9/11, latest, United States
Comments 99

Conspiracies Are Not All Theoretical

Alison Broinowski

Before the 2016 election, candidate Donald Trump told voters he would ‘find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center.’ His promise may turn out to be as empty as his predecessor’s undertaking to close down Guantánamo Bay. Or he may be prevented from keeping it by those who know the truth.

Trump, an expert in false facts, questioned the version of events provided by the 9/11 Commission Report. More significantly, so did many scientists, engineers, and intelligence analysts. Experts from a wide range of countries at The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 in 2011 produced a DVD two years later, subtitled ‘Uncovering Ten Years of Deception’. The facts are presented in several books, including those by David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson and Nafeez Ahmed: but many still can’t believe them.

When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked in 1996 if the deaths of half a million Arab children following Gulf War I was justified, she infamously replied, ‘I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it’ (US ‘60 Minutes,’ 12 May 1996). Most of the people who died on and after 11 September 2001 were not Arabs or children, yet their 3000-plus deaths caused much greater international outrage than those in Iraq. It set off a war of retribution that killed hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Syria, injured many more, and is still doing so. On a rough calculation, each of the New York and Washington deaths was worth at least 30 Iraqis.

Were any of these deaths ‘worth it’? Or worth the US$7 trillion plus cost of the war? In April 2018 a group of American lawyers who thought not, petitioned the Administration to reopen the 9/11 inquiry. In July, five years after the report of The Toronto Hearings appeared, the same question was raised in a series of open letters to President Trump. They have attracted surprisingly little media notice except among readers of the online American Herald Tribune. The writers are qualified and serious, and the conspiracy they all suspect is far from theoretical.

Barbara Honneger, a White House policy analyst to President Ronald Reagan and senior military affairs writer for the Naval Postgraduate School, informs Trump in her open letter that the ‘Official Story of the Pentagon is false in every respect.’ She shows that the attack happened almost eight minutes earlier than the report stated; military officers reported smelling cordite before the impact; major destruction was not due to a plane collision but to pre-planted explosives; if there was a plane, it was smaller than a 757, so it was not American Airlines 77; that flight was not mentioned until 15 September (so what happened to it?); and its flight path was different from what was reported. Her clinching arguments are that the deaths and destructive fire occurred in the two inner rings of the Pentagon, not in the outer ring; and columns were left standing in the outer ring right where a 757 was supposed to have hit the building.

Turning to the World Trade Center, Honneger asserts that explosions occurred in the basement of both towers before the planes hit them: 14 seconds before for WTC1, and 17 seconds for WTC2. She has produced a documentary, Behind the Smoke Curtain, which claims Vice-President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld led US collaboration with Israel in the attacks to provide a pretext for war against Iraq.

Another letter-writer to Trump, Scott Bennett, a military officer, was a contractor for Booz Allen Hamilton (like Edward Snowden). He was assigned to US Central Command to keep track of terrorists’ sources of funds, as well as to investigate US$2.3 trillion allegedly misappropriated by Dov Zackhaim who was US Terrorist Financing Operations Director, and Bennett’s superior. Bennett suspected that an Iraqi linked to Rudy Giulliani, and Zackhaim’s son, a lawyer on the House Armed Services Committee, were also involved. ‘Conveniently,’ Bennett writes, the auditors working on this in the Office of Naval Intelligence were killed on 9/11 when ‘a missile’ hit the Pentagon in ‘a false-flag attack on American soil’.

Susan Lindauer had been a journalist and was a Congressional staffer when she met and befriended a CIA officer in Washington. She writes in Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover-Ups of 9/11 and Iraq (2010) what he told her in April 2001: the CIA expected a major terrorist air attack on the WTC in three or four months, which might include a mini-nuclear device. She was to warn Iraqi diplomats that if Baghdad was found to have knowledge of it, there was threat of war. She also warned an academic friend, Parke Godfrey, to get his family out of New York.

For ‘acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government’ before the 2003 Iraq invasion, Lindauer was indicted in 2004 and held without trial in a mental facility in 2005-6 until she was found ‘mentally unfit’ to stand trial. The prosecution was dropped in 2009. Since then, Lindauer has been an anti-war activist and, perhaps unsurprisingly, a critic of the US Government and a writer to Trump.

A fourth of the July letter-writers is Canadian academic Peter Dale Scott, best known for his accounts of the Deep State. He advises Trump that Dallas 1963, Watergate 1972-74, and 9/11 were Deep Events resulting in the permanent militarisation of the US. Vice-President Cheney ordered President Bush and Attorney-General Ashcroft out of DC in advance of 9/11, which Scott argues the Vice-President had planned with Rumsfeld for two decades.

The Toronto conference uncovered ten years of deception and ‘state crimes against democracy’ which beggar belief. The letter-writers to Trump reveal more, which are still disputed. People who know ‘who knocked down the WTC’ may well be working now to stop Trump keeping his promise to find out.

Dr Alison Broinowski FAIIA is a former Australian diplomat and is writing her sixth monograph, a book on terrorism.


  1. I was mistaken. We do see people recovering in hospital. Here are alleged burns victims. The last one suffers vitiligo. They often use people who some of skin thing happening or previous injuries – this is a girl on 9/11 who looks as if she’s suffered previous burn injuries https://www.google.com.au/search?q=9/11+injured&rls=com.microsoft:en-GB&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZwprXtcTdAhXa7GEKHSI0CjQQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=938#imgrc=ARHUZUBVWDHMEM:


  2. Flaxgirl will love this.
    Had 9/11 happened in Russia, the survivors would have received a visit from their president. Then we would have some evidence on film….or would we? That too could be faked. It’s difficult to know if anything is true anymore. 9/11 has proved one thing. Truth is irrelevant.I have often thought that was it’s sole purpose.

    • Axisoffoil, can you point me to a single photo of one the alleged 6000 injured that shows an image inconsistent with someone participating in a drill? If not, do you think I should nevertheless accept this figure … Well, of course I should, shouldn’t I as everything else they told us about 9/11 was true how can I doubt that?

      Do you really believe that the widows of four men who died from controlled demolition of the twin towers politely asked Kissinger about the Bin Laden family being a client, to which he responded by nearly falling off his chair? After this “hard” question, Philip Zelikow, no less of an insider, was made director of the Commission and the poor widows just had to swallow that.

      If your loved one had died in the buildings would you have asked Kissinger politely about Bin Laden being a client?

      • I don’t want to avoid you’re question but I have a different take on reality that would convoluted my answer into something unintelligible. I can’t guarantee any photo of anything anywhere is accurate in what it purports to represent. I do think the whole drill phenomena is very interesting.I rather like the thought of nobody dying on 9/11. There are so many anomalies with 9/11 that I suppose your issue is as valid as any. The 16 year quest for truth is just bouncing off walls. If we look too closely at reality we will surely fall in and get hurt. I don’t want that to happen to you. Let me put it this way. I came to a point where I somewhat resented being lied to when these lies result in so much death. I turned angrily against these lairs and soon found myself no better a person than they. The human mind is a strange thing. It provides us with the validation, justification and rationalization of anything we focus on. It seems to be rather neutral in the process, but really amped up in serving our desires. Rather a clever apparatus. Good, bad, it doesn’t seem to care. It will carry us away with it if we aren’t careful. .
        On this post, it is reasonable to say that you as Flaxgirl are quite focused on one point. This could be a good thing. It could be a bad thing. Don’t know, but It most certainly is a thing, and it’s your thing.
        Just for you… this is how I see it.
        The human mind is a mechanism which translates the experience of life.
        The human being is an awareness which perceives the translated experience.
        The human mind is separated into 2 parts. The conscious and the subconscious.
        The conscious mind has first contact with experience. The subconscious mind silently facilitates that conscious experience with an operating system.
        This system merges with the conscious mind and both parts of the mind are then experienced as a single awareness. All human objectivity is then by default subjective. This is where we have to be careful. Sometimes we get a bit too focused. Maybe this happened to Kissinger.
        Unfortunately, If we are to obtain a truly objective point of view, we would have to step back so far that we would probably fall off the edge. Then what would we have? Probably someone claiming I believe the earth is flat.
        I like your tenacity. I don’t know if you are sincere, deluded or well paid for your activity. This is sad. I would really like to know. In any event, this seems to be your moment. I will, as usual, simply enjoy the show.Let me know if I can help

        • Truly, axisofoil, I’m just a prosaic, logical thinker who, it’s true, is obsessed by false flags – or rather false flag hoaxes – I keep waiting to get over it but something always pops up to continue my interest. Prior to this I was a climate activist and I keep thinking I need to give up the false flag stuff and get back to climate activism as it’s so important but I keep at it, alienating my friends from me and me from them. I cottoned onto 9/11 and other events four years ago when I clicked a link to JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick. Until June I believed that 3,000 people tragically died on 9/11 (although I knew it was no more tragic than the thousands upon thousands who’ve died since) but in June after a few months of certain alarm bells starting to ring I realised that that was a big lie just like all the others and that the power elite had implemented a clever, sophisticated truther-targeted propaganda campaign to keep that lie alive.

