The presentation of both argument and counter argument (and sometimes counter counter argument) can be very helpful to the lay person because if there is weakness in the original argument that the lay person is unable to appreciate the counter argument may point it out in a way that is understandable while obvious weak counter argument can aid confidence in the original argument.

With the alleged COVID-19 pandemic the configuration of items for the argument claiming scientific fraud vs those for the argument against claims of fraud strongly favours the credibility of the argument claiming fraud over the counter argument:

1. Argument showing scientific fraud (article author/s)
2. Alleged debunking (fact-checker)
3. Rebuttal of debunking (article author/s)
4. Absence of response to rebuttal​

Below are two examples of mainstream science being exposed as fraudulent that follow the above configuration.
In the first case I'll present links to each article in the chain, a brief summary of the original article and my own debunking which I made before I realised the authors had done their own debunking.
​In the second case I'll simply provide the links to each article in the chain. The article and fact-check were both originally written in Italian but the Translate function works reasonably well.

COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter
The icing on the poisoned swab cake, Dr Stefano Scoglio

COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter
1. Argument showing scientific fraud - Jun 27, 2020
2. Alleged debunking (PolitiFact) - Jul 7, 2020
3. Rebuttal of debunking - Jul 31, 2020
4. Absence of response to rebuttal

A very detailed and thorough case is presented by two independent journalists, Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter, in their article, COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, published in OffGuardian in June 2020, showing that PCR tests are scientifically meaningless and although it's not stated bluntly, we can infer from their article that there is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of the alleged virus, SARS-CoV-2, or the alleged illness it causes, COVID-19. This article supports other evidence of a non-scientific nature that also suggests that there is no special virus and all death and illness ascribed to COVID-19 is from other causes, that is, the usual.

Summary of article but recommend reading it
--- No distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19
--- Admitted lack of gold standard test for COVID-19
--- PCR test used inappropriate for viral testing (its purpose was manufacturing not testing). Clear example: Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.
--- No clear evidence of origin of RNA used in test
--- Authors of scientific papers claiming isolation of virus admit that purification of virus not actually done and seasoned virologist admits lack of awareness of any paper showing purification of virus
--- No evidence of what is said to be the virus, SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19
--- Test results are irrational (many individuals producing different results on multiple tests) which would only be expected when the testing method used is against scientific testing protocol
--- The test contains "q" in its name, RT-qPCR, which should stand for quantitative, however, it is admitted the test is qualitative meaning it cannot test viral load which means they cannot test how many viral particles are carried in the body. For people to be considered infected a viral load needs to be determined.
--- High Cycle Quantification (Cq) values undermine validity of test and some PCR tests have high Cq values (Drosten test has 45). The inventor of the test, Kary Mullis, has this to say: "If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR."
--- Before starting with PCR, in the case of presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase—hence the “RT” at the beginning of “PCR” or “qPCR,” but this transformation process is “widely recognized as inefficient and variable,”

Daniel Funke is a staff writer covering online misinformation for PolitiFact, a fact-checking site, published by the Poynter Institute. His article, COVID19 PCR Tests are not 'scientifically' Meaningless, attempts to debunk the OffGuardian article with such abysmal argument that it's hard to credit.

Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter have written an open rebuttal of Politifact's alleged fact check ... and most unsurprisingly have not received a reply.
Open Letter: Refuting Politifact’s “fact check”

​I was unaware of this rebuttal and posted my own rebuttal below. If you want a layman's dumb version you can read it but I recommend the reading the authors' instead.

Very basic rebuttal
Let's through its four points one by one.

1. Politifact assertion: OffG article makes inaccurate claim: '"Kary Mullis, "regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection."'
Politifact response: 'In a fact-check, Reuters rated that claim false — the source is a 1996 article about HIV/AIDS. It does not say PCR tests are ineffective for detecting viruses.'
From Reuters direct: 'Social media users have been sharing a quote attributed to the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, currently being used to detect COVID-19, which says “PCR tests cannot detect free infectious viruses at all”. This quote has been falsely attributed to the inventor, Kary Mullis, and has been taken out of context to falsify its original meaning.'

Failure of debunk: The debunk is not related to the claim made in the article.

The OffG article doesn't claim Mullis made this statement or any particular statement. When it says "he regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection" we can infer this comes from a quote in the article they link to made by David Crowe, who says:

“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique,” he said. “Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”

One might argue, although the alleged debunking doesn't, that we only have David Crowe's word for it but it is true that PCR wasn't developed as a diagnostic tool and it has obvious limitations in that function thus there is no particular reason to doubt Crowe's claim about Mullis's thinking on PCR used as a diagnostic test. We might also argue that the article authors have slightly misrepresented Crowe's words but hardly worth a debunk and the debunking doesn't argue that point in any case, its argument is a strawman.

2. Politifact assertion: OffG article makes inaccurate claim: 'There are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19.'
Politifact response: 'The CDC says otherwise.'

Failure of debunk: The CDC doesn't say otherwise at all.
In fact, quite the opposite. Nothing could scream "no distinctive specific symptoms" more than the CDC's webpage and it is very unsurprising that Funke simply puts a link without analysing how the CDC "says otherwise". There is a large array of symptoms that apply to many illnesses and diseases and the CDC makes no specifications about symptoms always suffered and rarer symptoms. Elsewhere, of course, we are told that sufferers can be asymptomatic.

People with COVID-19 have had a wide range of symptoms reported – ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. Symptoms may appear 2-14 days after exposure to the virus. People with these symptoms may have COVID-19:

• Fever or chills
• Cough
• Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
• Fatigue
• Muscle or body aches
• Headache
• New loss of taste or smell
• Sore throat
• Congestion or runny nose
• Nausea or vomiting
• Diarrhea

This list does not include all possible symptoms. CDC will continue to update this list as we learn more about COVID-19.

3. Politifact assertion: OffG article makes inaccurate claim: 'The existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.'
Politifact response: 'Several researchers have analyzed the genetic material of the coronavirus — including its RNA.'

Failure of debunk: The authors point out that there is no paper showing the virus has been isolated which is a prerequisite for analysing genetic material and thus the claim that "Several researchers have analyzed the genetic material" simply does not stand up.

4. Politifact assertion: OffG article makes inaccurate claim:  'Between 22% and 77% "of the ‘positive’ tests are false ‘positives.’
Politifact response: 'Currently, about 92% of tests in the United States produce negative results.'

Failure of debunk: The authors are talking about the percentage of positive tests that produce false positives while the debunk simply states the percentage of tests in the US that produce negative results. The statements are completely unrelated.

The icing on the poisoned swab cake, Dr Stefano Scoglio
1. Article - Mar 15, 2020
2. Attempted debunking by fact-checker, Facta - Nov 6, 2020
3. Rebuttal by author - Nov 10, 2020
4. Absence of response to rebuttal

The welfare of the people ... has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
Albert Camus

"So we're watching this very carefully in anticipation of the fact that for the first time, in Australia, laws will need to be used on a scale that will present a different experience for Australia."
Attorney General, Christian Porter, Doorstop - Parliament House, 3 March 2020

Mike Pompeo calls pandemic a "live exercise" to which sotto voce Trump says, "You should have let us know," (as if he didn't already know).

Below are a number of indicators that the alleged coronavirus pandemic is, essentially, a globally orchestrated "live exercise" in managing a pandemic (preceded in October last year by Event 201, a "pandemic tabletop exercise"). We can infer that the alleged purpose of this exercise is really a flimsy pretext for fear-mongering instigated by the global power elite in order to exercise better control - there are about 8,500 of them and 7 billion of us. The scope of social control laid bare by this pandemic is truly scary. What social controls will be implemented and how this event will be used as a pretext for blaming looming economic problems only time will tell.

Most importantly, however, the power elite always give us the chance to opt out of the response they wish to instil in us. Whenever they hoax us, they always provide deliberate signs, for example, obvious signs of fakery, over-the-top ridiculousness, contradictions, different versions of the story, physical impossibilities, poor expression, grammar and spelling (beyond what might be termed "sloppy journalism"), smiling grievers, lack of explanation where it is expected, Masonic numbers and symbols, the actual truth (or distorted version of it), etc.  They are also meticulous in never faking a single piece of evidence so well that it can be used by someone who believes their story to brandish it in defence of it. See They Tell Us Clearly for examples.

