skeetz's last email where he informed me of a Skudra area in Thrace. Wikipedia has an article on Skudra, but doesn't say much. I've not known about it before, but I've done a lot of thinking on lake Scodra in the past several months. There is a way to link Skudra to lake Scodra where the latter is near Lissus and Bassania (see lower-left of map below), while the upper Hebros river of Thrace has the Bessi at a Lissae area (lower-right of map). The middle parts of the Hebros was Arda, where Arthurs trace, and moreover Pendragon liners traced to the Drilon river, the mouth of which has the Lissus location. Bassania, not shown, was between Lissus and the mouth of the Mathis river, where I trace Mathie's / Matthews mentioned earlier. English Mathie's/Matthews likewise use the red scallop.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Roman_provinces_of_Illyricum%2C_Macedonia%2C_Dacia%2C_Moesia%2C_Pannonia_and_Thracia.jpg

Scodra / Skudra is an important topic because I see it as the candidate for furnishing the Sadducees. In the Skudra article: "Persian sources describe the province as being populated by three groups: the Saka Paradraya (possibly referring to Getae); the Skudra themselves (possibly Thracians), and Yauna Takabara. The latter term, which translates as "Ionians with shield-like hats", is believed to refer to Macedonians." When I see "Yauna / Ionians," I see Jonathan the pagan Levite of Laish, a Phoenician town that I have been tracing to Lissus and therefore to Lissae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skudra

As "para" is likely a prefix, it seems that "Saka ParaDRAYA" shortens to "Skudra." If correct, Skudra looks like a Saka-scythians entity. "Draya" must be of ODRYsia, at the confluence of the Arda river with the Hebros. After being directed by the bottom of the Wikipedia page to Skydra of Macedonia, in the PELLA area of Macedonia, "Succoth" was looked up seeking Scodra roots, because I have believed that surnames like Schutz and Skeetz relate to lake Scodra. That's when a Google search brought up the Sukkot location in Israel, on the east side of the Jordan. Sukkot is near a Jabbock river, which brought to mind Jabesh Gilead not many miles up the Jordan river, and on the same side.

Fortunately, from the Jabesh-Gilead article, I clicked (I may have decided not to) the link to Tell Abu al-Kharaz, the place thought to be Jabesh-Gilead, and learned of a PELLA location just four miles away. Amazing coincidence. As some wayward (sinful) Benjamites had merged with Jabesh-Gilead, it was now very striking to see "Benni" plastered along the Arda river of Thrace. Jabesh-Gilead and Pella are on the northern end of the Jordan river, directly across the Jezreel valley leading down to Megiddo and Dor, terms that I've been tracing (for years) to "Macedonia / Doria" respectively. And I had concluded that Odrysians were named after Dorians.

Pella of Macedonia is on the map above at EMATHIA, a potential Mathis-river entity. Pella is smack beside MYGDONia, another Megiddo-like term, and in the land of the Dorians too. The Mygdones are thought by historians to have been a branch of Sithones and Edones, whom I've traced to Phoenicians, at least tentatively, while Sithones are suspect with the Sidonians of Laish, and the Seatons/Sittens expected at the Setta valley with Skits/Skeochs, Skeets', Scheds/Sheds and now even Shoe's/Schochs. The latter use a Coat like that of Bengs/Bings/Binks, traceable to Panico's in the Setta, and therefore these lines are now expected from the Benni term of the Arda.

Mythical Dryas was made a son/father of an Edone king (Lycurgus), suggesting that the Saka ParaDRAYA pertains to whatever Dryas depicted. But if Mygdones were a branch of Edones, then Dryas is expected to be a Dorian element. Hercules, whose "Danites" trace to the conquering of Laish (later named, Dan), was a Dorian entity.

The new theory now is that the "ImPELLE" motto term of Arthurs goes back to an Arda-Benni link to Pella of Macedonia. To the near-west of pella is mount Bermion, where historians trace the ancestry of king Midas, and I agree with that trace. Midas was a Phrygian entity, and perhaps this is why Skudra has been said to be a Phrygian element in Thrace. The Macedonian imperials of Byzantium used gold and red in their Arms, colors of the Arthurs. The pelican on a NEST in the Arthur Crest traces to Pylos (Messene), which may now reveal that Pella of the Jordan river traces to Pylos, no small finding if correct.

When first discovering that the Benjamite-Jabesh relationship led to the founding of Romans / Jupiter, it was with a fundamental merger with Meshwesh out of Tanis, expected to be the proto-Danaans, or at least some of them. Mycenae at Argos (home of Danaans and of Io, founder of Bosphorus = Byzantium) looks like it could have named Messene, land of Pylos.

As for the Yauna Takabara: "Takabara were named for the shield many [Persian] troops of these units used, the half-moon-shaped 'taka'. The taka was larger than the Greek pelte but roughly similar..." This is interesting where Mr. Skeetz repeatedly reminds me that "Schutz" is thought to mean "shield" and other such terms, explaining why the escutcheon (= heraldic shield) is so important in the Coats of Saddocks and Chadocks. The Schutz' are even listed as "Shutz," i.e. a term that could develop into "Sadduc / Saddock." In other words, Skuder may have been named after their type of top-of-the-line / notable shields. We might even wish to ask why heraldry uses shields at all.

However, historians often get derivations wrong. It may not be correct to equate "TakaBARA" with "taka." Note that BAR is at the Adriatic coast directly west of lake Scodra. I tended to trace Paeonians to Scodra (Paeonia was on the north of Macedonia), and even to "PENdragon," but here I find an informative article on Skudra, with these comments:

'Skudra' is the most elusive term. Although Xerxes' 'Daiva' inscription at Persepolis corresponds in other respects with Herodotos' muster roll at DORISkos (7. 61 ff.), the Greek historian has no equivalent for 'Skudra'...The Persepolis Fortification Tablets have numerous references to workers from Skudra and the most obvious candidates for Europeans working in some numbers deep within the Persian empire are the Paionians whom Herodotos makes so much of in his narrative (5. 1. 12-16, 98).

http://ancient-medieval-macedonian-history.blogspot.ca/2007/12/yauna-takabara-persian-name-of.html

I traced Pendragon to Paeonian suspects at Penestae, and then the Penes/Penny surname shares greyhounds with the Schutz Crest but in the design of the Lys/LISSE greyhounds, assuring that the Pennys are from Penestae, upon the same Drilon river as LISSus. Pendragons even share the fleur-de-LYS with the Lys/Lisse surname, and Penestae was to the immediate west of Paeonia. The Paeonian city of Stobi was traced to Stubbs ("pheon" arrow heads) and Stubbings (same place as Staffs and Quints), the Stubbs first found in Stob-like Staffordshire, where the Chads and Chadocks were first found. The Chadocks are said to be from Mavesyn-Ridware of Staffordshire, and that surname can trace to the Mavis' with a Merovee-like Maurovi variation, which traces excellently to mythical Merops of Kos, father of Pandareus. Coincidence? I think not. The trace seems assured where Maves'/Mavesyns use a version of the KOS/Kosinski bendy Shield.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Roman_provinces_of_Illyricum%2C_Macedonia%2C_Dacia%2C_Moesia%2C_Pannonia_and_Thracia.jpg

As I trace Keturah elements to Bar, it's notable that Kodros' son founded Ephesus (mythically speaking), where PANdareus ruled. It just so happens that PanDAREUS smacks of the Persian Dareus' while Keturah's Medan line to Kodros was traced to mythical Medea, whom writers viewed as the founder of Medes (very related to the Dareus royals). Myth writers placed Medea in Athens (location of Kodros) after she was queen of Corinth with Jason, and she rode their pulled by a dozen dragons, reminiscent of Santa CLAUS' dozen reindeer, whom I ventured to trace to the Clausula river, smack to the east side of lake Scodra.

The Apadana Foundation inscription (DPe) mentions Ionians (Yauna) of the mainland, Ionians-by-the-sea, and unspecified countries by and beyond the sea, while some inscriptions of Dareios at Susa (DSm, DSe) refer on the one hand to men of Skudra and petasos-wearing Yuana, on the other Skudra and Yauna across the sea. On the tomb of Dareios at Naksh-i-Rustem 'Skythians beyond the sea' and 'petasos-wearing Yuana' replaced the unspecified 'countries beyond the sea' of DPe

I assume that "beyond the sea" refers to northern Greece in the westward direction from Anatolia, though across the Black sea to Scythia may also apply. Northern Greece is where we find Pella and Bermion. The article even mentions pointed hats, which is what Phrygian hats were. The petasos is a flat hat much like the Arms-of-Vatican galero hat. "A petasos or petasus is a sun hat of Thessalian origin worn by the ancient Greeks...As a winged hat, it became the symbol of Hermes..." the father of Pan from as far back as Panias. The article has Hermes wearing a petasos while holding a caduceus, and it also has a man with a leopard skin = symbol of Dionysus, leader of the Phrygian cult of Cybele.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petasos

The Yauna-Takabara article reveals how historians define "Paradraya": "The Saka Haumavarga (Hauma-drinking Skythians) and Saka Tigraxauda (Saka who wear the pointed hat) usually appear on the monuments between the east Iranian and Indian groups of peoples. A third group of Skythians, Saka Paradraya (beyond the sea), are named alongside Skudra and petasos-wearing Ionians beginning with Dareios' tomb inscription." "TIGRAXauda" suggests the Tigris river...at the Iranian frontier where Dionysus traces, which is to Nuzi, near ancient KURKura, a term like the Persian "XERXes." The leopard-skin symbol, peculiar to Dionysus, was as per his war in India, all of which tends to reveal that the Skudra were related to Dionysus and his Galli transvestites, Amazon scythians, and Cybele-based Phrygians (= golden-fleece entity depicted by Phryxus and Helle). Cybele was named after the Cabelees, a tribe with the Laish-like Lasonii, likely from Lazona, home of the Caucasian Lazi at the same area as Medea's Colchian domain.

How did the pointed hat become a symbol of witches? Medea was a witch. I'm not necessarily saying (don't know much about it) that "Tigraxauda" cannot mean "people of the pointed hat," but am tentatively supposing that these were peoples from the Tigris. The Persians were known as Farsi, a term that can produce "Phrygia." This evokes my trace of mythical Perseus at Joppa to the Parthenius river of Phrygia, and then to mythical Paris.

I'm reading online: "Tigra means Sharp/Pointed and Xauda means Helmet/Cap..." But perhaps they had that wrong. Perhaps the term is to be understood as Tigrax-auda. Perhaps they have "Paradraya" interpreted wrongly as "across the sea," in which case their view of the Paradraya as "western" Scythians may be in error. Herodotus: "The Sacae, or Scyths, were clad in trousers, and had on their heads tall stiff caps rising to a point..." Perhaps Herodotus was simply echoing the wrong concept that "Tigraxauda" had to do with pointed hats. Perhaps "Para" was the same as the ending on "TakaBARA." And "Taka" can certainly be from "Saka."

Herodotus spoke of mythical Perseus as a real person from the Persians, though I agree only with his latter view: "This [Persian] people was known to the Greeks in ancient times by the name of Cephenians; but they called themselves and were called by their neighbours, Artaeans. It was not till Perseus, the son of Jove and Danae, visited Cepheus the son of Belus, and, marrying his daughter Andromeda, had by her a son called Perses (whom he left behind him in the country because Cepheus had no male offspring), that the nation took from this Perses the name of Persians." Mythical Cepheus must have been a brother to Danaus, for the latter was made a son of Belus too. It jibes with Perseus being made a descendant of Danaus. but, in my opinion, some Danaus elements were the cruel "Danites" of Laish. Cepheus was made (by myth writers) a king of Ethiopia, as was "another" mythical Merops. This is a good reason to trace Perseus to the Merops > Pandareus line out of Kos. It is clear to me that the Cephenians (probably a real peoples depicted by an unreal Cepheus) were responsible for the head symbol of Gorgons i.e. the Cephenians were Gorgons.

Question: why did the Cephenians call themselves, ARTAEans? Were these the line to Arda, land of the Benni? Were they from mount Ardos? There is a Cephissis river at the Athens theater that can connect to the Keturah line in Athens.

It can be gleaned that Pandareus of Ephesus was the same Kabeiri entity as Dionysus and Hephaestus, both of whom were given limp / lame symbols from birth, and both of whom were placed in Lemnos, where the golden-fleece Argo crew stopped to mate with its Amazons (not really, but we get the symbolism). Jason, son of HephAEStus-suspect AESon (brother of Pheres), was from Thessaly, and may thus have been part of the peoples at Pella, for his half-brother was Pelias, what a pellincidence. I traced "Aeson / Iason" to the proto-Essenes at mount Carmel, i.e. at Megiddo and Dor. In fact, the Essenes > Aeson line was viewed as naming the ancient essenes bee / honey cult at Ephesus.

Pelias and Jason were both made sons of Tyro, but Pelias had Poseidon as father while Jason's was likely the Zeus Taurus line from Tyre into Crete. Pelias was therefore traced by ancients to Phoenician Poseidon, and they traced Poseidon further back both to Belas and to Ethiopia. But we now have reason to trace Pelias through Pella of the Jordan river before landing in the Dorian / Macedonian theater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelias

Never mind the mythical details, you need only this part: "...the girls cut their father [Pelias] into pieces and threw them in a pot, in the expectation that he would emerge rejuvenated. Pelias, of course, did not survive." That's how Medea had Pelias murdered, but if I have my facts straight by memory alone, it was PELops who cut his father into pieces (or vice versa), wherefore Pelias traces to some aspect of Pelops, mythical king of Lydia. My investigations into the trace of the Benjamite and Jabesh-ites to the Romans had gone through Pelops and his Amazon wife, but at the time I didn't include Pella (don't recall it coming to mind, even if I had read about it) at that Jordan as his possible origin. I traced Pelops' father to Poseidon-like Pisidians, probably the same theme as Poseidon, father of Pelias. Pelops was ruler of Eneti in Lydia, though the Eneti were Paphlagonians and therefore possibly Phrygians. The gold-fleece Phrygians had traced through Pelops.

