My blog started as an outlet for my creative writing a couple of years ago. I thought it would be cool to write about things that interested me and I might be able to entertain a few folks along the way. In the beginning of 2012 I got involved with Jim Fetzer’s group of 9/11 researchers. We had some spirited debates via email and Jim eventually invited me to speak at the Vancouver Hearings last June. Since then I have been writing mostly about 9/11 research – specifically the nuclear destruction of the WTC buildings.

This IS a personal blog though so from time to time you will see posts that are on other topics. I have been a Minnesota Vikings season ticket holder since 1995 so look for some Vikings posts on occasion. I am an IT professional by trade so there may be some techie posts thrown in as well. The bottom line is that I enjoy writing and I have a unique style that I hope at least a few folks out there appreciate!

Feel free to leave comments – I’m pretty liberal about approving them. I will delete anything that is profane or threatening so don’t bother posting that garbage. I will be diving into some controversial topics so I don’t expect everyone to agree with me but be prepared to defend your position! I enjoy a good debate so don’t be shy and let’s have some fun!

15 thoughts on “About

    • I’ve got all the presentations posted now so that will free up some time. I still need to clean up the HTML on Nick’s post though – maybe an hour or two of work there yet. We’re going to start working on the videos next week. I’m not a video editor but we have a couple of people in mind to help with this. Once the video people look at what we have we’ll have a better estimate of how much work this project will entail. Expect an update later next week.

  1. Have you read any of these?
    September 2010
    9/26 Pictures of Mini Nukes at PakAlert Prove 9-11 was a Metaphysical Catechism (Test)
    9/11 Breaking News: Nikola Tesla Testifies at NY Grand Jury on 9/11
    11/30 The THAT Coincidence Theorist’s Guide to 9/11 (TPV, OEN)
    9/11 was a Metaphysical Catechism (Test)
    The Planetary Archetypal Situation on 9/11/2001 June 11
    (this is really two posts, check the footnote)

    • Mr. Singer doesn’t seem to grasp that Judy Wood does everything she can to deny nukes were used on 9/11. Doesn’t matter that we have overwhelming evidence of nukes. Judy Wood works for the intel community. No need to waste anymore time talking about Judy Wood.

      • Don,

        How do you know for sure that Judy Woods works for intel?

        My feeling is that she is an honest researcher, albeit possibly misguided in pushing the EM / exotic weapon hypothesis in 9-11 when more conventional explanations (ie: mini nukes/neutron bombs) fit the bill. Her bias I think originates from her interest/work in EM/exotic technology (see her friend John Hutchison). She just maybe didn’t study the 9-11 data in an objective fashion and jumped to conclusion too early. It is to her credit though, that she is trying to expose the existence of these EM/Tesla technologies, because this subject in is in itself worth at least as much attention as 9-11, if not more due to the staggering implications for humanity.

        Some of the stuff that she shows in her presentations, ie: how a cyclone/typhoon was seemingly diverted the morning prior to 9-11, and the toasted cars, can be indicative of EM/Tesla weaponry, so then again, maybe these weapons were used in addition to nukes. Or maybe these weapons actually can generate fission/fusion type of reactions??

        I have yet to see anyone attempting to expose EM / Tesla weaponry be a disinfo/intel agent – it s just too much of a fringe topic and this subject is probably the last stuff that TPTB wants people to talk about in open forums.

      • I’ve had many run-ins with Judy and her Cult. Death threats, intimidation all that BS. But as an outside observer you should look at like this: Judy denies bombs, denies heat and denies nukes. Yet we have abundant evidence for all of these things – she’s a gatekeeper. If she isn’t getting a paycheck from Langley she should be!

  2. Dunno… i think she might just be overly emotional about this DEW tech. I’ve watched her presentations. She seems a good, honest person but the thing that bothered me is that the evidence that she bases her DEW theory on is flimsy. Her reasoning is basically:
    “buildings were turned into powder + DEW exist and can turn buildings into powder = therefore DEW was used on 9-11 and turned the WTC in powder”. Obviously, this is misguided, because there are other explanations that fit the evidence and facts of 9-11 more closely than the DEW theory, the most likely of explanation of which is the “mini nukes”, based on the radioactive material identified in the rubble.

