I think Judy Wood makes a strong case for dustification. It might also explain why there are some weird survivor stories - it looked hot but the orangy flames weren't hot, weren't burning non-metal things. It seems to have been some sort of molecular rearrangement of metal which turned metal into dust. https://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/9/prweb9875176.htm Cars in odd places were melted/destroyed - why would that happen at a distance from the collapsed buildings?
I was at work, busy job with needy clients, and the news started playing the video. Employees had it on in the back, watching the endless repetition. I watched a little, thought, "Wow, what well timed bombs" - it was clearly a controlled demolition - and got back to my needy clients. Someone had to detonate the well-timed bombs/or dustification weapon at the moment there was an airplane patsy in place.
My son had liked construction videos as a toddler so I had already absorbed a lot of background watching of building demolitions.
Yes; Dr. Wood points out many more anomalies which shoot the ordinary controlled demolition theory to bits. Plus, Pilots For 911 Truth points out that jets can't fly at 500 mph at sea level w/out coming apart in mid-air; the air at that altitude is just too thick.
Her "evidence" is interesting, but I have suspicions of her, too. Some of them look highly ridiculous and perplexing, such as her inclusion of Hurricane Erin and "U. Tissuepaper Beams and Tortilla Chips". And the mentions of deformed/rusty vehicles and missing toilets can be easily explained by the fact that (a) the vehicles were already damaged/degraded prior and were planted there to lead people astray and (b) the toilets were removed weeks or months in advance during closing or maintenance hours. She looks more like a disinfo agent to me than anything else, which also explains why she hasn't been heavily censored or bumped off (to my knowledge, anyway).
It also doesn't help Wood's case that there's no genuine video or photographic evidence showing DEWs attacking the Twin Towers (unless we are to assume all those were destroyed or altered post-production).
Then again, it's also possible that they used both, especially if in the event that either option fails to work as planned. You always must have a backup plan in case the initial attempt goes awry. Knowing how these people operate, it makes perfect sense for them to do the same. And it's more in line with the available evidence from that event.
I think so, too, although DEWs aren't completely out of the question. It would've been far more reliable and predictable to simply use rigged explosives than merely using DEWs to do the trick, even if the latter is possible to use successfully. And like I said elsewhere, we have no bona fide recorded or even written first-hand evidence of this happening (that we're aware of, anyway), so controlled demolition with rigged explosives is far more likely.
Hello, Petra. And thank you. I'm brand new to the 9/11 false narrative / psy-op. (My younger sister has had all (most?) of the details for many years.) I recently watched the documentary Propaganda Exposed Uncensored by Ty and Charlene Bollinger (Truth about Cancer). They spent a few minutes looking at the fakery, including the BBC news announcement of the fall of tower 3 a few minutes before it fell with it still visible in the background. And the recorded (psy-op?) conversation of the firemen commenting on the pending fall of tower 3.
I was busy with life at the time and didn't think too much of it other than being puzzled why a steel frame building would collapse so easily and vertically. I didn't allow my curiosity free reign beyond that, at that time. And I wasn't mostly not watching the news, and so didn't see the more blatant incongruities you have delineated.
Thank you. A great summary and extension of my very recent introduction to 9/11 scam and requisite psy-op to solidify it as not a scam for the majority and to solidify the conspiracy people in the wrong directions. Fascinating stuff.
"And the recorded (psy-op?) conversation of the firemen commenting on the pending fall of tower 3,"
Lots of scripting in 9/11 including all the journalists who alluded to controlled demolition. Prominent 9/11 researcher Graeme MacQueen has analysed these allusions but he's missing an important aspect - he assumes they're speaking candidly when, of course they're scripted. As if the perpetrators would allow journalists out on the loose speaking candidly and as if those journalists would speak of controlled demolition if they were let loose. Everyone always understands automatically what's taboo as soon as power comes in telling its big fat lies.
My inference is that a lot of the scripting wasn't actually done on the day but was produced in earlier drills but who knows what happened when?
Hello, as with every false flag event, we have the symbolism of Masonic numbers, i.e. 1,3, 6, 9. September 11, 3,000 killed whom no one knew, 6,000 wounded whom no one saw...
Some people did know a few of the 3,000 - they weren't all fake just a lot of them ... as for the 6,000 wounded - well we have the "miracle survivors" such as Pasquale Buzzelli.
Another thing that should be mentioned here is the acknowledged fact that the U.S. intelligence octopus KNEW of the incoming threats to national security before 9/11, yet didn't really do anything to stop it. In fact, they claim that by "July and August 2001, intelligence reporting "began to decrease" -- even though the al Qaeda threat was growing."
