the World’s Best Hope
The Ultimate Call for Unity in Diversity
Since I started to put this e-book together, I have jokingly told whoever wanted to hear it that I am now a 9/11 scholar. Since this e-book appears to be the de facto authority on 9/11's essence, the idea has merits. However, it does not matter much. What matters much is that for the first time, all “we the people of the world” need to comprehend about 9/11 is condensed in a single, well structured, freely accessible piece. The essential 9/11 puzzle has been solved and the resulting picture is a disconcertingly easy and incredibly promising road map. This is the time to thank the numerous entities and people—many of whom I don’t know or remember—who have made this possible:
The real 9/11 scholars, who have devoted countless amounts of personal energy researching much of the information I compiled in this e-book, exposing themselves to professional retaliation as well as public ridicule and demonization. I humbly apologize to them for using much of their work from memory and not specifically attributing it to them.
The 9/11 leakers: the numerous, mostly anonymous, unsung 9/11 heroes who have dared to pass prohibited information through the web of the 9/11 censorship. Some paid the ultimate price for it.
The members and assistant organizers of Orange County (California) 9/11 Truth, whom I have the privilege of leading as of 2010-Oct, and fellow Southern California 9/11 truth-seekers and 9/11 Truth leaders. Much of the inspiration for this e-book came from our common work “in the trenches” against the seemingly impenetrable 9/11 censorship. I also largely owe them the fall of my liberal pride.
The indomitable Richard Gage, AIA, and my fellow volunteers at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who taught me much and have been a consistent source of support.
My close relatives, starting with my amazing wife, who have put up with what they have viewed—with some reason from their perspective—as a single-minded quixotic obsession with fixing the whole world at the expense of living a normal life.
The Freedom Forum of Orange County (California), whose awareness and eagerness to learn spurred me to prepare in 2 weeks the presentation that incubated this e-book, which I originally planned to do over 2 months.
My dear friends and acquaintances at the Inside Edge Foundation, an Orange County (California) club of sweet, sharp, open-minded and curious people who meet weekly in the wee hours to learn about unusual educational and pragmatic topics. I owe them much for my connection to the following items in this list.
Universal Healing GrandMaster Dasira Narada, his successor Master Dang, the teachers Master Dang nurtured, and their students, who taught me—through the universal and spiritual realms—that I had a right brain and that it could work wonders.
My mind's soul and the other spiritual entities that have sustained me and inspired me as I learnt, not always in a pleasant environment, what I report in this document.
The authors of the many self-help systems I used in the last few years as I struggled with my mental health.
All the people and entities who have been evil on me, first among them the agents of the U.S. Department of Defense who harassed me in 2007 with unconventional means as I woke up to 9/11. Without their attacks, ignorance and pride may have prevented me from turning into the highly useful person I seem to be becoming at last.
This is the fifth public version of this e-book. I am very grateful to the readers who took the time to provide feedback since I rushed to upload the first version of this text on 2010-Aug-23:
Most of them graced me with congratulations, gratitude, surprise, curiosity, and relevant questions. Common shockers have been the need to drastically reprioritize political advocacy worldwide and the repeated call for understanding, compassion and forgiveness.
One reader, who knows full well that I wrote in a language I was not raised in, kindly listed the most egregious English mistakes.
One reader who is very concerned at the Mossad’s role in 9/11 was very pleased and stated that he would pass it around. This was highly comforting, for one of my ambitions is to redirect the rancor many 9/11 truth-seekers legitimately feel against the supposed 9/11 terrorists and their protectors into truly effective channels.
One reader took the opposite track, stating that my analysis misses the overriding truth that “the Jews” are the source of not only 9/11, but just about all evil. I reasonably expect other readers to formulate the same criticism regarding other candidates for the Platonic Masters (see section 6.3). I’ll answer that this e-book does not refute their pet theories but merely kindly and consciously stops short of endorsing them. It establishes that the exact identity of the Platonic Masters matters much less than their pathological nature and that seeking revenge against them is immoral and counterproductive. Instead, it offers 9/11 truth-seekers pragmatic viewpoints, motivation, suggestions and tools to work together and lead humanity out of its global Platonic theater.
Another reader took an intermediate step of refusing to review this book after finding that it did not mention the "USS Liberty," downplayed the importance of getting the Mossad to answer for 9/11 and mentioned David Icke's "Reptilian" theory without rejecting it.
Several readers have summarily, and at times severely, criticized this work for proposing that the goal of finding and punishing the actual perpetrators of the 9/11 terror attacks is misguided. At least one critic has suggested that it could be a malevolent maneuver to divide the 9/11 Truth movement. The superficial and emotional nature of these criticisms gives the impression that these readers either made little effort to understand this e-book, tend to reject original ideas outside their own framework, or are frightened by the sheer magnitude of the changes in human customs and behavior this work seems to be the harbinger of.
Two readers very reasonably asked for a table of contents I did not provide initially it because of the extra work involved. Once I provided it, several readers very legitimately complained that its hyperlinks did not operate and one advised me to format it in a friendly way. This part of the e-book appears to be final.
One reader asked for references. I am slowly providing them, as work priorities allow.
A reader complained that the list of false flags other than 9/11 (section 5.1) was too short and offered an exhaustive list. I preferred to keep it as is because most false flags other than 9/11 are controversial and little-known, even within the 9/11 Truth community. The purpose of section 5.1 is not to demonstrate that the count of probable false flags is high, but to check the applicability of the 9/11 censorship to many other false flags.
One category of feedback I still have to receive—and which I do not look forward to—is the scorn, the demonization, and the threats other 9/11 Truth authors have received. Section 7.4 reminds the readers that such prose reflects merely its authors’ poor intellectual awareness or abilities, unless of course they knowingly serve our Platonic Masters. My only anticipatory reply to such comments is a firm and respectful reminder that a prerequisite to enter Mr. Noël’s censored high school sociology class is to graduate from Mr. Gage’s censored high school science class (see section 2).
Several readers have complained of difficulty making sense of this e-book because they did not know for a fact that 9/11 was a false flag operation. One provided a polite "conspiracy theory" feedback. Evidently, they did not pay much attention to section 2's warning that the knowledge of 9/11 as a false flag is a pre-requisite to understanding this document. I expect the introduction page with "funnel questions" along the lines of Marty Lopata's "Yes" method to weed out these readers and give them an incentive to educate themselves on 9/11 at a basic level.
Several readers warned that including "the Jews" as possible Platonic Masters (section 6.3) was needlessly offensive and would make many readers summarily dismiss this e-book. I am fully conscious of this risk, but this item does belong to the list, given the objective evidence that many 9/11 truth-seekers (see example above) subscribe to this theory. Besides, it would be a disservice to the Jewish community and its friends to purposely omit this very real accusation against them and the possibility that it could coalesce into a very ugly scenario as section 3.13 alludes to.
Several readers have offered a wide spectrum of comments on my brazen inclusion of state-sponsored sorcery (section 4.5). Some have been grateful for it, while many correctly cautioned that it could make skeptics summarily dismiss the whole e-book. I still prefer to keep it because of the importance of this tool in the repression of 9/11 Truth and other dissidence, because it offers a remedy against attacks, because of my unique expertise in it, and because of the additional reason it provides to suspend judgment against the 9/11 conspirators and censors.
Because the teaser slide show (section 7.2.3) appeared to be much less popular than I anticipated, I turned it into a much simpler "baby web page" which can readily be copied to 9/11 truth-seeking webs and used to wake up people and neutralize censors.
Welcome to the advanced—and final—class of the essential 9/11 course! It is a great honor to offer this analysis to “you the people of the world.” It is the purposely missing class in the high school philosophy and humanities curriculum. Its message is straightforward and it may be the most important of these times, whether you are a forgotten downtrodden refugee in Chechnya or a glitzy corporate tycoon in New York. Cherish it and “you” will usher in a global paradigm of intense love, peace, and healing. Ignore it and “you” expose “yourselves” to the opposite.
The fundamental 9/11 class—the only other indispensable 9/11 class—and your subsequent homework have taught you that the 9/11 terror attacks were a false flag operation:
The highest echelons of the U.S. government coordinated the preparations for and the execution of 9/11.
Elements in the U.S. military, in U.S. law enforcement, and in other entities, carried out the preparations for and the execution of 9/11.
U.S. agencies in charge of investigating 9/11 knew that their colleagues bore the prime responsibility for them, yet knowingly concocted a false cover story, blaming Al-Qaeda instead.
The U.S. government, then under the “neo-conservative” (neocon) GW Bush administration, subsequently claimed the obligation and authority to wage the “war on terror.”
The War on Terror—currently (2011-Feb) pursued by the democratic-bipartisan Obama administration under the euphemism of “overseas military contingencies”—is a process in which the U.S. government maintains a climate of fear of a repeat of the 9/11 terror attacks and leverages it as a cover for:
endless, exhausting wars
neglect of pressing problems—domestically and internationally
political and social repression
seeming quest for an all-powerful executive branch
appointment of “tough on terror” judges, who bless the above as compatible with U.S. law, the U.S. constitution, and international U.S. obligations
pressure on other nations and international institutions to follow U.S. leadership in these matters
If the above information shocks you, reading the following sections will likely be a fruitless exercise. Instead, come back only after properly preparing yourself:
Take the fundamental essential 9/11 class, the science class that is purposely missing from the high school curriculum, by reviewing Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s demonstration of the controlled demolitions of the twin towers and the fraudulent nature of the ensuing official technical investigations. Their 2 hour slide show, available for free online, is more than enough. For good measure and to dispel any doubts, review what I think is, as of 2010-Sep, their most credible detractor: www.ae911truth.info. Infer that:
The flagship events of 9/11, the spectacular and morbid destructions of the twin towers with over 2,000 non-combatants inside, are arguably the most formidable acts of terror in history.
Accordingly, the most formidable terrorists in history are not the alleged 19 fanatic hijackers of the official 9/11 story, but the highly skilled engineers and the support staff who put together the largest controlled demolitions ever under the nose of their victims.
The U.S. government, through its successive statements and investigations, gave cover and protection to the most formidable terrorists ever. 9/11 earns the U.S. government the dubious title of protector of the most formidable terrorists in history.
The U.S. government's solemn commitment to fight terror is a grand lie..
There has been a global conspiracy to censor this information.
Do the subsequent homework by examining your usual sources of information:
Did they duly denounce the censorship of the cover and protection the U.S. government granted the most formidable terrorists ever?
Accordingly reevaluate your trust in them.
Look for sources of information that have duly reported on the cover and protection the U.S. government granted the most formidable terrorists ever.
Review these alternative sources of information and accordingly give them more credibility.
This e-book is a work in progress. I have rushed it to the web because to my knowledge nobody has put together such a straightforward guide through the lessons of 9/11, including demonstrating the huge stakes behind 9/11 Truth and offering simple actions to wrap them up in an incredibly favorable ending. I am continuously correcting errors, elaborating on summary statements, and clarifying obscure concepts. Kindly flag errors and room for improvement to Dan.Noel@Global-Platonic-Theater.com. Good digestion!
You already know that the cover-up of the 9/11 false flag is mediocre by any standard. Let us briefly refresh our memory before analyzing its ramifications.
The false flag’s defining event, the controlled demolition of the twin towers, is obvious:
The video evidence clearly shows each twin tower undergoing a controlled demolition:
The destruction is sudden and very fast. The roofline hits the ground hardly later than if it fell freely.
At the very beginning of the phenomenon, the top part of the skyscraper suddenly disintegrates with no warning.
All along the demolition, members of the steel frame are expelled with high momentum as if hit by some gigantic hammer. The skyscraper experiences explosive emissions of large quantities of powder. These motions are highly symmetrical.
The demolition wave progresses down, floor by floor, with excellent symmetry and regularity.
The demolition generates huge banana peel-looking clouds of powder, which form pyroclastic flows that quickly spread throughout downtown Manhattan
The end result is that:
Most contents of the tower have turned into the ubiquitous powder that blankets downtown Manhattan and has dispersed into the Hudson River.
The steel columns have largely turned into numerous linear segments, ready to be picked up, tied on flatbed trucks, and shipped away.
Many pieces of structural steel are spread outside the tower’s perimeter. Some jut neighboring buildings.
A few weeks after 9/11, TV reported the presence of large quantities of molten steel at Ground Zero. This would frighten the public into approving the launch of the Afghan war and of the enactment of the Patriot Act, but it would also provide 9/11 truth-seekers with another important clue:
Very few chemical reactions yield liquid iron. All require a special set-up, such as a forge or a blast-furnace.
The molten iron specifically hints at the use of thermite, a reaction that burns aluminum with concentrated oxygen from iron oxide and is capable of melting iron.
In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that the above-mentioned 9/11 powder contained microspherules of iron, labeled them “mysterious” and did not analyze them. These spherules are a telltale sign of high pressure spraying of liquid iron and support the contention that thermite was used to cut through the twin towers’ steel structure.
Later, independent researchers, led by Brigham Young University Prof. Steven Jones, got a hold of some resolidified 9/11 metal. They found its composition to match a thermitic residue.
Later still, independent researchers, again led by Prof. Steven Jones, got a hold of some 9/11 powder, examined it and tested it:
They confirmed the official finding of iron microspherules. They found their composition to match a thermitic residue.
They also found small fragments of unexploded and partially exploded nanothermite, a highly advanced variation of thermite that at the time of 9/11 was a novel material, believed to be manufacturable only in labs under U.S. military control.
As if the above evidence was not sufficient, the final official technical investigation into the “collapse” of the twin towers, published on the web in 2005 by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, bears multiple attributes of a cover-up:
Only a small fraction of the steel debris was available for the investigation. Most of it had been rushed overseas to be recycled before even being photographed. Tellingly, a simple campaign to systematically photograph the cuts would have been highly valuable to determine the cause of these ruptures.
The introduction states that the scope of the report is limited to studying the behavior of the twin towers up till the start of their collapses.
The report is very long and filled with complicated engineering concepts, some of which are innovative, daring and poorly justified. Several crucial statements appear to be intentionally written in doublespeak, conveying a certain message to the hurried reader and a very different one to the reader who meticulously parses them.
The report cleverly buries its description of the “collapse” so that an unsuspecting reader goes through intellectually and technically taxing reflections before finding it.
The only subsection dedicated to the actual “collapse” is not a technical analysis. It is half a page long, contains no engineering or mathematical concept—not even a number—and reads like an essay by a middle school valedictorian. It is well written, well structured, but demonstrates nothing. Worse, the description of the “collapse” does not resist a critical analysis at middle school level. It does not even match major elements of the video evidence.
The rest of the 9/11 cover-up is hardly more convincing than the twin towers’ demolitions’:
Building 7’s controlled demolition is even more evident than the twin towers’:
Unlike the twin towers’, it is a vanilla controlled demolition: it starts at the base (versus at the level of earlier terror attacks in the twin towers), and it is implosive (versus explosive in the twin towers). Building 7’s videos show the skyscraper accelerating straight down in quasi-free fall as if the Earth suddenly gave way underneath it. The video resemblance with a known controlled demolition is striking.
News outlets promptly imposed a blackout on it, so that as early as 2001-Sep-12 very few people were aware of it.
In 2002, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency reported that some of Building 7's structural steel had unexplainably been subjected to local melting and oxidized by sulfur. It concluded that further analysis would be needed. These were other telltale signs of thermite.
It would be seven years before the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology would publish on the web its final technical report into Building 7’s “collapse.” This report, in the footsteps of the twin towers’, makes numerous technical assumptions without properly justifying them, appears to badly misrepresent crucial construction data, keeps important information secret under the pretense of public safety, challenges fundamental scientific principles, and offers a video model that poorly matches the actual incident.
Independent researchers have found reasons to question the identities and features of all four 9/11 aircraft, partly because official reports have not firmly established them, partly because of inconsistencies between the official reports and the available evidence.
Just about every aspect of the Pentagon scene is inconsistent with the theory that the alleged Boeing 757 crashed there, as alleged by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), and many others:
The pictures of the building and its surroundings and the testimonies of several victims belie the official thesis.
The analysis of the official black box files shows the plane’s actual trajectory to be incompatible with the official story in several important respects.
So do the recollections of various witnesses to the plane’s approach, including a driver who got tantalizingly close to confessing to CIT that the fall of a light pole on his taxi—allegedly caused by the airplane—was staged.
The Pentagon attack struck with amazing accuracy the offices of an audit team that was attempting to trace $2T ($2,000,000,000,000) that the Pentagon could not account for, terminating this investigation.
There are numerous reasons to disbelieve Flight 93’s official story, which has it crash in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, following a desperate attempt by crew and passengers to overpower the hijackers. The crash scene looks much like a crude set-up, whereas clues that an airplane exploded at high altitude in that area abound.
Photographic and video evidence of the twin towers’ impacts also suffers from discrepancies, as flagged by Dave von Kleist and other researchers. Let us mention Simon Shack’s "September Clues" as a highly thoughtful resource on this subject.
Independent researchers have found reasons to disbelieve the official stories of multiple airplane hijacks:
All four 9/11 airplanes, according to official records, were almost empty. This was highly unusual for these flights, or for any U.S. transcontinental flight for that matter. Official reports never delved into this.
The identities of many passengers are suspicious:
Flight 77’s passengers were overwhelmingly U.S. military and U.S. military contractor personnel.
When the media “randomly” interview their relatives, the same dead passengers come over and over again. Mark Bingham is one of these few.
On 9-11, as the aerial drama unfolded, TV failed to show grieving relatives of the dead passengers.
The Pentagon and Shanksville crashes failed to provide recognizable human remains. This would not prevent official investigators from claiming that they could identify victims’ and hijackers’ DNA.
Official documents supporting all 4 doomed flights have been alleged to be incomplete, inaccurate, contradictory, or missing.
Several of the 4 9/11 airplanes have been alleged to have been put out of commission years after 9/11.
Suspicious coincidences have been pointed out regarding the identities of the crews.
Passengers and crew members allegedly used telephones to communicate with the outside world. The official reports on these communications suffer from numerous changes and inconsistencies.
All four crews allegedly surrendered control of their cockpits to unknown individuals simply after being threatened. Many observers found it incredible that they would not have negotiated with or fought the hijackers.
The alleged hijackers’ personal histories also raise their own share of enigmas and inconsistencies:
There are reasons to doubt the identities of several hijackers. Worth noting are allegations that several of them were alive after 9/11, including alleged leader Mohammed Atta.
Several hijackers, prior to 9/11, were reported to engage in activities that would belie the premise that they were religious zealots ready to meet their Maker; these included partying with alcohol, drugs and female non-Muslim lap dancers.
The above point begs the question of how an alleged fanatic leader like Osama bin Laden would agree to finance such lifestyles.
Much evidence suggests that several hijackers were under close surveillance by U.S. and Israeli government agents up till 9/11.
Convincing evidence portrays the hijackers as incapable of piloting small planes, much less succussfully aiming large jets at buildings at extreme speeds on their first try.
To summarize, the 9/11 terror attacks were a dreadfully spectacular false flag, but their cover-up was sloppy. This brings us to the true enigma of 9/11: how could the U.S. government leverage 9/11 into the “war on terror?” The answer is that the cover-up was censored. In other words, virtually all leaders and institutions who would be counted on to denounce the false flag and its cover-up did not do so. Let us take a closer look.
The previous section’s last paragraph raises an immediate objection in the mind of those who are not familiar with the matters discussed in this document. They argue that the U.S. executive branch operates under constant scrutiny and that rogue U.S. activities could not and would not stay hidden, with the help of concrete examples, such as:
Monica Lewinsky: president #42, Clinton, had difficulty controlling his sexual urges. He was impeached and seriously weakened.
Iran-Contra: president #40, Reagan, secretly sold weapons to the rogue Iranian government. Unbeknownst to him, his reports diverted the profits to finance an illegal war in Central America. He was seriously weakened.
Watergate: president #37, Nixon, had no knowledge that his underlings were committing silly crimes against his opponents. He resigned in disgrace under the threat of getting impeached and fired.
Skeptics also correctly list an impressive catalog of watchdogs, which makes the U.S. president one of the most closely observed individuals worldwide:
The supreme legal authority in the USA is the federal constitution. It provides for so-called “checks and balances:”
The executive branch, headed by the president, has its own internal checks and audits. Federal inspector generals and prosecutors have the authority—and in many cases the obligation—to investigate and prosecute allegations of U.S. executive misdeeds.
Each member of the U.S. congress is a watchdog over the president.
So is each U.S. judge.
So are the state governments, which gave some of their original sovereignty to the U.S. government in exchange for services.
Domestic U.S. watchdogs:
The USA is reputed to be a bastion of individual freedom. As such, numerous people and groups of people, with highly diverse agendas, keep a watch over the U.S. government.
The media: in the USA, unlike in most countries, the media are legally independent of the government, including financially. They largely belong to the private sector and enjoy the wide freedoms the United States grants corporations compared to most western industrialized nations.
Universities: U.S. scholars hardly depend on politicians. University professors are almost impossible to fire. They will often argue with the government, as exemplified by their concerted efforts to force Global Warming concessions from the Bush administration.
Corporations and industry groups: large companies and trade organizations exert a high clout over U.S. governmental activities. They often denounce policies or trends that would go against their corporate interests. They evaluate policies’ impact on employment. They also finance the president’s electoral campaigns and those of her/his political allies. Corporations and groups of corporations have even been accused of dictating public policies and literally writing pieces of legislation.
Professional associations: many skilled professionals have their own affinity groups. They often lobby the U.S. government and forcefully protest policies that disfavor their members.
Labor unions: U.S. unions are very powerful in government, as well as in large, traditional industries. They are highly influential in politics and are systematically courted by the Democratic Party.
Think tanks: these groups of scholars and experts mull over numerous issues, formulate opinions, and accordingly influence decision-makers.
Foundations: philanthropic institutions with various missions, mostly charitable and educational, inspire and finance much grassroots work, which in turn inevitably influences governmental policies.
Religious institutions: the U.S. population is very religious compared to other western industrialized nations. It is mostly Christian, but fractured into a multitude of denominations with highly different theological underpinnings. U.S. presidents consistently claim adherence to Christianity and try hard to nurture good working relationships with religious denominations of all sorts. Religious groups have been instrumental in many policy changes, notably the end of racial segregation.
Civil rights groups: various organizations defend individual rights, according to highly diverse missions.
A multitude of marginal groups with unusual agendas (e.g. white supremacy, anti-Semitism, communism, atheism, freedom from taxation) that the U.S. government tolerates out of its constitutional obligation.
· Foreign watchdogs:
The USA, as the “only superpower,” is by far the most powerful nation on earth. As such, foreign leaders and entities watch it closely.
