Thursday, April 17, 2008

Say Goodbye to New York City.

Is this the future of New York City?
The discussion of any future event requires a certain amount of presupposition. Inherently attached to said supposition is uncertainty. Discuss a future event with anyone and they will almost always ask "How do you know?" No one is wrong to ask, however, a question is not always a request for information. Many have used the existence of a question as a sort of proof that a given truth cannot be known. This such persons do because they do not want to face undesirable implications which they sense may be inextricably linked to said truth.

Knowing the Future Now.

On the question of a nuclear attack being the future of New York City, the question "How do you know?" is best answered with another question: "How could you know"? The answer to that isn't difficult but it does require a "leap of faith", an assumption that future events will prove to be those to which present indicators point. The fact of future event(s) will prove undeniable in the moment they occur but it will require no genius to observe then and it will almost certainly be too late to position oneself desirably. The advantage of advance knowledge is considerable and so significant that it is, in some contexts, illegal.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
A key to knowing the future in the present is that every event is preceded by at least one requisite event. In other words, you're not going to show up at work unless you first leave your house. Therefore, if a person customarily rises at a certain time, showers, dresses and heads for work, it becomes a reasonable assumption that, if the same person rises and showers, the customary events will also follow.

Whispers in the Wind

The Tin-Cap Journal coins the use of the word "whispers" to describe a subtle vehicle of psychological warfare which can serve a variety of purposes. The well-crafted whisper is designed to 'blow in the wind' until it comes to rest, unnoticed, upon the head of the unwary deceived.

The Journal has noticed MSM (main-stream media) "whispers", that seem to have set the tone and expectation for a nuclear attack on New York. These whispers have taken the form of casual "what if" scenarios but the whispers have consistently mentioned "nuclear" and "New York City". Therein is the rub: These are not authoritative declarations, they are only "what-if" scenarios.

The next paragraph is an example of an expectation-setting whisper. More could be found or you could just pay attention--one is bound to come along shortly.
Cell phone sensors detect radiation to thwart nuclear terrorism
"...The collective action of the sensors, combined with the software analysis, detects the source. The system would transmit signals to a data center, and the data center would transmit information to authorities without alerting the person carrying the phone. Say a car is transporting radioactive material for a bomb, and that car is driving down Meridian Street in Indianapolis or Fifth Avenue in New York. As the car passes people, their cell phones individually would send signals to a command center, allowing authorities to track the source..."
So, Indianapolis, a likely terror target? Not likely; most people couldn't find it on a map. Granted, a highly-motivated "terrorist" might but where's the motivation? How deeply through Canada and into the US would you, as a "terrorist", risk transporting nuclear materials in the current environment of heightened (nearly fanatical) awareness? Granted, New York is a coastal city, but so is Washington DC.

Do we take the whispers as a serious warning of a planned event or as merely hypothetical conversation? A reasonable question but, as with every choice, the pitfall of uncertainty appears. To gain clarity on the matter let's first ask "What is the difference?"
Dissimulate (dĭ-sĭm'yə-lāt'): To disguise (one's intentions, for example) under a feigned appearance. To conceal one's true feelings or intentions.
Under the first scenario, the Speculator actually intends to do you grave harm whereas under the second, the same person making the same statement is acting to protect you from grave harm; two very different implications. Which would you prefer? When faced with uncertainty, the average person chooses that which has desirable implications to him, personally.

Does this insider really fear that determined terrorists just might succeed despite his best efforts or is he revealing how far he and his cabal of control freaks are willing to go?
The answer to "Do we take this whisper seriously?" is dependent upon the answer to another question: "Was 9/11 an inside job?" In the intelligence community, attacks by governments on their own people are known as "false-flag". These fall into two categories: "MIHOP"- Make It Happen On Purpose and "LIHOP" - Let It Happen On Purpose. The US government has a long and dirty history of faking (9-11, Gulf of Tonkin) and permitting (Pearl Harbor, Lusitania) attacks on it's people as a preamble to war.

The Truth About the "War on Terror".

