This man with whom I corresponded believes Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon were staged and that those involved, even the children, are “crisis actors”—employed by a government whose aim is seizing guns, passing gun control laws, and creating a climate of fear. I asked about hospital staff, those who treat the injured and the spokesperson that provides information about a patient’s condition. His answer, “Crisis actors.”
I told him about Carlos Arredondo, a peace activist, whose son Alexander was killed in Iraq in August of 2004. Arredondo, a medic on the scene at the Boston Marathon, was photographed at the side of marathoner Jeff Bauman whose legs were blown off below the knee. My friend said the victim actually lost his legs in war and is a “crisis actor.”
I told him I know Carlos, that I met him at a peace event. And that Carlos is not a “crisis actor.”
I hit Google and found a site with a writer claiming that the bombing was staged and a link to an enlarged photograph showing that an “amputee actor” portrayed Bauman. The question is asked: “Did Lt. Nick Vogt Play Role Of Blast ‘Victim’ Jeff Bauman . . . ?”
Insert: Years ago on a warm summer evening, my husband and I attended a party at Baltimore’s Inner Harbor. I noticed two children following me. Finally, one approached and asked if I were in Steel Magnolias. “Yes, darling, I’m Julia Roberts,” I said. Truth is people say I resemble Sally Field and Ali MacGraw.
My point: Many of us have lookalikes—lookalikes who are actors.
Anyway, I challenged this man (who’s honorable yet a grump) that if the aim of staging mass shootings is strict gun control OR no guns in the hands of the people who may want to form a militia, the objective is a huge failure. After all, in the wake of these shootings, there’s noisy demand for stricter gun laws—never followed with legislation. Instead, most of these shootings result in greater gun sales, people flooding stores that sell guns because they think the possibility exists that they could someday be unavailable. The NRA and weapons manufacturers will make sure this never happens.
And I told him that whatever weaponry any ordinary person might secure for defense wouldn’t equal the arsenal the U.S. government has at its disposal to protect fascism.
Eventually, he wrote, in a condescending uppercase tirade. Said he had to “sketch” for me what I could not see because I either have “inadequate training in the scientific method” or am “conditioned and zombified” in my “beliefs in a wonderful government.” He provided his knowledge about Viet Nam with accuracy, the lies told to take us to war, lies told and evidence faked to launch us into all wars.
This was prefaced by a declaration—that his “intent to insult” was clear. As IF I had any doubts.
Although I’m thick skinned, I emailed, saying we needed to be done with each other. His “intent to insult” didn’t contribute to my decision. (I found that amusing.) Instead it was his logic.
Warning: run-on sentence: It’s almost impossible to grasp that anyone who understands that this government, with its foreign-policy mission statement that might as well be, “We think the price is worth it” or “Let them (including the troops) eat depleted uranium,” commits acts of atrocity all over the globe using weapons of mass destruction, drone attacks, sanctions resulting in the deaths of 500,000 children and a domestic policy that’s no better, including the possibility of complicity in the murder of more than 3,000 on 9/11, the callous disregard for the impoverished during Katrina and in its aftermath, the necessity for a movement called Black Lives Matter and a mission statement that might as well be, “We think the price is worth it” or “Let them drink lead,” that he, my former friend, doesn’t think this same government would kill 20 children at Sandy Hook or bomb the Boston Marathon without having to hire actors.
How does he reconcile the callous disregard for life in some areas and draw the line at others. As IF the U.S. government would NEED to stage death, when death is on its agenda daily, somewhere.
Really, who’s the naïve one here?
Missy Comley Beattie has written for National Public Radio and Nashville Life Magazine. She was an instructor of memoirs writing at Johns Hopkins’ Osher Lifelong Learning Institute in Baltimore. Email: missybeat@gmail.com.