International organizations: the USA is part to many international treaties and covenants, which make it subject to international jurisdiction.
“Hostile” governments: many governments are reputed to look for the most frivolous opportunity to antagonize the USA. They have a vested interest not only in scrutinizing the U.S. government, but also in abusing the United States’ sacrosanct internal freedom of expression to propagate untrue information for the purpose of fomenting dissension and political crises within the United States.
Foreign organizations: countless foreign watchdogs—many of them similar to domestic U.S. watchdogs—keenly observe and often denounce U.S. activities and trends.
Many truth-seekers report being shocked after realizing that their trusted watchdogs missed the true nature of 9/11. Conversely, many skeptics understandably justify their unease about 9/11 Truth through the reverse argument.
As amazing as it seems, the above-mentioned watchdogs, with precious few exceptions, have essentially acted as if they “knew” the official 9/11 story to be indisputably true and worthy of nothing more than an occasional recollection or reference. Their treatment of the overabundant evidence of a false flag and a cover-up has been to completely ignore it. Occasionally, a watchdog has made a statement on 9/11 Truth, but almost always to dismiss, ridicule or demonize dissenters. Remarkably, each watchdog seems to tailor its arguments berating truth-seekers to its particular audience’s taste. Exceptionally, a watchdog has let through some information exposing 9/11 as a false flag.
As a result of this abnormal reaction by traditional watchdogs, new watchdogs have had to spring up (see section 3.10).
In striking contrast to their ignorance of the false flag, the watchdogs generally do their job regarding the policies that 9/11 has engendered:
Many watchdogs oppose the wars induced by 9/11, partly or totally.
Many watchdogs oppose the U.S. and worldwide repression that 9/11 has justified.
Many watchdogs deplore the neglect of other needs as the U.S. government devotes the bulk of its resources to war and national security.
Interestingly, while the official 9/11 myth is essentially off-limits, these 9/11-induced policies are hotly debated, fan controversies, and generate wedge issues that pit people against each other.
The fact that many traditional watchdogs fight post-9/11 policies tooth and nail but ignore 9/11 Truth except for occasionally summarily dismissing it indirectly instills into the unsuspecting public’s mind the message that the official 9/11 story is clear, complete, evident, and unquestionable:
“If some important aspect of the official 9/11 story was questionable, some watchdog would bark.”
“If 9/11 was a false flag, the watchdogs would go mad.”
9/11 Truth activists have sent communications to U.S. public servants with the power—and duty—to investigate and prosecute instances of criminal activities within the U.S. government. So far, they have received almost no feedback. A few have reported some empathic reply followed by no action or an excuse to not pursue any action. Notable is a 2008 answer by FBI Counterterrorism Division Assistant Director Michael J. Heimbach that "[Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth CEO] Gage presents an interesting theory [on the twin towers’ controlled demolition], backed by thorough research and analysis." However, Heimbach would never follow up, alleging other priorities.
Numerous members of the U.S. Congress—notably the large majority of its liberal members—ostensibly and adamantly opposed most neocon policies. Denouncing the 9/11 false flag would have slain the proverbial dragon. Yet they remained mum on 9/11, with very few—and always very mild—exceptions.
Former Rep. McKinney was one of the most—if not the most—radically liberal members of the House of Representatives at the time of 9/11. She may have been the neocons’ bête noire, opposing the Bush administration at just about every turn. Yet, when it came to criticizing 9/11, even though she was as boisterous as always, she consistently refrained from killing the myth. She blasted Bush and his lieutenants for ignoring ominous warnings and vociferously denounced cover-up activities in the official investigations, but never affirmed the obvious controlled demolitions of the twin towers or Building 7. She provided the impression that she was pushing the envelope on 9/11, like she did on so many issues. The obvious unconscious lesson for the public was that since this unabashed political extremist and archenemy of Bush would go no further than denouncing criminal incompetence, carelessness and obfuscation, anybody going further would lack mental sanity.
A few other members of Congress who often antagonized the Bush administration, among them Reps. Kucinich and Paul, did make statements favoring 9/11 Truth, but in still milder terms than McKinney. This gives credibility to the theory that members of Congress would have tailored their protests against 9/11 to their respective levels of opposition to Bush.
Several people have filed lawsuits in U.S. courts, alleging that U.S. authorities or corporations wronged them by allowing or engineering 9/11. As of 2010-Nov, U.S. judges have invariably sided with the executive branch, citing frivolity or national security. Notorious is the dismissal with prejudice by U.S. judge Chin, in the spring of 2010, of a lawsuit by April Gallop, a Pentagon survivor. Tellingly, Chin did not formulate a logical argument to refute several factual claims alleged by Gallop, but instead summarily dismissed them as "fanciful, fantastic and delusional."
Under the guidance of Don Meserlian, P.E., grassroots organizations, notably WeAreChange, spurred their members to give their judges documents proving misprision of treason in relation to 9/11, the treason being the act of compelling the United States to engage in war. Ironically, U.S. law can easily be read to imply that people under U.S. jurisdiction have a legal obligation to perform this action lest they expose themselves to criminal penalties. Scores of U.S. judges have received these documents. So far, none of them has acted.
As a side-note, in 2010, it was reported on the web that a municipal judge in Palatine Bridge, New Jersey, would have recommended a Grand Jury investigation into these claims of treason.
It bears mentioning that Bush got to appoint close to half of U.S. judges after 9/11, based on dubious “anti-terror” credentials, with the collaboration of pliant senators. The question as to whether a U.S. judge will ever bark on 9/11 may be rhetorical.
The territory of California is reputed for its high frequency of punitive earthquakes. As such, the state government’s bureaucracy counts numerous civil engineers with earthquake expertise. They understand very well how high-rises are built and how they fall. They undoubtedly would readily identify controlled demolitions as obvious as the twin towers’, not to mention Building 7’s. They understand full well how 9/11 yielded numerous undesirable policies, including the diversion of already scarce public resources into useless wars and superfluous security measures. As the state authorities have found themselves with less support from and more obligations to the federal government, 9/11 has hit these civil engineers personally, undermining the job safety and the financial security public servants highly value. It is unthinkable that they must not have discussed 9/11 within small circles of colleagues. Therefore, it is hard to believe that the governor and the legislative leaders of California’s government would not know that the official 9/11 story is a fabrication.
This knowledge is more than enough for California state government leaders to remind the U.S. government that it was constituted to serve the states and that the 9/11 false flag and its ensuing policies are a very poor way—at best—to accomplish that. They have compelling reasons to denounce 9/11 and request an immediate and unconditional end to the post-9/11 policies. Their lack of action is hard to understand, given the chronic financial quagmire of the California state government that they keep lamenting.
The governments of other states do not have the benefit of numerous civil engineers on their payrolls. But even assuming that their own staff would not spontaneously question 9/11, 9/11 Truth is so widespread that their public servants inevitably run into it regularly through their contacts with the general public. Many of them must have become truth-seekers. We are back to the situation of California, with a significant number of state government workers aware that 9/11 was a false flag. It is hard to believe that some of these workers would not somehow convey what they know to their leaders.
Keeping in mind that demonstrating the demolitions of the twin towers and their cover-up is intellectually trivial, it appears that leaders of all state governments are probably aware of the 9/11 cover-up but have decided to ignore it.
Foreign governments have also essentially embraced the official 9/11 myth. Curiously, even so-called “rogue” governments and potentates, who supposedly are in the U.S. government's cross-hairs, are not afraid of lying, and have a vested interest in precipitating a huge political crisis in Washington, have toed the official 9/11 line. It is remarkable that leaders such as Chávez in Venezuela, Castro in Cuba and Ahmadinejad in Iran have made statements along the lines of 9/11 Truth, but with debilitating limitations:
Chávez stirred the 9/11 kettle in 2006, culminating with the brief comment around 2006-Sep-11 that the hypothesis of the controlled demolition of the twin towers was "not absurd." He never got this close to 9/11 again, and this isolated statement is easily missed within his immense inflammatory record.
Castro, on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, released a few lines on 9/11 Truth in one of the lengthy essays he allegedly wrote from his secret hospital. He thoughtfully wrote that the Pentagon looked like it was hit by some missile. This statement is disingenuous, since it avoids the much more shocking and much more straightforward demolition of the twin towers. Had he wanted to distract the western public and his own Cuban audience from the core 9/11 issue, he did a good job. Like Chávez, Castro—nor any Cuban dignitary for that matter—would never get anywhere so close to 9/11 again.
Ahmadinejad, in contrast, was more open on 9/11 Truth in 2010, as U.S. and Israeli military threats against Iran became ominous:
He and his media did let some limited 9/11 Truth information go through. However, they never denounced 9/11 as a false flag, much less exhorted the Iranian population to inform themselves off any of the reputable 9/11 web sources or constitute grassroots 9/11 Truth groups along the lines of those in the West. It also should be noted that the demolitions of the twin towers and building 7 are not taught at all in Iran, even though they ought to be standard material in non-censoring high schools and engineering faculties. It is equally remarkable that Ahmadinejad has not invited Iranian professionals to join the 9/11 affinity groups such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Ahmadinejad’s 2010-Aug statement denouncing the 9/11 cover-up, as reported by Reuters, focused on the essentially worthless and provocative arguments that Zionists were tipped off before 9/11 and that there was no 9/11 victims’ list. It could be easily construed as a straw man’s argument, designed to bring ridicule to 9/11 Truth-seekers under the guise of seeking 9/11 Truth.
On 2010-Sep-23, Ahmadinejad made a highly publicized declaration at the United Nations requesting an international 9/11 investigation. He rehashed the laughable official account that a terrorist's passport was found intact in the World Trade Center. This certainly indicates sloppy investigative work but hardly hints at the horror of a false flag. He stopped very short of affirming the latter, not even alluding to the evident demolitions of the twin towers. Instead, he claimed that 9/11 was partly meant to "save the Zionist regime." In a theatric show, western diplomats left the meeting, while many of those who remained cheered. Most western media not only summarized his statement, but also rendered it less intelligent and more inflammatory. The end result was remarkable:
Unsuspecting western audiences associated 9/11 Truth with an irrational, unpredictable, criminal, dangerous leader.
They were made to think that 9/11 Truth relied on the silly passport argument rather than the mountain of evidence proving the twin towers' demolitions.
Many western truth-seekers made the egotistic mistake of viewing Ahmadinejad as an ally. Many individual truth-seekers and even some prominent 9/11 Truth figures actually expressed gratitude for his comments.
Obama seized this golden opportunity to flatly dismiss 9/11 Truth with no need for an intelligent argument and to play the role of a wise statesman, calmly and firmly dismissing Ahmadinejad's statements as "inexcusable," "offensive," and "hateful."
Ahmadinejad's own domestic audience, who are widely aware of 9/11, got an acknowledgement of their knowledge, but with a call to rev up their animosity against the "Zionist regime" rather than a recognition of the irrefutable controlled demolition of the twin towers.
In that same 2010-Sep-23 statement, Ahmadinejad announced a 2011 conference on terrorism in Iran. His failure to squarely affirm the 9/11 false flag and the lack of organized 9/11 Truth activity in Iran cast doubt on the true purpose of such an event. Just in case, I applied to be invited, touting this document as my credentials.
The above is consistent with the simple theory that Ahmadinejad is truly a 9/11 censor, albeit in his own mold. He knows for a fact that 9/11 is a poorly covered false flag. Yet, in spite of the benefits his regime and he would reap from spilling the beans, he deftly undermines 9/11 Truth, both in the West and elsewhere.
“Enemy” governments have not fared better than “rogue” governments:
One of the Bush administration's swiftest actions in the wake of 9/11 was to militarily invade Afghanistan with the purported objective of capturing Osama bin Laden. The Taliban government of Afghanistan offered to expedite the U.S. request for his extradition to their Supreme Court and allow supervision of the proceedings by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, but requested that the U.S. government provide them with proof of his responsibility for 9/11 beforehand. The Bush administration, in what may be recorded by historians as a masterpiece of obfuscation, successfully dismissed the Taliban’s offer as a delaying tactic and rushed to war. Interestingly, the Taliban could have saved—and likely strengthened—their regime by denouncing the demolition of the twin towers, but evidently they preferred to lose it. Of course, another—although improbable—explanation is that the Taliban leaders were actually the middle school bullies who grew up into ignorant wife-beaters that the U.S. media portrayed.
The U.S. media did not portray another notorious “enemy,” Saddam Hussein, as an immature bully. Au contraire, they described him as cunning, very smart, extremely self-centered, and with an impeccable track record of foiling repeated U.S. attempts to dethrone him. On 9/11, his notorious egocentrism would undoubtedly have made him order his civil engineers to report on the vulnerability to aircraft impact of his recently built sumptuous palaces. It would not have taken them more than a few days to assure him that his palaces were quite secure and that the twin towers’ disintegration necessarily resulted from a professional job of carefully surveying the entire infrastructure of the buildings, expertly rigging them with thousands of explosive charges, and setting these off per a carefully computed sequence.
This makes it highly unlikely that in early 2003, with the U.S. military about to invade Iraq, Saddam was not well aware of the true nature of 9/11. Had he leveraged his bully pulpit to spill the 9/11 beans instead of repeating platitudes to avoid the war, he stood to reap great personal benefits:
The Iraq war was unthinkable without 9/11 (see section 3.16).
He would have kept his job as president-dictator of the Iraqi government.
The UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq were floundering. A 9/11 scandal would have made them untenable. Saddam would have obtained, at long last, a free hand to sell his oil to the French and Russian conglomerates that had been eying it for years.
Saddam would have been recognized as a great benefactor of humanity for denouncing “the mother of all treasons.”
He would have enjoyed a luxurious and quiet retirement.
Instead, evidently, Saddam sacrificed his personal brilliant future, and eventually his life, to the preservation of the official 9/11 myth.
Another government with an exceptional interest in denouncing 9/11 was Israel's. Israelis have been the targets of so many terror attacks that the colorful information that the most brazen, powerful, and successful terrorists in history were at least tolerated and protected by U.S. authorities ought to raise extreme concerns in their leaders' minds:
Israelis are painfully aware of terrorism, for it has been a staple of Israel's short history. Virtually every Israeli knows personally a victim of terrorism.
Accordingly, Israeli authorities have consistently made the containment of Islamic terrorism one of their major priorities.
The U.S. responsibility for 9/11 ought to make Israeli leaders wonder if there is a dark side to the considerable financial, political and military support the USA has bestowed upon them. Could it be used as a cover for U.S. sponsorship of terrorism inside Israel that would be, like 9/11, conveniently blamed on Arab extremists?
Israeli leaders ought to be extremely concerned at their very close relationship with and dependence on a powerful government that resorts to grand terror to implement its policies. They ought to thoroughly investigate the possible connection between 9/11 and the myriad acts of terror that Israelis have suffered.
Much evidence points to the involvement of the Israeli secret service, known as Mossad, in the preparation and the execution of 9/11. Theories have been provided, notably at Rediscover 9/11, that also link the cover-up to powerful individuals closely tied to the Israeli establishment. The Israeli government ought to be extremely concerned at allegations that its agents or friends could be implicated in the biggest terror attacks ever.
Yet, most unexpectedly, Israeli authorities have parroted the official 9/11 lie, lamenting that Islamic extremists are not just hating Israel, but its U.S. benefactors too.
The ironic counterpoint to the Israeli government's ignorance of 9/11 has been that of their supposed archrivals, the Palestinian authorities. As of 2011-March, West Bank and Gaza leaders keep complaining of excessively heavy-handed and needlessly oppressive Israeli policies and tactics. They have found many receptive ears in the western public opinion, even in the USA. It is highly evident that Palestinian leaders, not unlike Saddam Hussein or Ahmadinejad, could reap great personal advantages and cause the Israeli government and its U.S. protectors much grief by publishing the underlying facts of 9/11, starting by something as elementary as embedding on their web a couple of videos of the World Trade Center demolitions with straightforward comments.
In conclusion, it would appear that foreign governments, irrespective of the considerable advantages they and their populations could gain from spilling the 9/11 beans, have preferred the status quo.
The New York Times was arguably best positioned to denounce the 9/11 false flag. As one of the largest newspapers in the USA and with a readership that was generally well educated, unsympathetic to the neocons, and highly emotionally tied to the 9/11 terror attacks, it stood to gain much.
To its credit, the New York Times did report suspicious details of 9/11:
As it published findings from several 2002 U.S. reports, it included the label of “mystery” that official investigators attached to some of them: the thick powder that covered downtown Manhattan on 9/11 contained iron microspheres, and some of the World Trade Center structural steel bore marks of unexplainable attack by abnormally high temperatures and by sulfur.
In the months that followed 9/11, the New York City authorities decided to invite their firemen to record their personal experiences on 9-11. The New York Times asked for access to this information. The authorities refused. The New York Times sued them, got a favorable ruling, and published these stories. Their contents hint at a plausible reason to keep them secret. Many firemen’s recollections describe explosions in the twin towers and support the contention that many segments of their steel frames were cut with explosives ahead of the descending demolition waves.
But the New York Times failed to request further investigations into these technical mysteries and into the root cause of the firemen’s recollections. Worse, when the final official technical investigations failed to even mention this evidence, it did not react.
Mainstream U.S. media has not picked up the New York Times’ slack. Major newspapers and major TV networks have dutifully parroted the official 9/11 myth without question. Reports on 9/11 Truth have been very rare, and almost always hit pieces against 9/11 truth-seekers. Liberal media’s contribution to the censorship has been of vital importance, as many truth-seekers have reported that they originally dismissed 9/11 Truth because “if 9/11 was a false flag the liberal media would have pummeled Bush with it.” Exceptions have been very few, for instance Reuter's 2010-Sep-9 press release matter-of-factly describing three new organizations of professionals dedicated to 9/11 Truth
A laughable and blatant instance of censorship took place on 2010-Sep-11 in New York. The powers that be remembered 9/11 by aiming 2 large blue beams at the sky from the spots where the twin towers used to stand. 9/11 Truth activists powered a 3rd beam from the former spot of Building 7. They also organized a quick campaign to call the local media, pretend to not know much, and ask what the 3rd beam stood for. They reported that most agents who took their calls gave them the truthful answer that it was for the 3rd skyscraper that fell on 9/11. Yet the same media, evidently per some top-down censorship, went to great lengths to not publish pictures or movie clips that would show the 3 beams together.
Foreign western mainstream media have been more open to 9/11 Truth, but hardly so. Every few months, some major western outfit publishes a piece on 9/11 Truth. Some of these have been moderately informative, divulging the existence of U.S. dissidents while refraining from affirming that these dissidents are correct. However, most have been derogatory. Some have cleverly used the “underdog nationalistic” argument that U.S. people harbor an instinctive and baseless skepticism against their government due to historical reasons and extremist rhetoric, implying that their own audience is wise enough to not fall into that trap. A notable exception was the one-time publication by several European media of the discovery of nanothermite in the 9/11 dust in 2009. However, there was no follow up, not even to even wonder why earlier official investigations failed to identify the nanothermite.
Non-western media have been more open, but have still treated 9/11 Truth as a marginal subject. Media in Islamic countries have now and then published a piece casting doubt on the official myth, especially on the anniversaries of 9/11. But they have systematically failed to provide as straightforward information as the self-explanatory chart card for the twin tower’s demolition available at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (here as of 2010-Sep). For instance, on Sunday 2010-Sep-12, the self-proclaimed largest independent Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm published an article entitled “Nine years on, 9/11 questions linger.” They presented observations and speculations that assuredly would not make their way to any "respectable" U.S. newspaper. However, they provided almost no reference for their sources of information, even though 9/11 Truth leaders and their works are readily identifiable. They only glossed over the twin towers’ demolitions, briefly alluding to substantiated disagreements with the official story. By contrast, they devoted about one third of their article to the issue—which was sure to hit a raw nerve and inflame passions in Egypt—of the Israeli role in 9/11. A discerning reader could wonder whether it was a coincidence or a conspiracy that the first on-line comment came from a debunker and sent the readers to a single web site that countered most of the article’s allegations. Had Al-Masry Al-Youm designed this article to empathically placate the readers who were well aware of 9/11 Truth and steer them towards resenting Israel, they would have done a good job. Keeping in mind the Arab public’s good awareness of 9/11’s true nature, one will wonder whether Al-Masry Al-Youm’s editors wanted to truly educate their readers or rather distract them from 9/11.
The notable exception to the above-mentioned media blackout is the newest medium: the Internet. Independent—and often self-made—reporters, experts and analysts have provided—often at no charge—considerable information on the 9/11 false flag, its cover-up and its censorship. In fact, if it was not for the availability of 9/11-related information on the web, 9/11 awareness would probably be the privilege of a very small segment of the population apart from the 9/11 conspirators themselves.
Ironically, the first 9/11 dissidents who made a name for themselves on the web came from politically marginal groups who harbored a deep mistrust of the U.S. government and mainstream institutions (see section 3.2).
Many corporations directly exploit the public policies 9/11 gave birth to: private armies, military contractors, security companies, manufacturers of security and surveillance equipment. Others benefit from neocon-inspired economic policies of deregulation, tax reduction, job exportation, de-unionization, corporate fraud immunity, etc. It could be understood that their interests would call them to preserve the integrity of the official 9/11 myth.
However, it is not difficult to find corporations that suffer from the post-9/11 policies:
Corporations that could enjoy public subsidies if the U.S. government was not bankrupting itself into a continuous and seemingly endless war, for instance green corporations.
Corporations that suffer from delayed, scaled down or cancelled public projects as a result of the war economy, such as contractors in public infrastructure development and maintenance.
Corporations that suffer from the war-induced impoverishment of the U.S. population, for example commercial goods’ manufacturers and resellers.
These corporations—and the trade organizations they belong to—would stand to gain greatly from denouncing the 9/11 false flag and advocating the immediate cancellation of the wars and other 9/11-induced policies. It is remarkable that their leaders have acted against their owners’ and shareholders’ best financial interests by ignoring 9/11 Truth.
Civil and structural Engineers will easily identify a controlled demolition. Assuming that many would have been blinded by the 9/11 cover-up, a few would nonetheless have realized the reality of the twin towers’ demolitions. As they would interact with colleagues within the scope of their professional associations, it is likely that the topic of the official explanation’s inaccuracy would come up.
In this light, it is mind-boggling that the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) not only did not denounce the 9/11 cover-up, but took an active part in it. Notorious was its video representation of the structural damage of the Pentagon, where Dave von Kleist and others have exposed signs of obvious falsification.
