182

9/11 Truth Is Not A Matter of Perspective

Iain Davis

The 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is upon us. According to official sources, 19 mainly Saudi terrorists hijacked four planes, flying two into the World Trade Centre (WTC) complex and one into the Pentagon, with another crashing inside a hole in field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Other than some mainstream media broadcasts and reports, there is virtually no verifiable evidence to substantiate the official account.

Somehow we appear to have arrived at a point where people imagine that 9/11 truth is a matter of opinion. It most assuredly is not. The truth of what occurred that day and who was responsible is indelibly fixed in space and time. Our opinions about that truth do not affect it in any way.

We should examine the evidence to understand the facts that will reveal the truth. That is why, on the 20th anniversary of that terrible event, we need to recognise what 9/11 truth means.

We can say with certainty that nearly 3,000 people died that day and many thousands more have subsequently perished before their time as a result of their exposure to toxic WTC dust. We can also be certain that the evidence does not support the official “story” of 9/11. 

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, who led the official investigation into the WTC structural collapses, WTC 7 suffered a total collapse as a result of fires started by debris from WTC 2. This derived conclusion is one of the many official opinions which appear to be false.

A 2020 published, peer reviewed study from the University of Fairbanks Alaska proved that fires alone could not have caused the total collapse of WTC 7. It is likely that it was caused by some form of controlled demolition.

Therefore, the official account of 9/11 is unsupported and we have grounds for further investigation. That is all we need to know in order to demand a full investigation into what actually happened.

The wider evidence, into other aspects of the attacks, highlights so many unresolved questions that we have little reason to believe any part of the official account. It strongly suggests that 9/11 was yet another false flag attack.

While the logical position is that the official narrative is likely to be false, this does not mean that we should simply accept the contradictory evidence without questioning it. The debunker Mick West is among those who continue to do so. This is the right approach.

However, to deny the existence of evidence and, in doing so, maintain that the official account must be true, is wrong. Where contradictory evidence exists we cannot rightfully maintain a theory, or a subsequent narrative, unless we account for all of it, in full.

We should keep this in mind on the 20th anniversary of 9/11. The mainstream media (MSM) will uncritically report and broadcast the ceremonial speeches of politicians who claim to know what happened on 9/11. All reports by the MSM which assert that the official account is an established, known fact are wrong.

On the day of the attacks the BBC reported that WTC 7 had collapsed more than 20 minutes before it did. NIST would subsequently claim that the “progressive” total collapse of WTC7, caused by a fire, was a world first. That the BBC could predict this, 20 minutes in advance, is truly unbelievable.

The BBC even knew why it collapsed, saying the structure was weakened. This was more than 7 years before NIST would release its report essentially claiming the same thing.

Occam’s razor suggests that the BBC had some foreknowledge of an unprecedented global event. This likelihood remains after the BBC’s explanation failed to dispel it. In 2007 Richard Porter, then head of the BBC World News, issued a quite ridiculous response statement.

Porter claimed that, amid the confusion of the day, the BBC reported a unique historical event, 20 minutes before it allegedly transpired, by mistake. A truly mind bending coincidence, if he is to be believed. He also made sure to ridicule any suggestion that the BBC were involved in a “conspiracy” before stating that the BBC had lost all of its footage for that day.

Clearly Porter’s farcical explanation gave him some kudos with the right people. He rapidly progressed to become editorial director of BBC Global News before eventually rising to his current position as Director of Communications for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Those who question 9/11 are often referred to as “conspiracy theorists” or “truthers.” This labelling is intended to discredit critics and dissuade the broader public from every considering the evidence they cite. The irony is that the official account of the 9/11 attacks is a theory about a conspiracy which lacks substantiating evidence.

We are given the impression by the MSM that everyone knows what happened on 9/11. The only people who question it are silly conspiracy theorists.

This frequently expressed MSM opinion doesn’t appear to be true. A 2016 survey conducted by researchers at Chapman University in the US found that more than half of Americans thought the US government were hiding the truth about 9/11.

The MSM’s task is to “debunk” any who question the official 9/11 story. They typically use ad-hominem attacks, strawman arguments or simply lie to protect the official account. For example in 2011 the BBC wrote:

“No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges despite the extensive hand searches and there is no evidence of any pre-cutting of columns or walls, which is routinely carried out in a controlled demolition.”

The 2009 research paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered the Dust From the 9/11 World Trade Centre Catastrophe, published by the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, presented evidence of possible explosive charges.

Similarly, the numerous photographs of what appear to be columns cut by shaped charges at ground zero is evidence suggestive of pre-cutting prior to collapse.

Neither the Copenhagen paper nor the images “prove” that explosives were used or (thermitic) cutting occurred. However, the BBC’s assertion that the evidence pointing toward this possibility did not exist, or had “never been found,” was a lie.

Another irony is the that the lack of peer review, which sadly has diminishing merit, is often used by so called debunkers to rubbish the research of their conspiracy theorists targets. Yet the entire 9/11 WTC collapse narrative is based upon NIST reports that have not been peer-reviewed. This is always conveniently overlooked by those who promote the official 9/11 narrative.

Despite immense resistance to publication, the Fairbanks study added to the growing list of published, peer reviewed papers that question 9/11. Among those seeking the truth are the family members of 9/11 victims. There is no justification for continuing the false claim that the world knows what happened that day. It does not.

The need for a genuine investigation clearly exists. Only a truly independent, jury led inquiry, can possibly examine all the evidence and have any chance of finding the truth.

The State is potentially the culprit. Any State involvement in either the investigation or a public inquiry, beyond offering evidence, would reduce the chances of justice being served.

We know that the official account is extremely unlikely to be true and we also know that the reporting of 9/11 by the MSM is untrustworthy. On the 20th anniversary of the event that began the global war on terror where does that leave us?

It is crucial that we understand what “truth” means. The Oxford English Dictionary definition reads:

The quality or state of being true…that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality…a fact or belief that is accepted as true.”

This is a relativistic definition of “truth.” Something can be true if it is in accordance with fact and reality. However, if we accept the dictionary definition, something can also be said to be true if it is simply a belief which is accepted as truth.

Therefore, if we trust the dictionary definition, can we say that the official account of 9/11 is also not true because a majority believe it isn’t? Is this acceptable? Is a belief that something is true (or not) really sufficient to claim it as reality?

There is only one truth and it is absolute. Truth is not a matter of perspective. A chain of events actually occurred, in reality, on September the 11th 2001. That reality is immutable and we can discover what it is by studying the evidence which will reveal the facts. No matter what our opinions may be, they won’t change that reality.

Accepting the existence of a single, absolute truth contrasts to the relativism of postmodernist theory which has coloured so much of our contemporary society. It is extremely common to hear people talk of their truth, to claim that what is true for them is not necessarily true for you.

This relative view of reality (solipsism) denies both reality and truth. It maintains that truth only exists wherever we believe it, that we define truth through our perception. This is dangerous folly.

If there is no objective truth then what is the point of searching for it? It allows us to believe whatever we like and imagine that it is true, whether it is or not. It fosters apathy, providing us the erroneous self justification to abandon critical thinking. In such a psychologically damaged state we can be told anything and “believe it.”

The truth can be deduced (known) using logical reasoning applied to the evidence. If we take this approach to the idea of “relative truth” we can immediately deduce that it is false (wrong).

“The truth is relative” is a claimed statement of absolute fact and is therefore self contradictory. If truth were merely a matter of perspective then the statement “the truth is not relative” would also be true. This mutually exclusive contradiction cannot exist in reality.

Apparent contradiction allows two opposing partial truths to exist simultaneously. This is because partially true statements can coexist. However, knowledge soon resolves that these two partial truths can never be the whole truth in and of themselves.

The famous meme of the dress that simultaneously appeared to be both blue & black and white & gold, allowed two opposing partial truths to coexist. “I see blue and black” and “I see white and gold” were both apparently true, depending upon your perspective.

However, our relative perspectives did not allow the dress to reflect opposing wavelengths of light at the same time. The whole truth was that it reflected fixed wavelengths.

Our different perceptions came from our assumptions about the lighting conditions. Our minds inferred different interpretations based upon whether we assumed the dress was lit by artificial light, mentally adding a yellow hue which removed the perception of shadow seen by those who assumed it was sunlit.

The illusion of white and gold was created by our assumptions about lighting conditions, it did not alter how light actually behaves. In reality the dress was blue and black. That is the absolute truth.

Those who advocate relative truth often suggest morality, in particular, is not absolute. Most people accept that it is morally wrong to kill someone. Yet we also accept that it can be justifiable to kill someone in self defence. This “proves,” say the postmodernists, that morality is relative and that absolute moral truth does not exist. In doing so they deny the partial moral truths, which exists in reality. They also reject the whole, absolute moral truth.

It is partially true that killing is wrong but it is also partially true that killing is justified if that is the only way to defend your life or the lives of your family. The absolute truth is that it is wrong to initiate the use of lethal force. The aggressor is always wrong, there is no moral ambiguity, as relativism claims, and that is the absolute truth.

So how do we apply this knowledge of truth to 9/11?

It is absolutely true that someone or some group initiated the use of lethal force and murdered, ultimately, more than 3000 people. It is true that WTC 1, 2 & 7 collapsed entirely and that the Pentagon was damaged. It is true that the 9/11 attacks led directly to the so called war on terror which shaped the global political landscape for the first two decades of the 21st century.

It is true that there is a wealth of evidence which suggests the official account of 9/11 is not true. It is true that the evidence offered to substantiate the official account is weak and the evidence contradicting the official account is plausible.

It is true that the MSM have repeatedly lied about the evidence. It is true that, throughout history, governments have frequently used false flag attacks to initiate wars or for broader political objectives.

It is true that a failure to properly investigate the evidence would leave the victims and their families without justice. It is true that morality dictates we restore natural justice and fully investigate all of the evidence.

It is true that 9/11 truth is not a matter of perspective.

You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog In This Together or on UK Column or follow him on Twitter. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

4.7 27 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
182 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Sep 16, 2021 11:56 AM

The headline is a little misleading.
Truth is not a matter of opinion.
The Truth a person can see is definitely a matter of perspective. Sometimes the truth barely exists — like who started a war — but the perspective certainly does.

Bias doesn’t matter so long as it’s not hidden. I can see if the author has a political perspective.
Balance is misleading. I can balance within the party system and still utterly misrepresent an issue.
Objectivity is a goal not an absolute.
Subjectivity is unacceptable but is standard BBC practice.
Censorship by omission is the ultimate journalistic sin. Again, standard BBC practice.

People don’t understand this because the BBC has made sure they don’t.

SeverelyRegarded
SeverelyRegarded
Sep 15, 2021 4:51 PM

Your conviction that your truths are infallible is neither sympathetic, nor scientific. And because it is the Establishment who gets to decide what is true and what is not, your absolutist approach is dangerously counterproductive here. I much preferred Anis Shivani’s relativism here last week.

JIMLAP
JIMLAP
Sep 15, 2021 11:29 AM

What really happens with conspiracy theorists is that they are free to believe wild unsubstantiated ideas without succumbing to the stigma of Conspiracy Theorizing as long as Officialdom gives their blessing.

They can believe in mid-air Exploding Pancaking pulverized Steel-Framed buildings (ignore it was 3 and not 2)… and crazy marauding Corona Viruses never spotted or detected as long as the overlords say so.
If not for such permission they would be nuts of course…  but not when backed by power.

But if you dare to question…. regardless the specifics of the questions themselves… then, by permission of the almighty… 
These self-same are mandated to label you a Conspiracy Theorist.

Simple rules…  for simple people.

richard
richard
Sep 13, 2021 10:02 PM

I know I’ve posted this before but not only are some questioning the evidence, they are asserting that there is no such thing as truth…
A guy I know said to me that there is no such thing as a fact. I said: “Is that a fact?”

This video explains that you don’t need to know the exact details of what happened – the extent of the lies is enough…

Can you spare 8 minutes to watch it?

Richard Bradshaw
Richard Bradshaw
Sep 17, 2021 7:46 AM
Reply to  richard

No I can’t spare 8 minutes to watch a screen that says “and error occurred”. Can you fix the link?

Colin Waits
Colin Waits
Sep 13, 2021 4:13 PM

You have to remember the initial reports were that a twin prop plane had accidentally crashed into one of the WTC towers.

Reset the Diaboligarchy
Reset the Diaboligarchy
Sep 13, 2021 10:30 PM
Reply to  Colin Waits

The same one GWB said he saw on the TV while waiting to go into that Florida classroom, no doubt!

John Pretty
John Pretty
Sep 13, 2021 3:55 PM

There is no “official” or “approved” narrative on 9/11.

Truth is not a matter of perspective, no, but nor is “truth” a matter of narrative.

No narrative is ultimately “truth”.

Narratives can only at best describe reality. They are not reality itself, which is direct sensory experience.

Balance and perspective is required however in order to weigh up the relative merits of what you hear and read.

While I support free speech, I really cannot support the notion that 9/11 was some sort of “false flag” operation.

Namaste.

Azy
Azy
Sep 13, 2021 4:25 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

That’s either because:

a) you have an internal ‘firewall’ that protects your deep beliefs whatever they are and using basic common sense and logic is counter to those beliefs

or

b) you are a shill

If a) you are not a free soul and whatever has trapped you and conditioned those beliefs and biases will fool you to a state of regret, unless you open your eye from inside of your heart. Not everything has to fit in with the logic we are trained with from a young age, there is an innate sense within all of us that yearns for the truth. Search for it.

falcemartello
falcemartello
Sep 16, 2021 6:57 PM
Reply to  Azy

Dogmatism fueled by ideologues.
The truth will always be truth regardless.
Being a doubting Tom will always be the way to enlightenment.

lotuseater
lotuseater
Sep 14, 2021 5:29 AM
Reply to  John Pretty

Big criminals are big gamblers and the game is rigged in their favor

Paul Vonharnish
Paul Vonharnish
Sep 13, 2021 3:15 PM

The truth is – people often lie about what is true…

Analyses of what events took place during the 24 hour period surrounding 9/11/2001, has been performed by hundreds of dedicated journalists and private individuals. Many of the conclusions regarding key operatives intersect with one another.

The weight of evidence needs to be examined in a court of Law. Public speculation will not bring justice or closure to families of the deceased…This is plainly obvious, unless you’re lying…

Howard
Howard
Sep 13, 2021 3:15 PM

Remember what Jesus said: “Render unto God what is God’s and unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” So let it be with relativity.

Render unto the absolute what is absolute’s and unto the relative what is relative’s.

Morality is not relative. It consists primarily of what would result if carried to its extreme. Murder is immoral because if carried to its extreme all life would be eradicated. Of course, the eradication of all life is only immoral in terms of life’s relative position within the cosmos.

Interpretation of morality is relative. It consists of how a given moral imperative is interpreted by an observer.

The speed of light is not relative. How a given spectator interprets its speed is relative.

Whereas for most of human history, the focus has generally been on the absolute; currently the focus is on the relative. That wouldn’t be a problem were it not for the ease with which what is occurring now becomes the new absolute.

Thus the relative has ascended to the status of absolute. Kind of like the old maxim “never say never.”

GregJaxon
GregJaxon
Sep 15, 2021 7:20 PM
Reply to  Howard

The speed of light is not relative. How a given spectator interprets its speed is relative.

You have entirely misread the physics. The speed of light in a vacuum or in a given medium is a constant, and all observers working in their inertial frames of reference are able to measure exactly the same constant. When they compensate for any ac/de/celeration they are undergoing this does not make lightspeed ‘relative’.

Subjectivity and Objectivity each play key roles in human interactions. But all civilization, and certainly all commerce depends upon recognizing objective absolutes.

On the French front
On the French front
Sep 13, 2021 1:59 PM

Interesting analysis by Whitney Webb
Invisible Enemies: Parallels Between the Anthrax Attacks and Covid-19
Originally aired during the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry livestream event, this talk briefly covers several important parallels between the 2001 anthrax attacks and the Covid-19 crisis.
https://rokfin.com/post/53081

NickM
NickM
Sep 13, 2021 2:37 PM

Both biowarfare agents were traced to Fort Detrick, MaryLand, U$A.

Paul Vonharnish
Paul Vonharnish
Sep 13, 2021 3:40 PM

Yes. I just watched this video. Whitney Webb does an excellent job of presenting many valid issues. Here’s the full title: >

Invisible Enemies: Parallels Between the Anthrax Attacks and Covid-19
https://rokfin.com/post/53081

Unfortunately; circumstantial evidence is not prosecutable evidence in a court of Law.

There are provable linkages between Anthony Fauci and the funding of the Wuhan lab in question. Mr Fauci has lied before Congress and perjured himself multiple times. Hard evidence of these Crimes are of record and undeniable…

davemass
davemass
Sep 13, 2021 9:30 AM

YouTube video of interview with Russian nuclear expert-
Targetted nukes under all 3 buildings built in for controlled demolition when built.
Is it still up on YouTube?
The second hit tower went down before the first. They needed the comms under #1
to do it. If #1 went down first, #2 couldn’t go down.
Pentagon was hit with a missile? Looking at the hole…

GregJaxon
GregJaxon
Sep 15, 2021 8:16 PM
Reply to  davemass

Being built with later controlled-demolition in mind is mildly plausible, but would not have passed ordinary building inspection in 1975. I’ve heard claims that there were construction scheduling irregularities maybe suggesting charges were embedded in concrete joints near the core. I file those under ‘very remote possibility’ of being facts. I’ve heard almost no follow-up support of that theory, but it has a kind of face-validity…
If ‘self-destruct’ aids could really be built-in safely, it would certainly improve the safety and ease of final demolition. It would transfer (some) demolition cost to the original builder who puts up something which must someday come down. Those economies are speculative at best. The technical and legal challenges of doing this in 1975 and keeping it secret would be daunting.
I was an architecture student in 1975. We heard the WTC architect describe a jetliner-crash scenario as part of his ‘tube frame’ design idea. (He was recorded saying that for a NatGeo documentary, I think). None of us asked what one does afterward with a hundred story building that’s then holding up a major airliner crash site. But if I’d spent weeks modeling and hand computing that scenario (pre-CAD don’t forget), it would have occurred to me to ask. How would a master planner answer? Look at how the tube is built; is it repairable?
Given that architects are not trained to design-for-demolition and codes are not written to accommodate this, how prevalent is it? If WTC was a one-off trial of this design concept, what should we make of the quarter-century secret it then carried? Was it held in reserve as a plot twister for political theater? When that disaster movie narrative finally wears thin, will we be told that, indeed, all skyscrapers at any risk of tumbling outside their footprint are equipped with a fully automated self-destruct mechanism? I’d expect a patent or two to exist.
Thus this is a theory in sore need of much more circumstantial evidence and one that would have produced copious direct evidence in the construction trades over a quarter century of being a design concept.

falcemartello
falcemartello
Sep 16, 2021 7:03 PM
Reply to  davemass

THe only way NYC port authorities can grant permission of building of any structure one must submit a demoition hypothesis for future bringing down of the structure that has been proposed . Documents will state that.
FOLLOW THE MONEY AND ALL ROADS WILL LEAD TO HELL.

Irresponsible and proud
Irresponsible and proud
Sep 13, 2021 9:09 AM

“Today, any state that wants to be in power, has to [have] control [of] terrorism… All terrorism derives from the state…. The state wants its operatives to become revolutionaries and revolutionaries to become state operatives”. – Guy Debord

Toby Russell
Toby Russell
Sep 13, 2021 8:47 AM

The Truth is what actually happened, even if we have no mechanism to be certain what that actually was.” Rhys Jaggar, below.

What actually happened is too detailed to ever know. Then, when we arrive at whatever approximation of that truth we can manage in whatever circumstances, we have an (ever changing) attitude to that truth that exists in the ever changing context of how things are. The absolute truth will always be beyond us for all sort of reasons, and is always dynamic, because it means something to us, necessarily, and that meaning changes as we change. The scientific method gets us as close to it as possible – and we really can’t tell how close –, but when it comes to politically charged historical events, science begins to lose much of its efficacy. In the case of 911, the scientific method can’t deliver all that much; there are just too many variables, too many emotions, too many vested interests, etc. And yet pushing at 911 is vital, because dishonesty must be exposed, especially at such scale. It is the dishonesty that really counts. There is a fundamental difference between striving for as much of the truth as we can get our hands on as a truly noble undertaking, and doing everything in our power to deceive in pursuit of ever more power and control.

Philosophically, I’m an idealist; for me, there is only consciousness. I’m not going to expound on what that means, but will point out that “Truth” is a concept carried or held by language; it is a product of consciousness. Try explaining “Truth” to a cat. Therefore, we each have a subjective reaction to it, as to anything we call true. “Truth” exists solely as an experience. There is no getting away from this. As a thought exercise: what is the concept “Truth” in a universe without any consciousness at all? For me, obviously, a universe of only ‘matter’ (whatever that is) is an impossibility, or at best a wholly uninteresting possibility, but the notion’s logic highlights how necessarily subjective Truth is. The debate rages on because it can. It can because Truth is a concept: an experience in consciousness. This is not solipsism, it is a necessary corollary of consciousness; what we conceptualise as “objective truth” must exist within the subjective. Again, this is not solipsism. Consciousness is a multiplayer experience, and the rules that govern consciousness are as they are, and govern us equally.

Olivia
Olivia
Sep 13, 2021 8:57 AM
Reply to  Toby Russell

So very much this ^^^^^ So very well put. Thank you!

dr death
dr death
Sep 13, 2021 3:05 PM
Reply to  Toby Russell

nominalist nonsense… whatever epithet you choose to describe a function/object/event will obviously use language as a vehicle… words aren’t truth…

your nonsense regarding the cat… I could describe a route to the local shop to an urdu speaker who hasn’t a word of english and he would react to the information in the same way your cat would.. ignorance..

this doesn’t mean that the information is incorrect or open to interpretation… or in fact the urdu speaker is an idiot… (or the cat for that matter.. hint: it isn’t)..

anymore than it is inarguable that placing your head in a noose and dropping you 12 feet will result in death..
(this plays into the article in which this talented scribbler notices that arbitrary values useful to certain ‘factions’ uses a nominalist system to circumvent the TRUTH)..

like this fellow here.. who prefers arbitrary magical thinking and convenient wooly descriptors to avoid uncomfortable TRUTHS…

I have had this discussion with many nominalist liberal democracy imbeciles (usually whilst crushing them at chess)…

most of them believe they can actually walk through walls… but of course choose not to..

Toby Russell
Toby Russell
Sep 13, 2021 7:10 PM
Reply to  dr death

You entirely misrepresent my position, and likely entirely misunderstand it too.

dr death
dr death
Sep 13, 2021 7:19 PM
Reply to  Toby Russell

you don’t present a position.. so there isn’t really anything to misunderstand..

richard
richard
Sep 13, 2021 9:42 PM
Reply to  dr death

“(usually whilst crushing them at chess)…”

lol 🙂

DavidW
DavidW
Sep 14, 2021 1:09 AM
Reply to  dr death

Thank you.
Philip K. Dick — ‘Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.’
In a universe without consciousness (which may exist) but matter there would still be truths regarding laws of physics and chemistry. Denying this is not “solipsism” but rather is an arrogant form of anthropomorphism. Sorry, but I don’t think truth or reality hinge on the existence of a (likely short-lived) species of smelly, naked, violent primates. I’m a little down on the human species at present.

NickM
NickM
Sep 13, 2021 3:18 PM
Reply to  Toby Russell

The truth is, we are governed by high placed Liars in high salaried jobs. For instance, ex British PM and current Director in House of Rothschild, Tony B.Liar. Do not obfuscate this truth with high falluting waffle.

For example this is waffle: “In the case of 911 [and Con-19] the scientific method can’t deliver all that much; there are just too many variables, too many emotions, too many vested interests, etc.”

The real reason that “the scientific method cannot deliver much” to enlighten the public on Con-911 and Con-19 is plain censorship. Opposing views are brutally removed from public media by the Con-911 and Con-19 regimes. The scientific method depends on open publication and open discussion.

The last time scientific evidence was forbidden to be published and scientists punished for stating the truth occurred under Lysenko and Stalin.
For the time before that you have to skip 400 years of Enlightenment and go back to the Papal Inquisition on Galileo.

“Too many variables” is pretentious flannel that obscures the simple truth about this Con-spiracy of Oligarchs. The scientific method — the source of 400 years of Enlightenment — has been suppressed in public discourse. We are returning to dark and brutal times: to Stalinist Russia and the Papal Inquisition.

Toby Russell
Toby Russell
Sep 13, 2021 7:37 PM
Reply to  NickM

You also misunderstand and misrepresent my position, as dr death above. I am not for censorship of any kind, and am entirely for the scientific method. But science is not the be all and end all of what we think of as truth. There are places it cannot go, seeing as it is governed by falsifiability. What I mean by “can’t deliver all that much” in the case of an event of the political machinations and magnitude of 911 is that so much will be lost to history. Most of the evidence is gone. As Iain Davies rightly points out, we will never know the full truth, hence my emphasis on exposing the nature and magnitude of the lies as more important than uncovering every last detail of what happened; in my view an impossible task. And that reasoning lies behind “too many variables”, which is not “pretentious flannel” as you so graciously put it. In what way does that phrase obscure “this Conspiracy of Oligarchs”?

I agree, we are returning to totalitarianism, in part because the scientific method has been drowned out by Scientism, but argue that what the scientific method will lead us to is the fact that materialism has had its day. That this upsets people is par for the course. Paradigm changes tend to do that.