As responsible citizens it is our duty to call out the power elite when we can identify a very large number of anomalies in the story they drown us in with, additionally, not a single skerrick of evidence to support it.

Generally, we can say that there is no clear evidence of the reality of a coronavirus pandemic. We are told of deaths and infections but all we see are lots of the general population and medical staff running around in masks and other protective gear. a man lying on a hospital floor and a person, most unrealistically, falling flat on their face. There is nothing that favours "real" over "live exercise" for a coronavirus pandemic while there is much that favours "live exercise" (assuming we include deliberate anomalies as part of the MO of a "live exercise") over "real". I ask the reader to consider this very important question: when there are clear anomalies in a story that undermine its reality, what reason is there to believe any part of it without clear evidence?

See also 9/11 and COVID-19: The Parallels and Debunking the debunkers: Exposure of fraud stands strong

We can also see this Trauma-based Mind Control Psychological Operation in the form of a "live" pandemic exercise as a Problem > Reaction > Solution scenario.

1. Invent a problem - Terrorism, financial crisis, etc.

2. Fabricate a response that isn't commensurate (even if the problem were real) but people will still go along with - Let the mainstream media only broadcast/print the side of the problem you want to show

3. Enforce a solution that also doesn't make sense (even if the problem were real) but people will still comply with - wars, corporate tax-cuts, welfare budget cuts, etc.

Problem > Reaction > Solution scenarios date from at least the Roman emperor, Diocletian. 
"Diocletian’s vice-emperor, Galerius, didn’t have a hard time in persuading him that if a Palace were just to burn down, Diocletian could really accelerate his crusade against the Christians. Just by coincidence, twice within sixteen days toward the end of February, Diocletian’s palace in Nicomedia burned. The Christians were immediately blamed." ​

Below argument is made under the following topics:
PRE-PANDEMIC

MANUFACTURED PROBLEM - VIRUS PANDEMIC
1. How to pull off a "pandemic"
2. Scientific fraud
     Unscientific haste in determining existence of virus
     Unscientific haste in developing an unfit-for-purpose test for the alleged virus
     Absence of scientific work showing virus purification
     Absence of scientific work showing causal link between alleged virus (SARS-CoV-2) and virus illness (COVID-19) 
     PCR test unfit for purpose regardless of existence of virus
3. Numbers of cases and mortality
4. Excess mortality spikes caused by interventions?
5. Pseudoscience

REACTION - Relentless media, masks, social distancing, lockdowns
1. Confusing guidelines
2. Response - incommensurate regardless of virus reality

SOLUTION
1. Vaccination
2. The Great Reset

PSYOP FEATURES
1. Patients - no symptoms/miraculous recoveries
2. Unconvincing loved ones
3. Hoax within a hoax
​4. In-your-face anomalies
5. On a continuum
​
PSYCHOLOGY - WHY PEOPLE BUY INTO THE NARRATIVE

OTHER COMMENTARY​

MANUFACTURED PROBLEM - VIRUS PANDEMIC
​1. How to pull off a "pandemic"
How They Pulled Off The ‘Pandemic’ – An Animated Film Explanation By David Icke (15 mins)
12 Steps to Create your own Pandemic - Nils Nilsen

2. Scientific fraud
Unscientific haste in determining existence of virus
David Rasnick, PhD, who has two decades' experience in the pharmaceutical/biotech industry, explains here how the determination that a new virus has appeared is made too quickly and on too scant and unindicative information:
David on YouTube (10 mins) - short extract below.
"As of January 2020, the China office of WHO recorded 44 patients with pneumonia of unknown cause. Just four days later Fan Wu and colleagues in China claimed they discovered a coronavirus, a type of cold virus, in a 41-year-old man. It wasn't long before that virus was officially declared the cause of those pneumonias. But here's the question: what was so important about those 44 cases in a country that has over a million pneumonias every year. It is common knowledge that pneumonia can be caused by lots of things: simply being older, medically compromised or a patient in a hospital puts one at risk of developing pneumonia. Going from a handful of pneumonias to identifying a new virus from a single individual in a matter of days does not even come close to satisfying minimal scientific standards. It is very difficult and time-consuming to prove the existence of a new virus. It is even more difficult to prove it causes pneumonia or anything else but it is impossible to do any of that if you don't have authentic virus to begin with. Virologist, Charles Calisher, at Colorado State University, was asked last May [2020] if he knew of even one paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally purified. His short email was, "I know of no such publication. I have kept an eye out for one."

In her video, Once Upon a Time in Wuhan, Dr Sam Bailey from NZ also gives an excellent analysis of the scientific fraud shown in determining the existence of a new virus in Wuhan.

Unscientific haste in developing an unfit-for-purpose test for the alleged virus
​Pandemic timeline - Just two days after announcement of 7 SARS cases in China, Christian Drosten in Germany testified that as of January 1, 2020, he had developed a genetic detection method to reliably prove the presence of the new corona virus in humans.

Unscientific method used to claim isolation of virus, unfitness of PCR test, genome sequence created by computer, and other
Two independent journalists, Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter, show in their article, COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, that the alleged virus, SARS-CoV-2 has not been purified. They questioned four science teams who have produced papers alleging virus isolation on whether their electron microscopy shows purified virus particles and all four admitted they didn't. See section in article titled, "No proof that RNA strand is of viral origin".

Note that the alleged debunking of the above article was made by alleged fact-checker PolitiFact which, in turn, was rebutted by the article authors and to which PolitiFact had no response. Even a layperson is able to rebut the PolitiFact "debunking" as the quality is so poor (see Debunking the Debunkers: COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless). Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter along with scientist, Dr Stefano Scoglio, have published a further article, Phantom Virus: In search of Sars-CoV-2, which no fact-checker or scientist I've approached will touch with a 50-foot barge pole.

Various institutions around the world including in the US, New Zealand, Australia, the UK, England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, Denmark, European CDC, Slovenia have responded to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests that they do not have on record proof of isolation of the alleged, SARS-CoV-2.

In the three blog posts below, Dr Saeed Qureshi, winner of three prestigious science awards, Life-time Achievement Award (2015, Indus Foundation, India); 2007 Deputy Minister’s (Health Canada) Award of Excellence in Science and Excellence in Science Award (2007, Health Canada with 30 years experience as a chemist with regulatory body, Health Canada, has written critiques of the science put forward for isolation below.

When “isolation of a virus” is not the isolation
Isolation and characterization of the virus (SARS-CoV-2) - critique of paper published in the MJA alleging isolation of the virus from a patient
CDC virus testing and isolation claims for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 - critique of paper published by the CDC alleging isolation of the virus from a patient

​We also see strange omissions of reference to isolation of virus from alleged source, for example, from a "German traveller" in paper, Comparative pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS and SARS in a non-human primate model (note similar glaring omission of reference to isolation of virus from alleged source, a "fatal SARS case", in a "brief communication" published by Nature on the 2003 SARS, Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus).

​Absence of scientific work showing causal link between alleged virus (SARS-CoV-2) and virus illness (COVID-19) 
In their article, Scientists Have Utterly Failed to Prove that the Coronavirus Fulfills Koch’s Postulates, microbiologist/journalist Rosemary Frei and freelance writer, Amory Devereux, evaluate the sparse literature produced on a causal link between the alleged SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 and show how none indicates the correct scientific protocols have been followed to show a causal link. Of course, if the alleged COVID had a distinctive set of symptoms purification of virus and causal link would not be so important. With a distinctive set of symptoms we perhaps could reasonably infer a viral cause but, significantly, COVID-19 does not have a distinctive set of symptoms as indicated clearly on the CDC website.

At this point, without any other clear evidence, we have no reason to believe in the existence of the alleged virus, the virus illness or the pandemic. In the absence of evidence of a pandemic (which, we will find is indeed the case on examination) there is simply no reason at all to believe in the existence of the alleged virus (SARS-CoV-2) or virus illness (COVID-19).

Scientific fraud in use of PCR testing
As there is no evidence of the virus, we have to wonder what is done to produce positive test results and what they mean. The article referenced in Point 3, COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, shows how meaningless the test results are. A summary of problems with this test outside the fact that the evidence shows that we have no reason to believe the nominated virus exists to test for in the first place.

