Pipe Bombs: Frantic Denunciations of the False Flag Concept

Graeme MacQueen

A photo the device mailed to CNN/John Brennan. Note the digital clock, explosives experts have said that a bombmaker would never use one.

Onto the 24-hour reality show that is U.S. politics, 15 package bombs recently made their entrance.

The devices were sent to vocal opponents of Mr. Trump, most of them prominent members of the Democratic Party. The incident became public on October 25, less than two weeks before the November 6 elections that mark the middle of Trump’s first term.

Now, it is an interesting question as to whether the designated perpetrator, Cesar Sayoc, is a lone wolf terrorist or a patsy acting on behalf of larger forces. I am encouraged to see researchers exploring the second possibility. But my focus in this article is different.

The suggestion that the package bomb incidents might be false flag attacks—attacks by opponents of Trump deceptively imputing the attacks to his supporters to discredit them before the elections—was rapidly put forth. Among the fastest off the mark were right-wing pundits, so it was easy enough for various “liberals” (whatever this term means today in the U.S.) to characterize the false flag suggestion as a variety of right-wing conspiracy theory, and as both intellectually ridiculous and morally disgusting. The evident aim has been to stigmatize the concept and drive it from responsible political discourse.

Among the most prominent of the denunciations appeared in CNN and The New York Times.

The article by CNN Editor-at-large Chris Cillizza’s was entitled, “Debunking the despicable ‘false flag’ theory on the mail bombs.” He quoted Rush Limbaugh’s claim that a “Democratic operative” could be responsible for the attacks in order to make it look as if “the Republicans are a bunch of insane lunatics.” Cillizza noted that although we may be tempted to dismiss such “conspiracy crap” without comment, we must not. To refuse to comment on it is “to let it fester.” We must publicly challenge it. His article, it seems, was meant to be a model of such debunking.

Screengrab from CNN

It was not a good model.

Cillizza concentrated on what he believed to be the logistical impossibilities in Limbaugh’s scenario. He named two steps in the scenario:

  1. “Someone or someones who wanted to help Democrats—and the media, I guess, somehow?—would send a series of pipe bombs to prominent Democrats across the country.”
  2. “Then Democrats or the media or, again, someone, would have to have coordinated with the state and local police—not to mention federal authorities—so that law enforcement said that these were functional bombs (even though, again, according to this theory, they weren’t).”

He feels that simply to have named these steps is to have shown how ridiculous the hypothesis is.


There is nothing impossible about Step 1. Surely Cillizza is not saying that the faction of the U.S. intelligence community hostile to Trump—nicely represented by James Clapper and John Brennan, two recipients of the package bombs—is incapable of fashioning a few clumsy devices and sending them through the mail? The material in the 2001 anthrax envelopes was much more sophisticated and difficult to acquire than the non-functional “pipe bombs,” yet the U.S. intelligence community remains a prime suspect in these attacks.

As for the purpose in sending out such bombs, one of the first questions we ask when confronted by a violent event of this sort is, Cui bono? Who benefits? I cannot see how Trump and his supporters benefit, whereas the benefit to mainstream Democrats—of the Clinton variety, no threat to the established order—is obvious. They get to claim the status of nonviolent, sane victim.

What about Cillizza’s Step 2? I confess I am defeated by his prose. I do not know what he is trying to say. But let me speculate that he is claiming this conspiracy theory involves too many people (various levels of police, for example) and that it involves an impossibly complex deception—policing agencies portraying inoperative devices as operative.

Once again we might fruitfully examine the anthrax attacks. There was an impressive amount of coordination involved in these attacks. As far as policing was concerned, this was mainly achieved by the FBI chasing away other levels of police while keeping strict control over its own personnel when they wandered too near the truth.

But the coordination in the anthrax case went far beyond policing. Media were deeply implicated. The media faithfully set out the story they were handed by authorities: the attacks appeared to have been carried out by al-Qaeda, with a strong possibility of Iraqi involvement. This story was successfully propagated, for example, through a wide variety of newspapers, from The New York Times and Washington Post to the Guardian. By the end of 2001—less than four months after the attacks began—Homeland Security, the FBI and the White House had been forced to admit that neither al-Qaeda, nor Iraq, nor domestic Muslims, appeared to have had anything to do with these attacks. Instead, they came from the heart of the US Military-Industrial-Intelligence community. As to who, precisely, in this community carried out the attacks, there remains disagreement; but even a sketchy familiarity with the anthrax attacks knocks out Cillizza’s Step 2 objections.

A useful rule of thumb is that if a thing has happened it is possible. We know a violent, coordinated and complex false flag attack is possible in the U.S. because it happened.

But if this was the best CNN could do, what about The New York Times? Kevin Roose produced a piece somewhat longer, although not much more thoughtful, than the CNN editor’s.

Screengrab from The New York Times

Roose let us have it with the old chestnut, “conspiratorial thinking has always been with us”, and then proceeded to dance lightly from the grassy knoll to the moon landing to 9/11 without troubling us with sources, evidence or other bothersome material.

If you are like me you will find yourself, in an increasingly bad mood, asking: has this young fellow carefully researched all of these incidents? Has he, in fact, carefully researched a single one of them?

Like the CNN editor, Roose spends his time countering claims that the package bombs sent to prominent enemies of Mr. Trump might have been sent by people wanting to discredit Trump and his allies. He places these “conspiracy theorists” on the political right and associates them with Trump’s presidency. More than this, he uses, and explains, the term “false flag” and tries hard to discredit it. “False flag philosophy—the idea that powerful groups stage threats and tragic events to advance their agendas—is now a bizarrely common element of national news stories.”

This statement is a sign of progress in the opening of the American mind. We should celebrate the good news that the concept of false flag is common in political discourse, common enough that The New York Times feels a need to discredit it. This achievement came through much labour by many people over many years.

That Roose finds the concept “bizarre” is, of course, to be regretted, but this merely testifies to his naivety and his poor knowledge of false flag attacks, of which there have been plenty in human history (see Sources).

As a matter of fact, the particular type of false flag attack being discussed in the present case, where Group A attacks itself and blames Group B, is centuries old. In China it used to be called the Stratagem of Wounded Flesh (see Sources).

The notion that the false flag concept and the conspiracy concept are the exclusive property of the political right is absurd. They are ideas available to, and used by, all those who genuinely care about what is going on around them and wish to have an adequate intellectual toolbox. I am not on the political right and I am not a supporter of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the like, but I do not for that reason choose to shut down my brain.

Although we may not want to admit it, repetition is half the battle in public fights and debates. Let us use the term “false flag” repeatedly and ensure that it remains where it apparently is at the moment: in the center of U.S. political discourse.

Graeme MacQueen is the former director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University. He is a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, former co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and an organizer of the 2011 Toronto Hearings, the results of which have been published in book form as The 9/11 Toronto Report. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)


  1. The CNN article: Chris Cillizza, “Debunking the despicable ‘false flag’ theory on the mail bombs”, CNN, Oct 25, 2018
  2. The NYT article: Kevin Roose, “‘False Flag’ Theory on Pipe Bombs Zooms From Right-Wing Fringe to Mainstream,” The New York Times, Oct. 25, 2018.
  3. Most comments on the anthrax attacks in this essay are based on my book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy. Clarity Press, 2014. But see also FBI whistleblower Richard Lambert’s lawsuit, paragraphs 50 ff.
  4. For examples of false flags, see the collection by Washington’s blog.
  5. The Wounded Flesh Stratagem can be found at least as early as the 14th century CE in the novel, Romance of the Three Kingdoms (San Guo Yan Yi). It can also be found as one among many stratagems in the later compilation, Thirty-six Stratagems. The Wikipedia article on the latter text offers an interpretative translation of ku rou ji: “inflict injury on oneself to win the enemy’s trust”. If the pipe bomb case is an instance of ku rou ji, the enemy of the perpetrators would be the U.S. population itself.
Originally published on Global Research

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Karl Rove used similar false flag in an election race early in his career, claiming his candidate’s office had been bugged and then staging a media opportunity of him ‘discovering’ the device. Anything is possible.


Anything is possible.

And then some.


It was very interesting searching Google after these pipe-bomb incidents with ‘pipe-bomb false-flag’ to see that all the most prominent search findings were articles denouncing ‘wicked/mad conspiracy theorists’ etc. Possibly this is another reason for these articles beyond their immediate audience.

harry stotle
harry stotle

“has this young fellow (Kevin Roose) carefully researched all of these incidents? Has he, in fact, carefully researched a single one of them?” – oh, you are a wag Graeme, can you not see the bind for the corporate media when dealing with truth or the underbelly of the intelligence community?

How many false flags have there been – now how many of them were picked up by the MSM at the time they were happening?