Iain Davis
Iain Davis
Sep 14, 2021 8:10 AM
Reply to  Toby Russell

Truth is not a “concept.” That is a claim that reality is also a “concept.” It is not.

Regardless of what we perceive reality to be that does not change what reality is. This is not to suggest that we fully understand reality but it is beyond silly to imagine that whatever reality is it could be something else. It cannot be other than what it is. No amount of philosophical knot tying is ever going to change that.

Whatever reality is, it is the truth. Therefore we need to understand reality to discover the truth.

Toby Russell
Toby Russell
Sep 14, 2021 11:25 AM
Reply to  Iain Davis

We can only come at reality via concepts. Our descriptions of reality are necessarily approximations thereof, and we cannot know how accurate they are except that we can confidently assert they are far from full and complete. I suspect we agree on that.

You appear to be conflating Truth with Reality, such that each is interchangeable with the other. As such, we can make no distinctions between the two. That makes the whole discussion redundant. I don’t wish to pursue that tautological dead end!

Surely there is ‘reality’ as our understanding of ‘Reality’ (or All That Is). Part of All That Is is thus necessarily our effort to describe it. Our shifting perceptions are thus part of Reality and alter Reality; there is more to Reality than the laws that govern it. Reality / All That Is changes/evolves constantly, as governed by its defining laws.

Then comes the question of whether matter – whatever that is – can give rise to consciousness. This is called The Hard Problem, and remains unsolved after perhaps hundreds of years of intellectual effort. In other words, it has not been demonstrated that brain causes consciousness. And that problem is compounded by the fact that physics is currently at a loss as to what objects are, and by extension cannot explain matter itself. Here’s a telling quote:

Spacetime is doomed. There is no such thing as spacetime fundamentally in the actual underlying description of the laws of physics. That’s very startling, because what physics is supposed to be about is describing things as they happen in space and time. So if there’s no spacetime, it’s not clear what physics is about. (Nima Arkhani-Hamed)

I copied that from a Donald Hofman lecture on YouTube, but don’t have the link to hand.

In addition to that cluster of problems, we have the problem of dualism. If we, contrary to materialism’s tenets, assert that consciousness exists and is not merely an illusion, we then argue that there is both matter and consciousness, where each is fundamentally different to the other. This presents the (insoluble) problem of how they interact.

On the other hand, if we assert, as required by materialism’s logic, that consciousness and thus experience itself are illusory, we have the problem of explaining what it is exactly that could possibly be so deceived. I.e., how can experience be an illusion? (By the way, materialism cannot accommodate free will either; it requires a deterministic reality.)

Given the above, and because it is as clear as day that we experience reality – i.e. that we are conscious – idealism (there is only consciousness) becomes the stronger contestant as a basis for describing reality. How this particular ism describes what we currently think of as the ‘physical universe’ is beyond what I can do justice to in a comment on OffGuardian, but rest assured it cannot result in solipsism or “walking through walls”, etc. Likely, the ‘physical universe’ is akin in some way to a virtual reality defined by rules (see e.g. John Wheeler’s pithy euphemism “it from bit”, and the new kid on the block “digital physics”). When we play a driving game on a computer for example, the car’s behaviours, road, light, shadows, gravity, etc., are coded into the game as rules that describe the game’s functionality. Something along these lines is likely to be correct about how our ‘physical’ reality works. Science ekes out the rules of the game, as it were. This does not mean that there is hard code, trillions of lines of it, but that there is minimal procedural code in the form, perhaps, of the laws of physics, which iterates on itself in an input-output loop resulting in the evolution we observe around us. This iterating is processed by consciousness, which is an information system. As such, we would have ‘objectivity’ as a subset of ‘subjectivity’, and other fascinating ramifications.

I hope that gives a little more flesh to the bones of what lies behind my original comment.

GregJaxon
GregJaxon
Sep 15, 2021 9:47 PM
Reply to  Toby Russell

I don’t mind the ‘nominalist’ approach to distinguish Truth from Reality. But once separated and consigned to a Subjective experience of (linguistic narrative) Truth the idealists neglect to walk all the way back to Objective Truth (which arrives asymptotically). Because we construct language as (nearly) absolute and (arguably) universal, and because we debate and discuss Subjective Truths, civilizations arrive at whatever they currently can agree upon; call that Objective Truth.

Has that happened with 9/11? Not by a mile! There is another force at work which is the propensity toward Progressivism. Manufactured consensus writes a narrative History which has the same social properties as Objective Truth, without the well-examined (scientific) relationship to Reality. Progressivism believes it knows the purpose (and even the course) of human society. Facts, and lately even logical reasoning, be damned. Civilization is to be intentionally constructed (or destructed!) by the central plan, not discovered the way Natural Law might be in a spirit of Open inquiry.

How one frames definitions of Truth and Reality are immaterial in the face of those who take it as their mission to Write History (for we academics to Observe?) and to move on to Write subsequent Chapters. The root question is what means Reality will find to impair this silly Progressive concept about Human Actions.

Orthus
Orthus
Sep 13, 2021 7:41 AM

Post-modernism coming in for some stick, particularly regarding objective versus subjective truth. However, I don’t think they are saying black is white so much as as what you are told is black may be dark grey and what you are told is white may be light grey: worth a second look.

The Post-modernists were a replacement to the Modernists. The Modernists were, naturally, people who believed in Modernity. If it was modern, it must be good. Just follow the science, and try not see the similarities with the Covidians. No room for ascetics or morality just follow the science, because science and scientists are always good (in comic book, 1950s America).

It may be just a coincidence that the greatest scorn for Post-modernism has come from the Anglo, ‘five eyes’ nations. Also a coincidence that the tactics are broadly similar: derision, they are telling us black is white, they eat bat soup, they want to turn us into horses, they think you can catch Covid from a 5g telephone call. Simple messages for a populace they don’t hold in high regard.

NickM
NickM
Sep 13, 2021 8:30 AM
Reply to  Orthus

That sounds like Orthus Doxus Postus Modernismus.

Orthus
Orthus
Sep 13, 2021 9:29 AM
Reply to  NickM

I knew (know) little of Post-modernism apart from the Anglo-Saxon derision aimed at Derrida et Foucault at al. A quick look at the people they were opposed to, the Modernists, reminded me of people I am also opposed to: the Covidians.

sabelmouse
sabelmouse
Sep 13, 2021 10:40 AM
Reply to  Orthus

into horses?

Howard
Howard
Sep 13, 2021 3:25 PM
Reply to  sabelmouse

Is people turning into horses any stranger than viruses that play hide and seek? that lurk in the shadows until they see someone approaching, then swoop down to infect that person? that refuse to go through a cloth mask for fear of being destroyed? that analyze crowds to see what the crowd is protesting before deciding whether or not to attack?

We live in a truly extraordinary time. So if I see a stray horse in my neighborhood, I’ll look it in the mouth to try and determine which of my neighbors it is.

sabelmouse
sabelmouse
Sep 14, 2021 10:16 AM
Reply to  Howard

i have not come across anything re horses, or do you mean otherkin? cause i’ve come across those on tumblr, years ago.

Kalen
Kalen
Sep 13, 2021 1:26 PM
Reply to  Orthus

How I see postmodernism in social realm, as twisted response to structuralism of Marx, Levi-Strauss, Foucault and Lacan et al., all positing that it is not content of social relations(culture) including human bonds but their nature or structure that shapes different societies.

sandy
sandy
Sep 13, 2021 6:04 AM

The truth is the best available information assiduously sought after. Only better information changes the truth.

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar
Sep 13, 2021 7:14 AM
Reply to  sandy

‘The best information assiduously sought after’ is merely ‘Our Current Belief’.

The Truth is what actually happened, even if we have no mechanism to be certain what that actually was.

NickM
NickM
Sep 13, 2021 8:26 AM
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar

Thanks, Rhys, for reminding us that objective reality exists independently of “Our Current Belief”.

In Dante’s Purgatorio there is an interesting character called Fortuna, especially interesting because that poem was written at the cultural summit of the Middle Ages. People rail against Fortuna or bless her according to their lot, but she goes blithely about her work irrespective of our praise or blame. In the Scientific Age we call Fortuna “Nature” or “Objective Reality”.

dr death
dr death
Sep 13, 2021 3:44 PM
Reply to  NickM

I think you will find ‘Fortuna’ equates more with Fate/Destiny or at least the ancients view of such things… and is referential to the Gods, in this case Astarte.. cunningly disguised to avoid a barbecue..

the separate concepts of Nature and ‘objective reality’ (?) would have been mocked as nonsense….

and bear little resemblance..

sandy
sandy
Sep 13, 2021 6:15 PM
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar

Belief has nothing to do with the truth. Kovid lies are statements not truth nor assiduously sought after facts. Y’all need to be patient and learn how to read without leaping to conclusions. VAERS is a source of the best available information and tells us Kovid is fraud and vaxxs are deadly.

dr death
dr death
Sep 13, 2021 3:20 PM
Reply to  sandy

you ought to take up a position with those kwaks in SAGE… that seems to be their little mantra…

people like yourself need to come to to terms with the fact that the TRUTH is independent of some imbeciles opinion..

and will always stand …impervious.. (why do you think the ‘regime’ has done away with it.. research the davos bilderberg crew and their ‘post truth world’)……

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 13, 2021 5:53 AM

We can say with certainty that nearly 3,000 people died that day …

I wonder why you assert this so confidently, Iain.

Facts that expose the claim of 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured as a lie.

1. The planes were obviously faked as shown by the 9/11 Consensus Panel and others so right off the bat we know that of the alleged 3,000 dead 265 didn’t die in a plane and we have no reason whatsoever to believe they died another way. This also prompts the question that if the plane deaths were faked, might the other deaths have also been faked?
https://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/

2. Of the images shown to us of the alleged 6,000 injured none of them favour “real” over “drill” injured and we know there were many drills conducted before, through and after 9/11 so it’s not such a stretch to believe that the images of the alleged injured are not of genuinely injured people but of “drill” injured people. Here is one example where we see no obvious sign of injury just the typical type of bandaging you see in drills.
comment image

3. The miracle survivor stories are not credible, for example, that of Pasquale Buzzelli, whom we are told survived the collapse of the North Tower along with 15 others. When you look at its collapse the notion of anyone surviving it and especially surviving it without any obvious injury is ludicrous in the extreme:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/

‘”I felt the walls next to me crack and buckle on top of me,” he says. Suddenly, he seemed to be in free fall, and the walls seemed to separate and move away from him.

Maybe two hours later, he regained consciousness on a slab of concrete 180 feet below the 22nd floor. (He may be the source of the rumor that someone surfed the collapse and lived.)’

4. We are presented with the “9/11 families” but why necessarily think the “9/11 families” are any more genuine than the “Sandy Hook parents” whose preposterous smiling after the alleged deaths of their young children clearly gives away their phoniness. Even on the mainstream media clips people call out this hoax, it’s simply incredible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToQNVJE4xgk. I will concede that generally the “9/11 families” do not give themselves away in the manner of the “Sandy Hook parents” but nevertheless there are anomalies to be found. This is allegedly a McIlvaine family photo that includes Bob, alleged grieving father, and his son Bobby, who allegedly died in the lobby of the North tower. Notice how Bobby’s left arm sticks up in the air as it goes along his father’s shoulder and that it tapers too quickly. Notice how also on his right hand there are traces of red nail polish and a ring on his thumb which don’t seem to correspond to his clean cut image.
comment image

5. Discrepancies in number of dead: as pointed out by Simon Shack, the wild discrepancy of the totals on the memorials is highly anomalous.
https://www.septemberclues.info/deconstructing.shtml

SEPT11th memorial: “3,181”

CNN memorial: “2,985”

Wikipedia: “2,977”

FOX News: “2,812”

La Repubblica ( Sept11,’09 ): “2,752”

America Forever memorial: “2,467”

6. No trace of certain people: Jon Revusky tried to find two Japanese men who allegedly died in the towers and couldn’t find them (these are just two examples).
https://heresycentral.is/revusky/discreet-japanese/

Sophie - Admin1
Admin
Sophie - Admin1
Sep 13, 2021 6:40 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

I removed the comments about building 7 which, unlike other stuff in the long reply, is simply you repeating subjective impressions you have repeated many times before and which have been more than adequately addressed.

Howard
Howard
Sep 13, 2021 3:45 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Obviously I’m in no position to either agree or disagree with your analysis. But, as I’ve noted before, to me it’s telling that the only take on 9/11 roundly dissed by ALL sides is the September Clues take.

Perhaps to most that would be prima facie evidence against September Clues. But to me it’s just the reverse. If everybody’s against it, it’s definitely worth a second look.

