I have not seen Kathryn since she was about 4 years old, so she has probably no memory of me. We wondered what happened to her, but my father has no idea because Kathryn did not have enough of an attachment to him to bother keeping in touch.
This brings me to a question that people often ask me; specifically, how did I get involved in the 9-11 movement?
A review of how I got involved in 9-11I was a typical, clueless American when the 9-11 attack occurred. At the time the only documents I had posted on the Internet were about Linux. My documents were mainly complaints about the exaggerated claims made by Linux supporters, and that people were being deceived into believing that they could switch from Windows to Linux. I also had a couple documents in which I complained that Bill Gates of Microsoft appears to be mentally ill, that competition doesn't work with operating systems, and that our government is doing a lousy job of supervising the economy.
I did not have a television, and I did not subscribe to any publications because I became disgusted with the idiotic news reports when I was a teenager. During the first few days my only source of information about the attack was the Internet messages boards and news reports.
I was surprised to find most people were complaining the attack was unprovoked. On Friday, September 14, 2001, I posted documents on the Internet in which I complained that the Arabs were merely retaliating against us for the decades of abuse. I pointed out that the Arabs were behaving like Lorena Bobbitt.
Not many people agreed with my Bobbitt analogy. Instead, I noticed message boards where people would complain that something was suspicious about the attack. I also received a few email messages that told me that it was the "illuminati" or the CFR or the Bilderbergs who behind the 9-11 attack. I had never heard of such words, so I ignored them. I assumed those people were "conspiracy nuts".
I also occasionally saw messages about a "global hawk", which I assumed was some type of bird that migrates long distances. I ignored those messages, also.
By Jan 2002 these conspiracy nuts had gotten me curious enough to look closely at the collapse of the towers. I quickly came to the conclusion that the towers were demolished with explosives. I then posted documents on the Internet about this.
Very soon after my documents were posted, somebody told me Building 7 also collapsed. Somebody else told me there was video of the collapse of Building 7 on the internet. I asked where the video was, but the person would not tell me. Instead, he (or she?) told me how to find the video. So I found video of Building 7 collapsing. I soon revised my documents to include Building 7.
Somebody else emailed me a photo of Building 7 before it collapsed. The photo showed a few fires burning. I asked where the photo came from, but he said he forgot. However, once I knew the photo existed, I began to search for it, and eventually I found it.
I then began sending email to professors, scientists, architects, and other people to look into this issue of explosives in the towers and Building 7, but everybody ignored me. I became especially frustrated when I tried to explain this concept to my relatives. I decided that it would be easier to explain this with a book that had color photos and diagrams. So I decided to write a book. I stopped updating my web pages, other than to correct mistakes, and began the book.
In my book I referred to the people who did 9-11 as the "Axis of Good" because I still had no idea of the meaning of such names as Illuminati, CFR, Rothchilds, and Bilderbergers. However, I eventually learned what a Global Hawk was, and I came to the conclusion that a Global Hawk probably crashed into the Pentagon.
As I was writing the book, it occurred to me that Building 7 was the command center for the 9-11 attack. I never bothered updating my Internet documents to mention that possibility, so nobody knew about that until my book was finished.
In June or July 2002 (I forget which month) I put a notice on my web page that my book would be available in a few weeks, and people in the media could have free copies. Not many people knew about my website, so I assumed I should start letting people know about it before I actually have an a final date from the printer.
I remember only one person asking for a free copy, and he worked for the magazine The Weekly Standard. (I have since changed hard disks and computers, and I no longer have my original e-mail messages, so I can't figure out if there was more than one request.)
I had never heard of The Weekly Standard before, and the name "Rupert Murdoch" meant nothing to me at the time, but when I looked at their website it occurred to me that these people were only interested in my book so that they could pass it on to the Axis of Good. This is one reason I remember their request.
The main reason I remember them is because they asked for a copy in early July (or late June -- I lost the email records), which was almost as soon as I put the message on my web site that the book would be available. Unfortunately, it was taking me longer than I expected to finish the book. I offered the book too soon, and now I was worried that I would look incompetent for announcing the book so early. I was embarrassed to have the Axis of Good catch me making such a dumb mistake. Rather than make them wait I sent them an email message to acknowledge their request and assure them that the book would be coming "soon". A message came back that the person was out of his office for a few days, so I hoped they were all taking summer vacations and would not notice how late my book was.
As the days passed, the expected date for my book was pushed farther into the future. By the end of July or sometime August (I forget which) I decided I better send The Weekly Standard a laser-print of my book, rather than make them wait any longer. The laser copy was missing the last chapter, and it had a few minor differences from the final version, but I was worried they would send me a message, or at least think to themselves,
"Well, where is the book? You said you were going to send us a book! You incompetent idiot!"