          Awhile ago I came across Simon Shack’s work (September Clues). Shack worked out no deaths at least a decade ago! However, although I kind of allowed it as a possibility I was sucked in by the propaganda of the Jersey Widows, Bob McIlvaine, April Gallop, Richard Grove, William Rodriguez and others. Poor Simon. He cottoned on at least a decade ago and so few in the truth movement have cottoned on or believe him. It’s sad that the truth has been out there so long and yet we’re still labouring under the delusion of the deaths and injuries when logic alone would dictate this to be a very unlikely possibility. The power elite simply would not conduct their operation like that. It makes no sense for them to do it that way – apart from the evidence and lack thereof.

          • I think about the ‘Kill anything that moves’ policy in Vietnam and what we still do all around the world today. We, as well as many other countries have a lot of blood on our hands. Human life is cheap, so I can’t say about the Tower situation. Can you believe we’re even having this conversation?
            There are several accounts of motive for destroying incriminating information in the towers as well as bldg. #7. There is also the missing gold. There is the case of the work being done at the Pentagon on the missing trillions …..now all destroyed. This topic is a quagmire. There was motive more than just going to war. How on earth did they pull off the Shanksville crash with no plane, bodies or luggage? Moreover, how did they know they could. What stands out most to me is the arrogance of those who did this. I have a feeling this was something well over the heads of the crew in the Whitehouse.
            ‘Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick’ answered a lot of questions for me also. It was the disrespect for Our presidents’ body which most disgusts me. One thing is clear. Whomever is running this show really doesn’t care about us. There is no respect in them. No humanity.
            If you haven’t already, check out the Corbett Report. Keep up the good fight any way you see fit and thank you.

            “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

            “The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”

            “Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.”
            Albert Einstein

            When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”
            Sherlock Homes

            • axisofoil: a quick note on your theory of neurophenomenology. Cognitive science has shown that it is the unconscious mind that has “first contact with experience”. We process sense-data and pre-dispositionally categorise experience according to accumulated memory, habituated belief, and prior assumption. And we do it all unconsciously. What becomes conscious is a fraction of the neuro-cognitive experience (rule of thumb: 95% unconscious, 5% conscious).

              That is the neuroscientists view: I would concur that the unconscious and conscious result from a parallel processing and arise together. But that is theory, for the moment.

              I would add that the unconscious is not unknowable, as is the scientific view largely contends. I would posit a ‘cognitive subconscious’ that can be known, at least inferentially. I would posit it as a co-dependent arising, and not a linear sequentiality.

              Consciousness/unconsciousness is not neutral: but inherently intentional. We perceive intentionally and act as we perceive, What we perceive, or rather how we perceive it, is mostly volitionally pre-determined memory. We live in the ‘remembered present’ that indicates and validates who we are. There is a volitional feedback loop that seems to confirm the person as a process (temporalised Being).

              However, we are not merely self-determined, self-programmed temporalised automata (hard determinism). Though, in a state of uncritical thouhtlessness, we certainly can be. We retain a conscious veto autonomy (a ‘Free Won’t’) and can become relatively autonomous and self-sovereign. As well as critically conscious, and radically responsible. And perhaps even atemporal.

              We can change our perception and enter into a positive and critical intervention into ‘our’ reality. If that positive, not passive, intervention reaches a critical mass …we can change our environment and society in an evolutionary way.

              It is counter-intuitive: but it all comes down to pure perception …seeing things as they are. Or rather, seeing ourselves as we are, as opposed to how we have been encultured, socially constructed, and self-determined to think of who we are.

              • Mr.B I really enjoyed reading that. Using my model for the moment, let’s then take the things you mentioned into consideration. I see the 5 senses as the 5% of first contact. The 95% rather like a program which facilitates the 100% experience. The preconceptions of the 95% will determine how the 5% perceives and interprets all 5% stimulus. This 5% is an external sensor internally governed by the 95% habitual pattern. This 95% is also modified by our collective human experience. In results using an MRI to measure brain activity, there is up to a 7 second delay in response by what we consider our conscious mind, to what the unconscious has already predetermined will be our conscious response. This is a bit disconcerting, but not really. You have described how we are still in control and therefor responsible….. “We retain a conscious veto autonomy (a ‘Free Won’t’) and can become relatively autonomous and self-sovereign. As well as critically conscious, and radically responsible.”
                For me there is a dilemma. I find it fundamentally impossible for myself to accept that we are inherently as barbaric as we seem to be. I also find it quite difficult to confidently know that I see myself as I really am. What on earth am I? The ‘I’ is still subjective in that it can’t really see the forest for the trees. 9/11 is a good example of the forest. Has anyone found a way out? There may be individuals who have, but this cannot be a collective experience without forgiving the whole. How could that happen? I have looked for patterns in the forest in an attempt to reverse engineer the construct of this forest reality. I have come to believe we are subjected to a false paradigm. Something is missing. The following metaphor may be technically inaccurate but is my general idea of what that something is.
                We human beings are aware that a separate value system, known as conscience resides within our conscious construct. It is known that the primary function of conscience is maintaining behavior which is beneficial to ourselves in a way which is equitable to all human beings and all life. Our conscience is the interminable reminder that thoughts become acts, acts become habits, habits character and character has consequences. So what is our problem? Where is our acknowledgement anymore of the golden rule, what goes around comes around and the axiom that you reap what you sow?
                When we behave in conflict with our conscience, our conscience provides us with uncomfortable feelings to alert us to that conflict. This we know.
                When confronted by our conscience, it seems that from within us we are also provided with comfortable rationalizations for our behavior. Perhaps to protect us from feeling the judgement of our conscience.
                This is the slippery slope. If we choose these more comfortable rationalizations, we assume a counterfeit conscience, so to speak, that then governs our behavior outside the fixed values of true conscience. We are responsible for this initial choice.Is conscience taught in schools? No. It is merely assumed.
                I do believe that we are experiencing the result of having distanced ourselves from our real conscience. An absence of conscience is evident everywhere. Maybe it was too judgmental for us?
                Our collective world history shows that humans have somehow always thrived on conflict. We derive power through conflict. We really get carried away. Far away from what our conscience. If we could hear it, it would say” don’t go there.”
                Our intentions, instincts and expectations are constantly hijacked by powerful symbolism, emotional suggestion and rationalization. Desire turns to greed, empathy to apathy and disagreement to war, taking millions of innocent lives. All rationalized, all justified. Then condemned. Then repeated. Our history.
                Mankind has struggled to understand this dilemma for centuries yet has been willingly and enthusiastically led by himself down one path after another into more conflict. Is this not curious? For lack of a better word, I will simply use the word evil to make this observation. Evil may simply be a result of the irrational, desperate and confused protectionism of the subconscious within us. A defense against conscience. This may be cynical, but we seem to me little more than a rudderless conscious construct constantly and unknowingly fighting our conscience.
                This I know.
                Evil and conscience are incompatible.
                Evil seeks conflict. Conscience seeks peace.
                Conscience is not programmable. Consciousness is.
                I wish us luck.