It makes no sense if one is to assume they didn't, at the very least, want this to happen (if they haven't orchestrated the attacks themselves), and instead believe the widely accepted and ridiculous excuse that America's intelligence network was too inept to stop them before it was too late. Especially when you consider their experience with past terrorist attacks such as the '93 WTC bombings, as well as the fact that one of the terrorists used to work with them (Osama Bin Laden). To quote CNN:
"In 1998, U.S. intelligence had information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosives-laden airplane into the World Trade Center, according to a joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
However, the Federal Aviation Administration found the plot "highly unlikely given the state of that foreign country's aviation program," and believed a flight originating outside the United States would be detected before it reached its target inside the country, the report said."
As any savvy reader of your blog should know, this also plays into their "Revelation of the Method" methodology, whereby they deliberately disclose what they're up to as a form of mockery and a way of saying "I Told You So" to the masses. Plus, they know nobody will really go after them for what they've done, so they feel safe to rub it on everyone's faces whenever they see fit.
"However, the Federal Aviation Administration found the plot "highly unlikely given the state of that foreign country's aviation program," and believed a flight originating outside the United States would be detected before it reached its target inside the country, the report said."
Shouldn't they've considered the possibility that those terrorists could hijack domestic flights instead if foreign ones won't do? After all, U.S. airport security prior to 2001 was relatively lax, and airplane hijackings were pretty common across the country (or so we're told), even though most of them weren't murder/suicide missions aimed at destroying buildings. And they knew the so-called 19 hijackers were reportedly already in America since before this report was published and taking flying classes in preparation for the fake 9/11 attacks.
These were good enough reasons to strengthen their security measures against future terrorist incidents on American soil. Yet they didn't even consider - much less take - effective action against such things until after 9/11 happened. To those who still aren't convinced this was a scam, if that isn't indication of willful negligence or premeditated black-ops orchestration of a false-flag psyop, I don't know what is. The intelligence services wouldn't have been so stupid as to not see this happen, even with incompetent personnel.
[To end this post, I'd like to mention another absurdity concerning plane hijackings, which is seen in the above Vox article. They claim that despite suffering dozens of hijackings at airports, most airlines "largely gave in" - that is, allowed them to continue - out of fear that "customers would find metal detectors at the airport more off-putting than the possibility of a midair diversion."
So they couldn't be bothered with spending a little more money on setting up metal detectors for security purposes because their clientele would find that more annoying than literally putting their lives at risk by boarding a hijacked aircraft? In what reality does that make sense? Even as a cost-cutting measure, it's not very smart because the high likelihood of terrible fatalities and large sums of money and property being lost (not to mention dozens of lawsuits) as a result of such hijackings far outweighed any benefits of doing nothing whatsoever.
Their lackluster response alone puts a huge question mark over the validity of these stories. I suspect at least some of these hijackings outside 9/11 were faked, too.]
You call it lackluster, I call it hilariously ludicrous. And yes, I too am doubtful of all alleged hijackings.
I love the fact that the TV series, The Lone Gunmen, whose first episode, "Pilot" is about the trio of starring characters finding themselves unraveling a government conspiracy concerning an attempt to fly a commercial aircraft into the World Trade Center, with increased arms sales for the United States as an intended result, aired from from MARCH 4, 2001.
Yes, I've seen snippets of that TV program, too. It's yet another obvious example of "Revelation-of-the-Method" in action. And there's too many such examples to make them coincidences.
And speaking of fiction, Vox also includes a skit about plane hijackings in their article. You'll have a laugh with this one.
Response: "There are five of us armed with knives, and I'll tell you who they are for $1,000."
"I don't believe you." "If you don't tell where the knives are...If I don't give you money...unless you give me the knives...Ah, the money, we'll kill you and crash this plane into the World Trade Center, killing everybody." "Including you." (shit, didn't think this through) I'll tell who they are for a dollar."
I have to admit I believed the story for 13 years myself although I didn't actually know exactly what the story was and psyops were completely out of my paradigm of how the world works.
But there's millions out there who still believe it.
Also, why would intelligence reports decrease when the threat in question was increasing? Shouldn't more reports be sent to make sure the intelligence community was keeping good tabs on what the terrorists were doing, especially in the few months leading up to the attacks? They would have no reason to send in less information to other insiders, even if the purpose was to cover up their tracks. I guess they thought the threat wasn't too serious, so they didn't bother making more reports. Kinda' telling, don't you think?
It's Revelation of the Method all over the place and what gets me is that even people who know about RoM still don't really get it. Drives me bonkers. RoM is so incredibly significant from a psychological point of view.
The quote from psychiatrist, Anthony Daniels - who, for all we know, may well be one of them and is just saying this RoM style - says it all.
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
They often times put these anomalies out there to test people's intelligence, in particular to mock those who haven't figured out the scam already or, at best, have only realized it partially. And, of course, it's "Revelation of the Method" through-and-through. The same is true for all the 9/11 predictive programming we've seen before.
I wouldn't even call political correctness communist propaganda. For one thing, communism itself was a farce created by the same people that gave us every other fraudulent system known to man (fascism, capitalism, feudalism, etc.), and political correctness has predated communism by many centuries. Therefore, a more accurate and versatile term would be totalitarian propaganda, as communism isn't the only way despotism thrives.
Nonetheless, the point that such propaganda is essentially nothing more than a form of humiliation, as well as fear, is poignant. Oftentimes, we see guilt-tripping and fear-mongering in propaganda pieces, especially if it's wartime propaganda (e.g., "you're with us or you're with the terrorists") or religious propaganda (e.g., "repent or you'll burn in hell"). It is ultimately the most insidious form of manipulation out there.
A classic example of this in action is GWB's infamous epithet "...either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists!", which is excerpted from his speech to Congress shortly after 9/11. Here it is:
This also explains why they managed to conjure up the official story of 9/11 hours after the attacks happened. After all, it first originated from the CIA itself, via its former director George Tenet. They obviously knew what was going on beforehand, too.
Call me fixated, but the best overall work I've seen regarding 9/11 is at cluesforum.info. Hundreds and hundreds of pages that show the VicSIMS, the total fakery of every photo and video ever shown, supposedly from that day, the full participation of the media in the event, etc. etc., ad infinitum. Some people seem to think that Cluesforum /Simon Shack is some sort of limited hangout, but I've yet to find anything on the site, at least by Simon and Admins., that I disagree with and they write about MUCH more than 9/11.
(Hi Petra! I had no idea that you had a Substack until about ten minutes ago and just started reading. I'll keep reading when I wake up tomorrow. I'm really looking forward to it and I'm so glad I found your Substack!! Ciao per adesso! Jennifer in Milano) 🙂
Hi Jennifer in Milano - glad to have a name, I get sick of screennames all the time. I found it hilarious on OffG when I decided to use my real name rather than flaxgirl and got all kinds of derision for it including, most bizarrely, the seeming suspicion that switching names made me some kind troll.
Yes, Clues Forum is great and certainly where I first learnt of the fakery of victims, however, the information isn't laid out in the best way I find - it is a pretty old site after all. Also, there are really quite a number of ways that fakery is indicated (not to mention the only thing that really makes sense) and my preference is to put all the angles as much as possible rather than masses on one angle. If we show fakery of victims we don't need to show ALL the vicsims, a few will do. Also, it's the propaganda strategy targeted to the anticipated disbelievers that death and injury were real that's important too.
I apologize, Petra! I didn't know there was a cutoff when I was writing. Let me quickly say that I'd written that I completely agree with what you said about cluesforum and I'd explained my own similar experience with internet names. Maybe my full message will show up to you in the email notifications, like your full message did to me. I sure hope so!! I hope you have a great weekend and I'll see you next time!! Ciao! 🙂
Hi Petra! I was sure I'd told you my name in the comments at Piece of Mindful, but it looks like I didn't and I'm so sorry!!! Sorry and embarrassed, especially since I've enjoyed talking with you, or trying to with my lousy technological skills, each time we were there at the same time. That's why I was so happy to see this Substack!!!
Listen, I know exactly what you mean about names on the internet and especially in the truth environment! People get so carried away sometimes, thinking that every single thing has some kind of deep and nefarious reason behind it. I didn't get internet for the first time until something like 2012 and I knew nothing about what I was doing. I used to have my YT account under my real full name, with my real photo, rather than my late husband's photo. That was back in the day when all kinds of 'events' were taking place and if I disagreed with someone about whether it was real or not, I used to get the most vulgar and literally life threatening responses from people. I ended up becoming anonymous because of that. I was scared to death that someone would come after me, especially after the HONRNetwork, of Sandy Hook fame, posted my full name and city and claimed that I was "one of the people who are harassing the families of the victims." All because I'd say nothing more than "You're a troll" when one of their accounts posted a comment on YT!!!
Anyway, I've written so much already, that I'll just leave it at saying that I agree with every word you've said to me about cluesforum and 9/11. I just like to read the site in general, like when I'm sitting at the metro stop. It's confirmed my thoughts about other subjects over the years, but yes, I agree with you 100 percent!!
Sorry again for this message being so long!! I won't do it to you again. It's just the first time I've had a chance to talk to you on your own site, where I feel like I can speak much more freely. I hope you have a great weekend!!! Thanks VERY much for writing me back and for always being such an intelligent, open eyed, and kind person!! Until next time... 🙂
Thank you so much, Jennifer, for your compliments - and same to you! Sorry you were subjected to such scary hostility. Wow! I can see why you adopted a screenname. I guess it's not that I really object to screennames so much as a policy but because, generally, I don't remember people nearly as well as if they put their real name - however, now I know your name so no problem! - I'm afraid, I cannot say with certainty you didn't tell me your name on POM, my memory is really deteriorating as I get older, however, it will definitely not be forgotten now! I had no idea what the HONR Network is till I just looked it up. Oh my goodness. The load of BS that they drown us in.
If there were any deaths at all, there were probably a few hundred who died that day, mainly from accidents (hit by falling debris from the Towers, car crashes nearby, etc.) or illness incurred from all the pollution emitted from Ground Zero. The rest were probably faked or misattributed, which may also explain the ~1100 or so missing people connected to the attacks, as well as the anomalies shown in the Social Security Death Index system. Certainly the plane deaths would've been fabricated, as the "hijacked, crashing planes" narrative doesn't make any sense upon closer inspection.
9/11 was a demolition job and nobody died in WTC-7 (apart from allegedly one or two people and I think we can put that down as BS) so if they managed to evacuate WTC-7 without killing anyone I see no reason for them not to have evacuated the whole of the WTC without killing anyone which isn't to say no one died or was injured.
The demolition of the whole of the WTC was done by professionals so I see no reason that it wouldn't have been conducted as professionally as possible and anything unfortunate that happened would be of exactly the same nature that happened in normal demolitions. I really think they would have done everything possible to avoid unfortunate accidents because they wouldn't want injured people or loved ones causing problems later.
SIMPLE FACT: There is not a single piece of evidence favouring the reality of the death or injury to a single person, not one.
I wasn't explicitly speaking about WTC-7. I was speaking about nearby casualties in general, which likely was much less than they claim, anyway. And even then, I never intended to imply that people died or were injured INSIDE the buildings, just that some unfortunates OUTSIDE may have suffered inadvertent injuries/deaths from falling debris or became ill from ingesting all that Ground Zero pollution, which is in line with your statement that "anything unfortunate that happened would be of exactly the same nature that happened in normal demolitions."
"I really think they would have done everything possible to avoid unfortunate accidents because they wouldn't want injured people or loved ones causing problems later."
Perhaps so; but if the actual death rate was far less than the official numbers, it would've been easier to get away with it because they'd have far fewer genuine complaints or lawsuits to deal with. Plus, with the vast resources and power they possess (including control over the judiciary), what's a few cases to them, anyway? They barely would make a dent to their extensive control matrix or their bottomless budgets.
Some deaths or injuries would've been inevitable (especially with an operation of this magnitude involving real destruction), but mostly it was easy to mitigate by simply inventing the rest, which you would surely agree. Furthermore, my above statement is purely hypothetical, so it's not meant to be taken as a statement of fact but of possibility, even if it is a slim one.
I realise you weren't referring to WTC-7, Jane, I just put it forward as an example of evacuation with no problems.
I'd imagine that people did suffer from inhalation but the thing is we can only speculate in that direction. I've seen people trotted out who say they are suffering but they seem very much like actors to me - not that I don't necessarily think those people weren't genuinely suffering from respiratory problems, I just think they were still actors pretending their problems were caused on 9/11 when they were caused by something else. The thing is the narrative targeted to the disbelievers is "The evil US government killed all those poor people ... and injured loads with the toxic dust," so it's hard to know what's real and what isn't in relation to the dust. My thinking is that MASSIVE evacuation of the entire area was done nevertheless there would still have been a lot of dust that was inhaled.
Fair points. I'm glad to hear that you understood what I'm saying from the start. And as for people suffering health complications from inhaling WTC/Ground Zero dust, I wouldn't put it past them to fake a lot of those, too. Then again, what I'm saying is hypothetical, so there's no absolutes here beyond the fact that some buildings in NYC were indeed destroyed.
I think Judy Wood makes a strong case for dustification. It might also explain why there are some weird survivor stories - it looked hot but the orangy flames weren't hot, weren't burning non-metal things. It seems to have been some sort of molecular rearrangement of metal which turned metal into dust. https://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/9/prweb9875176.htm Cars in odd places were melted/destroyed - why would that happen at a distance from the collapsed buildings?
I was at work, busy job with needy clients, and the news started playing the video. Employees had it on in the back, watching the endless repetition. I watched a little, thought, "Wow, what well timed bombs" - it was clearly a controlled demolition - and got back to my needy clients. Someone had to detonate the well-timed bombs/or dustification weapon at the moment there was an airplane patsy in place.
My son had liked construction videos as a toddler so I had already absorbed a lot of background watching of building demolitions.
Yes; Dr. Wood points out many more anomalies which shoot the ordinary controlled demolition theory to bits. Plus, Pilots For 911 Truth points out that jets can't fly at 500 mph at sea level w/out coming apart in mid-air; the air at that altitude is just too thick.
Her "evidence" is interesting, but I have suspicions of her, too. Some of them look highly ridiculous and perplexing, such as her inclusion of Hurricane Erin and "U. Tissuepaper Beams and Tortilla Chips". And the mentions of deformed/rusty vehicles and missing toilets can be easily explained by the fact that (a) the vehicles were already damaged/degraded prior and were planted there to lead people astray and (b) the toilets were removed weeks or months in advance during closing or maintenance hours. She looks more like a disinfo agent to me than anything else, which also explains why she hasn't been heavily censored or bumped off (to my knowledge, anyway).
https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/short/aha.html
Here's a good sixteen-minute video that elaborates further on the sketchy nature of Judy Wood and her reported evidence.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=925j2gSrBg4
It also doesn't help Wood's case that there's no genuine video or photographic evidence showing DEWs attacking the Twin Towers (unless we are to assume all those were destroyed or altered post-production).
Then again, it's also possible that they used both, especially if in the event that either option fails to work as planned. You always must have a backup plan in case the initial attempt goes awry. Knowing how these people operate, it makes perfect sense for them to do the same. And it's more in line with the available evidence from that event.
I think they just used their tried and true methods and there's no clear evidence that says they didn't.
I think so, too, although DEWs aren't completely out of the question. It would've been far more reliable and predictable to simply use rigged explosives than merely using DEWs to do the trick, even if the latter is possible to use successfully. And like I said elsewhere, we have no bona fide recorded or even written first-hand evidence of this happening (that we're aware of, anyway), so controlled demolition with rigged explosives is far more likely.
Nice compendium of the fakery that abounds.
The opening quote emphasizes how humiliation is integral to domination over others.
Hello, Petra. And thank you. I'm brand new to the 9/11 false narrative / psy-op. (My younger sister has had all (most?) of the details for many years.) I recently watched the documentary Propaganda Exposed Uncensored by Ty and Charlene Bollinger (Truth about Cancer). They spent a few minutes looking at the fakery, including the BBC news announcement of the fall of tower 3 a few minutes before it fell with it still visible in the background. And the recorded (psy-op?) conversation of the firemen commenting on the pending fall of tower 3.
I was busy with life at the time and didn't think too much of it other than being puzzled why a steel frame building would collapse so easily and vertically. I didn't allow my curiosity free reign beyond that, at that time. And I wasn't mostly not watching the news, and so didn't see the more blatant incongruities you have delineated.
Thank you. A great summary and extension of my very recent introduction to 9/11 scam and requisite psy-op to solidify it as not a scam for the majority and to solidify the conspiracy people in the wrong directions. Fascinating stuff.
"And the recorded (psy-op?) conversation of the firemen commenting on the pending fall of tower 3,"
Lots of scripting in 9/11 including all the journalists who alluded to controlled demolition. Prominent 9/11 researcher Graeme MacQueen has analysed these allusions but he's missing an important aspect - he assumes they're speaking candidly when, of course they're scripted. As if the perpetrators would allow journalists out on the loose speaking candidly and as if those journalists would speak of controlled demolition if they were let loose. Everyone always understands automatically what's taboo as soon as power comes in telling its big fat lies.
My inference is that a lot of the scripting wasn't actually done on the day but was produced in earlier drills but who knows what happened when?
Thank you.
Hello, as with every false flag event, we have the symbolism of Masonic numbers, i.e. 1,3, 6, 9. September 11, 3,000 killed whom no one knew, 6,000 wounded whom no one saw...
Thanks, didn't know that was a Masonic pattern.
Some people did know a few of the 3,000 - they weren't all fake just a lot of them ... as for the 6,000 wounded - well we have the "miracle survivors" such as Pasquale Buzzelli.
https://youtu.be/DZMpXlxQ024
Another thing that should be mentioned here is the acknowledged fact that the U.S. intelligence octopus KNEW of the incoming threats to national security before 9/11, yet didn't really do anything to stop it. In fact, they claim that by "July and August 2001, intelligence reporting "began to decrease" -- even though the al Qaeda threat was growing."
It makes no sense if one is to assume they didn't, at the very least, want this to happen (if they haven't orchestrated the attacks themselves), and instead believe the widely accepted and ridiculous excuse that America's intelligence network was too inept to stop them before it was too late. Especially when you consider their experience with past terrorist attacks such as the '93 WTC bombings, as well as the fact that one of the terrorists used to work with them (Osama Bin Laden). To quote CNN:
"In 1998, U.S. intelligence had information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosives-laden airplane into the World Trade Center, according to a joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
However, the Federal Aviation Administration found the plot "highly unlikely given the state of that foreign country's aviation program," and believed a flight originating outside the United States would be detected before it reached its target inside the country, the report said."
https://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/intelligence.hearings/
As any savvy reader of your blog should know, this also plays into their "Revelation of the Method" methodology, whereby they deliberately disclose what they're up to as a form of mockery and a way of saying "I Told You So" to the masses. Plus, they know nobody will really go after them for what they've done, so they feel safe to rub it on everyone's faces whenever they see fit.
"However, the Federal Aviation Administration found the plot "highly unlikely given the state of that foreign country's aviation program," and believed a flight originating outside the United States would be detected before it reached its target inside the country, the report said."
Shouldn't they've considered the possibility that those terrorists could hijack domestic flights instead if foreign ones won't do? After all, U.S. airport security prior to 2001 was relatively lax, and airplane hijackings were pretty common across the country (or so we're told), even though most of them weren't murder/suicide missions aimed at destroying buildings. And they knew the so-called 19 hijackers were reportedly already in America since before this report was published and taking flying classes in preparation for the fake 9/11 attacks.
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11326472/hijacking-airplanes-egyptair
https://web.archive.org/web/20070930031428/http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a082301mossad
These were good enough reasons to strengthen their security measures against future terrorist incidents on American soil. Yet they didn't even consider - much less take - effective action against such things until after 9/11 happened. To those who still aren't convinced this was a scam, if that isn't indication of willful negligence or premeditated black-ops orchestration of a false-flag psyop, I don't know what is. The intelligence services wouldn't have been so stupid as to not see this happen, even with incompetent personnel.
[To end this post, I'd like to mention another absurdity concerning plane hijackings, which is seen in the above Vox article. They claim that despite suffering dozens of hijackings at airports, most airlines "largely gave in" - that is, allowed them to continue - out of fear that "customers would find metal detectors at the airport more off-putting than the possibility of a midair diversion."
So they couldn't be bothered with spending a little more money on setting up metal detectors for security purposes because their clientele would find that more annoying than literally putting their lives at risk by boarding a hijacked aircraft? In what reality does that make sense? Even as a cost-cutting measure, it's not very smart because the high likelihood of terrible fatalities and large sums of money and property being lost (not to mention dozens of lawsuits) as a result of such hijackings far outweighed any benefits of doing nothing whatsoever.
Their lackluster response alone puts a huge question mark over the validity of these stories. I suspect at least some of these hijackings outside 9/11 were faked, too.]
You call it lackluster, I call it hilariously ludicrous. And yes, I too am doubtful of all alleged hijackings.
I love the fact that the TV series, The Lone Gunmen, whose first episode, "Pilot" is about the trio of starring characters finding themselves unraveling a government conspiracy concerning an attempt to fly a commercial aircraft into the World Trade Center, with increased arms sales for the United States as an intended result, aired from from MARCH 4, 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lone_Gunmen_(TV_series)
30-min video, What is Predictive Programming? | 100% Proof of Hollywood Brainwashing & Foreknowledge, bookmarked to The Lone Gunmen snippet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AUclXzapJo&t=1215s
Yes, I've seen snippets of that TV program, too. It's yet another obvious example of "Revelation-of-the-Method" in action. And there's too many such examples to make them coincidences.
And speaking of fiction, Vox also includes a skit about plane hijackings in their article. You'll have a laugh with this one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ejGQ5oIuP9c
Hilarious. This is in the comments.
Comment: Imagine if 9/11 happened like that
Response: "There are five of us armed with knives, and I'll tell you who they are for $1,000."
"I don't believe you." "If you don't tell where the knives are...If I don't give you money...unless you give me the knives...Ah, the money, we'll kill you and crash this plane into the World Trade Center, killing everybody." "Including you." (shit, didn't think this through) I'll tell who they are for a dollar."
One of the commenters actually believe this may have happened in one of the hijacked planes. Goes to show you how gullible your average sheep is.
I have to admit I believed the story for 13 years myself although I didn't actually know exactly what the story was and psyops were completely out of my paradigm of how the world works.
But there's millions out there who still believe it.
Also, why would intelligence reports decrease when the threat in question was increasing? Shouldn't more reports be sent to make sure the intelligence community was keeping good tabs on what the terrorists were doing, especially in the few months leading up to the attacks? They would have no reason to send in less information to other insiders, even if the purpose was to cover up their tracks. I guess they thought the threat wasn't too serious, so they didn't bother making more reports. Kinda' telling, don't you think?
It's Revelation of the Method all over the place and what gets me is that even people who know about RoM still don't really get it. Drives me bonkers. RoM is so incredibly significant from a psychological point of view.
The quote from psychiatrist, Anthony Daniels - who, for all we know, may well be one of them and is just saying this RoM style - says it all.
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/124952-political-correctness-is-communist-propaganda-writ-small-in-my-study
They often times put these anomalies out there to test people's intelligence, in particular to mock those who haven't figured out the scam already or, at best, have only realized it partially. And, of course, it's "Revelation of the Method" through-and-through. The same is true for all the 9/11 predictive programming we've seen before.
I wouldn't even call political correctness communist propaganda. For one thing, communism itself was a farce created by the same people that gave us every other fraudulent system known to man (fascism, capitalism, feudalism, etc.), and political correctness has predated communism by many centuries. Therefore, a more accurate and versatile term would be totalitarian propaganda, as communism isn't the only way despotism thrives.
Nonetheless, the point that such propaganda is essentially nothing more than a form of humiliation, as well as fear, is poignant. Oftentimes, we see guilt-tripping and fear-mongering in propaganda pieces, especially if it's wartime propaganda (e.g., "you're with us or you're with the terrorists") or religious propaganda (e.g., "repent or you'll burn in hell"). It is ultimately the most insidious form of manipulation out there.
A classic example of this in action is GWB's infamous epithet "...either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists!", which is excerpted from his speech to Congress shortly after 9/11. Here it is:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pyTdMgBMam0
This also explains why they managed to conjure up the official story of 9/11 hours after the attacks happened. After all, it first originated from the CIA itself, via its former director George Tenet. They obviously knew what was going on beforehand, too.
They knew, because they were responsible. Problem > Reaction > Solution.
Of course, they were. That's what I was trying to get readers here who haven't came to that conclusion yet to at the very least consider.
Spot on.
Thanks very much. I'm glad you liked it, so far.
Call me fixated, but the best overall work I've seen regarding 9/11 is at cluesforum.info. Hundreds and hundreds of pages that show the VicSIMS, the total fakery of every photo and video ever shown, supposedly from that day, the full participation of the media in the event, etc. etc., ad infinitum. Some people seem to think that Cluesforum /Simon Shack is some sort of limited hangout, but I've yet to find anything on the site, at least by Simon and Admins., that I disagree with and they write about MUCH more than 9/11.
(Hi Petra! I had no idea that you had a Substack until about ten minutes ago and just started reading. I'll keep reading when I wake up tomorrow. I'm really looking forward to it and I'm so glad I found your Substack!! Ciao per adesso! Jennifer in Milano) 🙂
Hi Jennifer in Milano - glad to have a name, I get sick of screennames all the time. I found it hilarious on OffG when I decided to use my real name rather than flaxgirl and got all kinds of derision for it including, most bizarrely, the seeming suspicion that switching names made me some kind troll.
Yes, Clues Forum is great and certainly where I first learnt of the fakery of victims, however, the information isn't laid out in the best way I find - it is a pretty old site after all. Also, there are really quite a number of ways that fakery is indicated (not to mention the only thing that really makes sense) and my preference is to put all the angles as much as possible rather than masses on one angle. If we show fakery of victims we don't need to show ALL the vicsims, a few will do. Also, it's the propaganda strategy targeted to the anticipated disbelievers that death and injury were real that's important too.
I apologize, Petra! I didn't know there was a cutoff when I was writing. Let me quickly say that I'd written that I completely agree with what you said about cluesforum and I'd explained my own similar experience with internet names. Maybe my full message will show up to you in the email notifications, like your full message did to me. I sure hope so!! I hope you have a great weekend and I'll see you next time!! Ciao! 🙂
Hi Petra! I was sure I'd told you my name in the comments at Piece of Mindful, but it looks like I didn't and I'm so sorry!!! Sorry and embarrassed, especially since I've enjoyed talking with you, or trying to with my lousy technological skills, each time we were there at the same time. That's why I was so happy to see this Substack!!!
Listen, I know exactly what you mean about names on the internet and especially in the truth environment! People get so carried away sometimes, thinking that every single thing has some kind of deep and nefarious reason behind it. I didn't get internet for the first time until something like 2012 and I knew nothing about what I was doing. I used to have my YT account under my real full name, with my real photo, rather than my late husband's photo. That was back in the day when all kinds of 'events' were taking place and if I disagreed with someone about whether it was real or not, I used to get the most vulgar and literally life threatening responses from people. I ended up becoming anonymous because of that. I was scared to death that someone would come after me, especially after the HONRNetwork, of Sandy Hook fame, posted my full name and city and claimed that I was "one of the people who are harassing the families of the victims." All because I'd say nothing more than "You're a troll" when one of their accounts posted a comment on YT!!!