Only with the passage of time can journos belatedly, and painfully acknowledge how wrong they have been, and only then because of digging done by ‘conspiracy theorists’ – even when the truth is staring them in the face MSM stooges are still in denial.


I know I’m monomaniacal on the subject but nevertheless it’s good to get it straight – most false flags are not real false flags, they’re false-flag hoaxes including Bologna station and I’d imagine all the other “terror” attacks in Italy in that decade that were part of Operation Gladio. A false-flag hoax is so ludicrously easy to stage (the minimal effort they put into the actual staging is staggering when you look at it) while the consequences of a real false-flag are much more problematic. The loved ones of the dead who may swallow government/media lies, if reluctantly, under normal circumstances transform into uninhibited, strident, bashing-down-door protesters when loved ones are killed. And the perps don’t actually want to kill people, they only want you to believe people were killed so if they can stage death and injury by barely lifting a finger why on earth would they do it for real? … and they love fooling us.

All the effort is in the propaganda, endless amounts of it, not the staging – 9/11 being the exemplar.

When you look at the visual record of the alleged 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured on 9/11 all you can do is face-palm and gasp loudly! No, no, no, no, no! I wasn’t fooled for all those years by this complete joke of evidence for 9,000 people. No, no, no, no, no!

Until this very moment when I read the article I believed the anthrax attacks were a real false flag. Now I wonder. The fact that they staged death and injury for 9,000 on 9/11 – perhaps they staged the anthrax deaths and sickness as well. I’m not saying they did at all. It’s just that as so many events I look at are false-flag hoaxes it comes as a surprise to think, my goodness, this might be a real one. The fact that people are said to have died means absolutely nothing because they can simply give people a new identity and ship them off somewhere. Obviously, this is what happened to a number of people who were allegedly killed on 9/11 … and has happened for a number of people in other events. So could it have happened for anthrax? What we are fooled by is that we don’t get that the power elite are very happy to seem evil to truthers. They want truthers to believe that they’re not just doing the overt warmongering but also the false-flag stuff as well when they’re not – not for real anyway. Of course, this doesn’t make them less evil, they just don’t carry out these internal operations for real because there’s no good reason to – there is no advantage in doing it for real, all the advantage is in faking it. So now I’m intrigued. I will have to look at the anthrax attacks more carefully to see if there are signs it was a false-flag hoax. Right off the bat it seems odd that random people would be affected. I believe their preference is to control these things.

Simple facts:

— The power elite love fooling us – it entertains them enormously and helps them to distance themselves from us and thus justify treating us as people whose existence has no worth because we’re so utterly stupid in believing all the nonsense they feed us.

— The power elite do give us a chance – even when their basic story doesn’t add up in the first place, they very gratuitously lay on more ridiculousness, things that don’t add up, great discrepancy between show and tell, smiling grievers and on and on. (But when I inform people of this golden nugget that I learnt from false-flag analyst, Ole Dammegard, and clearly point out the evidence of it, they look at me skeptically or deride me. And yet it’s so very, very obvious – how much were we hammered with the fact that little Hani Hanjour couldn’t fly a plane and yet he was the one tasked with the impossibly-expert manoeuvre into the Pentagon? They lay it on so very thickly. No one could possibly accuse the perps of carrying out 9/11 in such a way that it required very serious investigation to determine that those responsible were not 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters. No one could accuse them of that.)


Hmmm. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Edwards_Ivins

— The entry under Allegations by Ivins’ counselor seems far-fetched and made me chortle. Duley seems a very unlikely therapist (although I know unlikely therapists exist) and Ivins’ alleged strange behaviour seems pretty over the top.

— The reporting of Ivins’ alleged obsession with the college sorority Kappa Kappa Gamma (KKG) also seems far-fetched.

While reference is made to Dr David Irwin, a psychiatrist who treated him in the late 1990s, in a quote from Duley, nothing is reported directly from him. In the LA Times, we’re vaguely told: “A psychiatrist who treated him in the late 1990s, Dr. David Irwin, confided to a therapist that Ivins was the “scariest” patient he had ever known,” however, it seems we get nothing substantial where you feel it’s coming from Irwin himself. You have to wonder why. Surely, his testimony would be important and be more reliable than Duley’s.

The LA Times article seems very far-fetched. I have to quote some.


After he discovered that a doctoral student working across the hall, Lori Babcock, had been active in Kappa Kappa Gamma, Ivins startled her one night with a spot-on recitation of the group’s secret initiation rituals. Then he pressed her for further details about the sorority.

