9/11 Truth: the World’s Best Hope

The Ultimate Call for Unity in Diversity

Table of Contents

1 Acknowledgements

2 Introduction and Pre-Requisites

3 An Obvious Cover-up Leads to a Huge War

3.1 The Obvious 9/11 Cover-up

3.2 An Executive under Constant Scrutiny?

3.3 Watchdogs Have Ignored 9/11

3.4 Internal Watchdogs Have Failed to Bark

3.5 Congressional Watchdogs Have Failed to Bark

3.6 U.S. Judges Have Failed to Bark

3.7 State Governments Have Failed to Bark

3.8 Foreign Governments Have Failed to Bark

3.9 The Media Have Failed to Bark

3.10 The Internet Exception

3.11 Corporations Have Failed to Bark

3.12 Scholars and Professionals Have Failed to Bark

3.13 Religious Watchdogs Have Failed to Bark

3.14 Unions Have Failed to Bark

3.15 Human and Civil Rights Groups Have Failed to Bark

3.16 Peace Groups Have Failed to Bark

3.17 Guerillas and Terrorists Have Failed to Bark

3.18 From a Sloppy Cover-up to a Huge War

4 The 9/11 Censorship

4.1 Spontaneity versus Coordination

4.2 Powerful International Organizations

4.3 The International Cover of the 9/11 Censorship

4.4 Leaks and Plumbing, Ongoing

4.5 Plumbing through Spiritual Perversion

4.6 Leaks and Plumbing on the Day of 9-11

4.7 The 9/11 Censorship Was Globally Coordinated

4.8 Who Would Qualify as a 9/11 Censor?

4.9 The Resistants: The Unsung Leakers

4.10 The 9/11 Censorship as an Overarching Issue

4.11 9/11 Has Been a Liberal/Muslim/Peace Job

4.12 Action Item: Reprioritize 9/11 Truth Activism

4.13 First Activism Tool: How to Identify a 9/11 Censor

4.14 Who Are the 9/11 Censors?

4.15 Second Activism Tool: How to Engage a 9/11 Censor

5 The 9/11 Censorship’s Context

5.1 The 9/11 Censorship and Other False Flags

5.2 The False Flag Censorship and Other Conspiracies

5.3 The “Mother of All Censorships?”

6 The Global Platonic Theater

6.1 What is a Platonic Theater?

6.2 An Inverted Platonic Theater

6.3 The Platonic Masters

6.4 The Essential Psychopath

6.4.1 Essential Psychopathy

6.4.2 The Young Essential Psychopath

6.4.3 The Essential Psychopath’s Climb to Power

6.5 Pathocracy

6.6 From the “Hysteroidal” Cycle into Pathocracy

6.7 A U.S. Hysteroidal Peak

6.8 Essentially Psychopathic Platonic Masters?

6.9 Towards a Global Pathocracy?

7 Leaving the Global Platonic Theater

7.1 9/11 Truth as the Way Out

7.2 Third Activism Tool: 9/11's Baby Step

7.2.1 Why a Baby Step?

7.2.2 The 9/11 "Baby Page"

7.2.3 Building 7's Teaser Slide Show

7.2.4 The Baby Step's Net Effect

7.2.5 The Baby Step on Censors and Leaders

7.3 Streamlining 9/11 Truth

7.3.1 AE911Truth Demystifies Building 7

7.3.2 Building 7 Thickens the Epistemological Plot

7.3.3 AE911Truth Demystifies the Twin Towers

7.3.4 The Twin Towers Set 9/11's Epistemological Question

7.3.5 Welcome the Censorship Early on

7.3.6 Fourth Activism Tool: the Fundamental 9/11 Pages

7.3.7 Fifth Activism Tool: the Demolition Tree

7.4 9/11 Truth’s Short Action List

7.5 Summary

Since I started to put this e-book together, I have jokingly told whoever wanted to hear it that I am now a 9/11 scholar. Since this e-book appears to be the de facto authority on 9/11's essence, the idea has merits. However, it does not matter much. What matters much is that for the first time, all “we the people of the world” need to comprehend about 9/11 is condensed in a single, well structured, freely accessible piece. The essential 9/11 puzzle has been solved and the resulting picture is a disconcertingly easy and incredibly promising road map. This is the time to thank the numerous entities and people—many of whom I don’t know or remember—who have made this possible:

The real 9/11 scholars, who have devoted countless amounts of personal energy researching much of the information I compiled in this e-book, exposing themselves to professional retaliation as well as public ridicule and demonization. I humbly apologize to them for using much of their work from memory and not specifically attributing it to them.

The 9/11 leakers: the numerous, mostly anonymous, unsung 9/11 heroes who have dared to pass prohibited information through the web of the 9/11 censorship. Some paid the ultimate price for it.

The members and assistant organizers of Orange County (California) 9/11 Truth , whom I have the privilege of leading as of 2010-Oct, and fellow Southern California 9/11 truth-seekers and 9/11 Truth leaders. Much of the inspiration for this e-book came from our common work “in the trenches” against the seemingly impenetrable 9/11 censorship. I also largely owe them the fall of my liberal pride.

The indomitable Richard Gage, AIA, and my fellow volunteers at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth , who taught me much and have been a consistent source of support.

My close relatives, starting with my amazing wife, who have put up with what they have viewed—with some reason from their perspective—as a single-minded quixotic obsession with fixing the whole world at the expense of living a normal life.

The Freedom Forum of Orange County (California) , whose awareness and eagerness to learn spurred me to prepare in 2 weeks the presentation that incubated this e-book, which I originally planned to do over 2 months.

My dear friends and acquaintances at the Inside Edge Foundation , an Orange County (California) club of sweet, sharp, open-minded and curious people who meet weekly in the wee hours to learn about unusual educational and pragmatic topics. I owe them much for my connection to the following items in this list.

Universal Healing GrandMaster Dasira Narada, his successor Master Dang, the teachers Master Dang nurtured, and their students, who taught me—through the universal and spiritual realms—that I had a right brain and that it could work wonders.

My mind's soul and the other spiritual entities that have sustained me and inspired me as I learnt, not always in a pleasant environment, what I report in this document.

The authors of the many self-help systems I used in the last few years as I struggled with my mental health.

All the people and entities who have been evil on me, first among them the agents of the U.S. Department of Defense who harassed me in 2007 with unconventional means as I woke up to 9/11. Without their attacks, ignorance and pride may have prevented me from turning into the highly useful person I seem to be becoming at last.

This is the fifth public version of this e-book. I am very grateful to the readers who took the time to provide feedback since I rushed to upload the first version of this text on 2010-Aug-23:

Most of them graced me with congratulations, gratitude, surprise, curiosity, and relevant questions. Common shockers have been the need to drastically reprioritize political advocacy worldwide and the repeated call for understanding, compassion and forgiveness.

One reader, who knows full well that I wrote in a language I was not raised in, kindly listed the most egregious English mistakes.

One reader who is very concerned at the Mossad’s role in 9/11 was very pleased and stated that he would pass it around. This was highly comforting, for one of my ambitions is to redirect the rancor many 9/11 truth-seekers legitimately feel against the supposed 9/11 terrorists and their protectors into truly effective channels.

One reader took the opposite track, stating that my analysis misses the overriding truth that “the Jews” are the source of not only 9/11, but just about all evil. I reasonably expect other readers to formulate the same criticism regarding other candidates for the Platonic Masters (see section 6.3). I’ll answer that this e-book does not refute their pet theories but merely kindly and consciously stops short of endorsing them. It establishes that the exact identity of the Platonic Masters matters much less than their pathological nature and that seeking revenge against them is immoral and counterproductive. Instead, it offers 9/11 truth-seekers pragmatic viewpoints, motivation, suggestions and tools to work together and lead humanity out of its global Platonic theater.

Another reader took an intermediate step of refusing to review this book after finding that it did not mention the "USS Liberty," downplayed the importance of getting the Mossad to answer for 9/11 and mentioned David Icke's "Reptilian" theory without rejecting it.

Several readers have summarily, and at times severely, criticized this work for proposing that the goal of finding and punishing the actual perpetrators of the 9/11 terror attacks is misguided. At least one critic has suggested that it could be a malevolent maneuver to divide the 9/11 Truth movement. The superficial and emotional nature of these criticisms gives the impression that these readers either made little effort to understand this e-book, tend to reject original ideas outside their own framework, or are frightened by the sheer magnitude of the changes in human customs and behavior this work seems to be the harbinger of.

Two readers very reasonably asked for a table of contents I did not provide initially it because of the extra work involved. Once I provided it, several readers very legitimately complained that its hyperlinks did not operate and one advised me to format it in a friendly way. This part of the e-book appears to be final.

One reader asked for references. I am slowly providing them, as work priorities allow.

A reader complained that the list of false flags other than 9/11 (section 5.1) was too short and offered an exhaustive list. I preferred to keep it as is because most false flags other than 9/11 are controversial and little-known, even within the 9/11 Truth community. The purpose of section 5.1 is not to demonstrate that the count of probable false flags is high, but to check the applicability of the 9/11 censorship to many other false flags.

One category of feedback I still have to receive—and which I do not look forward to—is the scorn, the demonization, and the threats other 9/11 Truth authors have received. Section 7.4 reminds the readers that such prose reflects merely its authors’ poor intellectual awareness or abilities, unless of course they knowingly serve our Platonic Masters. My only anticipatory reply to such comments is a firm and respectful reminder that a prerequisite to enter Mr. Noël’s censored high school sociology class is to graduate from Mr. Gage’s censored high school science class (see section 2).

Several readers have complained of difficulty making sense of this e-book because they did not know for a fact that 9/11 was a false flag operation. One provided a polite "conspiracy theory" feedback. Evidently, they did not pay much attention to section 2's warning that the knowledge of 9/11 as a false flag is a pre-requisite to understanding this document. I expect the introduction page with "funnel questions" along the lines of Marty Lopata's "Yes" method to weed out these readers and give them an incentive to educate themselves on 9/11 at a basic level.

Several readers warned that including "the Jews" as possible Platonic Masters (section 6.3) was needlessly offensive and would make many readers summarily dismiss this e-book. I am fully conscious of this risk, but this item does belong to the list, given the objective evidence that many 9/11 truth-seekers (see example above) subscribe to this theory. Besides, it would be a disservice to the Jewish community and its friends to purposely omit this very real accusation against them and the possibility that it could coalesce into a very ugly scenario as section 3.13 alludes to.

Several readers have offered a wide spectrum of comments on my brazen inclusion of state-sponsored sorcery (section 4.5). Some have been grateful for it, while many correctly cautioned that it could make skeptics summarily dismiss the whole e-book. I still prefer to keep it because of the importance of this tool in the repression of 9/11 Truth and other dissidence, because it offers a remedy against attacks, because of my unique expertise in it, and because of the additional reason it provides to suspend judgment against the 9/11 conspirators and censors.

Because the teaser slide show (section 7.2.3) appeared to be much less popular than I anticipated, I turned it into a much simpler "baby web page" which can readily be copied to 9/11 truth-seeking webs and used to wake up people and neutralize censors.