My books were finally delivered to me on 11 September 2002 (I am sure that date was a coincidence).
As soon as I had copies I sent e-mail to the people I had been discussing the 9-11 attack with, or who had provided me with help in finding information. I told them that I just printed a book about the attack, and it had lots of nice color photos. I offered to send them a copy for free. All they had to do was send me their name and address.
To my surprise, some of them did not respond to me, so I sent a second e-mail message, but they still did not reply.
One person who did respond was defensive and paranoid. He wrote something like, "Who are you? Why are you bothering me? Leave me alone!" I tried to refresh his memory by pointing out that I was the person who was discussing the 9-11 attack with him a couple months earlier. But he had a paranoid and angry attitude, so I decided to avoid him.
I was disappointed that none of those people wanted a copy of my book. I assumed that were afraid to let me know their name and address because they had become paranoid that the government was watching them and might intercept the email with the address.
A few weeks after my book was available, an owner of a bookstore told me that most people don't read, so I should make a video. Soon I heard this from other people, also. So I started making a video.
Was it all a coincidence?Is it purely a coincidence that I ended up writing a book about the 9-11 attack? Often people ask me what caused me to write the book since I was just another clueless American when the attack occurred. Even I have looked at the amount of effort I put into my book and video and wondered what caused me to do such a thing. Now that I discover that my half-sister might be James Murdoch's wife, I wonder if I was a pawn in somebody's psy-op game.
How many of the coincidences really were coincidences? For example, why was The Weekly Standard so quick to ask for a review copy? Not many people knew or cared about my website, so how did they know about it? Were they watching all 9-11 sites? Or did somebody point out to Murdoch that a person named "Hufschmid" was posting documents about explosives in the towers, and did Murdoch tell some of his people to pay particular attention to me?
And who were the mysterious people making remarks about Illuminati, Global Hawks, and Building 7? Were they just concerned citizens who were innocently trying to spread information about the attack? Or were some of them deliberately slipping me some clues about the 9-11 attack? Were they gently pushing me away from my Bobbitt analogy and towards the understanding that the entire attack was a scam? If so, why would anybody try to influence me? I am not famous, and only a few people knew or cared that I had posted documents about Linux and Microsoft. So why would anybody try to influence me in regards to the September 11th attack?
I eventually discovered that a few people had mentioned immediately after the attack that explosives were used to bring down the towers down. This was months before I posted my documents about explosives. Therefore, I was not the first person to discuss the issue of explosives. So why would anybody want me to post documents about a subject that other people had already posted documents about?
Perhaps because somebody wanted to terrorize Rupert and/or James Murdoch. It would not have been news to Murdoch that somebody had posted documents that the towers were brought down by explosives, but the name "Hufschmid" would have sent a shock through the Murdochs. They would likely wonder what the connection is between me and them. They would likely wonder if somebody is sending a message to them.
Who would want to terrorize Murdoch?I don't know much about Rupert Murdoch, but all the major news executives seem analogous to a medical doctor who operates thousands of clinics in which phony doctors provide patients with whatever drugs they ask for. None of the major news organizations seem to have serious reporters working for them. Instead, they seem to hire entertainers who masquerade as news reporters, and who provide the sheeple with sexual titillation, Hollywood gossip, and weird crimes.
Some people are disgusted with the major news organizations for taking advantage of the horde of sheeple, so perhaps one or more of those people decided to terrorize Murdoch.
Some people are also upset with Murdoch for the nepotism in his company, so perhaps one or more of those people decided to terrorize Murdoch. For example, a few years ago Rupert Murdoch's son, James, was living in Hong Kong because in the year 2000 Rupert gave him the control over a section of the Asian News Corporation.
Today James Murdoch lives in London because in 2003 his father made him CEO of British Sky Broadcasting Group. Jacob Rothschild was named deputy chairman. Jacob Rothschild is supposedly part of the same Rothschild family that dominates the banking industry, and he supposedly has close ties to the billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was recently arrested in Russia.
Perhaps some people are fed up with the attempts to bring back the monarchies of the Middle Ages in which a few rich families own everything, and pass all the land and people from father to son. Perhaps some people are trying to destroy the Bush monarchy, the Rothschild monarchy, the Rockefeller monarchy, the Murdoch monarchy, and the others. Since I had already posted documents that Bill Gates appears to be mentally ill, perhaps somebody was hoping I would write about these other rich families in the same manner.
My involvement in 9-11 could be purely coincidental, but it could also be that somebody slipped information to me in order to torment the Murdochs. Perhaps they wanted me to post documents on the Internet. Since I was unknown to most people, they may have assumed that not many people would notice my Internet documents, other than the people they told about them, such as Murdoch.
