Humint Events Online: Congressional 9/11 Bill Author Claims Anonymous Physicist Said 35,000 Mini-Nukes Were Emplaced in the WTC

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Congressional 9/11 Bill Author Claims Anonymous Physicist Said 35,000 Mini-Nukes Were Emplaced in the WTC

Blatant Attempt To Falsify and Omit A.P.’s Work on The Nuclear 9/11 WTC Destruction and the China Syndrome Aftermath,
By The Anonymous Physicist

Previously I have revealed how my expertise in the Kennedy Assassination allowed me, from the outset, to expect that the upper/middle tiers of 9/11 truth would be composed of 99.99% intel agents. Regarding JFK, I wrote that the entire JFK Assassination “industry” of bogus investigations, bogus articles, bogus books, bogus authors, bogus museums, bogus conferences, bogus “research,” bogus websites, and bogus forums would be duplicated in the 9/11 matter. And it is obvious how 100% of 9/11 truth forums are run by intel agents/assets. And how the two most popular, and bogus, “alternative theories” of DEW and thermite have intel assets proposing and proliferating them. All the while the regime’s intel agencies Op-Plan is to desperately try to prevent the People from learning that the WTC in New York City was nuked on 9/11, and that the China Syndrome Aftermath (CSA) existed there for six months.

In addition to overloading the Internet with their well-paid shill assets, the intel agencies Op-Plan includes getting their assets to head national and local chapters of “9/11 truth” organizations. The importance of this is to try to keep those who can think--and those who wish to act--diverted, subverted, confounded, and ultimately impotent. Local 9/11 chapters in the larger cities, and in cities where a good percentage of the population can think, would be important targets for the intel agencies to infiltrate and “lead.” One way to show how intel assets give themselves away is that they often try too hard to lie, divert and omit; and often end up in absurdities and stupidities tipping their hands. Sadly it often doesn’t matter, their backers keep them in positions of power or control even after exposure. Extrapolating from the JFK conspiracy infiltration, I would have expected a petition to Congress would end up “concluding” that “The OCT/fire is probably correct, but these two things (thermite and DEW) might also have occurred there.” Everything else--including the actual, provable nuclear destruction and the China Syndrome Aftermath--will be sabotaged. Or else we’d get that old hangout/stand-by of the intel agencies--“we can never know.”

It is in this light that I must inform you of what has happened recently as regards to an alleged effort by some to get a bill in Congress for them to vote on re-opening an investigation into what really happened to, and what really destroyed, the WTC on 9/11. You will see that a blatant effort has been made to distort, lie and omit the research of this Anonymous Physicist and my nuclear 9/11 hypothesis, and of the China Syndrome Aftermath (CSA).

This “White Paper” to Congress is titled,

Part 2 of 4: Were Nuclear Reactors the Cause of the WTC Destruction?

By Barry Ball, Barbara Ellis, and Russ Hallberg/Portland 9/11 Legislative Alliance

First note that this is supposed to be entirely about the use of mini-nukes as the primary WTC destruction mechanism. Instead it is titled with “nuclear reactors.” Now this is a 48-page document. One would think that at least the title would be correct, before anything else.

It states, “This is the second article in a four-part series stemming from our organization’s crafting and presenting a proposed bill in late 2008 to nine members of the U.S. House. It urges an independent investigation by national and international experts in science/technology to determine which of the 14 major theories about primary causal agents—fire and thermite to directed energy weapons—destroyed the World Trade Center Twin Towers. Since then, four other major theories have surfaced (nuclear reactors, mini-nuclear bombs, plasmoid gas, and fluorine) which will be included in the revised bill presented to key House members in Fall.” Note how it clearly shows its prejudice by singling out the OCT (fire), and the intel agencies’ two favorite Limited Hangouts--DEW and thermite.

The major authors she claims to be citing in the nuclear bomb white paper are myself and the Finnish Military Expert (FME). The two M.D.’s: William Deagle and Ed Ward are also cited somewhat. Ms. Ellis wrote to me in a cover letter, “Russ and our colleague Barry Ball were the collaborators on the white paper and article, but I did the writing and I am the one responsible for sending out drafts to theory holders for changes.”

