These were some of the first articles I posted on my website. I did not put dates on my documents at that time, but they were written around 2003 and 2004.
The third category of conspiracies could be described as the Criminal category. These conspiracies expose crimes, usually of the government. These type of conspiracies face tremendous resistance from the public because it upsets people to think that they might be true.
These conspiracies make people feel like fools, and they make people realize that the world is not the pleasant place that we like to believe. These conspiracies are analogous to opening a door to hell. Not many people have the emotional strength to deal with such unpleasantness.
People dismiss these theories with some of the most ridiculous remarks. For example, some people have reacted to my book with such remarks as, “if this book is correct, that would be depressing.”
They are essentially saying, “I will not believe anything that upsets me.”
One person asked his brother-in-law, Tom, a civil engineer who designs bridges, “If explosives did not bring down Building 7, then what caused the building to collapse?”
Tom replied that a lot of dust fell on the roof of Building 7 when the towers collapsed, and Building 7 was probably not designed to handle all that dust. He then said something like, “I don’t want to talk about it anymore.”
Tom was behaving like a child running out of a dark room and slamming the door behind him.
Most people refuse to give serious consideration to these criminal conspiracy theories. It makes no difference how much evidence we have to support these theories. Most people will not look at the evidence. Rather, they find excuses to dismiss the evidence.
However, a lot of these same people believe in the Dumbing Down Conspiracy, or the Liberal Media Conspiracy. These people have no objection to feeling sorry for themselves, nor do they have a problem believing in stupid conspiracy theories. Their problem is that they cannot deal with unpleasant conspiracies.
Test yourself!Can you give serious consideration to the criminal conspiracies? Can you do more than feel sorry for yourself?
I am not asking you to believe every conspiracy theory you hear; rather, I am simply asking if you are capable of giving serious consideration to them. Let's find out! I will mention a few more criminal conspiracies that most people never heard of. This will let you test your ability to think about them. Will you feel an urge run out of the room with a remark similar to: "I don't want to discuss it any longer!"
The Sterling Hall bombing, 1970A man named Jeff told me that the collapse of the World Trade Center towers seemed odd to him, but he never thought much about the issue until he read my book. My book made him realize that the towers were demolished with explosives, and that realization in turn brought back memories of when he was living in Madison, Wisconsin in the early 1970's.
Jeff told me of the night he was asleep with his girlfriend in Madison, Wisconsin in 1970. A large bomb went off at the Army's Mathematics Research Center at the University of Wisconsin. Jeff was about 10 blocks down the street from the bomb, but the bomb was so powerful that it shattered the windows in his building and threw the pieces of broken glass all over the room. Jeff and his girlfriend were scratched by the broken glass, but not badly injured.
News reports claim that 26 buildings were damaged, and people up to 30 miles away woke up from the sound. But only one person died. It reminds me of the attack on the Pentagon in which the nice terrorist decided to hit the empty section of the building.
The U.S. government claims that some anti-war protesters made the bomb with fertilizer and fuel oil. The bombing is similar to, and as suspicious, as the Oklahoma City bomb. In both cases we are expected to believe that a couple of guys mixed fertilizer and fuel oil to create a bomb with unbelievable power. The main difference is that the bombing in Oklahoma City occurred while people were in the building, rather than during the middle of the night.
Four men were eventually accused of the Sterling Hall bombing: Karl Armstrong and his brother Dwight, Leo Burt, and David Fine. Leo Burt has never been found. The Armstrongs and David Fine were eventually arrested but they were paroled after a few years.
Jeff later discovered that a man who went by the nickname Bobo, and who was sometimes at the Nitty Gritty bar with David Fine, was working with the CIA. Jeff's conclusion was that the Sterling Hall bombing was a CIA plot to make the anti-war movement look bad, and that Bobo was one of the CIA agents involved, and that the Armstrongs and David Fine were the fools who had been set up to take the blame.
Jeff may be one of hundreds of people who were living in Madison at the time of the bombing, and who suspect that the bombing was a CIA scam, but how many of those people reacted to the bombing by trying to make America a better place? How many of those people even bothered to expose the scam?