    However, in defense of Judy Woods, I suggest that her possibly misguided insistence of DEW being the cause of the collapse of the WTC, is because she is trying to get free energy to get released for the benefit of mankind. That is why she is overly stubborn and insistent on this. She is using 9-11 as a way to force the government/black ops to release free energy to the public. This, in itself, is laudable.

    While I tend to support your analysis of mini nukes over Judy’s unproven DEW hypothesis, one interesting fact that supports the use of DEW is Hurricane Erin, which appeared to have had its course diverted on the exact morning of Sep 11. If you can find the meteorological images, you can see something pretty staggering happened to Hurricane Erin. IMO it is possible that DEW was used on 9-11 to support the diverting of Hurricane Erin. This is a possibility. Just like for the towers, mini nukes were likely used along with conventional explosives. I mean, these “people” have pretty staggering technology at their disposal, so it is likely they used a combination of stuff to get to where they wanted to be. They wouldn’t have left anything to chance.

    Anyway thanks Don for the work – it s cool stuff. Analysis and facts is what will reveal the truth. I just hope the people of the world will wake up before we get another 9-11.

    • Geiger counters were banned at Ground Zero for 3 days after 9/11. After that there wouldn’t have been much radiation to detect from mini-neutron bombs. See our Mystery Solved article for a full breakdown on this.

  3. A new book on 9/11 is out. The author knew the Mossad agent who organised the events of that day.

    Dimitri Khalezov has spent 10 years researching and writing this book. Download links:

    Or read at:

    In a 2010 interview, Khalezov explained that you can’t build a skyscraper in NYC without an approved demolition plan. On 9/11, the World Trade Center’s demolition plan was put into action to demolish the complex.

    Khalezov learned of this demolition plan from his job in the Soviet Union. He had worked in the nuclear intelligence unit and under an agreement between the Soviet Union and the USA, each country was obliged to inform the other of peaceful uses of nuclear explosions. The WTC was built with 3 thermo-nuclear charges in its foundations.

    Note: underground nuclear explosions do not produce mushroom clouds. This is only ever seen when the explosion takes place above ground. On 9/11, the explosions were deep underground.

    More info:

    You can watch the 2010 interview at:
    Video # 4 – WTC’s demolition plan
    Video # 14 – WTC 7 (which fell ½ hour AFTER the BBC announced its collapse).
    Videos # 24/25 – chronic radiation sickness of WTC responders (their cancers are not due to asbestos poisoning)

    Khalezov was interviewed on 4 Sept 2013:

    Here is a recent article mentioning Khalezov:

    I know it is preposterous to claim that the WTC was brought down by nukes. But note that the place where the WTC once stood is called ‘Ground Zero’. If you look up the meaning of ‘ground zero’ in the old dictionaries you have at home, you’ll find that there would only be one definition. It is what you call a place that has been nuked.

    After 9/11, the US government sent people out to switch all the dictionaries in the public domain. The replacements differed only in the meaning of ‘ground zero’. They show extra definitions for that term, to obfuscate the original single meaning.

    For example, if you have a genuine old Merriam-Webster dictionary, you would see this:
    ground zero n (1946) : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs.

    The replacement books (even of old editions) show two extra definitions and this is what you’ll see:
    ground zero n (1946) 1 : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs. 2: the center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change 3: the very beginning : SQUARE ONE

    Have a look at this video:

    At 6:05 mins, he shows the old and new definitions of ‘ground zero’.

  4. Alex Jones is on record saying that he went to a lot of trouble to check if there was any evidence of radiation after 9/11 and yes, he did find this.

  5. Thank You
    Now we are beginning to understand
    Your government have been working hard to darken all this facts
    Sadly that many in the 911 movement want to take a sort of patent on their conclusions and ideas. Keep up the good work

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s