Love,

Dan Noël, 2011-March-18

Welcome to the advanced—and final—class of the essential 9/11 course! It is a great honor to offer this analysis to “you the people of the world.” It is the purposely missing class in the high school philosophy and humanities curriculum. Its message is straightforward and it may be the most important of these times, whether you are a forgotten downtrodden refugee in Chechnya or a glitzy corporate tycoon in New York. Cherish it and “you” will usher in a global paradigm of intense love, peace, and healing. Ignore it and “you” expose “yourselves” to the opposite.

The fundamental 9/11 class—the only other indispensable 9/11 class—and your subsequent homework have taught you that the 9/11 terror attacks were a false flag operation:

The highest echelons of the U.S. government coordinated the preparations for and the execution of 9/11.

Elements in the U.S. military, in U.S. law enforcement, and in other entities, carried out the preparations for and the execution of 9/11.

U.S. agencies in charge of investigating 9/11 knew that their colleagues bore the prime responsibility for them, yet knowingly concocted a false cover story, blaming Al-Qaeda instead.

The U.S. government, then under the “neo-conservative” (neocon) GW Bush administration, subsequently claimed the obligation and authority to wage the “war on terror.”

The War on Terror—currently (2011-Feb) pursued by the democratic-bipartisan Obama administration under the euphemism of “overseas military contingencies”—is a process in which the U.S. government maintains a climate of fear of a repeat of the 9/11 terror attacks and leverages it as a cover for:

endless, exhausting wars

neglect of pressing problems—domestically and internationally

open corruption

political and social repression

seeming quest for an all-powerful executive branch

appointment of “tough on terror” judges, who bless the above as compatible with U.S. law, the U.S. constitution, and international U.S. obligations

pressure on other nations and international institutions to follow U.S. leadership in these matters

If the above information shocks you, reading the following sections will likely be a fruitless exercise. Instead, come back only after properly preparing yourself :

Take the fundamental essential 9/11 class, the science class that is purposely missing from the high school curriculum, by reviewing Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ’s demonstration of the controlled demolitions of the twin towers and the fraudulent nature of the ensuing official technical investigations. Their 2 hour slide show, available for free online, is more than enough. For good measure and to dispel any doubts, review what I think is, as of 2010-Sep, their most credible detractor: www.ae911truth.info . Infer that: The flagship events of 9/11, the spectacular and morbid destructions of the twin towers with over 2,000 non-combatants inside, are arguably the most formidable acts of terror in history. Accordingly, t he most formidable terrorists in history are not the alleged 19 fanatic hijackers of the official 9/11 story , but the highly skilled engineers and the support staff who put together the largest controlled demolitions ever under the nose of their victims . The U.S. government, through its successive statements and investigations, gave cover and protection to the most formidable terrorists ever. 9/11 earns the U.S. government the dubious title of protector of the most formidable terrorists in history. The U.S. government's solemn commitment to fight terror is a grand lie. . There has been a global conspiracy to censor this information.

Do the subsequent homework by examining your usual sources of information: Did they duly denounce the censorship of the cover and protection the U.S. government granted the most formidable terrorists ever? Accordingly reevaluate your trust in them. Look for sources of information that have duly reported on the cover and protection the U.S. government granted the most formidable terrorists ever. Review these alternative sources of information and accordingly give them more credibility.



This e-book is a work in progress. I have rushed it to the web because to my knowledge nobody has put together such a straightforward guide through the lessons of 9/11, including demonstrating the huge stakes behind 9/11 Truth and offering simple actions to wrap them up in an incredibly favorable ending. I am continuously correcting errors, elaborating on summary statements, and clarifying obscure concepts. Kindly flag errors and room for improvement to Dan.Noel@Global-Platonic-Theater.com. Good digestion!

You already know that the cover-up of the 9/11 false flag is mediocre by any standard. Let us briefly refresh our memory before analyzing its ramifications.

The false flag’s defining event, the controlled demolition of the twin towers, is obvious:

The video evidence clearly shows each twin tower undergoing a controlled demolition: The destruction is sudden and very fast. The roofline hits the ground hardly later than if it fell freely. At the very beginning of the phenomenon, the top part of the skyscraper suddenly disintegrates with no warning. All along the demolition, members of the steel frame are expelled with high momentum as if hit by some gigantic hammer. The skyscraper experiences explosive emissions of large quantities of powder. These motions are highly symmetrical. The demolition wave progresses down, floor by floor, with excellent symmetry and regularity. The demolition generates huge banana peel-looking clouds of powder, which form pyroclastic flows that quickly spread throughout downtown Manhattan The end result is that: Most contents of the tower have turned into the ubiquitous powder that blankets downtown Manhattan and has dispersed into the Hudson River. The steel columns have largely turned into numerous linear segments, ready to be picked up, tied on flatbed trucks, and shipped away. Many pieces of structural steel are spread outside the tower’s perimeter. Some jut neighboring buildings.

A few weeks after 9/11, TV reported the presence of large quantities of molten steel at Ground Zero. This would frighten the public into approving the launch of the Afghan war and of the enactment of the Patriot Act, but it would also provide 9/11 truth-seekers with another important clue: Very few chemical reactions yield liquid iron. All require a special set-up, such as a forge or a blast-furnace. The molten iron specifically hints at the use of thermite, a reaction that burns aluminum with concentrated oxygen from iron oxide and is capable of melting iron.

In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that the above-mentioned 9/11 powder contained microspherules of iron, labeled them “mysterious” and did not analyze them. These spherules are a telltale sign of high pressure spraying of liquid iron and support the contention that thermite was used to cut through the twin towers’ steel structure.

Later, independent researchers, led by Brigham Young University Prof. Steven Jones, got a hold of some resolidified 9/11 metal. They found its composition to match a thermitic residue.

Later still, independent researchers, again led by Prof. Steven Jones, got a hold of some 9/11 powder, examined it and tested it: They confirmed the official finding of iron microspherules. They found their composition to match a thermitic residue. They also found small fragments of unexploded and partially exploded nanothermite, a highly advanced variation of thermite that at the time of 9/11 was a novel material, believed to be manufacturable only in labs under U.S. military control.

As if the above evidence was not sufficient, the final official technical investigation into the “collapse” of the twin towers, published on the web in 2005 by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, bears multiple attributes of a cover-up: Only a small fraction of the steel debris was available for the investigation. Most of it had been rushed overseas to be recycled before even being photographed. Tellingly, a simple campaign to systematically photograph the cuts would have been highly valuable to determine the cause of these ruptures. The introduction states that the scope of the report is limited to studying the behavior of the twin towers up till the start of their collapses. The report is very long and filled with complicated engineering concepts, some of which are innovative, daring and poorly justified. Several crucial statements appear to be intentionally written in doublespeak, conveying a certain message to the hurried reader and a very different one to the reader who meticulously parses them. The report cleverly buries its description of the “collapse” so that an unsuspecting reader goes through intellectually and technically taxing reflections before finding it. The only subsection dedicated to the actual “collapse” is not a technical analysis. It is half a page long, contains no engineering or mathematical concept—not even a number—and reads like an essay by a middle school valedictorian. It is well written, well structured, but demonstrates nothing. Worse, the description of the “collapse” does not resist a critical analysis at middle school level. It does not even match major elements of the video evidence.



The rest of the 9/11 cover-up is hardly more convincing than the twin towers’ demolitions’:

Building 7’s controlled demolition is even more evident than the twin towers’: Unlike the twin towers’, it is a vanilla controlled demolition: it starts at the base (versus at the level of earlier terror attacks in the twin towers), and it is implosive (versus explosive in the twin towers). Building 7’s videos show the skyscraper accelerating straight down in quasi-free fall as if the Earth suddenly gave way underneath it. The video resemblance with a known controlled demolition is striking. News outlets promptly imposed a blackout on it, so that as early as 2001-Sep-12 very few people were aware of it. In 2002, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency reported that some of Building 7's structural steel had unexplainably been subjected to local melting and oxidized by sulfur. It concluded that further analysis would be needed. These were other telltale signs of thermite. It would be seven years before the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology would publish on the web its final technical report into Building 7’s “collapse.” This report, in the footsteps of the twin towers’, makes numerous technical assumptions without properly justifying them, appears to badly misrepresent crucial construction data, keeps important information secret under the pretense of public safety, challenges fundamental scientific principles, and offers a video model that poorly matches the actual incident.

Independent researchers have found reasons to question the identities and features of all four 9/11 aircraft, partly because official reports have not firmly established them, partly because of inconsistencies between the official reports and the available evidence. Just about every aspect of the Pentagon scene is inconsistent with the theory that the alleged Boeing 757 crashed there, as alleged by Pilots for 9/11 Truth , the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), and many others: The pictures of the building and its surroundings and the testimonies of several victims belie the official thesis. The analysis of the official black box files shows the plane’s actual trajectory to be incompatible with the official story in several important respects. So do the recollections of various witnesses to the plane’s approach, including a driver who got tantalizingly close to confessing to CIT that the fall of a light pole on his taxi—allegedly caused by the airplane—was staged. The Pentagon attack struck with amazing accuracy the offices of an audit team that was attempting to trace $2T ($2,000,000,000,000) that the Pentagon could not account for, terminating this investigation. There are numerous reasons to disbelieve Flight 93’s official story, which has it crash in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, following a desperate attempt by crew and passengers to overpower the hijackers. The crash scene looks much like a crude set-up, whereas clues that an airplane exploded at high altitude in that area abound. Photographic and video evidence of the twin towers’ impacts also suffers from discrepancies, as flagged by Dave von Kleist and other researchers. Let us mention Simon Shack’s "September Clues" as a highly thoughtful resource on this subject.

Independent researchers have found reasons to disbelieve the official stories of multiple airplane hijacks: All four 9/11 airplanes, according to official records, were almost empty. This was highly unusual for these flights, or for any U.S. transcontinental flight for that matter. Official reports never delved into this. The identities of many passengers are suspicious: Flight 77’s passengers were overwhelmingly U.S. military and U.S. military contractor personnel. When the media “randomly” interview their relatives, the same dead passengers come over and over again. Mark Bingham is one of these few. On 9-11, as the aerial drama unfolded, TV failed to show grieving relatives of the dead passengers. The Pentagon and Shanksville crashes failed to provide recognizable human remains. This would not prevent official investigators from claiming that they could identify victims’ and hijackers’ DNA. Official documents supporting all 4 doomed flights have been alleged to be incomplete, inaccurate, contradictory, or missing. Several of the 4 9/11 airplanes have been alleged to have been put out of commission years after 9/11. Suspicious coincidences have been pointed out regarding the identities of the crews. Passengers and crew members allegedly used telephones to communicate with the outside world. The official reports on these communications suffer from numerous changes and inconsistencies. All four crews allegedly surrendered control of their cockpits to unknown individuals simply after being threatened. Many observers found it incredible that they would not have negotiated with or fought the hijackers.

The alleged hijackers’ personal histories also raise their own share of enigmas and inconsistencies: There are reasons to doubt the identities of several hijackers. Worth noting are allegations that several of them were alive after 9/11, including alleged leader Mohammed Atta. Several hijackers, prior to 9/11, were reported to engage in activities that would belie the premise that they were religious zealots ready to meet their Maker; these included partying with alcohol, drugs and female non-Muslim lap dancers. The above point begs the question of how an alleged fanatic leader like Osama bin Laden would agree to finance such lifestyles. Much evidence suggests that several hijackers were under close surveillance by U.S. and Israeli government agents up till 9/11. Convincing evidence portrays the hijackers as incapable of piloting small planes, much less succussfully aiming large jets at buildings at extreme speeds on their first try.



