'How many virtual proofs does it take to turn on the 9/11 light bulb in people's minds?'

A keep it simple approach.

 

As I wrote the following, I asked myself if this is simple enough for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul and John McCain to understand?; is it simple enough for my Representative and Senator to understand?; is it simple enough for writers and editors in the media to understand?; is it simple enough for Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Bill Maher, and Keith Olberman to understand?; is it simple enough for Arianna Huffington, Matt Drudge, and Christoper Hitchens to understand?; is it simple enough for Brian Williams, Charles Gibson, and Katie Couric to understand?; is it simple enough for Lou Dobbs, John McLaughlin, and 60 Minutes to understand?; is it simple enough for my neighbors, my fellow workers, my friends to understand?; is it simple enough for a sensible junior high schooler to understand? Is it simple enough for me to understand (I hope so)?

 

Following are examples of events of 9/11 that by themselves virtually prove the Official Story of 9/11 to be a lie. The Official Story of course, is that 19 Islamic hijackers caused the death and destruction on 9/11. I use the word “virtually” because some people offer implausible or highly improbable alternative explanations. And if taken by themselves, it is possible that an implausible or highly improbable explanation or two could be true. However, I contend that many of the following examples by themselves actually DO prove the Official Story to be a lie. To believe the Official Story, one must believe virtually ALL of the implausible or improbable explanations. For if only one support for the Official Story is proven to be false, the whole Story begins to crumble. And mind you, these are NOT isolated events. They are all major parts of the Official Story.

 

~ read on... ~

 

13 shots that connected: Countdown to sad anniversary of Kent State Massacre

May 4, 1970

video found on Buckdog



A Tragic Shooting

" ... The shooting that occurred on Monday, May 4, 1970 was located in the small University town of Kent in the northeastern portion of Ohio, approximately ten miles northeast of Akron and thirty miles southeast of Cleveland. The Kent State Massacre began with a peaceful demonstration about Richard M. Nixon’s speech on Thursday, April 30, 1970 about enlarging the Vietnam War by invading Cambodia. Throughout the years many papers, books, magazines, songs, and reports that were published kept the Kent State incident alive. It also aired on television for weeks. All of these sources contain vital information about the shooting itself, the students’ reaction, the nations’ reactions, and more.

On April 30, 1970, President Richard Nixon made a televised address to the nation and at that time announced that he was committing United States troops from Vietnam (1959-1975) into specified areas of Cambodia (a country in Southeast Asia). The reaction of some Kent State students and faculty was immediate.
Students congregated at the KSU commons as a result of an unidentified person ringing Kent State’s bell that wasn’t used for years. The students were told to evacuate the premises, but nobody seemed to follow the demands. So the mayor of Ohio, Leroy Satrom, called for the Ohio National Guardsmen from Troop G, also known as the "Death Squad".

[ ... ]

The Ohio National Guardsmen were equipped with tear gas, grenade launches to help fire the tear gas, and fire arms. They were also provided with bayonets. The students knew they would need to defend themselves, so they retaliated. As they were retreating up Blanket Hill they lobbed tear gas canisters back at the guardsmen along with rocks and other sharp objects. They also charged with torches. Between sixty-one and sixty-seven shots were fired in thirteen seconds without order or warning. The outcome, four American students dead along with nine others injured. The four students shot and killed were Allison Krause, William (Bill) Shroeder, Sandra Scheuer, and Jeffrey (Jeff) Miller. Allison Krause was hit by a shot penetrating the left side of her body (through her arm and chest) about three hundred and fifty yards away. Bill was shot in the back four hundred feet away. Sandra was also shot about four hundred feet about but through her throat. Jeff was shoot in his mouth nearly two hundred and seventy-five feet away. A memorial for these students has been erected on the site where they died.

Nine other students were injured. Including Alan Canfora, John Cleary, Thomas (Tom) Grace, Dean Kahler, Joseph (Joe) Lewis, Scott Mackenzie, James (Jim) Russel, Robert (Robby) Stamps, and Douglas (Doug) Wrentmore.

Of the thirteen shots that connected, seven were in the sides of the backs of students showing they were not advancing toward the Ohio National Guardsmen, they were fleeing. Therefore, not every student that congregated as the common was a participant in the peaceful demonstration that turned into a bloody murder scene. Some were walking to and from their classes, other were just spectators of the scene. The University was ordered closed immediately, first by President Robert White and then indefinitely by Portage County Prosecutor Ronald Kane under an injunction from Common Please Judge Albert Caris. Classes did not resume until the summer of 1970, and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the mail and off-campus meeting that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester.

Records were also broken as a result of the Kent State massacre. One record broken consisted of the most American students killed in one incident (four). Kent State University was also where the largest number of female protectors were killed. ... "

Film review: Coup d'etat (Yoshida Kiju, 1973)

From the Eros plus Massacre blog :

Yoshida "Kiju" Yoshida (whose Eros Plus Massacre this blog is named after) directed his last film for some time in 1973. This was a strange biopic about a military obsessive and nationalist socialist named Ikki Kita, somewhat in the style of Hitler, who encouraged a coup against the Japanese government in 1936 (infamously known as the "February 26th incident".)