“The hair on the back of my neck went right up,” Babcock recalled.

By late 1978, Ivins, then 32, and his wife, Diane, had moved to suburban Maryland. But he remained fixated on Nancy Haigwood, a married UNC student studying for her doctorate in microbiology.

Haigwood mentored younger members of Kappa Kappa Gamma at Chapel Hill, and Ivins resented that she had spurned his attempts to forge a friendship. She found him “cloyingly nice,” an oddball who craved constant attention.

In the spring of 1979, Haigwood suffered a career-threatening misfortune.

Everything that she had strived so hard for hinged on converting the data in her lab notebook into her doctoral dissertation. She kept the notebook, filled with hand-recorded hypotheses [hand-recorded hypotheses? – perhaps that makes sense to a scientist but it seems a little odd to me], results of experiments and other records of her scientific work, in a locked room in a lab building.

Suddenly, it was gone.

After a couple of days of agony, Haigwood received an anonymous note, saying the prized notebook could be found at a certain street mailbox in Chapel Hill. Police found it there and returned it to Haigwood. Many years later, Ivins would admit to the FBI what Haigwood had long suspected — that he was the thief.

Near his new place of work, the Defense Department’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., Ivins spilled out his feelings about Haigwood to a psychiatrist, Dr. Naomi Heller. He said he experienced Haigwood’s brush-off as a replay of his mother’s mockery of him during childhood.


The fact that Bruce Ivins was a highly-respected scientist does not mean that he wouldn’t have collaborated in a hoax. Malcolm Quantrill, an architect, academic and expert on Finnish architecture played a role in the Bologna station false-flag hoax.

If he really had suicided and they’d falsely reported all this far-fetched stuff about him, wouldn’t his family have objected?


So we have the anodyne report in Wikipedia of Robert Stevens receiving mail and being killed by anthrax. Why on earth would Bruce Ivins send this random person anthrax? And then we have this truther-targeted story:

“Robert Stevens died from anthrax on October 4, 2001. Stevens was a photo editor for The Sun, a supermarket tabloid housed in the AMI office building in Florida. According to media reports, the Florida anthrax letters carried a postal paper trail showing it was sent to the National Enquirer at its former address, but then got forwarded to the American Media, Inc., office in Boca Raton. The AMI offices housed both the National Enquirer and The Sun. The question arises: who would wish harm to this photo editor? Well, it seems that the National Enquirer had run photos of George Bush’s daughter, Jenna, falling down drunk. Four to six months before 911, these tabloids were having a field day with publishing photos of Bush’s daughters and their drunken escapades; papa Bush wasn’t too happy. Of course, all that stopped with the anthrax attacks.”

Don’t you love it? I completely swallowed it myself I’m ashamed to say. As if George Bush is going to commission an anthrax killing of a photojournalist who worked for a rag that published unbecoming photos of his daughter. It’s not as if she had a squeaky-clean reputation just as Bush did not himself.

It’s always the same: they push out the truther-targeted propaganda alongside the mass-targeted propaganda.


The fact that people are said to have died means absolutely nothing because they can simply give people a new identity and ship them off somewhere.

Wouldn’t it be a whole lot simpler, cheaper, and more reliable to just kill people for real?

Non-dead victims of false-flag terrorism would constitute a potentially catastrophic liability that might last for half a century. They would have to be constantly watched to make sure they didn’t wander off the reservation, even for some trivial reason like wanting to see their parents or children, and would have to be immediately liquidated if they showed any sign of being about to do so. Wouldn’t it be much safer and more efficient to just kill them at the officially-announced time and place? What possible advantage would there be in preserving them past their official expiration date?

The deep state seems to have gone to a lot of effort to kill off every sort of witness to the anomalies of the JFK assassination, for example. Why would even more inconvenient alleged victims of terrorism be treated any differently?

Why do you have this compulsive belief that the state doesn’t actually murder people? Do you imagine that the million-plus victims of the Iraq war have all been secretly given new identities in Argentina? Does some neoliberal NGO monitor fake terror events to make sure that nobody is actually harmed by the special effects, like the SPCA looking out for the dog and horse actors in a Hollywood movie production?


You’re strawmanning me milosevic. Of course, they kill hundreds of thousands of people but when it comes to false-flags it’s a different story. I’m sure there are real (and hybrid) false flags and the anthrax attacks may be one – I just have my doubts on it but I need to do more research. At the moment, for example, I’m wondering why the photos of Bruce Ivins don’t feel really current with the time that all the trouble was occurring and why there’s only one photo of his alleged wife, Diane, with her head turned. Could it be that he was already dead? Things do not add up. Can you not see that milosevic? They’re simply not credible.

I do find it remarkable that virtually no collaborators on these things talk but that doesn’t mean they’re not staged. Your questions about it being easier to just kill them sound reasonable but then if you kill them their loved ones are going to come out in force – which is the greater problem? I think we simply have to infer that collaborators are very loyal and they generally don’t present any danger of blowing the whistle … and know there might be undesirable consequences if they do. It’s very much an “us and them” situation. The power elite and their collaborators and “us”. I did read somewhere that someone ran into the Sandy Hook coroner in Las Vegas and he admitted that it was a staged event, however, who knows if that’s even true. Also, there’s Dutch ex-high-finance operative Ronald Bernard who’s come out (not on staged events but on the Satanic practices and other things the power elite do) – and he said he’s been tortured.

If you believe people died on 9/11 and at Sandy Hook and at the Manchester Bombing, there’s $5,000 waiting for you and you can choose your own judge – http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html. Do you not think that if I post a challenge that no one can respond to – and I assure you there are people who passionately believe the opposite of me and one person I know who could really use the money – that means something? No one can get even a single point. Not a single point. And that’s partly, at least, because the power elite deliberately do not stage their events as realistically as possible.


There seems to be a whole lot of evidence for the Sandy Hook Massacre and the Boston Marathon Bombing being largely or completely faked, for reasons best known to the perpetrators. That doesn’t constitute evidence that all such events are faked, in the sense that there are no real victims.

It may well be that the sets of real and alleged 9/11 victims are not completely identical, but in general, the simplest explanation consistent with the known facts is the most likely to be correct.

The standard denier argument against “conspiracy theories”, that “if that were true, somebody would have blabbed”, starts to acquire real weight, when applied to the claim that 3000 alleged victims of terrorism are either still alive, or never existed in the first place. (Which of these claims do you assert in relation to 9/11?)

I was previously unaware of the claim that 6000 people were somehow injured in the 9/11 event. It doesn’t seem to be a prominent feature of the Official Story — certainly no list of their names and injuries has ever been published — and I have no particular interest in either defending or refuting it.

As for your $5000 Challenge, the fact that you claim that no actual airplanes crashed at the WTC, based, as you have previously admitted, on total ignorance of physics, makes you a person of no credibility, in my opinion, and therefore not worth debating.


Actually, while I do admit to having a poor understanding of physics I still think it is very clear that no planes crashed. I’ve been looking at Newton’s Laws of Motion and trying to understand them better so I can make my case more convincing. There are many, many people who say no planes crashed, of course, including expert pilot, John Lear.

the simplest explanation consistent with the known facts is the most likely to be correct

Couldn’t agree more and that’s why I’ve done my Occam’s Razor exercises. Wikipedia states that 6,000 were injured. What other source do you have that contradicts that number?

I suggest you actually look at my 10-point exercise on the alleged 3,000 and 6,000 dead and I think you’ll find the evidence for these two numbers does not stack up in any shape or form – if you are not inclined to look at it I see no point in discussing the matter further. There are clear signs of fakery as well as clear signs that the perpetrators inform us deliberately that they are hoaxing us. My goodness, how difficult it is to get through the message that the power elite give us the signs that they are hoaxing us when it so very, very obvious.


Apologies. You didn’t suggest the 6,000 injured number was incorrect. However, regardless of whether it was a prominent feature, it is stated and we are shown images of the injured – very unconvincing ones. However little it is emphasised in the official story, it is extremely important to showing that death and injury were staged.


Actually, while I do admit to having a poor understanding of physics I still think it is very clear that no planes crashed. I’ve been looking at Newton’s Laws of Motion and trying to understand them better so I can make my case more convincing.

In other words, you start off with the idée fixe that no actual airplanes were involved, and then try to concoct some kind of argument to support that position.

This is, of course, pretty much the diametrical opposite of the scientific method. This may not bother you, but don’t be surprised to find that it greatly impairs your credibility with other people.

There are many, many people who say no planes crashed

There are very many more people who say that the whole operation was carried out by an evil terrorist mastermind living in a cave in Afghanistan, and his crazed Islamic fundamentalist minions, but that doesn’t constitute actual evidence of any sort.

It’s a reasonable assumption that at least some of the advocates of “holograms” and “space beams” are government disinfo agents, and a lot more have simply been taken in by them, on account of scientific ignorance.

And so here we are.


In addition to other pilots, John Lear, an expert pilot, has said no planes crashed and explained why.

Ace Baker, a videomaker, has said that no places crashed and explained why.

This person has explained from a physics point of view (although you disagree) why no planes crashed. https://911planeshoax.com/tag/911-impossible-physics/

Logic states that when you perform a psyop you fake whatever you can and only do for real what you really want for real. Crashing planes for real was so very much something you really wouldn’t want to do for real if you didn’t have to – and they didn’t have to. They’re so very good at faking things, or at least very, very good at persuading people with their fakery (however good or bad – usually it’s bad and deliberately so).

I rest my case.

So what do you have to say on injury and death being faked? Not inclined to look at my Occam’s Razor exercise so do not wish to discuss further?


Here’s a slow-motion video of rifle bullets penetrating steel plates, which, according to you, should be impossible.

Actually, the engines and wing spars of a Boeing-767 penetrating the mostly-glass facade of WTC-2 would be more analogous to a knife going through a window screen, so even this isn’t completely representative.


Here’s the nose cone of a plane hit by a bird. What do you think the impact of your bullet hitting a bird would be? Do you think that we can logically deduce from the impact of a bird on a nose cone and the impact of a bullet on a bird that bullets penetrating steel plates are not analogous to a plane hitting a steel frame building whose columns are 36cm wide and 1m apart?

When I get clearer on Newton’s Laws of Motion and how they apply to the planes I’ll come back to you milosevic. Until then, let’s leave this topic.


Also, just to add: they measure the speed of bullets in metres per second (eg 370 m/s) while plane speed is measured in miles per hour (eg 400 mph). Velocity plays a major role in impact. An omission in your physics, milosevic.


This comment could charitably be described as “non sequitur”, and uncharitably described as “WTF are you talking about?”

What is your argument? That “miles per hour” and “metres per second” are somehow incommensurable units, and therefore airplanes and rifle bullets are subject to different laws of physics?

Aircraft speeds are conventionally quoted in nautical miles per hour, or “knots”, or “kn”, which is 1.852 km/h.


Hopefully, you will not object to the assertion that a kilometre is equal to 1000 metres, and an hour is equal to 3600 seconds. Therefore:

1 kn = 1.852 km/h = 1.852 * (1000m / 3600s) ~= .5144 m/s

So, to convert between knots and metres per second, you should multiply and divide by 0.5144 . An aircraft speed of 300 kn is the same as (300 * 0.5144 m/s = 154.3 m/s). This is comparable to the speed of handgun bullets; rifle bullets are considerably faster.

Does that clarify the issue for you?

As for birds hitting aircraft nose cones, it seems that according to your understanding of physics, the much smaller, lighter, and softer bird should just bounce off, or vaporize, or something. Obviously, this does not happen, so I don’t know what you think that example is supposed to prove.

One might observe that:

(a) the bird strike makes a hole in the nose cone, but nothing resembling a bird remains afterward, only blood and feathers.

(b) a bullet impact makes a hole in a steel plate, but nothing resembling an intact bullet comes out the other side, only debris.

(c) a Boeing-767 crashing into WTC-2 makes a hole in the facade, but nothing resembling an intact airplane comes out the other side of the building, only jet fuel and metal fragments.

So it seems that the physics of high-velocity impacts is quite consistent across a wide range of scales.

If your mental model of what’s supposed to happen is based on basketballs bouncing off a wall, or bowling balls hitting wooden pins, you’ve got the wrong model. The behaviour of rifle bullets versus steel plates is a much more relevant example, at least for people who aren’t perplexed by unit conversions.


Apologies. I should have done a conversion to know what the difference was – it just seemed to me that the bullet speed is much greater at a glance but obviously I should have converted to test. I looked up bullet speed again and it says the average bullet speed is 2500 fps (762).

Bullet 762 m/s (fastest is 1200 m/s)
Plane 154.3 m/s

That’s a reasonable difference but I don’t know how significant it is in terms of impact.


The formula you are looking for is:

E = 1/2 m * v2

where E is kinetic energy, m is object mass, and v is object velocity.

Doubling the velocity has the effect of quadrupling the kinetic energy, etc.



It’s actually quite striking how much the bullet impacts between 12 seconds and 24 seconds in this video, resemble the B-767 impact on WTC-2. A relatively well-defined hole is made, but the bullet/plane is transformed into a cloud of debris, most of which comes out the other side, with only a small explosion visible on the front.




The most relevant bits are at 0:12 in the bullet video, and 10:33 in the WTC video. I tried to link directly to those times in the Youtube videos, but it didn’t work. I don’t know why; maybe one of the Admins can fix that, and remove the duplicates.


I also believe the no planes theory.

There was this documentary / presentation I saw years ago exposing all the artifacts of the video editing they did to put the planes into the videos. And there are many other factors. The pentagon was not hit by a plane, there was this crator from the plane that crashed but no realistic debris etc. It has been demonstrated that some of the maneuvers the planes would have had to carry out were simply impossible. (You can’t just do anything with a big airliner, it’s not a cessna.) Etc Etc.

Also the hulls of airliners are very fragile, contrary to what you may expect though if you think about it it makes sense, weight is important.

Example of an Airplane Demolition: https://hooktube.com/watch?v=U0hMo3N2RjE

When such a plane hits a building like the WTC it would splatter into a million pieces, it would not disappear into the building as the videos show.

What you see in a lot of the videos is people reacting to an explosion and then the camera pans to the building and sure enough there’s the aftermatch of an explosion.

It’s been years since I looked into this so I dunno, maybe there’s now convincing evidence this theory is incorrect.


Love the demolition video. The machines look like scary beasts but I wonder how they’d go trying demolish the twin towers 😉

Jim Scott
Jim Scott

Flax Girl I have an Australian artist acquaintance who was in New York and actually filmed the first of the planes hitting the tower. Its possible he could have lied about it but I don’t think it is likely.. Furthermore, there were definitely firefighters in the building when it came down and many hundreds of people who put the names and photos of their relatives up on a board after the collapse. Too many people to carry out such a massive subterfuge I think. I am however pretty convinced that all three buildings were bought down by explosives.


A number of people including John Lear and reportedly according to someone I met, an MI5 agent, say that a hologram was used to create the second plane crash. Perhaps your friend filmed a hologram – if that’s possible? I’d be so very interested to see your friend’s footage. Presumably, they kept it.

A number of pilots are convinced that a plane simply couldn’t go at the speed stated and crash into the buildings nor be managed by remote control (obviously, if an inside conspiracy we have to assume that no one was piloting). And despite milosevic’s presentation of the bullet analogy I think it’s obvious that a 200 ton airliner cannot penetrate a 500,000 ton steel building. A bullet is made to penetrate (although on this page we see a bullet not managing to penetrate 1/4 inch thick steel – https://911planeshoax.com/tag/911-impossible-physics/) and its narrowed point is designed for that purpose. A plane is not built to penetrate, its nose cone collapses from a bird hitting it and a bullet’s and a plane’s velocities are significantly different. There is simply no comparison. Even if planes could penetrate as milosevic thinks they could, that is not evidence that they did and there is much indicating that no planes crashed on 9/11.

Ace Baker and others explain how the footage we see is faked.

Crashing remote-controlled planes in the WTC scenario would have been so involved and so open to risk, if it were even viable for a plane to penetrate a steel frame building. 9/11 was a psyop and you don’t do things for real unless you have to – it seems they do crash planes quite a bit – but that’s when they want to do it for real and kill people. Faking the footage was obviously very easy. Perhaps convincing people present at the scene of the reality was a different scenario. I don’t know but they allegedly crashed a plane into the Pentagon which we’ve never seen, have we, despite the 84 cameras trained on it? And the Shanksville plane crash is truly laughable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2_em8G6DJE

9/11 was a hoax and they tell us they’re hoaxing us by making the plane’s nose cone pop out the other side https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH5InKzdQHw. The plane couldn’t penetrate the building in the first place but it absolutely, positively, noway-nohow could pop out the other side. I truly am baffled by the resistance to the idea that they tell us what they’re up to with their incredibly obvious signs. If they showed us a plane impossibly popping out the other side what do you think the odds are that a real plane crashed? Seriously.


Just to add: not all collaborators need to be paid lots. They may have committed crimes and have done a deal. We don’t know how all the arrangements work. And another thing to consider is that people can be involved unwittingly without being collaborators. If the anthrax attacks was a false-flag hoax, Tom Daschle, for example, may have thought anthrax was sent to his office but it was really just white powder. Who knows? Obviously, the people who are very much alive and “die” must be involved but depending on their role it may be difficult to know whether someone is wittingly or unwittingly involved.