Regarding this entire matter, there is the issue of whether a petition to Congress is of any value whatsoever. After the assassination of Senator Wellstone, one could well ask, if there is anyone left in Congress who is not either an intel agent or controlled by one? And therefore such petitions may no longer be relevant, or able to lead to any (good) change. Historically there were three Gov’t “investigations” of the JFK Assassination and about twice as many as that regarding the Pearl Harbor set-up. In fact, they were all geared towards keeping the People from ascertaining the truth, and getting their country back. And undercover intel-controlled assets who lied on the various Kennedy Assassination “investigations” were variously rewarded and made President (Ronald Reagan on the Rockefeller Commission), and Senator-for-life (Arlen Spector, magic bullet fiction creator, on the Warren Commission). So I knew what to expect, to some extent, in a 9/11 truth committee’s interaction with Congress. But I did not quite expect to directly observe such blatant distortion, lies and omissions regarding what I actually wrote in my book. Indeed despite a cover letter trying to sucker me in with promises that this “white paper” on the Internet, would sell many copies of my books, the truth is the white paper only once has the title of my book. The white paper calls it “Nuclear Destruction” most of the time. It took a couple of days to find the one full, correct title of my book buried in a footnote. My book is titled, “The Nuclear Destruction of the World Trade Center and The China Syndrome Aftermath.”

Let us now see what is in, and is not in, this document purporting to make an honest case for nukes used in the WTC. On page 2, it says, “These three [Finnish Military Expert, A.P., and Deagle] have arrived at a nuclear theory…” It should rather state, “three different nuclear hypotheses” as the Finn, Deagle and myself have three different nuclear theories. The Finn’s and my hypotheses follow below. I am not sure just what scenario Deagle thinks occurred. The next paragraph includes “…the fingerprints of a fission-triggered thermonuclear blast’s aftermath in an enclosed environment.” Again it presupposes both fission and fusion took place, when I have concluded only fission took place, and the Finn concluded only fusion took place. So whom is she claiming to quote? Note there is the possibility that only one of the 32 chapters in my book were either read, or used, for this “review”. This would be outrageous and bogus, as all chapters are necessary and would have been read and utilized by any honest reviewer.

The distortion of the nuclear 9/11 destruction mechanism, and of what I actually said, begins on page 17--after much political type discussion that does not at all belong in this type of document. This document pretends to be about technical matters in the destruction of the WTC. Such political inclusion is often telling in and of itself.

So on page 17, we have, “Underground nuclear explosions are followed by pyroclastic clouds of materials initially almost as hot as the sun. What follows are shock and blast waves, and base-surge ground-hugging clouds of debris, plus and powerful electromagnetic pulses (EMPs). On 9/11, shock waves seem to have set vehicles afire…. EMPs apparently shut down all electricity momentarily—elevators, lighting, computers, radios, cell phones, vehicles.”

I never wrote that the nuclear explosions were only underground--but Tahil and the Finn did. I wrote about nukes also going off in or near the centers of upper floors. And I never wrote that the pyroclastic clouds were “almost as hot as the sun.” The Sun’s temperature ranges from 100 million degrees in its core to a million degrees or so at its surface. A fission bomb for a nanosecond to a microsecond--in its small core only--has a temperature of one to a few million degrees. By the time a pyroclastic cloud would get going, its temperature would be no more than a few thousand degrees, quickly cooling down to hundreds of degrees and then to ambient temperature as it expands and loses its energy. Note the very wrong discussion of EMP. It is not “shock waves” (air molecules) that “seem to have set vehicles afire.” As I wrote--and as its very name implies!-- EMP is a moving electromagnetic field. If it were “shock waves” it would be called shock waves, and not EMP. I certainly did not call them shock waves.

Rather this seems to be part of a deliberate plan to ignore the massive, detailed evidence and explanations that are in my book, on the various and UNIQUE EMP phenomena, including the cars catching fire for no apparent reason (no pyro clouds or debris hitting them, nor heat as nearby people were unaffected.) The astounding testimonies I detailed from Ondrovic and Ruiz on the cars catching fire for no apparent reason, together with my explanations are totally omitted here. They can only be explained by EMP from nukes. They were omitted, as was my explanation for the half-burnt/half-pristine cars separated by air gaps in the doors that I also stated is only explainable via EMP. Note I see in the next paragraph (page 18) a possibly deliberately watered down version of EMT Patricia Ondrovic’ account of a nearby car catching fire as the first tower and WTC 6 near her are being exploded. The “white paper” has “A pedestrian reported getting hit when a car flung open its door.” And the car door was exploded off of it, and onto her. If this is pretending to be about Ondrovic, I note it does not provide her name (so people could further research this), nor does it truthfully say she was an EMT/responder, and NOT a pedestrian, and it is a lie that the door “flung open.” It exploded off the car. Ondrovic’ words are, “I remember parts flying off-- I think I got hit with a car door.”

