Are we ready for Full Disclosure?

Yes. That's why it's happening.

Warner Brothers: The Matrix

On the morning of September 11, 2001 dozens of live news broadcasts reported multiple, “huge” explosions in the twin towers at the beginning of and during their stunning and unexpected “collapses”.

Later, oral testimonies from eye-witnesses compiled by the New York Times included those from 118 FDNY firefighters which unequivocally mentioned explosions as well.

While the public was treated to endless replays of the macabre sight of the twin towers smashing themselves and the hapless innocent trapped within their steel and concrete confines on all TV news programs (a practice which mysteriously came to an abrupt halt a few days later) few were aware of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which suspiciously met its demise early in the evening of September 11 as well.

This was the video that altered the trajectory of my life eight years ago. Nobody can contest that

• The building is big.

• The building falls to the ground symmetrically.

• The building falls quickly.

• The building was NOT hit by a plane.

Six years later when the National Institute of Standards and Technology boldly concluded that we witnessed an unprecedented total collapse of a steel high rise building from common office fires alone, the scientific community was stunned. Did the government experts find any evidence of explosives used in building 7?

No.

How about with the twin towers (also big buildings that fell quickly and symmetrically)?

No.

Did they look for any?

No.

Why?

There was no need to look for any because nobody reported hearing or seeing explosions that day.

Nobody—except for 118 firefighters at the scene and three dozen news stations. Without going into the technical aspects of their preposterous hypothetical explanation offered as the final say on the matter, our government was lying. But it wasn’t just a career politician spewing “alternative facts”, this was NIST, an organization that sets the standards for how science is to be conducted.

I was not naive. This wouldn’t be the first time that our authorities have lied to the public. The shocking part was that the media, the so-called free press, endowed with the massive responsibility of holding our authorities accountable, wasn’t incompetent. They were complicit in perpetuating the biggest coverup of my lifetime.

They reported the explosive events themselves. Why had they no questions for the experts at NIST who contradicted their own reporting?? If that weren’t bad enough, why did they crucify anybody who did have questions? What was this term “conspiracy theorist” they used to discredit a person who pointed out the obvious evidence of a conspiracy? What are we to do if the government and the free-press are in cahoots? What else would they be capable of? We’ve got a serious problem, right?

Knowing that such a topic would be difficult for most to approach I sought out the most objective people I knew in our little town in greater Boston. A doctorate in bioelectrical engineering from MIT, a mechanical engineer and a brilliant builder/contractor who did an amazing and innovative restoration on our 250 year old farmhouse.

All it took was a couple of days and a dozen email exchanges to come to a near unanimous consensus: building 7 certainly looked like a controlled demolition but that didn’t mean that it was blown up. That’s why we have governmental experts—to show us where our eyes deceive us. It was decided, three to one, that NIST was right and I had been sniffing too much nitrous over the years.

Any twelfth grade physics class can poke holes in NIST’s hypotheses around B7 and the twin towers. These friends of mine were not stupid. They were capable enough to see what really happened. They just weren’t ready to see it.

I spent the next two years writing about the topic. I found that most people, especially ones with science backgrounds, had the same blindspots that my three friends did.

During the summer of 2020 while another psyop was unfolding in front of my eyes, I attempted to boil down the issues that obstruct a mind from obtaining clarity. It came down to eleven issues which I termed “sources of bias” which taken together can easily subvert a sharp intellect from getting to the bottom of things. I wrote a book titled, “WOKE. An Anesthesiologist’s View” in order to help others who faced the same challenges I did.

Unfortunately, the word “woke” has taken on a different meaning in society over the last five years. At the time it meant being alert to the contribution of systemic racism in creating a dangerous and unjust society. Now it means something much different. Perhaps a better title to the book would have been “Coming To” or “An Insult to Intuition”.

In the process of putting my ideas on paper I had to conclude that we as a society, like my three highly-capable friends, were simply not ready to take a hard look at 9/11 because we were unwilling to take a hard look at ourselves. The question is, will we ever be ready? I think the answer is yes, and I believe we are ready now.

Bobby Kennedy Jr.’s appointment to head HHS has bigger implications that extend beyond public health. If he is true to his word and his mission he will expose much more than a potential link between an increased vaccination load and the breathtaking explosion of childhood chronic diseases. If such a link does exist it will beg the question, why did it take four decades for us to see it? It’s a combination of things:

• The data, if there is any, has been sequestered outside of independent scrutiny

• The regulatory system has been captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate

• The public has been programmed by a propaganda machine, mainstream media, which serves its sponsors, the Pharma cartel which has been allowed to buy positive coverage by pumping hundreds of millions of dollars a year to keep these platforms afloat through the purchase of advertisements

• Editorial boards of the most respected scientific journals have been controlled by big Pharma, destroying the sanctity of peer-reviewed literature, the bedrock of medical opinion

• Long term safety signals have been obscured through the use of non placebo control arms in vaccine trials with short observational periods

If the corruption in public health is exposed for all to see, the the public will have a difficult time remaining willfully ignorant around the 9/11 story. Why? Because the same problems, more or less, exist there too. NIST, the appointed authority on 9/11 has not been transparent, their explanations and models are incomplete, non-sensical and dubious, scientific literature around the topic has been scrubbed of dissenting opinion and the public has been lulled into a false understanding through a media machine which has been true to a mission to conceal and not reveal.

Kennedy is doing to the CDC as the head of HHS what I would like to see Howard Lutnik, the newly appointed Secretary of Commerce, do to NIST (NIST is a division of the Dept. of Commerce) . Lutnik recently stepped down as the Chair of Cantor Fitzgerald, a large financial services company which once had its headquarters in the North tower two floors above where American Airlines flight 11 struck the building on 9/11. Lutnik lost 658 of his employees that morning, including his brother.

Is Lutnik interested in reexamining NIST’s investigation into the events of 9/11? That is left to be seen, however it may not be for him to decide. According to Fox News, the newly formed “Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets” headed by Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) has recently “sent letters to the State Department, Department of Energy and the CIA for documents relating to the origins of COVID-19; the National Security Agency and CIA for records relating to JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations; the Department of Defense and the CIA for 9/11 files; and to the Justice Department for documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein.”

Whether the public has an appetite for such information or not, President Trump seems intent on making good on his promise to declassify information on the most contentious of topics.

There seems to be a clear divide along political lines with regard to this dizzying first month of a new Trump Presidency. Elon Musk, acting at the behest of the President, has been using his DOGE team to apparently expose dizzying amounts of waste and corruption in large swaths of our government. Supporters are elated. Naysayers are disquieted at giving the richest man in the world the keys to an immense amount of information about the public. Information that is somehow okay for our government to possess but not for a small group seeking accountability and oversight.

It is still left to be seen how the public will regard what Musk brings to light. Why should you trust what he finds? Then again, if there is an untold amount of waste and corruption that has festered in a bloated bureaucracy for decades, how else would we have ever rid ourselves of it?

While I cannot fault anyone for not being 100% behind having Musk’s cadre of crack software geniuses deploy AI driven mining operations into government databases, I remain puzzled at the medical community’s horror and contempt at Kennedy’s appointment.

Jennifer Galardi, writing for the The Kennedy Beacon reported on how Kennedy explained his approach to reversing the chronic disease epidemic:

“How are we going to do that?” Kennedy asked. “It isn’t by replacing one paradigm with another by force.” He said the best way forward is not to impose “my belief over any of yours” but to work together “to launch a new era of radical transparency.”

He continued, “Only through radical transparency can we provide Americans with genuine informed consent, which is the bedrock and the foundation stone of democracy. Transparency allows diverse parties to establish common ground of mutually trusted information.”

Radical Transparency? Informed consent? Coming together over a common ground of mutually trusted information?

How could anyone be against that?

The reality is that when we as a society at large become ready for this kind of disclosure there will be many who will kick and scream against it. But why is it the so-called intelligentsia that are against a deep dive into the data? It’s really not so surprising. In their case, they must face the possibility that they have been dead wrong with regard to “the science”. Knowing more and being right is what defines them. Needing to be “right” isn’t the same as wanting to be “correct”. They’ve confused the two for so long that they are left bewildered. And scared.

How is their obstruction to clarity any different from any other group that defines themselves by their position on a core belief? This is why the faithful cannot accept a different interpretation of the scripture, or, in the case of 9/11, why capable engineers cannot accept that the National Institute of Standards and Technology could be that wrong.

We are witnessing a remarkable shift in our collective consciousness. While half the country has become increasingly frantic over the rapid spread of “conspiracy theories”, the other half is waking up to the fact that the truth has never been handed down from the top. It’s always been available to those who are willing to suspend their trust in their authority and think for themselves.

It seems that everything is coming into alignment—including the planets and stars. As I have written before, the former planet Pluto entered the sign of Aquarius a few months ago where it will remain for the next twenty years or so. While I don’t subscribe to the idea that celestial bodies control the way we behave, I am open to the idea that as conscious beings we are connected to a conscious universe which marches forward with a certain cadence manifesting in the cyclical patterns around us everywhere. Disclosure is not happening because it is dictated by the stars or our authorities. It’s happening because we have reached a state for it to happen.

The last time Pluto entered Aquarius was at the end of the 18th century, another radical time when the French and American Revolutions established Democracies on a planet dominated for centuries by a ruling class. It also saw the introduction of the first vaccine, against smallpox, which challenged the tenet that a person would have to survive a disease before ever becoming immune to it.

240 years later it seems that we are finally ready to take a hard look at what happens to both vaccines and democracies when they are left to evolve without proper accountability to whom they are supposed to be serving.