Posted by: graemebird | February 19, 2011

Two Planes/ Three Buildings/ No Way Back.

There can be no way back to the wrong view of the way the world works. The reality that 9/11 happened via controlled demolition is a proven fact. People ask “well who did it then?” with accusatory tones. And the scientists who have proved their case totally, tend to back away. But the event itself is so striking, so “unbelievable” that we ought to be able to say a lot about who did it.

We cannot name the individuals, but we can say a great deal about the sort of organisation that must have carried this off. Since even the former Soviet Union could not have pulled this off. Since Arab government intelligence services, could not get away with this, either one at a time, or altogether ….. Since even the CIA couldn’t get away with this, if the CIA is constituted along the lines we have been lead to believe … Since neither the President, the Vice President, nor both of them, and all their friends and business associates taken as one …. since no such coterie could get away with this …. nor would they be of the sort of character to try this on.

None of the people or networks or organisations could get away with this IF THE WORLD WAS AS WE THOUGHT IT TO BE . Ergo, the only conclusion to be had is that the world is clearly NOT as we thought it to be.

Under our assumptions of reality, no-one could have possibly pulled this crime off and still be on the loose …. That means that its a fact, that it is our assumptions of reality ……… it is our assumptions that are wrong. Reality has been different to how we thought it was all along. And since this is the case, the development of paradigms which show what sort of outfit could even so much as POSSIBLY pull this thing off ….. the description of such an outfit that could plausibly pull this seemingly impossible crime off ….. Well that description is likely to be very close to the mark. The description of a shadow government that could possibly get away with this …. that description is likely to be substantially accurate, even if the person conjuring the description has no way of knowing about any of the individuals involved.

Think of everything that doesn’t make sense in this world:

How is it that bankers are able to gain the benefit of new money creation, at the expense of the public revenue and the public interest? How is that possible? How is it that a Congressman can find out information on the CIA for more easily then on the Federal Reserve? How is it that most of the facts are known about the assassination of Kennedy, and we know that Oswald was the patsy, and yet this murder has never been fully investigated by the authorities? How is it that in a court of law it was found that Martin Luther King Junior was murdered by the government, but that this is not in the textbooks? How is it the case that one bank (Goldman Sachs) seems to be out there doing all the dirty work and engaging in all the criminal behavior for the benefit of the banking bigshots more generally? How is it that our Reserve Bank Governor flies to a distant foreign capital to beg like a gimp, for concessions to do with what ought to be domestic policy?

You see all of these questions defy answers if the world is as we think it is. If the history of the West, since the battle of Waterloo, is how we all believe it to be, then none of the above makes sense.

But there were two planes and three buildings and so there is no way back to our previous ignorance. I’ll not lead people by the hand. We know that on this planet the three buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. Think about what that would mean if it happened on another planet? Try and get the objectivity of distance with regards to this issue. What would that say about the way that planet works, and the perceptions of the inhabitants of that planet, and the difference BETWEEN the reality and the perceptions.

Only two planes but three buildings. There is no way back. Your view of the way the world works must change if you have enough pride not to be a dupe. Look your enslavers in the eye at least. Let them know that you know what they are doing to you. Let your overlords know that you cannot see them, but you know where to look for them, when they finally make everything crash.When their parasitism finally makes EVERYTHING crash. And not just two planes and three buildings.



  1. Hey Graeme
    Singapore pays their taxeaters generously (among other things) and they seem to do pretty well out of it. I’d be interested in your views on this (and the article in general)

  2. A very good management book when I was young was “Up The Organization” By Robert Townsend. In one notable section he reckons they ought to charge all businesses that have an “assistant-too” (the manager) 100 dollars a day until they are all fired. Here we are not talking about a butler or a personal organizer. But someone who steps between the boss and the rest of the hierachy.

    Townsend reckons that each extra layer of management reduces communication by 25%. Of course thats an ad hoc figure. But the implication is that you have to keep organisations flat and small. The bigger the setup is the more you must work on flattening the organisational structure.

    Standard management theory has appropriate spans of control as being around 8-14, from memory. But perhaps that could be stretched to 20 with new technology. Here we need to delegate all tasks to the lowest level that they can be carried out.

    So you are the boss, you have 20 underneath you, they have 20 underneath them, and they have 20 underneath them.

    Thats about as big as any non-profit outfit can get and hope to be effective. And those profitable outfits bigger than that are likely only there by way of natural selection, or by dint of rules benefiting bigshots.

    Thats about 8421 people. We have a pretty dubious setup when so many outfits are larger than this.