On page 22, it says, “The two mini-nuke advocates whose theories are featured in this paper—“Anonymous Physicist,” (“AP”) and one calling himself “The Finnish Military Expert” (“FME”) agree on the simultaneous timing of aircraft hits and basement explosions to destroy all seven WTC buildings.” This is decidedly false! My book makes it abundantly clear that I have written that a lower basement level mini-nuke was set off in each tower timed to coincide with each tower’s alleged plane hit. And the “hits” everyone knows were of the order of an hour before the towers’ destruction. My book, which this paper purports to be reviewing/including, has a chapter showing how the other nuclear theories of the Finn and WilliamTahil (of the reactor theory) are untenable. And one of the things I lengthily pointed out is that both of them claim that a total of only one nuke per tower was set off, and thus their theories can not account for the phenomena of Felipe David and Pecoraro, and others, that indicate a separate initial nuke was set off, in each tower, well before the destruction scenario began. So it is quite false to place me with them in this regard, and my book contains more than one chapter pointing this out.

On page 23, she changed my repeated “1-6%” of a fission nuke’s fissile material being used up in a fission bomb, to a flat-out “6%”. (The remainder of course being made available for the China Syndrome Aftermath.) On this same page, is one of the most perturbing and altered paragraphs in this whole document. It has:

mini-nukes’ “radioactive fragments” created the molten pools of metal in footprints of WTC 1, 2, and 7 that smoldered for 99 days. He [A.P.] calls this phenomenon “the China Syndrome” because of the Chernobyl myth that a meltdown of a nuclear reactor’s core could send the flow to penetrate Earth from Ground Zero to China”

Now this monstrosity needs lengthy examination. I never wrote that all radioactive fragments were in the buildings’ footprints, and I never wrote it lasted for “99 days.” Rather I wrote it lasted in places for up to SIX MONTHS, until all such fragments were reached and carted away. Then it mixes “China Syndrome” with its created phrase, “Chernobyl myth.” Obviously I never wrote “Chernobyl myth” and the China Syndrome exists without needing to mention Chernobyl, and Chernobyl was no myth. I wrote that Chernobyl was an example of the China Syndrome, as radioactive fragments were blasted about and were melting things they were in contact with. I wrote that this phenomena of great heat of several thousand degrees, lasting for 700 million years (if U-235 is involved), would not really fall into China because both the USA and China are in the Northern Hemisphere, and things fall towards the center of the earth. I also wrote that this would take eons of time. But I never used the word “myth”, as that implies there is no such phenomenon, as the China Syndrome. So this twisted paragraph is very troubling as to its possible raison d’etre. It falsely implies that the China Syndrome is a myth, and that I wrote as much.

On page 24, it has, “He [A.P.] estimated the number of bombs used (35 Per Tower), placements, and explosive power of each (one-tenth of one kiloton) and added:“…at least a minimum of 4-6 nukes per tower were used.” Note the contradiction. First it claims that I wrote 35 nukes per tower were used then quotes my book with “a minimum of 4-6 nukes per tower were used.” And it falsely claims that I wrote each nuke had a yield of 0.1 KT, when my book states, “a total of one tenth of that amount [the Finn’s 1 KT total] was sufficient.” See page 22. I am not sure where the 35, in particular, comes from, but the aspect of redundancies was used by myself. And there could have conceivably been that many in each tower. But I am being consistently misquoted, virtually every time, except when text is actually taken from my book.

On page 25, it has “As for the eight-story WTC 6 and the nine-story WTC 4 and 5, “AP” speculated that “underpowered nukes” were used so it could be later claimed that Tower debris and ground-level reverberations caused their destruction. “AP” believes an oversized mini-nuke was used on WTC 6 and might have been a mistake (“..smaller ones, to hide the nuking, was the order of the day…”). This, as with virtually every time my name is cited, is false. I never wrote about “ground level reverberations.” I wrote (if the whole book were read and used) that ALL nukes, including the ones used in the towers were “underpowered.” I explained that that meant they were not powerful enough to vaporize all the way to the outer structure, and thus show the world that nukes just went off. It is blatantly false in that I never said WTC6 had an “oversized mini-nuke.” Rather on page 24, I wrote regarding, “WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6, what I call “underpowered nukes” were used inside these buildings….” My book never says it was “a mistake.” A mistake would have been if the nukes used had vaporized immediately the outer structure of the buildings, making the nukes all too visible.