There is very little information about this bombing on the Internet. Jeff never made any attempt to expose it; rather, he reacted by becoming even more disillusioned with America than he already was.
Many people ignore "conspiracy theories" with a remark similar to, "But if it was really a scam, people would expose it."
Jeff is just one of many people who show that this assumption is false. Many people become depressed or apathetic after witnessing a government scam.
As I tried to mention in these two documents:
our government thinks that they will improve the USA with lies and scams, but I think the CIA is actually destroying morale, increasing apathy, and encouraging more corruption.
There were other bombings in other cities during the Vietnam War era, and a Bank of America was burned during an anti-war protest near the University of California at Santa Barbara. It is possible that all the large bombings and arsons were scams by the CIA to give the anti-war protests a bad image. Actually, it is possible that every large major terrorist attack and war during the past century is a scam.
The CIA is correct that they are getting away with these scams, but they are destroying the nation in the process. Unless their purpose is to destroy America, they are failures, in which case they should reevaluate their policies.
Some people complain that America has been degrading since the 1960's. The usual explanation for the decline of America is drugs, rock-and-roll, or the Vietnam War. But I think the CIA was the main reason. A nation needs respectable leaders, not a secret agency that runs scams. The scams cause some of America's best citizens to lose interest in the nation, and that leaves the nation under the control of the clueless citizens, the criminals, and the people who don't care about corruption.
I can understand how the CIA in 1960 could come to the assumption that a fake terrorist attack might improve America, but after a few failures the CIA should have realized that their scams were making the nation worse, not better. I am not upset that the CIA makes mistakes. Rather, I am appalled that they make the same mistakes decade after decade.
Or is the CIA deliberately trying to destroy America? Are those rumors on the Internet true that the Rothschilds, Israelis, and other Jews are trying to conquer America and Europe by destroying our morale and fooling us into fighting world wars?
Paul McCartneyPaul McCartney of the Beatles, and Brian Epstein, their manager, were in a car accident in 1966. The official government story is that neither was not seriously injured; that the accident was insignificant.
However, rumors began to spread that McCartney had died, and that somebody who looked like McCartney had been given plastic surgery to make him look even more similar, and that the fake McCartney had replaced the dead McCartney. Supposedly, McCartney's relatives and friends went along with the scam for reasons that defy explanation.
That rumor started when I was a child. Everybody I knew assumed it was a publicity stunt. But there was enough supporting evidence to keep the rumor alive.
For example, after the car accident the Beatles announced that they would never perform in public again. This can easily be interpreted as a sign that they wanted to avoid contact with the public because Paul McCartney's fans would notice that he was not the real McCartney.
One of the most convincing Web sites has photos of McCartney before and after the car accident. The photos show that his face became elongated and narrow after the car accident.
Also, before the car accident he was slightly shorter than George Harrison and John Lennon, but after the accident he became noticeably taller than all the other Beatles. His body also became bigger.
Update: two forensic pathologists have provided scientific evidence that the current Paul McCartney is a fraud. Take a look!
And here is a
There are also rumors that a McCartney look-alike contest was announced after the accident, but the winner was never announced. This could be easily interpreted as an attempt to find somebody that looked like McCartney.
Furthermore, many of us noticed that the Beatles music changed after 1966. Many people describe it with such phrases as the “early Beatles” and the “later Beatles”. Did their music change because fame and/or drugs had affected them? Or did the music change because Paul McCartney was no longer part of the group?
I would describe their music as changing from happy and romantic to sad, weird, and psychotic. The lyrics for the songs on the White Album are a good example. Some of the titles are even weird:
Why would the Beatles hide McCartney's death? Take a look at that website I listed above. Apparently the car accident was staged, perhaps by the CIA and MI6, along with the Jews who want to control the entertainment business, but whoever was hired to do the job messed it up. The intended victim was Brian Epstein, their homosexual manager. In the 1960's, homosexuals faced almost as much hatred as a child molester. In fact, a few months before the car accident, Epstein had been beaten up.
The criminals panicked when Paul McCartney died. They somehow convinced the other Beatles to accept a replacement. However, the Beatles quickly decided that having a replacement was ridiculous. Unfortunately, the criminals would not allow them to back out of the deal. The end result was that they became frustrated and angry, and that in turn caused their lyrics to become strange. Eventually they separated.
In 1980 John Lennon was killed, and years later George Harrison died of brain cancer. John Lennon's murder is very suspicious, and, for all we know, Harrison's brain cancer was induced by the criminals who were trying to cover up McCartney's death.
One of the songs that McCartney wrote after the Beatles broke up was "Band On The Run". When I first heard that song I was thinking that McCartney has no ability to write lyrics; that he was looking through a thesaurus to find words that rhyme. But the song makes sense when you consider that he is not really Paul McCartney. Here is some of that song:
Stuck inside these four walls,
Sent inside forever,
Never seeing no one
Nice again like you,
Mama you, mama you.
Why is he singing about being stuck inside something? Is he stuck forever in the role of Paul McCartney, never able to see his own mother?
If I ever get out of here,
Thought of giving it all away
To a registered charity.
All I need is a pint a day
If I ever get out of here.
If he ever gets that where? His role as Paul McCartney? And what will he give away to a charity? The millions of dollars in made in his false life?
It sounds like Paul is saying, "Help! I don't want the money any longer! I want a real life!"
Well, the undertaker drew a heavy sigh
Seeing no one else had come,
Whose funeral is he referring to? Was Paul McCartney's undertaker sad that nobody came to Paul McCartney's funeral? Or was he talking about his own fake death? In order to become McCartney, he first had to arrange a fake death for himself.
One of the amazing aspects of the rumors of Paul McCartney's death is that they have been going on for decades, but McCartney and the other Beatles do nothing to stop it.
What would you do if Internet sites were claiming that you were dead, and that some imposter was pretending to be you? Wouldn't you be tempted to tell those sites to stop it? Some people would threaten the sites with lawsuits if they did not stop making those ridiculous remarks.
Paul McCartney does nothing about the rumors that he is dead. He could so easily put the rumors to rest by giving a sample of his hair for a DNA analysis. His DNA should match his brother and his other relatives. But the Beatles are strangely quiet about these terrible accusations. Why? Do they consider the rumors so ridiculous that they don't want to waste their time with them?
In 1969, is special magazine was published called Paul McCartney Dead, The Great Hoax, Collector's Edition. The first 43 pages gave evidence that Paul McCartney had died. After that they gave some evidence that perhaps his death was just a hoax for publicity.
If his death was indeed a hoax, then the Beatles and this magazine were exploiting people, which could be considered a crime. No matter how you look at this incident, something is wrong.
What would you think if you saw a special magazine for sale in which the first 43 pages provided evidence that you were dead, and the evidence was followed by accusations that your death was just a hoax that you and others had created for publicity? Would you ignore such accusations? Why would the Beatles allow such accusations?
The most sensible explanation for why that magazine published that special edition is that Paul McCartney really did die, or was murdered, but the magazine was afraid to be too honest. So the first 43 pages provided evidence that he was dead, but to pacify the crime network, they concluded by pretending it was all just a joke.
The first 43 pages of that magazine had been scanned and posted in the messages area on that website I listed above.
Ted KaczynskiThere are so many accusations of scams that it is difficult to keep track of them all.
I often forget about this web site that accuses the government of using Ted Kaczynski as a patsy:
Is that web site correct? We may never know for sure, but he offers a better explanation for how Kaczynski could make complex bombs while living in primitive conditions.
How did Sammy Davis Jr. lose his eye?Another accusation is that Sammy Davis Jr. had his eye poked out by Frank Sinatra and his friends, and they told him to pretend it was a car accident.
Supposedly, Frank Sinatra and his friends did not want a black man as a close friend or as an investor in the Las Vegas casinos, and this was their way of forcing him to back off. Is this accusation true?