        • But who would pay me for this? Who on earth? The power elite certainly do NOT want the truth out about no deaths. No way. That is why they’ve implemented their truther-targeted propaganda campaign. While truthers don’t have the whole truth themselves they can’t get it out – and that’s what the perps want. Then again, even with the whole truth it’s difficult because people are funny about deaths. When they have felt sorrow over deaths they believe to be real they find it offensive and sacrilegious to have them questioned. I have to say I’m simply not like that. I did feel it was a horrible tragedy but when I first came across Simon Shack’s work, I didn’t feel a sense of offence that he said no one died, I just wasn’t entirely convinced because of the propaganda interfering with my thinking and the fact that his evidence somehow didn’t feel conclusive.

          Thanks for your offer of help. The only help I need is for people to get what I say but people can only get things in their own time – just as it still took me ages after coming across Simon Shack’s work to get it myself.

    • Thanks for the video, axisofoil. Apologies I thought you were being sarcastic and I didn’t look at it before. It’s gold.

      • Particularly this comment on the video by Nicholas Orsini.

        I was in NYC on 911 and tried to help at a triage unit … there were no injured there at all. It was about 8 blocks away from where the Towers were … I asked an EMS worker where the injured were and his response was there were no injured victims..I also watched vehicles coming out of the area and did not see any crushed or flattened vehicles at all … I was there from 12:00 PM until 9:30 PM … all the vehicles that were coming out of the WTC area were in good condition … it looked like a parade of firetrucks and ambulances … there were flatbeds that had vehicles on them in good condition – those flatbeds should have been carrying the crushed vehicles … what we saw on the media was very different from what I saw in person that day … I have many unanswered questions … it was a strange day indeed … I did see people covered in dust but no one had injuries that I could see … all the emergency prep work was done early and stayed unused … they had wheelchairs and stretchers and folding beds that looked like they were on display in front of hospitals and at the triage units … I saw no dirty linen bins at all … so tell me again about all the hundreds of injured people!!!! I wound up cooking burgers and hot dogs at the triage unit for the firefighters and ems workers … one of my questions is why was there a BBQ set up at a triage unit in the first place?? Maybe they knew in advance that they would not be using that area for any injured people …

  3. ChrisG says

    Flaxgirl> your no-deaths from 9/11, (except by accident), hypothesis, seems to rest on the perpetrators having no motive to kill American citizens. Please explain then why these ‘so considerate’ perpetrators saturated Lower Manhattan with asbestos, and many other toxic substances. Yes, people have been killed because of 9/11 and continue to be killed. Even if pictures, witness testimony, and video can’t convince you of murder, the simple fact of collapsing the twin towers laden with toxic materials in a highly populated area, makes the perpetrators murderers. There is no way short of insanity that anyone can get round that fact.

    • Yes, the toxic materials are a very big issue. I cannot explain how the people who would be affected by these materials aren’t going ballistic. There are some people but they’re not as militant or as in great number as you’d expect.

      I didn’t say the perps were considerate. Never considerate to the unwashed masses. No they treat us like fools and scum. I say that they didn’t have a particular reason to kill the 3000 or injure the 6000 and it would have been highly problematic for them to do so considering the clear evidence of controlled demolition.

      I’m not convinced by images of alleged injured which are perfectly consistent with images of people participating in a drill. Why are you convinced by them?

      • ChrisG says

        They might not have had a particular reason to kill 3000 people of mixed nationality at 9/11, but that does not logically feed into the fact that they didn’t. Whether there was a drill or not is irrelevant, they were still quite willing to submerge Lower Manhattan with dangerous toxic materials so why should they be bothered regarding deaths at the actual event? Please don’t answer, the question answers itself.

        (P.S. Have a good day).

  4. I’d just like to make a case here for those who believe that 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured on 9/11 from both a logical and evidential point of view:


    9/11 was a terror event where the power elite wanted us to think that 19 terrorists hijacked four planes which ultimately led to the collapses of buildings and the deaths and injuries of 9,000 people. There is no evidence suggesting that the power elite WANTED to kill and injure those people, only that they wanted us to think it. As the evidence of controlled demolition is so obvious, especially in the case of WTC-7, we can see that there is an anti-motive for the power elite to actively kill the people in the planes and and let those in the buildings die for real.

    There is evidence elsewhere of deaths being faked. We know that intelligence agencies, as part of covert operations, fake people’s deaths. Thus, there is not a compelling reason to think that intelligence agencies would not have faked deaths on 9/11 unless we simply think that 3,000 is too many. In that case, we have to decide the maximum number of deaths that they would be capable of faking “in one go”. What would that number be?


    There is zero CLEAR photographic evidence of a SINGLE dead person or a SINGLE injured person of the 9,000 people we are told were killed or injured. Zero. However, there are photos of alleged injured people that are perfectly consistent with their participation in some kind of drill. (See Point 7 in my Occam’s Razor exercise which shows 14 perfectly representative photos – I have not selected these photos with any bias, you simply cannot find photos of the injured which are in any way inconsistent with participation in a drill.)

    There are discrepancies in the various memorial listings and a lack of matching of the dead with the Social Security Death Index (see Point 8 in my Occam’s Razor exercise.)

    Can any of those who believe that 3,000 died and 6,000 were injured please supply a reason that I should believe the same?


    • Frankly Speaking says

      So footage of people about to burn alive and to avoid it launch themselves from x stories high, plunging to an instant death below is not enough evidence?

      I utterly despair at the mental health of a segment of the “Conspiracy Community”. They are completely disconnected from the real world.

      Of course there are some conspiracies.

      Of course WTC 7 is the best example of a demolition job and evidence of major holes in the official story, I even watched it live as the BBC reporter announced it’s demise half an hour before it was actually brought down.

      But to deny that people died on 911 is utterly warped thinking to say the least. Seriously, people who believe that need a medical consultation.

      • Frankly speaking, can you point out how that footage could only be real and not faked?

        Do you accept that there is no clear evidence of any of the four planes crashing and that the footage of Flight 175 “melting” into the South tower is clearly faked as Newton’s 2nd and 3rd Laws of Motion invalidate a 200 ton airliner melting into a 500,000 ton building in the manner shown?


        • While, I do believe Newton’s laws of motion are breached by the official explanation of the building’s collapse, I do not follow how they are invalidated by this collision.
          Calc: A 250,000 lb aircraft with a velocity of 500 knots, combines with a 500,000 short ton building, decelerating to zero. The combined momentum transfer leaves the building travelling at about 6cm/sec. The WT towers swayed by that much routinely.
          Also, the outer steel was not super strong and did not carry the bulk of the load of the building. It was the steel core around the elevators in the center which carried the main load and these columns were thought to have been mostly unharmed by the collision. An aircraft is mostly a thin aluminum tube with thin aluminum wings and would have rapidly swept past and through the outer skeleton. The explosion you miss happened but with the aircraft hitting at at least 315 m/sec and the depth of the building = 63 m, it happened inside the building, the only “warhead” on board was the aviation fuel.

          • So in a collision between a Mack truck and a sedan, if it was the sedan going 100 km/h and the Mack truck was stationary you’d rather be in the sedan, you wouldn’t prefer to be in the Mack truck regardless of which vehicle was stationary and which going at high speed?

          • wittym says

            @Flaxgirl on 9/15/18
            I would rather be in a Mac Truck (WTC2) that weighed 4000 times more than the Boeing sedan. Many people in the Mac Truck were walking out until it exploded into pieces & dust, floor by floor, accelerating at near free fall.
            It is the by design, equal and opposite reaction of the strength of the steel against Gravity pulling it downwards, (Newton’s 3rd Law) that keeps the building up and which can only be absent if you rapidly and systematically remove all that steel before the floors above accelerate onto the floors below. As they can achieve, and has only ever been observed in the history of collapsing buildings, in a rapid controlled demolition.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        This type, Frankly, are designed to discredit the real and plain explanations of the 9/11 false-flag operation, through guilt by association. The fakestream media brainwashing system will emphasise the lunatics denying that the atrocity even occurred, as with Sandy Hook, while ignoring the five dancing Israelis, and all the other evidence that points to Israel, facts that are absolutely verboten to be aired, ever.