When they learned that I published a book and DVD, they may have worried that they just started a fire that might get out of control. This would explain why, when I offered free books to some of the mystery people who provided me with information, they ignored me.
Phenomenal wealth, beautiful women, and colossal scamsThis issue would make an interesting movie. Consider how complex the plot would be:
- Was a disgruntled employee in Murdoch's company angry with the nepotism?
- Or was one of Murdoch's competitors trying to bring down the Murdoch empire by exposing the 9-11 scam?
- Or did this come from somebody within the Axis of Good? For example, was one of the Rothchilds trying to show Rupert Murdoch who is the boss of the Axis of Evil? Was Murdoch getting out of control? Were the Rothchilds angry that Murdoch and/or some of his friends were taking advantage of the scam by demolishing the World Trade Center? Was the demolition of part of the "official" plan?
- Or was somebody trying to destroy the Axis of Good by creating the impression that information about 9-11 is leaking out of Murdoch's family? Was somebody trying to start suspicions and fights among the Murdoch family and the other members of the Axis of Good?
- Or is somebody trying to help James Murdoch (and/or Kathryn) understand what is going on? Are they driving a wedge between Rupert and James? Or between James and Kathryn?
- Or is Rupert Murdoch one of the more normal members of the Axis of Good, and were the more neurotic members trying to hurt him?
- Or were some people in the CIA or MI6 sending a message to the Murdochs to quit messing with Britain? If so, was this an official policy of the agency, or was it coming from some individual employees who were tired of watching their nation be abused?
- Or was it payback from somebody in China, Australia, or Hong Kong who was annoyed with the Murdochs?
- Or were some people in the CIA or MI6 tired of bowing to their masters, in which case the message was not just for Rupert, but for the entire Axis of Good?
- During the past year or two a lot of information came out about the Blair administration having sex with retarded children. And there has been information about the Princess Diana murder. Is any of this related to Murdoch and/or 9-11? Is there a fight going on between the British government and their masters? Did Murdoch or Rothchild release that information? And if so, was it to put Tony Blair, the CIA, and MI6 back into their subservient positions?
- On the back cover of the first edition of my book I printed the web site of a friend. At the time I was writing my book, my friend was looking for a job, so I put his web site on the book cover and told him he could sell my book from his web site. His web site was selling shirts and other gifts that were related to Robert Pelton's book "The World's Most Dangerous Places", so it would be easy for him to add another book to his web page.
One of the co-authors of that book was Wink Dulles, the cousin of the former CIA director, and who the Dulles airport was named after. Wink Dulles was not interested in joining the CIA (or so we are told). He was living in Thailand when my book was announced. Not long after, I heard that Wink Dulles died in a motorcycle accident. Supposedly he died at the hospital, not at the scene of the accident.
Motorcycle accidents are so common that it may have been a real accident, but it is also possible that somebody in the Axis of Good assumed that Wink Dulles was leaking info about 9-11. Maybe he was! How would I know? I never even met the guy.
Why is it so difficult to figure out what is happening?
The crimes on television are easy to figure out, but 9-11 and other scams are beyond comprehension. I think part of the reason is that some members of the Axis of Good are mentally ill. I think these people are double-crossing one another, taking advantage of the scams, and behaving in self-destructive manners.
How can we understand the motives of people who are mentally ill? How can we understand people who selfish beyond anything we have experienced? Can you understand why Jeffery Dahmer ate people? It was not because he was hungry, in case that is what you assume.
The widespread attitude in America is that rich men are some of the finest examples of human life; that they became rich because they are talented, intelligent people. Most Americans also assume that these billionaires are happy because of all their money. But it seems to me that the billionaires are suffering from mental disorders and are actually very unhappy. I think they are struggling for money on the false assumption that money will make them feel good about themselves. But no matter how much money they get, they are still the same miserable person. Rather than catch on to the fact that money is not fixing their problems, they assume they simply need more money.
If the billionaires were doing something useful with their money, then I would be happy to see them make it. I put some of the money I earned into producing my book and video, for example. I also pay for this web site with the money I earn (that is why I don't beg for donations to keep this site going).
But what are the billionaires doing with their money to make the world a better place? They seem to be using their money in futile attempts to make themselves feel better. They need to experiment with Prozac and other drugs, not make more money.
Many Americans admire wealthy people who give handouts to poor people, but the handouts don't help the poor people, and it doesn't help the world. Actually, I think it makes our situation worse by encouraging poor people to beg for handouts.