I should have thought of this earlier. These events are governed by strict rules – including one that says they have to make it obvious that they are the perpetrators. They involve agency staff and crisis actors and so on. They wouldn’t generally be killing people except possibly the odd one, very covertly. Of course, they killed JFK but that was a very special operation and they really wanted him killed. In events where they don’t want the people killed (even if in truther-targeted propaganda there will be intimations of wanting people killed) they wouldn’t kill them as it would be against the rules, apart from anything else.


2001: Anthrax attacks.
2018: Skripal affair.
2018: Anthrax attacks – would be believe them as conducted in 2001?


“Note the digital clock, explosives experts have said that a bombmaker would never use one.”
Never say never! The experts are wrong. The assertion is profoundly stupid.

Think it through for yourself. Could there be someone who decides to make bombs, but they don’t know how? Could they search online, buy or make some explosives, and add a timer? Might they select a digital clock as a timer? You know, like in that movie?


The quality of Western false flags is going down fast (Syrian chems, Skripal, pipe bombs) while they increase in quantity. Thus, more and more people can see right through them. Cui bono is the simple litmus test.


It certainly is.

I am inclined to think that the US, having realised the £9 million spent by the British on their COBRA emergency/disaster scenario for Salisbury was seen as an expensive failure. So they went with the cheap option of the hapless lone wolf scenario.


This point has my attention, too. I can think of a few potential reasons for it:

1. Panic on the part of globalist elites (i.e., the infamous military-industrial complex, banksters and others) as they struggle to regain tight control of the narrative that is steadily slipping from their grasp. This panic means their actions are not as well coordinated as they once were, that the various factions of said elite squabble among themselves, etc. Mistakes slip in -> more panic -> more mistakes …

2. There is a grander false flag in play, a meta false flag as it were. Essentially a bait and switch – one part of which is a limited-truth hangout, preceded by deliberately obvious false flags to whet our appetites – designed to corral We the Sheeple into a different (but same) pen. From unipolar, corrupt ‘West’ into the arms of multipolar, good ‘East’. Welcome to the new boss, just like the old boss.

3. Elites were always fairly inept, but we’re slowly noticing it for the first time at the mass level.

4. All of the above.

5. 1 and 3.

On 2.: There a website called redefininggod that pushes this explanation. The site fascinates me because the guy who hosts it writes so well, with nigh on perfect grammar and top-notch communication skills, but the content is way-out-there odd. Is he insane but highly functional? Is he sane and correct? Or sane and wrong? Or is he some low-level disinfo operative? I can’t quite tell. So much effort over such a long period of time for apparently no noteworthy reward.


The quality of Western false flags is going down fast, while they increase in quantity.

Similarly, the solution to the declining value of the US dollar is to simply print a whole lot more of them, so as to retain the same aggregate ideological/buying power. Eventually, of course, hyperinflation will set in, and the total value of an infinite amount of dollars/terrorism will still be zero, at which point the whole system will immediately collapse.

Perhaps a coincidence, or perhaps not.

It is really quite striking that up until now, one might have thought that there could be no false-flag hoax any more farcical than the Skripal Affair. However, the Sayoc Bomb Plot shows that this conviction was merely a failure of imagination, and that still greater heights of fatuous absurdity yet remain to be scaled. Prosecutions for witchcraft cannot be far off, and are already prevalent in Sordid Barbaria.

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.


Maybe somebody could fix the boldface on the 1984 quote, above.


I think – or at least hope – that more and more people can see right through these phoney operations. And I think that the more people there are who disbelieve this stuff, the more strident the media become. The media outlets are like pathetic amateurs putting on a local play and screaming their cliched lines at the top of their lungs.


The most glaring example in my lifetime of the “false flag” as ongoing policy is the joint NATO/CIA in Europe referred to as “Operation Gladio.” Western media of course played their role to perfection during Operation Gladio, dutifully repeating the claims of official sources blaming communists and socialists for the terrorism which was actually conducted by right-wing Western military & intelligence assets. That this history is almost completely unknown in the U.S. is quite amazing, and a testament to just how far reaching the control of public narrative has become. Without understanding the “context” Operation Gladio provides, one can more easily be duped by the narratives spun by CNN or the NYT’s in matters such as these. The first question one must always ask in such matters is of course – “who benefits?” What that in mind a more clear minded analysis can proceed.