        • Mulga, “the dancing Israelis” are simply propaganda targeted at the truthers. The perps would have had a great laugh over them. What a great chortle. As if intelligence agents (that’s what they were alleged to be, wasn’t it? or was that another bunch?) are going to carry on like that except with a clear intention.

            • As I’ve commented already, Mulga, I have put my money where my mouth is and invite you to respond to do the same. In fact, you only have to put your mouth, not your money.

              It’s not that I don’t think that Israel was involved in 9/11. Of course it was. So many people in the US corridors of power involved in 9/11 who are US/Israeli dual citizens. Of course! But the dancing Israelis is pure propaganda designed to distract and mislead.

        • Mulga I have done four 10-point Occam’s Razor exercises:
          —9/11 – WTC-7 a controlled demolition
          —9/11 – 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured, a lie
          —Manchester bombing, a drill pushed out as real
          —Sandy Hook shooting, a drill pushed out as real

          I have put my money where my mouth is and offered $5,000 to anyone who can provide the same exercise with favouring of hypotheses reversed. If you really believe that Sandy Hook was real and that 3,000 died and 6,000 were injured on 9/11 please enter my challenge. You can choose your own judge – anyone who works in coordinating emergency response.

          Can’t get fairer than that, can you?

          If someone offered me $5,000 to prove what I passionately believe I’d jump at the chance. Will you?

          • Frankly Speaking says

            You won’t accept any evidence because you are wedded to your irrational beliefs. The evidence is there already yet you say it’s all fake or staged. You’re already beyond help.

            As Mulga says, people like you discredit genuine and rational alternative views.

            I won’t accuse you of being a planted provocateur, but such types do exist and they sound similar to you. Still, i give you the benefit of some doubt, for now.

            • What evidence are you referring to Frankly Speaking?

              The evidence I am interested in is that of 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured. I see none. Can you point me to any photographic evidence that is clearly real and/or not consistent with people participating in a drill?

              • Frankly Speaking says

                The photographic and video evidence is overwhelming, you just don’t want to accept it, instead you have your own belief system. I watched people jumpging that day. You are utterly deluded. If those photographs at the link posted by axisofoil don’t spark just one neuron of sense into you, nothing will, so there’s absolutely no point in continuing any conversation with a zealot like you, or perhaps you are a disinfo troll.

                • The photos show gore, Frankly Speaking, that is not clearly identified as real. Gore can be both faked and real, likewise the jumpers. Rather than focus on gore let’s focus on the injured.

                  There is not a single photo of the alleged 6,000 injured that does not look as if it’s inconsistent of a photo of a person in a drill. I assert that for a real event where 6,000 people were injured it would be impossible that not a single photo is not inconsistent with a drill. Every single photo could easily be of a person participating in a drill and some definitely favour drill over real event.

                  You can see 14 photos in my Occam’s Razor exercise. If you can find a photo of an injured person who looks injured in a way that could not fit being in a drill, please let me know. If you can’t then do you think that you can accept that 6,000 people really were injured on 9/11? What would be your explanation?

                  • vexarb says

                    Flaxgirl, you yourself have produced one photo for Admin which you called “gruesome” but you said it was fake; it does not look fake to me — and I posted to that effect without further comment. Now, because you insist on harping on your one string — Occam’s Razor — I go further and say that Occam’s Razor itself selects that particular photo as more likely to be genuine than fake.

                    But I shall not debate it in public here — firstly out of respect for the dignity of the dead — and because you have already wasted as much space here as a professional disinformation agent would have done. Pray provide a link where I can debate the body count with you separately, and I shall be happy to do so.

                    • vexarb, I’d also be willing to debate whether the photo is of a real or fake corpse but I agree in not following that line, not out of respect for the dead, as I don’t believe the bodies are real but because gore is unpleasant, real or fake, and there is no need. We can simply focus on the injured.

                      We were told that 6,000 people were injured but of the photos available, none of them show anyone who looks inconsistent with participation in a drill. I have posted 14 photos of the injured in my Occam’s Razor exercise. I assure you that I didn’t select these photos with any bias and you simply will not find any photos which show a person whose injury looks inconsistent with drill participation. In fact, you simply will not find very many photos at all and you won’t find any of the injured beyond the day of 9/11 which strikes me as odd. No one recovering in hospital and we see no one horribly injured. Don’t you think it seems odd that everyone either died or does not look terribly injured?

                      I assert that, in the real world, of 6,000 people injured there would have to be a photo that shows a person injured in such a way that the injury looks real and could not be confused with participation in a drill.

                      Can you not see that I’m genuine and that my case has impeccable logic? Don’t you think the perps would not want to kill and injure all the people because of the loved ones marching on the capitol apart from any other reasons? We’re told that, when he was proposed as chair of the 9/11 Commission, the Jersey widows posed the question to Kissinger about the Bin Laden family being a client, in response to which we’re told he “nearly fell off his chair” and then, supposedly, triumphantly, their “hard” question got Philip Zelikow, no less of an insider, appointed. Do you really think four women made widows by the perps bringing down buildings through controlled demolition would be politely questioning Kissinger about a relationship with a client? Don’t you think they’d be screaming, “You killed my husband?” Don’t you think that when a loved one is killed in such a situation you get to the truth much more quickly than those who, if reluctantly, go along with what they’re told.

                      Where are the people screaming, “You killed my husband, you killed my wife, you killed my son, you killed my daughter, you killed my colleague.” “Murderers!”


    • Occam’s Razor actually stipulates that pluralities are only added by necessity. It is not a proof either way The simplest explanation is not always correct: complex theories do exist. Application as a proof provides for logical fallacy …so your money is safe.

      Citing it as a challenge to rationality, well, I’m not really sure where you are going? Weak opinion, strongly defended?

      Do you not think that clearing the buildings would signal advance-knowledge? How do you clear a building in central NY without anyone noticing? Were are the witness testimonies that they were told to get out? The Port Authority told people to stay put: there is plenty of evidence of that. And plenty of anger. There would be 3,000 live people to testify that the authorities had advance-knowledge buildings were coming down. The Firefighters and NYPD did not think this was possible, so they set up in the basement contra your hypotheses, They were filmed, you can hear the jumpers – or were they sandbags? Building 7 WAS cleared: who told Guilliani to get out?

      I was in NY two days after 9/11. I saw all those fake crisis actors with their fake photographs of their fake dead relatives in Times Square and Grand Central: crying and handing out leaflets. Jeez, they were good. Now I am wondering how I could have been so gullible?

      Please, get a life. And use the money to get therapy.

      • I take your point about Occam’s Razor. What I’ve done is put forward 10 points for 4 events. So far no one has put forward a SINGLE point favouring the opposing hypothesis for any of those 4 events. So my 10 points may not be considered proof as such, however, if my 10 points are valid and no one can up with 10 (or, so far, even one) favouring the opposing hypothesis I’d say, if not proof per se, pretty compelling, no?

        The buildings didn’t need to be cleared in advance, Big B. As the plane crashed was faked what they could have done was let off a couple of bombs or similar devices on empty floors and then evacuate the building so the people in the building were none the wiser. They thought a plane had crashed and they were being evacuated and, in fact, that was what happened – people were evacuated, however, we were told only some of the people were evacuated whereas it simply was everyone. Obviously, I don’t know what really happened but this is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.

        You can hear the jumpers? You mean the thud? Yes, Big B I’d say sandbags or something similar. Seriously, you think that if you hear a thud it must have been a jumper and not a faked noise?

        What I do not understand is why you, nor others in this argument, fail to appreciate the compelling logic for not killing and injuring the people. Do you not agree that the perps would have preferred NOT to kill and injure the people and thus avoid the militant and irate response of the loved ones? With this logic then the only question is: could they have done it without killing and injuring or were they compelled to do it for real as part of their terror op. I find the idea that they were compelled to do it for real quite strange as they obviously were able to propagandise people into believing everything else. And they do, in fact, ENJOY fooling us, that is their preferred MO. Don’t you see how they like doing it?