[ ... ]

There, Yoshida appears to be telling us something about the nature of humanity, in that it doesn't really change, but only cons one into thinking it will. In Coup d'etat, Yoshida seems to be saying not only will things remain the same, but they're usually worse than you realize.

Easter: A time for ritualized death, rebirth and cannibalism

From Something to chew on :

 

...Also known as Bacchus, the figure of Dionysus predates the Greeks - the Egyptian Osiris is one doppelgänger - but it's in his Hellenic form where parallels with Christian tales and rituals are clearest. Both are clearly "Resurrection Gods", or "dying and rising" deities as James Frazer terms them in The Golden Bough.

Connections are many and deep, such as both having as parents a mortal woman, and a god, both having principle festivals falling at the winter solstice. But there is one area that stands out: the bloody ritual at the centre of the Dionysian cult, and the most shocking and baffling ritual practised by modern Christians - cannibalism.

The Eucharist as practised by most branches of Christianity may look to non-believers like the consumption of wafers and wine, but doctrinally this is the flesh and blood of Christ - not symbolically, but in actuality. From the perspective of believers in this doctrine of transubstantiation it's hard to see how this apparent ritual is anything other than real, bloody cannibalism ...

Dionysian rites involved a similar substitution; the Athenians, according to the Golden Bough, believed that at festivals Dionysus could be persuaded into the body of a goat, which they then tore apart with their teeth. Similarly, Cretans beseeched him to enter the body of a bull, which they also ripped to shreds and ate. Quite how an unarmed mob could attack and kill a fully-grown bull is perhaps puzzling to us, but Frazer lists many more comparable rituals from around the globe.

We know that cannibalism is integral to the Dionysian cult. Various legends, sometimes conflicting, revolve around Dionysus's death, torn apart by his enemies, then his rebirth, via the unusual mechanism of his mother, Semele, eating his heart and falling pregnant once again as a result. However, we can only guess at the meaning of this cannibalism. Frazer, seeing connections with more recent tribal rituals, considers the devouring of the god as a wish to become the god, to absorb his powers - and that seems plausible. With Christianity, though, we get at least one meaning straight from the horse's mouth - or at least, from a biographer: "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, 'This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me'."

So, virtual cannibalism to unbelievers, but real to adherents - an instruction to remember their god by eating him; and this the religion at the centre of western civilisation. Yet at the same time cannibalism is viewed as completely taboo, aberrant in all circumstances...

Christopher Marlowe, the poet spy: Was he Shakespeare?

From the BBC's In Our Time :

In the prologue to The Jew of Malta Christopher Marlowe has Machiavel say:
"I count religion but a childish toy,
And hold there is no sin but ignorance.
Birds of the air will tell of murders past!
I am ashamed to hear such fooleries.
Many will talk of title to a crown.
What right had Caesar to the empire?
Might first made kings, and laws were then most sure
When, like the Draco's, they were writ in blood."

By the age of 29 Marlowe was a brilliant scholar, a popular playwright, an international spy, a forger, a homosexual and was accused of atheism. His hugely ambitious characters, like Tamburlaine and Faustus, are often taken to be versions of Marlowe himself, a subversive who also counted religion as a 'childish toy'. By the age of 30 Marlowe was dead.

Was Marlowe assassinated by the Elizabethan state? How subversive was his literary work? And had he lived as long as his contemporary Shakespeare, how would he have compared?

From The Christopher Marlowe Conspiracies :

...Conspiracy, Controversy, Questions and Conundrums

Elizabethan playwright Christopher 'Kit' Marlowe left to the world a legacy of seven plays, numerous poems, a romantic reputation and a controversial date: 30 May, 1593. Official documents from the time say that on this day Christopher Marlowe was killed in a brawl in a house in Deptford. But where his official life ends is where most of the theories begin. There are a lot of them, and they twist in and out of each other in a thorny tangle of suppositions and suggestions. The main areas of contention are as follows:

• Marlowe was murdered in May 1593 (as the official documents report), but not in a quarrel over a bar-room bill. There are a number of theories competing for recognition as the real reason for his death, most agree that it was some kind of set-up, the question is - what kind?

• Marlowe wasn't murdered, but had faked his own death in order to escape the charges hanging over him. You can take your pick from a proliferation of sub-theories offering alternative ways he could have done this. The 'Marlowe didn't die' theory leads inevitably on to the next theory - because if he didn't die in 1593, what did he do in the years that followed?

• Marlowe became Shakespeare. This is a big favourite in conspiracy circles. Despite being officially dead for the entire span of Shakespeare's career, Marlowe is among the top three contenders for the Bard's crown.

• This would be enough for most, but Marlowe was always a man for extremes. Some people believe that Marlowe also 'became' Miguel Cervantes (the author of Don Quixote), and also found time to be all 47 translators of the King James Bible, as well as penning a couple of dozen other contemporary plays and poems. All of this, of course, after his death.

