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 ever 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.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
I agree with the three paragraphs in your concluding statements which begin “It is absolutely true that someone or some group initiated … ” and end “…or for broader political objectives.” but I don’t think that either the last paragraph or the final sentence follow logically or inevitably.
I’m not sure that getting justice necessarily depends on thoroughly examining evidence and/or exposing the real perpetrators, nor that morality dictates fully investigating the evidence.
Those are very modern/recent ideas about justice, invented within the last 150 years or so, since Darwin came up with his theory of evolution, and Nietsche said that God was dead. Before then, for hundreds even thousands of years, justice was believed to occur/be carried out irrespective of whether mere men or women understood exactly what had happened, even if the state permitted or encouraged blood payment, feuds, etc in certain circumstances and carried out its own punishment regimes. The idea that justice ( in the case of “wrongs/damage done” ) could be dependent on men or women finding out exactly who or what had caused a harm/injury would have been seen as an insult to the power of justice, or as a sign of human arrogance.
Investigation, detection, the uncovering of evidence, the pursuit of chains of cause and effect, are a modern compulsion, almost an addiction, like Gollum searching for answers and secrets, all the way down to the roots of the mountain, and, imo have nothing to do with justice. I wonder if it is a result of the removal or weakening of the old/ancient “first cause”, which used to be God/gods etc.
Why do modern humans believe that they have to find out who did what exactly before justice can be served/obtained?
It’s as if we think that doing bad things has no naturally painful consequences. As if we believe that offending against Natural Law does not cause us pain and damage, as if Natural Law were toothless, powerless.
With ref “9/11 truth is not a matter of perspective”; I believe that we all model the inconceivably vast and complex and *one* “real” reality in billions of different ways depending on our genes, environments, conditioning, etc, etc, etc, such that my subjective personal truth is unique to me, as yours is to you, etc. But in human society we negotiate agreed upon “intra-subjective” versions of reality, eg that dinosaurs were greenish-brown hairless cold-blooded reptiles, until we decide that actually many of them were multicoloured feathered warm-blooded creatures, like big flightless birds. The one truth, of the one real reality, is beyond our powers of description, but our brains construct constantly renewed very crude models of that reality, in order to track and optimise our attention processes, and it uses many highly simplified “sketches” to represent that one real reality, which bear virtually no resemblance to the real thing, but do work, more or less, like rapid sketches, to indicate what we are thinking about, etc. Yes, many many of the symbols used are common to all or most humans but that doesn’t mean that humans can actually see/perceive the same reality. The Covidian cult is a good example, in which some people literally can not see what others do, because their existing model parameters don’t allow it.
And since Covid I’m more able to see that govts/tptb are capable of the most terrible and most deceitful behaviours.
But the truth about 9/11, the one about temperatures, stress factors, etc, is not in my opinion the “real” truth about 9/11, which is beyond description. It’s like the difference between saying that millions die in Africa every year from hunger and saying that they don’t die of hunger, they die from transport and distribution problems. .. that somehow mysteriously the ships and trucks that so easily bring food to all of us in Europe don’t seem to be able to do that in Africa.
It’s like crossing the park into the town center and seeing parents buying drugs for their children at the local drug distribution van. Ice creams.
PS. To clarify, in case of misunderstanding, I do ( now/since Covid ), believe that 9/11 was almost certainly a false flag event of some kind, that the official story is mostly lies, etc, but I don’t agree with your argument about truth and reality, or justice.
I agree that there is only one reality, but I think that it is unknowable.
When I say that I agree that the official 9/11 story is lies, that 9/11 was indeed almost certainly a false flag event I am essentially saying that I trust the accounts of people that I have never met, that I believe what one group of people say rather than another group of people.
ie I have decided/been led to believe in one story rather than another ( the first one that I believed, the official one ). I do not *know*. I simply believe.
*That* is “the 9/11 truth” as far as I am concerned. That is all I could swear to, that I have chosen to believe in a different group of people over the last 18 months.
ie I think that “9/11 truth *is* a matter of perspective. I am not omniscient or omnipresent; my knowledge of reality is limited to what I can see and hear and touch at this point in space and time … and what I *believe*/my beliefs, which I cannot verify, must take on faith, based on what I believe about the people that are telling me things.
As I have about Covid, chosen/been led to believe what some people say about it rather than others, because of things that I liked or didn’t like about their message and/or style/vibe/something.
My young adult son restrained himself to one kind of knowledge when the “covid believer” family member asked what he thought was going on; he said that “from what he had seen” there didn’t seem to be a deadly pandemic.
I on the other hand have relied greatly on other people’s accounts.
About 9/11, and climate change too, I rely on people I have never met and do not know to tell me what they saw or heard, or believe. That is my 9/11 truth.
It’s a question of belief, faith, trust.
Not facts. I wasn’t there. I am just believing what people tell me.
And even the people who were there only know the noises they heard, the flashes they saw, the tremors they felt. “9/11 truth”, stories about the whole thing, are all of them the product of many people believing what many other people tell them.
I have “simply” changed my mimd about which group to believe, because I *believe* that I’ve found them out in a lie about something else, something that I think I know a little bit more about.
PPS. The word perspective is actually quite interesting in this instance. From my perspective I couldn’t see what was going on in NY on 9/11. I wasn’t close enough to see any of it. I have to take it all on trust. And even the people there at the time didn’t/couldn’t see everything; they have to take a substantial amount of the story/account on trust.
Finally 😉 🙂 😕 … Just thinking that this may be why so many discussions about Covid and Brexit and climate change and 9/11 become so heated/emotional and unpleasant; because the vast majority of people are not talking about what they know but what they believe, and are “sinply” calling on a series of authority figures or “referees” as “evidence”. They are stating or listing “allegiances”, brandishing cards at each other of varying respectability/”power”. I believe in so and so, this is my champion. Like those fights in the middle ages to establish who was in the right. … I’m trying to work out why I can’t seem to remain calm and pleasant faced with the covid-believer family member, or them with me. There is definitely something of the “my team” vs the other team about it. I don’t like it. My team is more honest, has nothing to gain financially, a lot to lose, etc. Obviously they are right. In addition to the facts that I think I’ve verified/seem correct. Dr Malcolm Kendrick recently said in a blog ironically titled “I have not been silenced” that he had decided to withdraw from all discussions of covid because the data was so utterly corrupted he no longer felt he could safely or soundly use it in argument. 🙁
… there seems to be a gigantic crisis of/with/about data, about what the policeman says in the detective stories, “just the facts, ma’am”, about how we determine the truth. A schism between them and narratives which either didn’t exist before, or wasn’t as wide. It didn’t use to be this bad, did it? 🙁
Thanks for you thoughtful comments Olivia. We agree largely but not in respect to reality. I accept that in the case of 9/11 people are largely reliant upon the opimnions of others. We accept the opinion of the State, we accept the opinion of A&Efor911Truth etc. That is we reject one opinion and agree with another. However, I do not agree that either rejecting or accepting these opinions makes a jot of difference to reality.
Let’s take the dinosaurs for example. I must resist expressing my general scepticism of Darwinian theory here, or I’ll be here all day. Our former opinion was that they were cold blooded, scaly reptiles now our opinion is that many were warm blooded feathered creatures. Neither of those opinions make any difference to what dinosaurs actually were in reality. They may have been either, both, or not either or both. The truth is that their nature was what it was. Our opinion about that nature will never and can never change the reality of their nature.
The only way to “know” the truth is to apply logical inquiry and reason to the evidence. This may or may not bring us closer to the truth but it cannot alter the truth. We will build knowledge from this process. Claimed knowledge may be error but some will be genuine knowledge. By building upon knowledge and weeding out error we can come even closer to the truth. But whether it is knowledge or error that still does not alter the truth.