On page 28, the white paper has, referring to WTC7,“Like a burned-out bulb on a string of Christmas-tree lights, he [A.P.] has surmised that one or more of the always-perishable fission bombs, “all its nukes— including the redundant one(s)—fizzled.” I never wrote that the WTC7 fizzling was Like a burned-out bulb on a string of Christmas-tree lights,” and there is no call to imply I did, when we are discussing these complicated matters. Curiously it appears to be a warping of what Ondrovic said she saw in WTC6 before it and WTC 2 near her were nuked: From my book’s page 54.“[Ondrovic] saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that chase in pattern.” Now this was the preamble to Ondrovic describing a car near her burst into flames, for no apparent reason, and had its door explode off it and onto her, which injured her ribs. And this is in one of the chapters on EMP, and was excluded from being cited as such in this “white paper.” But the Christmas tree lights are curiously, and wrongly, inserted into the fizzled nukes discussion. But it helps indicate that the full EMP discussion was likely read and ignored, as it is among the greatest proofs of nukes being used. Is this why it had to be ignored?

Also on page 28, the “paper” states, “the perpetrators were unaware that fire had never brought down a steel-framed high-rise in history…” While this isn’t quoting me, I seriously doubt that the perpetrators (the U.S. Gov’t) did not know this. On page 31, it states, “The view of Finnish Military Expert (“FME”) seems to dovetail with that of “AP.” As per the above, my book makes clear that my nuclear hypotheses have almost nothing in common with the Finn’s, except for one thing--that one or more nuclear bombs were used. But in particular, I wrote that the Finn’s pure fusion hypothesis might have been deliberately created to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath, which can only arise from fission fragments. So there is virtually no dovetailing of the two of us, falsely stating this further helps hide the China Syndrome Aftermath.

Before I get to the remarkable conclusions, I jump now to reference 66, in the bibliography. It states, “Too, if mini-nukes were used in the Oklahoma City disaster, as mentioned earlier, a “China Syndrome” should have followed, but did not because the explosions were directed toward the street. Anonymous Physicist, 28.” There is no such reference to OKC or “directed toward the street” there in my book. I only cited OKC in my book when I quoted Deagle citing the Army person who says he saw unexploded micro-nukes being carried off. But I have seen references state that radiation badges at OKC did show massive radiation, But that is beyond the scope here of showing what was done, and what has been omitted regarding my research, book, and articles.

On page 38 the heavy-duty conclusions and distortions commence. The document has, “The secondary causal agent, in their [A.P. and the Finn] view, seems to be that Thermate® cutter charges were used to weaken the building’s beams.” I have written that some secondary conventional explosive may have been used to keep the nukes undersized, and that it could have been thermite, thermate, thermobarics or other. I did not single out thermate® definitively as Steven Jones initially did.

Then these following conclusions, which are a bunch of questions, seem designed to belittle and warp the nuclear 9/11 hypothesis and the China Syndrome Aftermath. It has these queries:

“If only Department of Defense vendors have the capability and licenses to manufacture mininukes—fission or fissionless—how could the thousands estimated by these two theorists be obtained?” Answer: First, while it’s not my theory, the Finn said that only one nuke per tower was used. So his theory has a grand total of two nukes, not thousands! And he is also being greatly misquoted--numerically even worse than I am! Now I wrote a minimum of 4-6 per tower and one each for several of the smaller building were set off. So my minimum is of the order of 10-20. With redundancies, we can arrive at several dozen being emplaced. Even if one micro-nuke per floor was used (which was not my hypothesis),we’d get on the order of two hundred--not thousands. This bogus claim that I wrote “thousands” is a monstrosity!

• “How could all those mini-nukes be delivered at the WTC without being detected by the Security force?” Answer: My book shows that even in the 1950’s, the US Govt had backpack nukes. Current ones would be even smaller! And if the “Security force” is in on it, it’s a simple matter! Such a question falsely assumes that the Govt, and the WTC Security Force couldn’t have been in on it. Virtually all successful assassinations, coup d’etats and other conspiracies always have the “security force” in on it. This is well known.