        • There was a militant reaction though: especially when Bush nominated Kissinger to lead the enquiry …four of the widows ‘persuaded’ him to recuse himself. Are you really suggesting that 2-3,000 people decided to leave the country in secret, and never contact their loved ones again? That’s illogical. Or were they all crisis actors? Because that is even more illogical.

          By your own definition: the simplest explanation is that they died. You have created an enormous burden of proof if you want to contend otherwise.

          They wanted their ‘Pearl Harbour’ but without casualties: your logic sanitises the most evil men in history, and disempowers the resistance to them.

          I say this not as your enemy, but I’m genuinely worried that you are becoming obsessed. Anyone can string a viable thought together, supplement it with other viable thoughts, and string together a seemingly reasonable hypotheses …but without any basis in empirical facts: it can be completely wrong. Stringing together 3 such unfalsifiable hypotheses: and saying that a few pictures and some text (I didn’t read it all) favour H1 over H2 is about the most Bayesian illogical thing I have seen.

          You need to learn to discriminate between abstract conceptualisation (without the fact); and a more objective rationalisation (with the fact). If your premises are epistemically false, your conclusions will be epistemically false. Justified true beliefs (as conclusions) can only follow (syllogistically) from empirically true premises. Otherwise, we can just subjectively rationalize anything we want: and say “Prove me wrong?” I can’t, no one can …but that does not necessarily mean you have a proof. Or even a case that is capable of being proved.

          • Oh yes, the Jersey widows nearly had Kissinger “fall off his chair” when they questioned him about the Bin Laden family being a client … sadly he was replaced by no less of an insider, Philip Zelikow. So much for the militance of the Jersey widows. Big B, what the perps did was implement a truther-targeted propaganda campaign with a bunch of disinformation agents pushing out their suspicion of government/recognition of controlled demolition while at the same time pushing out their dead husband, son, colleague. What was really important to the perps was that all of us, truther and believer alike, believed the 3,000-dead-6,000-injured lie. With only a part of the truth the truthers cannot get the truth out. Believers will reject outright that the US government was responsible because they do not believe the govt would kill all the people in the buildings. And in this rejection they are absolutely right! It wouldn’t be part of their MO. Sure they’ll send their soldiers off to self-generated wars to die or return and suicide and they’ll kill countless thousands overseas but it would not be part of their MO to kill the people in the buildings so the truthers will be stymied in getting the truth out. On the other hand, both truthers and believers alike have the problem that once they believe in the tragedic deaths of a number of people they find it hard to countenance the idea that those people didn’t die. It seems offensive or sacrilegious to question those deaths.

            See how they’ve got us screwed no matter what?

            I’m not at all suggesting that 3,000 people went overseas although a few might have. They have various people do various things and some of them aren’t real. They can take a single photo and manipulate it to look like 5 different people. A number of different things would have been done to account for all the 3,000 people but I don’t know what they were.

            What I assert and please contradict my assertion as you see fit is this:

            When 3,000 people have died and 6,000 have been injured the photographic record must show a single photo that clearly identifies one of the people as dead or injured. The photographic record does not yield a single photo that does this. There is no photo of an injured person that is not inconsistent with someone participating in a drill and I assert that for a real event there must be a photo where the person does not look as if they could be participating in a drill but looks injured in a way that cannot be confused with a person in a drill.

            Additionally, there is a mismatch of recorded dead people with the Social Security Death Index and there are anomalies in the memorial listings.

            You can check these out in my exercise

            • Frankly Speaking says

              You clearly like to place complex events in the real world into boxes, which you define, with clear borders, according to your warped belief system…or what you are told to say. Good luck, but it doesn’t work with the rest of us here. Try writing for the “strange” or “weird” pages of one of the MSM organs, you’ll do very well there, but you are way short of the intellect and independence of mind required to compete and influence here. Now bugger off.

              • I’ve had two articles published in Off-Guardian, Frankly Speaking. I really don’t understand your hostility. What I say has both a logical and evidential basis.

                It’s incredibly straightforward. 9/11 was a psyop where the only real thing the perps wanted was to bring down the buildings. They didn’t want to kill 3,000 or injure 6,000 obviously because the loved ones and the injured themselves would be marching on the capitol, not politely questioning Kissinger about a relationship with a client.

                So if they didn’t want to kill and injure the only question is, “Were they able to fake it?” Yes, they were and the evidence shows it. Not a single photo of an injured person inconsistent with a drill. A large number of people not showing in the SSDI and a number of other factors. There is no clear photographic evidence whatsoever of a single dead person or a single injured person. That’s 9,000 people where we do not have clear evidence of a single one.

                If you really believe in the deaths of 3,000 and injury to 6,000 on 9/11 you are most welcome to respond to my $5,000 challenge. You choose your own judge, anyone who works in coordinating emergency response. Can’t get fairer than that. Please put your money where your mouth is. I have.

          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            Engaging with a hasbara (denying the five dancing Israelis-really, how blatant can it get?)disinfo hack is a waste of energy.

      • vexarb says

        Or use your $5,000 to gumshoe around New York interviewing friends and relatives of the 1,600 persons whose names are read out on Sept 9th each year. You may find they are more convincing than a handful of MSM photos.

        • But vexarb why is there only a handful of photos? Shouldn’t the photographic record PROVIDE us with evidence. Why is only a handful of photos available and why are all the photos of the injured perfectly consistent with participation in a drill?

          I really do not understand. The logic of them not wanting to actually kill and injure for real is simply so strong. It would make no sense for them to do it for real. None at all.

  5. It is hard for many in the U.S. to get their mind around the idea that the U.S. government would willfully kill thousands of it’s own citizens in the 9/11 false flag. Part of the reason this is difficult for Americans to grasp is that most Americans have no knowledge whatsoever of the CIA/NATO role in slaughtering Western Europeans over decades through Operation Gladio.

    Most Americans also have never cracked a single book by the many excellent investigative journalists to study the U.S. political assassinations of the 1960’s. Had they bothered to look they would see massive evidence of State involvement in the political murders of JFK, MalcolmX, MLK and RFK – literally the entire top tier of progressive leadership of the nation killed within 5 years.

    President “Bush the Dumber” referred to the so called “intelligence failures” that “allowed 9/11” a “failure of imagination.” I’d say the only “failure of imagination” I’ve seen is in the psyches of my fellow American’s in terms of their inability to come to terms with exactly how psychopathic, amoral, violent and without the slightest scruples or human decency our U.S. leadership is and has been for decades. If a government official defending the murder of a half a million Iraqi children as “worth it” doesn’t wake us up, I’m not really sure what will.

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is the go to site for demolishing the official story. Their work ongoing and is very much worth supporting.

  6. See also:
    “A Sad Anniversary: 17 Years Since Nine Eleven and a Sign on the Wall”: https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/a-sad-anniversary-17-years-since-nine-eleven-and-a-sign-on-the-wall/
    And very dangerous is the conspiracy between the Power Elite and the media to turn reality upside down:
    „Media, Independent and Mainstream: Fake News and Fake Narratives“: https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/media-independent-and-mainstream-fake-news-and-fake-narratives/
    Weekend regards

  7. vexarb says

    Interesting. This article comes from the Wonderful Land of Oz. By my count that makes 4 real names ATL (eg Tim Anderson, John Pilger) and another half dozen pseudonyms I’ve noticed BTL. Must be som.thing in the air down under.

    Good on yer! cobbers.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Austfailure has been sinking into a Rightwing sewer since the Whitlam Government, our one and only decent, sane and intelligent Federal Government, was destroyed by the USA working in alliance with our local Right, and Satan Murdoch. We will get another installment of our comeuppance this summer, as an El Nino plus the climate destabilisation that our Right and the Murdoch media cancer STILL furiously deny, devastates the land. I expect a great, possibly terminal, bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, for a start, and if not this year, soon, very soon.

      • vexarb says

        Mulga, I am sorry for all that bad in Oz as elsewhere in “The West”, but take heart; population genetics shows there have been “bottlenecks” where the human race went down to just a handful of survivors in some places before it began to climb there again. There is good seed in Oz, hope they make it through the looming Anthropogenic 6th Mass Extinction.

        “Cry, cry on the bad / But may the good prevail!” — Aeschyles

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          The good have lost, comprehensively, in Austfailure, throughout my life. It is hard to be optimistic, but thanks for your kind words.

  8. whatsleft says

    While I appreciate the serious investigation of the events of 9/11, appealing to an out and out fascist to be an ally is utter folly.

  9. I realise that for this short synopsis Alison Broinowski had to condense everything down. For brevity, and necessity, therefore, she has had to leave out the most vital common denominator that links all the ‘structural deep events’ (SDEs) in Peter Dale Scott’s work: the Continuity Of Government (COG) planning network. This has grown into a supra-military, supra-intelligence transnational parapolitical Deep State: with its own crypto-clearance (beyond Top-Secret); untraceable ultra-communications network; and access to black ‘off-the-books’ terrorist financing and dark money networks (for instance, the former BCCI).


    It was within this network Cheney and Rumsfeld were embedded for 20 years: only to re-emerge to lead the 9/11 coup d’etat, suspend the constitution, implement post-democratic COG ‘shadow’ government, enact the pre-written Patriot Act; and bestow the ‘divine authority’ for pre-emptive war upon the POTUS – in the name of ‘National Security’. And the man who embedded them to empower themselves thus warrants special consideration. His whole life is an SDE or Deep State event: G W ‘Bush the Greater Evil’ (BGE).

    COG planning can be traced back to the Eisenhower regime, and the need to counter ‘nuclear decapitation’ (though it is doubtful that outside the American evangelical exceptionalist psyche the Soviets even possessed such a capability in the 1950s). But it did not really take off until the Reagan regime, which may yet go down in history as BGE’s first term as POTUS. As well as REX 84 and BGEs first attempted coup d’etat and attempted assassination of Reagan …COG planning was specifically revealed at the North Iran-Contra Congressional Hearings (on which Dick Cheney and Lee Hamilton were members. Both link directly to 9/11: Cheney (with Rumsfeld) for the suspension of the constitution and implementation of COG …and Hamilton chairing a similar high-toxicity 9/11 sanitation committee.)

    [Another fundamental aspect of SDEs in Dale Scott’s work is that the same personnel – such as the White House ‘Plumbers’ – keep resurfacing …for instance from the JFK assassination to Watergate].

    As per the recent criticism of me: I do not see that there is much to be gained from being drawn into studying SDEs as individual events (ie what makes one special). The real revelation comes from the structural overview of viewing these events a creeping crypto-fascism bent on militarising the mind …which the only permanent solution to is peace: real peace – not pseudo-militaristic peace (hence my distinction of the two).

    I have a proposal further to this: that the recent Skripal/Russiagate events constitute an SDE. They reveal a transatlantic collusion between, what I am loosely identifying as the ex-MI6 ‘Dearlove Cabal’, and the better known Clinton Mafia …which as the Bush/Clinton/Obama Crime Family also links the lineage and heritage of all SDEs together. I stress that this can only be a loose working hypothesis which is inferential, though not wholly abstract, neither is there a surplus of concrete fact. It is my ‘meta-conspiracy theory’ …which may, or may not, be purely theoretical? You don’t expect crypto-fascists to draw us a map: but Dale Scott’s work does substantiate an inter-connectedness of the SDEs.

    Beside which, neoliberalism has enriched to hitherto unseen excess, a transnational capitalist superclass. What motivates the Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWI) of the transnational capitalist superclass is not philanthropy …but self-maximising personal gain to the exclusion of all else. Which is why I infer a ‘synarchic supra-society’ (SS) acting solely for its own self-determination, self-preservation, and self-maximising accumulation. Even its ‘charity’ and ‘civil society’ promotion is superself-promotion.

    Skripalgate, with its links to Russiagate, fits my definition of a Deep State event. I had to laugh out loud last night when Theresa may said that the current episode (the tourist/GRU ‘hitmen’) was an “insult to the intelligence of the British public”. Indeed it is. It is usual for a crime to proceed the distinction of criminals. But I do not think that the stupidity of the false accusations should mask the revelation of another SDE?

    • robjira says

      Excellent comment, though extremely alarming. And yes, do take care of yourself.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      You must not underestimate the influence of the Israel First Zionazis in the ruling Western, mostly ‘Five Eyes’, cabal. They add, with their clerico-fascist ideology, an added dimension of not just utter immorality, but an active genocidal drive against their ‘enemies’, ie anyone who refuses to bow and grovel before them. The crucifixion of Corbyn is a perfect example of their modus operandi, minus, so far, only their habitual recourse to murder.

  10. Trump knows what really happened on 911 because he is a NYC real estate developer, just like Lucky Larry Silverstein. As long as he keeps this knowledge written up and tucked away to be opened only at his death, Trump is safe.

    • Are you saying all NYC skyscrapers are loaded up with explosives to allow controlled demolition at short notice in an emergency?

      • Jim Scott says

        I did not read that rtj1211. I read about the twin towers buildings but not all buildings in New York. Best not to exaggerate don’t you think?

      • can anyone credibly come up with the kind of emergency which might necessitate detonation of the said pre-fixed explosives ? Against a risk of accidental detonation? And no one knew ? No one noticed? Are all sniffer-dogs now redundant?

  11. An essential thing to understand about how the power elite perpetrate their terror hoaxes is that they understand how people group into those who question and those who don’t and for those who question they have “special” propaganda campaigns just for them.

    They know that the truth can be easily determined but they know that only a small percentage of the population will bother with that truth so they push out the “truth” (or more accurately a distorted version of it) that anyone can determine (never, of course, truth that is not in the public domain one way or another) and then mix it with lies or control it whatever way they choose. They are not afraid of the truth as they know that most people don’t pay attention in the first place. So they very cleverly transform it from a seeming liability into a magical propaganda asset to fool those who are interested in the truth and think they’ve found it – but they haven’t – or at least not the bit that’s really important because the power elite have mixed it up with their lies and fooled them. They operate at a much more sophisticated level than we give them credit for.

    9/11 is an exemplar of propaganda where distorted truth is mixed with lies. And distraction is used to maximal effect too – not that that’s a difficult one. People are so easily distracted by things that are not important to the fundamental case.

    • One question: if 3000 people did not die on 9/11, where were 3000 people shipped to to live 17 years completely incommunicado?

      These people worked at WTC, so if they did not die but did disappear, where are they now?

      Also, how were DNA identifications falsified using evidence from Ground Zero?

      • You’re making assumptions that they all worked at the WTC. Some were, some weren’t.

        They didn’t simply use the names of 3,000 real live people although some were. There are obvious people such as Barbara Olson and John O’Neill. I have no idea what happens to the well-known people (people with no profile might simply move town). Do they live the rest of their lives on a Greek island or what? It is a mystery. However a number of names are made up and they probably use the names of dead people too. The intelligence agencies would be able to help you there – they excel at that sort of stuff but I’d say they wouldn’t be forthcoming if you asked them 🙂

        How were the DNA IDs falsified? The same way the NIST report was a complete fraud. That’s easy.

        • If literally no one died on 9/11 then everyone who has found human remains in the dust must be lying. This seems an unnecessarily extreme hypothesis.

          Is it not possible in your view that some died that day, just far fewer than claimed? I think your audience might be able to at least get round that idea.

          But before even going this far you need hard data to suggest fraudulent deaths. You ask ‘where are the grieving families’? But when they’re pointed out to you you say they’re fake, based on nothing more substantive than a picture you think looks a big dodge.

          You need more than this.

          Has anyone who claims no one died that day done ANY research to back it up? Is there any evidence these people fail to show up on social security indexes etc? Did Simon Shack try to contact the alleged families?

          A couple of iffy pics is just not enough for such an extreme claim.

          • I truly do not understand your argument. We keep going round in circles here. I state myself there are alleged grieving families. These people are hired. They’re disinformation agents. A significant number of disinformation agents were hired for this major psyop and they’re in it for the long haul. The janitor, the grieving father, the grieving wives, the woman who collected dust, the fired employee whose colleagues perished while he was stuck in traffic on his way to an important meeting, the soldier who feared she’d triggered the bomb at the Pentagon when she turned on her computer. I knew about these people all along. Before, I thought they were real but now I know they’re disinformation agents and I know there’s quite a large number more.