To summarize, the 9/11 terror attacks were a dreadfully spectacular false flag, but their cover-up was sloppy. This brings us to the true enigma of 9/11: how could the U.S. government leverage 9/11 into the “war on terror?” The answer is that the cover-up was censored. In other words, virtually all leaders and institutions who would be counted on to denounce the false flag and its cover-up did not do so. Let us take a closer look.

The previous section’s last paragraph raises an immediate objection in the mind of those who are not familiar with the matters discussed in this document. They argue that the U.S. executive branch operates under constant scrutiny and that rogue U.S. activities could not and would not stay hidden, with the help of concrete examples, such as:

Monica Lewinsky: president #42, Clinton, had difficulty controlling his sexual urges. He was impeached and seriously weakened.

Iran-Contra: president #40, Reagan, secretly sold weapons to the rogue Iranian government. Unbeknownst to him, his reports diverted the profits to finance an illegal war in Central America. He was seriously weakened.

Watergate: president #37, Nixon, had no knowledge that his underlings were committing silly crimes against his opponents. He resigned in disgrace under the threat of getting impeached and fired.

Skeptics also correctly list an impressive catalog of watchdogs, which makes the U.S. president one of the most closely observed individuals worldwide:

Constitutional watchdogs: The supreme legal authority in the USA is the federal constitution. It provides for so-called “checks and balances:” The executive branch, headed by the president, has its own internal checks and audits. Federal inspector generals and prosecutors have the authority—and in many cases the obligation—to investigate and prosecute allegations of U.S. executive misdeeds. Each member of the U.S. congress is a watchdog over the president. So is each U.S. judge. So are the state governments, which gave some of their original sovereignty to the U.S. government in exchange for services.

Domestic U.S. watchdogs: The USA is reputed to be a bastion of individual freedom. As such, numerous people and groups of people, with highly diverse agendas, keep a watch over the U.S. government. The media: in the USA, unlike in most countries, the media are legally independent of the government, including financially. They largely belong to the private sector and enjoy the wide freedoms the United States grants corporations compared to most western industrialized nations. Universities: U.S. scholars hardly depend on politicians. University professors are almost impossible to fire. They will often argue with the government, as exemplified by their concerted efforts to force Global Warming concessions from the Bush administration. Corporations and industry groups: large companies and trade organizations exert a high clout over U.S. governmental activities. They often denounce policies or trends that would go against their corporate interests. They evaluate policies’ impact on employment. They also finance the president’s electoral campaigns and those of her/his political allies. Corporations and groups of corporations have even been accused of dictating public policies and literally writing pieces of legislation. Professional associations: many skilled professionals have their own affinity groups. They often lobby the U.S. government and forcefully protest policies that disfavor their members. Labor unions: U.S. unions are very powerful in government, as well as in large, traditional industries. They are highly influential in politics and are systematically courted by the Democratic Party. Think tanks: these groups of scholars and experts mull over numerous issues, formulate opinions, and accordingly influence decision-makers. Foundations: philanthropic institutions with various missions, mostly charitable and educational, inspire and finance much grassroots work, which in turn inevitably influences governmental policies. Religious institutions: the U.S. population is very religious compared to other western industrialized nations. It is mostly Christian, but fractured into a multitude of denominations with highly different theological underpinnings. U.S. presidents consistently claim adherence to Christianity and try hard to nurture good working relationships with religious denominations of all sorts. Religious groups have been instrumental in many policy changes, notably the end of racial segregation. Civil rights groups: various organizations defend individual rights, according to highly diverse missions. A multitude of marginal groups with unusual agendas (e.g. white supremacy, anti-Semitism, communism, atheism, freedom from taxation) that the U.S. government tolerates out of its constitutional obligation.

· Foreign watchdogs: The USA, as the “only superpower,” is by far the most powerful nation on earth. As such, foreign leaders and entities watch it closely. International organizations: the USA is part to many international treaties and covenants, which make it subject to international jurisdiction. “Hostile” governments: many governments are reputed to look for the most frivolous opportunity to antagonize the USA. They have a vested interest not only in scrutinizing the U.S. government, but also in abusing the United States’ sacrosanct internal freedom of expression to propagate untrue information for the purpose of fomenting dissension and political crises within the United States. Foreign organizations: countless foreign watchdogs—many of them similar to domestic U.S. watchdogs—keenly observe and often denounce U.S. activities and trends.



Many truth-seekers report being shocked after realizing that their trusted watchdogs missed the true nature of 9/11. Conversely, many skeptics understandably justify their unease about 9/11 Truth through the reverse argument.

As amazing as it seems, the above-mentioned watchdogs, with precious few exceptions, have essentially acted as if they “knew” the official 9/11 story to be indisputably true and worthy of nothing more than an occasional recollection or reference. Their treatment of the overabundant evidence of a false flag and a cover-up has been to completely ignore it. Occasionally, a watchdog has made a statement on 9/11 Truth, but almost always to dismiss, ridicule or demonize dissenters. Remarkably, each watchdog seems to tailor its arguments berating truth-seekers to its particular audience’s taste. Exceptionally, a watchdog has let through some information exposing 9/11 as a false flag.

As a result of this abnormal reaction by traditional watchdogs, new watchdogs have had to spring up (see section 3.10 ).

In striking contrast to their ignorance of the false flag, the watchdogs generally do their job regarding the policies that 9/11 has engendered:

Many watchdogs oppose the wars induced by 9/11, partly or totally.

Many watchdogs oppose the U.S. and worldwide repression that 9/11 has justified.

Many watchdogs deplore the neglect of other needs as the U.S. government devotes the bulk of its resources to war and national security.

Interestingly, while the official 9/11 myth is essentially off-limits, these 9/11-induced policies are hotly debated, fan controversies, and generate wedge issues that pit people against each other.

The fact that many traditional watchdogs fight post-9/11 policies tooth and nail but ignore 9/11 Truth except for occasionally summarily dismissing it indirectly instills into the unsuspecting public’s mind the message that the official 9/11 story is clear, complete, evident, and unquestionable:

“If some important aspect of the official 9/11 story was questionable, some watchdog would bark.”

“If 9/11 was a false flag, the watchdogs would go mad.”

9/11 Truth activists have sent communications to U.S. public servants with the power—and duty—to investigate and prosecute instances of criminal activities within the U.S. government. So far, they have received almost no feedback. A few have reported some empathic reply followed by no action or an excuse to not pursue any action. Notable is a 2008 answer by FBI Counterterrorism Division Assistant Director Michael J. Heimbach that "[Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth CEO] Gage presents an interesting theory [on the twin towers’ controlled demolition], backed by thorough research and analysis." However, Heimbach would never follow up, alleging other priorities.

Numerous members of the U.S. Congress—notably the large majority of its liberal members—ostensibly and adamantly opposed most neocon policies. Denouncing the 9/11 false flag would have slain the proverbial dragon. Yet they remained mum on 9/11, with very few—and always very mild—exceptions.

Former Rep. McKinney was one of the most—if not the most—radically liberal members of the House of Representatives at the time of 9/11. She may have been the neocons’ bête noire, opposing the Bush administration at just about every turn. Yet, when it came to criticizing 9/11, even though she was as boisterous as always, she consistently refrained from killing the myth. She blasted Bush and his lieutenants for ignoring ominous warnings and vociferously denounced cover-up activities in the official investigations, but never affirmed the obvious controlled demolitions of the twin towers or Building 7. She provided the impression that she was pushing the envelope on 9/11, like she did on so many issues. The obvious unconscious lesson for the public was that since this unabashed political extremist and archenemy of Bush would go no further than denouncing criminal incompetence, carelessness and obfuscation, anybody going further would lack mental sanity.

A few other members of Congress who often antagonized the Bush administration, among them Reps. Kucinich and Paul, did make statements favoring 9/11 Truth, but in still milder terms than McKinney. This gives credibility to the theory that members of Congress would have tailored their protests against 9/11 to their respective levels of opposition to Bush.

Several people have filed lawsuits in U.S. courts, alleging that U.S. authorities or corporations wronged them by allowing or engineering 9/11. As of 2010-Nov, U.S. judges have invariably sided with the executive branch, citing frivolity or national security. Notorious is the dismissal with prejudice by U.S. judge Chin, in the spring of 2010, of a lawsuit by April Gallop, a Pentagon survivor. Tellingly, Chin did not formulate a logical argument to refute several factual claims alleged by Gallop, but instead summarily dismissed them as "fanciful, fantastic and delusional."

Under the guidance of Don Meserlian, P.E., grassroots organizations, notably WeAreChange, spurred their members to give their judges documents proving misprision of treason in relation to 9/11, the treason being the act of compelling the United States to engage in war. Ironically, U.S. law can easily be read to imply that people under U.S. jurisdiction have a legal obligation to perform this action lest they expose themselves to criminal penalties. Scores of U.S. judges have received these documents. So far, none of them has acted.

As a side-note, in 2010, it was reported on the web that a municipal judge in Palatine Bridge, New Jersey, would have recommended a Grand Jury investigation into these claims of treason.

It bears mentioning that Bush got to appoint close to half of U.S. judges after 9/11, based on dubious “anti-terror” credentials, with the collaboration of pliant senators. The question as to whether a U.S. judge will ever bark on 9/11 may be rhetorical.

The territory of California is reputed for its high frequency of punitive earthquakes. As such, the state government’s bureaucracy counts numerous civil engineers with earthquake expertise. They understand very well how high-rises are built and how they fall. They undoubtedly would readily identify controlled demolitions as obvious as the twin towers’, not to mention Building 7’s. They understand full well how 9/11 yielded numerous undesirable policies, including the diversion of already scarce public resources into useless wars and superfluous security measures. As the state authorities have found themselves with less support from and more obligations to the federal government, 9/11 has hit these civil engineers personally, undermining the job safety and the financial security public servants highly value. It is unthinkable that they must not have discussed 9/11 within small circles of colleagues. Therefore, it is hard to believe that the governor and the legislative leaders of California’s government would not know that the official 9/11 story is a fabrication.

This knowledge is more than enough for California state government leaders to remind the U.S. government that it was constituted to serve the states and that the 9/11 false flag and its ensuing policies are a very poor way—at best—to accomplish that. They have compelling reasons to denounce 9/11 and request an immediate and unconditional end to the post-9/11 policies. Their lack of action is hard to understand, given the chronic financial quagmire of the California state government that they keep lamenting.

The governments of other states do not have the benefit of numerous civil engineers on their payrolls. But even assuming that their own staff would not spontaneously question 9/11, 9/11 Truth is so widespread that their public servants inevitably run into it regularly through their contacts with the general public. Many of them must have become truth-seekers. We are back to the situation of California, with a significant number of state government workers aware that 9/11 was a false flag. It is hard to believe that some of these workers would not somehow convey what they know to their leaders.

Keeping in mind that demonstrating the demolitions of the twin towers and their cover-up is intellectually trivial, it appears that leaders of all state governments are probably aware of the 9/11 cover-up but have decided to ignore it.