I’d say you are. We have to find a way to talk about ‘crimes against democracy’ for they (at least some, not all) are real, in that, state terror does exist. But it’s hard to talk about it without sounding crazy and damaged. We see that it is going on and becoming more common in our own time, as if building up to something greater. Yet we are confused as to know what to do or say about it all. As my Nan used to say, it’s a mess.
Missy makes some good points and since Iam the thoughtful gentlemen to whom she was speaking and here writes about–yes, I gave her permission–I think I’ll just let her piece stand, mostly unchallenged by me.
I don’t know the medic she says she does know who said he treated a man whose legs were blown off at the Boston marathon. It could be that this man and/or others were actually injured by an actual blast. Still, there could have been crisis actors there padding the victims “roll” so to speak, as well. I think there were. And the trial that followed was a total obliteration of due process that precluded ALL discovery possibilities as to who actually set up the blasts in Boston. It was not Tsarnaev. I think it was the men in chinos, combat boots who were wearing big black back packs. Tsarnaev’s backpack was white and smaller.
Sandy Hook I am completely convinced was a complete hoax employing crisis actors, and i will be glad to debate that at length with evidence vs anyone.
That “our”government [ha ha] kills with boldness and abandon has never been in doubt. But killing is dangerous not just to us but also for the government perps. So they don’t kill more than the few they may need to kill, to get their program over, can I put it that way?
If the hit on the WTC towers had been set for mid morning some 50,000
people would’ve been dead instead of just over 2000. If the buildings had toppled as they would have done in an actual massive hit to one side or one corner of each tower, they would’ve struck many other buildings across the streets from buildings 1 and 2…hugely increasing both deaths and building damages, and liability, so this was not done. The buildings were instead professionally imploded from inside so they would fall straight down symetrically into their own footprints. The number of people killed in the 9/11 event was thus kept very very low by this government of “ours” –that loves us– but does kill with abandon. What’s illogical about that, Missy?
xoxo
2LT Dennis Morrisseau USArmy [armor - Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR retired.
POB 177 W Pawlet, VT 05775
802 645 9727 dmorso1@netzero.net
My response to Missy CONTINUED:
Please come back, Baby. I still love you!
I didn’t get into the question of whether 100million armed men
scattered across the country is essentially a guerrilla army 15 x as large as any such force fielded ever before in history…..nor did I broach the question of HOW MANY TIMES THE US ARMY HAS DEFEATED EVEN SMALL guerrilla forces over the past say 30 years……..the answer is ZERO.
….nor the boring point that Boston was also about practicing unjustified and illegal MARSHALL LAW HOUSE TO HOUSE BULLSHIT. –Conditioning
us all to that as “legal and normal” even when it was noit–Another reason for the Boston marathon event besides efforts toward gun confiscation.
Finally, the reason gun sales and purchases are going steeply UP after these events is precisely because more and more people are aware of the governments evident intent to seize guns as soon as they think they can get away with it. As all totalitarian governments eventually do……for the obvious reason. I and my buddies who SEE this are thus DEFEATING this government intent……..in spite of their clear intent. Capice, Sweet One?
2LT USArmy [and man of peace] Dennis Morrisseau –contact data above. love to hear from you!
Neither Missy Beattie nor Dennis Morrisseau is being more illogical than the other here, really. Both are somewhat logical and somewhat not—for example, that there were crisis actors employed at the marathon bombings doesn’t mean that everyone that day was an actor, and that some injuries and wounds were faked doesn’t mean that all were. Similarly, the fact that gun sales are likely to rise after staged atrocities intended to terrorize Americans is in no way surprising—but only suggests that achieving strict gun control is not really the—or perhaps not even an—aim of the perpetrators.