I always trace Merovingians to Israel's Hebron, though in the beginning it had nothing to do with Keturah and Abraham (who lived in Hebron). I now see the Eschol valley of Hebron with the Scolati = Royal Scythians, as well as a line to Patent-related Schole's/Scayles. In the transition between Schultz-like "Scolati" and "Scythian," I imagine that "Skudra" was born from something like "Skuter/Skyter." Tyro's step-mother, SIDERo, could have been the Skyter > Skuter > Skudra entity. As Schultz's/Shultz's are using what looks like a version of the Chives Coat, let's repeat that Chives' trace to the Cavii at the Lissus theater. There is also a Shoultz surname from Shouldham...of Norfolk, where Benjamins were first found who use a saltire in colors reversed to the Schutz saltire. The white griffin in the Shoultz Crest is used by Dobermans who are tracing to Dober on the Clausula river i.e. next to lake Scodra.

The Dober Crest use the Doberman-Crest griffin head in gold, and then the same gold head is in the Siston Crest, a surname like a term in this quote: "Saka Haumavarga: 'hauma-drinking' or 'hauma-preparing' Sakas (hauma is a type of alcoholic beverage) identified with the Amyrgian Scythians of Greek sources, possibly located in the southeastern Iranian province of Drangiana, which later became known as Sakastan or Seistan..." Wikipedia calls it, "Sistan, also known as Scythia", but this is in Indo-Iran, not proto-Moldova. The Sistan Coat looks like a version of the Masters Coat, the latter perhaps from the Massagetae. Sistons were first found in Gloucestershire, a term like the Glaucus river, location of the Colchian golden fleece.

There is talk of these Irano-Scythians in the Sindh valley (Pakistan), which for me speaks to Sintians of Lemnos. The Sindh are expected to be from the Caucasian Sindi (lake Maeotis, suspect with Medes), fellow tribe with Soducena-suspect Sittaceni. There was even a Sittacene location between Assyria and Susa. "Sinti (the Homeric 'sinties'), the, a Thracian tribe, first settled Lemnos, 3. 367; by some identified with the Saii, 5. 55, 403." The Saii are thought to be the Saka of Indo-Iran.

Here's Herodotus verifying that Medea's team of 12 dragons did go to Athens: "The Medes had exactly the same equipment as the Persians; and indeed the dress common to both is not so much Persian as Median. They had for commander TIGRanes, of the race of the Achaemenids. These Medes were called anciently by all people Arians; but when Media, the Colchian, came to them from Athens, they changed their name. Such is the account which they themselves give." Why did they appoint her with a dozen dragons? Apparently, her dragons were play on the Ares dragon that protected whatever the golden fleece depicted.

The first-verifiable Merovingian king, ignoring quasi-mythical Merovee, was Childeric, husband of a woman with a name like "Bassania" at Lissus. The Bessi, they say, were priests of the Satrae Thracians (a real peoples) to the east of Paeonia, and expected in PAN the Satyr, who is also expected in PANdareus. Pan was from Panias perhaps no more than two or three miles from Laish, at the foot of mount Sion that had also been called, Ardos, a term that I trace to Arda on the Hebros along with a Laish > Lissae trace. This Satyr element picture can go to the Stura valley of Cuneo where Astibus of the Paeonians goes to Asti of Cuneo.

If the ASTIbus location of Paeonians traces to Asti upon the Tanaro river, note that German Tanners use a PINE cone, double code, one for the Cone / Conte / Conan line, and another fire the Payen-like Pine's/Pyne's, important where Payens show a Paion variation smacking of "Paionia." While the first grandmaster of Templars, with Payens surname, married Elizabeth Chappes, the Stubb bend goes to the Stirlings that connect with Scottish Chappes', first found in the same place as Conan-related Guiscards.

The Phrygians, according to a report echoed by Herodotus, had originated in Macedonia: "The dress of the Phrygians closely resembled the Paphlagonian, only in a very few points differing from it. According to the Macedonian account, the Phrygians, during the time that they had their abode in Europe and dwelt with them in Macedonia, bore the name of Brigians; but on their removal to Asia they changed their designation at the same time with their dwelling-place. The Armenians, who are Phrygian colonists, were armed in the Phrygian fashion." I take it that Armenians of some sort had been first in Macedonia. Both nations were under the command of ARTOCHmes...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/herodotus/Herodotus7.html

Herodotus' story reads at first more like a short fictional than reality, and so perhaps it was someone's fanciful rendition of a true Persian attack westward, seeking a global empire, as the story goes. Herodotus claims that Thracians (which ones?) originated on the Strymon, where Satrae lived: "The Thracians went to the war wearing the skins of foxes upon their heads, and about their bodies tunics, over which was thrown a long cloak of many colours. Their legs and feet were clad in buskins made from the skins of fawns; and they had for arms javelins, with light targes, and short dirks. This people, after crossing into Asia, took the name of Bithynians; before, they had been called Strymonians, while they dwelt upon the Strymon; whence, according to their own account, they had been driven out by the Mysians and Teucrians. The commander of these Asiatic Thracians was Bassaces the son of Artabanus."

Note that the Satrae are between the NESTus and Strymon river, for a mythical Nestor was a ruler of Pylos. Then, if we Germanicize "Satrae," we get a Schatra-like term. We can compare "Satyr" with "Keturah" and then, if Satyrs were named after a line in her honor, we reflect again on the ability for "Scolati" to trace to Hebron. In this picture, the Satrae Thracians were the Skudra / Skydra entity.

If the BiTHYNI were a branch of Thyni, let's recall Tinia, the chief Etruscan god, husband of Uni, for the Sistons come up as "Sissel" while Cecils/Sicelts -- a branch of Chives', and therefore traceable to lake Scodra -- have a motto, "Cor unum via una," looking like part code for Coronis / Corinth liners. Again, Medea in Corinth is expected to be a Keturah>Medan line to the Clausula river, to the near-east of lake Scodra, and to the near-north of the Cavii (for all we know, Cavii could have been on the Clausula). Or, if Keturah doesn't trace to the Clausula, she traces to Kotor, beside Butua at the near-north of lake Scodra.

The Sissels/Sistons and Cecils/Sicelts were traceable in the last update to Sicily's Scylla location, suspect all on its own, for years, with the Eschol valley in Hebron, and more recently viewed as an Eschol > Skala > Scylla line through Patmos, where I trace Coronis. Beside Corinth is Sicyon, a Saka-potential term that I've been tracing to the Sicanians of central Sicily. Cecils were gleaned (correctly, hopefully) as Gorgon liners of the Sicily's Cyclops kind.

There is a Pelle surname that can go to the "Impelle" motto term of Arthurs because both surnames use the pelican, and as the pelican is often on a nest, the pelican line can be gleaned from Nestor of Pylos. Once we get back to Pylos, we are at the Messene elements that Wikipedia claims for the founders of Messina at Scylla. It's an easy trace from Pylos to Pelops elements to the near-north at Pisa. The Poole location in Devon (home of Mr. Pullen in the write-up of pelican-using Pulleys/Pullens) can be gleaned as linking to the white and blue lions in the Cecil Crest, for Cecils were first found in Devon while Poole's use a white-on-blue lion. The Pisa surname happens to use lions in both colors schemes.

My hunch is that "Pisa" of Greece traces to Bistue between the Una and Urbanus rivers. It's easy to get the Una river traced to Pylos, for the latter was near Methoni/Modon, which was mythically made a daughter of Oeneus, the older name of the Una. Pelops' father-in-law was OENomaus, we get it. The "best" motto term of Sisels/Sistons may apply to Bistones liners, but Bistones (Cyrene 700 BC, land from the mythical Cyrene crow) are suspect with the crow symbol of Coronis, and therefore from Patmos elements. Ares-worshiping Bistones, like the Biston and Beaston/Bessin Crests, used an upright sword in worship of Ares. There had been a question on whether BISTONs were PISiDiaNs. Pella > Pelops > Pylos liners can trace well to "Apulia," where mythical Satyrion co-founded Taranto. A major Apulia city is Bari, perhaps of the same that named the Takabara.

The problems with the media delivery of the French plane crash reminds me of the Boston-Marathon bombing, where a young man with his pants off, was wearing something that looks like a cheap carpenter's bag with two pouches filled to the max with some mystery objects. One can see him, at the start, with his rump on the sidewalk, but getting up very quickly like one without major leg injury, and indeed his legs become visible but with no visible injuries. Nothing indicates injury to his upper body either, yet we are to conclude that the bomb blew the pants clear off of him.

After he gets up, he turns toward a woman directly beside him, with both hands going to the backside of his hips, as though trying to pull the strings (visible) of the bag to let it fall to the ground. The woman was in a sitting position upon the sidewalk at the time, with her legs spread and facing this man as though her job was to trap the contents of the pouches between her legs. The man then fell to the ground smack at her legs. I assumed that the objects were filled with red paint, and that the two smacked the objects with their hands to release the paint, then gathered up the "shells."

I found it odd that another woman, a blonde in a pink jacket, was seen leaving the scene about a minute later, which seemed like a callous thing for her to do had this been a real event. to do. It didn't dawn on me that her job may have been to carry away the shells in her purse.

One can see no red marks on the sidewalk directly under this man, nor at the woman's legs. However, in the past month, due to the trial under way, I saw on the news this same man in another video (I've never seen it before), clearly showing a large patch of red directly under him. That made sense. After he fell to the sidewalk, this man did not get up again for quite some time. In every picture where he could be seen, he looked perfectly fine, no expression of pain on his face, as was the case with several others who simply sat or lay there, neither in pain nor getting up to be of help to others, exposing a very poor acting job intended for the photo operation yet to come. The video can be found online by its title, "Crisis actor caught during explosion Boston bombing."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GyAtgNkg4k

Let me tell you that, in the same situation, I would not be able to remain calm, to just lie there useless, with injured people around me supposedly minus limbs and possibly dying. If small bits of metal entered my legs, the last thing I'd be able to do is lie there virtually motionless for minutes, as this man did. In the Tang set of photos, he looked like he was comfy in bed in the middle of the injury pile.

Why would the perpetrators of the marathon fake-job release the image of this man having a very unusual thing around his waist filled to the max with objects? He was completely suspicious. Perhaps this video was not released by the perpetrators; perhaps it was not supposed to get out. Or, they released it to create suspicion, part of the task to make this event the talk of the Internet. It's not unthinkable that the military has been tasked with creating faked events in case they are needed for various public-manipulation purposes. Any of these events can be initiated at the word of the president. In this case, Obama needed the best one available to take the media spotlight off of his Benghazi problems.

The young man now in court, who has admitted guilt in setting off the bomb, is not the one who detonated the bomb. There are ways to make a man confess to what he didn't do, and his lawyer is likely a part of the plotters to carry this trial through on their behalf. The plotters went through a lot of trouble, for what?

Here's a shot of the same bomb spot, showing the blonde in pink jacket sitting on the sidewalk. Note how far from the building the broken glass has reached. Why has this window glass been blown TOWARD the bomb? The bomb spot can be ascertained in many ways to be a few feet behind the woman in pink. She's above the yellow whatever-it-is on the head of a youth.

Back to the video, find the crumpled paper, above the elderly woman's head, at about :08 seconds. By :09, it has blown away, toward the road and away from the building. How can wind do that? How can wind come from a tall building only a dozen feet or less away from that piece of paper? This reminds me of the flags waving along the street for too-long after the blast; one problem was, the flags were waving more toward the street than down the street. We can all imagine a wind blowing down the street, through a corridor of buildings, but a wind blowing toward the street is unthinkable where the buildings are about 25 feet from the street. Those waving flags had me stumped. If I recall correctly, they didn't start waving until some seconds after the blast.

But ignoring the flags here, this little piece of paper needs to be dealt with. One can see it blown a few feet away, to find lodging directly under Jeff Bauman, the one who supposedly lost both legs below his knees. It seems that the "wind" was originating from inside the building, and blowing out the broken glass window(s). Why would they have a fan or pressurized air system in the building? Obviously, to relieve the actors of the smoke, necessary only for a few seconds to set the stage initially without the non-actors seeing the set-up. This may be the reason that they blew out the window in the first place. Let's face it, a bomb blowing toward the building doesn't blow the glass toward the bomb. But most Americans would chose to believe that rather than to believe that their government faked this bomb event. When you have lived so long with a high level of trust in your fellow Americans, it's unthinkable that so many media people, hospital people, and others, could become involved in such a plot. But, for me, it was part of my wake-up call, indicating that the military, who knows a lot of people, has been doing these sorts of things for quite some time.

The video, "Flash mob fools the world" (11:50 minutes), has some good-resolution images taken from the same spot (roughly, anyway) as the video above. If you can download it to follow along, you might be able to agree with some of the following points. Your times may be different than mine. To get your bearings, in relation to the video above, Jeff Bauman's head can be seen in the lower-right corner at 4:27. In other words, the actor with pouches is just outside the picture to the bottom.

At 4:33, a young girl in black is on her knees at the center. She is supposedly holding on to her mother. The girl walks along on her knees for several feet toward the building. The smoke is yet visible, and so the 4:33 point can be timed roughly when the man with pouches falls to the sidewalk at the woman's legs. There is no definite blood visible on the sidewalk itself at this time, but as the seconds tick on, blood magically appears. The only red I can see at this time is on two white objects that look like posters. These objects could have been prepared beforehand with red markings, and simply dropped by the actors.

Blood will appear directly under the spot where the girl's left knee is situated at 4:45. Did her knee squash something filled with ink? Is that why she's walking on her knees? Is mom dropping things for her to squash? Look at how far mom allows the girl to walk on her knees. Mom never even bends down to her. If you' a mom, or even a dad, you know that this is not right. If the knee made as much blood as the stain would indicate at 4:54 (there's not 21 seconds real time between 4:33 and 4:54), then the girl would not be walking on that knee, pure and simple, due to the pain from the injury. But look at how far she walks on it. The mother never stoops down to investigate the possible wounds, or to look her daughter in the eyes, to speak to her concerning where she may have been injured.

The left knee goes down to the sidewalk on the next "knee step," at 4:49-51. The girl is on grey patio stones at this time while mom is on white patio stones. There is no blood stain directly in from of the left knee at this time, but there will be one in a few seconds. At 5:01, we can see a smudge where the girl's second knee-step had occurred, not to be mistaken for the more-pronounced stain of blood in front of it. Where did this second stain come from?