We know what sound is. We can repeatedly demonstrate how sound works as waves in a medium. We can demonstrate that without the medium there is no sound. Therefore we have knowledge of what sound is and how it manifests in reality. We also know the physical dynamics associated with the collision of rigid mass. We know that such a collision, in a medium such as Earth’s ground level atmosphere, will certainly generate sound waves. This is not speculation or opinion, it is a fact.
Therefore when a tree falls in a forest that it makes a sound is a fact. It cannot be otherwise unless we reject all associated knowledge for which there is no reason. We do not have to hear it to know it and whether we hear it or not makes no difference to the fact that sound is generated.
I have argued in my article on inalienable rights why Natural Law can be proven to exist using logic and evidence. I used the example of theft.
Without a sense of natural justice, that must have preceded positive law, we would have had no concept of theft. Our sense of natural justice must have preceded positive law and, in fact, it must have preceded all theological thought because without any morality there could be no theology.
Therefore morality, like a science, can be understood using logic and reason applied to the evidence. This will lead us to the truth about morality. That is to say there is a moral truth in existence, in reality, and that truth pre-existed humanity. Our logical task is to develop knowledge of it.
The alternative is to live in denial of it which is a physical impossibility. We cannot do so because without it we would live in nothing but chaos and would have long gone extinct. So, logically, we must come “know” the moral truth. We have no choice, it is not a matter of opinion.
If theft is “wrong”, in accordance with that moral truth (which is Natural Law) then the theft of someones life (the initiation of lethal force) is morally wrong. Irrespective of beliefs or faith. It is not morally wrong because we believe it so, it is objectively morally wrong.
Therefore the only moral course following the realisation of that knowledge is to seek natural justice and the restoration of right. That is an objective moral imperative. Not a belief. Without restoration of natural justice we would be in chaos. It matters materially not just philosophically.
I stand by both of my closing statements. The truth is absolute.
Just seen this blog piece at Off Guardian, where it has received a lot of comments. I’m wondering if my own tsunami of comments above might have put people off commenting here, and if you think that might be the case please feel absolutely and totally free to delete all of my comments. I was thinking out loud/in text, rambling, and wouldn’t mind at all if you did.
Incidentally, I was struck by a couple of comments at OffG referring to the “no planes” theory, fewer deaths and/or drill actors etc,arguments, and, with ref both 9/11 and Covid19, how the planes were essential elements in the op, as viruses/germ theory is in Covid19, as justification for the security/biosecurity measures.
I’m not sure I agree with the terrain theory on its own; I’m inclined to think that there are infectious agents of varying inherent effectiveness but that terrain/bodily resilience is extremely important in determining final effects, in the same way that I think that the theories of both Darwin and Lamarck have to be taken into consideration with ref evolution, neither is sufficient, or true, on its own.
I don’t know from your piece above what you think about the “no planes” and drill actors etc/fewer deaths theories. Having looked at one of the videos linked to, for the first time with an open mind, I now wonder if there might be something in it!
No worries about the comments Olivia. The OffGuardian gets a lot more traffic than my blog that’s all. As for “no planes” The crash dynamics and flight capabilities rule out standard 757’s but what else they may have been could range from modified military aircraft to holographic projections. Who knows? that’s why an investigation is needed. Like you I think both germ and terrain theory have their merits.
Yes, Off Guardian does have a lot of comments and although some are exellent, you can’t tell quality by size, so don’t let low traffic depress you
Thanks Jane for your supportive comment. Please don’t worry I am very happy with my page views and love engaging with people in my comments section too.
‘Truth, whole truth and nothing but truth to best of our knowledge and belief at time’ can learn, whereas ‘The Truth’ cannot.
True/false fits computers but real life’s continuum includes partly right; neither completely true nor completely false.
Accuracy can increase e.g. atom’s description refined from ‘smallest’ to ‘small’. Whereas ‘The Truth’ is an absolute that neither fallible humans nor maths can do.