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 14, 2021 2:19 AM
Reply to  Howard

Nope, one look’s more than enough, given the poor quality of the videos it’s based on.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 14, 2021 12:46 PM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

Cliff, if you can provide a single piece of evidence that favours real death and injury over fake I’d be most obliged. The last thing I wish to be doing is spreading misinformation. I agree I’m very boring, I’m a one-trick pony as binra has stated, I’m boring even to myself. The funny thing is though over at Piece of Mindful they’ve barely mentioned 9/11, over there they’re all in agreement with me over what 9/11 really was (I’d say most arrived at that conclusion long before I did) and feel no further need to discuss it. I have to say I was surprised that no one published a single piece on it though – but when all are in agreement and all think that it’s obvious what something is the need to discuss it evaporates.

R Anand
R Anand
Sep 14, 2021 10:20 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Good points, Petra. Thanks for highlighting it.

There certainly needed to be a thorough, independent deep dive into the names of supposedly those who died or got injured.

Petra provides some examples of independent researchers which point to holes in the ‘several injured/died’ narrative.

Each of the cases that these researchers have highlighted need to be adequately disproved by those who think there were lots of deaths and injured. But I haven’t seen that happen. It should not have been hard I suppose to do this had there been solid truth in the official narrative.

I also haven’t seen any specific, focussed piece/article/research on the people who suffered injuries or those who died.

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 15, 2021 1:53 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Facts that expose the claim of 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured as a lie.

.

1. The planes were obviously faked as shown by the 9/11 Consensus Panel and others so right off the bat we know that of the alleged 3,000 dead 265 didn’t die in a plane and we have no reason whatsoever to believe they died another way. This also prompts the question that if the plane deaths were faked, might the other deaths have also been faked?

Petra I could not find any support at all on https://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/ for your claim that the planes were “faked”. Am I missing something?

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 15, 2021 2:52 AM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

Are you agreeable, Cliff, to responding for requests for information in turn? I didn’t actually phrase my request clearly as such but I frame it now as a clear request.

Can you provide a single piece of evidence that favours real death and injury over fake on 9/11? (I’m assuming you believe in real death and injury but if not then of course the question is irrelevant.)

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Sep 15, 2021 3:13 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Can I just head this off before Cliff posts images of jumpers and you claim they’re dummies? Let’s cut to the chase, you think every piece of evidence of death is faked, your position is unfalsifiable, therefore it would seem it is impossible to argue that point with you. A2

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 15, 2021 4:50 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Rather than the falsifiable/unfalsifiable approach I take the approach of Occam’s Razor so while Sophie offered an explanation for the possibility of the body we have discussed numerous times being able to be a real body she didn’t ever say what about the body favoured real over fake.

So my argument Sam is that for 3000 alleged deaths and 6000 people allegedly being injured there should be a single piece of evidence that favours real over fake. If you believe that it’s possible for a situation of 9000 people where there isn’t a single piece of evidence that actually favours real over fake then so be it. I do not, especially when some of the purported evidence is clearly nonsense such as the 16 miracle survivors of the North Tower collapse and we know right off the bat that the alleged passengers in the planes are fake.

I’d very much appreciate if you didn’t act as though falsifiable/unfalsifiable is the only way to approach evidence. I think Occam’s Razor is just as legitimate and has served the test of time much longer.

Just to reiterate there is a big difference between offering a possible explanation for something and saying that something favours something over something else.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Sep 15, 2021 6:20 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

What about your argument favours you being real over fake? Since everything apparently hangs equally balanced in this pseudo logical real/fake dichotomy?

In some instances, for example the jumpers, you’re alleging fakery so accomplished as to make them indistinguishable from the real thing (go read some aircrash investigation books if you doubt me, and see what happens to bodies when subjected to huge impact forces), in which case your argument, using your own eccentric logic, favours your position rather less than Sophie’s, since the resources and artistry required to manufacture a fake and plant a convincing exploded body would be far harder than simply pushing someone out of a window.

Applying the principle of Occam’s razor I think it far more likely that you know this perfectly well. A2

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 15, 2021 7:12 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

I’d be very happy to do an Occam’s Razor exercise on the alleged dead body Sam (wish I’d attempted it before) but at this stage I’d rather leave it aside and leave it at the fact that neither you nor Sophie nor anyone else has put forward a case for the alleged dead body favouring real over fake.

So we start with the fact: no case has been made for the alleged dead body favouring real over fake although I’m very willing to do a case the other way or consider the case made for it favouring real over fake if one should be put forward.

And then we move onto pieces of purported evidence favouring fake over real. Three below but there are many more:

1. The miracle survivor stories of those who allegedly survived the collapse of the North Tower have no credibility. If you’d like to argue they do, I’d be very interested to hear about it.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/

2. The doctored McIlvaine family photos.

3. Every single image of the alleged 6000 injured perfectly fitting “drill” injured with not a single image favouring real over fake, moreover, very few images to start with as well as the fact we’d have to wonder at how all these 6,000 were injured. Where were they when they got injured?

Sacred facts, Sam.

— There is purported evidence that favours fake over real.
— There is no purported evidence – so far pointed out at least – that favours real over fake.

Sam, Sophie, Cliff, anyone.

Please provide a single piece of evidence that FAVOURS real over fake for any of the 9,000 people who allegedly died or were injured.

Sophie - Admin1
Admin
Sophie - Admin1
Sep 15, 2021 10:34 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

You make the same basic error of logic every time.

Look, the dead body APPEARS real and therefore must be presumed real until some evidence for fakery is produced.

You can’t use evidence for other unconnected fakery as evidence for this being faked. Improbable miracle survivor stories, even if proven to be fake (which they are not), are not in any way evidence against this body being real. That is an unjustifiable leap of inductive thinking on your part.

Your frequent claim no evidence ‘favors real over fake’ is equally specious.

A bandaged guy on scene is evidence for a real injury. If you believe it to be fake you have to provide evidence for that, as people did about the Boston bombing. There was excellent analysis there that showed some of the alleged injuries could not be real.

You have not produced any such evidence. All you have done is point to the photos of injured people and say “a person faking an injury would also look like that”. Well of course they would – because the fake is endeavoring g to look real and therefore will look like a real injury, but that’s inky evidence fir fakery in bizarro world!

I might as well point to the real Mona Lisa and say “a fake copy of the Mona Lisa would look just like that, so that proves the Mona Lisa is fake!”

No, ok. Let’s remain sane. The deaths and injuries look real, ergo we assume they are until you produce direct evidence they are not.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Sep 15, 2021 5:31 PM

Yes. it is utterly circular reasoning, entirely unfalsifiable and, even using Occam’s razor, is far less likely to be an elaborate fake than the genuine article. Unless there’s good evidence to suggest otherwise, which needs to come from you, Petra.. A2

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 15, 2021 7:16 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

I had no intention of doing that, Sam. Perhaps see my reply to Petra.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Sep 15, 2021 5:34 PM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

This loop repeats itself endlessly and, forgive me, it was no slight on you pointing that out. Thanks for making that clear in your reply. A2

R Anand
R Anand
Sep 16, 2021 5:13 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

As a matter of curiosity, Sam, what you do think constitutes ‘evidence’ in this specific case?

Is it the images of dead/injured/falling people what you refer to as evidence?

If so, then you must believe the pictures and videos in which these images are captured are authentic and not CGIs.

Petra has provided a few links where the researchers have, in great detail, probed these pics and videos and raised serious doubts about their authenticity.

I quite agree with those researchers.

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 15, 2021 7:12 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Looks like I was being a little too polite when I asked if I was “missing something”. It wasn’t actually a serious question as there’s nothing to miss on that website regarding “faked” planes.

I have never said anything to you about deaths, “faked” or otherwise, and I’m not remotely interested in arguing about it. That’s your particular hobby horse and you’re welcome to it.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 15, 2021 7:55 AM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

HOBBY HORSE – MIND CONTROL
Just to point out, Cliff, that my hobby horse isn’t really about pointing out the truth of death and injury, it’s much more about:

1. How they employed a particular propaganda strategy to make the anticipated disbelievers of their story believe in real death and injury and

2. How this belief hamstrings those who want to get out the truth – an important truth (“inside job”) but an equally important lie (the cold-blooded and callous murder of 3,000 citizens by US govt) simply won’t fly – those two pieces of the 9/11 jigsaw won’t fit together – they repel each other like two positive magnets. Half-truths make great lies. True, in effect, they’re murdering far more people now with a fake vaccine but it’s a different situation.

That is my hobby horse, not the truth of whether people really died or not although to get to my hobby horse I’m forced to keep arguing for the truth of staged death and injury.

It’s about how they control our minds in ways that might seem counterintuitive. If you have no interest in how minds are controlled, fair enough, Cliff, but to me mind control is an extremely important phenomenon and great attention should be paid to it.

For example, they have led the disbelievers of their story to recognise WTC-7 as the “smoking gun” but when you think about it that makes no sense. 9/11 was highly controlled and co-ordinated and planned many years in advance. There is no way that they would simply have allowed a building to collapse in such a seemingly self-incriminating way unless they WANTED that to happen. They seemingly drew a lot of attention to it before they brought it down – why would they do that? and then we have to wonder why they brought it down at all on 9/11. Regardless of whatever they wanted to hide in that building they didn’t need to bring it down on the day. They could have brought it down later having reasonably laid it with explosives.

You see how clever the mind control is? WTC-7 the “smoking gun” which isn’t. They want everyone’s attention on the buildings, notably 7’s, and away from the more revealing faked planes.

What the deliberately in flagrante delicto collapse of WTC-7 shows is that the perps have no inhibition about pushing something that is incredibly obviously not what they say it is in our faces. They weren’t in the SLIGHTEST concerned that the vast majority of people might wake up to the Emperor’s New Clothes implosion of WTC-7, not the slightest. They knew that only a small percentage would look at it seriously and so they were able to target this small number with the “smoking gun” propaganda specially for them – of course, they wanted to bring the building down anyway but its collapse did double duty. This is what we’re up against.

FAKERY OF PLANES – CONSENSUS PANEL
I concede I was stretching it to say that the Consensus Panel talks of plane fakery, however, what they do point out are many anomalies that certainly bring the planes’ existence into doubt. These are points from the Consensus Panel pages I’ve published on my page on the fakery of the planes as points 10-13.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/four-faked-plane-crashes.html

10. Phone calls from airliners on 9/11 – The 9/11 Consensus Panel provides detailed analysis of the problems with the alleged phone calls from Todd Beamer and Barbara Olson and the problems with the accounts of the phone calls being from mobile phones.

11. No evidence of hijackers boarding the planes – The 9/11 Consensus Panel provides detailed analysis indicating that any evidence purporting to show hijackers boarding of the four flights is inauthentic.

12. No evidence for hijackers being responsible for changes to flight transponders – The 9/11 Consensus Panel provides detailed analysis indicating that there is no reliable evidence to support the claim that hijackers manually deactivated or altered the operation of the transponders aboard the 9/11 flights. Instead, there is a spectrum of evidence showing that hijackers did not board any of the flights.

13. Unexplained Black Box Anomalies for the Four 9/11 Planes – The 9/11 Consensus Panel provides detailed analysis that indicates the official account for the airliners’ black boxes is false and raises serious anomalies including lack of serial numbers. Their analysis also indicates that flight data file for AA 77 was made before the FDR itself was reportedly found.

susan mullen
susan mullen
Sep 13, 2021 3:27 AM

3/19/2003, by the late Justin Raimondo. 9/11/2001 and Bush Middle East wars marked conversion of US from republic to empire which first required enslavement of US citizens. Neocon “revolution is not directed primarily against foreign tyrants: for even as they put on a great show of “liberating” foreign peoples, they are in the process of enslaving the American people, and destroying the remnants of the Constitution….The republic that bound its rulers with the chains of the Constitution and freed the rest of us to live in peace is no more….Where the US once fought wars in self-defense, it now wages wars of outright conquest….The enemy is not only within the gates: he has seized our main headquarters, and is now conducting mop-up operations against such pockets of resistance as still persist. The citadel is taken.”…”Shine Perishing Republic,” Justin Raimondo, AntiWar.com…https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2019/06/25/shine-perishing-republic/

Edwige
Edwige
Sep 13, 2021 8:18 AM
Reply to  susan mullen

“9/11/2001 and Bush Middle East wars marked conversion of US from republic to empire”

The USA has been a land-based empire since the Mexican war of the 1840s and a sea-based empire since the Spanish war of the 1890s. Enslavement of US citizens is nothing new – see for example the open bragging about how Democrat troops were disenfranchised in 1864 to the police state measures introduced by front-man Wilson in and just after WW1. Like covid and medical tyranny, recent events may be the ramping up of an existing trend but they certainly didn’t create it.

Patrick L.
Patrick L.
Sep 13, 2021 2:43 AM

You can’t make this shit up: On the 20th anniversary of 9/11, the French Prime Minister flew low over Paris in a military Airbus accompanied by a fighter jet. The sonic boom made many Parisians think there had been an explosion.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58536534

Orthus
Orthus
Sep 13, 2021 7:22 AM
Reply to  Patrick L.