    No supposing you have to go bigger than this? How can you make that work in the pubic sector? The only thing you can possibly do is get the best people into government and pay them well like Lee Kwan Yew did. Thats the only way to make an inherently unworkable setup work.

    Another layer of management means you need the best people on one of those layers.

    But note, no gains can be made if the vision and strategy is irrational. No use paying idiots like Garnaut and Flannery big bucks to follow a fucked and irrational vision. But then suppose you employed Sir Zac Newton and Jack Welch instead? Well that makes no difference. Since the vision of Rudd and Gillard is inherently wrong. So the effect will be to employ great effectiveness in the industry of producing BAD THINGS.


  3. Now the article said that Singapore spent 19% of GDP as government spending. The fact is that we cannot have freehold infrastructural goods.

    Infrastructural goods are trans-spatial goods. But its easy to think of it as all about pipes.


    Until we have a regulatory system for the construction, ownership and investment in pipes, that guarantees oversupply following more than normal profits ……… then we have to provide the pipes by way of socialism. And to pull that gig off you need really capable people, like Lee and his crowd.

    The chances of getting such people, following a sound strategy, under modern democracy are close to zero. There is but one Singapore.

    So we need a law of pipes.

    And by PIPES I mean that wires are electron-pipes. And roads are pipes for cars. Rivers are sort of natural pipes for cargo and water, whereas a canal is the artificial version.

    Now supposing nearly all structures were off-the-grid and dealing with their own sewerage, providing power, water and so forth. And supposing we got around like Luke Skywalker in non-wheels that floated above the ground. And that floating gig worked for heavy cargo as well.

    Well then the problem of INFRASTRUCTURE wouldn’t be there.

    To the extent we can we must find ways to make a sound set of laws called “the law of pipes” which YES CAMBRIA YOU MORON would as of necessity tell us under what conditions you could tunnel under someone elses property. Thats fucking obvious. Or you must go the socialist route.

    Or there is another way out. You could encourage everyone off the grid.

    But given the choices that Lee faced he did things about as well as could be imagined.

    Naturally we want to go against paying our taxeaters good money. We want to cut their salaries any chance we get. They do a crap job. This is no Singapore.

  4. There is this rumor going around that many of the rebels fighting Gadaffi are jihadists. There are many reasons not to help the rebels but this is not one of them. This is a reason not to help them so much that they win outright and become a problem.

    If they are jihadists we ought to help them and make it a fairly even fight. You see the purpose of civil war is civil peace. And jihadists are not part of any sensible persons plans for civil peace. Bloodletting of civilians doesn’t lead to peace but the attrition of violent people, not suited for any subsequent peace can be helpful.

    So the idea is to have the two sides clash and fight it out, but you must use your snap to keep them from hurting the civilians. You want the civilians to effect the peace. But you want the jihadists and Gaddaffi’s goons to clash and kill eachother off.

  5. Take a listen to this –

    These current regime changes (Libya, Egypt and more to come) were planned over 10 years ago. The resistance movements have been long term intelligence projects.

  6. Not a bad thesis. But I would see these as two separate ideas. After all they did not go through with the multiple regime change. Which would have been the logical response if 9/11 wasn’t a shadow government job. Plus most of the people involved would not have known that 9/11 was shadow government. So the multiple regime takedown (via proxy war) was a logical response.

    The other thing is that Gaddafi had put his former terrorism behind him. He had also given up all his WMD. This is definitely the allies breaking their arrangement with him. Third parties will come to see it that way. I guess he ought not have fired on civilians. The whole thing is bad for everyone.



  8. What causes lightning? Earlier I was talking about the need to explain extreme weather events by what we know about converting one energy source to another.

    So how can we explain lightning in this way? There is no known electrical production from mere condensation.

    So we have to assume that James McCanney is right. That the clouds are not producing the lightning. Rather the lightning is bringing electrical energy from the ionosphere to the ground.

  9. Check this out:

    “How lightning initially forms is still a matter of debate:[7] Scientists have studied root causes ranging from atmospheric perturbations (wind, humidity, friction, and atmospheric pressure) to the impact of solar wind and accumulation of charged solar particles.[4] Ice inside a cloud is thought to be a key element in lightning development, and may cause a forcible separation of positive and negative charges within the cloud, thus assisting in the formation of lightning.[4]”

    Something as basic and universal as lightning and they have no fucking clue. Its pathetic. It reminds me of this Fritz Leiber short story: The Curse of the Smalls and the Stars….

    Its as if all the mainstream scientists are afflicted by the curse of the smalls.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: