What kind of a nation does not educate its children about the history of a enemy(Jesuits=Zionism) imposing war, it is a nation that has surrender its children to the adversary(Jesuits=Zionism).
Who, What and How it was Predictive Programed
for over 50 years!!
Ultimate 911 Predictive Programming | Jesuit Lightning
ODD TV quote:  Here we are at the 17 year anniversary for September 11th, 2001. I would just like to remind you so that you "Never Forget" that 911 was executed by the directors(Jesuits) in cahoots with the Jesuit elites. We will be going over that as well as more than 60 instances of 911 predictive programming.

This very real conspiracy was in the works for decades and the mental conditioning is apparent in numerous pieces of media including books, comics, magazines, video games, movies, TV shows, music and album covers.

My Quote:  To the Viewer of this documentary I challenge you to refute what the evidence proves.  Picture is worth a thousand words.  60 instances equal 60,000 words.  more than 60 instances of 911 predictive programming.  This web page will free your mind on Who, What and How it happen.

Donald Trump January 2000 Quote:  I really am convinced we're in danger of the sort of terrorist attacks that will make the bombing of the (1993) Trade Center look like kids playing with firecrackers...  
Could this be predictive programing?  Click here

But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:   To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.   And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.  (Acts 8:9-11)

Chapter 4; Magic Shows And The Power of Suggestion

by Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., PH.D.

We are never deceived; we deceive ourselves---Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

You didn't hear it. You didn't see it.  You won't say nothing to no one ever in your life.  You never heard it.
Oh how absurd it all seems without any proof.  You never hear it.  You didn't see it.  You never heard it.  Not a
word of it.  You won't say nothing to no one.  Never tell a soul what you know is the Truth.
---The Who, 1921 - Tommy

A. Unbelievable

    On 9/11 we heard it said over and over again, "It's unbelievable!" Yes, what we were shown and what we were told were unbelievable.  So, how is it that the unbelievable becomes believable?

On the morning of 9/11, there were two towers, each over a quarter-mile tall and made of 500,000 tons of material.  And then they went away.  They were gone in a mere 8 to 10 seconds each.

B. We know What We Saw---Or Do We?

    It has been said, "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001."  But do they?  Most of us were shown images on TV and were told what we saw.

    When we go to see a magic show, we're "told"---whether literally or by some process of implication---what we are to see, and so we interpret what we see as unbelievable.  But we know we've gone to see a magic show.  David Copperfield has performed illusions on TV that appear to cause the Statue of Liberty and freight train to disappear.  But we know these are magic shows.

    When War of the Worlds aired in 1938, some people missed the opening disclaimer letting them know that the show was fictitious.  Those who missed the opening thought it was real  Why?

    The War of the Worlds was an episode of the American radio drama anthology series Mercury Theatre on the Air.  It was performed as a Halloween episode of the series on October 30, 1938 and aired over the Columbia Broadcasting System radio network.  Directed and narrated by Orson Welles, the episode was an adaptation of H. G. Wells novel The war of the Worlds.

    The first two thirds of the 60-minute broadcast was presented as a series of simulated news bulletins, which suggested to may listeners that an actual Martian invasion was in progress.  Compounding the issue was the fact that the Mercury Threatre on the Air was a 'sustaining show' (i.e, it ran without commercial breaks), thus adding to the dramatic effect.  Although there were sensationalist accounts in the press about a supposed panic, careful research has shown that while thousands were frightened, there is no evidence that people fled their homes or otherwise took action.  The news-bulletin format was decried as cruelly deceptive by some newspapers and public figures, leading to an out cry against the perpetrators of the broadcast, but the episode launched Welles to fame.

Welles's adaptation was one of the Radio Project's first studies.

    The War of the Worlds (1898), by H. G. Wells, is an early science fiction novel which describes an invasion of Earth by aliens from Mars.  It is one of the earliest and best-known depictions of an alien invasion of Earth, and has influenced many others, as well as spawning several films, radio dramas, comic book adaptations, and a television series based on the story.  The 1938 radio broadcast caused public out cry against the episode, as many listeners believed that an actual Martian invasion was in progress, a notable example of mass hysteria.

But what has The War of the Worlds got to do with 9/11?

    My teaching schedule for Fall 2001 began late in the day and included a long evening class on Tuesdays.  Being somewhat of a night owl, I set my alarm for sometime after 9:00 AM.  On 9/11, I happened to wake up before my clock-radio alarm came on and was working in the next room on my computer when the clock radio finally did come on.  I vaguely heard the radio in the background and kept on working, though I wasn't paying much attention to what was being said.  Then I began to notice that whatever story they were telling seemed to go on an on.  It sounded as though they were telling some sort of sick joke about a drunk driver who made a wrong turn on the way home from a party and ran his plane into a building.  But then the same thing seemed to have happened a second time.  It sounded like a joke, except that they never got to the punch line.  Eventually, I began to wonder if what they were saying might have something to do with reality.  So I went downstairs and turned on the TV.

    The same story was being played on every station I could pick up.  There had indeed been a horrible event.  But why were we getting the same story on every station?  Then I realized also that there were no commercial breaks.  That meant that this must be serious.  But whatever happened to the idea of getting another perspective?  When there's a plane crash, one network might be replaying the video of it while another is playing an "up close and personal story," or a "background story" about someone's loved one who left home that morning to go on a trip, or about some parts manufacturer of the aircraft, or what detailed experience some innocent bystander went through.  But here we had every station playing nearly the same video and in nearly the same way, saying essentially the same thing, over and over again with out a commercial break.  To me, it did not feel right. (this is when I called my mother in the Washington, D.C., area to ask if she saw fighter jets overhead.)  The mere fact that there were no commercial breaks commanded my attention as if to say, "This is more important than anything you've ever known."  That is, like War of the Worlds, it was a sustaining show.

    How many stories have aired without commercial breaks, and what effect does that have on us?

    I gathered my things together and headed into campus.  It must have been around 10 AM.  When I got to campus and was walking up to our building, one of my graduate students met me in the street.  That conversation is one I will never forget.  He asked, "Dr. Wood, who is Bin Laden and what's Al-Qaeda?"

    I entered our building and went up the corner stairs.  My colleagues were talking about what they thought had taken place.  One said, "After the USS Cole, we should have just taken them all out.  These guys need to be taken out."  I asked, "For what?"  My colleague responded, "The towers, they're down, they're both down."  Then we all went to the faculty conference room to watch the replays on TV.

    What I saw was surreal.  These buildings did not just "collapse," they unraveled--as I've said before, like sweaters.  Something did not smell right, but here were my colleagues (full professors who should have recognized the apparent contradiction of physical principles already being put out as "the story"), with pitchforks in hand, rallying the troops to "go get the bad guys."  It was like a done deal, open-and-shut. Meanwhile, there I was, looking at the TV monitor and thinking there was a kind of War of the Worlds sick joke being played on us. 

     If there had been commercial breaks during War of the Worlds, would there have been such a panic?

    If there had been commercial breaks during news coverage on 9/11 would people have questioned it more?

    On September 11, 2001, we were told that an airplane hit a building and caused the building to self-destruct an hour later, taking just 8 to 10 seconds is physically impossible, no matter what might have initiated the gravity collapse (bombs, natural causes, and so on).  In addition, we were told that two airplanes, each hitting one of the Twin Towers, had caused the total destruction of the entire complex of seven buildings---while not significantly, fatally, or totally damaging any other buildings!  The explanation we were given was that jet fuel had ignited office material and that this fire, fed by burning office material, significantly weakened the steel-frame buildings.  But steel fireplace grills don't collapse from fire.

Nearly everyone has heard of kerosene heaters.  Do they melt?

    The people "jumping" from the towers was a phenomenon contrary to anything firefighters had ever before observed.  Even to these New York City firefighters, it was unbelievable.  So, when did this phenomenon become Believable?

    Consider confusing and dangerous events where someone doesn't have time to evaluate the situation and yet must react.  For example, if a team of police officers with rifles were to yell, "get down on the ground!" most people would immediately follow those orders.  When someone yells, "Fire!" in a movie theater, one can expect a stampede to the exit even without evidence of a fire.  Shouting and confusion will get most people to  do what is asked of them.  Most of us will acquiesce so as not to add to the confusion.  People watched the jumpers.  They saw it, so it must be real.

    Yet we also know that gasoline burns hotter than kerosene and we know that cars do not collapse from over heated or melted engines.

And wood stoves made of steel do no self-destruct from fire.

C. What Did We Really See?

    So what did we really see on 9/11/01?  It may or may not be what we were told we saw.  What if the first reported observation was wrong, and then everyone followed it?  The human mind does not operate like a tape recorder.  The human mind puts together the best story it can based on what it has been presented with, and it adapts.  In a confusing and unbelievable situation, people tend to look for something that makes sense.

    We look for what we're accustomed to seeing or expect to see, and we use this to make what sense we can of the confusion.  My heart goes out to the doctors who, amongst the confusion, tried to make sense of what they saw and what they were told (along with the rest of us).  In an interview, two doctors recall that patients quit coming in to the emergency rooms by noon on 9/11.  Dr. Tony Dajer was asked, "Where are all the people?"  He groped for and explanation.  Another doctor latched on to the hope that most everyone made it out alive.  These two doctors are a a wonderful example of how much people care for their fellow man.  And, like the rest of us, they desperately wanted---and needed---it all to make sense.

But what happens when it doesn't make sense?

D. Approach

    We must observe the actual evidence, carefully.  But how do we do that through a preconceived, conditioned, and biased perspective?  One way might be to wipe the slate clean and begin with a new vocabulary, a new language, including a visual language.  This may require that we ignore images that we have long been conditioned to react to in very predictable ways.

    In the chapters that follow, I have purposely given each of the observed phenomena a new and unique name, using a new vocabulary that does not come preloaded with familiar connotations and therefore biased interpretations.  Referring to particulate-filled air as "smoke" causes the biased or pre-conditioned observer to think of "fire" as the cause of what is seen.  Instead, then, let us use a very generic term(perhaps even an elementary-level term) that we would not normally use in this situation, but one that describes solely and only what we do see, with no other weighted or pre-supposed meaning.  Let's use not the word "smoke" but the word "fume."  A glossary of terms is provided at the end of this book for convenience.
July 22, 1980 2nd major Eruption Mt. St. Helens
Below pictures are not in Judy Woods Book.
My wife took these pictures.  From a Cessna 150 on July 22, 1980.
Please compare what you see in the picture below of 9/11.

Compare the Towers with the Eruption of Mt. St. Helens

For more information: