From 9/11 Till Today: Don't Ask Questions
If I told you that one of the ways in which one of the 9/11 hijackers was identified was by his passport surviving the crash and explosion of his plane in one of the towers, would you believe me? (Remember, the black boxes of the planes were apparently destroyed.)
This being part of the official story of that day has always bothered me. How can we possibly be expected to believe this?
And this is only one of many questions.
It is established without doubt that there had been a myriad of warnings about terrorists seeking to hijack planes in the US. The CIA had warned Bill Clinton. George Bush had been warned in August 2001, that Osama bin Laden was planning hijackings in the US. Former British cabinet minister, Michael Meacher, has laid out the seemingly countless warnings which were given.
How then did the hijackers seize control of four planes successfully? How did they gain access to the cockpit? How did they take control of planes, all of them piloted by former soldiers, with only box cutters? How did they get boxcutters on the plane? How do we even know they used boxcutters?!
I could imagine them being successful in taking control from the pilots in one of four, but managing to hijack all four?
How did the cellphones of passengers work from high altitudes?
How did three of the four hijackers manage to hit their targets in high-speed jets, at high-speed dives, travelling far above their low altitude velocity limits, with zero experience of flying such machines?
And where is the fourth plane that crashed in the field outside the small town of Shanksville, Pennsylvania? There was no wreckage.
The families of victims have been asking these questions for years. They managed to force Bush to begrudgingly convene a commission of inquiry years after the fact, and oust Henry Kissinger of all people from the original chairmanship, but they have never got any answers.
You are not even allowed to talk about World Trade Centre Building 7, which collapsed at freefall speed despite not being hit by a plane.
You must not wonder why nothing has been made of the fact that the hijackers rented an apartment from a paid FBI informant months before the attacks.
You must forget that the only arrests made on 9/11 were citizens of another US ally, Israel, arrested when a new Jersey housewife spotted a group of them celebrating the explosions from a distance. Official FBI and police records note traces of explosives were discovered in their van, that they worked for a Mossad front company, and that they were quietly deported to Israel after repeatedly failing lie detector tests whilst in detention.
And the dozens of Israeli spies who had connections with the hijackers? Forget about them.
Within months and years, the US would invade Afghanistan, a country who said they were willing to hand Bin Laden over, and then Iraq, a country who had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have weapons of mass destruction either.
A new regime of safety and surveillance and democracy building would take the world by storm.
When all they had to was lock the cockpit door.
I have no idea what happened on 9/11. But I do know the official story is nonsense.
Peter Hitchens recounts a sad and poignant event of the middle of the First World War, when Lord Lansdowne, a former British Foreign Secretary, having seen and heard enough of carnage of the trenches which had left millions of young men dead, wrote to the Times newspaper, suggesting the time had come for peace.
The result was not unexpected. And Hitchens points out the tragic consequences which ensued from ignoring the question posed by Lansdowne:
The Times refused to publish the letter. He was pretty much driven from public life. He was falsely derided as an unpatriotic defeatist, when he was the opposite.
If he had been listened to, we would have had no Russian Revolution, no Stalin, no Hitler, no Mussolini, and no Second World War.
Britain would have survived as a major power for many decades longer than she did. Almost all wars end in ugly compromise. We were only able to defeat Hitler because Stalin was on our side, and he exacted a huge price – including gobbling up Poland, the country whose independence we had gone to war to save.
Now, as I showed during the covid panic, I think it my duty to stand up against the majority when I think they are wrong, and I think it my job to endure the abuse that follows…
Hitchens goes on to write about a possible Ukrainian peace, but I want to draw another lesson from the event he recalls here.
It is no longer controversial to ask whether Britain, France, or the US should have questioned their commitment to the First World War, and sought a negotiated peace once they found themselves in it. We know looking backwards what horrors would be unleashed in the aftermath of the war.
But at the time it was considered unspeakable, impolite, politically incorrect, irrational, stupid, inhumane and even traitorous, to suggest such a thing.
And this is how so many of us who question the crusades of our time are treated and considered by the polite rulers of consensus of today’s world. Whether it be the issue of diversity, equity and inclusion (DIE) or covid, there are certain questions you are discouraged from asking or even thinking.
I believe we first saw this in my lifetime when it came to 9/11, which happened 21 years ago last Sunday.
There is a historical connection between covid and 9/11 too.
Most people have forgotten the anthrax attacks which took place in the weeks after 9/11.
(This in itself is strange because the panic caused by the anthrax attacks helped propel the US and its allies into creating a global machinery of war-making and surveillance which still makes air travel a nightmare, which allowed states to tap your phone calls, and emails, and which caused the deaths of millions around Africa and the Middle East. We still do not know who was behind the anthrax attacks, but we know the anthrax came from a US lab - something which is inarguable, but if you tell people, they think you are mad.)
But it was the US government response to the anthrax which foreshadowed the response to covid.
Much of what follows, I gleaned from Michael Senger’s brilliant piece below:
To be sure, the US government had already become fixated on bio-weaponry before 9/11, running a famous war game simulation in June 2001 called Dark Winter.
Whilst the story is disputed, post 9/11, post anthrax, in 2005 President Bush launched a pandemic plan that would call for stockpiling of masks, school closures, social distancing, and the development of new vaccine technology:
In a November 2005 speech at the National Institutes of Health, Bush laid out proposals in granular detail -- describing with stunning prescience how a pandemic in the United States would unfold. Among those in the audience was Dr. Anthony Fauci, the leader of the current crisis response, who was then and still is now the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
"To respond to a pandemic, we need medical personnel and adequate supplies of equipment," Bush said. "In a pandemic, everything from syringes to hospital beds, respirators masks and protective equipment would be in short supply."
Bush told the gathered scientists that they would need to develop a vaccine in record time.
"If a pandemic strikes, our country must have a surge capacity in place that will allow us to bring a new vaccine on line quickly and manufacture enough to immunize every American against the pandemic strain," he said.
I wonder how the great and the good of the world feel about merely following in Bush’s footsteps?
After all, scientists had known for decades that the ancient practices of quarantining the healthy was completely counter-productive in defending society against viruses, and the concept of herd immunity had been at the forefront in dealing with the Asian flu of 1957 and the Hong Kong flu of 1968 (during which Boomers had still been allowed to go to Woodstock). Up to 4 million died in each pandemic but there was never a question that lockdowns would have, or could have, helped. After all, as Senger points out, polar explorers, utterly distanced and isolated, have not been able to hide from respiratory pandemics. Virology is basically guesswork.
But somehow Bush’s cronies revolutionized pandemic strategies, to accord with the same level of hubris his administration applied to the concept of nation-building and spreading democracy, and here we are, having lived through not only a War On Terror (unwinnable and incoherent) but also a War on Viruses and Elderly Death (equally unwinnable and incoherent).
In both of these modern wars, there were certain questions you were not supposed to be asking. The questions for 9/11 are above. But there are some of the questions cannot ask about covid today.
Why Wuhan? Why China? Latterly, I have come to wonder whether the fixation upon Wuhan in January was nothing but a red herring. After all, we now know covid was in Italy almost six months before the Wuhan lockdowns. But why were you not allowed to be even curious about the coronavirus lab in Wuhan?
Why was this report by the BBC, regarding masks, never followed up on?
Why did the WHO praise the Chinese approach so uncritically to the rest of the world?
It was obvious from the beginning that the vaccines could not stop spread, and that they were risky. Why have none of these people been held accountable for lying so flagrantly?
How on earth did normal people get conditioned to tolerate this?
But something has shifted now.
There are too many of us who do not buy into the stress, inflammation and safety-ism of the regime, to keep certain questions from being asked.
Subscribe below as I keep asking these questions.
Next up, I take another look at the mortality and fertility data from the developed world post-lockdowns, post-mass vaccination.
Have you heard of the Toronto Hearings? https://youtu.be/kpiVv8tQdmY
Independent scientists, engineers, etc who discuss problems with the official 9/11 narrative.
Another war comes to mind, one you are not permitted to question: (man-made) climate change