Similarly, controlled demolition companies would unmistakably recognize their colleagues’ work. Yet they have generally stayed mum on the three 9/11 demolitions. One of the few professional demolitionists to recognize Building 7’s demolition was Danny Jowenko. Remarkably, he worked in Holland and had no prior knowledge of Building 7 when he was shown its video.
Scientific journals have published articles of dubious scientific value on the destruction of the twin towers. Most notable have been a few papers by Northwesten University civil engineering and material science professor Bažant and others that purport to illustrate how the top of each twin tower could crush the body of the tower and itself, in a challenge to middle school-level scientific knowledge. At the same time, truth-seeking scientists have complained that the same journals systematically reject their articles, often for reasons that appear more like pretexts, and at times request that they water down their contents. Usually, such a publication will be followed—at times in the same edition of the same journal—by a rebuttal that favors the official lie. For instance, the ASCE took 2 years to publish, in 2010, a trivial criticism by Björkman of the above-mentioned Bažant et al. paper. Hold and behold, the same edition of their journal included a rebuttal by Bažant et al., pompously stating that attacking their work without referring to the fundamental equations of motion was invalid and cleverly inserting misleading and outright false information.
Liberal leaders blasted the Bush administration for waging a “war on science” focused on astronomy, biology, sexuality, and Climate Change. The same leaders omitted that the scope of this war on science included kinetics, thermodynamics and chemistry, and that it was slated to continue unabated under Bush’s successors.
Psychologists and sociologists ought to be very concerned at the cover-up and the censorship of 9/11, especially given the ensuing policies’ devastating impact on individual and collective mental health. Yet, although some have spoken up individually, their professional associations have failed to denounce 9/11. Cynics would observe that the post-9/11 collective fear has brought business to clinical psychologists and psychiatrists.
Lawyers ought to be outraged at the negligence that marred the investigations into 9/11 and the numerous legal shortcuts—to put it mildly—that the Bush administration pioneered as it deliberately circumvented numerous legal and constitutional obligations in the name of its “war on terror.” Yet, even though many legal associations and legal scholars have sternly criticized Bush and Obama for criminally subverting the laws they swore to obey under the pretext of preventing another 9/11, precious few of them have denounced the 9/11 false flag and its cover-up. Lawyers for 9/11 Truth counts very few members compared to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and as of 2010-Nov they take virtually no action apart from maintaining on the web a list of a few dozen lawyers who ask for a thorough 9/11 investigation. To make things worse, several lawyers who have apparently tried to elicit 9/11 justice have been accused of covertly subverting it.
University professors have a reputation of independence. Once tenured, they are supposedly unfirable. Yet civil engineering faculties have also failed to denounce the 9/11 cover-up. Videos have been recorded of civil engineering professors avoiding or obfuscating questions by 9/11 truth-seekers. Scholars in psychology, sociology, journalism, and law have also essentially ignored 9/11.
The 9/11 false flag fully qualifies as an act of evil. So do its cover-up, its censorship, and the policies it engendered. If evil spirits exist and observe human activity, they must have celebrated 9/11 with champagne. Behold the sick joke of Hitler’s soul congratulating Prescott Bush’s because 9/11 beats the Reichstag fire. In fact, any reasonable individual who believes in the existence of demons will view 9/11 as demonic. Few events would deserve this label better than the morbidly spectacular murder of 3,000 innocent civilians for the purpose of launching worldwide fear, war, repression and misery.
At its inception, Christianity was largely a spiritual answer to the Roman Empire’s ruthless oppression against the Palestinian Jews. Modern historians have brought us a picture of the Roman empire reminiscent of our contemporary corporate raiders: the Roman army would invade a territory, install a puppet government, and tax this government—which in turn would tax the population—so as to get a good return on their investment—the costs of the invasion and of the occupation. This clever process would fuel the Roman Empire’s continuous expansion and prosperity. Ordinary Palestinian Jews were painfully aware of this. A few years before Jesus’ alleged birth, the Roman legions crushed a revolt by publicly crucifying 2,000 of its leaders. Some time after Jesus’ death, as the Palestinians failed to come up with the required taxes, the Roman rulers collected the difference by enslaving enough of them to make up for the missing amount. It is largely believed that one reason for Christianity’s expansion among Palestinian Jews was its unique relevance to a population living under a harsh foreign military occupation. In fact, religious scholars have flagged many precepts of the New Testament as well suited to the religious needs of the lower social, political and economic strata in a careless society, making even modern Christianity a religion of choice for the oppressed.
Given Christianity’s incubation as an anti-imperialistic religion, one would expect Christians to overwhelmingly oppose the post-9/11 U.S. foreign policies, which in many respects mirror those of ancient Rome: “we’ll invade your country, give its natural resources and transportation corridors to our corporations for our trouble, and ruthlessly crush your opposition.” As such, Christian leaders ought to be eager to explore allegations that 9/11 could be a false flag. Yet to this date, even though many individual Christians, including some ministers, have embraced 9/11 Truth on account of their faith, Christian leaders and scholars have ignored—at best—9/11 Truth. From the Vatican to liberal denominations to fundamentalist denominations, no Christian organization has questioned the official 9/11 myth.
One notable exception to this rule has been theology professor emeritus David Ray Griffin, who turned into a leading 9/11 scholar. One of his books specifically attempted to wake up the Christian community to 9/11: “Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: a Call to Reflection and Action.” Alas, Christian leaders essentially ignored it, except for distancing themselves from it. As of 2010-Dec, a search for the book on the publisher's web returns nothing.
9/11-induced policies have hit Muslims disproportionately:
Post-9/11 wars and threats of war have targeted exclusively Muslim countries.
While Bush disingenuously proclaimed that the war on terror was not a war on Islam, his attorney general Ashcroft infamously rounded up over 1,000 Muslims residing in the United States, held them without charge for months, quietly deported some over immigration violations, and discreetly released the rest with no explanation. None of them was ever charged with any criminal offense linked to terrorism.
In the years following 9/11, U.S. authorities would often arrest Muslims for terror-related activities with great fanfare and cameras rolling, only to release them later with charges dropped.
Many elements of the U.S. public have understandably grown hostile to Islam and Muslims.
Vilification of Islam and Muslims has also grown in other western countries.
Against this ominous backdrop, Muslim leaders would be expected to embrace 9/11 Truth. Against all odds, they have instead trumpeted the mantra that “the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, but true Muslims don’t terrorize.” The fact that ordinary Muslims, in the West and in Muslim countries alike, are much more aware of the true nature of 9/11 than non-westerners and non-Muslims, adds another touch if irony to this fascinating twist of the 9/11 censorship.
In 2010, the 9/11 Truth movement experienced a crescendo of accusations that the Israeli secret service, known as Mossad, would be the prime author of 9/11 and that many prominent Jews would be involved in the cover-up and the censorship of 9/11 (see also 3.8). Jewish organizations ought to be extremely concerned that should the 9/11 censorship be overwhelmed—or purposely lifted—and should the Mossad’s responsibility be widely publicized, they could suffer a tremendous backlash, possibly condemning Jews to the second-class status Christian societies traditionally confined them to. Yet Jewish organizations have largely toed the official “Osama bin Laden’s fanatics did it” line.
Other religions have not been more open to the fact that 9/11 was a poorly covered false flag.
This claimed ignorance of 9/11’s true nature contrasts with the protests of countless religious outfits on a large number of issues, including 9/11-inspired policies such as wars, unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies, interfaith misunderstandings, political and religious repression, growing domestic poverty, inaction on global ecological problems, etc.
It would be hard to find a single neocon idea that labor unions would support. Indeed, organized labor was hostile to just about every Bush policy, written or unwritten:
Top-down corruption: Bush, more than any of his predecessors in recent memory, was notorious for appointing high-ranking U.S. officials based on personal affinity over competence and sense of public service.
As a side-note, section 6.5 provides a new light on this.
Deregulation: unions’ preferred method to solve conflicts is a binding procedure acceptable to all parties involved. They thrive in bureaucracy. The neocons despised bureaucracy and did not mind throwing the baby of public service with the bathwater of excessively rigid rules.
Free passes to white-collar criminals: one of the first administrative actions of Bush to make good on his promise that 9/11 was his administration’s “first priority” was to shift FBI resources away from white collar crimes and to terrorism. Union members—well-to-do yet poorly educated—would inevitably become preys of choice for white collar criminals who would know that the U.S. government was short on resources to track them down.
Institutionalized financial bubbles such as the irresponsible deregulation of credit that allowed unscrupulous mortgage brokers and credit card issuers to earn easy money on the back of gullible high-earners, typically union members.
Threatened pension monies: as a result of the economic shenanigans of the Bush and Obama administrations, largely excused by the pursuit of exhausting 9/11-justified wars, many pension funds appear under-funded and many corporations and governments claim to be overburdened by pensions.
U.S. industrial meltdown: while Bush and Obama were busy and distracting “us the people” with their illusory wars, they let traditional U.S. industries shut down, overlooked the export of jobs and competencies to China and India, and deliberately favored imports. Many of the U.S. jobs that disappeared in the process were high-paying union jobs.
It bears repeating that the war on terror boosted the popularity of the neocons and the neocon-dominated Republican Party. As a response, Democratic politicians, traditional allies of unions, weakened and felt a pressure to veer to the right.
Similarly, Bush and a pliant senate put in place almost half of U.S. judges, based on dubious “anti-terror” credentials. These right-wing judges are widely believed to be hostile to organized labor.
Against this backdrop, it would seem unbelievable that labor unions would not exploit the slightest discrepancy in the official 9/11 story in a desperate attempt to discredit or attenuate the clout of their political nemesis. Yet unions have essentially embraced the 9/11 myth and actively clamped down on internal dissenting voices such as Kevin Bracken's in Australia in 2010.
This is particularly egregious in the case of firefighters’ unions. After all, over 200 of their members were summarily executed in the twin towers. Their unions’ failure to scream for justice is nothing short of scandalous.
Furthermore, tens of thousands of rescue workers worked feverishly on 9/11 and in the following days in a desperate attempt to rescue survivors from the twin towers. These individuals unknowingly did what nobody is believed to have done ever before: they breathed controlled demolition residues. Indeed, a regular controlled demolition takes place only after the area has been evacuated and the clean-up crew enters the neighboring area only after the gases have gone and the powder has settled down. As a result of breathing the demolition’s by-products, rescue workers have been afflicted by poorly understood diseases. As of 2010-Sep, over 900 have died, over 60,000 are sick, and many of them are financially broke from the double whammy of being unable to work and being unable to pay for extremely expensive yet often poorly effective medical care.
To their credit, some unions have adopted the cause of the dire medical and financial condition of the first responders, but none has tracked the problem back to its root and squarely denounced the fact that people in position of high authority knew that the first responders would encounter no survivors and would needlessly expose themselves to yet unknown diseases.
The average U.S. liberal typically associates the phrase “civil rights” with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU emphasizes an interpretation of the U.S. constitution that uncompromisingly favors the individual, occasionally taking positions that offend part of its liberal base. It is common knowledge that if 20 gang leaders were found dead in Manhattan and if there was a reason to suspect that the NY Police Department’s investigation into this crime was a cover-up, the ACLU would mount a forceful campaign to denounce its shortcomings and request corrective action. However, the ACLU has gone to great lengths to ignore the barely camouflaged arbitrary execution of 2,000+ reputable individuals in the twin towers on 9/11. The ACLU did not even denounce the summary destruction of 9/11’s forensic evidence and the consensus within the U.S. government as a whole to conduct no criminal investigation while rushing to war in Afghanistan.
Another prominent watchdog that “saw no evil” on 9/11 is Amnesty International (AI). AI has built, over their few decades of existence, an unmatched reputation for independence and impartiality, which probably contributed to propel it to the status of a highly respected—and feared—human rights watchdog. It vividly illustrlated this in the 1980’s, as it almost single-handedly protested publicly the revival of the death penalty in the USA against a very contrary and hostile public opinion. AI has systematically reviewed each case of imminent legal execution in the USA, looking for particular grounds to request that the execution be stayed or the death sentence commuted, apart from the human right to life it systematically invokes, no matter how convincingly the specifics of the crime may justify an execution. AI also systematically and aggressively pursues leads of extrajudicial executions worldwide. Yet when it came to 9/11, it ignored the innumerable clues—starting on the very day of 9/11—that 9/11 was a set of 3,000 barely hidden extrajudicial executions of honorable individuals. This is hard to excuse, for its research staff is reputed to comb through just about every source of information there is.
From the standpoint of the average liberal, leftist, compassionate, intelligent follower of the ACLU or AI, the conclusion is self-evident: if there was a remote possibility that 9/11 would be a false flag, the ACLU or AI would have raised hell.
Ironically, the ACLU, Amnesty International and just about every watchdog of the judicial liberal vein ignored 9/11—most probably deliberately—but jumped on the bandwagon of protesting the infamous Patriot Act, conveniently sending their members and supporters on an open-ended campaign against Bush’s legal and constitutional abuses and distracting them from the real problem. They would also, in unison, protest the scandal of hundreds of indefinite detentions in the Guantánamo military base with no judicial oversight and criticize specifics of the kangaroo courts some of the detainees were processed through. However, they never deplored the defense attorneys’ inexcusable failure to produce the overwhelming evidence that would straightforwardly undermine the alleged connection between Islamic fanatics and the structural failures of the twin towers. Appeals to correct these egregious mistakes have been generally ignored or given canned answers along the lines of “send us your information” or “I’ve reviewed 9/11 Truth and it’s not convincing.”
On the right/conservative side of the U.S. political arena, the picture is hardly brighter. For instance, the National Rifle Association (NRA), which assertively promotes individual rights to own and bear loaded firearms, has protested the abuse of the fear of terrorism to restrict access to weapons—for instance U.S. Sen. Lautenberg’s 2009 “Terror Watch List” bill aimed at people “deemed to be suspected dangerous terrorists”—but has failed to notify its members that the 9/11 false flag demonstrates the terrorist threat to be a boogeyman and also suggests that the very real problem of criminality in the USA, which gun control advocates keep throwing at the NRA, is at least partly engineered (see section 5.2).
Peace groups of many kinds aggressively oppose the 9/11-justified wars. Yet the large majority of them somehow “forget” the premises of these wars.
For instance, as of 2010, anti-war leaders exhort their followers to ask Obama to end his war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and justify this request with countless reasons. Yet they miss the most fundamental one, namely that the Bush administration went to war frivolously, without even giving the Afghan government a chance to initiate judicial proceedings against Osama bin Laden (see section 3.8).
Similarly, peace groups and congressional Democrats made a big deal of Bush’s alleged lies regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But this political posturing conveniently contributed to erasing from the public’s memory the fact that in 2003 Saddam’s purported weapons of mass destruction, on their own merits, were not an urgent concern to the U.S. population. They would certainly represent a threat to Iran, to Israel, to Europe, but their direct threat to the United States could be demonstrated only through Osama's logistical means to smuggle them into mainland U.S. territory as proven by the official 9/11 narrative. In other words, the rationale for the Iraq war was double-pronged: Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and Osama could deliver them through his 9/11 logistics. Without 9/11, the justification for the Iraq war would crumble. Keeping in mind that the Bush administration had to go through lengthy political maneuvering before being able to launch the Iraq war, it is likely that the absence of 9/11 would have made it impossible.
Yet, as of 2010-Oct, with very few small-scale exceptions—such as Veterans for 9/11 Truth and Cindy Sheehan—the peace movement has ignored 9/11 Truth. Some prominent peace leaders, such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor emeritus Noam Chomsky, are actually among its most rabid opponents. As of 2010, Chomsky was reported to state that he would review 9/11 Truth only after some MIT structural engineering professor would communicate to him that the twin towers were demolished. Knowing that the average high school kid will understand the demonstration of the twin towers’ demolitions, Chomsky’s challenge is tantamount to confessing that he knows 9/11 to be a false flag but will wait for others to denounce it. In 2010-Nov, PressTV reported that Chomsky stated that "the Taliban [...] requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any [because] they did not have any." However, he stopped way short of going to the logical end of his reasoning, affirming instead that the FBI "believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emirates and Germany." This disingenuous statement could easily be interpreted as a damage-control tactic in the wake of David Ray Griffin's 2010-June essay on the illegality of the Afghan war based on the reality of 9/11.
Peace leaders’ failure to speak up on 9/11 adds another tricky piece to the puzzle of the 9/11 censorship. Since 9/11 Truth is by far the surest and quickest way to summarily cancel the post-9/11 wars and since 9/11 Truth holds the promise of preventing future false flags and therefore future wars, its benefit to the peace movement is self-evident. Chomsky and other peace leaders’ concerted efforts to steer their followers away from 9/11 Truth and send them on a wild goose chase behind a multitude of issues that 9/11 Truth would nullify are baffling.
Overlooked in the mysteries surrounding 9/11 has been terrorist groups' very real failure to leverage 9/11 Truth. By publishing the U.S. government's resort to morbid and spectacular violence for the evil purpose of fomenting war, they would legitimize their use of the same on a much lower scale and for the laudable purpose of correcting real or perceived social or political injustice.
For example, over the past decade (as of 2010), the Colombian FARC have been widely vilified as a ruthless and egoistic gang of bandits thriving off extortion under penalty of death, kidnapping for ransom, and drug commerce. 9/11 Truth gave them a golden opportunity to contrast their armed struggle purportedly aimed at the very real repression directed against Colombian socialist leaders with the U.S. government's execution of 9/11 for the sake of open-ended war. Yet the FARC evidently have preferred to endure public hostility rather than spill the 9/11 beans. How the leaders of FARC and countless other terrorist and guerilla organizations took the self-defeating decision to keep to themselves the specifics of 9/11 is assuredly one of the most puzzling questions raised by 9/11. Of course, a tempting answer would be that the same outfit that organized something as big as 9/11 could pull major strings within the FARC and other terrorist organizations. Sections 5 and 6 bring evidence supporting this theory.
Most surprising has been the denial of 9/11 by supporters of Islamic terror. "Jihadists" of all kinds have suffered a tremendously bad press in the wake of 9/11, including among many Muslims who would support violence within "reasonable" limits. Yet some of them are occasionally reported to brag about 9/11, such as Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi on 2011-Feb-5.
Subsection 3.1 reminded us how poorly the 9/11 false flag was covered up. Following subsections explored different aspects of the ensuing censorship. They established that just about every outfit or watchdog of importance that would have a vested interest in denouncing the 9/11 false flag or its cover-up has failed to do so. Since the cover-up was so evident and so amateurish, it stands to reason that these watchdogs’ failures to bark were intentional. In other words, the watchdogs were largely aware that 9/11 was a false flag but went along with the cover-up instead of proclaiming the truth, helping the public see through the official lie, and taking their part in unraveling what would have turned into a scandal of historical proportions. In a nutshell, the watchdogs censored 9/11.
Consequently, even though the U.S. government did a sloppy job of covering up the 9/11 false flag, the public essentially accepted the official 9/11 myth. Without this tight censorship by leaders and outfits who would ostensibly abhor the post-9/11 policies, the 9/11 false flag would have fallen flat, Bush and his aides would have resigned in disgrace, the entire upper crust of the U.S. government would have been wiped out, and the human community would have been spared a decade of gratuitous suffering. Instead, the watchdogs made up for the poor cover-up and knowingly allowed the infamous post-9/11 policies.
Summarizing the above, we are rediscovering antique Greek scholar Aeschylus' aphorism that “in war, the first casualty is truth:”
The 9/11 terror attacks were a false flag.
Their cover-up was poor.
However, just about every watchdog that would normally be counted on to denounce the false flag and its cover-up did not do so.
This provided the cover-up with an excellent censorship.
This excellence of the censorship made the general public believe the cover story and stay ignorant of the fact that 9/11 was a false flag.
Consequently, the public did not summarily reject the post-9/11 policies as irrelevant, unneeded, cruel and financially exhausting. Instead, even their opponents integrated the official 9/11 myth as a fact and restricted their arguments against these policies to the high road of deploring "irrational or immoral responses to a horrific tragedy."
The most logical next step is for 9/11 truth-seekers to borrow a page from the quality textbook of Japanese corporations:
Accept the impenetrable 9/11 censorship as a fact.
Keep emotions out of its awareness.
Develop a better understanding of it.
Accordingly devise a more appropriate course of action.
The next section proposes to accomplish precisely that.
The 9/11 censorship, as seen above, has been tight, worldwide, enduring, has encompassed just about every entity that would have been expected to denounce the 9/11 false flag and its cover-up, and has cut across all traditional intra-human boundaries: territorial, ideological, religious, linguistic, economic, moral, legal, etc.
The 9/11 censorship has been tighter in the West, especially in the USA.
The 9/11 censorship has 2 major components:
The watchdogs deliberately ignore the true nature of 9/11 as well as any piece of information that points to 9/11 as a false flag or to the official 9/11 narrative as a cover-up.
The watchdogs occasionally criticize the 9/11 Truth movement, under various forms:
Ignorance—“I don’t remember hearing of this, do you have information so I can review it later?”
Condescendence—“these conspiracy theories are not convincing.”
Logical fallacies—“some watchdog would have heard of that.”
Attack—using demeaning epithets and statements.
This similar behavior among highly dissimilar watchdogs raises the question as to how they all got to censor 9/11 in lockstep. One possible explanation is that they spontaneously made the same decision and adopted the same policy regarding 9/11, independently of each other. However, this is hard to believe:
Literally tens of thousands of outfits, operating under vastly diverse principles and circumstances, would somehow make the immoral and criminal decision in unison.
These outfits hold different—at times opposite—views on many matters.
These outfits hardly communicate with each other.
For these obvious reasons, the hypothesis of spontaneous censorship is highly unlikely and deserves no further consideration. This leads us to the alternative explanation that postulates some deliberate coordination between these outfits as far as the 9/11 censorship is concerned. Some single entity would have convinced these organizations to censor 9/11. This hypothesis raises its own lot of enigmatic objections:
This organization would be secret.
This organization would enjoy tight and effective communication lines to all the censoring outfits, irrespective of their above-mentioned diversity.
This organization would have enough clout to persuade these outfits to censor something as important as 9/11, knowing that many—if not most—of them would violate their stated missions, work counter to their publicly stated objectives, and expose themselves to terribly adverse consequences for covering an extremely serious crime.
This second hypothesis looks incredible on its face, but is worth exploring, starting by reviewing which international outfits could provide a cover to that central organization.
The international community of nations has put in place several powerful outfits with a worldwide reach, for instance the United Nations, the World Bank, Interpol, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. There also exists a whole assortment of less-known worldwide organizations set up by treaties for sundry purposes, such as international air travel, international mail, or worldwide operation and safety of portable computers. Many of these organizations have legal power to force individual nations to adopt specific measures in their areas of competence.
Could it be that the 9/11 censors somehow infiltrated or co-opted some of these worldwide organizations? Since they were able to infiltrate and control a multitude of U.S. agencies to allow—if not perpetrate—the false flag and to cover it up, it stands to reason that they were able to infiltrate and control some of these worldwide outfits as well. After all, a group capable of infiltrating the U.S. government may be quite capable of infiltrating the United Nations, and a group capable of infiltrating the FBI may be quite capable of infiltrating Interpol. As such, these worldwide organizations’ internal communication capabilities and personal networks may have been put at the service of the global 9/11 censorship.
Nations have also put in place numerous regional, continental, and affinity-based international and supranational organizations. Many of them have military and law enforcement capabilities, for instance NATO, a military alliance of Western countries dominated by the United States. Since the 9/11 conspirators obtained the compliance of the U.S. Air Force and of the U.S. military-controlled nanothermite procurement system in the execution of 9/11, it is not impossible that the 9/11 censors enrolled NATO too. The impact of regional and affinity-based organizations on the 9/11 censorship cannot be underestimated, for they often provide tighter bonds and have more authority than worldwide organizations.
There also exist less formal yet highly influential global outfits, such as the G-20, a gathering of political leaders of the most powerful nations, which often comes up with some common decisions. With the G-20 leaders demonstrably on board of the 9/11 censorship, it is plausible that while they hold their informal meetings on their public agenda, some of their aides would discuss specifics of the 9/11 censorship in separate meetings.
The Bilderberg Group is a very discreet club of the international Who’s Who of politics and finance. Strangely, mainstream media have hardly ever reported on it. Not even paparazzi approach it. This has given birth to many conspiracy theories, up to equating the Bilderberg Group with an actual “global government.” Without going that far and keeping in mind that the Bilderberg members undoubtedly know 9/11 to be a poorly covered false flag, it cannot be discarded that some communications related to its censorship would use the Bilderberg meetings and relationships as a conduit.
The Roman Catholic Church has a worldwide presence. It enjoys some secrecy privileges in many countries as well a highly centralized power hub in Rome, making it conceivable for a single office to dispatch worldwide communications related to the 9/11 censorship.
In the late 20th century, numerous corporations, including small ones, have gone multinational. Corporations are generally more moral than governments, as many people familiar with both public and private working methods have attested. As such, corrupting workers in the private sector is often harder than in the public sector. However, the use of multinationals by the 9/11 censors cannot be discarded:
Corporations generally run more efficiently than governments, are less bureaucratic and more results-oriented. They tend to give their personnel more operational freedom as they trust them to act in compliance with their corporate missions. Their internal international communications are accordingly more direct, more effective, and less subject to intrusive internal control.
Corporations have contacts in the different countries they operate in: not only suppliers (including mass media for advertising), partners and customers, but also government agencies for international commerce, taxes and regulation.
Some multinationals knowingly engage in outright evil activities. A few, such as Xe (previously known as Blackwater and infamous for its ruthless operations in Iraq), even barely hide evil as their principal raison d’être.
The 20th century also saw the birth of many international grassroots organizations, many of them for arguably laudable purposes: Amnesty International, GreenPeace, etc. Like multinational corporations, they have their own nimble international communication systems, some of which—especially with informants—are kept confidential from the outside world, and they tend to exercise minimal control over their members—not unlike corporations—because they trust them to operate in line with their mission. It stands to reason that they may provide a convenient cover for some international communications related to the 9/11 censorship.
Last but not least, since the 9/11 false flag, its cover-up and its censorship were criminal acts, it is highly possible that the 9/11 conspirators and the 9/11 censors used the services of international criminal organizations:
Recreational drugs are a major international criminal commodity, from growing to processing to transportation to distribution and sale. There have been many allegations of collaboration between government agencies and drug traffickers, sometimes resulting in criminal proceedings against public servants.
Another notorious type of international criminal business is weapons traffic. Firearms have a knack for finding their way from reputable weapon factories to the hands of drug lords, warlords and guerillas. Suspicions abound of shady dealers using legal and illegal means to carry them across borders.
Terrorist and guerilla groups commonly build underground ramifications across borders. It bears remembering that they have apparently been supporting the 9/11 censorship (see section 3.17).
In recent years (as of 2010), some light has been shed on what could be an increase in the international commerce of sex workers, as large numbers of women are conveyed across borders, often illegally, for the purpose of prostituting them.
A list of international crime syndicates is not complete without money laundering. International illegal activities rely on frequent and large monetary transfers across borders and under the radar of national and international fiscal authorities. Money laundering is a form of banking. As such, it relies on reliable and confidential international accounting and communication systems, including those of reputable banks, which could be advantageously used by the 9/11 censors to support their communications.
The previous section outlines a broad array of organizations (literally hundreds of them) that could be infiltrated by the 9/11 censors to carry international messages to promote, organize, maintain and correct the 9/11 censorship.
Which of these organizations have been used by the 9/11 censors is unknown. What is obvious, though, is that the 9/11 censors may have been able to infiltrate and use resources from several of them, and that they could pick between a large number of highly dissimilar outfits.
Such an infiltration of existing multinational organizations would complement the infiltration of national and local outfits that the 9/11 censors obviously accomplished. It would allow some cross-border coordination of activities and give the censorship its global cement. If the infiltration covered organizations of different—and possibly opposite—inclinations, it would also make the censorship tighter and more homogeneous.
We are putting together a model for the 9/11 censorship that relies on a large number of individuals with highly differentiated backgrounds, worldwide, linked by a web of personal or professional affinities. These relationships are extremely diverse, cut across all traditional boundaries, and link people who often publicly oppose each other. This raises the objection that this web of censorship would be naturally improvised, that many of its links would be shaky, and that information would inevitably leak.
It is reasonable to expect leaks from the global 9/11 web of censorship as outlined in the previous subsection. Keeping tens of thousands of outfits permanently censored is a daunting task. “Stealth” censorship is a very delicate business. Censored information would inevitably leak. This raises the question as to how the 9/11 censors would plug their leaks.
Let us tackle this question from the perspective of the 9/11 censors and assume that some institution leaks a piece of censored information on 9/11. For instance, a regional newspaper with a circulation of 100,000 publishes an objective piece on the local 9/11 Truth group.
How will the 9/11 censors be aware of this? This question is self-answering. Since so little objective information is ever published on 9/11, 9/11 Truth web sites will rush to alert their readers to the leak. So simply monitoring 9/11 Truth webs gives the 9/11 censors timely information on their latest problem. This saves them the trouble of putting in place and maintaining a complex network of monitors.
Once the 9/11 censors are aware of the leak, their next logical step is to analyze it and determine if it hints at a problem worth addressing. Assuming they answer affirmatively, they logically identify who can take corrective action to stop the leak and reinforce the 9/11censorship at the leaking spot. The corrective action will usually be to turn a specific individual—in the above example a logical choice could be the newspaper’s editor—into a 9/11 censor and absorb her/him intto the censorship’s web.
The most effective way to plug a leak is to call a plumber. A 9/11 plumber would be a 9/11 censor—i.e. an individual who knows 9/11 to be a false flag but knowingly promotes the official myth and actively works against 9/11 Truth—with the will and capability to “plumb the leaker,” i.e. reach out to her/him and turn her/him into a fellow censor. The typical plumber will be somebody whom the leaker will respect. The plumber will discreetly let the leaker know that (s)he made a mistake and that (s)he should not repeat it. The substance of the communication could take many forms: advice, warning, threat, blackmail, or retaliation. Coercive methods are not abstract at all, since the plumber could easily and gently point to verifiable coincidences that bear the marks of retaliation for leaking 9/11 information, for instance:
Brigham Young University professor Steve Jones was given a "retirement offer he could not refuse" around the time Bush visited his university. He was a leading 9/11 Truth scientists, managing to briefly denounce on television the use of thermite to demolish the twin towers and later finding physical traces of the 9/11 thermite.
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) manager Kevin Ryan was fired for sending a letter to the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology warning them that they were misusing the results of tests run by UL in regards to the structural failures of the twin towers. Since UL enjoys a pristine reputation as an incorruptible private watchdog, the impact of this information cannot be underestimated.
Barry Jennings died mysteriously a few days before the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology published their draft report on Building 7’s structural failure. His testimony of personally experiencing terrifying explosions inside Building 7 before the structural failures of the twin towers contradicted the premises of the report.
Deborah Jane Palfrey—primarily known as “the DC Madam”—officially killed herself a few weeks after casually stating that her girls—who catered to high-ranking U.S. officials—had clients tell them about 9/11 ahead of time.
The plumbing could use several stages of persuasion, possibly with different plumbers. Pursuing the above example of a newspaper editor, the first plumber may be the editor of a similarly-sized paper in a neighboring area, who will gently state that other colleagues have gotten into much trouble for reporting on 9/11. Should (s)he not manage to plumb the editor, some international prostitute dealer who happens to be doing some business in the area may put on a suit, corner the editor in a public parking lot, and proffer a veiled threat. The end effect will be a fresh additional node (censor) in the 9/11 censorship’s web with an operational and tested link to one or more plumbers. As time and opportunity allow, other censors may develop 9/11-based relationships with this individual, reinforcing and securing this node's reliability within the web.
Assuming this process of censors plumbing leakers would be in place, could it be identified? Would there be evidence of leaks and plumbing?
As a matter of fact, a 9/11 leak takes place now and then, as some VIP makes a statement or some mainstream media outlet publishes a piece that undermines confidence in the official 9/11 myth. But the leaker almost never follows up. The VIP usually does not repeat or comment on the statement, and the media outlet usually does not follow up with another article on 9/11, not even with an apology for publishing it. This is consistent with the above-mentioned process by which the VIP or some important decision-maker within the organization received a communication that has made her/him understand that the leak was an error that and that a repetition will elicit adverse consequences.
Organizations and VIPs who have defended 9/11 Truth in spite of objections have received strong incentives to stop. Some pressure has been public. Some have been insidious, typically through some professional blacklisting. For instance, in 2010, Prison Planet reported that the liberal Other Worlds had suddenly decided to refuse to publish Project Censored's stories related to 9/11.
In summary, the one-time nature of most 9/11 leaks is consistent with the existence of a swift plumbing process supported by a self-healing web-like network of censors and plumbers.
One little-understood, essentially unknown, and mostly taboo, tool of the 9/11 plumbing process is spiritual. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) built, prior to 9/11, a unit of parapsychology for the express purpose of harassing through sorcery—aka witchcraft or black magic—individuals who may betray the 9/11 censorship and other dissidents. I shall publish details on this in the future (as of 2011-March, I plan to do this around 2011-May) at www.Know-Reason-Love.com. In the meantime, here is a sketch of this very important component of the 9/11 censorship.
Many 9/11 truth-seekers and other U.S. dissidents have claimed that they were persecuted with exotic weapons based on electromagnetic radiation. Without denying the existence and use of such devices, I affirm that some of these instances of persecution involved sorcery instead.
DoD’s sorcery program uses the services of professional sorcerers. Sorcerers are immoral spiritual healers, who defraud spirituality and its telepathic capabilities into conveying fear instead of love and provoking suffering instead of healing. They work in teams of about 10, providing redundancy in case some of them inadvertently hit a powerful spiritual healer who promptly realigns them with the Divine purpose.
These sorcerers operate in secret quarters, under the command of senior sergeants and junior officers who report to a senior officer. This senior officer (major or colonel) has the power of extrajudicial execution over the sorcerers.
These sorcerers augment their powers with electronic devices: PCs and chains of analog machines such as head electrodes, vinyl disks, tapes, assorted players and recorders, analog amplifiers, waveguides, antennae, and even satellites. They easily direct their spells onto a particular individual armed with minimal information on her/him—e.g. "whoever is thinking that the twin towers' explosions came from the considerable work on their infrastructure leading up to 9/11," or “whoever viewed and liked Gage's 'Blueprint for Truth' movie' over the last 3 hours in the Sidney area,” or “any publishing agent who will view favorably the idea of publishing Griffin’s book on Building 7.” The victim perceives the spell as some sudden discomfort, and perhaps a disease with unusual symptoms that have appeared with no warning. The sorcerer modulates the spell up and down at will, from mental unease to amplification of existing pains, symptoms of a heart attack, physical incapacitation, and even death.
A sorcerer who works “one to one” on a victim can also communicate through telepathy, monitoring the victim’s thoughts and sending the suggestion that (s)he is being punished for them. The victim may gullibly take this as a Divine intervention, make a mental promise to correct her/his subversive ideas, and confirm her/his 9/11 faithkeeping promise once the spell stops.
Western medicine is mostly impotent against sorcery. Medical personnel treat symptoms and may even get uncomfortable themselves through “spiritual contagion.” If the victim is treated by a physician or a nurse who happens to double as a spiritual healer, (s)he receives alleviation, often accompanied with an interview on what (s)he did or thought that could bother powerful people and with an admonition to not repeat this provocation.
DoD has also engineered automatic spells, which attack people the moment they formulate specific statements or even thoughts. These can be as simple as acknowledging the value of a dissident web page.
A few weeks ahead of 9/11—perhaps coinciding with the privatization of the twin towers and the probable launch of the final and intense push for pre-demolition preparations—DoD sorcerers broadcasted widely the telepathic message that the twin towers were coming down, hence the large number of people who reported premonitions of their destruction. Their activity contributed to the wide acceptance of the official 9/11 myth.
Incidentally, professional psychics who boast premonition of the twin towers’ disasters without affirming that 9/11 was a false flag are de facto censors, for it is child’s play for them to figure the source of their telepathic information. Similarly, mainstream institutes of parapsychology have made themselves 9/11 censors for failing to divulge to the public not only the true nature of 9/11 but also the sorcery programs exposed here.
In the days around 9/11, as senior U.S. military officers briefed a large number of congress(wo)men on the reality of 9/11, these sorcerers assisted them in the background, coercing congress(wo)men into embracing the official narrative, constantly monitoring their thoughts, and occasionally sending them a spell to keep them in line. It bears mentioning that neocons were not spared in the process and got their share of telepathic intimidation.
In the months following 9/11, the same program was used to broadcast fear. It contributed to the statistically reported increased rate in psychological and heart trouble in the United States.
DoD sorcerers have also targeted would-be 9/11 witnesses. They may claim credit for letting only one witness—Steve Forbes—slip through their net, reach out to the 9/11 truth-seeking community, and report to the whole world the abnormally intense pre-9/11 infrastructure work in the twin towers.
The actual size and the specifics of this program are unknown, but it has been a very important component of the 9/11 censorship. As such, many VIPs could and should invoke the mitigating circumstance that they were coerced by unconventional yet highly effective means—arbitrary remote harassment and torture with no legal recourse—into assuming the role of 9/11 censors, defending the official 9/11 myth and dismissing 9/11 truth-seeking. This calls for side-notes:
9/11 truth-seekers who have personally confronted 9/11 censors, especially liberal and leftist ones, have sometimes reported that they showed visible signs of fear or discomfort during their encounters. This strange reaction could be due to a recollection of some dreadful spiritual punishment for merely empathizing with 9/11 Truth.
After the 9/11 censorship blows open, contrary to the retaliatory logic many 9/11 truth-seekers have justifiably developed over years of frustration, these VIPs will have earned some understanding, compassion, and forgiveness.
Over the last few years, this DoD sorcery program has lost much steam, as the human realm has been experiencing a strong realignment with the Divine purpose. Just in case, should you ever suspect that you are being hit by sorcery, including as you read or reflect on this writing, training your third eye on me will alleviate the spell.
If and when the human community gets out of its Platonic theater (see section 7), this program and the experience gathered from it may be leveraged into a highly beneficial collective spiritual healing system.
This subsection, unlike the others, is not the conclusion of a series of observations and inferences. Such a work belongs to another upcoming web, as stated earlier. As such, you are welcome to disbelieve it. However, a reputable clairvoyant will confirm it to you—or fearfully decline to do so.
The plumbing and censorship process can be best observed on the very day of 9/11, especially in the morning, as live television evidently struggled to put the cover story together:
There was confusion about the alleged airplane impact into the south tower:
Some television reporters at the scene immediately were positive that several witnesses saw not a plane, but a missile.
Fox News immediately launched a tirade about the obviousness of a terror attack of a magnitude that could not be imagined yet, as if the second aircraft impact was a harbinger of more wayward jets and of the disintegration of the twin towers.
According to Simon Shack’s “September Clues” documentary, the trajectories of the south tower’s airplane seen on different networks are mutually incompatible, and the Fox shot smacks of poor video manipulation.
During the morning, live TV reported an abundance of explosions in the twin towers. Some were experienced by reporters at the scene, others by rescue personnel, and others by people who evacuated the twin towers.
Live TV was confused—at best—at the Pentagon, where CNN’s correspondent Jamie McIntyre bluntly said that upon his “close-up inspection,” the scene did not look like the site of a large airplane crash and illustrated his point in details. He would later claim that 9/11 truth-seekers took his statement out of context, but this accusation would apply better to his denial, as Dave von Kleist plainly exposed in “Ripple Effect.”
Live TV was also confused at the Shanksville impact, where flight 93 officially crashed following a desperate fight by crew and passengers to retake control of the plane. Fox News’ correspondent stated that the site did not look at all like a large passenger jet’s crash site.
CNN announced that according to an unconfirmed report, a 50-story skyscraper would have fallen shortly after the North tower, presumably for being pummeled with debris from the North tower. Their lead was evidently incorrect, but its match with the demolition of Building 7 points to some confusion as to the timing of the latter.
Live TV let New Mexico Tech professor Van Romero elbow his way to the cameras, explain that large aircraft crashes could in no way bring down the twin towers, and affirm that they failed through the use of explosives charges.
Tellingly, by mid-afternoon, very little “explosion” talk was heard on the mass media.
Yet live television messed up again with Building 7’s demolition:
Several announcers kept stating that they expected it to fall down, culminating with a premature announcement of its collapse by the BBC.
CNN showed officials evacuating the area. Their demeanor and talk indicated that they were aware that Building 7 wouldn’t stay up much longer—“flame and debris coming down”—and that they wanted to leave nobody behind, but also made it clear that they knew that Building 7 was not going to fall down at any time without warning.
CBS anchor Dan Rather showed several videos of Building 7, reminded his viewers of the twin towers, and alluded to the resemblance with old buildings destroyed by “well-placed dynamite.”
Finally, on 9-12, television essentially lined up behind the official 9/11 myth, with a blackout of explosions and Building 7.
This quick overview of the 9/11 reporting on the day of 9-11 itself suggests that much information made its way to the public that would not qualify under the principles of the 9/11 censorship. This begs a few questions:
Why were there so many leaks? Why were there such major leaks? Why and how was much “forbidden” information conveyed to the public?
How about the plumbers? Were they overwhelmed?
These questions require us to go back to the actual execution of the 9/11 false flag. There is much evidence that it did not take place as planned and was in large part improvised:
There are many reasons pointing to the contention that Building 7 was slated for demolition shortly after the North tower, as CNN implied (see above).
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released information on how they detected anomalies with the 9/11flights and asked the U.S. Air Force to intervene. Their statements, coupled with the timing of the four plane crashes, implicitly exposed the Air Force as criminally negligent. Over time, the story would change until the 9/11 Commission would provide its final version, shifting most of the blame to the FAA.
Flight 93’s official crash in a field and its possible shooting by an Air Force fighter plane may have been unplanned. A 4th hijacked airplane could have been leveraged as a missile—or a decoy—to attack another target. It has been speculated that that other target could have been Building 7 or the White House.
There are clues that more than 4 flights were slated for hijack—or whatever terrorist activity would have taken place under the guise of hijack. United Airlines flight 23 may have been one. According to local media, it cancelled its takeoff from Newark, New Jersey, at the last moment, following an order by United Airlines dispatchers to ground all their flights, ahead of the FAA’s blanket grounding of all U.S. flights. A few passengers refused to evacuate the plane until the crew assured them that the plane would absolutely not take off. They rushed out of the airport without picking up their registered luggage, which airport personnel matter-of-factly opened later, only to find Al-Qaeda materials. The FBI launched an investigation and stopped it after determining that those individuals used false identities. Flight 23’s story, not well known even within 9/11 Truth circles, hints that the 9/11 conspirators may have scheduled additional hijacks.
The cover-up of the whereabouts of senior U.S. officials, especially vice-president Dick Cheney, was poor. The timing of his leaving his office and getting into a safe bunker bumped several times and was never fully clarified.
Anyway, it stands to reason that when the execution of a false flag of 9/11’s magnitude deviates from the plan, the cover-up story needs on-the-fly corrections to keep up with the planned events that fail to take place as well as with the unplanned events that happen to take place. The writers of the official script keep altering it as they chase the facts.
If the real story and the cover-up script change with no or little warning, the censors operate in damage control, like hunters shooting a moving target. They decide minute by minute which correct information is to be hidden and which incorrect information is to be published.
If the censors are desperately shooting a moving target, pity the plumbers. They may be literally driven crazy.
This scenario is consistent with the reporting on the day of 9-11: the censorship was poor in the morning, got better in the afternoon, experienced another lapse with Building 7, and was tightened for good on 9-12 in the morning.
The above subsections give credibility to the hypothesis of a worldwide, cross-institutional, web-structured censorship of 9/11:
Most leaks are quickly plugged.
Persisting leaks (i.e. open truth-seeking) elicit retaliation, such as derogatory campaigns and professional blacklisting.
Snags in the execution of the false flag forced improvisations in the cover story, which in turn got censors and plumbers scrambling, yielding numerous leaks in the process.
Since the alternative of a spontaneous, simultaneous and identical drive by highly different outfits to censor 9/11 makes no sense (see 4.1), we shall accept the global coordination as a fact.
For the web of censorship to operate ideally, each watchdog—i.e. each potential leaker—needs to be:
either part of the web—i.e. already be a censor
or linked to somebody who is already in the web—i.e. have a relationship with a censor who can influence—i.e. plumb—her/him as proposed in section 4.4.
The designers of the 9/11 censorship web would logically prefer a given plumber to be able to plumb numerous people: colleagues, acquaintances, relatives, if possible across traditional boundaries of nationalism, religion, ideology, class, etc. This way, (s)he would be in touch with many fellow censors and could plumb on an as-needed basis any leaker in her/his sphere of influence.
This leads us to the finding that any respected professional with a large rolodex would be a prime recruiting target as a 9/11 censor or plumber. We shall revisit this issue later in more detail (see section 4.14).
The tightness and self-healing capability of the 9/11 censorship requests truth-seekers to review leaked information under a new light. Could it be that leaks that appear accidental are actually planned? Could they be carefully designed, perhaps pushing the censorship's envelope just short of severe retaliation?
