The 18th anniversary of 9/11 approaches and yet a highly significant claim made in the otherwise proven-false 9/11 official story has been subject to scrutiny by only very few. By presenting an analysis of the terms applied to 9/11 and other events I aim to show why, partly, at least, this claim may have avoided examination and how it might serve us to abandon use of a particular term in favour of another in order to better understand 9/11 and similar events.
A false flag is generally understood to be an act committed by one group who contrive to make others appear responsible, usually with the intention of using the false claim as a basis to go to war and/or with other ulterior motives.
In the film, Allied, based on real life, the Germans used a spy to collaborate with the Allies in staging an attack which resulted in the assassination of a German ambassador that Hitler wanted rid of. In this event, the Germans were the covert engineers of the killing where they both:
This can be judged to be a false flag in that both an act was committed and the other side was blamed, however, it is not what we might call a classic false flag as it was, in fact, the Allies who, in the main, performed the act. The Allies were also happy - perhaps even proud - to take responsibility for it while being oblivious to being engineered into it. Additionally, the event was an end of itself – it was not used as a pretext for something else, a usual characteristic of what we understand a false flag to be.
Let’s take another example.
The Gulf of Tonkin false flag that precipitated the Vietnam War was simply based on false claims. The first was that on August 2, 1964, North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an “unprovoked attack” against a US destroyer on “routine patrol” when the attack was, in fact, provoked and the second was that on August 4 the North Vietnamese launched another attack. This was a simple lie.
While the two examples above fit our understanding of a false flag to some degree in different ways, neither of them fits very well.
Let’s look at another source of confusion with nomenclature: the synonymous use of false flag and psyop (psychological operation). The term psyop refers to covert operations carried out by intelligence services to persuade us of falsities in one form or another, not necessarily of the commit-an-act-blame-it-on-another type. The above two examples clearly fit the term “psyop” in that dissembling occurred while they are not examples of our general understanding of a false flag in that they did not clearly involve a group committing an act and blaming it on another.
We have to wonder how many events labelled false flag properly fit “act committed by one group who contrive to make another group appear responsible.” Could all events labelled false flag not, in fact, fit the typical understanding of the term and should we consider abandoning this misleading term dating from ancient times and perhaps just stick to psyop as psyop always fits perfectly, no matter what the individual characteristics of the event.
Let’s consider 9/11.
We know, of course, that 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters did not hijack four airliners, nor contrive to bring down three buildings by crashing two of the airliners into two of them. We know that airliners do not melt into buildings just as we know that high rise steel frame buildings do not collapse to the ground in symmetrical fashion in a matter of seconds from fire. These are physical impossibilities.
The 9/11 plane crashes and building collapses from fire may well be the greatest cases of the Emperor’s New Clothes the world has ever known.
In the case of 9/11, if we look closely at the sense of "one group committing an act and blaming it on another" the acts didn't happen at all. It wasn't a case of the perpetrators committing acts and blaming them on another. The acts that actually were committed had nothing to do with the acts blamed.
The major acts that did take place were these:
So if, in general, the acts committed had nothing to do with the acts blamed should we not question all parts of the "blamed acts" story. The "false flag" label inclines us away from questioning the claim of death and injury whereas "psyop" better includes that possibility. 9/11 was a psyop - nothing about 9/11 was what it seems in any shape or form. It was all smoke'n'mirrors. What good reason do we have to believe the "3,000 deaths and 6,000 injuries" claim without investigation? Right off the bat, we know, in fact that the claim is false because 265 of the 3,000 could not possibly have died in the faked plane crashes so we might ask whether whatever they did to fake those 265 deaths could they not also have done for the remaining 2,735. Shouldn't we be examining the evidence provided for these deaths? If we're not, is it because questioning stated deaths is considered a too taboo and sensitive subject and if that is the case should we allow ourselves this luxury when the truth of 9/11 is so important?
We also might consider whether the perpetrators would actively not want death and injury for real even if, for example, they had no personal concern about the victims. I'd argue an emphatic yes. People who might normally not pay much attention to the ludicrous anomalies in the 9/11 story will transform into super sleuths and will fight to their deaths for truth and justice when a loved one is killed. An army of loved ones rattling the gates is not a happy scenario for the perpetrators. One of the most important things in psyops is control of the story and loved ones of those murdered running amok is not compatible with “control of the story”.
If killing and injuring for real would result in an unhappy scenario for the perps the obvious question is: did they have to do it for real? Are their skills and experience in duping us up to persuading us that 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters performed physically impossible feats but not up to persuading us of the deaths of 3,000 and injury to 6,000? After all, we know the power elite's experience in psyops dates at least as far back as the Great Fire of London in 1666 as explained in Gloria Moss's fascinating article, The Great Fire of London – Cui Bono? Was 9/11 a proper psyop where they duped us with all their claims or was 9/11 what is classically understood as a false flag where the most serious "act" of killing and injuring is actually committed by the perps while being blamed on the 19 terrorists?
Although the perps had complete control of the timing of evacuation of the twin towers prior to their collapses, a complete evacuation would not have suited their terror story at all so the storyline had to include "incomplete evacuation". They needed a decent number of dead and injured and I think we can safely infer they had planned the 3,000 dead figure and how this number would be split among the different planes and buildings in advance. No deaths or injuries were assigned to WTC-7 which can probably be explained by the fact that it didn't figure in the terror storyline and so in its case the reality and storyline of "complete evacuation" matched. It is very perturbing to think that if the "3,000 dead, 6,000 injured" claim part of the story was not simply a mini-concoction within the whole, that the perps simply let the people die and be injured to maximise the terror of their story when we know they are expert at duping us and could have faked it instead as they did for the 265 plane passengers. If they did simply let them die and be injured, however, questions arise:
What puzzles me is why, into a massively concocted story, you would introduce a real element whose reality you have no desire for and that significantly compromises highly-desired control of the operation when you can so easily fake it - just as you have all the other confected parts. Isn't that antithetical to the principles of a psyop? Of course, if you want death as was wanted in the Allied case above and in the case of political assassinations then, of course, you make it happen but if you don't want 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured and you can fake it why would you do it for real?
We must also consider the people who needed to be involved in this operation and how ready they would be to participate in this monstrous mass murder. We can see from analysis of the dialogue snippets below that Dan Rather, Brian Williams and David Restuccio knew what was going on as they let us know with some clues. How many people, like them, were in the know and can we credit all these people being AOK with the cold-blooded and callous killing of 3,000 of their fellow citizens ... and even let us know with little clues into the bargain?
It is the 18th anniversary of 9/11. When is a thorough investigation of the very significant claim about death and injury going to happen?
For more on the 9/11 propaganda strategy to persuade us of death and injury and other aspects of 9/11 visit my 9/11 webpage.