--- As admitted by Australian infectious diseases expert, Sanjaya Senanayake there is no gold standard test for the alleged COVID-19. Immediately, without a gold standard test, the PCR test's fitness for purpose is called into question.
--- The PCR test is inappropriate for viral testing (its purpose was manufacturing not testing). Clear example: Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.
--- No clear evidence of origin of RNA used in test which accords with the fact that there is no evidence of virus purification (Point 3).
--- Test results are irrational (many individuals producing different results on multiple tests) which would only be expected when the testing method used is against scientific testing protocol
--- The test contains "q" in its name, RT-qPCR, which should stand for quantitative, however, it is admitted the test is qualitative meaning it cannot test viral load which means they cannot test how many viral particles are carried in the body. For people to be considered infected a viral load needs to be determined.
--- High Cycle Quantification (Cq) values undermine validity of test and some PCR tests have high Cq values (Drosten test has 45). The inventor of the test, Kary Mullis, has this to say: "If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR."
--- Before starting with PCR, in the case of presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase—hence the “RT” at the beginning of “PCR” or “qPCR,” but this transformation process is “widely recognized as inefficient and variable,”

I highly recommend the 17-minute video, The Truth about PCR Tests, by NZ medical doctor, Sam Bailey, and, in fact, recommend all her videos related to the alleged pandemic.
​
3. ​Numbers of cases and mortality
​Below is evidence showing how easy it is to falsely create a sense of pandemic by using a coronavirus:
They're very common in any case and most people may be carrying a small amount of coronaviruses
If you test only very sick people they are bound to have the virus but this doesn't mean that that's what making them sick or what kills them if they die.

Italy admits fudging numbers by assigning deaths to people who also have serious health conditions.
​China's numbers were too predictable which doesn't happen with real data.
Those who've recovered from the virus (the vast majority) are not being removed in updated statistics.

4. Excess mortality spikes caused by interventions?
In this video, NZ MD, Sam Bailey, outlines how the April 2020 spike in certain countries in Europe can be explained by two aggressive treatment trials, the WHO Solidarity program and the Oxford Recovery trial which involved very high doses of particular drugs including a 2400 mg dose of hydroxychloroquine which is 400 mg above the level considered to be overdose - 2000 mg. She points out, for example, that Spain had a big spike while the spike of its neighbour, Portugal, was lower than its 2017 spike - Spain implemented one of the programs while Portugal didn't.
NOTE: Sam doesn't say the treatment programs CAUSED the spikes, she just points out a degree of correlation and a possible explanation other than COVID. Obviously, where there are excess deaths and no explanation other than the alleged COVID can be pointed to, COVID as cause will seem compelling whereas if we can see other possible causes we aren't so beguiled by COVID being cause.

In this article, Oxford, Recovery et Solidarity: Overdosage in two clinical trials with acts considered criminal?, in France Soir by Le Collectif Citoyen they state in no uncertain terms that they believe the aggressive drug trials are actually responsible for deaths.

​5. ​Pseudoscience
There are ways to make information look as if it means things it doesn't.

This video made by Australian comedian, Jimmy Rees, also exposes the truly mindblowing illogicality of the covid rules in Australia which can surely only addle people's brains.

2. Masks, lockdowns, social distancing - no validity
Even if we disregard evidence that PCR is ineffective in testing for the virus and that the numbers are fudged, the response is vastly incommensurate.

SOLUTION
I'm a bit slow at working out exactly what the "solution" is but I'll just put a couple of links below.

​1. Vaccine
As there's no evidence of a virus, of course, there is no requirement for a vaccine ... but just how bad is it?
I recommend Jon Rappoport's blog pages on the vaccine.

Australian government, Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), listing of reported adverse effects of COVID vaccines up to 7/8/21. The ability to download reports on adverse effects of the vaccines has now been removed although adverse effects for other medicines is still possible.

Australian whistleblowing nurses and other staff describe the shocking harm and death being caused by the vaccine.
​
2. The Great Reset - whatever that will pan out to be

PSYOP FEATURES
​1. Sufferers: show no symptoms or behave unconvincingly / allege miraculous recoveries
The sufferers below show no symptoms or behave unconvincingly or allege ludicrous miraculous recoveries. This sort of obviousness is expected in psychological operations. "Miracle survivors" are common in many events see Point 3 They tell us clearly.

5. Is the Coronavirus scare just one on a continuum?
Evidence of staging for both Ebola and Corona. (5 min)
Video on Coronavirus Zika Ebola Anthrax (33 min)

"MASS FORMATION" - WHY PEOPLE BUY INTO THE NARRATIVE
​Written translation of interview in Dutch with Professor of Clinical Psychology at Ghent University, Mattias Desmet
Video of interview in English with Desmet

​
OTHER COMMENTARY

• Sam Bailey, MD (> 250,000 YouTube subscribers)
• ViroLIEgy, Exposing the lies of Germ Theory and virology using their own sources.
• A large number of articles in Off-Guardian - click Earlier button to go to earlier articles.
• COVID-19 Reader
• Makia Freeman
• Jon Rappaport - No More Fake News
• Revealing fraud - personal blog of American, Jason Hommel
• Blogger, Stephers, on Graphene Oxide and Engineered Nano Particles (ENPs)
• Australian Video (5 mins) - URGENT CORONAVIRUS UPDATE: The end game is revealed​
• Australian Prime Minister criminalising Australian beachgoers​​

You tell me.
(See also Did MH-17 crash in Eastern Ukraine? and Did PS-752 crash in Tehran?)

Seriously, they really take the mickey with this one.

Reporter, Tori Campbell of KTVU, a San Francisco TV station, reads out the following four pilots' names. Firstly, why four pilots? Aren't there usually only a pilot and co-pilot?

Captain Sum Ting Wong
Wi Tu Lo
Ho Lee Fuk
Bang Ding Ow

Wikipedia says:
San Francisco television station KTVU fell victim to “a prank”[144][145][146] in which then-news-anchor Tori Campbell reported a quartet of phonetic double entendres as the actual names of the flight crew. The names reported were Sum Ting Wong (“something[‘s] wrong”), Wi Tu Lo (“we[‘re] too low”), Ho Lee Fuk (“holy fuck”), and Bang Ding Ow (onomatopoeia for crashing sound and expression of pain). The prank has been described as racist and insensitive.

“... fell victim to a prank ...” and "... quartet of phonetic double entendres ..." Oh please. If it were a real plane disaster this prank wouldn’t have happened … and, unsurprisingly, the visual evidence does not match the description of the crash.

Below is evidence that the crash of MH-17 in eastern Ukraine was staged.
(Also see Did PS-752 crash in Tehran? and Did Asiana Flight 24 crash in San Francisco?)

1. Absence of clear evidence of reality
A major point to consider is that there is no clear evidence of reality of the crash

2. Bodies, body parts and debris
The image on the left below shows dead bodies, body parts and debris in the background which show signs of fakery while the image on the right is a Spencer Tunick photograph of naked bodies for comparison.
Original source of image, NRT24, no longer exists - new source although image slightly different Sputnik Images.
Link to other crash photos.

General:

• Zero aspects of the bodies and aircraft debris favouring real over faked
• Absence of any visuals of blood, severance edge or other indicators of violence (these are not essential but obviously their absence does not help in making the image compellingly real)
• The flesh tone is perfectly even which doesn’t match reality and doesn’t really look the colour of flesh
• The extremely shredded debris is difficult to relate to an airliner and if it did come from an airliner, the degree of shredding seems both unusual and difficult to match to the relative intactness of the much softer bodies. 

Below are zoomed-in parts of the photo with comments:

3. Anomalies in cockpit images
The damage shown in the images below of the plane cockpit area do not match:
Image 1 from India Today
Image 2 from Tass

​1: Dirty marks around cockpit windows / 2: No dirty marks
1: Vertical hole under first window straight and does not extend / 2: Curved hole.that extends more thickly
1. Small hole under right vertical frame of second window / 2. Much more extended hole and the start of the hole a different shape
1. Little crinkling at red and blue stripes / 2. Great deal of crinkling at red and blue stripes

You also have to wonder how the cockpit was severed from the rest of the plane. The edge looks cut.

4. Cube and bow-tie shaped projectiles?
In the first video at this ABC News article (at 2:51), they tell us:

Really, cubes and bow-ties? Wouldn’t the physics be against such military projectiles? And what would be the purpose of the two different types? Additionally, the holes in the cockpits give no indication they were made by such projectiles.