Were they scared as a result?

falcemartello
falcemartello
Sep 13, 2021 2:09 AM

Another article I forgot to add.
Check the date.
THe anglo-zionist are playing us like fools.
https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Israeli-scientists-In-three-weeks-we-will-have-coronavirus-vaccine-619101

Smith, Winston
Smith, Winston
Sep 13, 2021 1:33 AM

I have always suspected it was that random guy in the Harley-Davidson t-shirt who tipped off the BBC about WTC7.

falcemartello
falcemartello
Sep 13, 2021 12:57 AM

The whole 9/11 was a psy -op from day one.
PUNTO UNO: Initial eyewitnesses of the first so called plane flying through solid steel beams and concrete “THere was no plane ” Janitors with in the building from the basement :”Heard explosion starting from down up and the main entrance lobby having been totally obliterated into post explosive damage” The initial fireman(may he RIP) stating categorically once he arrived @ the scene that he and his crew were able to contain the fire.
PUNTO DUE: The science /physics( building 7 )
SAY NO MORE.
Here are some more p/rv papers testing genome sequence and no serological samples of da virus.
Further more go figure TGA Australia the land of the NEW WORLD ORDER LOOOOOOOOOL
has just put out a revised edict on IVERMECTUM
Basically any medico who prescribes this drug for SARS will be up for medical mal paractice and have there liscence revoked .
https://www.academia.edu/33914985/Drug_Targets_in_Severe_Acute_Respiratory_Syndrome_SARS_Virus_and_other_Coronavirus_Infections?email_work_card=view-paper
https://www.academia.edu/23848258/Bovine_Like_Coronaviruses_Isolated_from_Four_Species_of_Captive_Wild_Ruminants_Are_Homologous_to_Bovine_Coronaviruses_Based_on_Complete_Genomic_Sequences?email_work_card=view-paper
https://www.academia.edu/51008474/Evaluate_government_policies_holistically_don_t_judge_a_book_by_its_cover_alone?email_work_card=view-paper
The last article will be in french but has an interesting argument .
https://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/politique/article/covid-vecteur-de-manipulation-par-235558
POST SCRIPTUM: SO YOU STILL THINK THIS IS NOT A COUP D’ETAT AND WE DEFEATED FASCISM.
DOCIUS IN FONDO; QUI TACET CONSENTIR VIDETUR
FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS.
FACTUM DICTUM SATUT STATUM
As most people can see they are basically going full bore in the 5 eyes countries while Denmark and Sweden will legally declare COVID finito. Portugal; and Spain are no longer PCR testing for the Supreme courts in these respective countries have ruled PCR TESTUM NON GRATA.
The 5 eyes are initiating mandates either via back door IE: Working mandates or accessing government services as well as education so 12 to 17 year olds will have to get the holy serum or no schooling and parents have no say.
KEEPING WEARING THOSE G-STRINGS OVER YOUR FACE.
PACE E BENE

Mick West
Mick West
Sep 13, 2021 12:47 AM

The circled column was actually cut on October 29. Six weeks later. Photos exist on that day of it both intact, and then later cut.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 13, 2021 7:45 AM
Reply to  Mick West

Mick, is that you from metabunk? You’re intrepid, coming on this site. Hats off!

You still haven’t responded to my challenge for WTC-7’s collapse – the 10 points that favour fire over CD. Still haven’t responded, nor has anyone else. I removed the $5,000 reward gimmick but the challenge remains … unresponded to as it always will be because WTC-7 so very clearly came down by controlled demolition, no more perfect implosion can be seen anywhere. The perps didn’t have to bring it down by CD on the day, no, it was all very blatantly deliberate (for reasons indirectly connected via the faked planes to the fakery of death and injury I’d say) because they knew that the majority of people, including yourself, would be bewitched by the propaganda and would believe that indeed the building magically came down by fire even though nary a flame was to be seen at the time of its collapse and high-rise steel frame buildings don’t come down by fire, not to mention all the hallmarks of CD so very loud and clear.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html

The Emperor’s New Clothes. It has worked since time immemorial without people waking up. It’s amazing! I just cannot understand how the same old tricks keep working and working and working and working. Why don’t people wake up to them? It baffles me.

Mick, you cannot come up with 10 points – or even just the one – that favour fire over CD for the collapse of WTC-7. Why doesn’t that speak to you?

Reset the Diaboligarchy
Reset the Diaboligarchy
Sep 13, 2021 12:20 AM

I wonder what force was at work, and whether it was benevolent or not. I mean, I don’t trust NeoCons to have conscience or scruples, but were they pulling all the strings here, or rather was this a mass psychological hive mind event, on a scale never seen before? In which case what was steering this? A higher authority. A group mind. Something beyond our ken on an individual level. Was it a conscious higher power at work, a group mind? Or a more instinctual response, neither good nor evil, perhaps merely acting on a self preservation instinct.  I think there’s a good chance this is beyond the grasp any any mere mortal, NeoCon or otherwise?

comment image

Big al
Big al
Sep 13, 2021 1:40 AM

Rich rule, we drool, it’s not hard to grasp. People can go down all the rabbit holes they want but in the end it’s the same shit humans have been doing to each other since humans were hatched in eggs by an alien race from another universe.

dr death
dr death
Sep 13, 2021 5:12 PM

more likely, you are seeing the ‘long march through the institutions’ baring it’s rotten fruit for its bankster masters.. a plan long in the making.. a common purpose..

‘they’ could predict accurately in the late sixties/seventies when the teetering ponzi scheme would collapse.. (financialization was the solution, offering several more boom and bust cycles by recycling toxic financial instruments and stealing national assets through ‘privatisation’)…

also.. that the ‘west’ would become ‘problematic’ and have to be dealt with on the road to ‘globalism’ (total control grid). the ahem,’war on terror’ offering this opportunity to destabilize not just the middle east but the west as well, furnishing a framework in which all dissent will be classed as terrorism… .

a bankster funded china, astro turfed into existence to replace and at the expense of the west would have fulfilled the function of newest satrap and cash cow for ‘milking’, but the CCCp have decided to go their own national socialist way (they wont ‘play’, having examined the reprobates running the scams and their methods and deciding to ‘stiff’ them.. look at the arm computer processor drama when the hollow mens threats, strong arm tactics and bullying got them nowhere …the yankee attack dog isn’t what it was and so it seems these gangsters have lost a valuable bargaining ‘chip’ hehe )..

ergo.. all of the, on face value, ridiculous liberal policies and forced impositions now metastasizing into full blown biological tyranny (more fear driven ‘wars’ on this, that and the other)…. all of these events are connected and of course planned….

but worry not mr ‘diaboligarchy’…. these imbeciles are terrified (and incompetent)..

and as someone somewhere so eloquently put it..

‘if it bleeds we can kill it’….

Patrick L.
Patrick L.
Sep 13, 2021 12:20 AM

Questions to people in the UK:

Has any member of any party had the guts to come out persistently and fundamentally against the New Fascist Normal? (I don’t mean the odd tentative question or mild criticism in Parliament; I mean an informed and principled stand.)

Has even 1 of those 650 elected representatives ever called out this pseudopandemic for what it so obviously is? (A plain lie covering a global coup.)

We’ve now in the 19th month of this sinister farce. They cannot all still be as ignorant or as trusting as they pretend to be.

wardropper
wardropper
Sep 13, 2021 6:55 AM
Reply to  Patrick L.

They are not ignorant.
They are compromised and too scared to stand up.

Orthus
Orthus
Sep 13, 2021 7:25 AM
Reply to  wardropper

Compromised, perhaps? But any MP who questions the narrative may as well quit right now. Similarly MSM journalists.

wardropper
wardropper
Sep 13, 2021 3:57 PM
Reply to  Orthus

Well, exactly.
The problem is that they never quit.

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar
Sep 13, 2021 7:20 AM
Reply to  Patrick L.

You don’t get to become an MP behaving like that. The major parties weed out ‘the awkward squad’ before they dole out safe seats.

I haven’t followed the words of Corbyn recently, but he is the only one likely to say such things. Especially now he has nothing to lose….

Patrick L.
Patrick L.
Sep 14, 2021 6:22 AM
Reply to  Patrick L.

Thanks for the replies. I was honestly hoping to hear at least one name, one brave individual out of 650. No such luck.

It really tells you everything about the state of what’s called democracy, and not just in the UK. Germany is no better. Gleichschaltung. All parties, all politicians, all mass media in lockstep. Tens of millions of people marginalised, vilified and effectively disenfranchised while this juggernaut rolls over them

The only exception is the newly-formed party dieBasis (Basisdemokratische Partei Deutschland), headed by Dr Reiner Füllmich and founded solely because there was no existing party-political opposition to the Covid coup. .

https://diebasis-partei.de/tag/dr-reiner-fuellmich/

NoThanks
NoThanks
Sep 12, 2021 11:09 PM

For much of the last twenty years, alt-media’s coverage (Corbett Report, Zerohedge, various documentaries, etc) gave me enough information to be skeptical about the official 9/11 narrative. Defying the laws of physics should be enough to raise suspicion for anyone, after all. The unlikelihood of untrained pilots doing expert-level maneuvers, our defense systems failing to shoot down the planes that drifted wildly off course, the simulation drills of planes flying into buildings just prior to that day, suspicious AA and United Airlines stock trading activity…all great points.

And then I started seeing videos like this.

At first, I didn’t want to give much credit to the idea that planes may have never actually been flown into buildings. But I had to take a step back and ask myself why I didn’t want to entertain that possibility. I already knew that three buildings in NYC fell into their own footprints, all of which looked like controlled demolitions that would not require any sort of damage from a plane. Building 7, of course, wasn’t even claimed to have been hit by a plane. Why was I so hesitant to consider the other two weren’t either?

I decided that my primary hesitancy is based on seeing it with my own eyes. I watched on “live” tv as planes flew into buildings. I watched “amateur” footage from so many different angles. Everyone I knew saw the same footage to reinforce my beliefs. I watched coverage of real people who claim to have watched the planes hit the buildings in real time. This angle of the story didn’t appear to be questionable.

Being completely honest with myself, I could not and still cannot prove that the footage I watched on tv in 2001 was actually live. I cannot prove that the footage from amateur cameras was not doctored, or even that the footage was actually sourced from amateurs in the first place. There are precisely zero people that I personally know and trust who were in NYC that day and can tell me that they looked up into the sky and saw a plane hit a building. Many who were recorded say they saw no planes. Others who say that they did see planes could easily be planted; crisis actors are a real, proven thing. CIA operatives embedded inside of media organizations are as well. I have literally no reliable source of information other than my own two eyes.

After closer examination, what my own two eyes see is an airplane seemingly slicing into a steel-framed building like a knife through butter. From at least one camera angle, I see the nose of the plane come out the other side in-tact, which is impossible. As explained in many of the “CGI plane” theory videos, the initial impact of the nose hitting the building should have looked much more like test videos of planes being rammed into concrete walls. Other videos of a wing disappearing when watching frame by frame, or comparing discrepancies between flight paths angles in different footage, or wide angle shots not showing the plane at all…they all add credence to the notion that CGI was used to generate the appearance of planes that were not there.

In the same way, Covid coverage is usually centered around the “acceptable” dissent topics: effectiveness and safety of the vaccines, the ethics of mandates and lockdowns, the origins of the virus, the mortality rate of the disease, the conflicts of interest, the censorship, the fraudulent testing. But all of it assumes—much like the planes of 9/11—that a single virus and a specific disease exists in spite of those things never being proven.

All of the medical doctors raising questions are seeing clearly that there is a mass manipulation taking place, but few are willing to take a step back and realize that their entire careers may have been part of a much larger manipulation centered around the fraudulent germ theory. Those who look objectively at the process of isolating viruses and “proving” them to be pathogenic should be able to see the fraud. Maybe many of these doctors and scientists have been made aware of the possibility, but their cognitive dissonance is too much to overcome. Maybe there’s too much money at stake after years of medical school debt. Maybe their medical indoctrination and (virtually) zero required knowledge of nutrition limits their imagination. Maybe it takes an outsider to be willing to recognize the BIG lie.

We get close to an admission of modern virology being utter nonsense with the lawsuits against the Corman-Drosten paper. Here we can see that the original PCR test for Sars-Cov-2 was created using Sars-Cov-1 because no samples of Sars-Cov-2 were available. But the deeper dive is to analyze the entire process.

The genome of “new” viruses are defined by computer software using prior viruses as references. But if the genomes of new viruses are created with computer predictions based on previous viruses, what is the original source material for any of it? There is no purified, isolated, fully-sequenced virus which we can “test” for in a human. There is no such virus which has been taken from a sick person, introduced into a healthy person in a natural manner (not via injection), showing the second person experiencing the same symptoms as the first person. Before it was deemed unethical, contagion experiments were attempted, but they failed to show viral contagion. Following the actual principles of science is how you disprove those claiming they “follow the science.”