On the other hand, in the terror-related events that have taken place since 9/11 there have been and there remain so many irregularities, omissions, smears, blurs, and absurdities that it seems to me anyone not looking at them with acute skepticism is failing profoundly in clarity and logic. When the F.B.I. was interrogating the marathon-bombing witness Ibragim Todashev inside his own house in Orlando—why did they then murder him? Such an act couldn’t possibly be suppression of evidence. Why were we shown Tamerlan Tsarnaev being put, naked, into the back seat of a squad car—and then told the story that he got run over by Dzhokhar when Dzhokhar was trying to make a getaway? Which is it to be? Why did the cops, in Paris, stage a seven hour gun attack on the house in Saint-Denis—instead, say, of just surrounding it, turning off the water, and outwaiting the presumably guilty occupants? Why, a parallel case, was it necessary, in San Bernardino, that Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook die by gunfire and thus remain silenced forever?
It goes on and on. Why in the name of all that’s grown-up and mature does anyone believe for a nano-second that Navy Seals slew Osama bin Laden in the compound in Abbottabad? What happened to the old notions of evidence? Of a body? Of a body being identified? And why were so many others, including Benazir Bhutto, aware that Osama died all the way back in 2001? Is it so much easier just to believe in the political fictions dished out for us via photos of our ultra-sober-faced leaders somewhere in the White House watching a supposedly live TV hookup with Abbotabad at the very moment the deed is being done? Or to fall for the shameless lies and intellectual atrocities of a piece of propagandistic schlock-work like Zero Dark Thirty?
This situation of self-imposed ignorance among a ruthlessly manipulated population is becoming every day an increasingly dire emergency. It’s now almost fifteen years after 9/11 and most people still haven’t got the faintest idea of how the World Trade buildings were destroyed: That they weren’t bombed, weren’t burned, weren’t detonated, weren’t exploded, but that they were subjected to forces of weaponized free-energy technology that caused them to undergo a rapid process of molecular dissociation—they were, in short, turned into dust by a energy-force more powerful than any other and one being used against us, not for us.
This has been a known and proven truth since 2010 and the publication of Dr. Judy Wood’s Where Did the Towers Go: Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11. I know this book well, and everyone else should know it, too. In fact, I wrote the Foreword to it, and my first sentence was this: “The book you hold in your hands is the most important book of the twenty-first century.”
Anyone who thinks, or even suspects, that we’re being conned, owes it not only to themselves but to our nation and to all humanity to stop playing games, stop hiding in closets and under rugs, and find out about it.
Ms. Beattie appears to have made unsubstantiated claims herself. Perhaps she should read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? and then identify:
1) On what page of the book does Ms. Beattie claim there is “disinformation,”
2) Why does Ms. Beattie claim it is “disinformation,”
3) What is Ms. Beattie’s evidence to support her claim of “disinformation”, and of course,
4) Citing evidence from an available comprehensive forensic investigation by a qualified forensic engineer.
A web link to a debunker website run by an anonymous person (i.e. someone with no credibility), who has not conducted an independent forensic investigation, does not satisfy the above. After all, why would someone anonymously post a debunking website? Could it be they are ashamed of what they are doing? In addition, an anonymous person is not risking their reputation. If they are caught promoting disinformation, they simply get a new anonymous “handle” and no one knows the difference. That is, there is no accountability for those who post anonymously.
In fact, the website Ms. Beattie linked to does not refute anything in Dr. Wood’s book. They merely refute their own disinformation about the book. But you would need to actually read “Where Did the Towers Go?” to know this for yourself. This is what an honest journalist would do. Referencing a debunking website maintained by an anonymous person with a dishonest agenda is not what an honest journalist would do.
Dr. Wood’s report, “Where Did the Towers Go?” cannot be refuted because it contains evidence (parallel evidence and direct evidence) and evidence cannot be refuted. It can only be covered up by directing people away from it. Who would want to do a thing like that?
And who would also want to cover up this evidence?
http://tinyurl.com/irrefutableTV
The truth about what happened to all 7 WTC buildings on 9/11 is known and is knowable to anyone who wants to know. There is no need for “a new investigation” unless the objective is to cover up what happened.
Now, that the truth is known, what are you going to do about it Ms. Beattie?