This possibility is very real. Behold, on the very day of 9-11, CBS anchor Dan Rather’s stunning prime-time review of no less than 3 clips of Building 7’s collapse from different angles, available in section 7.2.3. He reminded his audience of the twin towers’ destruction and compared Building 7’s videos to old buildings “deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite.” Maybe the plumbers forgot to brief Rather on this particular point ahead of time. Maybe Rather forgot some earlier order due to the confusion of the day. But it would be an error to discard the hypothesis that he knew exactly what he was doing:
Pretend to “not read the memo” or “forget about the order,” allegedly because of the “haste and hurly-burly of a day like no other.”
Pretend to be motivated by his drive as a top-notch anchorman to provide the best possible information to his viewers.
Profusely apologize later to his plumbers and assure them of future compliance.
Other instances of possible calculated leaks are the fraudulent parts of the official technical reports on the twin towers and Building 7. They are obvious enough for any high school kid to demonstrably recognize them as such. Maybe this is due, as commonly believed within 9/11 Truth circles, to ignorance, carelessness, confusion and incompetence within the investigative team of the U.S. National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST). Yet, an alternative explanation is that some engineers or scientists within NIST’s team fought—overtly or covertly—against the fraud and managed—perhaps by taking high risks in terms of career and personal safety—to make the frauds as obvious as they are. One of several arguments that buttresses this theory is that since NIST would hide the crux of their analyses under the pretext of public safety, they could easily confuse the public by falsifying their models and produce video simulations that would match the actual video evidence. We cannot exclude that even the senior engineers who presented the reports to the public, Shyam Sunder and John Gross, were part of this effort, and accepted to earn the scorn and the anger of so many 9/11 truth-seekers for making the cover-up so visible.
Similarly, it cannot be excluded that some of the numerous deviations and improvisations in the false flag’s execution and the sloppiness of the cover-up were not accidental, but intentional, as some 9/11 agents may have been uneasy about the grand conspiracy they were part of and consciously made mistakes hoping that:
The “mistakes” would ripple to the point that the public would suspect a cover-up and a censorship.
They could explain away their “mistakes” to their superiors or plumbers without adverse personal consequences.
For instance, flight 93’s “passenger revolt” story is widely believed to have been hastily concocted as the U.S. Air Force was actually shooting down the Boeing—or whatever was flying there. Since the story that “our brave fighters shot down the hijacked aircraft because it was flying towards DC” would have fit the official myth just fine and would have been highly credible, could it be that:
Some 9/11 agent had some scruples and saw an opportunity to ruin the credibility of the cover story?
(S)he pretended to have a sudden brilliant idea of adding a juicy heroic deed to the plot?
(S)he convinced the 9/11 agents close to her/him to go along with it as some worthy additional obfuscation that would earn them kudos from their 9/11 supervisors?
(S)he managed to have the plan executed under the nose of her/his censors, perhaps even managing to get her/his censors’ quick approval while the plumbers were busy frying bigger fish?
Maybe, when the whole 9/11 story has been written, Rather, Gross and Sunder, and countless others will deserve praise as heroes who did their best to alert the public at great personal risk. Indeed, in light of the above subsections, we cannot exclude that 9/11 plumbers threatened or retaliated against them.
Resistant leakers, like censors, will try to appear ignorant, incompetent, or even hypocritical as they publicly adamantly refuse to consider the possibility that the official 9/11 myth would be incorrect (see section 4.13). However, their true hypocrisy will be directed at the 9/11 conspirators, whom they will pretend to serve while softly undermining the 9/11 censorship. In opposition to censors, they will use hypocrisy as a tool to serve the public.
These unidentified and unsung heroes may understandably have been highly reluctant to speak up on 9/11 any further. They may even legitimately think that they did their part and that the public deserves everything it gets if it fails to leverage their leaks into the proper conclusions and actions.
9/11 raises very troubling issues:
the false flag
the ensuing reprehensible policies
Would one deserve more attention? “We the people of the world” can certainly work on all, but common sense dictates that “we” focus on what professional circles commonly refer to as the most favorable work/results ratio or the low-hanging fruit.
The false flag supersedes its ensuing policies:
9/11’s fallout is evil and multi-pronged: fear, war, corruption, economic meltdown, abuses of power, etc.
Reversing these policies one by one is arduous. Besides, many people support them in good faith, arguing that they are undesirable but vitally needed against “the terrorists.” They are wedge issues.
They are hard to reverse as long as the official 9/11 myth justifies each of them. Behold Obama in his infamous 2009-12-1 “Way Forward” speech:
“It is from [Afghanistan] that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from [Afghanistan] that new attacks are being plotted as I speak […] If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.”
In plain English, Obama uses the official 9/11 myth as his blueprint for warmongering in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He even cynically throws the gauntlet at 9/11 Truth-seekers, telling them in doublespeak:
“Because people believe my lies and disbelieve your truth, I get away with more war.”
He simultaneously carries a triplespeak message to his fellow 9/11 censors, indirectly reaffirming the importance of countering 9/11 Truth and reaffirming his commitment to do just that.
Conversely, hitting the false flag strikes all these policies at their root by nullifying all their supporting logic.
The cover-up supersedes the false flag:
The cover-up is much more serious than the false flag:
Ignoring for the sake of the argument its true nature, 9/11, at face value—the accidental destruction of the twin towers as a side-effect of earlier vicious terror attacks before the last 2,000 people could evacuate—is a horrendously tragic crime. It points to some serious U.S. law enforcement deficiency that would beg for a corrective action. This is akin to finding that an armed robbery in a convenience store turned sour and yielded 10 deaths.
The false flag aspect of 9/11 adds the colorful detail that the U.S. government organized the 3,000 murders. It points to a dangerous U.S. corruption network. Pursuing our metaphor, this is akin to finding that the local cops set up the murder of the 10 people.
The cover-up of 9/11 adds the spicy information that the U.S. investigators were aware of the true nature of 9/11 but concocted a false story accusing an entity other than their colleagues. This points to some much bigger corruption network still, encompassing not just crime prevention, but also crime investigation and the independence between these two functions. Finishing our metaphor, it is akin to finding that the police detectives, the police chief and the mayor knew that their cops committed the murders, but covered it up and blamed some other party instead.
The false flag was unthinkable without the assurance of cover-up:
The individuals who prepared and executed the false flag, such as the chief engineers of the twin towers' demolitions, would likely have requested guarantees against personal adverse consequences. The best guarantee they could get was a cover-up that would shift the blame away from them and towards some scapegoat. Without the promise of a cover-up, it would have been much more difficult to recruit a crew for the false flag and keep them focused on it rather than on their personal future.
If the cover-up had been perfect, “we the people of the world” would have no clue as to the false flag.
Naysayers will claim that a government can’t do anything right, not even a cover-up. But Martin Luther King’s murder, for instance, appears to be a well covered false flag:
Following MLK’s murder, numerous conspiracy theories surfaced that claimed U.S. involvement.
Yet none of them stood up to deep analysis, in contrast with 9/11. Incompetence and coincidences could explain MLK’s murder.
After 3 decades, King’s survivors won a lawsuit that exonerated the condemned murderer—alas after his death in prison—and established, among other things, that King was murdered with at least the consent of high-ranking U.S. officials.
The ruling turned the unproven allegations of U.S. involvement in MLK’s murder into the official truth, yet very few people are aware of it.
One of the numerous post-9/11 Bush policies has been to reclassify very large quantities of U.S. documents so as to delay, sometimes indefinitely, their release to the public. It has been suggested that one "benefit" of this policy has been to prolong other grand cover-ups.
The above demonstrates that one way to avoid false flags is to make their cover-up impossible. Conversely, making false flags impossible does not prevent other conspiracies from being covered up. So working to make cover-ups impossible is at least as beneficial to the public as working to make false flags impossible.
The censorship supersedes the cover-up:
The censorship is much more serious than the cover-up:
U.S. investigators covered up the 9/11 false flag with a myth. They knew the principal terrorists were U.S. employees. They concocted a false story accusing Al-Qaeda of it, adapting it as the false flag deviated from the plans.
The cover-up was sloppy. The false story was unbelievable.
Yet the watchdogs censored the cover-up. They improvised as the false flag and its cover story evolved, letting some information go through, hiding some, modifying some, spinning some, and making mistakes along the way. As the false flag and the cover story stabilized, the watchdogs also stabilized and tightened their censorship.
The very high number of watchdogs, their extreme dissimilarity, the gains many of them would reap from denouncing the false flag, and the complexity of their relationships make the censorship a much more formidable accomplishment than the cover-up.
The cover-up was unthinkable without the assurance of censorship:
The individuals who covered up the false flag, such as members of the Bush administration, would likely have requested guarantees against personal adverse consequences. The best guarantee they could get was a censorship that would ignore their cover-up. Without the promise of a censorship, it would have been much more difficult to recruit Bush and his lieutenants for the cover-up and keep them focused on it rather than on their personal future.
If the censorship had been perfect, “we the people of the world” would have no clue as to the cover-up.
Here also, naysayers will claim that a perfect censorship does not exist. But other mediocre cover-ups been censored well, for instance the Gulf of Tonkin:
The unsubstantiated and poorly documented unprovoked attacks by Viet Cong forces against the U.S. Navy were leveraged by the Johnson administration as a pretext to dramatically ratchet up U.S. military involvement in Viet Nam’s civil war. Yet they were a complete fabrication.
30 years later, as documents became declassified, this fact became official.
However, this was hardly reported, so that even as of 2010, many people believe in good faith that the Gulf of Tonkin attacks actually took place, and some U.S. school textbooks still teach the initial official lie.
The above demonstrates that one way to avoid cover-ups is to make their censorship impossible. Conversely, making cover-ups impossible does not prevent other conspiracies from being censored. So working to make censorship impossible is at least as beneficial to the public as working to make cover-ups impossible.
In short, “our” order of priorities is clear:
1. 9/11 censorship.
2. 9/11 cover-up.
3. 9/11 false flag.
4. Post-9/11 policies.
Our analysis has led us to the very important conclusion that 9/11 is, first and foremost, a problem of epistemology.
The innumerable watchdogs that have been censoring 9/11 since its inception against their professed best interest hold the ultimate responsibility for its continued success:
The most surprising and most frightening aspect of 9/11 is by far its censorship, as established in the previous subsection.
The most active and most persistent agents of this censorship have been the leaders and the organizations with vested interests in denouncing the false flag, as established throughout section 3.
9/11 could in no way proceed without the prior commitment of their censorship.
Consequently, it is likely that many of these watchdogs pledged their commitment to the censorship ahead of the execution of 9/11, knowing full well the worldwide catastrophe (wars and others) 9/11 would unleash.
This ongoing worldwide catastrophe could in no way go on unabated without their continued collaboration.
This leads us to the ironic finding that the common 9/11 truth-seeking slogan "9/11 was an inside job" is naïve and misleading. Better, more realistic, and highly appropriate slogans would be "9/11 is a liberal job," "9/11 is a Muslim job," "9/11 is Peace movement job," etc., targeting entities that bear much more responsibility for 9/11 and the evil that it inflicted onto the human community than the 9/11 terrorists themselves. Better still would be to replace "is" with "has been," reflecting the ongoing nature of the censorship and the very real fact that nullifying the censorship would bring an end to the post-9/11 policies.
An incident worth recalling here is TV evangelist Jerry Falwell "infamous" tirade on his colleague Pat Robertson's "700 Club" program 2 days after 9/11:
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'."
Falwell's diatribe elicited such swift and vehement protests that he quickly apologized for it. Yet the leaders of the groups he targeted were instrumental to the success of 9/11, both at the time of its execution and over the long term. Falwell routinely denounced them as religiously opposed to the Divine purpose. The preceding analysis exposes their true evil behavior—to put it mildly—in a very down-to-earth sense and vindicates Falwell's inflammatory statement as much closer to the reality than he may have thought—unless of course he knew 9/11 to be a false flag himself.
In the light of the above finding of ideal priorities (9/11 censorship on top, post-9/11 policies at the bottom), how is grassroots activism doing?
Alas, post-9/11 policies receive much more attention than 9/11 itself:
Peace, economic and financial disasters, crackdown on individual rights, neglect of other pressing problems…all receive much more grassroots activism than 9/11.
Many of these policies double as wedge issues. As much as some people campaign hard to end them, others campaign hard to support them under the respectable mantra that the 9/11 terrorists are still dangerous.
This predicament calls for 9/11 truth-seekers to explain that 9/11 Truth solves all the problems linked to 9/11’s ramifications.
This in turn calls for some simple system to gradually wake up ordinary people to 9/11 Truth. We shall explore this later (see section 7).
Another valuable piece of advice to 9/11 truth-seekers is that whenever some non-9/11 activist complains of biased coverage of her/his pet issue, there is a great opportunity to slip in that there is much evidence that the 9/11 events were censored too.
Alas, many 9/11 Truth-seekers focus their work on the false flag:
They attempt to become false flag “experts,” a Sisyphean task if there is one:
They have to review considerable information.
They have to confront much uncertainty and many unknowns: who did what, when, for whom, on whose request, under whose budget?
They have to study competing theories with conflicting evidence.
Much of the information they work off comes from people and institutions responsible for the 9/11 cover-up and censorship, making it unreliable.
They tend to educate people primarily on the false flag. Too often, they wait for skeptics to bring up questions or objections about the cover-up and the censorship, and summarily dismiss them.
In short, political activists—9/11 truth-seekers and others—have their priorities backwards. The 9/11 truth-seeking community is hereby advised to accordingly adjust its strategy:
Realize the importance of the cover-up and censorship of 9/11.
Focus outreach, education, and lobbying on the censorship of 9/11.
Accordingly streamline the demonstration of the 9/11 false flag and of its cover-up (see section 7.3).
Engage skeptics into the cover-up and the censorship as soon as they accept 9/11 as a false flag. Welcome skeptics who interrupt a demonstration of the false flag with a question or objection on the cover-up or the censorship: “you made a good point; do I understand that you are starting to accept the possibility that the official 9/11 story was a lie?”
The previous subsections have demonstrated the existence of the 9/11 censorship and the paramount importance of tackling it. An important step in this endeavor is obviously a process to swiftly recognize a 9/11 censor. I propose a simple method.
There are roughly three ways for an individual to claim to “not know” something that is true, in our case, to “not know” that 9/11 was a false flag:
Lack of education (ignorance): numerous people do not know for a fact that 9/11 was a false flag simply because they have not been exposed to convincing evidence and because they use mainstream sources of information and traditional watchdogs, which have dutifully defended the official 9/11 myth and openly dismissed 9/11 Truth.
Lack of mental abilities (stupidity, fear of the psychological disintegration 9/11 Truth entails, or other): since accepting the true nature of 9/11 requires people to comprehend non-trivial information and accept that sources of information they fully trust may lie on essential matters, not everybody will absorb it.
Deliberate lie (hypocrisy): this is the case of the 9/11 censors.
A practical way to identify a 9/11 censor is a straightforward process of elimination:
Does the target of the identification suffer from mental limitations? Let us consider, for instance, U.S. Sen. Boxer (California, Democratic, very liberal): as much as her most rabid opponents have portrayed her as dumb and doctrinarian, she has repeatedly proven that she is actually endowed with exceptional intellectual abilities and highly capable of understanding her opponents’ rationales.
Is the target ignorant? In the case of Boxer, she has access to confidential U.S. information. She was a veteran senator at the time of 9/11. Her aides constantly look for information through many sources. She has received numerous 9/11-related communications from her constituents and has never deigned to answer them intelligently.
If mental limitations and ignorance have to be ruled out, the target is hypocritical, and therefore a censor. In our example, we conclude that U.S. Sen. Boxer is most probably a 9/11 censor. 9/11 truth-seekers would be well-advised to treat her as such.
Similarly to Boxer, highly influential leaders and groups who do not embrace 9/11 Truth will almost automatically fall into the “censor” category. For others, though, like your local community’s who’s who, the call will be more difficult. Let this not deter you from using this simple test (see section 7.4).
The average faithkeeper—someone who defends the official myth tooth and nail for no rhyme or reason—is not necessarily hypocritical. (S)he may just be misinformed and fanatically opposed to the paradigm shift that 9/11 Truth would impose on her/him. (S)he will tune out when receiving a 9/11 Truth message due to their lack of elementary scientific knowledge, the wachdogs' attacks on 9/11 Truth at the level of 8th grade, or her/his unconscious reluctance to come close to questioning deeply cherished beliefs. Some faithkeepers are believed to be victims of psychological disorders that make them lie to themselves as they desperately defend the official 9/11 myth like a con artist peddles a Ponzi scheme.
This process highlights the need for and the importance of some streamlined demonstration of the false flag and its cover-up, at the level of 5th or 6th grade, so that few people fall under the first two categories above. This will be treated in section 7.
It also calls 9/11 truth-seekers to reach out to people on a one-to-one basis, under the watchdogs' bully pulpits.
An important category of censors are "false friends," i.e. VIPs and important organizations who endlessly straddle the fence on 9/11, claiming lack of information, an open mind, fear of ridicule, or some other frivolous reason. Such a prime instance would be ex-U.S. senator Gravel, who is very close to the 9/11 Truth community, tirelessly advocates for a new investigation into the 9/11 events, yet as of 2010-Dec has not affirmed that 9/11 was a false flag. 9/11 truth-seekers are hereby advised to beware of these friends. They could very well be playing the very useful role of last-ditch guardians of the 9/11 myth, for should 9/11 Truth spread widely, they will serve to tamper people's enthusiasm to join it, providing a role model that "respects 9/11 Truth but has not been convinced by it."
The previous section offers a simple tool to determine if a given individual—or organization—is a 9/11 censor. Let us consider the 9/11 censors from the opposite perspective and elaborate on section 4.8’s summary information. What attributes would the 9/11 “censorship architects” seek in any particular recruit?
Influential, widely known, respected: back in section 4.8, we established that the 9/11 censors would be nodes in a web of relationships, where any particular censor would enjoy direct links with fellow censors and also with many non-censors, especially potential leakers.
Highly reputable profession or activity: this would be indispensable to successfully and convincingly convey a gross lie.
Reputation for independence, impartiality, wisdom: this would confer an aura of respectability to her/his defense of the official myth.
Warm relationships with many people and outfits: this would make it easier for these people and outfits to accept her/his public views on 9/11.
Opposition to post-9/11 policies: this would be a highly convenient mask to promote the official 9/11 lie. “If 9/11 was a lie, I’d be working to expose that rather than to stop the 9/11-induced war [or whatever issue (s)he works on].”
Watchdog: a watchdog is an ideal 9/11 censor. As we observed earlier, the average individual will correctly—from her/his perspective—determine that if the watchdogs don’t bark, the official 9/11 story is undisputable.
So, who would the 9/11 censorship architects recruit?
They would certainly not seek ordinary people. A person with an average intelligence, a menial occupation, and little eloquence would do a terrible job of knowingly propagating and defending an easily debunked lie to educated people.
We conclude that the more “important” a person, the more attractive a recruiting target (s)he is.
This conclusion is consistent with the observation that the 9/11 censorship is indeed top-down, with people in modest economic and political strata showing more awareness of 9/11 than educated, professional and well-to-do people.
Prominent and respected anti-neocon leaders would be prime—if not essential— targets for recruitment:
These would be, among others, Democratic Party leaders, liberal leaders (secular and religious), Muslim leaders, peace leaders, anti-poverty leaders, labor union leaders, socialist leaders, civil rights leaders, sexual rights leaders, human rights leaders, environmental leaders, foreign leaders critical of U.S. policies.
These leaders could have a field day leading their followers into denouncing the false flag and the cover-up, trouncing the neocon experiment, sending the Republican Party into oblivion for a few decades, shifting the Democratic Party to the left, slashing through the U.S. military budget and commitments, redesigning the United States along the lines of Western Europe, and leading the whole world into some Scandinavian-like social-democracy. Per our earlier analysis (section 4.10), their collaboration to the 9/11 censorship was essential to its success and was a pre-requisite to the execution of 9/11 itself.
Any of their followers who would be exposed to allegations that 9/11 was a false flag would immediately connect 9/11 to the neocons, may reason that the neocons could be evil enough to plan, execute and cover a false flag, and conclude that denouncing 9/11 would wipe them out. (S)he would report these allegations to her/his leaders. At that point, 9/11's continued success required that these leaders deflect her/his burgeoning enthusiasm for 9/11 Truth with the proper sound bites:
“I’ve met the neocon leaders and they are not that evil, but merely incompetent, misguided, fanatical, and ignorant. They are just like your own neocon acquaintances.”
“Those conspiracy theories are baseless.”
“Those conspiracy theorists may be well-intended, but they just don’t understand the real world like we do.”
“I hope these conspiracy theories go away because people will be wasting their time on them and pursuing them instead of helping us as we desperately limit the neocons’ damage.”—without mentioning that 9/11 Truth, once well recognized, would accomplish that and much more.
“If your information is so convincing, give it to me and I’ll put it in my list of things to review.”—the review, of course, will never come and the sound bite will be repeated to many followers, giving each of them the illusion that (s)he is the first one to bring to this leader’s attention some convincing 9/11 Truth information.
As we found in section 3.8, “hostile” and “enemy” countries deserve a special mention. Had Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il and other leaders in open opposition to the USA used their bully pulpits to denounce the 9/11 false flag and its cover-up, the U.S. agenda of hostility or war against them would have stopped dead in its tracks. Their loyalty to the 9/11 censorship—which cost Saddam his luxurious lifestyle and his life—has been a pillar of 9/11's endurance. Several of these leaders have openly published half-truths, if not obvious lies, to undermine U.S. policies. The fact that they would not champion 9/11 Truth is remarkable.
For good measure, prominent neocon leaders would have to be on board too. Obviously, less of them would be needed and they would need less training than their opponents:
They would have a vested interest in continued neocon power and therefore would be more inclined to support the 9/11 censorship.
Their rank-and-file would also have a vested interest in continued neocon power. Their first natural reaction to 9/11 Truth would be defensive. When they would consult their leaders on this subject, they would be satisfied with some brief, ideologically loaded, dismissive statement. If this was not enough, the above-mentioned liberal argument could simply be used in reverse:
“Besides, if there was the slightest doubt about what we say happened on 9/11, our sworn enemies would be all over us: the liberals, the humanists, the Muslims, the unions, the third world, the environmentalists, Amnesty International, etc. You know that they are always looking for any pretext to attack us."
This contributes to explain why Bush and his close aides occasionally—and apparently unintentionally—uttered comments contradicting the official 9/11 myth, whereas the Obama administration has not made that mistake as of 2011-March.
The reader may find some of these assertions counterintuitive. Yet a reasonable analysis of the 9/11 censorship does not admit different conclusions.
Once a 9/11 censor has been identified or suspected, your best way, as a 9/11 truth-seeker, to deal with that individual or organization, is good old activism: engaging a censor will bear some fruit if you keep in mind time-tested guidelines:
Stay polite and brief.
Show the false flag nature of 9/11 or its cover-up’s obviousness. If possible, allude to just one aspect of 9/11.
Challenge her/him to respond.
Express disappointment that (s)he would hide very important yet very simple information from the public.
Let her/him know you are educating the public on 9/11. Ask her/him how you can answer the criticism that (s)he abused people’s trust.
Remember that you are usually addressing staffers:
The staffers probably don’t know that they are working for a censor. Many idolize the person or group they work for.
Design your communication so they enthusiastically forward it to their bosses.
Their bosses will give them a “conspiracy theory!” reaction that will shock them.
This will wake up some suspicion in their minds.
This will turn on a few 9/11 Truth neurons in their brains.
See sections 7.2 and 7.4 for more suggestions.
Section 4 has taught us that the 9/11 censorship was assuredly a humongous project, especially pre-9/11:
Censors had to be recruited. This alone must have been a daunting sub-project.
Censors and their web of relationships had to be tested prior to 9/11. This raises the valid question of how such a test could be accomplished.
Some readers will correctly object that the amount of work and the risks involved could be excessive when balanced with the benefits of a single false flag.
The same readers will correctly wonder how the 9/11 censorship architects managed this tour de force.
An easy answer is that the 9/11 censorship system would be a work in process. It would have started long before 9/11. The 9/11 censorship’s web may be a fusion of different webs, each of which would encompass a particular segment of humanity according to geographical, professional, political, or other types of divisions. Each of these smaller webs of censorship would have grown on its own, going through its own stages of planning, inception, expansion, and finally integration into the global web. It bears noting that governments, media and other institutions are not shy in occasionally denouncing cases of a small community plagued with multidisciplinary corruption involving many different outfits in a tight network.
This scenario lends itself to the hypothesis that the same censorship system was used, in its earlier stages, to censor cover-ups of smaller magnitudes and stakes than 9/11. Such uses would have allowed the censorship architects to nurture their system and to validate it through tests milder than 9/11. As a matter of fact, there is ample evidence of cover-up and censorship of false flags prior to 9/11, for instance:
The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing had many appearances of a false flag, complete with cover-up and censorship. Information abounds on the web suggesting that the official terrorists McVeigh and Nichols were at best only a part of the conspiracy and that investigators went to great lengths to protect their accomplices. Local media broadcasted information incompatible with the subsequent official story, including statements by local law enforcement that the building still contained unexploded ordnance whose analysis would lead straight to the terrorists. However, the national and worldwide media would quickly black out this important information. Later, independent analysts would claim that the official story could not possibly account for the observed structural damage and lament the prompt shipment of the forensic evidence without proper examination. Their findings were not picked up by the traditional media or watchdogs.
The first Gulf war was officially the badly needed response to Iraqi government president Saddam Hussein’s unprovoked military invasion of Kuwait. Yet much evidence portrays Saddam as tricked into war. Notoriously connected Halliburton provided Kuwaiti oilmen with horizontal drilling equipment that allowed them to pump Iraqi oil. Saddam went to war only after trying to negotiate with the Kuwaitis and after asking for U.S. permission in diplomatic terms. This crucial information was underreported. Also, one event that pushed the U.S. into war was a widely broadcasted emotional congressional testimony by a Kuwaiti nurse that Kuwaiti incubators were confiscated and sent to Iraq, leaving unprotected premature babies to die. Much evidence would appear later that this story was a fabrication and that the nurse was an impersonator. In stark contrast with the sensational publication of the incubator story, this information was essentially censored.
The Gulf of Tonkin attack—which the Johnson administration used as a pretext to dramatically escalate U.S. military activities in Viet Nam—bore many appearances of a fabrication. Yet this fact was censored.
There is also ample evidence that post-9/11 false flags have been censored, notably:
The 2010 British Petroleum Gulf oil disaster—possibly not over yet as of 2010-Nov—bears many characteristics of a false flag. For weeks, just about every day brought some new revelation of incompetence or carelessness on the part of BP, its contractors or the U.S. government. Many suspicious coincidences surfaced. Reporters complained of obstruction by U.S. authorities and BP. These facts were generally under-reported in the mainstream media, or qualified with reassuring statements. This gives credence to the theory that this ecological disaster was, in part or in totality, a false flag. This theory was censored.
The 2009 swine flu scare was possibly a false flag. Its initial outbreak was riddled with strange coincidences. Reasons have been raised to believe that its virus was manufactured in military labs. Suspicions arose that its primary goal was to provoke a worldwide fear, that a secondary goal was to set a precedent of legal immunity for pharmaceutical corporations, and that a tertiary goal was to boost Donald Rumsfeld's personal finances. This information was essentially censored.
The 2005 London 7/7 terror attacks were probably a poorly covered up false flag—a little brother of 9/11. Information pointing to this theory was censored.
Since false flags and cover-ups other than 9/11 have likely been censored, common sense suggests that the censors of different false flags have been using the same censorship system time and again. Every major false flag would double as an opportunity to live-test the censorship:
The censors and the censorship's architects would evaluate the teamwork between agents of the false flag, of the cover-up, of the censorship and of the plumbing.
They would perform after-the-fact analyses and take appropriate corrective actions.
Such quality assurance operations, well-executed, would provide a canvass for the success of an operation as big as the 9/11 censorship.
The 9/11 censorship has now taken the shape of a one-size-fits-all, ongoing “false flag censorship.” The next logical question is whether this all-encompassing “false flag censorship” system could serve conspiracies other than false flags.
The previous subsection established that the same censorship that made 9/11 successful has likely been put at the service of other false flags. We shall now investigate whether the same censorship could cover other types of conspiracies.
Abundant clues point to numerous conspiracies, covering just about every area of human life: war, economy, health, water, food, sexuality, religion, economy, work, organized crime, individual rights, pollution, education, jurisdictional disputes, etc. The question needs to be raised as to whether some of these could be real and censored, and if so, which ones? The answer is delicate, because many of these perceived conspiracies are wedge issues, meaning that someone’s conspiracy is someone else’s salvation. For instance, gay marriage is viewed by some as an abomination, by others as a blessing. An intelligent way to reframe this question is to wonder whether some wedge issues could be nurtured through censorship.
Perhaps your favorite wedge issue is a good candidate for this test. Would you care to identify a major, vexing, obvious, easy to solve problem in your society or community? A problem whose resolution would be straightforward and highly beneficial? Let’s go through the difficulties you face as you defend your position with people you know or encounter:
Your arguments are simple and plain, aren’t they?
Your opponents don’t get it and you often wonder why, don’t you?
Your opponents come up with arguments so poor that you can immediately dismiss them, right?
Also, you would be willing to change your mind if you encountered a compelling reason to do so, wouldn’t you?
Now let’s go through your difficulties with institutions, especially governmental ones:
They could be much more helpful, couldn’t they?
Some even appear to be defending the wrong side of the issue, peddling invalid arguments from a bully pulpit.
Even elected officials and political candidates friendly to your side will soft-peddle the issue for personal reasons—like fear of the voters—rather than courageously educating the public. They may even urge you to drum up grassroots support before they dare come out of their closet—flattering your ego and assigning you another burden.
Could it be that these institutions would be covertly fanning the controversy? This would certainly explain why this obvious problem is so hard to solve.
Let us assume, for a moment, that these institutions did their job, boldly working to serve the public:
They would notice that your issue produces emotional conflicts and resentment among many people.
They would logically perceive this situation as a problem, add it to their to-do list, and let the public know that they are aware of the conflict and will work on it as priorities allow.
As they would get to it, they would tackle the controversy:
They would invite the public to formulate their grievances. As you would personally respond, they would welcome your comments, thank you for them, ask you some clarification questions, and ask you for the leaders or experts you would trust. They may even give you a promise to contact them should enough people recognize their leadership and expertise like you do.
They would compile and summarize the information they would get, from all sides of the wedge issue.
They would contact leaders and experts in all relevant fields. These would probably include mediators.
They would look for some solution that would satisfy most people.
The result, from your perspective, would probably be favorable: they would agree with you or surprise you with some original arguments that would convince you to switch your position.
In the worst case, they would persuade your friends but not you, leaving you in the undesirable position of being “right and isolated.”
Even in this unfavorable case, considering that there are very few people in your situation, they may compensate you for your legitimate discomfort with some favor.
Evidently, governments’ and other institutions’ treatment of wedge issues falls far short of this ideal scenario. Wedge issues, as you know all too well, tend to fester for decades, bothering and antagonizing people. To this extent, they resemble false flags, which also bother and antagonize people—to put it mildly—over long durations.
Many wedge issues die a natural death only when enough people spontaneously embrace one side:
Behold the end of segregation in the USA: it has been stated that the U.S. government ended it, but it did not do so until Martin Luther King and other leaders got literally millions of white and black people to demand it. A cynical point could be made that by giving in to these demands, the U.S. government undermined the civil rights movement. Had the movement continued to grow and had King been able to expand it into the areas of war and poverty where indications abound he was heading, who knows where it would have ended? Could the Johnson administration’s aggressive integration moves—counter to the interests of their Democratic Party— be partly a cover to disband the civil rights movement? In the light of the above, and combined with the official recognition—mentioned in section 4.10—that King’s murder was authorized by high-ranking U.S. officials, it would be an error to summarily discard it.
Regarding the end of U.S. segregation, it bears recalling that the U.S. government hardly made any effort to educate segregationists. Instead, it passed judgments, formulated laws, and enforced several of them with military force. From the perspective of many ordinary southern segregationists, the federal intervention in their affairs was another gratuitous, vengeful and humiliating episode of the civil war. Their education on the unfairness of segregation came later, as they realized after the fact that much of the information they held on black people was erroneous and the result of prejudice—maintained and nurtured by governments, churches, schools, the Democratic Party, and other institutions.
Divorce offers a very different instance of the death of a wedge issue, but points to the same problem. In many different Western countries, legalized divorce became widely accepted only after leaders who opposed it for moral or religious reasons started to use it in large numbers. Here also, governments and other institutions could—but generally did not—educate opponents of divorce on its necessity, its advantages, and the limits of its negative impact.
Wedge issues are commonly believed to stem from institutional carelessness and incompetence. However, as we just illustrated, their resolution is usually fairly simple. Why wouldn’t governments and other institutions put a little diligence into it? An easy answer is the hypothesis that the same system that drives institutions to censor 9/11 and other false flags also drives them to censor the smaller, more benign, conspiracies that wedge issues are. Wedge issues inflict on a small scale what false flags inflict on a large scale: fear, mistrust, antagonism, resentment, conflict, etc. It stands to reason that a single system could foment these in bulk with false flags and in small doses with wedge issues.
Another particular wedge issue worthy of attention is violent crime in the United States. Even though the U.S. chronically keeps a very large proportion of its population incarcerated, its rate of violent crime is still terribly high compared to other western industrialized nations with far less punitive criminal justice systems. This is the source of much emotional discord, often fanned by politicians, within the public, as people argue over swifter and harsher penalties versus preventive measures, over strong police powers versus individual rights, or over gun control versus gun rights. Here also, it is likely that a concerted effort by public servants genuinely concerned about the collective suffering imposed by this dismal situation would quickly decrease the abnormally high U.S. crime rate and defuse the continuous arguments it keeps generating.
To summarize this e-book so far, a review of the 9/11 censorship exposes it as a remarkably large, well-honed and enduring enterprise that was founded long before the launch of the 9/11 false flag:
It appears to cover not only 9/11—which is arguably its single largest accomplishment—but many other conspiracies, from other false flags down to petty wedge issues.
It is permanent and continuously improved on-the-fly.
It is organized as a web which the censors are the nodes of. This web is highly redundant and reaches out to virtually all potential leakers—i.e. individuals and institutions who could leak censored information.
The censors are highly regarded and trusted leaders.
Some of the censors double as plumbers. They react to a leak, typically by plumbing the leaker (turning her/him into a censor).
As such, the censorship is self-healing.
The web enjoys a global reach and cuts across all traditional boundaries that divide humanity: borders, ideologies, religions, occupations, classes, languages, etc. Its homogeneity in diversity is remarkable.
Many censors work against what the public believe to be their own apparent self-interest.
The concept of this “mother of all conspiracies” is assuredly far-fetched, yet, as shown above, it is simple, consistent with observable data and explains many enigmas:
False flags are frequent and the public miserably fails to identify them.
People feel impotent to change their lives and the world around them, at the individual and collective levels.
The human community suffers from innumerable divisions and conflicts, many of which are largely artificial, from vicious wars down to petty wedge issues.
As such, this model passes the test of Occam’s razor.
It also fits the formula of a global “Platonic theater.”
The Platonic theater is named after the Greek philosopher Plato. Updating it to modern times for the benefit of the readers who are not familiar with Plato’s original allegory, which takes place in a cave, the Platonic theater is a movie theater with unusual arrangements:
People spend their whole lives in it—kindly assume some biological miracles. They are chained in place. They are comfortable, but all they can see and hear are the theater’s movies and their fellow viewers.
The theater masters play the movies, projecting images on the screen and sending sound through the loudspeakers. The people have no means to be aware of the existence of the theater masters and their machines.
People find themselves with nothing better to do than guess what scene is coming up next and outrank each other by determining who guesses best.
The plot thickens when one person—let us call her Dawn for the sake of it—realizes that she is chained, becomes curious, and notices that she can free herself with little effort. She does so and finds herself uncomfortable as she no longer feels the familiar pressure of her chains.
After a while, Dawn starts to slightly move her body and savors her new-found freedom. At some point, she takes the bold step of standing up, eliciting vehement protests from people behind her, for she is disturbing their all-important occupation of watching the movie and guessing the next scene. At this point, Dawn may sit back down, or ignore the complaints, or boldly walk out.
Assuming that Dawn walks out, she now stands in an aisle, on the side of the theater, and observes it from her new perspective. The screen is skewed and has lost its power of attraction, the people are immobilized and look only straight ahead, and there is a bizarre office in the back that is too bright for her. After her eyes get accustomed to it, she distinguishes the theater masters, their machines, and vaguely understands that they are the ones playing the movies to a captive audience.
Later, Dawn notices the theater’s exit door. She decides to go through it and ends up outside, on a sidewalk. Everything is extraordinary there, starting with the horribly blinding sun. Once her eyes get accustomed to its intense light, Dawn explores the world. She finds people walking, cars, trees, birds, dogs, shops, etc.
At some point, Dawn thinks back of her companions in the theater, pities their life and their “what’s next” guessing game. She gets a calling to wake them up, rushes back into the theater, climbs up in front of the screen, gesticulates and yells, telling them about their chains, the theater masters, and the outside world.
Her companions get upset and respond to Dawn with reproach and anger. They fault her for interrupting the screening, for disturbing their “what’s next” competition, and for expressing concepts that do not make sense. They even label her a nutty conspiracy theorist.
The global censorship 9/11 answers to the model of a Platonic theater:
Plato’s theater would be our human world at large.
“We the people of the world” would be its captive audience.
The false flags, the wedge issues and other conspiracies would be the movies.
The movies would feature censors and watchdogs as actors, exhorting “us” to live per the false flags’ cover stories, pursue wedge issues and ignore “our” very real problems.
Plato’s outside world would be trusted circles of “awakened” people, like the readers who have been willing to understand this e-book so far.
Plato’s model would be inverted, with:
the real world being a small community with little means to proclaim its message
the Platonic theater being the whole world with its traditional institutions and watchdogs
The next logical question is the identity of the Platonic Masters.
The Platonic Masters would obviously be the architects of the “mother of all censorships.” They would be the “ultimate” node or nodes in the censorship’s web. Obviously, managing such a complex and powerful entity is too much for a single human mind. As such, the Platonic masters must be some oligarchy—assuming they are human.
Many analysts have offered to identify these oligarchs. We shall go through a non-exhaustive list of their findings:
The Bilderbergers: as noted earlier (see section 4.2), the Bilderberg group is informal, very discreet, and gathers VIPs of the global scene. As such, it could be a cover for the Platonic Masters.
High-level free-masons: free-masonry is also a discreet institution, and the activities that take place at its highest levels are kept secret from the public. Coupled with allegations and findings that many VIPs are high-ranking masons, it stands to reason that this could be the Platonic Masters’ cover.
European Royals: their legal political power is small compared to their prime ministers’. However, they are wealthy, reign for long durations, are largely protected from public scrutiny, enjoy legal censorship against criticism, and marry within their small circle. It is not impossible that these extended families could be the Platonic Masters, or serve as a cover for them.
Evil-minded Zionists: information abounds on the web about Zionists with malevolent intentions or backgrounds wielding disproportionate power, including running the U.S. government. Mainstream U.S. media indirectly gives credence to these theories by treating them like 9/11 Truth, not analyzing them and instead ignoring them except for occasionally ridiculing and demonizing them. One could question how Zionists would wield power over governments hostile to Israel, but it may be an error to summarily discard this assumption, since these same governments could have but have not undermined U.S. and Israeli belligerence by forcefully denouncing the 9/11 false flag (see section 3.8).
The Jews: it is not difficult to find on the internet allegations that “the Jews” are responsible for 9/11. The presence of Jews within the 9/11 Truth community suggests that this accusation is an overgeneralization, but it is too widespread to not be listed here.
Satanists: theories are easy to find on the web that very powerful people engage in religious rituals that invoke malicious spirits. Some depict sickening and frightening ceremonies taking place in many settings, including university fraternities and the VIP retreat center of Bohemian Grove in Northern California. Such habits would certainly be compatible with the profession of Platonic Master.
The corporations: large multinational corporations hold much money, enjoy nimble internal communication systems, and protect the activities of their high-level leaders from public scrutiny. As such, it has been speculated that a critical group of very powerful corporations could shelter the oligarchs. The oligarchs could be specific individuals who sit on the boards of several key corporations.
“Banksters:” powerful and evil-minded bankers—mostly the owners of the U.S. Federal Reserve and other powerful banking institutions.
The “Illuminati/Rothschilds/Rockefellers” or some combination thereof: alleged dynasties of “banksters.”
Reptilians: a few thousand years ago, some extra-terrestrial entities would have copulated with humans and engendered “reptilian” humans. Reptilians interbreed, “shift shape” at will between human and reptilian, and are extremely egoistic. David Icke has championed this theory and claims awareness of many testimonies of shape-shifting.
Aliens: theories claim that evil non-terrestrial lifeforms somehow established themselves as rulers of the human community; they would straightforwardly qualify as our Platonic Masters.
All these hypotheses assume that these people—or non-people—exhibit a strong penchant for evil and therefore are mentally very different from ordinary people. This leads us to the hypothesis that regardless of which of the above theories may be correct, our Platonic Masters would be a clique of highly intelligent essential psychopaths.
Essential psychopathy is a mental pathology. Interestingly, little appears to have been published or discussed about it in psychological and psychiatric circles. Some have wondered whether this lack of interest by the mainstream medical community would be another conspiracy.
Information about essential psychopathy is so scarce that the number of people who exhibit it is unknown. Estimates range from 0.6% to 4% of the human population. Essential psychopaths are overwhelmingly male.
Essential psychopathy is characterized by an absolute absence of empathy. Empathy is the primary mental process that makes humans—and other mammals—social. Concretely, it makes an individual partially feel whatever happens or could happen to another individual (s)he happens to observe or think of.
The absolute absence of empathy makes the essential psychopath:
Absolutely egoistic: the essential psychopath cares for himself and nothing or nobody else—“I worry exclusively about myself.”
Absolutely egotistic: the essential psychopath overgeneralizes his life experience—“everything is the way I think it is.”
Absolutely egocentric: the essential psychopath “knows” that he is the most important entity in the universe—“nothing matters but me.”
This psychological lapse makes the essential psychopath’s thought process closer to a reptilian’s than a mammal’s. He is incapable of experiencing scruple, remorse, guilt, shame or discomfort of any kind for any action that normal people would find immoral. A notorious manifestation of this seemingly compulsive lying is readily observable in courtship:
An essential psychopath constantly and expertly lies as he seduces a woman.
The effort of courting and lying is, in the essential psychopath’s mind, a coldly calculated investment into the woman.
The woman falls in love with him and puts her whole trust in him.
At this point, the essential psychopath mercilessly exploits her love for his egoistic and egocentric benefit.
Within a short time, the woman finds herself in a living hell, at the complete emotional mercy of the essential psychopath.
The end results are beneficial to the essential psychopath, but devastating to the woman.
The woman ends up labeling her essentially psychopathic partner immoral, through an egotistic reaction that ignores her partner’s mental pathology.
The essential psychopath’s extreme egoism and egocentrism make him a natural predator. His prey is the human community as a whole.
The essential psychopath’s extreme egotism makes him unable to understand psychologically normal people. To him, it is strange—even laughable—that the majority of people care for each other.
As the qualifier “essential” suggests, essential psychopathy has a genetic origin. This distinguishes it from personality disorders, which are acquired. An essentially psychopathic human egg “makes or breaks it” at the moment of fertilization. If the sperm it absorbs does not bring genetic material that corrects the pathology, it inevitably yields an essentially psychopathic individual. Accordingly, from a moral standpoint, it is an error to hold an essential psychopath accountable for his actions, for he has no way to realize that he is evil. Going back to our earlier example of courtship, an essential psychopath who seduces a woman for the sole purpose of recklessly exploiting her is no more immoral than a boa that swallows a lamb.
The essential psychopath understands his nature early on, alas through trauma. He starts differentiating himself from normal children per his absolutely egoistic, egotistic and egocentric nature at a very early age, typically as soon as he can move.
For instance, let’s assume he witnesses a baby drinking off a milk bottle.
Let us further assume that watching the baby happens to make him want milk too.
His natural reaction is to snatch the bottle away from the baby.
If the baby screams, he may resort to brutality to silence her/him.
Obviously, the baby’s mother is displeased and the essentially psychopathic child suffers consequences he dislikes.
The essentially psychopathic child’s most tender years are marked by countless instances of moralization and punishments by his caretakers. The essential psychopath’s absolute egotism prevents him from perceiving any fairness in these actions as well as in the rules imposed on him. He grows up traumatized.
As a side-note, the essentially psychopathic child is truly a victim of his caretakers' ignorance, as they egotistically project their empathy on the child. They erroneously think that the essentially psychopathic child is fundamentally empathic, try hard to teach him empathy, keep hitting blank walls, and get extremely frustrated themselves in the process. If they only understood the child's essence, they would rear him very differently, traumatizing him much less, containing him with dignity, and warning people around him of his condition.
Over time, he realizes that he is different from other people, that he is incapable of understanding them, that their laws and customs will never make any sense to him, and that they do not understand his difference. Desperately looking for a way out of a bleak future of unending admonitions and punishments, he adopts the pragmatic tactic of studying the difference of other people from a mechanistic perspective:
He observes the behavior of normal children and attempts to imitate them, mostly through trials and errors. This is laborious, since the essential psychopath has no ability whatsoever to feel the empathic emotions that normal children experience constantly and naturally.
He notices that as he emulates them better, he earns more respect and rewards. This reinforces his drive. Pretending to be normal becomes his main objective.
Psychologists know this adaptation as the “Cleckley mask,” named after the scientist who uncovered this mental process.
An essential psychopath who makes, adjusts and continuously improves his Cleckley mask can be compared to a predator who hones his camouflage skills.
As the essential psychopath grows and goes through the tedious process of fine-tuning his Cleckley mask, he nurtures frustration and resentment against normal people. He also understands his unique gift to traumatize normal people whenever he chooses to drop his Cleckley mask.
Eventually, if he is successful, the essential psychopath, once adult, goes unnoticed by normal people and earns their confidence. In practice, untrained normal people are incapable of identifying adult essential psychopaths wearing well-honed Cleckley masks. This is unfortunate, since essential psychopaths are so abundant and wreak so much damage (see section 6.4.1).
As he grows up and refines his Cleckley mask, the essential psychopath learns to test it by slightly dropping it and checking that normal people don’t notice. He also learns to recognize other essential psychopaths as they slightly drop their Cleckley masks. This process allows essential psychopaths to identify each other under the radar of normal people. This is not unlike homosexuals’ ability to covertly find their kin in societies that are hostile to their lifestyle.
This discreet mutual identification allows well Cleckley-masked essential psychopaths to collude and pursue specific common egoistic and egocentric goals, which evidently foretell highly unfavorable consequences for normal people.
The essential psychopath's climb to power is usually uneasy. His and his friends' misdeeds may earn him legal trouble. Ironically, several aspects of the criminal justice system are biased in favor of the well Cleckley-masked essential psychopath, and a few seem tailor-made for him:
The sacrosanct axiom of equality under the law: it ignores the fact that the essential psychopath is biologically different and that the harmonious operation of human society dictates that he be identified and treated differently from normal people.
The common procedure of testifying under oath: unlike a normal person, he does not experience the slightest bit of mental discomfort when lying seconds after taking the most solemn oath to be truthful. Unless objective evidence contradicts his false testimony, his aplomb makes him a highly credible witness.
The need for a unanimous jury to secure a conviction: his theatrical ability may earn him the sympathy of a juror, and a single fellow essential psychopath within the jury may be enough to avoid a conviction.
The neglect of deep criminal psychoanalysis of criminal defendants: he easily passes for victim of lesser pathologies in a less-than-thorough psychological examination.
The proverbial revolving door: his excellent ability to exhibit a model behavior in prison and feign deep remorse and full rehabilitation makes him a prime candidate for early release.
The most cleverly Cleckley-masked essential psychopaths form underground alliances as mentioned above and routinely outmaneuver normal people. Some even reach positions of high responsibility. A probable instance of such an alliance is the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triumvirate.
As much as the rise of essential psychopaths to high power may be exceptional in countries with checks and balances such as the USA, it is easier, and even encouraged, in some totalitarian regimes such as the former Soviet Union.
This is the time to introduce an expert in the psychology of evil, Andrzej Łobaczewski. Łobaczewski, as a young man, had the dubious fortune of witnessing first-hand the sovietization of Poland while he was studying psychology there. He and a few of his colleagues decided to embark on a fascinating yet highly risky endeavor: the psychoanalysis of their new political context. In 1977, Łobaczewski's research materials were confiscated and he was expelled to the West, where he painstakingly rewrote the information he remembered. He shockingly discovered that his unique knowledge was unwelcome in the West and subjected to some worldwide censorship. It is only in 2006 that his findings would be published, by Red Pill Press, under the title of “Political Ponerology.” Łobaczewski and others coined the term of “ponerology” for their new science based on its etymological meaning of “the study of evil.”
Łobaczewski’s “Political Ponerology” provides a trove of dreadful information and claims, even to a reader already familiar with large-scale conspiracies:
Governments based on evil have existed throughout history. Łobaczewski christens them “pathocratic.”
A pathocracy hides its true nature behind some ideology, for instance communism in the case of the Soviet Union. This ideology is no more than a collective mask of sanity, aimed at concealing the true evil nature of its government from the unsuspecting outside world ruled by normal governments.
Different pathocracies use widely dissimilar—even opposite—ideologies as masks of sanity. The masking ideology, of course, may not necessarily be a purely political posturing. In many cases, its nature is primarily religious.
Even though pathocracies differ by their choices of ideological masks of sanity, they are identical in nature and structure. Łobaczewski and his colleagues found that the following features would repeat across ideology, geography, and time:
A pathocracy is governed by a “ruling class” made of about 6% of the population:
all essential psychopaths and
all other individuals who are totally or near-totally deprived of empathy, mainly due to other genetic factors
The roughly 80% of normal, empathic people make the lower class of the pathocracy. They are prohibited from exercising any leadership regardless of their competence and sense of caring, except under extraordinary circumstances.
The rest of the population form an intermediary “bourgeoisie.” These are typically people who have lost some empathy due to some brain lesions that caused lesser mental anomalies than a hereditary condition: mother’s problematic pregnancy, birth complication, trauma (physical, sexual or emotional abuse) during childhood or youth, side-effect of illness or medical treatment, absorption of toxic products, etc. These individuals are endowed with partial empathy, making them able to understand both the ruling class and the lower class. They naturally take the very useful role of go-betweens, bridging the chronic misunderstandings between the upper and lower classes.
Pathocracies subject their population—especially the young—to indoctrination, which normal societies tend to deride. One of its purposes is to identify people who lack empathy and promote them into the government.
Because a mental deficiency is a sine qua non condition for admission to any position of meaningful authority, a pathocracy is condemned to practicing reverse selection—i.e. promoting people for their pathology versus their competence and motivation. As such, it is chronically mismanaged on a grand scale.
This observation potentially clarifies GW Bush’s penchant for promoting, nominating, and appointing notoriously incompetent people under the pretext that he knew them personally. Did Bush know these individuals to be fellow well-masked essential psychopaths? Did his most vocal opponents—who were less than genuine as we established in section 4—understand this while they publicly mocked these “other marks of Bush’s already well-established ineptitude and carelessness?”
The pathocracy’s raison d’être is to endure, i.e. to keep essential psychopaths and their likes free from what they perceive—with some reason as we saw in section 6.4.2—as the tyranny of the normal people. The essential psychopaths’ worst fear is that the normal people would revolt, take over and seek vengeance.
As such, one of the pathocracy’s most important ongoing tasks is to sap the normal people’s capability and will to overthrow their government. Pathocrats impose harsh discipline, surveillance and economic conditions. Whenever they still sense a threat, they impose terror and extermination or forcibly assign the lower classes some Sisyphean or counterproductive labor, for instance a war against some enemy (human or other) they know to be invincible. Their limit is the fear that foreign normal governments would notice that their contempt for their population's well-being cannot be justified by ideological zeal, would investigate the pathocracy's real motives, and uncover its real essence.
The upper class develops a doublespeak as a method to slightly drop its mask of sanity without being noticed by normal people, especially normal societies’ leaders and intellectuals. It designs its public communications so that normal people think that they are being driven by their ideology but ruling class members understand, between the lines, a very different message. Essential psychopaths and similar deviants—those being ruled by that government and those under the rule of normal governments—understand the doublespeak and realize that that pathocratic government is their natural friend. Foreign pathocratic rulers recognize this doublespeak and may form alliances with them, even if their masking ideologies appear to be incompatible.
A pathocratic community can be fairly compared to a penitentiary colony for normal people controlled by career criminals. Using Łobaczewski’s statistics, a typical community of 100 people is composed of an underclass of 80 serfs obeying and serving 6 absolutely egoistic, egotistic and egocentric rulers under the control of 14 partially empathic guards.
The only favor a pathocratic regime does its lower class is to indirectly rid it of non-empathic individuals. The lower class finds that its members have much in common and discovers the value and benefits of mutual trust and support. Łobaczewski writes that the children of the ruling class who happen to have a normal psychological endowment will commonly forgo their privileges and join the lower class.
After a few generations, the lower classes become wise enough to fully understand the true pathological nature of their rulers, find ways to engage them, and persuade them to relinquish their power, demonstrating that doing so will benefit the essential psychopaths.
Alas, over a few generations of normal rule, normal people forget the lessons their ancestors learned the hard way under the pathocracy, launching what Łobaczewski terms the "hysteroidal cycle."
Łobaczewski found that a community with little influence from the outside world—typically a large country—will naturally experience a “hysteroidal cycle.” The hysteroidal cycle is an unstable process in which three sociological variables chase each other’s tail, as illustrated—with much simplification—in the graph on the right of this paragraph:
The awareness of the collective hysteria follows the level of hysteria up and down by about two generations. As the population realizes the errors in its “common knowledge,” it corrects them and the hysteria level goes down. Conversely, as the level of hysteria gets lower, the population finds that spending energy on its collective mental hygiene is useless and unknowingly plants the seeds of a hysterical comeback.
Prosperity follows the awareness of hysteria up and down with a delay of about two generations. As the population keeps its hysteria low and puts in place a sound “political and social contract,” it plants the seeds of its economic prosperity. Conversely, as the population neglects its mental hygiene and allows hysteria to dominate its thoughts, its plants the seeds of hard economic times.
The level of collective hysteria follows the level of prosperity up and down with a delay of about two generations. During prosperous times, people tend to be blinded by their collective happiness and neglect their mental hygiene. The well-off classes ignore or ridicule scholars and leaders who correctly warn about growing misconceptions and social injustices. As such, they unknowingly allow hysteria to grow back up. Conversely, during hard economic times, people discover the virtues of a correct worldview and of mutual help. They increase their awareness of hysteria, which is all that is needed to decrease hysteria.
According to Łobaczewski, when a society reaches its hysteroidal peak, it tolerates in positions of high power individuals with great charisma but also highly distorted worldviews and serious empathic deficiencies. These people, acting according to their nature, foment more hysteria. At the macro-social level—and unbeknownst to the public—a race takes place between the increasing collective hysteria and the correcting factor of popular awareness of this hysteria. If the latter is too little or too late, enough individuals with severe mental pathologies, including well-masked essential psychopaths, manage to obtain much power. Unaware of its new rulers’ abnormal psychological constitution, the public can in no way comprehend the hysteria they fuel. The social contract becomes inexistent and economic poverty comes back with a vengeance (see graph on the right). As we found in section 6.5, this suits the new rulers just fine and they impose a pathocracy. Well-documented instances of spontaneous divergence from the hysteroidal cycle into pathocracy are Russia and Germany in the first half of the 20th century.
Łobaczewski offers an excitingly simple collective vaccine and cure against the hysteroidal cycle and its occasional pathocratic divergence. He claims that a pathocratic society armed with his knowledge—i.e. the wide diffusion of his “Political Ponerology”—can switch to and anchor itself in normal rule. In the relatively easy case of a society that is initiating its pathocratic divergence, the remedy is for a small part of the majority of psychologically normal people to be aware of it. They will take actions that will make the full transition into pathocracy impossible, such as:
Objectively and kindly expose allegations of mental pathologies in their rulers.
Politely challenge leaders to publish their mental health, arguing that it is an important factor to validate their appointment.
Advocate refraining from punishing leaders whose nature forces them to perform evil acts.
In other words and referring to the following graph, since pathocracy is enabled and sustained by a low awareness of hysteria, Łobaczewski proposes to teach his work to raise this awareness and thus impede pathocracy. He affirms that as human communities use his experience and acquire additional ponerological knowledge, they will spontaneously come up with novel systems of governments, based on the understanding of human psychology and sociology, with some natural selection and appointment of rulers based on their competencies in these sciences and their commitment to the public good. In plain words, he envisions government by benevolent experts in human nature and in technocratic matters committed to public service instead of by charismatic experts in ideological, procedural and legal battles with dubious dedication to public service. He further proposes that these future governments be called “logocracies.” Etymologically, “logocracy” refers to a government based on knowledge. Needless to mention, Łobaczewski hopes for logocracy to flourish, bring unprecedented prosperity, peace and harmony, and eventually serve the whole human community.
When he wrote “Political Ponerology” in 1984, Łobaczewski predicted that the USA would be around a hysteroidal peak. Coupled with the probable essentially psychopathic influence on the GW Bush administration (see section 6.4.3), his reflection invites us into a short psychoanalysis of current U.S. politics.
Evidence of collective hysteria in the United States at the time of this writing (2011-March) is strong:
Many people accept superficial information. U.S. people are famous for not only “swallowing sound bites,” but also proffering them.
There is much evidence of egoism, egotism, and egocentrism at the individual level. The “me” generation is “in,” with self-centeredness being widely regarded as cool. Many people summarily and at times unconsciously reject correct information that conflicts with their dearly held beliefs.
Even the manipulation for personal profit of others' gullibility is regarded by many as acceptable. This is highly visible in the case of the post-2000 housing bubble, where scores of unscrupulous mortgage companies convinced non-qualified individuals to buy homes with deferred-interest loans that would ruin them a few years later.
The population is divided along many ideological, economic and religious lines, with abundant finger-pointing.
Accordingly, many people have much personal difficulty using logic and morality.
Many people interface more with their televisions and computers than with their neighbors.
Many people accept at face value official psychopathic doublespeak, for instance "extraordinary rendition" for "outsourced torture."
There is much evidence that the U.S. economic prosperity has been and will keep declining, as expected around a peak of hysteria (see hysteroidal cycle graph in previous section).
The mass media and numerous groups actively nurture this state through their slanted coverage of the ongoing wars, the economic meltdown and other important issues.
Pathocratic trends in the U.S. government are not hard to find, apart from the neocon experience (see section 6.4.3) that could always be dismissed as an accident of history:
Psychologically abnormal people hold much power. Obama is a prime example, with allegations of severe mental ill-health abounding on the web, including frequent accusations of egocentricity and duplicity.
Some U.S. leaders even appear to knowingly drop their mask of sanity. U.S. Sen. Lieberman seemed to do it often all along 2010, writing and promoting a series of bills that suffered form terrible flaws.
Lieberman could have been using his bully pulpit less as a legislating tool than a recruiting tool. Every time he would promote a new, unneeded, illogical, immoral and cruel bill, the essential psychopaths among the U.S. population would unmistakably identify him as one of them. Some may have contacted him, got on his E-mailing list, got regular communications from him in psychopathic doublespeak (see section 6.5), complete with clues as to how they could join him and his allies.
Whether Lieberman and his colleagues who co-sponsored his bills were consciously dropping their Cleckley masks to attract their kin under the radar of normal people, were merely pretending to do so, or didn't know what they are doing, their tactic was sure to attract essential psychopaths to public service, which is an important task in a pathocratic project.
Many U.S. government policies are highly questionable from the standpoint of collective mental health as of 2011-March, even assuming 9/11 would not be a false flag: continued occupation of Iraq, gratuitous escalations of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, warmongering against Iran, military skirmishes in various Muslim oil-strategic nations under the pretext of fighting Al-Qaeda, ever-increasing domestic militarization of law enforcement, official monetary assistance to morally bankrupt corporations rather than their financially bankrupt individual victims, etc.
We shall conclude that the USA as a society appears to be, as Łobaczewski predicted, at a hysteroidal peak, with clues pointing to a pathocratic future. Our next logical step is to check the psychological profile of the global Platonic Masters we found in section 6.3 against the attributes of essential psychopathy.
Even though we do not know who our global Platonic Masters are (see section 6.3), evidence of their possible essential psychopathy is strong:
They have very little—if any—empathy towards “us the people of the world.” Their leadership speaks volumes, as they inflict on “us” terror, lies, censorship, warmongering, fear mongering, mass distractions, wedge issues, etc. Their actions expose them as extremely egoistic, egotistic, and egocentric.
Just as predators camouflage themselves, they hide their identities, means and ends.
Their prey, of course, is the human herd as a whole.
How does this fit with their alleged identities we explored in section 6.3? The Bilderbergers, high level free-masons, European Royals, evil-minded Zionists, the Jews, Satanists, the corporations, “banksters,” the “illuminati,” reptilians, aliens?
The “alien” hypothesis, by definition, poorly lends itself to a straightforward identification with human psychology.
By contrast, the “reptilian” hypothesis resonates with the concept of a group of essentially psychopathic humans who would be aware of their difference, who would keep it secret, and who would practice inbreeding to transmit and preserve their pathology.
Each of the remaining hypotheses is compatible with the theory of a tight-knit group of essential psychopaths connected by their pathology plus some other affinity.
Another distinct possibility is that the global Platonic Masters are still more elusive than these groups, use some or all of them as fronts, and hide behind them their existence and their alliance.
Tellingly, Łobaczewski writes that one of the steps on the road to pathocracy is that an important group—typically a political party—is taken over by essential psychopaths. They keep intact the group’s ideology but use it as a mere façade of sanity while they build up their power and covertly recruit their kin.
It is time to pause and review what the 9/11 false flag has taught us so far:
“We the people of the world” live in a global Platonic theater.
“Our” Platonic Masters are not identified, yet for all practical purposes they can be equated to an oligarchy of essential psychopaths similar to those who rule pathocracies such as the former Soviet Union.
They have built a powerful global censorship. It transcends just about every boundary “we” are aware of. It is structured as a dense web of influential and respected leaders. It is self-healing and continuously improved. They have supported their malevolent activities with it for decades.
Their nefarious endeavors seem to encompass just about all that is evil: false flags, cover-ups, censorship, conflicts from wars down to wedge issues.
“Our” essentially psychopathic Platonic Masters appear to operate on “us” just as they would be expected to if they were leading “us” into some global pathocracy. It stands to reason that this could indeed be their objective.
This is the time to sketch what a global pathocracy would be like, especially how it would differ from previous pathocratic experiments such as the Soviet Union.
For the first time in history, the global pathocrats would be free of the limitations imposed by the need to fool foreign normal communities. They could conceivably dispense with their Cleckley masks of sanity, bare their mental pathologies and their absolute immorality, and impose themselves as a class of Masters whom “we the people of the world” would have to unconditionally honor, serve and obey.
Section 5.2 alluded to homosexual marriage as one current divisive issue loaded with emotion. Going back to the hypothetical pathocratic community of 100 people, divided—as evoked in section 6.5—between 6 masters, 14 guards and 80 serfs, the serfs will know that the opinions that solve the homosexual question are those of their masters and will learn—the hard way if needed—to ignore their own.
The global pathocrats would also benefit from modern technological advances—in communications, data management, medicine, miniaturization and other disciplines—that their Soviet predecessors could only dream of:
Medical advances—free of the Hippocratic Oath and other moralities that essential psychopaths naturally despise as complete nonsense—will allow them to manipulate “us” at will.
Surveillance techniques will allow them to control “us” automatically, perhaps down to “our” most intimate thoughts.
Under such circumstances, the end of a pathocratic regime as described by Łobaczewski (see section 6.5) may be closed to “us.”
Łobaczewski did not contemplate such a doomsday scenario and guessing its particulars belongs to the realm of science-fiction. At any rate, “we” will definitely not enjoy it and will likely nostalgically remember the Bush/Obama eras as the “happy old times.”’
This analysis does not demonstrate that “our” global Platonic Masters are leading “us” into a global pathocracy. However, it establishes it not only as a very real possibility, but also as the most plausible explanation for the 9/11 censorship and numerous other conspiracies. It confronts “us” with an updated version of Pascal’s wager, this one very down-to-earth, offering “us” a simple choice:
Bet that the above analysis is incorrect. Assume that the global Platonic Masters do not exist, or are not essentially psychopathic, or are not leading “us” into a global pathocracy. Consequently, take no specific action to counter them. Prefer the proverbial pound of cure over the ounce of prevention:
If the above analysis is in fact incorrect, “we” are doing good, wasting no energy on a problem that does not exist.
If the above analysis is in fact correct, “we” are heading straight into the global pathocracy as outlined above. “We” bet that once "we" realize that we are living under it, “we” will somehow find the pound of cure and leave it at the cost of a reasonable effort and some bearable pain.
Bet that the above analysis is correct. Assume that the global Platonic Masters do exist, are essentially psychopathic, and are leading “us” into a global pathocracy. Consequently, take specific action to nip their scheme in the bud. Keep in mind the enormous stakes and cheerfully put forward some concerted effort. Prefer the proverbial ounce of prevention over the pound of cure:
If the above analysis is in fact incorrect, “we” are doing something silly, wasting energy on a problem that does not exist.
If the above analysis is in fact correct, “we” are escaping from a great danger and ushering the human community into a highly beneficial paradigm shift with relatively little effort.
After weighing the probabilities, the amount of work and the consequences outlined by the wager, the discerning readers will concur that the pound of cure is a highly risky choice and will select the ounce of prevention. They are invited to keep reading.
Should the world become pathocratic, 80% of the population will be condemned to the status of “lower class” under the rule of the 6% affected by essential psychopathy and similar genetic psychopathologies (see sections 6.5 and 6.9). These 80% have a vested interest in avoiding such a future. Łobaczewski advises us (see section 6.6) to educate them on this pressing danger. This task is not trivial, for at face value they will find the idea of pathocracy absurd. Besides, our global Platonic Masters will easily ridicule it, since they master deception, the mainstream channels of information, and the watchdogs that the unaware public still trusts. Our challenge is to find some important clue of the impending pathocracy with daunting attributes:
It is irrefutable.
It is easy to demonstrate.
It is easy to understand.
Its implications are evil, intense, and global.
It hits most normal individuals at a personal level.
The aspect of the pathocratic project that best meets these criteria is arguably the 9/11 false flag, with its cover-up and its censorship. This should be no surprise, as no other conspiracy comes closer to adversely affecting just about every mentally normal human being and to lending itself to the demonstration of the impending global pathocratic danger. Its teaching simply needs some congruence with that of the global Platonic theater, along the lines of the following sections.