            Can you agree to the idea that disinformation agents were hired for this event?

            There is nothing extreme in my hypothesis. It is, in fact, the only thing that makes sense.

            I’ve asked you these questions before but you didn’t answer them. Please answer them this time.

            Did the perps have a reason to kill 3000 and injure 6000?

            With controlled demolition so obvious do you think the perps would want the killing and injuring to happen for real?

            Do you think that they would have been able to propagandise us into believing 3000 died and 6000 were injured?

            Please answer these questions so we don’t keep going around in circles.

            • Stop dodging and then making transparent attempts to hide the fact by projecting your failure to answer back on me. You have been repeatedly asked questions you fail to answer. I have not.

              I appreciate you think you’re correct, but that’s not evidence!

              Just to be clear, you thinking something is fake or even you arguing why you think they don’t need to kill people IS NOT EVIDENCE. . Evidence for fakery is something that would only exist or make sense IF THE DEATHS HAD BEEN FAKED. You have not produced anything that even comes close to that. In fact you’ve produced nothing but a rambling mish-mash of your own subjective assumptions

              Let me ask you for a final time – Have you or anyone done even elementary research of the kind a real investigation into this would encompass?

              Have you or any other researcher checked the social security index?

              Have you or any other researcher tried to trace or contact the families of the alleged victims?

              Have you or any other researcher checked funeral details, burial details, visited the alleged graves, checked birth registrations, school records?

              Have any of you done anything more sophisticated than watching some YouTube vids and pronouncing your personal view on how believable you find them?

              Serious question. Stop dodging and smoke-blowing – answer.

              • What you think are requirements for proof are not what I think are required. I think proof can be shown in a variety of ways.

                The first thing to consider is the credibilty of the claim that 3000 died and 6000 were injured on 9/11. As everything else told us was clearly a lie what are the compelling reasons to believe this particular claim?

                Surely we expect some evidence PROVIDED of this claim. Surely we should see clear evidence of a SINGLE injured or dead person of the 9000 people. There were quite a number of photos of the day’s events but we do not see convincing evidence of a single one of the 9000. We do see photos of people who look “drill injured” and we see the gruesome corpse of an alleged jumper that really does look fake but we see not a single convincing photo of any of the 9000 people.

                If you look on my Occam’s Razor exercise you’ll see a link to how the names match to the Social Security Death Index – not a good match at all.

                If you believe that 3000 died and 6000 were injured can you let me know what persuades you of that belief?

                • vexarb says

                  @flaxgirl: “‘we see the gruesome corpse of an alleged jumper that really does look fake”.

                  Does not look fake to me.

                  • For this reason I like to use Occam’s Razor, do my 10 points and then challenge others who believe the opposing hypothesis to provide theirs. It’s pointless getting bogged down in over a single photo “You think it looks fake but I think it looks real”. However, vexarb, I’m sure you wouldn’t lay money on the corpse being real would you? You wouldn’t lay money.

                    I assert with authority that there is not a SINGLE photo of one of the 9,000 people alleged to have died or been injured that clearly shows this. Not a single photo. If you can find me a single photo about which we will not dispute please do.

                    I assert that in this case that the claim is untrue. In the real world the situation cannot be where such a claim is made, a number of photos are taken and yet not one clearly shows a dead or injured person.

                    Can you give me a good reason that that is a possibility in the real world?

                    • so,

                      1) non-mutilated corpses are evidence of fakery

                      2) mutilated corpses are also evidence of fakery

                      What is NOT evidence of fakery?

                      Are you a paramedic, EMT, pathologist? Do you have any experience or skill set that makes you able to assess the realism of traumatic injuries?

                      Who knows, perhaps you may even answer some of this latest batch of questions?

                • Simple says


                  Not trying to be a smart arse, but this took 6 seconds to find. This list would be pretty hard to fake without attracting attention.
                  The first I heard of a questioning of the official 911 account was a DVD of a conference called Confronting The Evidence (2005). The audience was packed with victims’ family members who wanted answers.
                  I am firmly in the James Corbett camp regarding 911. He released a video a couple of months ago encouraging those who question the official narrative to stick with the traceable, provable, linear facts as anything else is a waste of time.

                  • Mulga Mumblebrain says

                    The ludicrous, and nasty, assertions that no-one died in the 9/11 false-flag are clear disinformation imbecilities intended to discredit the real, and pretty obvious, truths about 9/11, through guilt by association.

                    • Please find me a single photo Mulga which clearly shows a dead or injured person of the 9,000. Do you believe what the media tell you when they don’t back it up with the visual evidence. Why do you believe in the deaths and injured but not in the buildings and the planes?

                      Do you think that the power elite are so reckless that they will kill and injure all those people when controlled demolition was so obvious. Do you know what the word psyop means? Do you not think that it makes for more sense for 9/11 to be a complete psyop rather than a false flag?

                    • Frankly Speaking says

                      “I have to say I do think it’s odd that not a single one of those people has ever appeared on the internet saying that they were a participant in a drill. I do think that’s odd”

                      It’s only odd in your brain. To the rest of us, the crisis actors don’t come out becuase they don’t actuall exist. It’s hard to fathom for you, but here on Planet Earth 1+1=2 not 11.

                • Frankly Speaking says

                  Sorry to say, utter BS. It’s a completely sociopathic mindset to ignore that scores of firefighters were killed, that people flung themselves from x stories high to instant death. Sick.

                  • Mulga Mumblebrain says

                    It’s hasbara, Frankly, a smokescreen to divert attention from the real culprits, and discredit the real truth-seekers with its loathsome assertion that no-one died. How many ‘actors’ do you need to fake the deaths of three thousand, ie how many relatives, colleagues and friends? Nasty idiocy.

                    • It’s a little hard to estimate exactly how many people were really involved though, isn’t it? I’m really quite ignorant of history, Mulga, but one thing I’ve always believed is that the Holocaust is not some complete aberration. A vast number of people needed to be complicit for the Holocaust to happen. Similarly, yes, there were probably thousands involved in 9/11 … but then some of those people probably didn’t even know they were participating just as there were people ignorant that they were helping the Holocaust happen. They were probably hired as crisis actors for some anonymous “anti-terror” drill and photographed on days pre-9/11. They probably also had to sign non-disclosure agreements. I have to say I do think it’s odd that not a single one of those people has ever appeared on the internet saying that they were a participant in a drill. I do think that’s odd. But evidence and logic favour 3,000 deaths and 6,000 injuries being a lie regardless.

  12. harry stotle says

    It is impossible to refute Alison Broinowski’s conclusion that 9/11 is part of a much wider pathology (which began with Hiroshima IMO) resulting in permenant militarisation of the US.

    How anyone can see a regime which aligns itself the worlds most despicable right wing gangsters and has a fearful reputation for orchestrating violence against any country that refuses to submit to its economic demands as a force for good is simply beyond me?

    9/11 proves that even the pretence of restraint is no longer required because in effect there is no political opposition (with sufficient public support) nor are there any honest voices in the MSM.
    Here, for example, the Guardian still censor those who do not buy into Bush’s ludicrous conspiracy theory, rationalising such cock-eyed logic with the fact the truth might upset those affected (no, seriously, this is what the censors at the Guardian would have us believe)

    Quite simply the US has become a one-party state ruled by an unaccountable clique of mass murderers while pretending to be the worlds policeman – its been going on so long that some of these nutters often fail to have insight into their own madness.
    I mean what chance of reason prevailing when Capt Erran Morad revealed the calibre of their elected officials?

    Surely it can only be a matter of time before tensions escalate to full blown conflict with some of the worlds other super powers?

  13. It’s counterintuitive. The perps anticipated that people would recognise the truth about the buildings and the faked plane crashes. Of course, they anticipated it – it’s way too obvious. They’re fine with us knowing that and you really do have to wonder why they seemed to offer us WTC-7’s collapse on a platter.

    But they want us to believe that they really killed and injured the people. This is the lie that is really important that we believe. Because while we don’t have the whole truth – that it was a complete psyop where the only reality was the collapses of the buildings – we cannot persuade the believers that it was an inside conspiracy. The believers will simply reject outright that the US government killed their own citizens in the buildings – and rightly so.