The smudge helps to assure that the knee was upon the wet first stain, but the smudge is not as pronounced as the first or second stain. Why not? Did the left knee stop bleeding as badly on the second knee-step, just a few seconds later? Or, was there an object, filled with red dye, under the knee on the first step but not on the second? That's what it looks like.

This is a critical issue, so follow along and get it. The second stain (not the smudge) is exactly half way along a border between the white and grey patio stones. In other words, the border looks to be about four feet long while the stain is two feet from either end. Her left knee did not come down on the second-stain spot. The second stain should not be mistaken for the shade appearing at 4:51, for this shade if not exactly midway along the border. It looks like the shade from either the girl's or mom's arm. It can be seen that there is no blood stain along the border at 4:51, just before the right knee comes down at 4:52 virtually upon the spot where the second stain will appear.

At 4:52, both ladies are looking at the first blood stain, apparently, to check whether it was formed well. At this time also, a white thing appears on the sidewalk, at the inside of the girl's right knee. It looks like the knee has not come directly upon this white object. If the knee were to come down on it directly, it would, if filled with dye, make for a second stain exactly where that stain appears a few seconds later. A second white object appears between mom's feet (it looks like it's in contact with the top of mom's right foot) in two frames between 4:49 and 4:50, and in a third frame at 4:52. A third white object, all three of them looking round about the size of ping-pong balls, appears to be falling at 4:52; it can be seen at the top of the girl's legs. There is perhaps a fourth similar object falling down across mom's hips at 4:35, just in time for the first knee-step.

At, 4:52, there is something white visible in mom's right hand. It doesn't look wide enough to be a drinking cup, unless she's squeezing it. She can be seen tossing something from that hand at 4:53-54, at which time a couple of small pieces of white things are seen beside the first blood stain, perhaps from whatever held the dye. A cup can be seen dropping, along with a crumpled piece of white paper, starting at 4:53. The crumpled paper bounces off the girl's leg (4:55), apparently, then rolls along the sidewalk at 5:00. Two frames later at 5:01, the piece of crumpled paper has been blown by an air current, in the opposite direction from which it had bounced off the girl's leg. The "wind" must have been blowing before the paper was dropped because the smoke had suddenly cleared by then. One can see the paper beside the paper cup at 5:01, but at 5:02 the paper has been blown further away in the same direction...at an angle of about 45 degrees from the building. The air current can thus be gleaned as coming from the window with broken glass.

It should be noted that the air current here was insufficient here to blow away the paper cup, wherefore this current did not form the flag waving. There were broken windows a story or two higher that would have done better for the flags, though the purpose wasn't to blow the flags but to blow the smoke away. The black object that is suddenly between the camera and the girl's feet, at 5:00, was blown into the air from the ground. It can be seen between the two strips of black patio stones, and has been shifted position slightly, from an air current, between 4:50 and 4:52. In this flag-waving image, the flags further down the street are not waving, while the ones nearest to the broken windows are, and they clearly wave toward the street. Here's another shot of the flags waving toward the street. You don't need to be a bona fide scholar to know that wind doesn't penetrate buildings. Even the American flag clear across the street is waving at a full horizontal position, but it's waving in the opposite direction from the American flag on the roof (!), meaning that the one on the street is a paste-job in order to get it waving in the same direction as the row of international flags. Enlarge the picture to see two flags behind the American one on the street to see that both are not affected by wind much at all, which can be expected where the true wind direction is according to the flag on the roof.

At 4:55, after dropping the cup from her right hand, something white can be seen in mom's left hand, meaning that, instead of helping her daughter with both hands free, as we would expect, she's been holding things all this time in BOTH hands. That does not reflect reality. There is a large woman hanging on to mom at this time, who, along with the man in grey cap, looks like blocker (to block the view from the wrong people who may have been there). The man in grey cap does nothing to show concern for the girl (her name, supposedly Victoria McGrath).

About three minutes from the explosion, a fireman carries the little girl along the street to a stretcher. She has her left leg tied tightly (well, that's debatable) below the knee, as though her wound was bleeding enough to require it, and "explaining" why she could not walk. The mother wasn't there at the time, because she was not the true mother. They had to call her from the street to go out for the photo shoots. There's one below, but mom doesn't look more than ten years older than the girl.
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonPlourdeGirl.jpg

Here's the fireman's words according to an article: "I came across a young girl lying on the floor. She was there with another woman. I said 'You gotta go.' She said 'That's my daughter, I'm not leaving.' I said, 'I'll take good care of her,' so I looked down and she had a bleeding leg." Willickers, a whole bleeding leg. My hero. The article is hilarious, because, really, this man did nothing, absolutely nothing, that he should be fending off calls for heroism.
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Boston-Firefighter-Rescues-Weston-Girl-203481741.html

Mom was caught on a private video helping a man outside one of the shops, while the fireman took the girl away without her. That's just not logical. In other words, the fireman took her to the street, and she did not follow, but when they called her to do the photo shoots, she went running past the private video camera. I saw this with my own eyes. I know of no American media that aired that video. Instead it was released by RT, a Russian media. That video (named, "Graphic video' first moments after Boston Marathon blasts") had things people were not supposed to see, and that was one of them.

Another article hypes it even better: "'She was in a pool of blood,' Plourde said. 'She looked at me and said, 'I'm scared.' I said, 'I'll take care of you.' Plourde scooped her up and dashed her to a waiting ambulance. She was whisked to the hospital and survived." It was near-fatal, yet her mother left her alone, but even at the injury scene, she didn't free her hands immediately to alleviate some of her daughter's weight while crawling along, full body weight on the leg. There was no blood where her left knee came down on the sidewalk. The child's no sweetheart, but rather a guilty party.

Below is fireman Plourde walking away from the injury scene with darling Victoria in his arms. He's between the lamp post and the red arrow to the right. He's the one with a balding head and yellow-and-red vest. Mom is nowhere to be seen because she's up at the shops, out of camera shot to the left. At the left of the image, there's a guy with hands on his hips; mom is about a dozen feet to our left of him; she's tending to someone along with a young guy (perhaps her boyfriend). This is not real life. The time of the image is not many seconds after the three-minute mark of the explosion. Mom has had only that much time to get over her fright, and to deal with the fright of her child, and do we think that mom will let a perfect-stranger fireman walk away alone with her attractive teenage-age daughter??? That's exactly what you see in the image below. About 15 seconds after you see Plourde (below), mom she goes running to the street -- part of her body flashes across the screen at the :15 second mark of this 52-second RT video) -- but not before looking toward the street (:04 second mark) as though she's hearing the call.

There's no stretcher visible below, and Plourde appears to be acting completely on his own, without anyone involved to get him a stretcher. They must have had a cue to bring on the stretcher; otherwise he's taking her without one until his arms give out for lack of oxygen. Then what? Drop her? If this were real life, he wouldn't have known when or where he'd bump into a stretcher. There were not many there. In a real situation, he wouldn't have picked her up to carry her, but would have called on someone to bring a wheelchair. You know that's correct.
http://www.tribwatch.com/boston311.jpg

The Negro woman, who will be in the photo with darling Victoria, is on one of the few stretchers, at this time, to the left of the lamp post's base, and she's almost ready to wheel. This was the first stretcher to the injury zone. The second one came just as Fireman Hero needed it, mere seconds after you see him above. But where did it come from? It must have been planted just for him, very nearby.

Poor Jeff, they must not have seen him there, because they are taking the Negro woman away instead, who was lying beside him, and who suffered nothing life-threatening, by the looks of it. Meanwhile, we are to believe that Jeff was there with nothing to stop the blood from pouring out his legs. My friends, if you chose to believe something like that for real life, then you are bewitched in just the way the government wants you. If this were a real situation with Jeff dying because they took others to the hospital before they took him, the city of Boston would have been held responsible. Police officers are not so dumb that they don't know this. How dumb are they? Enough to let Boston get away with this sham.

About a minute after the Negro woman was wheeled away, they took the time clocks down for a reason, not because it was urgent, not because it was needed, not because they had nothing better to do, but because they wanted to deny the world the timing of a certain event(s) yet to come.

Next topic, at 4:51, spot another "sweetheart" blonde woman with black vest and red sleeves at the bottom. She is lying about the same distance from the camera as the woman with double-white arm bands. There is a vast amount of "blood" beneath and beside the double-arm-band woman. More than ping-pong balls were needed here. A bottle of fluid looks more like it. You can see the stain, and Blondy's face, much better at 5:33. Here sits Blondy in the same image but showing her one shoe missing. Her face does seem to sense the pain that we would expect by the sight of her legs just a minute old. She's acting, and not too well. She has changed position from the time that we saw her at 4:51. She started out where you can see her shoe off, alone in the blood patch. I wonder why she took off her shoe.

At 5:33, she's now sitting in another blood stain, as though she's the one who created it. Behind her, there is a poster spotted with red droplets. In fact, this blood stain upon which she now sits was formed by "lime stripe," the latter being the one stepping over the poster and spraying the sidewalk with blood from a hose through her purse (I tend to agree with that theory). Blondy went to sit on that stain for the photo shoot. Note the black bag with orange tags behind Blondy at 5:33, for that same bag was beside her head when she was at the other spot. Yes, for one orange tag becomes visible at 4:32, and again at 4:50, still beside Blondy. Starting at 4:54, one can see the other blood stain (beside the head of the double-band woman) where Blondy will soon go park herself.

Something important: at 4:54, see the black strip of patio stones stemming into the picture from the lower-left. That row points directly to the bloodstain where Blondy will go park herself. At 4:54, one sees no blood at the end of the black strip, but at 5:33, there is plenty of blood at the end of the black strip, and not merely from shoe prints, but more like poured out. There was only a minute or so between the two shots; how did that blood get there? No one was lying there?

At 5:33, someone else is missing from beside the man in burgundy Coat. The missing man (let's call him Mr Nopants) got up and moved to this image (no need to be in shock, it's not real blood):
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonBloodyShredded.jpg

Look at all that blood on the ground under and around this "injured" man. How did it get there? There wasn't anyone at this spot until this man got up to move there. He's not bleeding profusely at any part of his body. He's got impossible scratches on his legs, both inside and out, impossible for a single bomb from one direction only. You can see the back of his head, beside Mr. Burgundy, starting at 4:33. Lime stripe has just walked by him and is moving toward the spot to which he will move. All well rehearsed, we can assume. Note the man standing with pants blown off, how clean his legs are. The Obama government had taken the people for fools.

At 4:51, you can make out that Blondy's elbow, and "her" black bag, are upon the red patio stones seen clearly at 5:33. Further study concludes that she's lying on an unstained part of the sidewalk, but directly beside the large red stain, which is to her front, wherefore she's a suspect in creating the stain. At one time, I thought that she was the same as the blonde with pink jacket, but have since become confused. Media articles state that her husband was with her at the scene, but we never see him with her.

The image below was timed without doubt at 36 seconds after the blast. Both Blondy and Mr. Nopants have already changed their positions. That was fast. http://www.flickr.com/photos/hahatango/8652835901/sizes/l/in/set-72157633252445135/

Judging by the man carrying the girl in both images, the one below is some 5-10 seconds earlier. Blondy and Mr. Nopants have already changed positions fully, explaining why I found no images made available between the times of their first-versus-second positions; otherwise, we would have seen them moving over. I don't think they wanted us to see that. Measuring the distance from the feet to hips of the woman (blue coat) who makes contact with the Blondy, we compare that distance with anyone else closer to the camera, which reveals that Ms. Blue Coat was pasted in too large. Her belt line is in line (same elevation) with the belt of the Mr White T-Shirt significantly further from the camera, which is not possible. All belt lines of standing people, when closer to this particular camera (because it's shooting from up high), must be lower down in the picture. Compare the two belt lines of the same two people in the image above to verify the problem. Why was Ms. Blue Coat pasted? Was she pasted into all the images where she appears? Mr. Burgundy looks too large as compared with the hood-and-sunglasses man. Who else was pasted into this scene?
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonPinkJacket.jpg Here's a good shot of Blondy before she moved. She's not in the blood stain. See how fake Jeff's broken leg looks in this image. Here's is the the rest of the shot further to the right, which includes the man with pouches still standing up. As we can see, the bomb wasn't even capable of blowing away the skinny fence. The bomb was pointed at the fence, wasn't it, to protect the actors? The full force of this bomb was able only to blow a small hole (about two-feet round) through the skinny slats. Jeff's feet were never seen in any of the original images, and never did I read that they had been recovered.

There's a question as to whether he was pasted into these injury-zone scenes. He does not look to me like the same man on the wheelchair on that same day. Here's Jeff pasted into the scene, explaining why he's alone and unattended more than a minute after the bomb. Everyone around him looks oblivious to his presence because he wasn't there.

There's a question as to whether Jeff was pasted into these injury-zone scenes. He does not look to me like the same man on the wheelchair on that same day. Here's "Jeff" on the wheelchair ride out from the event, at least six minutes after the bomb went off (no priority for him). His left knee is much too far from his hip because he's wearing a faked injury leg attached to his already-severed leg. His left knee extends past his right knee. No knee should be more than 24 inches, from hip to knee, as Jeff's seems to be. Measure your distance to see what I mean. If Jeff was pasted in, anything could have been.

In this no-Jeff image, someone did a fast job to make it appear that he's there, providing what looks like the bone remnant of his one leg (at the Negro woman's head), but otherwise, there is no sign of Jeff behind that woman. Moreover, it's later than the pictures where he has no flesh / sinews dangling from the bone, but here we see what looks like such a thing. Perhaps the artists had their wires crossed.