Foreign governments have also essentially embraced the official 9/11 myth. Curiously, even so-called “rogue” governments and potentates, who supposedly are in the U.S. government's cross-hairs, are not afraid of lying, and have a vested interest in precipitating a huge political crisis in Washington, have toed the official 9/11 line. It is remarkable that leaders such as Chávez in Venezuela, Castro in Cuba and Ahmadinejad in Iran have made statements along the lines of 9/11 Truth, but with debilitating limitations:

Chávez stirred the 9/11 kettle in 2006, culminating with the brief comment around 2006-Sep-11 that the hypothesis of the controlled demolition of the twin towers was "not absurd." He never got this close to 9/11 again, and this isolated statement is easily missed within his immense inflammatory record.

Castro , on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, released a few lines on 9/11 Truth in one of the lengthy essays he allegedly wrote from his secret hospital. He thoughtfully wrote that the Pentagon looked like it was hit by some missile. This statement is disingenuous, since it avoids the much more shocking and much more straightforward demolition of the twin towers. Had he wanted to distract the western public and his own Cuban audience from the core 9/11 issue, he did a good job. Like Chávez, Castro—nor any Cuban dignitary for that matter—would never get anywhere so close to 9/11 again.

Ahmadinejad , in contrast, was more open on 9/11 Truth in 2010, as U.S. and Israeli military threats against Iran became ominous: He and his media did let some limited 9/11 Truth information go through. However, they never denounced 9/11 as a false flag, much less exhorted the Iranian population to inform themselves off any of the reputable 9/11 web sources or constitute grassroots 9/11 Truth groups along the lines of those in the West. It also should be noted that the demolitions of the twin towers and building 7 are not taught at all in Iran, even though they ought to be standard material in non-censoring high schools and engineering faculties. It is equally remarkable that Ahmadinejad has not invited Iranian professionals to join the 9/11 affinity groups such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Ahmadinejad’s 2010-Aug statement denouncing the 9/11 cover-up, as reported by Reuters, focused on the essentially worthless and provocative arguments that Zionists were tipped off before 9/11 and that there was no 9/11 victims’ list. It could be easily construed as a straw man’s argument, designed to bring ridicule to 9/11 Truth-seekers under the guise of seeking 9/11 Truth. On 2010-Sep-23, Ahmadinejad made a highly publicized declaration at the United Nations requesting an international 9/11 investigation. He rehashed the laughable official account that a terrorist's passport was found intact in the World Trade Center. This certainly indicates sloppy investigative work but hardly hints at the horror of a false flag. He stopped very short of affirming the latter, not even alluding to the evident demolitions of the twin towers. Instead, he claimed that 9/11 was partly meant to "save the Zionist regime." In a theatric show, western diplomats left the meeting, while many of those who remained cheered. Most western media not only summarized his statement, but also rendered it less intelligent and more inflammatory. The end result was remarkable: Unsuspecting western audiences associated 9/11 Truth with an irrational, unpredictable, criminal, dangerous leader. They were made to think that 9/11 Truth relied on the silly passport argument rather than the mountain of evidence proving the twin towers' demolitions. Many w estern truth-seekers made the egotistic mistake of viewing Ahmadinejad as an ally. Many individual truth-seekers and even some prominent 9/11 Truth figures actually expressed gratitude for his comments. Obama seized this golden opportunity to flatly dismiss 9/11 Truth with no need for an intelligent argument and to play the role of a wise statesman, calmly and firmly dismissing Ahmadinejad's statements as "inexcusable," "offensive," and "hateful." Ahmadinejad's own domestic audience, who are widely aware of 9/11, got an acknowledgement of their knowledge, but with a call to rev up their animosity against the "Zionist regime" rather than a recognition of the irrefutable controlled demolition of the twin towers. In that same 2010-Sep-23 statement, Ahmadinejad announced a 2011 conference on terrorism in Iran. His failure to squarely affirm the 9/11 false flag and the lack of organized 9/11 Truth activity in Iran cast doubt on the true purpose of such an event. Just in case, I applied to be invited, touting this document as my credentials. The above is consistent with the simple theory that Ahmadinejad is truly a 9/11 censor, albeit in his own mold. He knows for a fact that 9/11 is a poorly covered false flag. Yet, in spite of the benefits his regime and he would reap from spilling the beans, he deftly undermines 9/11 Truth, both in the West and elsewhere.



“Enemy” governments have not fared better than “rogue” governments:

One of the Bush administration's swiftest actions in the wake of 9/11 was to militarily invade Afghanistan with the purported objective of capturing Osama bin Laden. The Taliban government of Afghanistan offered to expedite the U.S. request for his extradition to their Supreme Court and allow supervision of the proceedings by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, but requested that the U.S. government provide them with proof of his responsibility for 9/11 beforehand. The Bush administration, in what may be recorded by historians as a masterpiece of obfuscation, successfully dismissed the Taliban’s offer as a delaying tactic and rushed to war. Interestingly, the Taliban could have saved—and likely strengthened—their regime by denouncing the demolition of the twin towers, but evidently they preferred to lose it. Of course, another—although improbable—explanation is that the Taliban leaders were actually the middle school bullies who grew up into ignorant wife-beaters that the U.S. media portrayed.

The U.S. media did not portray another notorious “enemy,” Saddam Hussein , as an immature bully. Au contraire, they described him as cunning, very smart, extremely self-centered, and with an impeccable track record of foiling repeated U.S. attempts to dethrone him. On 9/11, his notorious egocentrism would undoubtedly have made him order his civil engineers to report on the vulnerability to aircraft impact of his recently built sumptuous palaces. It would not have taken them more than a few days to assure him that his palaces were quite secure and that the twin towers’ disintegration necessarily resulted from a professional job of carefully surveying the entire infrastructure of the buildings, expertly rigging them with thousands of explosive charges, and setting these off per a carefully computed sequence.