The Journal has learned and quite confidently states that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, 9/11 was a MIHOP false-flag event. The fact that 9/11 was not planned by Muslim extremists and the interference in readiness protocols of designated first-responders, NORAD, indicates that LIHOP would have resulted in no attack at all. In the light of this undesirable truth, the latter scenario (the Speculator acts maliciously) seems, unquestionably, the correct one.
"The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth." ~ Jean de la Bruyère
The implications of 9/11 being a false-flag attack and the subsequent whispers that set the tone for future "terrorist" attacks are as follows:

1) The US MilitAry indusTRIal compleX is willing to randomly sacrifice significant numbers of it's own, innocent, civilian citizens to promote an agenda that runs counter to the better interests of the people it has sworn a duty to protect. Any and every American is, therefore, potentially an egg to be broken for their secret-agenda omelet.

2) There are no terrorists. All of the expectations based upon the assumption of the existence of a terrorist threat to America are unfounded. That certainly explains the dearth of car bombs in the US.

3) All changes, preparations and 'sacrifices' made "in response to" 9/11 ("no-fly" list, "Real ID", The "Patriot" Act, illegal spying, torture, Dep't of Homeland 'Security') must necessarily be double-entendres and have been designed to serve a purpose other than that stated. This, of course, raises the questions: "Why the spying?" and "Who do they intend to torture?" but that's an entirely different discussion.

4) They intend to do it again. A modus operandi has been established. The perpetrators are still in power, technologically superior and almost totally unchallenged. They are not admitting the truth about their past actions and are publicly forecasting more of the "terror" for which the informed now know the MATRIX has been entirely responsible.

Knowing that past acts of terror were executed by the Speculator, what reason do we have to believe that motive, means, open opportunity and historical precedent won't result in another crime?

A Look Ahead?

Would that there were "real" terrorists, to which city would they take what they would have to presume is their one chance to detonate a nuclear weapon? If someone is pointing a gun at you and you have one too--even if you do "hate his freedoms"--would you stomp on his foot or are you going to try for a head-shot?

Would real terrorists pass up an opportunity (even if it is a long-shot) to rid themselves of all of their enemy leaders at once? Would they really use their only chance to detonate what would likely be their only nuclear weapon to target a city containing no significant tactical target knowing that, in response, everyone in their home city could potentially be vaporized and it would remain uninhabitable for millenniums?

Would "Islamic extremists" really agree that the same city that is home to many wealthy, influential and angry victims of the last false-flag attack and which infamous, blood-thirsty mercenaries, Blackwater, menacingly patrolled thereafter should again be targeted? Of all the nations that possess nuclear weapons who, alone, have demonstrated the willingness to use them? The Journal submits that New York City is not a likely target of actual nuclear terror but it is the perfect target for a false-flag event.

How Real is Real?

When one undertakes faking reality he reaches for realism and to do that, he must rely upon "what everybody knows". So what does "everybody" know? For what city does Hollywood most often reach when it seeks to depict 'realism' in a fictional disaster scenario? How many disaster movies have been set entirely in the 'Greatest City in the World'? Most of them. Some disaster movies have taken a global perspective, touching on major cities around the world but in those cases New York City is always included--it just makes 'sense'.
"There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality." - Pablo Picasso
Off the top of your head, how many movies come to mind, in which the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were in some way, damaged, destroyed or significantly featured in some disaster? In "King Kong" a giant ape climbed and was shot from the top of one. In "Godzilla" the towers were damaged by an improbably large lizard. Meteorites penetrated both towers in "Armageddon". In none of those scenarios did both towers collapse completely--but we digress.

What has been the result of decades of repeated, hypothetical depictions of disaster centered around the World Trade Center? The answer to that is another question: "Where are the Twin Towers now?" Is this a stretch? A Coincidence? "Life imitates art"? Paranoid conspiracy theory? Perhaps, but could we have witnessed an example of the principle that guides all writers of fiction and non-fiction alike: "Write What You Know"?

Your Relationship with Reality

There are two important and basic truths required to understand the relationship of reality to fantasy. 1) Every technology which we now take for granted is the product of someone's imagination, daydream or "what-if" scenario. The cell-phone was science-fiction not one generation ago. 2) Every work of fiction is, on some level, based upon reality. It would, therefore, be a mistake to regard as unreality the totality of everything presented in a fictional setting. The difference between what's real and what is not real; what is and what could be, is not an unbridgeable chasm but the razor's edge.

If seeing is believing, do you believe what you are seeing now?
The unicorn is a well-known example of a product of human fantasy but how far from reality is it? Add a horn to the head of a horse and you may well bring fantasy to life. Both of the elements (horses and horns) of this particular example of fiction are real things with which all persons can be reasonably expected to have had some personal experience. That said, in contriving the unicorn, how far from reality did the originator really depart?