Conspiracy Theory Number 1: A Dead Man in Deptford

There are those who are willing to go along with the official line on Marlowe's death, but they will subscribe to it only far enough to agree he was murdered. To their way of thinking, his drinking buddies on that fateful day in May were just a little too shady; the timing of his death was just a little too convenient. And then there is also the fact that Marlowe was in trouble. His ex-roommate, Thomas Kyd, had been arrested, and under torture had told the authorities all sorts of things about his friend that had Marlowe out on bail with the threat of the Star Chamber hanging over his head...

From Marlowe Alive in 1599, 1602 and 1603???!!! :

Since the early 1800s Christopher Marlowe (b.1564) has been a strong contender for the authorship of "Shakespeare's" works. The notion was first suggested by Queen Elizabeth during the wake of the Essex Rebellion, when she singled him out as the author of Richard II.

Few doubt that had Marlowe lived he would have matured into a writer capable of equaling Shakespeare.

Marlovians suppose he did survive 1593 and became the writer "William Shakespeare." Scholars now have good proof of this survival.

It's complicated, as all these matters are, however there is no question that a "Christopher Marley" or "Marlowe" was seen alive and well during the post 1593 period. Here is the text of a dispach to the Privy Council about his from Pisa in 1602...

...It is clear from this that those there at the time thought this caterpillar from Cambridge was the poet/spy. So my question to the world is why, if this is what they thought, should we, who weren't there at the time, think any differently?

We should also note that if this man was the Trinity "Mathew" or "Mathews," as has several times been supposed, we can see that he was at Trinity in 1596 receiving his M.A. This means he cannot have escaped knowing that the Trinity Christopher Marlowe had died in April of that year, several months prior to Commencement. He cannot, thus, be likely thought to have plucked that name out of the blue for use at Valladolid.

In all likelihood, whoever this Marlowe was, he thought the Trinity scholar still alive. And thus felt secure in using his name.

One can almost see it now, "no I'm not that Christopher Marlowe, I'm from Trinity college." It would make a nice ruse in the days before the internet could have our photo and personal history on record in a second.

The evidence is thus well in hand that Christopher Marlowe survived 1593, as suggested in both Famous Victories of Henry V and later in Henry IV.

From The Case for the Christopher Marlowe's Authorship of the Works attributed to William Shakespeare :

The Paper Trail

Two centuries later, scholars began to suspect something was peculiar when they noticed that Marlowe's works supply the "missing" early works of Shakespeare, so it was suggested, anonymously, that Marlowe might have been William's nom de plume.

Once Marlowe's life proved Marlowe's works his own, the theory was discarded, but once it became clear Shakespeare's biography offered no proof of his authorship (apart from the title page advertisements) the theory was revised in the reverse.

This was in 1895 when an American literary sleuth, Wilbur Gleason Zeigler, first suggested that Marlowe created the name William Shakespeare as his own pen name or nom de plume and faked his death to avoid facing pending capital charges.

The rustic, informally educated actor from Stratford, replete with his illiterate family, no intellectual properties or friendships, was, according to Zeigler, pressed into service for the role of author, seven years after his own death. Like the famous lobster, it may have been Shakespeare's finest hour, but it certainly wasn't of his own choosing. This hiatus of seven years remains a pivotal point in the Marlowe case...

From Candidates for Shakespeare :

Christopher Marlowe, playwright, (b. 1564, the same year as Shakspere, d. 1593 just as Shakespeare ‘materialised’). Marlowe was 29 when he died, except that “he didn’t die” and “HE wrote Shakespeare thereafter”. As a claim for authorship, it is described as an elaborate hoax on the part of the aristocracy. It is an extraordinary claim, based on several presumptive assertions – that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare BEFORE 1593, and that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare AFTER 1593, and that Shakspere was a provincial nonentity, some-time actor and scribbler. Shakspere was not a University ‘wit’, not ‘tutored in further education’, and someone who could not possibly have gone on from 1593 to produce a further flow of plays successful and worthy of genius. And that Marlowe was a paid spy, in the government’s pocket and willing pridelessly to hide away and accept this secondary, anonymous role after years of adulation!

Mind you, Marlowe was the son of a humble village cobbler and his attaining University was a fine, substantial step in his education. But hardly to his personal development. He was roisterous and boisterous, blasphemer, drunk, pederast and still a lyrical dramatic genius – on that dramatic side, he is often seen today as OTT (over the top).

His rapid success and an either uncaring or egotistical understanding that he was indeed ‘the real bridge’ between ‘medieval and modern’ in Elizabethan terms and therefore very special, leader of the “new wave” in theatre, could have virtually unhinged anyone – hence his dark delusions leading into entrapment and employment by the Elizabeth / Walsingham secret service, and all the blind often dangerous alleys that ego fascinates us into.

Though some realistically today see his Works as “over-rated”, his “life and talent were spectacular” and he is the truly professional candidate in this great Detective Story...