Most of us experienced povertyI and millions of other people started our adult life in poverty because when we first left home we did not have much money. But most of us found a way to make a living. To most of us, poverty is just a brief condition we experienced when we first left home. Feeling sorry for people who never get beyond that initial condition of poverty is not going to help them.
After some of us pass through that initial poverty stage and are making a living, we start doing other things with our life, such as enjoying it. However, some people continue frantically stockpiling money. Some of them end up becoming very wealthy. But no matter how much money they have, they never have enough. How are those rich people any less mentally ill than the people who cannot get themselves out of poverty?
Would you admire, or be able to understand the mind of, a doctor who became a billionaire by offering prescription drugs to anybody who asked for them? Then how could you admire, or understand the mind of, a person who becomes a billionaire by offering idiotic news and sexual titillation to sheeple? I think the billionaires just suffer from a different type of mental illness than the poor people.
Can we expect lunatics to commit sensible scams?Imagine that a group of people with mental disorders get together to commit collasal scams. Do you think the members of such a group would treat each other with decency and respect? Do you think they would work together for the benefit of the organization? Isn't it possible that some of them will inadvertently hurt their organization -- and sometimes themselves -- by trying to cheat one another?
Many of the people involved in the 9-11 attack may be suffering from mental disorders. Can we really expect such a group to behave in a "rational" manner? Can we really expect to understand the motives of such a group?
For all we know, the people who demolished the World Trade Center decided to do so for their own benefit, without telling the "leaders" of the scam, and some of the other members of the Axis of Good may be angry with them for doing it.
We are our primary enemyThe primary enemy of every society and organization has always been its own members. The primary enemy of each person has always been his own mind. In other words, each of us is our worst enemy.
The Axis of Good is certainly harmed more by their own members than by you or me. Consider just the reports of sex slaves and sex with retarded children. What kind of people are they? Are they really happy, healthy people who can be trusted? I think we should expect the Axis of Good to sometimes behave in ways that seem irrational and self-destructive.
The Axis of Good may be a collection of sorry excuses for humans. Is it any wonder that they have trouble achieving their goals? For example, they supposedly want to reduce the population, but the population rises every year. They supposedly want to get control of the world, but all they have accomplished so far is chaos and wars. They are failing time after time. They are losers, not winners.
Destruction is easy
It doesn't take talent to create misery and deaths. Actually, it is easy to destroy. By comparison, talent is required to solve problems; to create something wonderful. For some examples:
- It takes talent and effort to build a nice house; it doesn't take any talent to burn the house down.
- It takes talent and effort to raise and educate a child; it doesn't take any talent to kill the child.
- It takes a lot of talent from a lot of people to create a city that is beautiful, efficient, and pleasant to live in; it doesn't take any talent to drop bombs on the city.
- It is easy to write simplistic or deceptive news reports; it takes talent to write reports that are actually valuable to the human race.
If the Axis of Good were truly wonderful, talented people, they would at least be able to make a community for themselves to live in that is better than what the rest of us have. But they live in the same world they are messing up, they are hurting themselves and their children. They have to live in the same crummy cities that you and I live in, and they have to breathe the same polluted air. The also have to visit the same overcrowded tourist areas, and they have to be concerned about crime. For example, in an "exclusive interview" with James Murdoch:
I'm interviewing the younger Murdoch in his unglamorous corner office, with a view over the congested and ugly A4, in the satellite broadcaster's sprawling west London campus.
The rich Murdoch prince has to work in the same ugly, disorganized, overcrowed city as the peasants who grow him food, clean his bathroom, and build his yachts. These rich people can start wars, cheat governments, and deceive sheeple, but they cannot make a nice city for themselves. I work in nicer environment than those billionaires (I work at home). So, just how talented are those billionaires?
Furthermore, the Rothchilds and their friends have apparently been running these scams for centuries. There are even reports that Mozart was one of their victims after he wrote The Magic Flute in an attempt to drop hints about them.
Even if only a few of the accusations about the Rothchilds are true, it means the world has suffered from more than 200 years of their abuse. But despite all their wars and scams, they still have not achieved their goal of world domination or population reduction. Will they ever achieve their goals? Or will these billionaires merely create more wars and misery for everybody, including themselves?
Is the human race ever going to advance?What has really improved in human life during the past 1000 years? The monarchy is still active, and the rich kids are still exploiting the sheeple and sending them off to fight stupid wars. Our cities are still choatic and ugly. Crime and mental illness actually seem much more common today, as does loneliness and apathy. Only technology has improved.
The sheeple will never do anything to make their own lives better, let alone help to make a better world. Will any group ever form to bring some real advancements to the human race? Or will the future of the human race be just a continuation of the chaos we see today?
Or is there a small group quietly struggling to bring down these monarchies? Is that how I got involved in the 9-11 scam?