Every moment of every day, by choosing to act (or not act) on our options, each of us contributes to the real-time construction of the shared experience we call reality. Which of your choices is reality before you actuate it? Without the ability to imagine, or visualize, you would be unable to prepare your next meal; you would have to eat whatever is in plain sight--like an animal. The Journal does, therefore, suggest that the ability to consider what could be is a key distinction between humans and lower life forms and fully half of the power necessary to make the future the way we want it to be.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." ~ Philip K. Dick
In earlier paragraphs, the Journal referred to the United States' military industrial complex as "the MATRIX" doing so with the certain expectation that many would regard the reference as foolish and the writer, insane. This would, of course, be a matter of choice since others regard the referenced motion picture as a metaphor, rooted in relevant principles and presented in a fictional setting. In either case, everyone who has experienced the pop-culture phenomenon will understand the reference. This is an easily-overlooked benefit of using fiction to shape "what everybody knows".

The Journal, therefore, submits that whether a given work of fiction will amount to an incredible vehicle of empty entertainment is a matter of individual choice. To the discerning, any given work of fiction can be simultaneously viewed as a study of a society's past, a commentary on it's present and, potentially, a lens on it's future.

Set 'Em Up, Knock 'Em Down...

With 9/11 having been clearly identified as an engineered illusion, how can anyone now prove that the tone and expectation for a disaster at the World Trade Center had not been set by repeated, fictional speculation in the decades before? The Journal submits for your consideration, a "fictional", "hypothetical" and "speculative" scenario aired in the months just before 9/11.

In the pilot episode of "The Lone Gunmen" a government informant discusses the lack of any credible threat to the United States and the need to create one to generate profit for the US military industrial complex. In this clip, a commercial plane is electronically hijacked and remotely guided toward one of the Twin Towers.

So how does this indicate that New York will be the target of the next false-flag attack? The purpose of staging the next false-flag terror attack will be to pick up where 9/11 left off. The Al Qaeda story is crumbling for the millions who have begun to doubt it due to "9/11 Truth" movement.

The MATRIX will have to make a big move in order to saddle every American citizen with an irrational and paralyzing fear of the clear and present threat of terrorism which is, in reality, not real. They have already told us what the imaginary "terrorists" might do. In the reaching for the realism necessary to convince "everyone" that a lie is real, the obvious conclusion must be that there is only one plausible target.
"If fifty million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." ~ Anatole France
Does this mean that the writer of the article about the radiation detectors has fore-knowledge or is actively involved in planning a false-flag attack on New York City? No, it is far more likely that he simply needed a plausible, hypothetical scenario for his speculative work and found the one that had been placed within ready reach of everyone while no one was paying attention. That is how marketing works. Did you think marketing principles were limited to commerce?

Doing the Math.

Recall from the outset that "Every event is preceded by at least one requisite event". If a MIHOP false-flag nuclear event is going to take place in NYC, aside from the whispers, what requisite events would serve as advance indicators? It was reported that certain well-connected persons received advance warning not to fly on 9/11. Others were, reportedly, told to leave the Twin Towers. At least one enemy of the MATRIX, former FBI agent, John O'Neil, was, apparently, disposed of by being placed in harm's way.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - George Bernard Shaw
It is very likely that some people will receive warning to evacuate the New York City in advance of a false-flag event. While a last-minute mad dash out of the city is within the range of possibility, we would expect those informed to be relatively few and the notice short. To do otherwise would not only create mass panic, compromising the ability of the forewarned to escape, but would cast reasonable doubt upon whether the attack was a surprise such as 9/11 proved not to be. Exactly who gets notified, one can only speculate but it seems likely that the train beneath the Waldorf Astoria will be working triple-time for a day or two.

Mayor Giuliani was not in the Mayor's bunker on the 23rd floor of WTC7 with bomb-proof windows and separate air supply (who builds a bunker in the sky?) so it stands to reason that he had advance knowledge of what was about to go down (no pun intended). The Journal finds reasonable the expectation that those notified will be mostly wealthy, white, prominent and connected to the Republican party. The grateful informed will likely remain mum about their escape but we may hear echoes of their flight through their children, chauffeurs and, assuming they are not abandoned, their housekeepers. In harmony with the precedent set by 9/11, anyone manipulated into harm's way will probably never know it; neither will we.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." ~ Aesop
When might such an event take place? A night-time or weekend attack would minimize deaths but there is no way of knowing in advance whether the MATRIX will be feeling so charitable. Donald Rumsfeld is on record as having referred speculatively to the event as "10/12" ('one-upping' 9/11) so October 12? Maybe, maybe not; odds are 1/365.25. What year? One can only speculate; only the MATRIX knows for sure but the Journal would recommend keeping an eye on the "9/11 Truth" movement. The more it grows, the less a dividend from the credibility stolen on 9/11 will yield and the more future plans for spying and torture are put in jeopardy.