In both 9/11 and Covid, the simplest explanation is being ignored by most.

Buildings fell down in what looked like a controlled demolition because it was a controlled demolition. Strange flight paths and slow military reaction, untrained pilots performing difficult maneuvers, planes defying physics as they disappear into solid steel buildings, and the unlikely nature of all of these acts being precisely timed and coordinated can best be explained simply by realizing there were no actual planes involved. The narrative of planes being hijacked was necessary in order to take away so many liberties in the name of safety, so the CGI planes were vital to the entire operation.

In health, people get sick not because of one single virus swimming in the endless sea of protein-wrapped genetic materials floating around which we call viruses, but because we collectively poison ourselves daily in varying ways and degrees. With unnatural toxic foods, unnatural toxic air and water pollution, unnatural chemical medications and interventions, unnatural radiation exposure, unnatural levels of stress and fear, unnatural sleep cycles…literally everything about the average human life goes against nature. Yet we take no responsibility for these actions and find comfort in blaming protein-wrapped genetic materials which have never been proven to be the cause of any disease. The narrative of viruses hijacking our bodies is necessary in order to take away so many liberties in the name of safety, so the “new” viruses are vital to the entire operation.

Our entire way of life goes against nature, and in the process benefits those who profit from the creation of unnatural things. Until we wake up to this, we’ll be easily, endlessly manipulated.

P.s. Perhaps we see simulations prior to major events because they serve as great red herrings, drawing attention away from the more pervasive, foundational conspiracies? At least in the case of 9/11 flight simulations and Event 201, both perpetuate the idea of real planes and real viruses.

NickM
NickM
Sep 13, 2021 8:11 AM
Reply to  NoThanks

“But if the genomes of new [Con-19] viruses are created with computer predictions based on previous [Con-19] viruses, what is the original source material for any of it [where is the original virus that caused the flu named Covid-19]?”

The original virus is in a test tube in a U$ Biowarfare Lab. Not available to civilian health authorities.

Edwige
Edwige
Sep 13, 2021 8:48 AM
Reply to  NoThanks

I’ve questioned the existence of viruses as pathogens and am willing to question other narratives ranging from space exploration to Einsteinian physics.

However the “no planes on 9/11” angle looks like a planted story to me. It looks to me that they took a partial truth (no airliners crashed into the Pentagram or at Shanksville( and projected it on to the WTC to make 9/11 Truthers sound crazy. The idea originated with people like John Lear who was an ex-CIA pilot. The two big obvious problems are: 1) the plane strikes – especially the second one – had vast numbers of witnesses 2) the danger of something going wrong was too great.

I accept there are problems with the planes and the WTC, especially the stated flight speeds on impact. However it seems to me that converted military airliners flown in by remote guidance gives a more probable explanation of those problems than “no planes”. The means was there when flight paths crossed soon after take-off and it would explain why the planes were all modern rather than, say, any older 737s being used.

There is also the problem that they went to considerable lengths to contrive that the first plane strike was filmed. The presence of that film crew with an unimpeded view is extremely improbable without forward-planning. They wanted that plane strike recorded because they went to great lengths to bring it about – as they went to great lengths to conceal any footage of what happened at the Pentagram where no airliner hit (whether anything hit the latter, who knows… smaller jet? missile? internal device? A case can be made for any of these).

New Nane
New Nane
Sep 13, 2021 10:39 AM
Reply to  Edwige

No credible wreckage. Extreme risks of remotely controlled planes crashing away from the targets and the extreme problems of covering up these crashes. The media is owned by the perpetrators. just have them air physically impossible footage and then throw it away.

NoThanks
NoThanks
Sep 13, 2021 6:49 PM
Reply to  Edwige

I couldn’t accept the CGI plane thing at first either, but I have a hard time believing that this is what an aluminum body plane flying into a solid steel structure should look like on impact.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/WrgN4tiglFOB/

dom irritant
dom irritant
Sep 14, 2021 12:53 PM
Reply to  Edwige

Airliners do not slice through steel structures like a hot knife through butter.

Olivia
Olivia
Sep 13, 2021 9:18 AM
Reply to  NoThanks

Very good point/interesting association. I’m inclined to think that both germ theory and terrain theory are needed to explain certain kinds of disease, in the same way as the theories of both Darwin and Lamarck are necessary to explain evolution. On that basis I am inclined to agree with Edwige’s analysis below/above, because it recognises that planes were needed to justify the new security laws, in the same way as a real carefully calibrated infectious agent was needed for Covid19 op. And after all with covid19 and the vaccines the govts/tptb have shown themselves capable of killing many ( of their own citizens ) in pursuit of their agendas.

dom irritant
dom irritant
Sep 14, 2021 12:55 PM
Reply to  Olivia

You only need the illusion of a virus or planes to fool the masses…..job done.

porkpie
porkpie
Sep 12, 2021 10:35 PM

Is the fact the column circled in the photo was cut after the collapse to more easily clear the site just to be ignored then? The canard that these cuts somehow represent evidence of CD is just to be repeated and accepted?

Instead of just unthinkingly downvoting this comment, wht not go and do some research about these cuts, specifically how and when they were made.

Veri Tas
Veri Tas
Sep 13, 2021 12:21 AM
Reply to  porkpie

At what point in time was the photo taken? It would appear pretty much at the first response point in time -see the smoke and dust still hanging in the air.

At this time, in order to make such a perfect cut of the very strong and thick pillar, the first responders would have had to haul some pretty heavy equipment to the site to cut the pillar, don’t you think? Do you see such equipment at the site as photographed?

The author’s explanation is much more likely, then.

Claret
Claret
Sep 13, 2021 12:32 AM
Reply to  Veri Tas

The image looks like its been photoshopped to me. The blokes in the foreground look like they’ve been pasted onto a background.

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 13, 2021 1:37 AM
Reply to  Claret

🤣😂🤣

Patrick L.
Patrick L.
Sep 13, 2021 1:25 AM
Reply to  Veri Tas

Smoke & dust hung in the air for weeks. Fires burned underground for many months.

porkpie
porkpie
Sep 13, 2021 7:31 PM
Reply to  Veri Tas

responders would have had to haul some pretty heavy equipment to the site to cut the pillar, don’t you think?

Like this d’you mean?
comment image

And yes that is the same column middle left shot from a different angle.

At what point in time was the photo taken? 

It was taken 6 weeks later on 29/10/01.

Patrick L.
Patrick L.
Sep 13, 2021 12:24 AM
Reply to  porkpie

You’re right about that..It’s a shame that photo is included in the article (although Iain Davis does state that it doesn’t constitute proof.) Much stronger and more damning evidence is available.

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 13, 2021 1:35 AM
Reply to  porkpie

I have a better idea:

How about you provide a source or two in order to back up your ridiculous assertion?

porkpie
porkpie
Sep 13, 2021 7:23 PM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

Yes, suggesting that workers cut the steel to make it easier to remove is a ridculous assertion, Cliff
comment image

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 14, 2021 2:23 AM
Reply to  porkpie

Kindly explain why the column was cut at such an angle instead of straight across, thereby greatly increasing the time needed to cut it.

Patrick L.
Patrick L.
Sep 14, 2021 5:57 AM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

*sigh*

Have you ever felled a tree, or watched somebody fell one?

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 14, 2021 11:06 AM
Reply to  Patrick L.

You’re comparing a tree with a steel box girder?

😂🤣😂🤣😂

Patrick L.
Patrick L.
Sep 14, 2021 5:56 PM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

How do you think they ensure it falls in the right direction?

Patrick L.
Patrick L.
Sep 14, 2021 9:17 PM
Reply to  Patrick L.

The silence is oppressive. Somewhere in the distance a dog barks.

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 14, 2021 10:57 PM
Reply to  Patrick L.

Sorry but I find it fairly difficult to reply while I’m asleep.

rubberheid
rubberheid
Sep 17, 2021 2:37 PM
Reply to  Patrick L.

That is not an angled cut PtL – it is a gub, a directional space for the volume of the tree to fall into. Space.
The felling cut is at a direct right angle (as far as humanely possible) toward that space.
You seem to be talking shit on this one amigo.
People who use angled felling cuts have accidents.

porkpie
porkpie
Sep 14, 2021 7:47 PM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

Cliff, will an explanation from someone who actually did the work do?

There was no concern that we’d accidentally knock the rest of the façade down. That’s how strong they were. The bottom of these crucibles were box beams. Eventually we cut them like you would a tree, on a wedge so that they couldn’t tip back. We’d leave a little stick in there, then we’d hook the cable up and just pull it away. Everything was taken out in controlled increments.

Nine Months at Ground Zero, The Story of the Brotherhood of Workers Who Took on a Job Like No Other, p. 97.)

Or do you know better?

But you don’t really want to know Cliff, do you? No evidence will ever be good enough. You, like so many here, have made your decision and nothing will ever change that. I did what you asked in first comment and you ignored it and changed tack. I have again done what you have asked and you will no doubt change tack again. Or just ignore this.

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 14, 2021 9:46 PM
Reply to  porkpie

Okay, so that particular box beam might have been cut as if were a tree rather than having ended up like that as a result of the controlled demolition. I can accept that.

Looks like an interesting book.

Patrick L.
Patrick L.
Sep 14, 2021 9:11 PM
Reply to  porkpie

Thirteen (in figures: 13) downvotes for this sane and demonstraby true observation.

Here’s one thing — apart from all the outright lies & incessant stonewalling by the perpetrators — that’s really hindered the exposure of the state crime that was 9/11: the fact that so many so-called “truthers” are so attached to crap explanations and demonstrably misleading evidence that they cannot admit they’re wrong, even when it’s proven to them. They think admitting a mistake would be letting the team down or something. Or else their egos are just terribly fragile.

(These geniuses can be hard to distinguish from the many salaried spooks who deliberately spread disinfo, because they both have the same pernicious effect.)

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 14, 2021 9:52 PM
Reply to  Patrick L.

Well said. Apologies to you and porkpie for my pigheadedness!

Patrick L.
Patrick L.
Sep 15, 2021 12:19 AM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

Well, good on you, man. Respect.

(I’ve been bamboozled by some errors myself about 9/11. I remember being briefly fascinated by that “bulge under the planes” stufffor instance. We all live and learn. Nothing matters but the truth.)

John
John
Sep 12, 2021 10:23 PM

“this is not about freedom” Joe Biden

These are not words that should come out of the mouth of a US President!!

RobG
RobG
Sep 12, 2021 10:08 PM

You can only write a piece like this, about ‘truth’, unless you live in a total fog of propaganda.

Mike
Mike
Sep 12, 2021 10:07 PM

Please delete this comment.

Hsuan
Hsuan
Sep 12, 2021 10:01 PM

Recently, in the comment section for another article, someone posted a link to the work of Dr Judy Wood, specifically her investigations into how (or why) the towers came down. After reviewing a good chunk of what she had to say (the buildings came down due to what she refers to as “dustification”) I’d say it makes sense. I re-watched some of the videos and I could see that the buildings were essentially pulverized. One large chunk in particular can be seen literally turning to dust in mid-air. I did not see any strong evidence of any kind of “explosions.” Of course, I’m not expert in these matters, but I do find the evidence she presents as, at least, quite intriguing.

https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/

Jim McDonagh
Jim McDonagh
Sep 13, 2021 12:09 AM
Reply to  Hsuan

Like the theory that smoke is the physical manifestation of electricity , because as any electrical apprentice knows , once the smoke gets out the device will no longer function

Howard
Howard
Sep 13, 2021 3:54 AM
Reply to  Hsuan

The dustification Dr Wood notes all seemed to have happened to material from the topmost portions of the Twin Towers. It’s interesting that we see no such dustification of material from the lower portions.

And there is absolutely no dustification whatsoever of the Building 7 collapse – which was the ONLY building collapse clearly visible from start to finish.

Hsuan
Hsuan
Sep 13, 2021 5:54 AM
Reply to  Howard

So, if you saw no dustification from the lower floors of the towers what did you see?

As for WTC7, there was a tremendous amount of dust created when that building came down. Dr Wood doesn’t seem to devote much time to that building, which may or may not say something.

I’m not into defending Dr Wood’s views. I find her evidence interesting but I personally have come to no definitive conclusions.

New Nane
New Nane
Sep 13, 2021 10:42 AM
Reply to  Hsuan

What’s wrong with nukes ? The steel test tower at the Trinity test site partly evaporated.

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar
Sep 13, 2021 7:24 AM
Reply to  Hsuan

If there were no ‘explosions’, how do you explain the rapid propulsion of major pieces of steel outwards, when the only direction the force of gravity would send them would be straight down?

The evidence for explosive force is overwhelming, the only question is whether the explosive force were caused by nanothermite, other explosives or some kind of mini-nuke device.