As you educate on 9/11 somebody who is skeptical or ignorant, start simple, lest you fail. As established in the previous sections, the watchdogs have saturated that person with the official 9/11 myth so that (s)he believes it with the same fervor as the fact that 2+2=4. Your challenge is to chip away at that fervor in such a way that (s)he accepts it naturally and to select this little change so that it eventually leads her/him to see through the 9/11 lies. This step ought to play down the emotional nature of the death and destruction of 9/11 while taking enough off the person's faith in the 9/11 myth so that (s)he eventually renounces it in its entirety and discovers the grand 9/11 censorship.
A recommended way to accomplish this is to engage that person into some undesirable fallout of 9/11. Your choice is wide: wars, financial scandals, economic crises, leniency on white-collar fraud, civil rights, human rights, fear of terrorism, religious intolerance, environmental neglect, media bias, etc. State that this issue is a consequence of 9/11, in part or totally. Then observe that the true 9/11 events were covered up and censored, and offer to prove it.
Another good point of entry into 9/11 consists in capitalizing on the fatigue that many long-time political activists are feeling from repeatedly hitting blank walls while pushing their pressing wedge issues (see section 5.2). See as a reference my "frustrated activist page," which leads into Building 7's "baby page" (see section 7.2.2). Feel free to copy it, customize it to suit your own purposes, and upload it to your own web.
At this point, your next challenge is to get your acquaintance to accept, by paying attention to you for just a few minutes, some glaring and undisputable anomaly regarding 9/11 that a 6th grade student would understand and that would deal less with the specifics of the 9/11 events than with their most important epistemological context. While you are the best judge as to what this anomaly should be, the following sections offer a very elegant one.
The 9/11 "baby page" uniquely qualifies as a compelling introduction to the 9/11 censorship. It has been used on dozens of skeptics and faithkeepers—people who irrationally cling to the 9/11 myth because of the fear of 9/11 Truth's implications—without a fault as of 2011-March. It also appears to satisfactorily unmask high-profile 9/11 censors (see section 7.2.5).
The baby page has unique attributes:
It starts with a simple and puzzling epistemological enigma: why is it that people don't remember Building 7 from the day of 9/11?
It sidesteps Building 7's demolition, instead objectively affirming its official "fire" theory and pointing to one major discrepancy in it.
It lets the reader attribute this discrepancy to the usual excuses of negligence, incompetence, lack of budget, etc.
It establishes the respectability of 9/11 Truth. This has the invaluable advantage of countering the Platonic actors' demeaning messages on 9/11 Truth.
It makes the reader agree that there is a global anomaly with the televised media, for no TV network has put together the highly educational, very simple and dirt cheap documentary this unique discrepancy lends itself to.
Feel free to download its simple html code, copy it, and customize it for your own use. Also feel free to download its embedded movies, available in the next section.
An alternative version of the baby page (see above) is the teaser slide show, a very short excerpt from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s famed slide show, downloadable from this web into a Windows-based computer by clicking .
At some point, Windows may prompt you to run an executable file. As it executes, it will unzip four files (a Microsoft PowerPoint slide show file named "Truth-seeker's teaser" and three audio/video files) and invite you to select the folder they will be downloaded to.
As an alternative, download the files one by one by clicking—or right-clicking?—on the four following links and saving the target files in the same folder: slide show, CBS clip, Building 7 versus demolition, Building 7's official video model.
Once the files have downloaded, open the PowerPoint file and review the teaser slide show. It is filled with notes to assist and advise you before you actually play it to your audiences. Once you are ready, play it—using your computer's F5 key or some other command—and rehearse your presentation.
Similarly to the baby page in the previous section, the teaser slide show will convince any 9/11 skeptic or faithkeeper that:
On 9-11, in the World Trade Center, apart from the twin towers, a 3rd skyscraper—Building 7—experienced a catastrophic structural failure.
The U.S. government produced a technical report on this event.
This report produced a video representation of the phenomenon.
This representation matches the video evidence poorly, whereas a controlled demolition matches it very well.
Little effort has been made to bring the above to the public’s attention.
The same skeptic or faithkeeper will generally accept the obvious conclusions:
One important detail of the official 9/11 story does not make sense.
Kindly note that this slide show, like the baby page, does not demonstrate Building 7's demolition. Accordingly make your audience at ease by inviting them to believe the official report.
People who question the official 9/11 story have a point.
Whoever berates 9/11 truth-seekers needs education.
TV terribly failed the public on this particular issue.
Something could be wrong about how we get information.
It could be worth double-checking what we think we know, starting with Building 7.
The baby step's conclusions (see previous subsection) are an excellent first individual and collective “wake-up” step:
They literally impose themselves.
They give 9/11 Truth respectability.
They give the reasonable skeptic incentives to learn more, especially about the World Trade Center 9/11 events.
They are epistemological in nature and hint at the Platonic theater.
They constitute a vital exercise in individual psychotherapy that truth-seeking outfits and their leaders have been incapable of doing due to the censorship that has limited their outreach and undermined their credibility. Your role here is invaluable as a de facto amateur one-to-one psychotherapist and teacher. You literally bring public 9/11 awareness up to level 5 per the table in section 7.4.
Getting a large number of people to react with disagreement and mistrust whenever some 9/11 censor or faithkeeper ridicules or demonizes truth-seekers will be a remarkable step forward and will mark one decisive accomplishment against the collective 9/11 hysteria and the impending global pathocracy.
Many reasonable skeptics will not stomach more in one shot. This is quite acceptable, since the baby step puts them not only on the 9/11 Truth track, but also—and more importantly—on their way to the awareness of the global Platonic theater.
Remember that non-empathic and poorly empathic people—6% (mostly male) and 15% of the population, respectively—will not respond well to the baby step. The former may rabidly oppose it, as the 9/11 false flag is the harbinger of a world to their liking (see section 6.5).
Conversely, don’t fall into the trap of assuming that anybody who doesn’t accept your presentation is pathological. Many psychological disorders will scare people out of questioning the official 9/11 myth. Besides, kindly accept that your teaching style may be less than perfect, especially at first.
Regarding this last point, consider rehearsing your presentation and asking a trusted friend for feedback.
If and when a skeptical acquaintance of yours is ready for more, your next challenge is to lead her/him through a streamlined 9/11 Truth class that teaches as little of 9/11 as necessary to demonstrate the global Platonic theater's existence.
To my knowledge, the baby step is currently—as of 2011-March—the only effective tool to neutralize and confuse 9/11 censors. Whenever some leader or organization dismisses 9/11 Truth, consider challenging her/him/it to refute it.
Consider also using it as you reach out to leaders you would like to enroll into 9/11 Truth.
Find detailed information on how to handle censors and reach out to leaders here.
Once your acquaintance has woken up to the above-mentioned epistemological baby step, your challenge is to lead her/him through 9/11 Truth's maze and bring her/him to realize that “we the people of the world” live in a global Platonic theater, since it is less important to educate her/him on the specifics of 9/11 than on the global Platonic theater (see section 4.10). Here also, you are the best judge as to what to do, but the most direct route from the baby step to the global Platonic theater is arguably a complete demonstration of the demolition, cover-up and censorship of Building 7, and then of the twin towers. Here also, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a prime source of information:
Invite your acquaintance to review their slide show, available for free on line.
Play their movies.
Ask AE911Truth for one of their approved presenters to present their information, or to simply perform a Q&A session with you and your guests over the phone.
Depending on how much your acquaintance can handle, you may want to split the information and treat Building 7 only in the first installment. Indeed, AE911Truth’s findings on Building 7 are as dramatic as many people will stomach in one shot:
On 9-11, in the World Trade Center, apart from the twin towers, a 3rd skyscraper experienced a total, disintegrative, catastrophic structural failure.
This structural failure was due to a state-of-the-art, well-executed, controlled demolition.
The U.S. government undertook a technical investigation into this event.
This investigation was an obvious fraud and a mediocre cover-up.
The mass media has conspired to censor the above.
When your acquaintance accepts the reality of Building 7's demolition and AE911Truth's above-mentioned findings, you may want to lead her/him into their logical, paradigm-shifting, epistemological conclusions:
One important part of the official 9/11 story is a fraud.
The whole official 9/11 story is doubtful.
Something is wrong about how we get information.
It is important to get to the bottom of whatever process yielded Building 7's censorship.
These conclusions take your acquaintance through an excellent second “wake-up” step:
They demonstrate 9/11 Truth’s importance.
They get her/him to examine her/his Platonic chains—double-check every non-trivial piece of information (s)he gets.
They keep 9/11's focus on an epistemological problem that dwarfs the specific events of 9/11 and their cover-up.
They give her/him reasons to learn more about 9/11, specifically on the twin towers' destruction:
It shares many attributes with Building 7’s destruction: place, time, and end result of the event.
It is bigger from all standpoints: larger volume, better known, more spectacular, more morbid, etc.
So perhaps its analysis will shed some light on the censorship of Building 7’s demolition.
AE911Truth's demonstration of the controlled demolition, cover-up and censorship of the twin towers is simpler and shorter than Building 7’s, for it builds on the experience your acquaintance has acquired with Building 7. However, many people find it difficult to follow because no matter how objective and obvious the presentation, they associate heavy emotions with it. Indeed, the twin towers’ demolitions yield breathtaking revelations:
On 9-11, in the World Trade Center, the twin towers experienced total, disintegrative, catastrophic, structural failures.
These failures were due to controlled demolitions.
The U.S. government launched a technical investigation into these events.
This investigation was an obvious fraud and a sloppy cover-up.
There has been a global conspiracy to censor this.
When your acquaintance accepts as a fact AE911Truth's above-mentioned findings, you may lead him/her to earth-shattering but obvious conclusions:
The twin towers’ structural failures were 9/11’s flagship event, with cameras rolling, thousands of civilians burnt into minute pieces, shock and awe.
The demolitions of the twin towers were definitely the work of terrorists: they were deliberate, they were unexpected, and they killed many people.
The demolitions of the twin towers are the most formidable terror attacks in history: they were morbidly spectacular, they wielded much death and destruction, and they generated great fear worldwide.
The authors of the demolitions of the twin towers (featuring highly skilled engineers) are the most formidable terrorists in history.
The U.S. government gave cover and protection to the most formidable terrorists in history.
Then comes the coup de grâce:
This information was compiled by architects and engineers. Yet they present their demonstration in a way simple enough for anybody with an average intelligence to comprehend it.
Therefore, the numerous organizations and leaders who keep watch over the U.S. executive branch could have dug this information, drawn these conclusions, and brought these conclusions to the public’s attention.
However, none of these watchdogs did so, perhaps not even those dearest to your acquaintance.
This brings your acquaintance to the ultimate teaching of 9/11: the global censorship of the cover and protection the U.S. government granted the most formidable terrorists in history.
Your acquaintance is now aware of 9/11’s paramount challenge: understand and overcome the global censorship it points to. (S)he is ready to accept the challenge of listing her/his channels of information (TV channels, government agencies, non-profit organizations, employer, etc.) into why they have taken part in this censorship, or at least reevaluate her/his trust in them. (S)he is also ready to start reading this e-book.
The elegance of using AE911Truth’s materials for this demonstration cannot be underestimated: a single source, objective and neutral from all standpoints, leads any reasonably intelligent and psychologically sane individual to the threshold of awareness of the global Platonic theater.
As proposed earlier (see section 4.12), if your acquaintance interrupts your technical explanations or presentation with an epistemological question (whistle blowing, leaks, confessions, etc.), don't dismiss it. Instead, rejoice that (s)he is attuned to the true problem of 9/11. If you'd like, answer that bringing in these subjects is pointless unless Building 7 and the twin towers were demolished. But most importantly, acknowledge the value of the question, state that it is not germane to the technical demonstration of the demolitions, and affirm that it is, together with many unanswered questions of the same vein, the true mystery of 9/11. If you'd like, add that elements of answer will be forthcoming later, once (s)he has acquired the simple essential technical knowledge that constitute the core of 9/11.
The 9/11 baby page (see section 7.2.2) advantageously leads to two generic web pages dedicated to Building 7 and the twin towers. They properly emphasize 9/11's paramount epistemological and sociological teachings, subcontracting to AE911Truth the heavy work of demonstrating the demolitions. Like the baby page, feel free to copy their html code, customize it, and reuse it.
You will not always have AE911Truth's movies on a TV or AE911Truth's representatives on the phone as you teach the twin towers' demolitions. When you are tabling 9/11 to the general public, you will inevitably have to answer objections to the idea of the twin towers' demolitions, and chances are you will get sidetracked into discussions that are not germane to the demolitions, not to mention the 9/11 censorship and the global Platonic theater that is your ultimate objective.
Find here another useful map to guide your discussion of the 3 World Trade Center demolitions: a 7-page tree (or block-diagram) of the fundamental class on the essentials of 9/11, i.e. the demolition of the twin towers and the global and enduring censorship they point to. It will give you a trove of solid sound bites that defend the demolitions at the level of the 5th or 6th grade. It will also allow you to pinpoint what part of the demonstration your opponent objects to. If your mind is analytical, consider rehearsing your arguments with it ahead of your events or discussions. Finally, if an objection is not covered by the tree, it probably is not germane to the demonstration, so try to confirm this and point it out to your opponent. In case you would want to edit it or customize the demolition tree, find the original Visio file, complete with an ANSI D-size single drawing of the whole tree, here.
If enough people ask for it, if nobody else will do it and as time allows, I will detail this tree into a multitude of short web pages linked to each item, so that clicking on any given box will open a dedicated page with the corresponding element of demonstration.
9/11 Truth holds the potential to snip in the bud the burgeoning global pathocracy. However, as a 9/11 truth-seeker, you need to accordingly frame your message and stick to the essentials. 9/11 Truth's essential message is epistemological: it demonstrates the existence of the global Platonic theater.
Accordingly streamline your discourse and demonstration. Focus on what is big, known, irrefutable, and leads directly to the global Platonic theater:
Per the previous section, teach the baby step, then the demolitions with their epistemological context.
Forget about accessory information that delays the finding of the Platonic theater:
Pentagon, Shanksville, hijacks, hijackers, etc.
Who did what when, with what tools, at whose request, with whose money, etc.
The need for a new investigation into the events of 9/11: there is hardly a need to push for yet another official attempt at investigating them, for the demonstration of the false flag is already done and the only investigation that truly matters is that of the fundamental cause of the censorship of 9/11, i.e. the global Platonic theater.
The identification of the 9/11 terrorists—even if they are “known” or a tempting scapegoat such as “the Mossad.” They are a small cog in a big machine and were enabled by the 9/11 censors who outnumber them (see section 4.10).
Take these axes of action as distractions or decoys, useful to historians interested in digging important facts of a watershed event but useless to activists who want to fix the world as it faces the unprecedented emergency of a global pathocratic future (see section 6.9). Accordingly make a conscious effort to ignore them yourself and to steer 9/11 truth-seekers away from them.
Remember that once the global Platonic theater is no longer a threat, there will be plenty of time to go back and uncover these important details from a historic perspective. In the meantime, as part of your outreach, just state that this information is important but not essential, and that it is highly useful to 9/11 experts and historians, but not to activists who want to fix the world.
As soon as your audiences accept 9/11 as a false flag, lead them towards the 9/11 censorship:
Teach them to recognize 9/11 censors per section 4.13: those who are neither dumb nor ignorant are censors, and perhaps plumbers.
Don’t speculate/argue on the specifics of 9/11 (see above).
Instead, do gossip about who may be a 9/11 censor or not in your community’s who’s who:
Important and highly connected leaders are almost certainly censors:
Per section 4.13, they can hardly be stupid or ignorant, leaving hypocrisy as the only rational reason for refusing 9/11 Truth.
When they condescendingly dismiss 9/11 Truth as unconvincing, when they flatter your ego claiming—probably falsely—that they’ve never heard of your evidence, or when they ridicule or demonize you, challenge them with the baby step (see section 7.2).
Don’t accept their promise that they’ll review your DVD or pamphlet later. Take it as a delaying tactic, which it probably is or will be. They will conveniently “lose and forget” your information. Instead, ask for an Email address to contact them later.
Refer to section 4.15 for specific tips on how to lobby them.
Once you have their Email, give them the baby page challenge and keep a record of their lack of trustworthiness (see section 7.2.5).
However, less important or less connected leaders may or may not be censors. Speculate and gossip about them. Your local politician? Your police chief? Your college director? Your religious leader? Your editor-in-chief? Your fire chief? Your union leader? Etc.
Invite them to view the baby page or the teaser slide show (see section 7.2) and to comment on it.
Affirm that you will have difficulty trusting them if they won’t be willing to educate themselves on the 9/11 false flag, cover-up and censorship.
If they work within a watchdog that failed to bark (see section 3), ask them to bring 9/11 to their headquarters' attention.
Wonder, gossip and speculate if they could they be masking their lack of empathy (see section 6.4.2). For instance, grill your local politician:
Point to her/him allegations on the web of mental pathologies in some high-ranking politician of an opposite party.
Fault her/his party for not warning the voters of these allegations ahead of the elections. Request that they do it in the future.
Beg her/him to publish her/his mental health bulletin; argue that it matters more than her/his physical health.
Remember that as a 9/11 truth-seeker, your mental health is not a legitimate concern; hers/his is—literally!
Remember that the 9/11 censorship is top-down, so people in the lower political/economic/social strata are probably not censors. Engage them, bring them the baby step (see section 7.2), and enroll them as allies. 9/11 Truth has been bottom-up since its inception. As enough people leave the global Platonic theater, it will climb up until leaders who double as Platonic censors run out of followers.
Downplay the need to bring 9/11 conspirators, censors and plumbers to criminal justice, less to summary justice or mob justice. Remember that many 9/11 censors were threatened, harassed and tortured into their functions and that many agents of the 9/11 false flag, cover-up and censorship may actually double as 9/11 heroes (see sections 4.4, 4.5, and 4.9). Remember that essential psychopaths are not morally responsible for being evil (see section 6.4.1). Remember that much of your information on individual responsibility for 9/11 has come from censored sources. Remember that one reason for pathocrats to cling to power is the fear of retribution (see section 6.5). Instead, be ready to concede understanding, compassion, and forgiveness, while relentlessly showing and exemplifying the way out of the global Platonic theater.
Consider reviewing the isolated subsection (4.5) of this document related to sorcery, for you or someone close to you may be hit by it.
Reach across traditional boundaries of religion, ideology, money, class, occupation, education, language, citizenship, immigration status, etc. These are largely arbitrary and probably invented or nurtured by our Platonic Masters as tools to divide and conquer “us the people of the world.”
Whenever somebody engages you on a wedge issue, try to ignore it. Instead, engage that person on the overriding importance of 9/11. Summarily state her/his problem would be solved if governments and other institutions did their job, that it is best to tackle a problem at its source, and that you know just how to do that. If (s)he is curious, state that 9/11 will solve her/his issue and many others to her/his satisfaction (see section 5.2), and kindly invite her/him to follow your leadership. Send her/him to the "frustrated activist page" (see section 7.2.1).
Remember that embracing 9/11 Truth is usually a grueling process. Here is a rough awareness scale a skeptic typically has to climb through:
9/11 Truth is to be ignored
TV would talk about it
9/11 truth-seekers are to be ridiculed and demonized
TV says so
9/11 truth-seekers are wrong
I can't debunk them, but TV can
9/11 Truth is unconvincing
I can't debunk its video, but I believe TV
9/11 truth-seekers have a point; the public has not been properly informed of some important flaw in the official explanation
the video simulation of Building 7's collapse is way off compared to a controlled demolition
9/11 Truth is legitimate; some important information in the official story is a lie and the public has not been informed of this
Building 7 was really demolished
9/11 Truth is important; the real 9/11 terrorists have not been identified, the U.S. government gave them cover and protection, and this was not reported to the public
the twin towers were demolished, the FBI and TV looked the other way
9/11 was a false flag; the ensuing wars are fraudulent; 9/11 Truth is essential to cancel them
they keep justifying their wars with 9/11
9/11 Truth has big ramifications; many people and institutions could easily but did not denounce the 9/11 false flag
TV should have denounced the false flag and the cover-up
9/11 Truth could be one of many important issues subject to a global censorship
maybe TV hides important information other than 9/11
9/11 Truth points to a grand-scale censorship problem better than any other issue does
people disagree with me over what exactly TV has hidden, but they agree it hid 9/11
breaking this overarching censorship is key to improving the human community's fate
TV must be hiding things I have no idea of
the surest way to break this global censorship is to denounce its use in regards to 9/11
9/11 Truth will solve everything
denouncing the 9/11 censorship is more pressing than just about every other political endeavor
we are truly threatened with a global pathocracy
The human community is at risk:
Some global Platonic Masters, probably a tight clique of essential psychopaths, have promoted a censorship of the information “we the people of the world” receive.
They have been evil on “us.”
They may want to turn the whole world into a global pathocracy.
This would be a historical catastrophe of unprecedented proportions.
Prevention is easy:
Have most of “us” understand the above and denounce it.
The key is 9/11 Truth in its swiftest form:
baby step into Building 7's lack of media coverage
demolition of Building 7 and ensuing cover-up and censorship
demolitions of the twin towers and ensuing cover-up and censorship
hint at the global Platonic theater
avoidance of other political activities and quarrels: other aspects of 9/11, 9/11-induced policies, other conspiracies, wedge issues
in short, full focus on essential over important
This analysis has brought the 9/11 Truth movement into adulthood. 9/11 truth-seekers have been ignored and mocked. That era is over. Truth-seekers now have a blueprint for effective action and are aware that the future of the world is literally in their hands, for the 9/11 false flag is a blessing in disguise:
The cover-up was terrible.
The censorship was improvised.
The VCRs and the internet did wonders.
9/11 leads straight to the finding of the global Platonic theater, if only “we” will follow its thread.
No other false flag comes close. Waiting for a “better” one is foolish.
Over a century ago, Theodore Parker stated:
“The arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
I ask Parker’s spiritual remains for forgiveness as I speculate that he truly meant to exhort his followers to work for social justice while warning them that the task ahead of them was enormous. I affirm that had Parker known what we know as we reach the end of this analysis, his quote would read instead:
“The arc of the universe, long? Let's take the shortcut!”
9/11 Truth is the world’s best hope. It is also a call for the large majority of psychologically normal people to temporarily forget about their differences and unite behind it, making it the ultimate call for unity in diversity. The English word “ultimate” means “best in its class,” yet it descends from the Latin superlative “ultimus,” which means “last in its series.” Perhaps this dual nature of “ultimate” suits it as the qualifier of choice for 9/11 Truth’s call to unity in diversity.
Heeding 9/11 Truth’s call leads “us the people of the world” into a future whose brightness we can hardly fathom. Ignoring it leads “us” straight into an abysmal future which the Soviet Union was but a pale prototype of.
The work ahead is not that hard, and its stakes are humongous. Let’s just get it done!