Anyway, I've written so much already, that I'll just leave it at saying that I agree with every word you've said to me about cluesforum and 9/11. I just like to read the site in general, like when I'm sitting at the metro stop. It's confirmed my thoughts about other subjects over the years, but yes, I agree with you 100 percent!!
Sorry again for this message being so long!! I won't do it to you again. It's just the first time I've had a chance to talk to you on your own site, where I feel like I can speak much more freely. I hope you have a great weekend!!! Thanks VERY much for writing me back and for always being such an intelligent, open eyed, and kind person!! Until next time... 🙂
Thank you so much, Jennifer, for your compliments - and same to you! Sorry you were subjected to such scary hostility. Wow! I can see why you adopted a screenname. I guess it's not that I really object to screennames so much as a policy but because, generally, I don't remember people nearly as well as if they put their real name - however, now I know your name so no problem! - I'm afraid, I cannot say with certainty you didn't tell me your name on POM, my memory is really deteriorating as I get older, however, it will definitely not be forgotten now! I had no idea what the HONR Network is till I just looked it up. Oh my goodness. The load of BS that they drown us in.
If there were any deaths at all, there were probably a few hundred who died that day, mainly from accidents (hit by falling debris from the Towers, car crashes nearby, etc.) or illness incurred from all the pollution emitted from Ground Zero. The rest were probably faked or misattributed, which may also explain the ~1100 or so missing people connected to the attacks, as well as the anomalies shown in the Social Security Death Index system. Certainly the plane deaths would've been fabricated, as the "hijacked, crashing planes" narrative doesn't make any sense upon closer inspection.
9/11 was a demolition job and nobody died in WTC-7 (apart from allegedly one or two people and I think we can put that down as BS) so if they managed to evacuate WTC-7 without killing anyone I see no reason for them not to have evacuated the whole of the WTC without killing anyone which isn't to say no one died or was injured.
The demolition of the whole of the WTC was done by professionals so I see no reason that it wouldn't have been conducted as professionally as possible and anything unfortunate that happened would be of exactly the same nature that happened in normal demolitions. I really think they would have done everything possible to avoid unfortunate accidents because they wouldn't want injured people or loved ones causing problems later.
SIMPLE FACT: There is not a single piece of evidence favouring the reality of the death or injury to a single person, not one.
I wasn't explicitly speaking about WTC-7. I was speaking about nearby casualties in general, which likely was much less than they claim, anyway. And even then, I never intended to imply that people died or were injured INSIDE the buildings, just that some unfortunates OUTSIDE may have suffered inadvertent injuries/deaths from falling debris or became ill from ingesting all that Ground Zero pollution, which is in line with your statement that "anything unfortunate that happened would be of exactly the same nature that happened in normal demolitions."
"I really think they would have done everything possible to avoid unfortunate accidents because they wouldn't want injured people or loved ones causing problems later."
Perhaps so; but if the actual death rate was far less than the official numbers, it would've been easier to get away with it because they'd have far fewer genuine complaints or lawsuits to deal with. Plus, with the vast resources and power they possess (including control over the judiciary), what's a few cases to them, anyway? They barely would make a dent to their extensive control matrix or their bottomless budgets.
Some deaths or injuries would've been inevitable (especially with an operation of this magnitude involving real destruction), but mostly it was easy to mitigate by simply inventing the rest, which you would surely agree. Furthermore, my above statement is purely hypothetical, so it's not meant to be taken as a statement of fact but of possibility, even if it is a slim one.
I realise you weren't referring to WTC-7, Jane, I just put it forward as an example of evacuation with no problems.
I'd imagine that people did suffer from inhalation but the thing is we can only speculate in that direction. I've seen people trotted out who say they are suffering but they seem very much like actors to me - not that I don't necessarily think those people weren't genuinely suffering from respiratory problems, I just think they were still actors pretending their problems were caused on 9/11 when they were caused by something else. The thing is the narrative targeted to the disbelievers is "The evil US government killed all those poor people ... and injured loads with the toxic dust," so it's hard to know what's real and what isn't in relation to the dust. My thinking is that MASSIVE evacuation of the entire area was done nevertheless there would still have been a lot of dust that was inhaled.
Fair points. I'm glad to hear that you understood what I'm saying from the start. And as for people suffering health complications from inhaling WTC/Ground Zero dust, I wouldn't put it past them to fake a lot of those, too. Then again, what I'm saying is hypothetical, so there's no absolutes here beyond the fact that some buildings in NYC were indeed destroyed.