The uncensored and unlimited distribution capability of the internet was sorely underestimated by the MATRIX. They have television totally locked-down but they, apparently, miscalculated how much credibility "tinfoil-cap wearing, conspiracy nutjobs" on the internet such as The Tin-Cap Journal could gain--and how fast. In any event, it might be a good idea to start making plans to live in a less compelling city.

The Historical Lens.

For two of it's more significant mass-deceptions, the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, the MATRIX had a story prepared in advance so that one would be ready as soon as the American people demanded --immediately. Setting-up a patsy in advance is crucial. Though some may have the presence of mind to point out the improbable speed with which the various authorities publish their "findings", this is an acceptable risk since the average American has repeatedly demonstrated that he will believe the first thing he hears, he will never question it and he will immediately and permanently write off as "insane" any who do not behave as unreasonably.
"Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them. " - Samuel Butler
The speedy apprehension and convenient disposal of Oswald was far from likely. Among Oswald's last words were "I'm just a patsy!" He would later be fatally shot by a terminally ill mobster who was, apparently, very comfortable walking down to the local police station carrying a gun. Why would Oswald even say he was a patsy if it weren't true?

The Osama Bin Laden story was available and on the air before the first tower came down. How could anyone have known? Why weren't all the members of the press too shocked to do last-minute research on OBL? Could you have torn yourself away from the monitors down at the TV station long enough to Google "Osama Bin Laden" and then write up a dossier for presentation knowing that 2 planes had just hit 2 huge buildings full of office workers? You could if you'd started a few weeks earlier. The collapse of WTC7 was even reported by the BBC 20 minutes before it happened. The precedent is set: the cover story for a nuclear false-flag event in New York City will be ready in advance.

The Journal finds it likely that the story will closely mirror something everyone has already seen in a movie. The "event" is likely to be centered just offshore at a dock or shipping yard (or so you'll be told) because a believable cover story will include that they "know" the device was smuggled in a shipping container.

The unwary American, who couldn't tear his eyes away from the television if he wanted to, will be force-fed satellite photos of any old freighter that will have been issued to all mainstream media outlets and we'll all be told that it is "the one". Remember the "mobile weapons lab" truck from the Iraq/WMD lie? That could have been the ice cream truck because "everybody (now) knows" that it contained no WMDs. They knew you wouldn't know the difference and you would have to take their lying word for it. Innumerable are the pitfalls of uncertainty.

Animation allows deceivers to show things that are not or cannot be real.
Remember the "terrorist's" passport that was "found" on the street after the plane hit but before the building collapse? Who was looking through the debris at that time? If you had been amidst the chaos at the Towers, and happened to be the only one not staring up at the buildings with your mouth agape and you noticed a passport amidst the paper and debris, how curious would you have been at that point? Would you even have picked it up? Who would have? The precedent is set: Faked documentation will be provided.

A phony manifest will be paraded about "proving" that the ship in the possibly-PhotoShopped satellite images had recently been in Iran. Really, what are you going to do, inspect the manifest? You wouldn't know what to look for if you could read it. You're going to take their word.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Freshly shocked, awed and demoralized, Americans will be deceived into approving another heinous atrocity which will be carried out before they calm to a level where reason returns and they begin to ask questions and look at the facts--of which there will be few. Tehran will be obliterated, martial law declared and you, the unwitting American, will be most rudely awaken from that dream you had in which you were "free".

Both the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, left behind significant video and circumstantial evidence that very clearly contradicted the preposterous lies stamped "official" by their respective 'investigative' commissions. No recording device, eyewitness or physical evidence is likely to survive an event on the scale of a nuclear explosion so when the lies begin, the only way to know what really happened may be to have the right expectations in advance.

If The Journal is wrong about all this, no attack; no problem. A few people who otherwise might not have will relocate to a cheaper, cleaner city. However, if we're right...well, let's just say we'd prefer a bruised ego.