There’s always a shadow of doubt e.g. 20 years after a ‘suicide’, DNA finger-printing came into being, giving further evidence that changed verdict to ‘murder’.
I’d dined at top of Towers; my ‘head for heights’ had seemed to abandoned me. I spent whole evening trying to behave normally despite feeling panic-stricken, only regaining my calm as I left at evening’s end.
Watching the news-reel I realised I’d seen, but not consciously perceived, that the 3 airports nearby caused many interwoven constant streams of closely-packed planes flying near and below Towers’ tops; one tiny error could be disaster.
My ‘head’ had been rational, but I’d believed it ‘wrong’. I still feel building sky-scrapers should have immediately paused while method resistant to total collapse found. It could be sold globally; sky-scrapers near many airports and earthquake zones. More trade won and less risk an appropriate honouring of those lost.
My perspective was-we’ll never know the truth about 9/11, let’s move on. Now i see that was completely erroneous. If the fight for truth had been better supported, it would have grown and at the least, a lot more facts would have been revealed. Most importantly, the covid deception would have been far more difficult to engineer, if not impossible.
Thanks NixonScraypes. I understand what you mean. Given what we face now, 9/11 seems like less of an issue. However, as someone interested in history, I think we should always seek to find the truth. As you say 9/11 was the catalyst for the 21st century of enslavement by deception. We must expose all lies.
You don’t like engagement with your readers,I’m now one of your readers FFS and you can’t stand your safe little conspiracy snowflake place being invaded can you
I’d love to meet you in a pub,yup,we could have it out,i bet you’d get hysterical and angry real fast
As you know I don’t post your comments as you are seemingly incapable of discussing anything without resorting to personal attacks or vile allegations about “blood on my hands” and me “killing” people. But, just to be clear. Are you threatening me with violence?
So ..its clear ..we can all discuss..and beautifully. I personally am so glad to read still educated opinions. But the fact is …we have all observed the reality of Crime, against people and now against the continued existence of our very planet. The technologies being used are, and I quote Truth ..completely destructive to organic life. Within a few years the damage is irreversible. In order to further the ” cool” great Reset of digital whatever.. they need Oxygen…Yes..the trendy speedy ” progressive” transhuman? ( not for us) the 5g and above absorbs Oxygen Think about it ..and
Thank you for all of your excellent work. I dont know how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not conclude that explosives were used. There is no ambiguity in the implications of the large body of concordant forensic evidence. We literally have no other way to explain the complete destruction of those buildings. So, it is not simply a matter of opinion.
It took me a number of years to wrap my head around it but once I did, I knew there was no turning back, or that my life would never be the same. As someone who was close by that morning (on West St 3 blocks South of Canal St.) and witnessed the horrors that unfolded, live. I felt an obligation to not only speak out, but to create a page https://ajl.smugmug.com/911/North-Tower-Exploding/ (now there are a number of galleries on the subject dealing with other peripheral issues as well) detailing nothing but facts with the hope that it serve as an introduction to the subject for anyone interested in looking at the well documented evidence the mass media has chosen to ignore.
Thanks Albert, and thanks for your research. It certainly would be interesting to see a proper structural investigation report, similar to the Alaska Fairbanks report for WTC7, applied to the North Tower. As you say, to imagine that the NIST report is even plausible takes some stretch of the imagination.
People might like my updated, 2nd Edition ‘Who Did 9/11? A View from Across the Pond’ – banned by Amazon. I was a founder-member of Britain’s original 9/11 truth group all those years ago.
Thanks Nick. Here is a link to your book: – https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/who-did-9-11-dr-nick-kollerstrom/1129481340
I see you are the new Corbett Clone. Your information is interesting, but your conclusions are incorrect because they are based on the propaganda you have been employed to spread.
Your idea of supporting local businesses is meaningless if an unopposed government legislates in ways that keep all the powers and benefits centralised through taxation controls, regulations and requirements controls, currency and banking controls, labour controls, access to markets controls.
You turn the fault back on to ourselves, which is precisely the practices of the people you pretend to despise. It is not our laziness and desire for convenience that has led to this – that is human nature. We are busy people in a complex world, convenience is a necessity of specialisation. You say in one breath these people intend on sending us back to the Dark Ages of scrabbling in the dirt for our dinner, then suggest we go back to the Dark Ages by being more self-sufficient.
You and Corbett and co all sing from the same tired song book, getting us to live like Felicity Bloody Kendell while Bill Gates and friends scoop up what is left with the aid of all the complicit Ponzi-schemic “go-getters” societies are sadly so well-graced with.
The Parasite Class, Powers-that-should-not-Be, whatever, are interested at present in controlling our opinions and thoughts because they are scared we will kill them and use violence as leverage against their supporters, rendering them vulnerable and alone and incapable of implementing their desired aims.
Their time of secrecy is over as they need too many co-conspirators and invested parties. Their use of stealth has gone, they are too in the open now. Their ability to claim Plausible Deniability is over, instead they have transferred this to their invested parties who must live with and among the doubters. Their concerns now are out-and-out lethal opposition not just against them, but also against their co-conspirators and invested parties. They have nearly-perfect control and leverage over these parties, the only thing that can trump their leverage is the very real threat of death, because that trumps everything for the majority of people. It is my belief that the Afghan War is in part merely an exercise to tie up the US military so that it does not form the core of any concerted resistance and rebellion against their plans.
So yes, you and Mr Corbett and the like can all pretty much put a webcam on someone and have a live-stream of them lying and cheating to the level of a real “smoking gun”, because at the end of the day, these people need time and the absence of molestation and arrestation to allow them to carry on full steam ahead, so as long as no one resorts to concerted levels of recriminatory and inhibitory violence against then then nothing will change.
This has become a Second Amendment issue and it is time for the real men and women to step forward and truly declare independence of this hateful regime, but I guess we won’t ever hear any of you guys say that while there are documentaries to make and jumpers to knit and beets to be harvested instead.
England is probably the epicentre for all this shit at the moment precisely because it is likely the least-armed nation on Earth, though the Germans seem to have some draconian gun laws too.
George Washington crossing the Delaware you are not (though I suspect he was a phony too).
So nice try, but no prize from me, thanks. Even your website is from the same mold as Corbett’s.
Thanks Second Amendment Fan for an excellent comment. You raise some really important issues. I fully agree that by taking responsibility for what has happened in many ways we are doing the bidding of the parasite class and that is something I am currently wrestling with. However, we do have to do that and that means foregoing the easements we currently enjoy.
Perhaps it will mean a return to the dark ages but, politically, that is inevitable anyway in the feudal technocracy the parasite class propose. What do you think Net Zero will be?
But a return to the dark ages is not the point of counter-economics nor agorism. The point is to achieve and build a better society. One of the most crucial points of agorism, in the modern sense, is for us to seize control of technology and not allow the parasite class to exert absolute dominion over it, as they currently do.
I do agree with James Corbett on many issues and I have used his own research, cited in the book Pseudopandemic and elsewhere on Iain Davis. I don’t agree with him on everything, as I favour a constitution, which again puts me, an anarchist, in a self-contradictory position. Again this isn’t something I have resolved in my own mind.
I am fascinated by, and agree with much of what you have said. The parasite class do need to know that we will not tolerate their crimes any longer. I have always been opposed to gun ownership and abhor violence but I have also come to understand the position of second amendment proponents in recent years. I do accept that the ability to defend yourself against the State is a valuable principle. In fact, in the UK, we do have the right bear arms but it is “illegal” unless “licensed.”
You are spot on when you say the parasite class have emerged from behind the curtain. I agree they do now feel emboldened and, in terms of their claimed plausible deniability, they have “transferred this to their invested parties who must live with and among the doubters.”
However, with respect, I feel you have missed the point of “counter – economics” and agorism. It is not some pacifist retreat into sustainability. It is a weapon to be used in a struggle against the state. I do not think I have been forthright enough in explaining this and your comment has inspired me to be so.
As you point out, in order to force the parasite class out of power, we currently appear to have only two options. The judicial route or armed revolt. Weight of numbers could be a third but we cannot realistically expect either that body of opinion to be of sufficient size (due to propaganda) or the protective ring of law enforcement not to use force to order.
As you allude to, we cannot hope that the corrupt judicial route will work. Which appears to leave us with armed revolt. I disagree with you that this will work either.
The militias in the US imagine they can defend their communities against the state. They have weaponry, even some heavy weaponry, that they think will enable them to do this. They do not have satellites, laser targeted bombs, strike aircraft, anywhere near enough tanks, or aircraft carriers etc. Therefore, they will need to engage in a long guerrilla war of attrition against the parasite class and their chances of success are slim to none existent.
They can and, should they act, will be easily contained, leaving the parasite class to run their war from a safe distance, as usual. The parasites will simply get on with normal business, including turning wider public opinion against the people who are legitimately defending their freedoms.
We can’t hope to “win” this struggle by defending our little corner of the Earth. Such resistance will be crushed, the leaders picked off one-by-one until the rudderless, starved out enclaves collapse. We have seen this in history time and time again.
If you are actually serious about removing the parasite class from power then bullets and bombs simply play to their advantage. We have to be much more strategic in our thinking. Which is where counter-economics comes in. Their whole edifice is built upon us complying with their system. They control that system and while we comply, they win. Always!
So we need to stop complying or even participating in their system. And this needs to be done on a global scale. If that is achieved, and there are many places around the world, particularly in developing nations, that already run on a counter-economic basis (by necessity), then they can keep their trinkets and their weapons but who are they going to exert influence over if no one cares what they think, say or do.
Counter economics, decentralise autonomy, exercising our inalienable right and absolute non-compliance with their diktats on a global scale is, in my view, the only way to actually remove their power. That is worth pursuing. Without figureheads or leaders who are they going to “take out?” Of course they will not “allow” this counter-economic culture to thrive, but that is rather the point.
If (a big “if”) sufficient numbers don’t even recognise their authority what they “allow” is irrelevant. They are disarmed. This will require a momentous struggle. There will undoubtedly be many arrests and hardships but what you suggest will not work. And that is why people like me and probably Corbett (obviously I don’t speak for him) favour agorism and counter-economics.
Not only is it right, in every sense including the moral and lawful (I don’t mean legal), it really could see them “removed” from power. What you are suggesting won’t in my view.
I hope you reply as I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Thank you for a brilliant comment.
Thank you for such a great article Ian. Not all truth advocates have figured out the same psyops yet, or the actual power of the US or BBC legacy mainstream media, but here’s some of my research since 2007:
Michael’s Newsletter
https://michaelatkinson.substack.com/
I realize I am late to the party, but here goes anyhow…What I have gathered from all the preceding arguments and theories is that the “truth” cannot be known. Perhaps that is true; the the absolute truth of 9/11 cannot be totally known. However, there is plenty of evidence that supports the idea that the “truth” is being suppressed. If it’s being suppressed, that logically leads to two questions/answers. Who could possibly suppress a truth as monumental to our nation as 9/11, and why would they? The very fact that these two questions/facts exist more than suggest their own answers. JMTC
Thanks Patrick. I think the truth, whatever it may be, is absolute and therefore can be known. The caveat is, in order for it to be known we would need to know that we have all the related evidence at our disposal and even then, given that so many have already lost their lives and can’t offer testimony and that the destruction has already occurred, we would have to deduce the truth. Our deduction may be accurate, in which case we will know the truth though we should still retain some doubt ourselves, simply due to our reliance upon deductive reasoning.
What can certainly be said (currently) in light of the wealth of contradictory evidence, is that the official account is far from being the truth.