Below is Blondy's bag still at the same spot after everyone had left. She was conscious; why didn't she take it with her? Did she just forget? I'll bet it wasn't her bag. It must have had something in it, like dye, for the bag is seen slightly open at her second-position image. It's open enough to reach a hand into. What's that bottle of Coke doing on the ground in her second-position image?
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonAftermath.jpg

Back to the long video that you downloaded. At 6:36, where lime-stripe has laid down feigning injury, one can see a lot of blood flow along the railing, where the explosion could not possibly have blown any blood. The flow is running downhill from the door, toward the street, and, possibly, Lime-Stripe put it there. It's not a spatter we see, but a distinct flow, a "river" of blood at least a dozen feet long, depending on how far inside the door you might entertain the victim's position. In the RT video, the blood can be seen approaching very near the door, giving the impression that someone with a very bad, life-threatening injury went into that door. I've never seen anyone with an injury go into that door, nor anyone come out, nor any wheelchair or stretcher go up to that door to take someone away from it. With that much blood flowing from the door, the person inside would have been high priority, don't you think? There were plenty of wheelchairs on the street to be used for this victim, but no one asked for one, very apparently. You can have another view of the blood flow at 6:26.

Lime Stripe is supposedly Sydney Corcoran. No one seems to want to know that she was walking about before she lay down to feign an injury. This is simply overwhelming evidence for a fake-job...that no one wants to hear whom have mocked conspiracy theorists in the fullest. It's not a nice feeling to have to repent and apologize, to humble oneself admitting error. But if not that, then be bewitched more and more, by your own doing, and urge the corrupt governmental system on until it feeds on you one surprising day. It's fine if one doesn't accept the charge that she was using a hose from her purse to create faked blood spatter, but at least confess the obvious, that she was walking about beforelying down and treated as an injury victim.

Below is Sydney in a shot where (if you enlarge it) one can see red on her black pants, just below the purse, on her right leg. Black is a color of choice to disguise blood stains. When she's lying down, they wrapped her leg where this red now shows. One can chose to believe that the blood was from an injury, or from the job she had to distribute blood on the ground. She would later claim to have suffered a serious wound at that part of her leg.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/bostonCorcoran2.jpg

The image above is one of several from the webpage below. The one that follows the above is similar, where she stands in a pool of blood, the important factor being that both her shoes have a drenching of blood, not just from her one injured leg. How does that happen over about a minute of time? Try gouging your right leg with a steak knife, say two inches deep, then walk around for a minute to see if blood finds your left shoe. That's one way to snap yourself to your senses if you still trust what the government says on this issue. In my opinion, no one seeing all that blood loss would continue to remain alone without calling for help. The man in grey cap beside her looks completely useless for helping anyone, which can be explained only because this was not reality. These images are available at the video presented earlier:
http://letsrollforums.com/boston-bombing-victim-sydney-t29591.html?s=5cfbdaa4dbd50c2069a4a35f1f3d1d6d&p=247606

Back to the long video, Flash Mob Fools the World. See the 3:43 point where the video owner claims, "This is a pyrotechnic launch tube." It's worded authoritatively, as though there is no doubt about it. I suppose such tubes come in all shapes and sizes, but, certainly, the perpetrators would not release an image with the bald man carrying such a device, would they? I can't argue that this particular video was taken by a non-insider, because it shows Jeff on the sidewalk, though I choose to believe that he was pasted into injury scenes. There is the possibility that this event was not a false flag for securing some political achievement, but serving only to alleviate Obama's Benghazi problem. In that case, it can be argued that the perpetrators deliberately added in suspicious material for to make this a giant conversation piece amongst the Obama haters.

In the pink-jacket image with a timing at roughly 30 seconds, i.e. not many seconds after we see the "pyrotechnic device," the same bald man has approached near to, and is looking over, the bomb spot, which seems logical if he indeed had a pyrotechnic device that caused the blast (not necessarily an explosion) and smoke. I can see nothing in his right hand in this image, however. A few seconds later in this Tang shot, there is again nothing showing in his hand.

I need to say that many images I've got are of low-resolution, and perhaps my computer automatically loads them with low resolution while yours does not. Perhaps you can see something in his hand, but I can't.

About a half minute after the images above, we find the one below, with the same bald man, and he's headed toward the bomb spot looking like he wants to check out its smoking condition. That makes sense. We now see something clearly at his right hip (though no hand or arm is showing), looking like a camera lens (similar cylindrical shape as per the "pyrotechnic device"). However, the strap-like part does not match with what we see as the pyrotechnic device in the video. It looks like tampering to make it look like a camera lens on this occasion.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/bostonCowboyFence.jpg

In the next image in the video, at 3:51, part of his hand is showing, but as it's not all showing, we might get the impression that another man's foot was pasted in to hide the rest of his hand, and whatever he may be carrying. It doesn't look like he's carrying anything. It seems doubtful that, as the original plot, he was to carry a pyrotechnic device around for this long. The image at the 3:51 point is more than two minutes after the blast. The foot may have been pasted to hide the fact that he didn't have a camera. It would have been necessary to hide this because they pasted a camera to him in an earlier image. They now want us to think that he has a camera in his hand, in other words, that's blocked by the foot. However, I have never seen this man, who appears in several images, taking pictures at any time.

Therefore, the argument that he has a pyrotechnic device in his hand at 3:43 is a good one, but it doesn't tell us whether the person taking the video was an insider or not. We can ask why the full video was not released. I have yet to see any full video from the several media people covering the event.

On to the 4:58 point, where the bald man can be seen coming in on the extreme left. His right hand is out of the picture. The device in his hand then appears at 5:00, but at 5:01, his hand is still showing, but the device is not. It seems to me that it would be very difficult for him to position the hand in any way to completely block that large device. There are two options here: 1) he threw the device over the railing a second after we see it at 5:00; 2) it was initially pasted at 5:00, or deleted at 5:01.

At 5:02, upon his next step, the video camera supposedly goes up so that his hand is obscured by the window frame. After not showing at 5:03, we are led to assume that he's the bald-headed man (looks too chubby) with sunglasses, at 5:03. I'm a little suspicious here as to how they have his one hand raised to make it appear he just put on his sunglasses, and then there is what looks like a strap around his right hand, arguing for a camera rather than the device.

Although there is some compelling evidence here that he threw the device over the railing, why didn't they just "rub out" the device from his hand, if it really was the tool that caused the blast? Back at 3:43, when he's shown with the device, note how his gait doesn't look natural. Besides, he's leaning too much for a mere walk. Perhaps he was on a semi-run. Perhaps he's pasted. The railing is in full view, and his arm could be in the very process of swinging the device over it.

At the 3:43 point, there is an area of sidewalk showing where Mr Nopants will go lie in a massive stain of red dye, but, as you can see, there is no red on the sidewalk as Bald Man comes through. The Tang image above (timed at 36 seconds after the blast) has Lime Stripe lying on the sidewalk a little further away than Mr. Nopants. In the video, Lime Stripe is on her feet to a point within about 25 seconds maximum before her lying-down position beyond Nopants (this was not her final resting place). That is, she only has 25 seconds max to make that mess of "blood" that we see under and beside Nopants.

Wikipedia has an image (below) that I timed at 28 seconds after the blast, but Lime Stripe is not in it. Blondy and Nopants have already changed positions, but it had to be within the last 10 seconds. They are fully in their positions, not at all in the midst of getting into them. That's pretty fast moving for injured people who thereafter sit/lie for minutes until wheeled away.
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonWikipedia.jpg

Above, look at how Bald Man looks like he's running into the heap of actors. He's certainly not taking normal strides, once again. He's even off-level again, as one who turns while at a fast pace, suggesting perhaps that he's pasted in. The view to the spot where Lime Stripe will be, in less than some eight seconds, is blocked by two people, perhaps deliberately so that we are led to believe that she is lying there at this time, when perhaps she could be producing that river of blood along the patio railing. She may have made a mistake with that one because it brought attention to that door. Some seven or eight minutes after the blast, a few men were ganged around the door, perhaps asking who on the inside was responsible for that blood.

Or, as we see a woman in a purple top in a stretcher outside that door, perhaps the river of blood and she were planned together i.e. she was inside the door all along. On the other hand, though I can't recall with certainty, this woman with purple top may have been the one inside the railing area, at the corner nearest the door, but therefore not inside the door. Perhaps the river of blood was made on her behalf, or even be she herself, yet the RT video spoiled that plot by showing the line of blood beyond the point where the person inside the railing lay. To see the position inside the railing area, enlarge this image (1:57 minutes after the blast):
http://www.tribwatch.com/boston411.jpg

There is also the issue of Lime Stripe standing in a pool of blood (seen clearly at 5:17). She's looking down at the blood, but she doesn't ask anyone beside her for help. None of the people beside her at her scene when she's lying down. No one where she's standing helped her over to where she lay down prior to the 36-second mark.

Next, to the flames that were showing a second or two after the blast. This looks like a smoke-making machine. Let's start at the 2:23 point, where we see a man in white shirt and black backpack at the top-right. He looks completely calm, like he knows what's happening. The "bomb" has already gone off, and just, so that, in a real situation, he should have a bewildered facial expression. He simply stands there, and the woman in blue beside him looks just as casual. Elsewhere in this image, the actors are playing their role.

The blast has blown the pants and sleeve off of the one farce who comes running through, meaning that he had to have the opportunity to get dressed like that before the blast went off. It indicates that the place was stacked with actors, coaches, and insiders of other kinds. It can be gleaned that, at 2:26, someone is pouring red "dye" (unknown chemical) out of a coke bottle at the spot where Mr. Burgundy appears from the start. At 2:31, it does appear that a man in white coat has his coat seared with heat from the flame that has begun to appear. There is a good argument here for the authenticity of this scene, and even for the argument that the one taking the video is not an insider, unless we can come up with a good motive for the insiders showing this flame deliberately

Judging by the position of Mr. Burgundy over the woman with a double band on her sleeve, as the smoke clears, she is not the one who formed the blood stain, for she is trapped between his legs. Therefore, either Mr. Burgundy poured out the dye, or Blondy. I don't see an alternative suspect. Blondy is in red and black, colors of choice for someone involved in a blood-stain operation, in case they get some blood on their clothing where it shouldn't be. Mr. Burgundy spends far too much time doing nothing for the woman under him, as though he needs to waste time making it look good. It makes no sense that he tries to get her up on her feet when she's not trying to get up herself. Bad acting job gets an F.

The first we see of the man with what looks like a slightly-charred white coat is at 2:23. He's kneeling or, better yet, thrusting himself away, and looking away from where the flame will appear momentarily...which makes sense if the flame was too dangerous at first to face. He may have been involved in setting the flame afire. This is not the spot where smoke rises for a few minutes near a hole in the slat fence. This may be the bang device, the bang and smoke device, or the smoke-alone device. I don't have any knowledge in this regard.

A split second later, Mr Burnt Coat is not visible, suggesting that he's turned around quickly. Why? Did he know that whatever needed a turning away lasted only a second or two? Lime Stripe appears smack beside this device, where it's best to start spraying her dye before the smoke clears too much.

A bald head appears clear at 2:31. Was the window frame placed deliberately to block the flame device at 2:31? At 2:51, we see that the bald head wears sunglasses, and he's looking smug and directly at the flame device. It turns out to be Bald Man. When we see the device in his hand up close (3:50), it appears to have a built-in handle that would NOT wrap around the outside of his hand, as is the black strap-like thing on his hand at 5:03. The device at 3:50 looks like it has a handle that goes inside the palm, not expected to wrap around the outer hand.

In the enlargement, note that there are two cylindrical tubes to the mystery device, for it now seems obvious that there were two detonation locations, one per tube.

Were these Skinheads? If so, they wouldn't strike me as Zionists. I can see them trying to blame the Zionists, though. Fireman Plourde was almost bald, right? Another near-bald man runs past Mr. Plourde when he's shot carrying Victoria. He runs directly to Nopants, for he's in the RT video at Nopant's location. Did he give the sign to "mom" that her time to go to the street was at hand? "Mom" was at the store front about a dozen feet from Nopants. The third man in the Plourde image, wearing a gun, may also be near-bald (between haircuts?) by the looks of it.

Mr. Burnt Coat starts to walk away, away from injury victims, at 2:52. Mom moves in to fill his spot. As later pictures reveal, there was no table set up there for making the flame and smoke, which must therefore have been purely from a hand-held device. Mom will end up in the same door as the "carpenter" goes for. That is, when the caption reads, "A large device is being removed," it looks like a carpenters tool case, the old-fashioned, wooden kind. At 2:59, a dark cap with light logo appears above the window frame, who turns out to be the one with the "tool box." He turns and goes straight for the door of a store. He doesn't look dressed like a carpenter, fixing a door, for example, prior to the explosion, but even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, why is he more interested in his thing than helping the needy / hurting / frightened / dying people? Come to think of it, the box that he picked up may have had a fire extinguisher, just in case. When all went well, the box was picked up and carried away.

At 3:00, Bald man still stands there, uninterested in helping any injury victims, completely non-real. The rest of the crowd looks just as uninterested. At the upper left, there's a man in white coat with a drinking cup in his hand, casual, just watching, completely unreal for a situation some 5-10 seconds after an explosion. It's not like these people have been at explosions regularly every couple of years so that they should remain so clam.

At 3:11, there could be something in Bald's right hand. My image is too faint to tell. In the next frame, his hand is obscured by the window frame, it figures. At 3:13, there are a set of legs with dark pants below the window frame, but they do not match up with anyone above the window frame. These legs are too straight-up to be of the man leaning over, and then too long and too-wrongly positioned to be the legs of Bald Man. Therefore, especially as they have Bald Man looking too chubby at 5:03, it's starting to appear that paste jobs of Bald Man have been part of this scam. They may have deleted him in places with a replacement.

I followed Bald Man's movements from start-to-finish, until he's gone for good, back in 2013. He was way too large in this image below where he can be seen bending over the bomb spot still smoking slightly. His head is significantly larger than those closer to the camera. But why did they paste him looking over the bomb spot?
http://www.tribwatch.com/boston411.jpg

Not once did I see anything in his hand. That apparent camera lens that we saw must therefore have been pasted. How many others were pasted? For example, that man in all blue, who blocks the line of sight to Jeff, never does anything for anyone, but walks around in circles. Something like that could be a paste job. There is no sign of anything pertaining to Jeff's body in the picture. He is pasted in other images between this man in blue and Mr. Burgundy Coat. Between these two men, there is a third with yellow vest and white shirt. In a video by a Boston video, the latter can be seen walking over to his position, meaning that he walked right past the spot where Jeff is supposed to be. Right now, Jeff is supposed to be directly behind him, but, as you can see, this man with yellow vest has not engaged poor Jeff lying there without legs. Nor is there anyone else tending Jeff, and the time of this image is three seconds shy of two minutes after the blast. It is so obvious that Jeff isn't there that one should become terrible disturbed about the condition of Americans unable to see this for what it is. Even if you tell them what I just told you, they still have a hard time believing that all the major media are part of the insider gang.