    Clever, no?

    Also, it makes it so taboo – that the government would kill their own citizens. Highly taboo. Then again we’re equally screwed trying to persuade them it was a big hoax cos people don’t believe that either. And when people have experienced sorrow over what they believe is the tragedy of 3,000 people dying the idea that they were just crisis actors in a drill is offensive, sacreligious. Truthers as well as believers feel that way.

    We’re totally screwed either way.

    • Jim Scott says

      I recall that soldiers were used as crash test dummies to see what the health impact of radiation from nuclear explosions would be. Also radioactve material from nuclear energy plants was deliberately released into the air over US urban communities to test the health impacts. Currently Governments are deliberately ignoring the science on climate change to protect the interest of corporate donors even though we will be wiped out if we continue on our current path.
      Not only are Western Governments psychopathic they are incredibly stupid.

  14. Very eye opening documentary….Everything is a Rich Mans Trick. I wish you well with your Occams razor challenge. You may get no response at all. Of course, you know the reason for that.

    • Yes, it most certainly is. In it, the filmmaker, Francis Richard Conolly, says “All terror is fake”. As this film was what first awakened me to how the world is run and I knew absolutely nothing at that point my reaction was, “Gee, that’s a big call.” Now I know the statement is no exaggeration whatsoever.

  15. “Conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” are extremely effective propaganda weapons used to silence and discredit those who question the official narrative. There are conspiracies galore and they are happening right in front of our noses.

    “Gathering of evidence” is generally thought of as something that should be done when you want to prove a case but for massive Hitlerian lie/Emperor’s New Clothes events such as 9/11, you really don’t need to gather very much evidence at all and debating lots and lots of evidence is simply a waste of time and a distraction – which, of course, the perps love. Distraction is another major propaganda weapon that gets in the way of seeing the truth. It makes no difference exactly how the buildings were brought down, they obviously came down by controlled demolition, which could not be more obvious than in the case of WTC-7 – a more perfect implosion you could not find. And vast numbers of others things don’t matter either, 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration in the collapse of WTC-7 is the only evidence required to know that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy. I’m sure there are a number of other pieces of evidence that all on their own prove it, too.

    The most important truth of 9/11 which the perps have very carefully hidden from us through a truther-targeted propaganda campaign is that 3,000 people did not die and nor were 6,000 people injured. That’s the most important truth as, without it, believers of the official story will not be swayed. They are convinced that the US government would not kill all the people in the buildings – and about that, they’re perfectly correct. The US government wouldn’t do that (even if what they’ve done since and before is so much worse), it wouldn’t be part of their MO but also it would be utterly foolish. In a case where controlled demolition is so obvious the perps would not kill 3,000 people and injure 6,000. While we accept, if reluctantly, what we’re told by media/government in normal circumstances when a loved one dies we become much more alert to anomalies in what we’re told and much more militant. The loved ones of the 3,000 who died, the 6,000 who were injured and the injured themselves would be marching on the capitol very quick smart if 3,000 people really had died and 6,000 were injured. Very, very quick smart.

    Of course, the perps didn’t do that. It makes no sense. 9/11 was a psyop where the only real thing they wanted was to bring down all the buildings at the World Trade Centre. They brought down 3 on the day and the rest later. They didn’t give a damn about the terrorists, the planes or killing the people – they just wanted us to think that a terrible terror event occurred.

    Do you seriously think that if they can propagandise us into believing that 19 barely-trained terrorists hijacked four planes with boxcutters – boxcutters! – and navigated them through the most defended airspace on earth to crash them into 3 buildings, 2 of which, 110-storey steel frame skyscrapers, crashed symmetrically to the ground in 12 seconds (a physical impossibility) that they can’t also propagandise us into believing the 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured? Too easy! (as we say in Australia).

    If you really believe that 3,000 people died and 6,000 people were injured here is a $5,000 Occam’s Razor challenge to demonstrate your belief. http://www.occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html

    • Forever Young says

      It’s an impossibility for the creatures responsible for the attack, to have communicated with the 3000 or so people who you claim didn’t die…

      To communicate with all of them and coerce them into complying with their insidious game, and to disappear from their families..

      Perhaps 1 or 2 people would go along with it, and even if a few hundred of them did, that would still leave a lot of ordinary people who worked in the buildings with an awareness that something was going to happen, and that would have been reported in some form or another…

      It’s a clever and creative mind you have Flaxgirl, and of course, some of the points you make are accurate but i’m afraid that you’ve woven the hypothesis of the 3000 deaths being faked, deep into your mind and it’s hard to change… But it just aint accurate… These people died in the buildings for sure and the creatures who demolished the buildings saw it as collateral damage in light of their wider satanic agenda…

      Create as much trauma and grief as possible through large numbers of the population at the same time and manipulation is made just that little bit easier…

      But the Truth will always shine through eventually.

      • So you believe that it’s possible for 3,000 people to die and 6,000 people to be injured without the media providing a single convincing photo of any of those 9,000 people?

        Don’t speculate about what is and isn’t possible, look at the evidence.

        Why are you assuming they coerced people into anything? They hired them or they’re already agents.

        Please read my Occam’s Razor exercise to understand how it’s possible for them to fake the deaths and injuries just as they faked the plane crashes and propagandised us into believing the plane crashes were real and the buildings collapsed by fire.

        • what do you mean “without a single convincing photo”? Convincing to whom? You? Me? Do you want to take a poll? Whose ability to be convinced are you using as a measure of reality? Is this a convincing photo? If not, why not? Too mutilated? Not mutilated enough? How many real dead mutilated corpses have you seen? Do you know what a body really looks like after falling for a hundred floors? Can you tell at a glance that it doesn’t look like this?

          Find some images of death that ‘convince’ you and then explain the difference. (links only please, no direct posting of graphic images)

          • Let’s dispense with arguing over the graphic images of the dead and focus on the injured.

            I assert that there is not a single photo of the alleged injured that is not inconsistent with people participating in a drill.

            I also assert that when 6,000 people have genuinely been injured there should be, in the real world, a photo of one of those people that is only consistent with real injury and cannot be alleged to be consistent with a drill.

            If you disagree with these assertions please give your rationale.

            • Let’s dispense with arguing over the graphic images of the dead and focus on the injured.

              I assert that there is not a single photo of the alleged injured that is not inconsistent with people participating in a drill.

              I also assert that when 6,000 people have genuinely been injured there should be, in the real world, a photo of one of those people that is only consistent with real injury and cannot be alleged to be consistent with a drill.

              If you disagree with these assertions please give your rationale.

              • Frankly Speaking says

                There you go, talking to yourself…you should know what that means.

    • Frankly Speaking says

      “ There are conspiracies galore and they are happening right in front of our noses.”

      There are undoubtedly several conspiracies but some people think that EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. Conspiracy nuts think they’re very smart, but in truth it’s exceptionally lazy thinking, a cop out from real analysis of evidence and weighing it up, even considering probabilities when evidence is lacking.

      • I present a logical case for 3,000 deaths and 6,000 injuries not being what the perps would have done for real, this is true. But logic (or theory, if you will, is only part of it). I also refer to evidence … and, of course, the ludicrous lack of it supporting the official story.

    • Admin: This “flaxgirl” is a paid troll making outrageous claims that discredit 9/11 truth. Check up on “her” IP address and other identifiers.

      • My IP address? That really is a good one. I’m totally open, Daniel, totally open. But I have to say I wonder about you. It’s hilarious, isn’t it, everyone thinking everyone else is a disinfo agent.

        I have a website, Occam’s Razor on Terror Events, where I explain everything I believe in a perfectly straightforward manner.

        Daniel, please answer these questions:
        —Do you think the perps would prefer to have killed and injured the people for real or simply faked it and made us believe it?
        —If you think they would have preferred to do it for real, why would that have been?
        —Do you think that intelligence agencies outside 9/11 have faked deaths?
        —Can you give a link to a single photo of one of the injured on 9/11 that is not inconsistent with someone participating in a drill?


Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole