There’s almost nothing left to say about 9/11 that hasn’t been said already by someone at some point.
And there’s nothing new to report: except for one development regarding legal proceedings, which I’ll touch on at the end.
But the 25th anniversary of that epoch-defining moment is inevitably seeing lots of the same things being said again, and the dramatic events of that day being revisited and re-analysed for the thousandth time: albeit in very carefully selective ways.
In terms of mainstream discourse, this is obviously geared towards strategic reinforcement of the official story. Every anniversary is an opportunity to reassert the desired narrative: or to try to maintain the spell that was originally cast.
For the rest of us, not so much.
Obviously I’ve written about 9/11 here various times previously. For anyone somehow new to the subject, this is a good place to start, as far as establishing the basic realities of 9/11 having been a staged event.
This one here explores much more the central Israeli involvement in 9/11, as well as the connections with Trump, Kushner and the New York elites.
And here was what I thought at the time would be the final post I would ever make on the subject of 9/11.
My friend James also had an entire site devoted to exposing 9/11 at one point: and it’s still online here. I’m not sure it’s even been updated since 2012, but it’s a great resource and time capsule in the longstanding endeavor to expose the obvious mass deception of our times. As he aptly wrote all the way back then: ‘We still have the right to know the truth… More than a decade on and the horrific attacks of September 11th 2001 continue to cast a long shadow over all of us.’
Certainly, I understand no one here needs to be convinced that 9/11 was an inside job and the official story was always a fiction. It would be astonishing to find anyone who, for example, reads this website and also still subscribes to the official version of what happened on that morning in New York.
But while I tend to lean towards not preaching to the converted, I also sometimes have to remind myself that there are people who do still believe in the official narrative – as baffling as this seems.
The level of denial or cognitive dissonance you have to be trapped in to still hold faith with the official story seems extraordinary to me.
But again, so much of the discourse today and for maybe the next few days will be precisely about maintaining this illusion.
Last weekend, I had a conversation with a younger person, who was talking to me about 9/11 documentaries on Netflix and about how insane, how astonishing, the whole horrible event was.
For context here, she was ten years old when the World Trade Center was attacked. I was 21 when it happened: but for both of us it was a vivid, impactful moment.
The more she talked about the documentaries, however, the more agitated I got: because I was consciously trying to avoid interjecting too much with ‘conspiracy’ observations. I generally don’t try to push my perceptions of things onto people – at least not in social situations. I’m mostly happy to let people have their own views, without needing to impose my ideas or beliefs onto them.
But the more this particular conversation went on, the less I could resist correcting her on key points. Eventually, I just gave in and started explaining to her various reasons why I’ve never believed the official version of 9/11.
I didn’t hit her with everything. I didn’t try to get forensic, just kept it simple.
For example, she didn’t need to know about Netanyahu’s friend Larry Silverstein having the towers pulled: she just needed to know that the only way those buildings could’ve come down the way they did was from controlled demolitions.
I certainly didn’t even try suggesting to her that the Twin Towers themselves were always intended to be brought down some day in a controlled ritual: that the two towers may have been designed in the first place as representations of the two pillars of Solomon’s Temple, hugely significant in both Jewish mysticism and in Freemasonry.
Again, she didn’t need to hear that sort of stuff.
I’m also often weary of exposing people to what I call ‘9/11 Psychosis’. 9/11 is often cited as the wake-up call or the gateway event/subject for people who begin to break away from mainstream narratives and to see things differently. In other words, someone realises 9/11 was a lie and their worldview is never the same again. It’s a common story that I’ve encountered a lot. Which is fine and makes perfect sense.
But I’ve also seen it go weird. Here’s the classic example: I had a friend years ago who was pretty mainstream in his perceptions – and he basically believed the official story of 9/11. One night I argued the case for the 9/11 false-flag with him – and, after a very long argument, I actually convinced him.
Barely two weeks later, he got in touch with me – and was by now fully immersed in things like flat earth and how space is fake: and now he was trying to convince *me* of those things, even accusing me of being gullible for believing the earth is round.
In just two weeks, he had gone from still believing the official 9/11 story to no longer believing in the shape of the earth: and now *I* was the naive idiot in his view.
That’s what I loosely refer to as 9/11 Psychosis. And I’m not saying anyone’s beliefs are right or wrong: just highlighting 9/11 as a sort of gateway drug into a larger terrain that isn’t always easy to navigate. Some people are fine. Others are like Alice tumbling down the rabbit hole, struggling to make things make sense.
But I get it: once you realise you’ve been lied to on such a monumental scale about so huge an event, it’s difficult to know what to trust anymore and how to reorient oneself.
Of course, there’s also a much broader kind of 9/11 psychosis: which is basically the collective, cultural psychosis that much of the world seemed to enter into after that morning. And which dictated so much of what was to follow.
Indeed, we’re still very much in a post-9/11 world. It’s hard not to look at most of the darker elements or failings in our landscape and not somehow trace it back to 9/11 in some way or another. 9/11 was a turning point: a manufactured turning point, designed to shift us from one world into another.
That notion, even that language, obviously hasn’t been lost in contemporary psy-ops, as we can see. It’s all being very deliberately evoked.
A compelling theory I once came across (and I can’t find the original source anymore, unfortunately) was the idea that 9/11 was literally the mass-trance trigger event that shifted us from the real world and into the simulation – which we have been trapped in ever since.
The idea was more complex than that, but I may revisit that theme here again at some point in more detail. The point is, although I probably don’t believe the literal version of that theory, I can totally empathise with where it’s coming from.
It has always felt like there’s a reality before 9/11 and an altered, darker reality after it. As I wrote in this older article, ‘There was a pre-9/11 world and a post-9/11 world. People born after 9/11 and *into* the post-9/11 world don’t really understand this, for obvious reasons: but people who lived in the pre-9/11 world and lived through the transition are more likely to understand the differences – and the normalisation of those differences…’
Getting back to the conversation I was having at the weekend, it’s always bothered me how pedantic and how tribal 9/11 Truthers and other conspiracy theorists can be: arguing, sometimes viciously, with each other over details or their specific theories.
When, actually, to me the only thing that really matters is agreeing that the official story was a lie and that a conspiracy was carried out.
I’ve seen interactions where a so-called ‘truther’ completely overwhelms another person with unnecessary details and sub-theories and makes the whole subject so unpalatable that the other person essentially gets scared off the matter entirely and is more likely to just cling to the official story instead.
The minutia of whether it was real planes or holograms, whether it was bombs in the basement or energy weapons, time travellers, or the dozens of other ideas or theories that are out there and constantly argued over, is all in itself a distraction.
And certainly none of that would be useful in a conversation like the one I was having at the weekend. All I needed to express to her was that there’s substantial reason to be sceptical of the official story. And for her part, she was receptive to that reality: even agreeing that Osama bin Laden probably had nothing to do with it.
The thing with all of these documentaries and films that keep getting produced – as valid as they are in terms of telling some of the human stories about 9/11 at the street level (which are still heartbreaking) – is that they also serve crucially to periodically reinforce the official story at key moments.
Even at this 25 year anniversary, it’s still essential to try to reassert the official narrative. 9/11, after all, has been described as a key ‘generational myth’ – a theme I previously explored here. Those myths need to be carefully reinforced at vital points – otherwise the spell starts to wear off.
I made a similar point here about the 7/7 attacks in London.
The Israelis are going to be doing it with October 7th for years and years to come. Even that event itself was carefully framed in terms of 9/11.
At this 25th anniversary juncture, there’s only one seemingly significant development in the 9/11 narrative still happening: and it’s the legal proceedings by some 9/11 families against select Saudi individuals for their alleged involvement in the attacks.
It’s a pantomime that keeps going then. I said here years ago that US authorities enabling legal action against Saudi Arabia was simply a way to use Saudis as a scapegoat and thus divert focus away from the Israelis, the CIA and the Bush administration.
As I wrote ten years ago: ‘Should the Establishment some day decide to allow for a 9/11 disclosure of sorts (in order to appease doubters, ‘Truthers’ and all of those vast numbers of people who’ve lost faith in government, media and major corporate institutions), it seems probable that the Saudis could be the scapegoat: some ‘rogue elements’ within the Saudi state secretly funding terrorism, etc. However, the accusation against the Saudis only concerns *financing* of the hijackers: everything else – the bulk of the conspiracy – would still had to have been conducted by American parties within the United States…’
It’s not that the Saudis weren’t involved – of course they were. It’s that they were obviously just part of the wider equation.
This is also the point made by Kit Klarenberg here in this recent article at The Cradle, where he highlights the obvious and documented CIA collaboration with the Saudi parties in question. Among other things, he highlights how ‘senior FBI officials tasked with investigating the attacks were prohibited from interviewing Saudi nationals, despite “many” leads pointing directly to Riyadh’s Washington, D.C., embassy‘; and this being because ‘probing those connections risked exposing the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate (GID) as a CIA “cutout”…’
As further highlighted, ‘High-ranking FBI officials quoted in the filing discuss how the GID was a longstanding CIA “proxy,” exploited by the agency whenever it was “unwise or not practical … to undertake an operation directly.”
In other words, ‘the Saudis’ in this particular equation are indistinct from the CIA.
Furthermore, of course, so long as everyone’s discussing the Saudis, no one will be mentioning Silverstein, the Israelis or the Mossad agents that were rounded up by the FBI after 9/11 (again, see here).
So, it’s just more redirection and narrative control. But that narrative fell apart a long time ago.
And, as I wrote many years ago, ‘By the time US/NATO-backed Al-Qaeda battalions were rampaging through Libyan cities in 2011, the entire 9/11 and Al-Qaeda narrative had become an utter farce: within 10 years, the US and its allies had gone from attacking regimes that they accused of sponsoring terrorism and Islamist extremism to attacking regimes WITH terrorism and Islamist extremism – and for that matter, with the very same terrorists/extremists they had used the previous false-flags and wars to BUILD UP in the first place. It was genius.’
At this point in our timeline, I would be fascinated to know what the percentage is of people who still subscribe to the official story of 9/11 is versus those who believe it was a conspiracy.
But I don’t know how to gage what those numbers are.
Based on personal interactions, I would say that most people have been freed from the spell of the official story by now. But I could easily have a misleading, skewed perception of this.
What’s not debatable, however, is that the real murderers, the real conspirators, the real architects of 9/11, are very much still at large – and still thriving.
More than that, they’re running the world. It’s their world we’re living in. They’re the script writers, the directors, the showrunners. They’re the magicians, the illusionists.
And they will never face justice. Will never be held to account.
And, beyond the 3,000 or so real, human victims of the 9/11 false-flag and ritual sacrifice, that is the real enduring horror of the 9/11 attacks.