I am of course not trying to start a government uprising, as if I could, anyway. But the people of the world need to realize how rotten things have become in government, which is an indication of things to come, and things that have already come. The leaders responsible for events like this are an example of those who soak their bad attitudes everywhere, in social, business, and recreational life. Everyone knows that the American entertainment business has become a tool of corruption for the global masses. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about here. But there are those who deny the existence of the corruption in order to have more people drenched in it, and the deniers don't realize that a corrupted society will come round to bite them badly in many ways. They are determined to war against God, and to win, and I truly think that the likes of Obama have such an attitude. Why? Because they have done rotten things, and God remains quiet, no strike-back, no consequences, because He wants to show His people how far the godless will go in their corruption, until the time arrives suddenly for Payback. That's how I see it.

Mr. Burgundy is essentially beside Jeff, but has not called anyone to tend to Jeff. Mr. Burgundy himself should be tending to Jeff, of course, since the woman he's dealing with merely has a gouge in one leg. He could call anyone over to help her while he goes over to Jeff, since he's acting as though he cares so much. But when you become convinced that Jeff wasn't there, and that people were pasted in, you then ask who the responsible parties were that created the paste jobs. As these images were available from day one, or nearly so, it's clear that the perpetrators of the faked bomb also created these tampered images.

And that means the two men accused of setting off the bomb were either actors playing along (i.e. the one brother is not really dead), or they have murdered / persecuted innocent men on behalf of their faked event.

Behind the crouched woman in black (image above) beside Mr. Burgundy, there is a medic acting like he's fixing up the Negro woman, and he's even facing Jeff at this time. He would have seen Jeff long ago if he was really there, yet he helps a woman with minor injuries instead, which is simply not reality. She goes off on the stretcher first, instead of Jeff. What does it say about the condition of Americans when the government can get away with this while there are upwards to 50 reasons for signalling a faked event, reasons all told by various online voices, all of them ridiculed instead of being praised? The image above even shows two police officers doing nothing who could be tending to Jeff at this time. The lady with white bag is looking toward Jeff, but she ends up walking right on by without as though he were not there.

Bald Man is walking right by Jeff in his image with the camera, but seems oblivious to his existence. The "cowboy" (Mr. Arredondo) who took credit for putting Jeff into his wheelchair is in the image supposedly jumping over the scaffolding. But he goes on, not to help Jeff, but to roll up the wood-slat fence. We must assume that he decided the fence removal to be more important than poor Jeff without his legs. It will be an unknown amount beyond four minutes more before Jeff is wheeled away, but of course we don't know for certain where Jeff was at this time.

Look at the man with grey hood, who has supposedly been beside Jeff from the start. He's not calling cowboy over to come help Jeff, nor has he called anyone to help Jeff, nor has he tried to get up to help Jeff himself. Can you possibly be blind enough that this image alone doesn't convince you that the event was staged? There is hope for you if you've never been shown things like this, but, having had it explained while still being incapable of seeing, I have great concern for the condition of your mentality. Many have political and job-keeping reasons not to speak out, but that doesn't keep anyone from secretly acknowledging the truth.

Look at all that glass blown toward the bomb. How do you think that happened? Won't you allow this fact to speak to you? Media people have a business to run, and cannot speak out due to the great number of organized, government trolls who will seek to damage them. But, for God's sake, at least acknowledge the truth. Don't just ignore this and assume nothing in the future will be affected, for they must be doing rotten things as we speak, and they have a lot of money to do it with. The wicked want your support to invade and change the Middle East.

A world government cannot come about without killings. There has never been an attempt at forming a world government that didn't have the fundamental agenda of killing those opposed until the rest submit by force. No one would even try to form a world government without having killings as part of the plan. Western intrusion into the Ukraine is part of the globalist plot. Western intrusion into the Middle East by Bush was part of the global order. His father even confessed to participating in a new world order when he was the president. This globalist hive does exist. It doesn't have a front door with a sign, but it does exist, and the members know who one another are. Every ear, Bilderberg globalists meet with full police, media and government protection, while inviting politicians from the areas of their globalist concerns. Don't you think that this is one expression of many for the global movement? Don't you think that they are moving everything to a "global village," where everything is one theme for everyone, no different colors allowed?

But what will they do to us when they increase in power? We don't know, because they aren't telling. We know they are killing their leading enemies, because there is no way to form a global order apart from doing so, and retaining it once achieved will require killings with a lot more efficiency and speed. The Western media are terrified of them, and do as they command. They purchase entire nations and force their media to submit. They have been stomping on Christianity over several generations, and came to control sufficient political structures, in the latter half of the 20th century, to go forward in a global reach. They now have the ability to spy on any online computer, a situation predicted to become worse as they secure deeper partnerships with stooges controlling the Internet. They will infiltrate and then possess control of the Internet where possible (no brainer). They had at least one of their trolls reading my Boston-Marathon material in 2013. I know it because someone emailed me to say that they knew Jeff personally, and that he did have legs before the bombing. They are keeping watch over everything in order to eradicate enemies, by ridicule if nothing else, but we are hoping for a giant collision when they go head-to-head with God. Until now, they have been soft on His people. But for how much longer?

There is little use trying to topple these invisible worms. By the fact that they have no front door, nor list of membership available to the public, they become worms. There is no better definition for such an organization. They pay sleek centipedes and hard-headed beetles to do their dirty work, and stay detached enough to protect themselves against court proceedings should things go wrong in their dirty work. The centipedes and beetles risk their lives by working for them, because they stand great risk at being killed off when they grow to know too much. The globalists have a wormhood to which they can appeal when in trouble. They are generally on the satanic side of things, and much of their political fuel is from their hatred of Christianity. It is predictable that, when they see opportunity enough, they will begin systematic Christian persecution. It's more pleasant to believe that they are kind individuals sincerely concerned for everyone's rights and advancements, but the red flags suggest that this is not the case, but is rather the false facade they erect in order to find popular support...until they are powerful enough to betray even those who supported them. Taking such a negative view places me in their "conspiracy nut" camp, predicting a day when it will be against the official law to be such a nut. All we need to do to make them stronger is to acknowledge that they don't exist as I've just portrayed them. Within 20 years, we could be tightly in their shackles, but there is coming an Earthquake, in the Middle of the Night, to set us free from our dungeons.


Flight 93 Could Not Have Crashed

The Boston Marathon pales in comparison to 9-11. What better flag do we need than 9-11 to teach us how diabolical the American globalists are? We should be thankful, in a sense, for these events, for they have opened the eyes of many as to what's truly going on in U.S and some European governments. Unfortunately, many 9-11 truthers are also anti-Christians who will keep to themselves when struggling against globalism, and may turn a blind eye when Christian persecution increases. The foul Christian figment in the Republican party is working to assure persecution of every Christian stripe, and Obama has gotten its wheels rolling already. We saw the evidence that Obama has been using government people to spy on Christian organizations. It would be foolish of us to listen only to the reports but then go no further by gleaning between the lines. There is a lot more taking place under the radar than the few things that surface in some media. In a sense, we should welcome severe persecution if it's only for a short time, and I think this is exactly what God has in mind. Short and quick, game over for the worms.

I saw the evidence with my own eyes, but so did hundreds of millions of others. There was a smoking hole in the ground in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. I didn't see plane parts in the hole. There were small metal parts strewn about in the hole, but nothing that could be proven to be part of Flight 93. The authorities and the media reported that the plane penetrated fully into the ground, to be fully buried in the dirt. I said, "you're nuts," but hundreds of millions of people bought it. Yes, they believe the ground opened up for this plane, then closed itself up again, and that the impact was so clean that no dirt or plane debris was spattered around the hole. Yes, that is an excellent indicator on how terribly deluded the masses have become, whom we cannot depend on in the time of our troubles...in large part because they will be blind to, or even cheering, our persecution.

Domenick DiMaggio, a private Flight-93 investigator: "wally miller {Indian Lake mayor] confirmed for me that there wasn't any debris at all to the east of the crater." East of the crater is in the open field, with Indian lake beyond it. The perpetrators had all the debris in the forest, which was not the flight path, but to its right, and yet had no debris to the left of the flight path. How does that happen? No explosion can have eyes like that unless it's in the barrel of a gun. Explosions in open air pack a force in a direction of 360 degrees.

The hole at Pennsylvania is online for anyone to see. I can't recall the exact distance, but the hole was some 600 feet from a scarp yard, or the yard's office. It should seem obvious to us that the perpetrators did not order a truck load of scrap metal to be dumped in and around the hole apart from the neighboring scrap yard knowing about it. In other words, this neighboring business knew that the hole was being fixed to look like a plane wreck. We can be sure precisely due to the yard being so close to the hole. If the scrap yard was not privy to the hoax, the perpetrators would have found another place to fake it, not risking the high chance that the scrap-yard people would discover the plot. Obviously. But, going the one obvious step further, we realize that the scrap yard itself provided the junk strewn in and around the hole. The perpetrators did this obvious thing knowing beforehand that they would not suffer court action. Their reach of power is far-greater than anyone imagined. 9-11 taught us that, if only we are brave enough to look at it.

The Google page below has some photos of the hole. The page comes with an abundance of images to strike your heart, having the effect of deceiving you. Have the wisdom to know that some / all images of the crash zone have been tampered with. I have never-before seen the image (page below) with what looks like the tail of a plane at one end of the hole. I don't know what this image is about, but the hole where you see the tail fin is NOT the hole shown in the original picture for Flight 93.

The original pictures are those having over-turned dirt in chaotic fashion (i.e. not showing a smooth central crater) but with some grass still growing on the inside of the hole, as though they used a hole to begin with but over-turned some of its soil to make it deeper / create ridges on the perimeter. Look at how clean the grass is around the hole.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=9-11+%22flight+93%22&biw=831&bih=380&tbm=isch&imgil=u_MBXdC5uXfSYM%253A%253Ba1VBn13I2xStFM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252F911review.com%25252Ferrors%25252Fphantom%25252Fflight93.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=u_MBXdC5uXfSYM%253A%252Ca1VBn13I2xStFM%252C_&usg=__FZiOJfODlwyRawXoqnTQTN4fGhY%3D&dpr=1

The hole has been designed in aerial views with long, cleaner depressions representing wing impacts, and even the central crater is smoothly round so that your mind cannot get the wrong impression as to what may have fallen into this hole. But other images show a differently-shaped hole...serving to expose the stupidity (or call it desperation) and great powers owned by the perpetrators, for in altering the images, they expose the fakery further, but as they have yet to go to court, they obviously have power over the risks presented by their stupidity. One can put it another way: serving to expose the stupidity of the people so that the perpetrators thought they could get away with changing the shape of the hole...and, they apparently did get away with it. Legally, they have nothing to worry about if its not known who submitted the tampered aerial view to the Internet.

Some will say that there is no need of typical plane parts at this hole simply because the hole shows the wing marks and a central crater. They would argue, what more does anyone need to know that a plane hit here? The government criminals were banking on your taking that position. In those days, it was firmly believed by the powers that what you see in an image is what you are to believe as the reality. They had no idea that a significant uprising would come against them for years after 9-11.

It should be obvious to you that the hole (ignoring the ones with long wing marks) was freshly excavated with a common excavator. Freshly excavated dirt will grow significant grass and weeds within two months prior to September, but the over-turned dirt does not show such. No matter how you may envision a plane striking the ground at a near-vertical, the fuel is expected to burst into a massive explosion, not to penetrate into the ground. The explosion is expected to send plane parts all around the hole. The flimsy aluminum housing that is the bulk of the plane is not expected to penetrate into the ground like a hard iron beam, but will rather break up and splash all around. I know you have sense enough to know that, until you start hearing the insiders at blogging sites who are there to curb your thinking so that you will focus on their phrases and ignore certain keys. They will emphasize the great force of the plane and the soft dirt, but dirt compacts and is much more resistant to collisions than you may envision. Put it this way, where have you ever heard of a plane completely disappearing into the dirt?

Be wise enough to know that the best arguments / websites on behalf of truthers are likely being buried by Google so that you won't find them (at least not easily). Also, the insiders are expected to create web pages feigning truthers when in fact the pages present subtle arguments that benefit insiders.

