9/11: Controlled demolition as propaganda - Part 1

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.

​