• “How could the perpetrators be assured that personnel placing mini-nukes and cutter charges would never talk about their work to outsiders?” Answer: The same way the Gestapo regime does all its dirty work. Wiretapping, assassination and total control of the MSM and the bogus Internet and 911 truth organizations. How do they still keep the secrets of the Pearl Harbor set up, the Kennedy Assassination, and who really controls the USA Gov’t and the world? Second answer: precisely with works like this white paper.

• “Were any of those WTC 1 tenants in the floors reserved for artists, questioned about being the saboteurs installing those mini-nukes and cutter charges?” Answer: Now the artists, instead of the US Govt, are likely suspects? Not worthy of a response. Now it is showing absurdity.

• “Despite the whirling dust surrounding WTC 1, Judy Wood’s photograph clearly shows that part of the interior core of beams was intact. If mini-nukes took out that core on the way up and out of the Tower, as these theorists claim, why are these beams untouched?”

Answer: First note how it attempts to resurrect Wood and her inane, evidence-free DEW. One could have cited photos of that without importing her here. Then my book clearly cites the video evidence and the nuclear glow of a “cleaner nuke” that appears to have taken out that remaining structure, just after “collapse” finished. My book lengthily details that this was precisely the purpose of redundant nukes which here acted as a cleaner nuke as I called it. And the term “on the way up” refers to the Finn’s untenable hypothesis of one upwardly focused, shape charge, pure fusion nuke per tower. I wrote that the nukes were set off in the tower beginning with one at the level of the “plane hits” and worked their way down. While she is helping to show the Finn’s theory is untenable, she has falsely lumped me with him again, and has once again ignored that I had a chapter in my book that showed this difference, and was another reason the Finn’s hypothesis was untenable. Finally I specifically addressed this issue, even in the one chapter that they have cited. I stated that this is one of the great and unique purposes of nukes, as follows. Because the nukes alone cause extensive vaporization, there may have been no need to completely destroy the core structure, for the destruction to be successful-- the innards were already gone, largely vaporized! So you see in attempting to belittle my nuclear WTC hypothesis, she has actually proved it!

• “The placement of 35,000 mini-nukes and wrapping 24,000 cutter charges around beams seems to be a logistical nightmare of excessive ordnance or these two theorists [Finn and A.P.] are pulling our legs. Which is it? “

Answer: Here we see a level of absurdity, falsification and stupidity giving everything away. Again the Finn said a grand total of two nukes were used. My estimates run from 10 to several dozen. Even if everything I wrote were reasonably interpreted or reasonably misinterpreted, we’d get on the order of 100. So she is using a form of calculus I have never seen before and also not stating how she arrived at 35,000. So it is clear who is doing the leg pulling here, and much worse. (Any cutter charge numbers comes from the Finn, and I won’t comment on it. I doubt if he will either.)

• ”Explain how vendors delivering all those mini-nukes could possibly avoid having to wear hazmat garb either en route to Manhattan or to the WTC service entrance and, thus, escape detection by the Security force.” Answer: Who said the perpetrators had to wear such garb, while doing this undercover, hideous task? And the issue of the ”security force” was already addressed above. Pretending to be utterly naïve is usually a sign of being just the opposite, if you know what I mean.

• “If the mini-nukes were fission types, why wouldn’t most Manhattan residents—or those escaping the Towers—be dead from radiation carried by the base-surge on streets near the WTC?” Answer: This was lengthily answered in several chapters in my book that is being purported to being the basis for citing my work. It is answered in many ways in my book. It’s answered by the fact that so many thousands survived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is answered by the fact that radiation is most deadly if you inhale or ingest radionuclides, and this was rarely the case with the WTC. It was answered by citing the epidemiological studies that showed it has taken decades for many Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors to get cancer. And this “base-surge” is not accurate, as the nukes were underpowered. My book explains that because of this, the very heavy U-235 fragments would mostly end up in the bottom of the outside rubble pile (with much lighter elements falling on top of them) and underneath the towers’ remnants. So for the most part, the fission fragments ended up underground, and in the bottom of the rubble pile, as the book states. I have also cited that as of 2006, there were hundreds of cancers that are far more likely to have been due to radiation than inhalation of toxins. Such cancers include, thyroid, lymph and blood. The issue of needing to be very near a radioactive source was also cited in my book. Again her question ignores everything that is in my book. And my book/work includes four “others” whose pictures we are not allowed to see, who did survive massive thermal ray exposure and are cited in the book this ”white paper” purports to be honestly presenting to Congress. We only see one--Felipe David--months later, and he is still swollen, despite his own words saying that this was NOT from any fire.