Below is an aerial view of the hole. Note how short the wing depression is on the one side. See if you can estimate the tip-to-tip span of the wing gash. I see significantly less than 100 feet. In fact, using this aerial image (or see it here) to compare with a road that looks to be no wider than two large-truck widths, or about 15 feet, the tip-to-tip distance looks to be about 50 feet across, less than half the wing span on Flight 93. In the top-right corner, they have the tampered image.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial1.jpg

As the image above is not as reflective of a plane as the NBC one below, the above was likely the original, and they have it in low resolution. The crater is not smoothly round, and much larger (in comparison to the wing markings) than the smoothly-round crater in the image below. The two images are clearly not the same; at least one of them was tampered with. The one below is provided with the crater nearer to the camera than the wings, while the opposite is true for the image above, meaning they may have flipped their tampered one around to make a comparison harder. Even so, the differences are readily noticed. Below, the wing span furthest from the viewer is the one furthest from the road. Look at how long the wing span is from the edge of the crater. There is shade (from the trees) on the ground at the crater as though the tamperers were trying to make the wing span seem a little shorter. Note that they seem to have made the wing scars deeper into the ground than pictures at ground level indicate.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial2.jpg

The image below looks identical with the one above, aside from being flipped around a bit, and with the grass green. One can make out that the shade from the trees is identical between both images.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial2B.jpg

The image below was taken likely by the same plane / helicopter a few minutes later, and the grass is now a different color once again. Why? Were they distributing these tampered images as though taken from different planes / cameramen in order to falsify the real look of the hole?
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial2D.jpg

The tampered one below has different tree-shade shape but once again it's provided at the crater area i.e. making it harder to notice the differences at a glance. The shade and what could be a slightly-enlarged crater makes the wing span seem shorter, once again, than the image having no shade. I'm suggesting that while they probably had many images to choose from, they chose ones with shade at the crater. These are the only images available, apparently, telling that there was an enforced restriction at the site for taking aerial photos.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93AerialB.jpg

Now take a look at the real hole again, which is in low resolution because it's been enlarged from a shot from very far up in the sky (could be a satellite image). Still, one can see that the central crater has a different shape than on the tampered ones. There are no long wings spans on either side. And that's why they had NBC and others distribute images with tree shading. Right? The tree shading indicates that they tampered with the images before distributing them.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Aerial1C.jpg

For proof, see the image below showing the hole from a camera on the ground. It's showing a SHORT depression for what we are to believe was the wing scar, which, as you can see, is too unreal to be a wing scar from a powerful nose dive. There is no way that a plane wing crashed there, but the insiders originally thought that a shabby job (by the excavator) was sufficient...because they thought no one would suspect the hoax or scrutinize the images presented to the news.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing.jpg

The real hole image above from way up has the following caption under it: "P200058 - Photograph of the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed - uscourts.gov [hi-res]" (square brackets not mine). We may suppose that, for court purposes, they had to hand in the real, untampered image. This and other images above were borrowed from this photo gallery:
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html

Excavation of the site, by the government, began in days, destroying the original look of the hole in case anyone flew over to take a picture. No doubt, a no-fly zone over the area was in place. Therefore, all we have to go with are the government-supplied pictures. Or, put it this way, that if the media were allowed to fly over to take pictures, the photo gallery above would likely more than the two of images from planes/helicopters provided, which were the two taken within an hour apart (i.e. the two with the near-identical tree shading). I'd say you can call that government control, not free press. And it's media-winked government control too.

Below is the same hole from the same direction of the one taken along the ground, but a little further back and at an earlier time of the day (while the smoke was more pronounced). The depression was not formed on that day but was there already, as the green grass indicates. That is, some of the green grass is already sloping into the wing hole. It looks like the ground was simply scratched a little to make it look freshly disturbed. The reason for the shortness of the wing slice may have been due to the excavator' shovel incapable of reaching further with the machine positioned in the central hole. Plus, the central hole was required larger in order to have the excavator reach further out for the wing job. They could have used a larger excavator, but the perpetrators thought a shabby job would do the trick. Besides, the machine used may have been the largest one that the scrap yard had.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing2.jpg

In the aerial view, one can see that the hole starts smack at the side of a road so that any clean up of the excavator's tracks would have been fast and easy. Ask whether it was a coincidence that the plane would come down with one wing tip smack on the shoulder of a road. But there is another problem; they didn't make the hole wide enough, thinking that no one would bother to measure it. The image below is one from someone who did bother. They have the plane in the hole along with trucks on the side of the street, showing that the wing span of Flight 93 should have crossed completely across the road:
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93ToScale.jpg

If the plane in the image above is correctly to scale (anyone can easily verify whether it's correct or not), then the wings of the aircraft would have bounced off the road, made a mark/gash in the road, and wing parts should be nearby and scattered along the road, but none of this is the reality at this site.

Take the image above showing the crater around the green grass, and find how many body lengths there are from crater-edge to crater edge. I count about seven. Enlarge the image below and do the same measurement to find that the hole is now only about three or four human-body lengths across. Which images can we trust? It doesn't matter, because the very fact that tampering has been provided to the public from news people proves that we are not being treated with honesty.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Hole.jpg

In a court of law, the word of a policeman against a defendant is taken as evidence. It doesn't matter whether the policeman is lying; it's taken as evidence until someone can prove that a lie was told. In the same way, the word of the FBI at the crash site is taken as legal evidence. If the FBI says that it dug up plane parts at the crash site, it's taken as evidence. It can be used against anyone claiming that no plane crashed there. It doesn't matter that the FBI had total control of the site, the fact that many FBI people agree with the same storyline is the evidence that a judge must abide by. But the pieces of plane that were dug out have a voice too, and they will tell the truth, which is why the FBI would never want to go to court on this matter. The pieces of the plane that were dug out were not from Flight 93, and the FBI likely did not allow any independent person to inspect these pieces. They likely did a shabby job by providing wrong pieces, because the entire affair was a major headache for them. It is actually tough to be a law-enforcement agency while breaking the law as they did. It corrupted them.

In a court case, the defendant would have the right to prove that the FBI was lying by seeking to convince the judge that no plane landed there. An engineer could easily calculate how deep the aluminum housing (fuselage) of a passenger jet, coming in at a nose dive upon any type of soil system, would penetrate into the ground before finding complete resistance. Although a fuselage looks like a bullet, once its nose cone is compromised, it's nothing but an aluminum shell attached to a couple of floors. The point will be reached when the fuselage breaks away from the floors. Nothing in a plane is made heavier than needed to safely resist potential flight and landing stresses. The fuselage will not be attached to the floors with more metal than needed to fly safe. But, in any case, the aluminum is thin gauge, and will rip away easily from whatever holds it to the floor-joist system. Once the aluminum is ripped away from the heavier items to which its attached, it loses the plane's full momentum, and penetrates the ground as best it can on its own momentum. The aluminum will crumple while it penetrates, but will reach the point where, instead of piercing the ground, the fuselage will solely crumple. However, during crumpling, it's expected to break up into many pieces.

We all understand that, in a military-based hoax amounting to a headache of huge magnitude for the FBI, the less work they needed to do to clinch the hoax, the better. Trucking in 85 pieces of fuselage, many of which had to fit together at their tears, just to make the event look absolutely real, was out of the question. The masses had best start to be fooled a lot easier just to make the work of the FBI a lot easier. http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Fuselage.jpg

I've never heard of an airplane disappearing completely or even partially into the soil. With this "new reality," think of how much cheaper it will be for globalists. Just call up an excavator for two hours, turn the soil a little, and, voila, a plane-crash site. Why even bother with any small debris, for this new reality can sink 100 percent of the plane, like a marble dropped into water. Come to think of it, how do we know that the U.S. military has not, prior to 9-11, faked other crashes by claiming near-complete disintegration of the plane?

Here's some news-media quotes borrowed from the killtown webpage below (has covered the Flight-93 crash extensively):

"Miller was among the very first to arrive after 10:06 on the magnificently sunny morning of September 11. He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, 'like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.' - Washington Post (05/12/02)

"The plane, too, was decimated. The largest pieces were the size of suitcases, the smallest the size of dimes. "It just looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky," Miller said." - Houston Chronicle (09/08/02)

..."Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a 'briefcase.' 'If you were to go down there, you wouldn't know that was a plane crash,' he continued. The debris is very, very small.'"

"'The best I can describe it is if you've ever been to a commercial landfill. When it's covered and you have papers flying around. You have papers blowing around and bits and pieces of shredded metal.' - Pittsburgh Live (09/14/01)"

"'If you would go down there, it would look like a trash heap,' said state police Capt. Frank Monaco. 'There's nothing but tiny pieces of debris. It's just littered with small pieces.' - post-gazette.com (09/12/01)"

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/debris.html#scrap_yard

And that's why the large piece of fuselage wasn't likely there from day one. They had planned to do a shabby job with no one asking questions. They just wanted us to believe that the plane disintegrated. But they turned their headache into a death-wish. Poor slobs, FBI, poor slobs.

The webpage continues:

'The mangled heap of iron and steel actually belongs to Rollock Inc., a scrap metal business owned and managed by the father-and-son team of Tony and Chris Kordell of Bedford County. The property they purchased three years ago abuts the crash site, which lies just several yards beyond the perimeter of the Kordells' land.' - pittsburghlive.com (09/11/02)

(*Remember that the only reported witness to actually see Flight 93 reportedly crash was Lee Purbaugh, who was ex-Navy and only on his 2nd day of work at Rollock.)

It sounds like he was "hired" just to act as a witness, which is how we can know all-the-more that Rollock was involved with this crime. There is no other explanation. The crime could not have taken place had not Rollock employees been a part of it. They were supposed to make the FBI's job easy. Instead, by their shabby job, they announced to the world that this was a hoax. If anyone's listening, that is.

The tampered image has the wing span nearly as large as that of Flight 93, meaning that the image had the gouge 125-150 feet long. But here's a news report that says otherwise:

Reporter: How big would you say that hole was?

Konicki: From my estimates, I would guess it was probably about 20ft to 15ft long and probably 10ft wide [agrees with other witness above].

Reporter: What could you see on the ground if anything other than dirt and ash and...

Konicki: You couldn't see anything. You could just see dirt, ash and people walking around, broken trees..." - FOX (09/11/01)

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crater.html

Broken trees? From what? They must have had a plan for the broken trees.

The page above has the hole with two people beside it that allows one to measure the top of the hole to about 20 feet wide, expected because that's roughly the width of a fuselage. But one side of the hole looks smooth, not machined, as though it had been there from an earlier time. The image is in good resolution and shows the wing scar, ech-hem, the joke, up close.

Apparently, judging by the report of killtown, no local person saw a pillar of smoke, nor a drenching of the soil with fuel, and no one said they smelled fuel. "We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth,' Parsons reported. 'It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth.' - Pittsburgh Channel (09/11/01)" Are we to be gullible enough to accept the storyline that the jet fuel went into the soil, fuel tanks and all? The alternative is to believe that the American government has conspiracy crews at all levels, and in all nooks, of American life. It was a little hard to come to terms with in the beginning, but I'm settled on it now. American history will never look the same again.

Even if you believe the other explanations, you need to grapple with this fuel problem. It's important as to how you will view the state of the global government at this time. If this crash was impossible, so was all of 9-11 an inside job. The perpetrators can't have it every way. The faster it was moving, the greater the chances, above 99 percent, that the fuel would burst into flames on the ground. No one really knows how fast the plane was moving, since it wasn't there, or because no one had a devise to measure its speed even if they did see it. The report that it was moving 500 mph or more is based on the need to explain a buried airplane showing no plane parts.

Some news reports tell of the soft soil in that area, and some claim that the land was recently backfilled. However, the softer the dirt, the deeper the crater. The crater was not deep at all when compared to craters of other crashes, and yet their argument is that the soil was softer than most soils. That doesn't work. I've just read the example of a dart shot into flour where, instead of making a large hole, there is barely any evidence of the dart's entry point. But dirt isn't flour, and no one I've read has given a prior example for such a dart-scenario accomplished between a crashing plane and dirt. When war missiles (very much like darts) hit the ground and explode, they cause craters, not the dart-flour effect. And Flight 93 supposedly exploded, according to the authorities who provided a video of a black, smoky cloud rising from the "crash site." But that video serves only to prove the hoax because, instead of a constant pillar of smoke from long-burning jet fuel, there is a short cloud burst only, as though from an explosion(s) by some other means, without the ignition of jet fuel. Apparently, the eye-witness at the scrap yard reported no pillar of smoke, and no one at seeing the site caught any such thing on video or camera. The best we saw in the provided images: no more smoke than would be caused by the burning of a bushel of wet weeds.

"When asked by a reporter: 'Any large pieces of debris at all?... Smoke? Fire?' 'Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there... No smoke. No fire.'" It sounds like the smoke was very temporary, and for all we know, the smoke we see in the images was pasted to the scene. Why is there only one image of the plume of smoke at the initial explosion? Wouldn't the person who caught it on camera take more pictures to show the forthcoming pillar of smoke from the burning fuel? Yes, she would have, but no, she couldn't, because that would give away the hoax when no such pillar developed. Instead: "A large rising mushroom cloud was photographed within seconds after impact by Val McClatchey, who was nearly shaken off her couch by the crash [= insider giving false testimony], causing her to run out with her new digital camera and without aiming, snapped the only known photograph of the explosion before dropping her camera." Ah, I see. Who can prove otherwise? The people who failed to see the column of smoke. For, if an explosion took place at the crash, there is no way to avoid igniting the fuel that would have splashed out when the tanks broke up upon impact.

Who are you going to believe, McClatchey, or your good senses? Don't you know that a plane moving over 500 mph cannot avoid broken gas tanks? Do you think that the tanks went into the "spongy" soil unbroken? What spongy soil. That occurs only in forests, and then such peat is very shallow, anyway, in inches, not dozens of feet. But some use the example of water, far more easily to push aside than spongy soil: "Lisa Beamer, in her book, described it as if 'the plane had pierced the earth like a spoon in a cup of coffee: the spoon forced the coffee back, and then the coffee immediately closed around the spoon'." Soil is not water, but, yes, we get the message. But do you really think that the soil you see in the images, filled with stones and rocks, could act like water around a spoon? Hello?

"A landowner, who helped out the FBI with the recovery, said the plane 'went in the ground so fast it didn't have a chance to burn.'" Obviously, the person who excavated the place at the request of the FBI was an insider. Obviously. He had been prepared in advance, and he didn't speak his own words, but the authorities put the words into his mouth that he should speak. And so the storyline has been that the soil, once forced away from the plane's sides due to the massive force of entry, instead of splashing outward all around, came back toward the plane so fast, like water around a spoon, that the fuel didn't have a chance to explode due to lack of oxygen. But what caused the McClatchey cloud of smoke, then?
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/claim.html

A spoon dropped gently into coffee doesn't have a tank of jet fuel to blow the water away in all directions. A spoon or dart doesn't break into small pieces like the skin of an aircraft. A proper comparison cannot use something stronger than a plane, such as a dart or spoon, and something less resistant than the soil, such as flour of water. To make the comparison properly, one needs to fire a tube into flour the thickness of tin foil. You now have a hard time imagining such a tube penetrating more than a miniscule amount before crumpling. The aircraft tube has no sharp point, or hard, solid nose, as does a dart, for moving aside the "flour." You are being deceived when they cause you to view the passenger jet like a spoon or dart.