5. Raining bodies?
Text accompanying a video published one year on by the Daily Mail

Comment:
​The video only shows some burning in the distance without any evidence of what the people in the video refer to. Why would they say, "It's raining bodies," when there is no footage of a plane actually crashing and while the Daily Mail reports that that is what is said these words are not presented in the subtitles.

6. The Maslins, allegedly the parents of three young children who died, are completely unconvincing

Grief is not convincingly displayed. Of course, people can be experiencing grief without obviously displaying it and the alleged crash happened 5 years before this interview, however, you could never argue that the demeanour of the Maslins favours real grief over none.

The father says: "I don't feel anger towards the people who fired the rocket - I feel much something much worse - I feel pity." Question: How is pity worse than anger?

​We are told that since the loss of their three young children they had a fourth child. The father says:
"We choose to think and act positively whenever we can. The best example of that is focusing on what you have not on what you've lost."
I don't find this sort of homily credible from someone who's lost three young children.

Joining the dots
The evidence (below) shows that the crash of PS-752 was faked and this fits perfectly with what we might imagine really went down (at a very basic level) in the assassination of Soleimani.
(Also see posts Did MH-17 crash in Eastern Ukraine? and Did Asiana Flight 214 crash in San Francisco?)

— As it suits them both, Trump and Rouhani collude in assassination (or other method of "disappearing") of Soleimani
— An expected retaliation by Iran ensues in the form of an attack on a Ukrainian airliner containing Canadian passengers causing its crash but which is, in fact, a staged crash (with the necessary collusion of the US, Iran (Rouhani), Canada and the Ukraine)
— Rouhani blames Revolutionary Guards (led by Soleimani) for “accidental” shooting down of plane followed by the laying of fake charges. Rouhani will cry some crocodile tears and Trump and Rouhani will collaborate in what it is they wish to collaborate in.

What doesn't make sense
— US assassinates Soleimani on its lonesome
— Fake plane crash (necessary collusion by the US, Iran (Rouhani), Canada and the Ukraine)
— Rouhani blames Revolutionary Guards (led by Soleimani) for “accidental” shooting down of plane and now charges

I was prompted to check the veracity of the PS-752 crash after reading a photographed post, "The Soleimani Assassination and Occam's Razor" contained in a tweet sent to me - click bar below for post in text form.

The implications of the analysis below will confront generally-held paradigms in such a way that your initial reaction may be to refute them. Initial disbelief is the expected reaction, in fact, because regardless of how clear the evidence may be, our tolerance for cognitive dissonance, the mental pain experienced while holding two contradictory beliefs, is limited so ideas very contradictory to our paradigms need time to take on board. I ask the reader to give yourself time to consider my claims (there is no particular rush, it certainly took me awhile) and be ruthless in matching those claims against the evidence. I also ask the reader to ensure you consider all the evidence before refutation. In my vast experience of argument, I find that people will take an item that supports an hypothesis and provide a possible alternative explanation as if this acts as refutation. However, this reasoning is an example of the logical fallacy known as cherry-picking. While an alternative explanation may be possible, the possibility of it doesn't mean it actually applies and without evidence that it does, it doesn't debunk the claim. Most importantly, it is only one item among many. All the evidence must fit an hypothesis and the best-fit hypothesis is the one that logic says must be chosen. My endeavour is always to ensure that my chosen hypothesis is the one that fits best.

Consider the following:

• If you know that part of a story is a lie, without clear evidence that the rest of the story is true, is there any reason to believe the story at all. In fact, doesn't logic favour the whole story being a lie?
• Conversely, if you know that some aspects of a story are true might it be possible that those true aspects can be extrapolated to apply to the whole story rather than to the part of the story they are confined to?
• The nature of power is such that power can do what it likes when it likes. While we often talk of "cover-up" and tend to think of crimes being committed as stealthily as possible this is not always the case. As the power elite can do what it likes when it likes then sometimes it blatantly does just that - right in our faces - and dares us to do anything about it. It can be quite astonishing how much truth they tell us right in our faces while at the same time drowning us in propaganda. There are a number of reasons that we might infer for this "telling of truth" - for more on this see They Tell Us Clearly. The "telling of truth" takes various forms: sometimes it is simply the truth; other times it is in the presentation of a number of anomalies so extreme they cannot fit the story they tell us. Most importantly, they never provide any clear evidence of their story that someone who believes it can brandish to defend its reality. They are utterly meticulous in ensuring that they broadcast the truth in various ways and stage their event in such a way that only a simple blowing off of the magic propaganda dust will always reveal the truth. Sounds incredible? The vehicle used in the analysis below is an exemplar of this phenomenon. This phenomenon of "truth telling" also explains why no one can respond to my challenge to provide 10 points favouring the opposing hypothesis for a number of events.
• In the "telling of truth" sometimes people are set up to "tell the truth" (or partly "tell the truth" mixing it with lies) as if they are in opposition - this is known as "controlled opposition". In the events analysed below significant "controlled opposition" is evident. What is extremely important to the power elite is control of the story so having "controlled opposition" tell the truth (or more often truth mixed with lies) is an important feature of how they operate.
• When events are staged, people are hired to play roles. Often, what they say is "telling the truth" in the manner indicated above.

In the lead up to the 2001 Australian federal election on November 10, three major events occurred:

• Late August - Tampa affair
• September 11 - 9/11
• October 6 - SIEV 4, "the children overboard"

While certain events on Australian soil or more specifically connected to Australia indicate they are of the same ilk, the analysis will focus only on the Tampa affair and the SIEV 4. For the Tampa affair and the SIEV 4, the analysis is based on the wonderful treasure trove for the staged event analyst, the documentary, Leaky Boat, made by Screen Australia/Screen West and released in 2011. It is a must-watch through the staged-event lens, simply gobsmacking. The timing is significant - it would never have been made soon after the pre-election events, it would have been too obvious then, but a decade later it will pass. For 9/11 various sources are used. 

Tampa affair - August 2001
0:19
"... a fishing boat was about to sink, the engine blew, the boat flooded, fish swam across the decks. ... The ship's crew watched in amazement as out of the little boat came 433 refugees."
Comment: No images match this claim of a boat where fish might be swimming across the decks and we have to wonder why at this point the significant number of 433 people were able to move directly from the boat into the rescue ship as implied.

6:58
Brigadier Gary Bornholt: "In Defence it wasn't a big deal because these numbers of people were very, very small and that's why they didn't represent a security threat."

Admiral Chris Barrie, Chief, Australian Defence Force: "We don't actually remember that most of our illegal immigration takes place at our airports."

Vice Admiral Chris Ritchie: "It was the news story of the particular time that we were in and you can drive anything to hysteria by beating it up enough."

Comment: When does Defence come out and say something of this nature? These Defence personnel who speak rather blandly, almost smilingly, strike me as telling the truth in a controlled manner. The film, overall, seems a very controlled production so I see no reason to believe that these personnel are telling the truth "genuinely" as it were but rather in a controlled manner.

9:50
"The Tampa presented an opportunity. If an Australian boat had performed the rescue, the refugees would have gone into detention in Australia but here a large Norwegian rabbit had appeared from the hat of the Indian Ocean bringing for the first time the chance to say no."
" ... a large Norwegian rabbit had appeared from the hat of the Indian Ocean ..."
Comment: Doncha love it?

Over footage of a cargo ship we hear John Howard:
"The Government has requested that the Tampa not enter Australian territorial waters."

Then Arne Rinnan, Tampa captain, says:
"When I was looking down from the bridge the people were listening in to a radio they'd smuggled on board.

John Howard continued:
"Whilst Australia is a decent humanitarian country we are not a soft touch, we are not a nation whose sovereign rights in relation to who comes here are going to be trampled on."

Arne Rinnan:
"And then they went on the hunger strike. The only man on board who was really happy was the cook."

Comment: So, It seems the implication is that the refugees happened to catch John Howard's speech in Parliament on the smuggled-aboard radio, angrily comprehended his message of unwelcome and decided to go on a hunger strike. At the start of the film, we are told:
"The ship's crew watched in amazement as out of the little boat came 433 refugees. They told their rescuers to take them to Christmas Island or they would go crazy."

12:28
Three Afghan refugees appear and speak of their experience. The first two speak of the third and how he was in need of medical assistance. The third, Ghulam Amiri, says:

"That was me. That was me. I was unconscious because I've been eating or drinking three days."

Comment: The refugees are not native English speakers, of course, but it's interesting that Ghulam says "I've been eating" rather than "I hadn't been eating". This is the kind of anomaly we expect in a staged event.

Arne then tells us that 10 people were unconscious, going in and out of coma. It seems unusual that out of 10 people going in and out of coma none died without medical assistance and why were all these people going in and out of coma? Did the alleged hunger strike have a radical effect so early on?

14:09 
Major Peter Tinley:
"The mission was to board the Tampa and on command stop it."
Question: What does "on command stop it" mean? How do you stop a cargo ship in the middle of the sea? Was the captain to drop anchor and if this was the seemingly unlikely scenario, surely not the correct lingo?

A refugee says:
"Just running towards us with the guns and saying 'Don't move. If anybody move, we'll shoot.'"
Comment: Is this credible?

Another refugee says:
"First time the soldiers come up they think we are tourists."
Comment: Is this credible?

The first refugee says:
"And we were surrounded by them and then we saw that they are on the top level as well [laughs] with the guns.
Question: Why does he laugh? Seems a pretty scary situation, no? And how credible?

Major Peter Tinley:
"When I talked to the guys when they came back off the boarding parties, and said 'how did you find the group' they said 'Well, they're a bunch of refugees.'"
Question: Isn't this gobbledegook?

Major Peter Tinley:
"I'm not sure if they had thought about the threat environment in more depth that they couldn't have just sent a naval vessel there or sent a customs vessel."
Question: Why would they send a customs vessel to a refugee boat?

Tinley then goes on to say that he couldn't but feel that John Howard viewed the SAS as something that would resonate politically to the message of border security. "You can't amp it up more in the public's mind than saying, 'We're going to send in the SAS, we'll show you how tough we are on border security.'"

Beazley was right behind Howard (and we see evidence of this earlier and later in the film as well).
"And in these circumstances this country and this parliament doesn't need a carping opposition."

Comment: Beazley touches his nose in a seemingly obvious fashion twice. Touching the nose is believed by some, at least, to be body language indicating deception (here someone suggests, interestingly, possibly a sign of internal conflict). Was Beazley helping Howard to his election win? What's going on here? Carmen Lawrence, Labor member, wasn't in accord with Beazley but is she a "controlled opposition" to Beazley or genuine? If genuine, I'd say she's about the only person in the film who is.

20:36
"Over the week of the Tampa the government's approval rating rocketed 10 points."

SIEV-4 - 6 October, 2001

27:00
"In the weeks after September 11th, the government's polls continued to climb. John Howard called the election."

John Howard:
"This is a time, of course, to choose strength and purpose and stability over the alternative."

Stephen Mills, New Zealand Political Researcher, smilingly:
"It was as close as you can get to a khaki election, that's an election that's held during a war where incumbents are usually massively favoured and fear, anxiety, hatred, anger tend to rule voting choices."
Comment: Political researcher, eh, Stephen? Perhaps Stephen made a contribution to the "leaky boat" strategy.

"The very evening that Howard called the election, the most talked about, most misunderstood and most significant of the leaky boats that came that spring set sail, SIEV 4, the boat that came to be called the Children Overboard boat. On board with her mother and brothers was Zaynab Hassan. It was the first time she'd been on a boat."

Smilingly, Zaynab, an Iraqi refugee, says:
"For us as young kids, for me and my brothers it wasn't like scary, it was sometimes exciting to be on a boat ... it was like a movie or a cartoon."
Comment: This is not credible. I became a penpal of a refugee held in detention and his description of his trip sounded like pure terror and hell similar to other refugees’ experiences. And we see her suggest the truth “… it was like a movie …”.

Able Seaman Bec Lynd, on HMAS Adelaide, was told that a lot of the people on those vessels came from possible "terrorist countries" and our job was to stop any immediate threat to our country.
​Question: What's a "terrorist country"?

"The Adelaide fired 23 rounds across SIEV 4's bow. The refugees matched the escalation instantly."
Comment: A little reminiscent of the fish swimming across the decks of the Tampa? How credible is this? And the refugees were all set up in a leaky boat to match the escalation instantly?

"A dozen people threw themselves overboard. Fearing that the whole lot would jump, Banks [captain of rescue ship, HMAS Adelaide] sent a boarding party to bring the situation under control. The camera caught a rough image of the exchange."
Comment: Despite the shots across the bow wouldn't the refugees still have a better chance on board than throwing themselves into the sea?

Bec Lynd:
"When the boarding party got back on board they were talking about how some people had jumped into the water and another guy held up his child saying look we've our family on board, we've got our children on board."

"In the middle of these events, Captain Banks received a phone call from his Commander in Darwin. Wires got crossed. Later Banks insisted he said adults were throwing themselves overboard. His Commander was just as certain he said he'd been throwing their children into the water."
Comment: How credible is this?

33:05
"The captain and the crew did what no sailor would ever want to do: waited and watched until SIEV 4 actually sank. Then, and only then, could they rescue these people."

Bec Lynd:
"The sea was just littered with people everywhere. There were people jumping off the vessel and there were people clambering into the life rafts. ...
"I remember Laura Widdle jumping off the bridge wing onto ... into the water to swim out. [Unintelligble] she was slightly crazy for jumping off there."

Comment:
How credible is it that if the crew of HMAS Adelaide could anticipate the inevitability of rescuing the refugees that they would wait till all 223 were in the water? Wouldn't that make the rescue operation so much more difficult? How credible is it that one of the crew would be rescuing by jumping off the bridge wing?

"Back home, the Adelaide was already big news and the media were demanding pictures. Not of the rescue, but from the day before when children - so the hottest story in the country went - had been thrown overboard. These two events, one real, one imagined, now became confused and the pictures took on a life of their own."
Comment: "These two events, one real, one imagined" applies perfectly to the whole event.

Peter Reith:
"I just looked at them [images] and said, 'Well, OK, people in the water, they're from Defence, release them.' I didn't have a view about what they proved or didn't prove. In fact, I didn't think they proved much anyway. [Laugh.]"
Comment: "I didn't think they proved much anyway." Couldn't agree more, Peter, couldn't agree more. As the images of the boat sinking and the people in the water are not convincingly real and perfectly fit rescue drill and as everything we are told about the event lacks credibility the question becomes obvious: why believe the story at all?

Brigadier Gary Bornholt:
"This is highly colourful and highly charged image[ry] that we're being presented with. You can't turn round, two days later ... or a week later and say, "Oh, that wasn't actually true because it then brings into play, well, maybe all the other stuff wasn't true maybe the Tampa people weren't as bad as we thought they were. Maybe this is not about security, maybe this is about politics. Maybe it is. [Smile.]"
Comment: Oh most definitely. Doing wonderfully as controlled opposition, Gary, doing wonderfully.

47:32
Three days before the election with lots of stagey finger-pointing going on, it was admitted that no children were thrown overboard ... but the real question was: did SIEV 4 happen at all?

53:05
"After the election two more SIEVs came and then the leaky boats suddenly just stopped."
Comment: A variety of reasons are given but I think we might hazard a guess at the real reason, no?

September 11, 2001
Interesting fact. John Howard was in Washington and allegedly a "surprise" witness to the September 11, 2001 attacks but I don't think for a moment his presence there was a coincidence. I think that Little Johnny had been privileged by the big boys with front row seats to the most spectacular terrorist event the world has ever known.

At the start of this article, I ask the reader to consider that if certain aspects of an event are true might we extrapolate those true aspects to apply to the whole event. This is what I ask the reader to do for 9/11.

While historian, Webster Tarpley, lists 46 drills on 9/11, Wikipedia also tells us of a large number of operations and exercises on 9/11 and informs us there is supposed confusion about an ongoing NORAD exercise called Vigilant Warrior (as opposed to the semi-annual Vigilant Guardian). This article by Elizabeth Woodworth, The Military Drills of September 11th: Why a New Investigation is Needed, points out numerous anomalies in what is told to us about the military drills.

We have to wonder about so much confusion about drills. Shouldn't all exercises and drills be recorded clearly and be able to be listed without any confusion? So we have the remarkable coincidence of what we might guess is the greatest number of drills ever to occur in one day in the US, their anomalous confusion and the occurrence of the biggest terrorist attack the world has ever known. Could it be that 9/11 - far from being a terrorist attack conducted by 19 Muslim fanatics armed with boxcutters lumbering around the best-defended airspace in the world without a breath of interception or even a false flag where 3,000 people were callously murdered by their own government via destruction of only partially-evacuated buildings - was something of a completely different nature?

The bare bones of 9/11 are actually incredibly simple. 9/11 is a phenomenon exhibiting the following characteristics:
--- A Trauma-based Mind Control Psychological Operation (or psyop) in the form of a massive anti-terror Full Scale Exercise comprising many drills and exercises pushed out as a real terror attack

--- An Emperor’s New Clothes/Hitlerian lie right in our faces showing blatant disregard for Newtonian physics both:
• horizontally - two 200-ton airliners melting into 500,000 ton steel frame skyscrapers and
• vertically - three steel frame skyscrapers collapsing to the ground symmetrically in a matter of seconds with one of the three collapses exhibiting all the signs of a classic implosion

--- Collaboration with the US government in the exercise by other national governments, the media, response agencies, corporations, banks and many others.

--- An ongoing propaganda campaign comprising two basic streams, one directed at the masses and one directed at those who recognise 9/11 is an inside conspiracy because of the clear fact of controlled demolition (9/11 truthers).

• Story to the masses - Osama Bin Laden, 4 hijackings by 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters, 4 plane crashes involving incidental building collapses at the WTC and destruction of the West Wing of the Pentagon, DEATHS OF 3,000 PEOPLE AND INJURY TO 6,000

• Story to the 9/11 truthers, using a number of disinformation agents – Controlled demolition particularly focused on the collapse of WTC-7, minimisation of analysis and expression of ambivalence in relation to plane crashes, DEATHS OF 3,000 PEOPLE AND INJURY TO 6,000

• The reason for the two-streamed propaganda campaign is to keep the truth stagnant. While the truthers have one major piece of the puzzle correct (controlled demolition) but another incorrect (death and injury real) they will not be able to get anywhere because non-truthers will simply not accept that the US government killed all those people in the buildings … and in this belief the non-truthers are perfectly correct. That would never be the perps’ MO.

What we must do is detach ourselves from any story presented (and especially be mindful of how they play to our emotions with stories of tragic deaths) and make our own story from the evidence provided. We need to wrest control of the story from the power elite and make our own story directly from the evidence - which, admittedly, can be tricky when you have wall-to-wall controlled opposition as in the case of 9/11 so cleverly mixing truth with lies. It took me four years of overcoming the clever propaganda strategy to work out the pivotal truth of 9/11: the staging of death and injury.​

"Those who do not have power over the story that dominates their lives, 
the power to retell it, rethink it, deconstruct it, joke about it, and change it as times change,
truly are powerless, because they cannot think new thoughts." 
Salman Rushdie

You can read about the various aspects of 9/11 on the following pages:
Propaganda strategy to keep truthers persuaded of the lie that 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured on 9/11
Collapse of WTC-7
Four faked planes crashes
Fakery of death and injury
The "magic dust" that gave Ground Zero the appearance of a war zone
Australian 9/11 researcher, Gerard Holmgren, brother of David Holmgren, the co-originator of permaculture. Of all 9/11 researchers whose work I've encountered, Gerard is the one who most impresses me and with whom I feel I share a similar logical approach while recognising his far greater political knowledge and scientific understanding. I'm very sorry I only knew of him after his death.

Below I will provide the evidence for how the perps actually TELL us that they were responsible for 9/11.

Presages - Many instances of allusions to 9/11 in films and other media dating from the 1940s.

Airliners 

• The impossible melting of the plane into the building was required to give credence to the lie of an impact-caused fire bringing the building down, however, having the plane go right through the building was above and beyond the story’s requirements. It so loudly and clearly advertised “HOAX!” In an interview with a FoxNews reporter shown a short time after the building collapses, a witness, Mark Walsh, who is very anomalously smug and smiling after such an horrific event, referred to the site as “Ground Zero”, a term designating the place on earth below the detonation of a massive bomb. How’s that for chutzpah? Mark also describes how he saw the second plane “ream right into the side of the twin tower exploding through the other side.”
• Hani Hanjour was the least-likely terrorist of the band chosen to perform the breathtaking 330 degree manoeuvre into the Pentagon. His alleged flight instructor tells us (in a disguised voice to maintain anonymity) that little Hani would cry when he was instructed to attempt stalls and steep turns.

Fakery of death
We are shown few images of dead people which is not unexpected, however, this particularly gruesome one of a jumper who has hit the pavement is obviously fake and is reminiscent of a scarecrow with the stuffing taken out. See more on fakery of death and injury.

Dialogue after the collapse of WTC-7 at 5:20pm on 9/11 at the World Trade Centre
Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant 
"Can you confirm that it was No 7 that just went in?" ["Went in" is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
"Yes, sir."
"And you guys knew this was comin' all day."
"We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down."

Pre-announcement
Jane Standley announced on BBC television that WTC-7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it did. How is this possible for an unplanned collapse by fire?

Owner claims he said to "pull it"
Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC-7, says he said to "pull it", a term used in controlled demolition that no doubt originates in pulling buildings down using ropes and chains. Obviously, it wouldn't have been at his command the building came down, it would have all been pre-planned, his words are just one of their "signs".

Terrorists popped up alive
This is a good one, no?

Election fraud doesn't just take the form of fiddling votes, does it? Then again, judging by what we see of Kim Beazley in Leaky Boat he would have, against all democratic principles, taken us to war in Iraq too.

This was written in March but I'm just posting it now.

Until the moment I started reading George and the ISIS bride (Off-Guardian, 23 Feb),  I felt no reason to disbelieve the “ISIS brides” stories I was vaguely aware of. But it suddenly occurred to me when reading Kevin Smith’s article that, like so many other stories put out by the media, the ISIS brides stories are made up. Especially where a story seems improbable or seems to have a propagandistic force behind it, it is advisable to question the story itself, before analysing the responses to it.
​
The article focuses on Shamima Begum, one of four teenagers who are referred to in the media as “the Bethnal Green trio” including Shamima (aka Shahima), Amira Abase and Kadiza Sultana and their friend, Sharmeena Begum (no relation). Sharmeena left for Syria to marry her Jihadi terrorist while the “trio” left two weeks later, each to marry their own Jihadi terrorist. I was most confused when I first started to study Shamima because I somehow missed the “trio plus friend” configuration and believed that Shamima and Sharmeena were one and the same person. One wonders why this configuration? Why not simply call them the “Bethnal Green quartet”?

Anomalies in news reports including interviews with Shamima
A number of anomalies can be seen in the reports and in the interviews with Shamima themselves on February 17, 18 and 21.

Posted on February 17, this indoor Sky News interview by an unnamed reporter with Shamima, face uncovered, begins with the label “Sky News has spoken to 19-year-old Shamima from East London hours after she gave birth to a boy in Northern Syria.” If the reporter is right there, why does the label says “from East London”? When asked what she named her son she says, “I named him after my own son cos that’s what my husband wanted.” “My own son” sounds strange. Wouldn’t you say, “my first son”? She later says, “Everyone was getting sick. My kids died.” Wouldn’t you also say, “My first two children died” and wouldn’t you perhaps say it with a bit more emotion and detail and wouldn’t the journalist also express some kind of surprise, as he expresses no knowledge of this fact, and condolence? When asked how she felt living under Islamic State she says, “… only at the end, after my son died I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children, for the sake of my daughter and my baby.” So at what point did her daughter die if her baby is only newly-born? It is strange that so little is said about her first two children and it is rather strange that such a young woman in difficult circumstances would have borne three children. A native English speaker, she says, “I don’t have monies.” When asked if she has been in contact with her husband she says without any emotion or logic (in the use of the contradictory words “don’t have to” and “would like to”), “I don’t have to be in contact with … I don’t know if they would let me get in contact with … I don’t know where he is right now … I would like to get in contact with him.” Similarly, with no emotion she says, “Please don’t give up trying to get me back, I really don’t want to stay here.” It was announced March 9 that her newly-born baby has also died.