• “Isn’t it possible that the bodies in the WTC 1 lobby were from jet-fuel fireballs dropped on elevators rather than from basement explosions? If so, where did the bodies in WTC 7 come from?” Answer: First you must prove that any jets crashed into the towers. Some videos show planes with wings blinking in and out of existence; and there are many other signs the videos are mere CGI. Some researchers, like Spooked at, have massively documented the TV fakery for years now. The videos show what I call “zero interaction physics” in both the “plane” and the “tower” as the plane “enters” the tower like a knife through butter. If the towers were just exploded (without planes) as numerous eyewitnesses have attested to, there are no planes and therefore no jet fuel. Four “others” had melted skin without any jet fuel fire—survivors of thermal rays and not jet fuel. An honest appeal to the Congress would include the evidence that the Gov’t and media just placed pre-created CGI imagery on TV for the “plane hits,” and would hand over the massive documentation of this, including the absurd, physics-free, CGI videos themselves as prima facie evidence. Instead of the intel agents posing as truthers saying “we cannot talk about this, it’s absurd.” No! The CGI videos with zero interaction physics are absurd. This “review” of my book is absurd for its distortions and omissions. My chapter on Felipe David included him in his own words saying his skin melted without any fire, in contrast to the made up story about jet fuel running down the elevator shaft. And even if there had been jets hitting the building, its fuel would have been expended in the explosions seen, and even if that were not true, it still would not have “dropped on elevators.” Bodies in WTC7 were explained by my chapter on the fizzled nuke of the early attempted WTC7 explosions, and once again ignored with this query.

Finally we see where this paper goes: From page 38:

“NEXT: Were Plasmoid-Gas Weapons Used to Destroy the WTC?”

I will give you a heads up on this. Should the PTB decide to totally chuck the ludicrous, evidence-free-DEW hypothesis, they created this plasmoid fiction. Why? I have coined these terms: “internal DEW”, and “DEW without the Space Beams.” They are waiting in the wings. Lumping the massive, documented nuclear destruction of the WTC and the China Syndrome Aftermath with this nonsense is also very telling.

My own conclusions are that this white paper has so many distortions, falsehoods, and omissions while purporting to be about my evidentiary research on The Nuclear Destruction of the World Trade Center and the China Syndrome Aftermath, that I wanted to have absolutely nothing to do with these people. Such a white paper is supposed to make a best case for the possibility of nukes. Instead it has omitted the virtual totality of my massive research and writing on EMP, dust particle analysis, evidence of thermal rays, the China Syndrome Aftermath, and much more. With the China Syndrome being quite real, both in general, and at the WTC. It’s no myth. The myth alas is that 9/11 truth can get anywhere, when those emplaced in positions of authority write such works as was shown here. I don't care if I don't sell a single book, what they wrote, and didn’t write, proved that I could not interact with such individuals. If I thought Congress was real anymore, I'd direct my people to get a copy of my book to each of them, so they could see what it, and I, really stated-- in contradistinction to what this white paper says I said. But Congress now may not have a single person who has any guts, and who cares about the People. (Even Ron Paul said he believes in the O.C.T.) Just as 911 truth is thoroughly infiltrated, there may not be a single member of Congress who is not an agent or asset of the intel agencies, or of the secret societies that control these agencies.

In the final analysis, it's up to the People. I have got the truth out of what was perpetrated upon the 3,000 People in the WTC, the 40,000 Responders, the American People, and the World, while being so ill from being mercury poisoned, by the regime's agents, for my earlier JFK assassination revelation that Secret Service agent William Greer fired twice, and of course, killed President Kennedy. And know that no matter how much I suffer with illness, I will never take my own life. This I have always made clear to friends, family, and local police. I have received no awards and virtually no recompense for this definitive work, except that from my own conscience, and from a couple of book buyers here. The matter at hand demonstrates that my efforts will be blocked and not truthfully revealed, as I expected. It is all up to you as individuals to draw your own line in the sand.

Powered by Blogger