And the rocky soil at the crash site was not dry flour. In fact, they forgot to mention the many rocks that you see in the dirt that are a fundamental part of the "flour." Soil has some organic cementing agents mixed with humidity that packs extraordinarily strong. The more you compress soil, the harder it tends to resist penetration. You shouldn't imagine an indestructible nose cone as it paves the way through this rocky soil for the rest of the tube. Nor should we ignore the hard objects and materials with flat faces within the plane, not predicted to penetrate rocky soil like a dart through dry flour. Try shooting a dart into humid flour to see whether such substance will flow back around the penetrated dart. The humidity makes the flour stick to itself, which is definitely the case for soil, so that it won't tend to flow back to close the entry hole.

The illusion of dirt flowing back upon itself is facilitated by the images of the soil that we see, where the soil was freshly overturned with an excavator. It gives the impression that the dirt could roll back to close the hole, but in fact, a plane ramming into that soil would compact it all around, and in the meantime would splash much of it some distance away, depending on how wet (i.e. soft and sticky) it was. We saw no dirt or rocks splashed away because the perpetrators were lazy, thinking that no one would ask questions. But rocks are not sticky no matter how wet, and they are crusty so that anything striking them will send them flying. We saw not even one rock on the grass outside the hole.

We can't ignore the velocity of the plane. One could appeal to the plane's high velocity in acting like a bullet cleanly penetrating dirt, but there is no precedent for a plane entering dirt like a bullet through soft butter. That's because the skin of a plane is not like a solid bullet. As per the two planes that reportedly entered the twin towers, the perpetrators wanted you to view them like a bullet through butter rather than a thin tube penetrating thick, steel columns.

How thick is the aluminum housing of a large passenger plane? I don't know. I can't find the answer online in the way I can't find many things about aircraft that can be used against the 9-11 hoax. But regardless of the gauge, the aluminum would be blown apart by the fuel. here's a powerful argument to add: "Subsequent studies by the EPA of the crash site have confirmed that there was no residue from the jet fuel that would have been pervasive had a Boeing 757 actually crashed there." In this case, the authorities could not persuade the EPA to provide a false / distorted / slanted statement on their behalf.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/

It is amazing how many pieces of plane parts turned up in the forest across the street from the hole while no such parts are visible around the hole. Why should that be? Well, for one thing, any outsider might have driven by the road BEFORE the crash was slated to begin, and seeing plane parts around the hole, it would have spoiled the operation. Instead, they littered the hole area with small items not visible, or not interesting, from the road. That makes too much sense not to be the truth. And here's an insider who mentions the pieces of fuselage in the forest:

Lee Purbaugh, 32, working just his second day at Rollock Inc., a scrap yard next to the reclaimed strip-mine land, looked up from operating a burning torch to see the jetliner just 40 feet above him. "I couldn't believe this," Purbaugh said [neither can I].

"I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore," said Tim Lensbouer, 35, Purbaugh's coworker.

The ground shook and the air thundered as the jetliner slammed into the ground about 300 yards away, Purbaugh said.

A mushroom of flame rose 200 feet and disappeared. Then there was a curtain of black smoke and finally a trail of fire as pieces of the fuselage shot hundreds of yards into the woods.

http://www.unitedflight93.com/

A plane 40 feet above your head is an awesome thing along with the ground-shaking landing just 900 feet away (they may have exaggerated that distance) = one second away. What caused the "mushroom of flame"? Did only a small amount of jet fuel escape the tanks? How could a small amount of jet fuel, escaped from the tanks, explode rather than just becoming a flame on the ground? Or did someone plant an explosive device? How could jet fuel reach across the road to the forest -- sideways from the plane's path -- but not forward to the open field ahead of the plane? Or, why did most-everything happen in the forest?

The following can help explain which scenario is the correct one: "Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters. 'The biggest pieces you could find were probably four feet. Most of the pieces you could put into a shopping bag, and there were clothes hanging from the trees." Oh, I see, clothes hanging in the forest, but no clothes in the open field, or on the shoulder, or on the street, only where they could be hidden from drivers-by.

"Rick King, 42, of Shanksville, was behind the wheel of the first fire truck to arrive at the crash scene...heard Flight 93 scream overhead, seen a massive fireball light up the sky and felt an explosion rock the entire town of Shanksville...But besides a burning landing-gear tire, smoldering branches in the nearby WOODS [caps mine] and a few brush fires, there was little to indicate a jetliner had just crashed, he says."

Let's tackle some other nearby residents, workers and eye-witnesses, trying to determine which of them were the deliberate liars, and to check for inconsistencies. It seems to be an overwhelming fact that there was an explosion with fire and smoke. Granted.

Ten miles away, at a warehouse near Berlin, employee Don Miller and co-workers felt their building shake [how low is a plane when the building shakes?].

"It came in low over the trees and started wobbling," said Tim Thornsberg, a resident of Somerset County, who was working near an old strip mine when he saw the plane.

"Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees. It was just unreal to see something like that."

This is a tough one. The reason for such a claim can be to "prove" to the masses that this was no ordinary flight, i.e. could be none other than Flight 93 in terrible trouble. The only way that it could have been flying upside down is where it was a military craft like you'd see at an air show. But no one in this list of witnesses has reported what looked like a military craft. It's important to note how low the plane was while ten miles away. In my opinion, however, the perpetrators would not have been flying that low where the goal was to fly low only over Shanksville, to do a fly-over. Still, we can use Mr. Miller's testimony against others, for example, Terry Butler (from Stoystown Auto Wreckers at the time) who claims the plane "dropped out of the clouds" before turning over a ridge of trees and crashing a second afterward. He didn't see the crash; he only heard the "crash," which was merely an explosive device. If he's a true and sincere witness, then he seems to contradict the story of Don Miller. That is, it seems more credible that the plane would drop from the clouds only when approaching Shanksville.

Does a plane come out of the clouds upside down? Mr. Butler claims to have seen the entire flight from out of the clouds, except for one second after it went over the ridge. But he said nothing of a plane flying upside down "for a few seconds [to be followed by] a nose dive". Instead, he said that it banked to the right. If it had flipped upside down, he would have said so. It is a little suspicious, however, that Butler used the "flip" word: "...it just went flip to the right and then straight down." "Flip to the right" is not usually taken to mean "flipped upside-down," but is a figure of speech to indicate unexpectedness and/or deliberation in making a right turn. Still, one wonders whether he was part of the insiders who were being told the flip word a lot. The fact that Butler has the plane turning sharp and down into a nose dive likewise makes me suspicious. He was about three miles from the crash site. Did he really see it all that way?

I do believe that a plane went through that area, otherwise there would have been an abundance of locals claiming to hear nothing. But I don't think they would ask the pilot to do a quasi-nose dive with a passenger jet to feign a crash-about-to-happen. The option wherein they used a military jet, one that looked as much as possible like a passenger jet, is not out of the question. If they had it flying low and near the speed of sound, no one might get a close enough look to make out the type of craft.

At the map below (you might need to zoom in), the crash site is at the Memorial.
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Stoystown+Auto+Wreckers/@40.096441,-78.93995,12z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x80d7209855b10003

The map should be showing the location of Stoystown Auto Wreckers. Note the flight path from the wreckers to the memorial, in a south-eastward direction. The viewer, Mr. Butler, for example, was looking at he tail end of the plane moving away from him, and the crash was three miles off. Is it really true that he could see the plane do a nose dive from that distance? Only if it was relatively high in the sky, but not if it was hugging the tree lines. That may explain why this particular witness choose to have the plane drop from the clouds, because no one in his area would believe him if his testimony agreed with others, where the plane was so low it shook buildings.

Back to the scrap-yard worker (at Rollock), who was interviewed some minutes after his first testimony (mentioned above), when he said: "Purbaugh describes the crash as "just like a big mushroom cloud." He says when it hit, it 'shook the ground, rolled over in some way and then collapsed'..." It hit the ground and then rolled over in some way??? That's got to be a mistake. But he's the only person who saw the plane hit the ground, and in this case, it says he was only 200 yards away, not 300. I mean, this testimony is the best anyone has of what happened at ground zero, and he says the plane rolled over AFTER it hit. How can that be reconciled with a smooth dart penetrating flour and becoming covered over again???

I'm sure that I can explain the contradiction correctly: this false witness never saw any plane hit, and he was supposed to say something like it had rolled over on its back before striking the ground, but screwed up and put the roll-over AFTER the landing.

Here's another entry: "Minutes later, the plane crashed in rural Somerset County, about 20 miles away. 'It was like an atomic bomb hit," said John Walsh, 72,..." An "atom bomb" from 20 miles away is an exaggeration, wouldn't you say? I don't think he heard a thing, especially as the fuel tanks didn't explode while the dart just entered smooth into the soft, buttery, newly-backfilled, spongy dirt that had the nature of coffee enveloping a spoon.

Here's another account of Miller's testimony:

Bob Blair and Doug Miller were driving on Route 30 that morning. Suddenly they noticed a low flying plane flying with its wings vertical to the ground...As they approached the crash site someone driving away from it in a pickup truck flagged them down and told them a plane had crashed and then drove off away from the scene [who would have been so busy elsewhere at the time that they needed to drive away from this once-in-a-lifetime spectacle?]...

Bob and Doug said when they arrived at the scene there was no one else present. Bob stated whoever they had passed had to be the 1st person to see as they were no doubt 2nd & 3rd . What they found when they got there astonished them. There was nothing. There were some fires [nothing blazing extraordinarily, apparently]. Bob and Doug immediately grabbed the fire extinguishers [clearly, nothing blazing extraordinarily] they carry in the work truck and extinguished what fires there were before the arrival of Stoystown Fire Department.

...What I find most troubling is that it took me nearly 5 minutes to drive to the crash site from Stoystown Auto Wreckers and Rollock Scrap Yard is less than 100 yards from the crash site and yet none of their employees seemed to have gone out to the scene. Instead it was Bob & Doug arriving several minutes later.

Personally, I think the lack of witnesses from Rollock and the man driving away from the scene all saw something else but we'll save that for later.

...Since Lee Purbaugh the only alleged impact witness chose not to speak with me after receiving advice from an attorney I have to turn to Susan McElwain for what took place next.

The webpage above shares the story of the sighting of a small white plane at the "crash site" seconds before the explosion went off. I suppose it's possible that his plane detonated an explosive device.

Here's a testimony to be trusted because it shares what the perpetrators would not have coached their false witnesses to say: "Laura Temyer of Hooversville...'I didn't see the plane but I heard the plane's engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane's engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn't hear the plane's engine anymore after that.'" There were others who reported the engines going quiet briefly before the explosion, and so I think we can chalk up that item on the side of the real facts. In another testimony of Laura's, her thumps were called "booms."

Here now is a thud sound:

Viola Saylor of Lambertsville was outside talking to her sister.

"We didn't hear that plane coming until it was right on top of us," she said. "Then there was a roar."

She said the plane appeared to be gliding into the ground.

"All at once it just stopped. There was no engine noise, nothing. Someone hollered, Oh my God!' and then there was a real loud thud."

Once again we see, the engines went quiet. One scrap-yard worker said he heard the plane coming in for 10-15 seconds, which amounts to four or more miles away, but here in Viola's testimony, the sound didn't start until the plane was overhead. This may indicate a soft glide down from cloud levels, with some engine roar for the fly-over across ground zero so that a soft glide afterward will get the plane further away. It's obvious that the plane had to go quiet, by design, for the explosion. It is of obvious importance that the plane should not be heard by anyone after the explosion(s). But once far enough from ground zero, it would have accelerated (quietly) and slipped away through a pre-determined path (with sparsest population?).

The webpage from which the eyewitness reports were taken has this remark:

Some of the conspiracy believers claim there was no crash in the field and that the impact crater was faked. Yes, really!

Well then, if there was not a plane crash, and no deaths, which means no plane was shot down, which means . . . it was all a fake? If this were true, people are being paid to pretend they lost relatives on the flight! HOW STUPID ARE PEOPLE GETTING??

http://www.unitedflight93.com/

I don't know. You'd have to ask the people getting paid.

The writer then goes on to say: "The force of the impact with the huge explosion of the jet fuel caused the plane to burst into a billion pieces." We can forgive him/her because it wasn't generally known at first that there was no fuel explosion. Nor was there any unburned fuel found on-site, though tests were conducted to find fuel contamination. We can also forgive him/her because it is hard to come to terms with a conspiracy of this magnitude. But if, after the obvious has been explained, he/she doesn't listen, then he/she is in danger of becoming a wicked-government tool. It can't have a good ending for anyone.

This writer is trying their best but is really coming up shy of reality because he/she is convinced the plane landed there. "When that plane hit the ground it began to go into the ground, but at the same time it began to collapse like an accordion until the explosion. The blast pushed some of the parts even farther into the ground, but blasting the parts above the ground out into the air." The writer is trying to explain how some parts got into the forest or the pond, or eight miles away, but fails to see what's before the eyes in the close-up pictures, where small fragments litter the over-turned dirt but do not appear on the adjacent, undisturbed soil. It seems that their inability to believe in a faked crash makes them draw back from focusing hard enough on the undisturbed soil to see what it's saying to them.

A fuel-tank explosion requires a sweeping plot of devastation the likes of which is missing in the photos presented to us. It's actually quite incredible how easily we humans can be deceived. It could have been me; it could have been you. Virtually every truther was deceived, at first. That's because we trusted. We were guilty of nothing but trusting our fellow man. "So the jet fuel was at least equal to 187 tons of TNT, significantly less than an atomic bomb but certainly powerful enough to destroy a plane and send small pieces of it 8 miles away." I've just got to shake my head.

How does the writer envision such a magnificent force while failing to see the undisturbed soil just six inches past the crater? One can even argue that small rocks still on the GRASS should not be there after a massive explosion. I make my share of stupid mistakes when not fully attentive to things, but in this case, if one wants to speak on a massive explosion, there is no way to be inattentive to that grass growing as far as into the wing scar, because the fuel tanks were in the wings. Just look at this tall grass:
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Wing.jpg

They have the center of the hole charred, but the fuel tanks were in the wings, yet the part where the wing scar is claimed to be has tall grass. There's very sloppy work.

Plus, how could an explosion send all of those metal fragments onto the over-turned soil, but send none on the undisturbed soil? Did the explosion have eyes? Shouldn't we see fragments on the green grass too? Clearly, there was no explosion at the crash site. It's not necessary that the perpetrators caused their explosion(s) on top of "crash site," or, if they did, the explosion was directed upwards alone for maximum effect in the sky i.e. for maximum visibility from people far off. I have yet to read anyone that says the fire was prolonged. No one snapped a picture of fire.

