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.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
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.
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.
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.
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?
No I can’t spare 8 minutes to watch a screen that says “and error occurred”. Can you fix the link?
You have to remember the initial reports were that a twin prop plane had accidentally crashed into one of the WTC towers.
The same one GWB said he saw on the TV while waiting to go into that Florida classroom, no doubt!
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.
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.
Dogmatism fueled by ideologues.
The truth will always be truth regardless.
Being a doubting Tom will always be the way to enlightenment.
Big criminals are big gamblers and the game is rigged in their favor
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…
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… Read more »
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.
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
Both biowarfare agents were traced to Fort Detrick, MaryLand, U$A.
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…
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…
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… Read more »
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.
“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
“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… Read more »
So very much this ^^^^^ So very well put. Thank you!
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… Read more »
You entirely misrepresent my position, and likely entirely misunderstand it too.
you don’t present a position.. so there isn’t really anything to misunderstand..
“(usually whilst crushing them at chess)…”
lol 🙂
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
That sounds like Orthus Doxus Postus Modernismus.
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.
into horses?
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.
i have not come across anything re horses, or do you mean otherkin? cause i’ve come across those on tumblr, years ago.
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.
The truth is the best available information assiduously sought after. Only better information changes the truth.
‘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.
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”.
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..
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.
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’)……
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… Read more »
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.
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.
Nope, one look’s more than enough, given the poor quality of the videos it’s based on.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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
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… Read more »
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
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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
Sam, I’ve just happened to see this comment now when I was looking for something so I’ll respond to it. With regard to falsifiability it is those who make the claim of death and injury who right off the bat falsify their claim. They say 265 people died in planes when it’s very obvious that there is zero evidence of any of the four alleged passenger airliners crashing. They also very obviously falsify their claim of injury when they present stories of people surviving the North Tower’s 12-second destruction which have zero credibility. When the initial claim has been falsified so very blatantly I don’t see massive onus on me to prove my claim. I do not say no one died, I cannot say that, of course, but I can say with no fear of contradiction: — The claim of 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured is patently false — Purported… Read more »
I had no intention of doing that, Sam. Perhaps see my reply to Petra.
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
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.
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.
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… Read more »
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/
“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.
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
Were they scared as a result?
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
I have always suspected it was that random guy in the Harley-Davidson t-shirt who tipped off the BBC about WTC7.
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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?
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.
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… Read more »
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.
They are not ignorant.
They are compromised and too scared to stand up.
Compromised, perhaps? But any MP who questions the narrative may as well quit right now. Similarly MSM journalists.
Well, exactly.
The problem is that they never quit.
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….
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/
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… Read more »
“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.
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… Read more »
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.
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/
Airliners do not slice through steel structures like a hot knife through butter.
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.
You only need the illusion of a virus or planes to fool the masses…..job done.
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.
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.
The image looks like its been photoshopped to me. The blokes in the foreground look like they’ve been pasted onto a background.
🤣😂🤣
Smoke & dust hung in the air for weeks. Fires burned underground for many months.
Like this d’you mean?
And yes that is the same column middle left shot from a different angle.
It was taken 6 weeks later on 29/10/01.
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.
I have a better idea:
How about you provide a source or two in order to back up your ridiculous assertion?
Yes, suggesting that workers cut the steel to make it easier to remove is a ridculous assertion, Cliff
Kindly explain why the column was cut at such an angle instead of straight across, thereby greatly increasing the time needed to cut it.
*sigh*
Have you ever felled a tree, or watched somebody fell one?
You’re comparing a tree with a steel box girder?
😂🤣😂🤣😂
How do you think they ensure it falls in the right direction?
The silence is oppressive. Somewhere in the distance a dog barks.
Sorry but I find it fairly difficult to reply while I’m asleep.
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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.)
Well said. Apologies to you and porkpie for my pigheadedness!
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.)
“this is not about freedom” Joe Biden
These are not words that should come out of the mouth of a US President!!
You can only write a piece like this, about ‘truth’, unless you live in a total fog of propaganda.
Please delete this comment.
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/
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
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.
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.
What’s wrong with nukes ? The steel test tower at the Trinity test site partly evaporated.
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.
The only practical explanation is mini nukes.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
Thanks. I’ll check it out.
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
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.
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.
Now I understand why Mao’s said: “Justice comes from the barrel of a gun”.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Only “impossible” to those who have been sucked in by the “no planes” psyop.
Why are you defending the media ?
Kindly explain how I’m “defending the media”.
It’s 1 mm in most parts of the fuselage.
A missile dressed up as a passenger plane could do the job, I imagine.
Gus Grissom in the movie The Right Stuff, “It just blew”.
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.
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 .
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.
One of many errors, but hey, it makes a good story, right?
Pp..and the acting was superlative, would be an oscar, if it wasn’t for Wag the Dog.
Not a story a ‘narrative” , the lipstick and make-up applied to the pig that 9/11 American version has become.
Especially the part that says it was all the Saudis’ doing, right?
“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… Read more »
Who’s afraid of incredulity toward metanarratives (aka “postmodernism”)?
—
Voxiversity
The Madness Of Jordan Peterson
Aug 21, 2018
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
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?
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”.
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.
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 ; )
What is Jordan Peterson’s “Postmodern Neo-Marxism” and is it an oxymoron?
ContraPoints
On Jordan Peterson
May 2, 2018
“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.
A ready AND RELIABLE liar is the requisite qualification. Lying is a sacking offence if the lies betray your master…..
I love that. A RELIABLE liar. So true.
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.”
‘ 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… Read more »
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.
Something that is extremely silly, in fact moronic, is the “no planes” theory.
Bollocks. You are a shill.
Skepticism towards the official narrative and skepticism towards the “no plane” theories are not mutually exclusive, moron.
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… Read more »
Cruise missiles disguised to passenger planes with CGI?!
FEAR disguised as a contagious virus.
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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.
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 ?
If that’s the case, it’s just as well idealism went extinct.
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…
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
Telekinesis is so much easier, dear boy.
So you typed using telekinesis and wanked with both hands. You poor old thing. Ain’t arthritis a bummer?
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.