New Nane
New Nane
Sep 13, 2021 10:43 AM
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar

The only practical explanation is mini nukes.

Hsuan
Hsuan
Sep 13, 2021 8:47 PM
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar

If a nuclear device had been used, I would think some significant measure of radiation would have been found at the WTC site with reports of radiation sickness, unless that info has been suppressed. Also, as Dr Wood pointed out, the “bathtub” walls below the WTC would almost certainly have been breached by the force of a nuclear explosion and the Hudson River would have flooded a large portion of Manhattan.

New Name
New Name
Sep 14, 2021 12:13 AM
Reply to  Hsuan

There was plenty of radiation and of course the media covered up the medical problems and deaths of first responders and local residents. The mini nukes were detonated in a top down synchronised sequence as the footage clearly shows.

Sophie - Admin1
Admin
Sophie - Admin1
Sep 15, 2021 12:39 PM
Reply to  New Name

There was plenty of radiation 

no there actually wasn’t. The USGS, Steven Jones and others all measured radiation levels in the dust and in groundwater etc. No significant levels of fission products, no neutron activation. Ergo, no nukes.

Karswell
Karswell
Sep 13, 2021 2:16 PM
Reply to  Hsuan

@Hsuan – Dr Judy Wood’s hypothesis talks of a directed energy beam weapon which likely doesn’t exist. Check out Heinz Pommer’s book The Ground Zero Model. His hypothesis talks of some sort of underground neutron nuclear device, in addition to cutter charges. His theory certainly explains all of the phenomena seen that day, and the technology exists.

Hsuan
Hsuan
Sep 13, 2021 8:48 PM
Reply to  Karswell

Thanks. I’ll check it out.

Patrick L.
Patrick L.
Sep 12, 2021 9:58 PM

We can exchange truths about 9/11 on the internet or in conferences & symposiums forever (or rather: for as long as they let us), but one truth is paramount: The Gangster State cares nothing for any truths and will never prosecute itself for its own crimes.
Twenty years on, they are more powerful, united and ruthless than ever before. The Covid Coup is their most daring heist yet. It shows that they now think themselves invulnerable. Having gotten away with 9/11, they now believe they can get away with anything. Are they wrong about that?
Perhaps they are reformable? [Cue laugh track.] But seriously, folks, what actually effective response can even be imagined now, short of revolution? It would need to be a more radical, conscious and truly popular revolution than any in history.
Michael Parenti – The JFK Assassination and the Gangster Nature of the State

Maiasta
Maiasta
Sep 13, 2021 12:31 AM
Reply to  Patrick L.

“What actually effective response can even be imagined now, short of revolution?”

None. Revolution is the only way. But it will happen country-by-country and region-by-region. Any kind of large-scale movement will be infiltrated and subverted before it even gets off the ground. Everything will have to happen at the hands of small groups of people that know each other. Tactically, nothing can really be off-the-table except for unprovoked violence (self defence is another matter). The reality of this will set in once the hard lockdowns return this winter (as we kow they will) and as large numbers start dying from the ‘vaccine’.

It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar
Sep 13, 2021 7:26 AM
Reply to  Patrick L.

They are no more reformable than the nazis were. You won’t deal with these people using negotiation. You either use the force of law after arresting them or you use the force of war by killing them.

NickM
NickM
Sep 13, 2021 7:56 AM
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar

Now I understand why Mao’s said: “Justice comes from the barrel of a gun”.

dom irritant
dom irritant
Sep 14, 2021 1:10 PM
Reply to  NickM

That is not correct, he said “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. Mao then said “our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party”.

Patrick L.
Patrick L.
Sep 14, 2021 10:25 PM
Reply to  Patrick L.

Goddammit, Michael Parenti’s voice is sorely missed. It’s the voice of a New York that is now being crushed. Unashamedly intelligent, unashamedly angry and unashamedly witty. He can be laugh-out-loud funny about the sheer grotesqueness of ruling-class lies without ever trivialising their brutal consequences. The son of barely-literate immigrants, A learned and eloquent man.
Imagine a debate between the great Parenti and that millionaire rodent Fauci.

Claret
Claret
Sep 12, 2021 9:02 PM

The truth is : it is impossible for 60 tons of 3mm aluminium panelling to smash through 110,000 tons of steel beams and 100,000 tons of reinforced concrete. Therefore what was presented on TV that ‘fateful day’ must have been fckin faked. But if people want or need to carry on believing the whole 9/11 TV shitshow, then it is their problem I suppose.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 12, 2021 10:04 PM
Reply to  Claret

Impossible only if the 210,000 tons of steel and concrete were intact. But they were obviously not. Even the top sections were being shredded, and that’s before they began to move downward. This is one of the best pieces of evidence for demolition.

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 13, 2021 1:29 AM
Reply to  Claret

Only “impossible” to those who have been sucked in by the “no planes” psyop.

New Name
New Name
Sep 13, 2021 3:03 AM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

Why are you defending the media ?

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 14, 2021 2:26 AM
Reply to  New Name

Kindly explain how I’m “defending the media”.

New Name
New Name
Sep 13, 2021 3:02 AM
Reply to  Claret

It’s 1 mm in most parts of the fuselage.

Judith
Judith
Sep 13, 2021 11:58 AM
Reply to  Claret

A missile dressed up as a passenger plane could do the job, I imagine.

Wayne Vanderploeg
Wayne Vanderploeg
Sep 12, 2021 8:31 PM

Gus Grissom in the movie The Right Stuff, “It just blew”.

JWK
JWK
Sep 12, 2021 8:22 PM

As usual, I’ve ended up with yet another “conspiracy theory” that turned out to be true. Which raises a question. Without a theory of conspiracy, how is a conspiracy ever to be exposed? The use of the words “conspiracy theory” as derogatory is a brilliant piece of propaganda, put forth by the CIA to conceal its part in the murder of JFK, but invalid none the less.

Doctortrinate
Doctortrinate
Sep 12, 2021 10:20 PM
Reply to  JWK

I fail to comprehend how we can call anything a conspiracy “theory”…when the essence of the game is that the sweeping stupor of these scheming sting jobs be the prime mechanism that supplies the cabal with it’s position of influence .

Doctortrinate
Doctortrinate
Sep 12, 2021 8:13 PM

the above Corbett video “911 conspiracy” ,claims the attacks were directed by Bin Laden, a common enough suggestion , however, the FBI stated, that OBL was wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of the U.S Embassies , Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, no mention of him being the architect of 911, that position, was occupied by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

porkpie
porkpie
Sep 12, 2021 10:21 PM
Reply to  Doctortrinate

One of many errors, but hey, it makes a good story, right?

Doctortrinate
Doctortrinate
Sep 12, 2021 10:28 PM
Reply to  porkpie

Pp..and the acting was superlative, would be an oscar, if it wasn’t for Wag the Dog.

Jim McDonagh
Jim McDonagh
Sep 13, 2021 12:13 AM
Reply to  porkpie

Not a story a ‘narrative” , the lipstick and make-up applied to the pig that 9/11 American version has become.

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 13, 2021 1:26 AM
Reply to  Jim McDonagh

Especially the part that says it was all the Saudis’ doing, right?

Skeptic
Skeptic
Sep 12, 2021 7:38 PM

“We will never/can not know is one of the most infuriating buzzwords infused into the propagandised modern human. The highly educated™(aka the intellectually lazy) in particular have a weakness for it. They love to parade themselves as persons of great depth, understanding, and complexity by giving a well rehearsed condescending look while saying “I hear you, but these are very complex issues, and we can not know”.

The catchphrase is supposed to portray its parroter as someone with an open mind, as someone who has come to that tragic conclusion after pondering all the possibilities, researching and analysing all the sources of information, making al the relevant questions.

But it is blatantly obvious that the opposite is true: it is not only an admission of ignorance, lack of interest, bias, conditioning, and intellectual laziness, but most importantly, it is a sign of a deeply rooted and very destructive nihilism (of which they are probably proud and aware).

Because what it really means is that they don´t care for the truth (or anything else for that matter), and that their only flexibility is that to adapt their beliefs to conform with what is deemed to be acceptable. It exempts them from the responsibility of thinking and acting, of being moral and free.

As opposed to the old nihilists/relativists, who were ready to look into the darkest sides of reality, question everything, take skepticism to the extreme and make themselves go mad, these post-modern ones will simply throw a couple of slogans and retreat to be safe and unbothered with their mindless entertainments.

It is not an accident that a caricature of relativism has permeated every aspect of culture in the last few decades. It has created millions of human beings who can compare a can of excrement with the Pietá, or see a building falling for no apparent reason and contort the facts into a narrative of edgy, cool and “open minded” anti-epistemology.

Good article Iain, thank you.

Lost in a dark wood
Lost in a dark wood
Sep 12, 2021 7:38 PM

Who’s afraid of incredulity toward metanarratives (aka “postmodernism”)?

Voxiversity
The Madness Of Jordan Peterson
Aug 21, 2018

Lost in a dark wood
Lost in a dark wood
Sep 12, 2021 8:12 PM

Let us never tolerate outrageous incredulity toward metanarratives; subversive scepticism and “humour” that seeks to undermine social power structures and assertions as to absolute truth.

Philosophy Tube
Jordan Peterson & The Meaning of Life
Apr 12, 2019

wardropper
wardropper
Sep 13, 2021 6:52 AM

Wut?
Why?

You falsely pretend that Peterson thinks he’s Christ, then masterfully dispatch him based on the fact that you disagree with some of his conclusions?

Let me set you straight:

The man has some very interesting and relevant views on modern society, and he speaks plainly and bluntly about them.
He’s intelligent and very articulate, but there’s really nothing much else to say about him after that.

What’s this all about?

Lost in a dark wood
Lost in a dark wood
Sep 13, 2021 8:04 AM
Reply to  wardropper

Re: “What’s this all about?”

It’s about: Who’s afraid of incredulity toward metanarratives (aka “postmodernism”)?

There seems to be something of a campaign to misrepresent and disparage postmodernism; and Peterson has played a major role in that campaign. When I first looked into Peterson, it was only after he’d been massively-hyped for sometime; and I concluded within about five minutes that he was a vacuity strutting about on a stage. This conclusion was based partly on his nonsensical equating of postmodernism with Marxism and identity politics (see ContraPoints video.) I therefore didn’t look into anything else of Peterson’s, but this viewpoint is supported by the analyses by others. Vox Day (Voxiversity) has probably done the most thorough analysis from a “rightist” perspective, while the other two videos are from “leftists”.

wardropper
wardropper
Sep 13, 2021 3:51 PM

Peterson is about much more than ‘a campaign’ to disparage any ‘ism’.
His work is a celebration of intelligence, plain speaking, and cutting through b/s.
He is also one of the few people who can show others, by example, how to think – almost a lost art.

Like any bright, outspoken man, he annoys many of those who are not so bright, and so, before we know it, we get ‘a campaign to disparage Jordan Peterson”…

A reaction as predictable as hell.
Stalemate.
A waste of time and energy.
And a distraction.

rubberheid
rubberheid
Sep 17, 2021 3:02 PM
Reply to  wardropper

acht, dunno.

I liked Peterson, he actually did help me shrug off morose crap. But he’s still just another rogan/rubin/weinstein character. goes with certain narratives.

he’s probably a shill indeed.

but he has offered some excellent perspectives and did challenge the feminazi gender crowd.

I will give him a peripheral benefit of the doubt until he grows a spine instead of his carapace ; )

Lost in a dark wood
Lost in a dark wood
Sep 13, 2021 7:35 AM

What is Jordan Peterson’s “Postmodern Neo-Marxism” and is it an oxymoron?

ContraPoints
On Jordan Peterson
May 2, 2018

NickM
NickM
Sep 12, 2021 7:33 PM

“In 2007 Richard Porter, head of the BBC World News [after its remodelling by PM Tony B.Liar] issued a quite ridiculous response statement. His current position is Director of Communications for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.”

Reminds me that Tony B.Liar’s current position is Director in House of Rothschild, the highest rank ever awarded to a retired British Prime Minister. To be a ready Liar seems to be a favourable qualification for high position in the global banking world.

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar
Sep 13, 2021 7:36 AM
Reply to  NickM

A ready AND RELIABLE liar is the requisite qualification. Lying is a sacking offence if the lies betray your master…..

Judith
Judith
Sep 13, 2021 12:03 PM
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar

I love that. A RELIABLE liar. So true.

George Mc
George Mc
Sep 12, 2021 6:54 PM

I think the best case against this postmodermist dismissal of objective truth was given by, of all people, Clive James (possibly paraphrased):

“The claim that there is no objective truth cannot be objectively true.”

Willem
Willem
Sep 12, 2021 6:28 PM

‘ Only a truly independent, jury led inquiry, can possibly examine all the evidence and have any chance of finding the truth.’