The writer needs to remove his explosion argument lest people take him for a ninny. Or put it this way, that if I have a small camp fire on the grass, whether it's wet or not, the fire starts to creep through the grass as it dries, and one needs to be attentive to keep the fire from spreading. Moreover, some grass near the fire wilts noticeably, but we see no fire-creep in the grass, nor wilting, at a location that supposedly had tanks of jet fuel burning high into the sky for a considerable time.

It is clear that the FBI did not allow people to take images of the location, or we would have a lot more to judge by. Perhaps even the four or five pictures that are available were taken by outsiders that were not supposed to get out. That is, the insider plot may have been to keep the public from seeing the green grass, for it makes no sense that they would permit the grass to remain. We can be sure that they are seeking an Internet law or rule that forbids the common people from copying images from news sights. I have seen that already.

The question on how the explosion was performed is a good one. Perhaps it launched from the forest, explaining the forest on fire, and some tree damage. The small white plane may have caused it.

On the plane debris and body parts scattered about, it's plain that it was planted, or one would see some of it around the crater. Some debris miles away turned up at the same general spot, as though the explosion was playing golf, seeking to drive it to one spot alone. There are various theories on that part of this story, and we should not ridicule those who try to explain it. The ridicule belongs to the ones who put this part of the plot together. They had paper eight miles from the crash site, which looks like an attempt to feign a mid-air explosion...from the bomb that the terrorists supposedly had.

It can be seen in various plane crashes that all fuel cannot be instantly consumed during the explosion. The explosion spreads the fuel out so that it burns slowly wherever it lands. There is not sufficient oxygen to consume the entire tanks of gas all at once in a small volume of space. Therefore, as the fire in Pennsylvania did not burn for hours, there was no jet-fuel explosion. The writer is in danger of altering his/her sense of physics reality. From now on, writers such as this are in danger of completely misinterpreting the physics of a plane crash, just as the perpetrators would have them. With educators submitting to the likes of these perpetrators, reality will be distorted in a number of areas.

The writer continues: "The explosion was so powerful it shook the entire town of Shanksville and was even felt ten miles away." That depends on whether the witness(es) can be trusted who say they felt it ten miles away. To shun the possibility of false witnesses is unwise. The plot could not have worked so well without them. The writer himself/herself is a victim of the false witnesses.

On the page below, the story on Flight 1771 (1987) sounds a lot doubtful. The plane was reported at extremely high speed (approximately 700 mph), extremely steep angle of descent, with all plane parts on the obliterated side, but with a crash hole only two feet deep and four feet long. ??? The crash came with a suicide message, recovered miraculously, and the police even found the gun of the man who supposedly brought the plane down. It doesn't sound logical for such a plane to cause a hole that shallow in a grassy hill. No engines or heavy beams are visible in the two pictures of the crash site. At one time, no one would have asked any questions, but now is no longer "at one time." "Unburnt paper was flying everywhere [easy to spread around by hand] as small aircraft fuel fires [easy to set up] burned on the ground [why not a pillar of smoke?]. The human remains were in very small pieces, the largest of which were feet in shoes. The force of the impact caused such extensive damage that 27 [of 43] of the passengers were never identified [or they didn't exist in the first place]. All aboard, including Burke and Thomson, were killed." Providing most of those things was do-able, but providing a large hole with a machine may not have been. Two feet deep and four feet long is do-able quietly by shovel.
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html

Faking plane crashes for various reasons may have a history in the several of decades. If the public would buy a two-foot deep hole from a passenger liner moving 700 mph at a 70-degree angle, it was butter in their fingers. One possibility: Flight 1771 was stolen (i.e. never crashed), the airliner collected the insurance by pre-design, and the passenger list was fabricated.

At the page above, go down to the box having the plane, Canberra Mk.2 WD991, because it had a crashing speed comparable to the speed claimed for Flight 93, and a nose-dive angle of 80 degrees (we are lost for words). The debris field (image below) shows a large burn mark in the field, as expected of a real crash, and there is plane-piece debris scattered for many planes lengths from the crash spot, as expected, neither of which was the case for Flight 93. The visible pieces are all white, suggesting fuselage pieces, and although they look small, the distance of the camera suggests that these pieces can be as large as four feet long. The high number of them over a wide area is what a person expects, who has a grasp of reality not shifted by the 9-11 goons. The scattered debris is what a normal person expects from a "disintegrating" plane on contact with the ground, because we have never heard before of any plane disintegrating fully into pieces the size of nuts and bolts, or vaporizing altogether apart from hot fire. These concepts are becoming the new reality if the goons can get away with it.
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/911Flight93Canberra.jpg

The fact that 9-11 catapulted the American military into the Middle East describes the nature of the humanity involved in the Middle East. You can't have much confidence in that nature when you see 9-11 as a colossal falsification fed to the American people themselves, while falsely accusing an Arab peoples who were not involved. This has the stink of Nazi's who kill masses brutally and sleep well. This plays very well to the topics of End Times and Lake-of-Fire punishment. It seems that the masses who support these Middle-East intruders will be lumped into those deserving the Lake of Fire. If at first Christians were deceived by the Bush invasion of Iraq, there has been ample time, and ample opportunities, to get it right. If you know that all the nations will be gathered to the Middle East for the punishment of Armageddon, how could you, as FOX news does, or even as World Net Daily does, support the American intrusions into the Middle East. Is that wise, do you think? Whatever goodness American may have guided herself with in decades gone by, it's gone today.

In case the sorry job at the "crash" site" convinced some people that no plane came down, the perpetrators had some powerful jabs to their credibility prepared with eye-witnesses who spotted the plane coming down. Some of them heard the plane coming across their houses at low altitude, and as this reported plane took a path close to a street with many houses, one is forced to agree that a plane did fly that way. But was it Flight 93, that is the question? The hole at the scrap yard won't help with the answer. Some of the witnesses are expected to have been insiders who didn't technically lie when saying that they heard / saw a plane. On searching the story of Flight 93, you will come across reports of airplane fragments some six miles or more from the scrap yard, as well as body parts, but why assume it was Flight 93 that flew that way?

At the page below, you can read that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland airport (Ohio) early in the hoax. There was too much information reported about this incident to call it a mistake. The story was retracted for unknown reasons. In this report, there are terrorists aboard Flight 93, and the cockpit mic is left on unwittingly or, to put it another way, by design of the perpetrators, it was necessary that the public hear this fabricated conversation conducted by the faked terrorists on board. They said they had a bomb and were going to land the plane at the airport because they had secured all their demands from the United States. "A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday [that day, 9-11] at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93."
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/theories.html

One possible motive for this part of the plot is that some leading perpetrators felt that site at Pennsylvania was too shabby to go ahead with the plan. So, instead, they were going to land the plane and make a different scenario out of it. Others wanted to go ahead with the Pennsylvania plot. The sky is the limit here as to the possible theories, but very apparently, the plane landed, and passengers were evacuated; I can't see how the mayor could have had that wrong. Someone contacted him to say that the plane had been evacuated, or was in the process of being evacuated. I don't think we can argue that he made that story up; he must have received it in a phone call / email. Have we got that right? And this helps to explain why no plane crashed in Pennsylvania, and why the Cleveland story was retracted after the Pennsylvania crash made the news.

Flight 93 wasn't scheduled for Cleveland, and so when United Airlines identified the hi-jacked plane as Flight 93, by what chance could they have had that wrong? The Pennsylvania story had not yet broken on the news i.e. United Airlines did not (was not supposed to) know that Flight 93 would be reported hijacked and crashed in Pennsylvania, meaning that when United had Flight 93 at Cleveland, there could be no mistake about it being Flight 93. Their computerized communication systems indicated Flight 93. They didn't dream up the number "93," nor should we argue that they meant some other number but blurted "93" by mistake. Nor should we assume that they communicated some other number but that someone at the other end heard / read it wrongly as 93. These things would be possible if the number had not been reported as 93, but the fact that Flight 93 would be involved, that morning, in a terrorist-heist scenario in Pennsylvania, convinces me that United had correctly conveyed the landing of Flight 93.

In another news report concerning the landing: "The mayor had said earlier that the plane was being evacuated, but an airport spokeswoman said the passengers remained inside." That latter claim could indicate the story as desired / reported by those particular perpetrators who wanted to go ahead with the Pennsylvania hoax. They needed a plane filled with passengers, and perhaps the plot was going to have the hijackers lifting off from Cleveland with passengers in the plane. Instead, they opted to retract the story, deny the landing, and reported the plane doing a U-turn, with hijackers steering it, while in the air near Cleveland. "The 200 passengers were reportedly released from the plane at 11:15." How does anyone make such a thing up by mistake, then report it to the mayor? If the mayor was one of the insiders, then he was of the camp that wanted 93 to land. Apparently, the story was going to be that the authorities had successful negotiations with the terrorists.

Later in the day, an FBI spokesman entered the news to say that Flight 1989 landed at Cleveland, not 93. But it was the FBI who took control in Pennsylvania, and so how far can we trust this new number? Zero. The FBI quickly took over the story that the media was not to tell, and the FBI lied to the public for the sake of saving the scrap-yard hoax. After half of America was grappling for some time with the wave of "truthers," which has become a sort of dirty word to many, and as the pesky truthers put heads together and got down to some serious business, this came out: "Thanks to the work of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and others, we know that the ACARS messages sent to Flight 93 indicate that the plane was heading west over Illinois several minutes after it supposedly 'crashed' in Pennsylvania! Pilots for 9/11 Truth found that messages sent after the time of the crash were received by United 93 at ground stations far away from Shanksville."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/

It looks like the plane landed, released the passengers (into confinement?), then took off again for some unknown destination. This plane was seen again in active service (business as usual). Before much longer, the truthers knew they had said too much, that they had the perpetrators at their mercy, and that the time would fast approach for a killing fest if they continued to point fingers. It's predictable that many active truthers and potential-active truthers went quiet(er) once the cat was fully out of the bag. But the perpetrators' worst enemies are those who feign being on the government side. These were created by the perpetrators, by fear, but this very thing has made them the silent enemy that, at any moment, can quietly do damage. Lots of it. Amongst these hushed people are media barons, leading journalists, mayors, judges, police chiefs, you name it, all out there wanting revenge and new/different government leaders. The pendulum must swing the other way, and everyone will reap what they sow.

From Griffin's analysis of the work of researchers like Dewdney, we can easily surmise that the official story on the number of cell phones (now given by the FBI as mostly air phone) changed drastically after it became known publicly the difficulty in getting cell phones to work at typical airplane altitudes.

More issues about the alleged phone calls from United 93 arise upon inspection of information provided by the government at the Moussaoui trial in 2006:

(1) One call allegedly went past the time of the Shanksville "crash", Todd Beamer's last call on United 93. Furthermore, Beamer's call could not have happened when it purportedly did because the government's own records show him making this call and another call from the same phone AT THE SAME SECOND!

(2) No records of calls are sourced to the companies that provided them. This fact calls into question the authenticity of the calls.

(3) Lisa Jefferson [Verizon operator], who reportedly took Beamer's call, failed to mention the phrase "Let's roll" in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette which introduced the heroics of Beamer and others on the flight. She also had never before heard Beamer's voice.

(4) In fact, the FBI [at court] delayed bringing out the story of "Let's Roll" and the passengers "fighting back" and apparently only did so to stop the story of a [military] flight shoot-down from gaining momentum.

(5) The government, without saying as much, switched several calls in the official account from cell to air. (article above).

The things that should be coming to your mind are the many ways for the government to give false impressions to the public, and that these tactics were not new on 9-11, but well-practiced for decades prior. If nothing more, it has become far more costly for the authorities to conduct hoax's because lazy / sloppy schemes can no longer find success. The Boston Marathon, very sloppy, only added more heads to the truther camps. I probably wouldn't have covered these hoax's except that they have the propensity to play to prophetic themes. A new description of the American and British governments has become necessary while we look forward to fulfilled prophecy. The small taste of "martial law" in Boston, set up merely to find one young, framed man, is indicative of things to come. It wasn't by chance. It was a trial balloon. It showed that the police are the enemy of the public, which is the definition of a police state. A police state is not one that has a police force, but one where the police are in conflict with the people. It can be caused by unruly people, or by corrupt government. Boston's trial balloon was not from the unruly people, leaving only one option: a corrupt Obama.

The article above has made a couple of good points concerning the cell-phone calls supposedly from 9-11. Obviously, these calls have one purpose, to fashion in your mind the things that the perpetrators wanted us to believe was the reality. But what's wrong with this particular conversation:

Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Bingham. I want you to know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb."

How many times do you tell your mom your last name just in case she doesn't know who you are by your first name alone? I'd laugh except that I'd rather celebrate the jailing of the perpetrators. The Jailor is Coming. The Big Jail has been Prepared. If the perpetrators are not afraid of man due to their overwhelming powers, they should be afraid of Jesus.

My position on 9-11 was not rooted in a desire to smear the government or the FBI. I simply and genuinely came to see that no planes landed either at the Pentagon or the scrap-yard site. It is a natural extension of that belief to point fingers at the government and FBI, charging them with the faking of plane crashes. There is nothing more complicated, and certainly nothing diabolical, about that position. It is a logical position: if there were no planes, the government faked the crashes. It's not my horror story, but theirs. I'm just explaining it the best I can; they are the ones who need to answer to it. Instead, they mainly ignore the people who point fingers at them, thus securing their future enemy. They continue to be viewed, and charged, as diabolical operators. They have brought that upon themselves, and will need to deal with it.





NEXT UPDATE

Especially for new or confused readers
MYTH CODES 101
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.

If you have received emails supposedly from me, and they look like advertisements
or anything unflattering and unexpected from me,
they were not from me but by someone using my email box to send it.

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


In 2014, the latest Firefox browser no longer gave the option of surfing with javascript turned off.
With javascript turned off, one can copy and cut from the write-ups at houseofnames, but when its on, one cannot.
Try another browser if you are working with houseofnames.


web site analytic