In this ITV news report by Security Editor, Rohit Kachroo, posted February 18, from Eastern Syria we do not see the “sprawling camp” noted in the following Sky News report and we have to wonder how and why Shamima has moved from Northern Syria to Eastern Syria overnight when yesterday’s report indicated she’d only given birth hours before and travel around Syria is difficult under any circumstances. Where is Shamima? She’s also wearing niqab which she throws back to give the interview. No niqab in the indoor Sky News interview but niqab here thrown back for an interview? I’m not an expert on Muslim customs but I know that’s not how women who wear niqab behave – wearing it here but not there and then throwing it back for interviews. There is the same lack of emotion displayed. She’s holding some clothing in which supposedly a baby is lying but there is nothing convincing to suggest she’s really holding a baby. After the interview we are shown images of men wrapped blankets described as “leaving the so-called caliphate”. Over images of people in transit, Rohit tells us, “We saw fighters and their families, one from Serbia, another from Ukraine. What happened to the foreigners who went to ISIS is one of the most pressing issues here.” When he says the word “Serbia” we hear a voice say “Serbia” with a Serbian accent. Similarly, we hear a voice say “Ukrania” when he says Ukraine. It’s almost comical. There is nothing convincing to suggest that these people in transit are “foreign ISIS families”.

From a Sky News report published February 21 by John Sparks:
“In a sprawling camp of canvas and wire for displaced people in Syria there is a special section for the members and associates of Islamic State, a “camp of the damned” occupied by the women and children of IS fighters and there are 1500 people packed inside.”

One wonders at the process for achieving this segregation. One also wonders at John Sparks simply saying “Syria”. Normally a reporter reports the location more specifically. One speaker has a French accent and one speaker appears to be from Trinidad, suggesting they are foreign “ISIS brides” like Shamima, however, we cannot be sure that the voices of the women match the women in niqab. These voices could be any voices and the women in niqab could be saying anything. We cannot match sounds to movement of lips. In fact, there is nothing that indicates that the reporter or any of the speakers are actually at the location of the video. Similarly, Shamima is shown in niqab with just her head appearing at the zippered opening of a tent, however, we only see the tent in closeup so we cannot be certain it’s the same locale as the sprawling camp nor can we have any certainty about the woman being Shamima due to the niqab and very limited screen exposure of the woman shown to us. Sparks says that Shamima told him that the “camp” had lost her “papers” while Shamima says that she’s lost her “card”. One wonders what documents are being referred to and if she wishes to return to the UK why is there no mention of her passport, surely the most relevant document?

Anthony Loyd, the journalist who found her in the Syrian refugee camp
In the New Statesman, we are told that Anthony Loyd, Times journalist, found Shamima in a Syrian refugee camp on February 13, in al-Hawl, north-eastern Syria. For a heavily-pregnant-then-new-mother Shamima certainly moves around – north-eastern Syria, northern Syria and then eastern Syria. Considering that this find was such a coup and that Anthony, according to Wikipedia, accidentally became a war photographer during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war, you do wonder at him taking no images of this historic moment.

Everything about this alleged journalist suggests he is an intelligence asset. In his article, The Man Who Shot Me Now Works For The CIA, (originally published in the Sunday Times and republished by SOTT), he says:
"It was with some surprise watching a video of a victorious band of western-backed rebels that I noticed the face of America's newest ally in the war against Isis in Syria. It was the face of a man I last saw in May 2014 when he leant forward to shoot me twice in the left ankle at almost point-blank range while my hands were tied. It was punishment for having attempted to escape his gang of kidnappers in northern Syria who had hoped to sell me on."

This can surely only be disinformation propaganda attempting to promote the laughable notion that the British do not collude with the US in their nefarious activities in Syria. His battered face could easily be produced by moulage rather than reflect a real assault and I find this interview with Christiane Amanpour where he describes being shot simply not credible. Of course, that might be because its purpose was to be used in the equally incredible “The Man Who Shot Me Now Works for the CIA” article.

The teddy bear
While this article is focused on Shamima I find the photo of Sharmeena’s family members and father of Amira Abase in this Daily Mail article, How jihadi bride's family sought help from hardline Isis apologists Cage...not police worth commenting on.

See 9/11: Controlled demolition as propaganda - Part 1

​Below are some of the players in the controlled-demolition-as-propaganda campaign.

• Super-baddie architects of 9/11
• Super-baddie prominent 9/11 figures
• Scientists pushing different theories
• Scientists helping to keep focus on controlled demolition while putting out either that there may have been real plane crashes or, there, in fact, were real plane crashes
• The commentators
• Israel! - The Dancing Israelis and the Israeli art project
• Loved ones and colleagues
• The victims of illnesses incurred at Ground Zero

Both individuals and groups are players in controlled-demolition-as-propaganda. In the case of groups there is no doubt that a number of group members are perfectly genuine possibly even the founding member/s but I'm not in the position to work out who's who in the zoo. I'd imagine that some groups might be set up at the outset as controlled opposition while others are parasitically taken over but it doesn't really matter how they're formed, it's how they operate once they've been infiltrated or set up deliberately. It's all about control: controlling where the focus is put to divert and distract, mixing lies with truth, and generally doing everything to suppress the key truth of 9/11: death and injury were staged. This truth is suppressed in order that truthers are hamstrung in persuading non-truthers that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy because non-truthers will not accept that the US government would kill all those people in the buildings ... and in this, the non-truthers are correct while the truthers are not, the US government would never have killed those people in the buildings because they do not operate that way.

SUPER-BADDIE ARCHITECTS OF 9/11

• In September 2000, a document was released by right-wing think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC) stating that what was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world’s resources was “some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” This could easily be a document designed simply to make the anticipated truthers believe that the perpetrators had no qualms about killing citizens in order to succeed in their quest for global supremacy. Would they really produce such a blatant document otherwise? In fact, they were absolutely truthful in stating that it would be a new Pearl Harbour. Both 9/11 and Pearl Harbour, like several other events, involved bombing of evacuated areas.
• In April 2001, a classified document detailing plans for false-flag operations in the 1960s code-named Operation Northwoods (containing some of the elements of 9/11) was released on the internet. This document may well be real, however, its release date is interesting.

SUPER-BADDIE PROMINENT FIGURES
The 45-minute video, 9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed!, by Jeremy Rys, aka Alien Scientist is a masterwork of propaganda that incriminates a large number of prominent people indicating that they were acting fraudulently and had targets in the buildings wanted rid of. While some of it is no doubt true, anything related to targets in the buildings is not. No one was targeted in the buildings and the companies Cantor Fitzgerald, Marsh & McLennan and various other companies were all in on the anti-terrorist Full-Scale Exercise pushed out as a real event.

SCIENTISTS PUSHING DIFFERENT THEORIES
What controlled opposition do to undermine truth is set up theatrical situations of divergence, for example, there is a group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, led by James Fetzer which split off to another group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, led by Steven Jones. Both these people are controlled opposition. We can make the assumption that any serious scientist who recognises controlled demolition will also recognise that the plane crashes were faked as evidence from multiple angles is provided but we need only the clear contradiction of Newtonian physics of alleged footage of 200-ton airliner melting into a 500,000-ton steel frame skyscraper ... with the truly in-your-face lie of the nose cone.popping out the other side of the building. 

SCIENTISTS KEEPING FOCUS ON CONTROLLED DEMOLITION - KEY PLAYER, ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
When I wrote to AE9/11 in regard to the plane crashes they responded with a video made by 9/11 truther, Anthony Lawson, who disputes the no-planes theory, supporting their position. I cannot be certain if Lawson was controlled opposition or genuine. If genuine, with regard to his argument about the planes, he's what's known as a "useful idiot", that is, he has been fooled by the controlled opposition and is helping propagate their arguments. In his video, he talks about possible different percentages of deceleration, however, it doesn't matter what percentage of deceleration the footage shows, we can tell instinctively it is simply not sufficient in the case of a collision between a 200-ton airliner allegedly travelling about 500 knots (which pilots say is an impossible speed close to ground level) and a 500,000 ton steel frame building (99.96% difference in weight). When a 1,600kg medium sedan crashes into a 15,000kg light-weight empty semi-trailer (a much lower 89.34% difference in weight) at only, say, 100mph the rate of deceleration is very, very obvious and to the eye simply looks almost like a stop. At this point in the video he says "... which shows the explosion developing and what must be a smoking engine arcing its way down to Murray St." This is rather hilarious: to think an engine has gone all the way through the 500,000-ton tower to sail down on the other side of the building.

The reason the focus is kept on controlled demolition rather than planes is that planes make it all too simple: fake planes means controlled demolition of buildings and also means right off the bat, 265 people did not die in plane crashes which prompts the question: if those 265 deaths were faked why not the other 2,735.

THE COMMENTATORS
I think many commentators who reveal significant truth about 9/11 but who always direct away from staged death and injury are controlled opposition. I won't name names, however, because it is very difficult to be sure if someone whether someone is spreading disinformation or is is simply genuinely misguided. One person I'll name, because the evidence is clear, is James Corbett. In an open letter to James Corbett, Allan Weisbecker points out James' mention of Flight 77 eleven times in his talk at the 9/11 Kuala Lumpur conference.  Allan claims that, while rubbishing the missile-into-the-Pentagon theory, James' frequent mention of Flight 77, without actually saying it went into the Pentagon tends to suggest it and I agree.

ISRAEL
Of course, Israel was involved as we can infer other nations were but the focus on Israel is all distraction propaganda as all was done under the auspices of the US government and they are the primary focus. A great deal is written about the Dancing Israelis, who allegedly were seen celebrating when the towers came down and who then had their van stopped at a roadblock which was found to contain explosives dust (yeah, right) and the Israeli student art projects, one of which involved students' occupation of the 90th floor and the removal of windows. This may have had some purpose related to the events of 9/11 but regardless, it functioned as distraction propaganda too.

THE LOVED ONES, COLLEAGUES AND WITNESSES
There are a number of loved ones and colleagues. See Point 5 for example of loved one, Bob McIlvaine and witness, William Rodriguez
​

At first sight "controlled demolition as propaganda" seems very counterintuitive. All 9/11 truthers know that controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC-7 on 9/11 is an absolute fact, no question about it but it seems counterintuitive that this clear, highly incriminating fact would be used as propaganda ... but it is.

The perpetrators knew that both:
1.   footage of 200-ton airliners melting into 500,000-ton steel frame skyscrapers and
2.   the claim of collapses of those skyscrapers in the World Trade Centre by fire
is in direct contradiction of unbreakable Newtonian laws of physics.

• Airliners would collide with the skyscrapers, not melt into them (see Plane-into-building fakery) and 
• Steel frame skyscrapers cannot collapse to the ground in a matter of a few seconds in symmetrical fashion from fire (see Free Fallin' )

So how to manage this Emperor's New Clothes affair whose truth will be worked out by the small but still significant percentage of the population paying attention?

I'll mention here the third major claim about the events of the day:
3.  Tragically, 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured.

Through smoke'n'mirrors style propaganda, the perps suppressed:

• the falsity of the third claim (3,000 deaths and injury to 6,000) - see 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured a lie
• using the truth related to the second claim (controlled demolition was cause of collapses).

By suppressing the falsity of the third claim the perpetrators have been able to keep the truth that it is they (not 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters) who are responsible for 9/11 in a stagnant position. Non-truthers will simply not believe that elements within the US government would cold-bloodedly and callously kill all those people in the buildings ... and in this belief the non-truthers are 100% correct. Ironically, the non-truthers are correct where the truthers are not! That would never be the perps' MO. It's not about absolute avoidance of killing their own citizens as they will blithely send their soldiers off to fight in self-generated wars that might involve being blown up by IEDs (improvised explosive devices). Yes, they'll blithely do that but they wouldn't kill their own citizens in such a manner for at least one very good reason: when controlled demolition is so obvious they could only anticipate all the loved ones of the victims descending on the Capitol in no time. While people may swallow, if reluctantly, propaganda fed to them by the powers that be under normal circumstances when there is any hint of a loved one being murdered by the state (especially where so many other loved ones were also killed) people will fight till their deaths for truth and justice. But, in any case, 9/11 was a psychological operation (psyop); psyops have rules and the power elite are so very experienced in duping us that there was simply no need for such a reality to occur regardless of any fallout. They didn't want to kill and injure all those people, just as they didn't have any desire for real plane crashes, they simply wanted us to believe in these things. They did want the buildings down, of course, and that's what they did for real.

An illuminating question to ask is: why did the propagandists choose the collapses of the buildings to keep analysts' focus on rather than the planes or rather than both the buildings and the planes?

Answers:

• Analysis of the faked plane crashes tends to lead to exposure of the falsity of the 3,000 dead/6,000 injured claim. Faked plane crashes automatically means that the claim that 265 people died is false. This then prompts the question that if that claim is false, why should we believe the claim for the remaining 2,735 deaths or the 6,000 injured, especially when the claims for the planes and the collapses are also false? Focus on the building collapses does not tend to lead to the truth in the same way - regardless of whether jet fuel or controlled demolition was responsible, it is possible that complete evacuations may not have occurred before the collapses.
• The fact of faked plane crashes obviates any need to analyse the building crashes. If there weren't any plane crashes then we know immediately that the buildings must have been engineered to come down ... the last thing the propagandists want is any kind of simple, straightforward analysis. No, no, no, no, no. They want us to be wading through tons of material and go round and round in circles arguing with each other about what exactly brought the buildings down, what people saw flying around (perhaps there were real planes in the sky, however, the footage of the "collisions" is definitely fake) and on and on.

It astounds me that so many 9/11 truthers apprehend the truth of controlled demolition but still believe in real plane crashes, notwithstanding the propaganda that minimises focus on the plane crashes and continues to suggest after 18 years that "we can't know for sure about the planes" or even that there were real planes. Obviously, if 9/11 were an inside conspiracy there would not have been any suicide pilots and there is absolutely no evidence that airliners could be remote-controlled into the buildings. But all we have to do is look at the obviously computer-generated footage of Flight 175 melting into the South tower. It's a physical impossibility. 200-ton airliners cannot melt into 500,000 ton steel frame skyscrapers, folks! That is not possible in the physical realm.

Everything was planned, of course. They didn't decide on the propaganda strategy after the event but before. The propaganda strategy was a crucial and continuing part of the operation, and we know they started rolling it out beforehand.

The basic propaganda strategy was:
use the truth of controlled demolition to suppress the lie of death and injury in order to stagnate the truth - truthers armed to persuade others with one piece of truth (controlled demolition) but another that is a highly-significant falsity (real death and injury) will be severely hamstrung in their efforts.

Part 2 covers the players involved.

​

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:

• achieved the assassination of one of their unwanted own
• successfully blamed the killing on the Allies

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.

• No one was armed with boxcutters and no hijackings took place
• No planes crashed into the twin towers meaning that neither their collapses nor that of WTC-7 nor any deaths and injury could have occurred incidentally
• No plane crashed into the Pentagon resulting in damage to the West Wing
• No plane crashed in a field

The major acts that did take place were these:

• Three buildings at the World Trade Centre were deliberately made to collapse by controlled demolition
• The West Wing of the Pentagon was damaged using a controlled method
• Many drills were conducted

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: 

• How did they ensure that the "right" number of people would be in the buildings before their collapses? Did they implement a particular evacuation regime in order that the designated number for the terror story remained in the buildings between evacuation of the last person and the building collapses? Who would have been responsible for implementing this grim Sophie's Choice scenario?
• In 12 second collapses there would be very few survivors so we have to wonder what caused injury to 6,000 people and how did they know what kinds of injuries would result for these people? How would they manage queries from this significant number of injured people over time as controlled demolition became more obvious?

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?

• Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor asks Jerome Hauer, WTC Security Contractor about the cause of collapse of the twin towers:
  "Is it possible that just a plane crash could have collapsed these buildings? Or would it have required the prior positioning of other explosives in the building? What do you think?"
  "No my sense is just the velocity of the plane and the fact that you have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building and I think it was simply the planes hitting the buildings and causing the collapse."
  Comment: This is propaganda to persuade us that 200-ton airliners were able to bring down 500.000 ton buildings ... with an oblique reference to the truth.
  
  
• Conversation between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about WTC-7, the third building to collapse at the WTC on 9/11, after its collapse:
  "Can you confirm that it was No 7 that just went in?" ["Went in" is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
  "Yes, sir."
  "And you guys knew this was comin' all day."
  "We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down."
  Comment: This is more truth than propaganda. We can only infer that it is a legal requirement of staged events that indications be provided that it is they who are responsible for the event and one of the ways is actually telling the truth. They very clearly tell us the truth by saying it "went in" and that they "knew it was comin' all day" with a little propaganda thrown in - it might "come down on its own" (no possibility of that). With regard to the "building was unstable" this may well have been a true statement as there could have been work done to weaken the building early on 9/11 when the twin towers were capturing all the attention or even before 9/11.
  
  
• Dan Rather reporting on the collapse of WTC-7:
  "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much of on television, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down."​
  Comment: The unadulterated truth, no?, at least, when you know it's scripted.

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.