The only truly independent jury led inquiry into 911 is an inquiry done by yourself. Nothing more is needed to find the truth.

The idea that there is an ‘outside jury’ who can speak on your behalf about something so silly as 911 is asking if an outside jury could please find the truth regarding whether you went shopping, filled your car with fuel or had a walk in the park today. The answer to such a question is obvious, unless you’re demented (and if you’re demented, no help from any outside jury can help you in finding out whether you went shopping, etc).

Oh, and the 3000 dead number is not so obvious as the author suggests. If you’re interested, please read Jonathan Revusky’s story about Betty Ong, who was one of the 3000 who died that day (but doesn’t exist).

No planes
Not as many dead as claimed
Demolished with foreknowledge
$$$$$
Death and destruction in far away countries
And a silly never ending story

Waldorf
Waldorf
Sep 12, 2021 6:45 PM
Reply to  Willem

I read Revulsky on Unz, but his very long article and also comments by others went down so many rabbit holes that I began to doubt his sanity.

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 13, 2021 1:22 AM
Reply to  Willem

Something that is extremely silly, in fact moronic, is the “no planes” theory.

New Name
New Name
Sep 13, 2021 3:07 AM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

Bollocks. You are a shill.

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 14, 2021 2:31 AM
Reply to  New Name

Skepticism towards the official narrative and skepticism towards the “no plane” theories are not mutually exclusive, moron.

NoThanks
NoThanks
Sep 13, 2021 6:26 AM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

For much of the last twenty years, alt-media’s coverage of 9/11 gave me enough information to be skeptical of the official narrative. Defying the laws of physics should be enough to raise suspicion for anyone, after all.

And then I started seeing videos like this. https://www.bitchute.com/video/X834utR0bS1Q/

At first, I didn’t want to give much credit to the idea that planes may have never actually been flown into buildings. But I had to take a step back and ask myself why I didn’t want to entertain that possibility. I already knew that three buildings in NYC fell into their own footprints, all of which looked like controlled demolitions that would not require any sort of help from a plane. Building 7 certainly collapsed without being hit by a plane! Why was I so hesitant to consider an alternative explanation of the Twin Towers’ demise?

I decided that my primary hesitancy was based on seeing it with my own eyes. But—being completely honest with myself—I could not and still cannot prove that the footage I watched on tv in 2001 was actually live. I cannot prove that the footage from amateur cameras was not doctored, or even that the footage was actually sourced from amateurs in the first place. There are precisely zero people that I personally know and trust who can tell me that they were in NYC on September 11, 2001, and looked up into the sky to see planes fly into buildings. Many people were recorded that day and claim to have not seen any planes. Others who say that they did see planes could easily have been planted; crisis actors are a real, proven thing. CIA operatives embedded inside of media organizations are real as well. I have literally no source of information more credible than my own two eyes.

After closer examination, what my own two eyes see is an airplane seemingly slicing into a steel-framed building like a knife through butter. From at least one camera angle, I see the nose of the plane come out the other side in-tact, which is impossible. The frame-by-frame breakdown showing a wing of the plane disappearing…the discrepancies between flight path angles in different pieces of footage… wide shots not showing the plane at all…they all add credence to the notion that CGI was used to generate the appearance of planes that were not there.

The entire 9/11 narrative AND major aspects of the 9/11 truther movement fall apart if there are no planes. We’re no longer talking about hijackers, where they were trained, or how Bin Laden masterminded the incredibly intricate operation from a cave. Instead, we’re having a much different conversation about media manipulation and deep state operations that clearly go much higher than any one government.

In the same way, Covid coverage is usually centered around the “acceptable” dissent topics: effectiveness and safety of the vaccines, the ethics of mandates and lockdowns, the origins of the virus, the mortality rate of the disease, the conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies and peer reviewed studies, censorship, the PCR testing nonsense. But all of this assumes—much like the planes of 9/11—that a single virus and a specific disease exists in spite of its existence never being proven.

All of the medical doctors currently speaking out about Covid policies clearly see mass manipulation taking place, but few are willing to take a step back and realize that their entire careers may have been part of a much larger manipulation centered around the fraudulent germ theory. Those who look objectively at the process of isolating viruses and “proving” them to be pathogenic should be able to see the fraud, yet so many don’t. Maybe many of these doctors and scientists have been made aware of the possibility, but the cognitive dissonance is too much to overcome. Maybe there’s too much money at stake after acquiring years of medical school debt. Maybe medical indoctrination and (virtually) zero required knowledge of nutrition limits their imagination. Maybe it takes an outsider to be willing to recognize the BIG lie—the kind that Hitler alluded to in Mein Campf.

The Corman-Drosten paper, which started the Covid hysteria in early 2020, reveals that the original PCR test for Sars-Cov-2 was created using Sars-Cov-1 because no samples of Sars-Cov-2 were available. This alone should sound the alarms, but a deeper dive reveals a bigger truth about virology. The genome of “new” viruses are defined by computer software using prior viruses as references. But if the genomes of new viruses are created with computer predictions based on previous viruses, what is the original source material for any of it? There is no purified, isolated, fully-sequenced virus which has been taken from a sick person, introduced into a healthy person in a natural manner (not via injection) and delivered the same disease symptoms as the first person. Ever. Before it was deemed unethical, contagion experiments were attempted during the first half of the 20th century, but they failed to show viral contagion.

In both 9/11 and Covid, the simplest explanation is being ignored by most.

Buildings fell down in what looked like a controlled demolition because it was a controlled demolition. Strange flight paths and slow military reactions, untrained pilots performing difficult maneuvers, planes defying physics as they disappear into solid steel buildings, and the unlikely nature of all of these acts being precisely timed and coordinated can best be explained simply by realizing there were no actual planes involved, and none of those variables were left to chance. The narrative of planes being hijacked was necessary in order to take away so many liberties in the name of safety, so CGI planes were vital to the entire operation.

People got sick in 2020 and 2021 not because of one single protein-wrapped DNA/RNA cluster swimming in an endless sea of other protein-wrapped DNA/RNA clusters which we call viruses, but because we collectively poison ourselves daily in varying ways and degrees. With unnatural toxic foods, unnatural toxic air and water pollution, unnatural chemical medications and interventions, unnatural radiation exposure, unnatural levels of stress and fear, unnatural sleep cycles…literally everything about the average human life goes against nature. Yet we take no responsibility for these actions and find comfort in blaming viruses which have never been proven to be the cause of any disease symptoms, and are instead more likely the results of the breakdown of living cells as they die from the aforementioned toxicity. The narrative of viruses hijacking our bodies is necessary in order to take away so many liberties in the name of safety, so “new” viruses are vital to the entire operation. Now, just as they have been with every highly profitable viral witch hunt in the past.

Jesper
Jesper
Sep 13, 2021 8:30 AM
Reply to  NoThanks

Cruise missiles disguised to passenger planes with CGI?!

FEAR disguised as a contagious virus.

mgeo
mgeo
Sep 14, 2021 9:34 AM
Reply to  NoThanks

In 2020 and 2021, people also got sick or died because governments withheld treatment for (a) common potentially dangerous symptoms (b) major illnesses already confirmed.

NoThanks
NoThanks
Sep 14, 2021 10:49 PM
Reply to  mgeo

For sure. And many who came in to get treatment for one thing tested positive for covid, were forced onto a completely different protocol including a high-mortality ventilator, and died as a “covid” death.

For those either entering a hospital for any reason, or those dying alone with a lack of access to treatment, the important questions are:

1) what is the underlying cause of those symptoms?
2) are those symptoms even a sign of a disease, or a sign of the body trying to rid itself of toxicity and regenerate, as it is innately designed to do?

And this gets into larger topics about what bacteria are and what is their role within the broader spectrum of life, what are viruses and do they actually “attack” healthy cells or are they a byproduct during the death (apoptosis or necrosis) of cells, if they are just remnants of cellular death do they serve a purpose to inform other surrounding cells or do they simply just exist without a purpose and need to be eliminated along with other dead cell debris, yada yada yada. All of the things that make you sound like a crazy person to someone who simply believes you’re killing everyone when you don’t wear a mask 😉

wardropper
wardropper
Sep 13, 2021 3:40 PM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

The jury is clearly still out on that one, since it is very little discussed, and irrefutable evidence is scarce.
It’s a specialist side-issue compared to the fact that several whacking great tower buildings which were there on Sept 10th were no longer there on Sept 11th, and the authorities themselves arranged it.

Once we’ve gone as far as we can with that main focus (and we can go a heck of a long way farther than we have until now), then we can worry about the CIA’s 2001-vintage skills with Photoshop/Windows Movie-Maker, along with their other legendary persuasive skills.

George Mc
George Mc
Sep 12, 2021 6:25 PM

The moment the “matter of opinion/ We’ll never know” spiel starts you know it’s a last resort. My mum who bought into the covid shit from the start was intrigued by me talking about David Icke and said she wanted to hear him so I let her hear a bit and almost right away she started in with the “Well – that’s just his perspective” crap. I said every news item and indeed every statement in the world is someone’s perspective. Its up to us to sift through them and determine which is closest to the actual truth which, though we may never know it fully, is not a perspective. The moment we give up on the idea of objective truth, we’re lost in the postmodern maze which has been constructed specifically to neuter us.

Jim McDonagh
Jim McDonagh
Sep 13, 2021 12:30 AM
Reply to  George Mc

What if humans are incapable of discerning objective truth and what of subjective truth ? As was argued strenuously for several hundred years before idealism went extinct in the west replaced by materialism which has now become a global religion . With all “truth” arising from that fount alone. In todays world there is only one perspective, will it sell , along with the echo , how much will it cost ?

George Mc
George Mc
Sep 13, 2021 7:48 AM
Reply to  Jim McDonagh

If that’s the case, it’s just as well idealism went extinct.

wardropper
wardropper
Sep 13, 2021 3:29 PM
Reply to  Jim McDonagh

As a bald statement, that represents a misunderstanding of what ‘humans’ are.
There is no such blanket thing as “humans who are incapable of discerning objective truth or subjective truth”, because we have not yet reached the Groupthink stage.

I’m sure you realize that some can discern, while others can’t.

Groupthink is of course the very stage which the ‘authorities’ wish us to reach as soon as possible, but we’re not there yet, and we must continue to think of ourselves as individuals belonging to a race, and not the other way round…

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Sep 12, 2021 6:15 PM

Well-written and to the point.

Move on however. We know it was fake. Save words. What would we do?

Save energy: build the world we want.

https://moneycircus.substack.com/p/covid-points-to-911-perpetrators

NixonScraypes
NixonScraypes
Sep 12, 2021 8:17 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

You can move on, I can move on but can we move on as a community of men and women sharing the earth. If a community is just a random bunch of people who couldn’t care less about eachother, or themselves, it can move on without a qualm. A.I. could do it. Random atoms aligned in bipedal conjunction existing in a meaningless farrago of bits and pieces could do it but it’s just struck me that the Covidian Capers could not have occurred if we HADN’T already moved on. The twin towers were the gate posts that held the doors that stood between us and the New Worst Order. Unless we, if there is an I and I version of we, don’t get it sorted, we might as well get injected into the slave pen and serve our parasite masters ’til the butcher cuts us down.

wardropper
wardropper
Sep 13, 2021 3:23 PM
Reply to  NixonScraypes

Incomprehensible that there are 3 downvotes on that comment.
This isn’t about what we like, or what we don’t like (and of course I don’t like the truth of what you say one bit).

The unpleasant truth is exactly as you describe it, and we most certainly do have to get this global psychopathic sickness in our ‘representatives’ sorted.

History has shown – even YouTube shows – what will happen if we don’t.

NixonScraypes
NixonScraypes
Sep 13, 2021 5:49 PM
Reply to  wardropper

I do get up people’s noses, oh dropper of wars and abuse my poetic license. My logic is often elliptical and easily misunderstood but it does have delayed action depth charges. A down vote is a reaction that could cause small tremors in the brain crust later. Thanks for supporting free speech, mine is, I never know what I’m going to say!

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 14, 2021 2:36 AM
Reply to  NixonScraypes

My logic is often elliptical and easily misunderstood but it does have delayed action depth charges.

I’m betting you typed that with one hand.

NixonScraypes
NixonScraypes
Sep 14, 2021 11:09 AM
Reply to  Cliff Edwards

Telekinesis is so much easier, dear boy.

Cliff Edwards
Cliff Edwards
Sep 14, 2021 11:21 AM
Reply to  NixonScraypes

So you typed using telekinesis and wanked with both hands. You poor old thing. Ain’t arthritis a bummer?

NoNickYet
NoNickYet
Sep 13, 2021 12:57 AM
Reply to  Moneycircus

Excellent piece.
However, and unfortunately, there was an error in the translation of the Ernst Wolff video: in German he claims BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Fidelity manage a total of 22.6 trillion, in the translation it shows up as 220.6 trillion. Minor detail.