This makes it highly unlikely that in early 2003, with the U.S. military about to invade Iraq, Saddam was not well aware of the true nature of 9/11. Had he leveraged his bully pulpit to spill the 9/11 beans instead of repeating platitudes to avoid the war, he stood to reap great personal benefits: The Iraq war was unthinkable without 9/11 (see section 3.16). He would have kept his job as president-dictator of the Iraqi government. The UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq were floundering. A 9/11 scandal would have made them untenable. Saddam would have obtained, at long last, a free hand to sell his oil to the French and Russian conglomerates that had been eying it for years. Saddam would have been recognized as a great benefactor of humanity for denouncing “the mother of all treasons.” He would have enjoyed a luxurious and quiet retirement.

Instead, evidently, Saddam sacrificed his personal brilliant future, and eventually his life, to the preservation of the official 9/11 myth.

Another government with an exceptional interest in denouncing 9/11 was Israel's. Israelis have been the targets of so many terror attacks that the colorful information that the most brazen, powerful, and successful terrorists in history were at least tolerated and protected by U.S. authorities ought to raise extreme concerns in their leaders' minds:

Israelis are painfully aware of terrorism, for it has been a staple of Israel's short history. Virtually every Israeli knows personally a victim of terrorism.

Accordingly, Israeli authorities have consistently made the containment of Islamic terrorism one of their major priorities.

The U.S. responsibility for 9/11 ought to make Israeli leaders wonder if there is a dark side to the considerable financial, political and military support the USA has bestowed upon them. Could it be used as a cover for U.S. sponsorship of terrorism inside Israel that would be, like 9/11, conveniently blamed on Arab extremists?

Israeli leaders ought to be extremely concerned at their very close relationship with and dependence on a powerful government that resorts to grand terror to implement its policies. They ought to thoroughly investigate the possible connection between 9/11 and the myriad acts of terror that Israelis have suffered.

Much evidence points to the involvement of the Israeli secret service, known as Mossad, in the preparation and the execution of 9/11. Theories have been provided, notably at Rediscover 9/11, that also link the cover-up to powerful individuals closely tied to the Israeli establishment. The Israeli government ought to be extremely concerned at allegations that its agents or friends could be implicated in the biggest terror attacks ever.

Yet, most unexpectedly, Israeli authorities have parroted the official 9/11 lie, lamenting that Islamic extremists are not just hating Israel, but its U.S. benefactors too.

The ironic counterpoint to the Israeli government's ignorance of 9/11 has been that of their supposed archrivals, the Palestinian authorities. As of 2011-March, West Bank and Gaza leaders keep complaining of excessively heavy-handed and needlessly oppressive Israeli policies and tactics. They have found many receptive ears in the western public opinion, even in the USA. It is highly evident that Palestinian leaders, not unlike Saddam Hussein or Ahmadinejad, could reap great personal advantages and cause the Israeli government and its U.S. protectors much grief by publishing the underlying facts of 9/11, starting by something as elementary as embedding on their web a couple of videos of the World Trade Center demolitions with straightforward comments.

In conclusion, it would appear that foreign governments, irrespective of the considerable advantages they and their populations could gain from spilling the 9/11 beans, have preferred the status quo.

The New York Times was arguably best positioned to denounce the 9/11 false flag. As one of the largest newspapers in the USA and with a readership that was generally well educated, unsympathetic to the neocons, and highly emotionally tied to the 9/11 terror attacks, it stood to gain much.

To its credit, the New York Times did report suspicious details of 9/11:

As it published findings from several 2002 U.S. reports, it included the label of “mystery” that official investigators attached to some of them: the thick powder that covered downtown Manhattan on 9/11 contained iron microspheres, and some of the World Trade Center structural steel bore marks of unexplainable attack by abnormally high temperatures and by sulfur.

In the months that followed 9/11, the New York City authorities decided to invite their firemen to record their personal experiences on 9-11. The New York Times asked for access to this information. The authorities refused. The New York Times sued them, got a favorable ruling, and published these stories. Their contents hint at a plausible reason to keep them secret. Many firemen’s recollections describe explosions in the twin towers and support the contention that many segments of their steel frames were cut with explosives ahead of the descending demolition waves.

But the New York Times failed to request further investigations into these technical mysteries and into the root cause of the firemen’s recollections. Worse, when the final official technical investigations failed to even mention this evidence, it did not react.

Mainstream U.S. media has not picked up the New York Times’ slack. Major newspapers and major TV networks have dutifully parroted the official 9/11 myth without question. Reports on 9/11 Truth have been very rare, and almost always hit pieces against 9/11 truth-seekers. Liberal media’s contribution to the censorship has been of vital importance, as many truth-seekers have reported that they originally dismissed 9/11 Truth because “if 9/11 was a false flag the liberal media would have pummeled Bush with it.” Exceptions have been very few, for instance Reuter's 2010-Sep-9 press release matter-of-factly describing three new organizations of professionals dedicated to 9/11 Truth

A laughable and blatant instance of censorship took place on 2010-Sep-11 in New York. The powers that be remembered 9/11 by aiming 2 large blue beams at the sky from the spots where the twin towers used to stand. 9/11 Truth activists powered a 3rd beam from the former spot of Building 7. They also organized a quick campaign to call the local media, pretend to not know much, and ask what the 3rd beam stood for. They reported that most agents who took their calls gave them the truthful answer that it was for the 3rd skyscraper that fell on 9/11. Yet the same media, evidently per some top-down censorship, went to great lengths to not publish pictures or movie clips that would show the 3 beams together.

Foreign western mainstream media have been more open to 9/11 Truth, but hardly so. Every few months, some major western outfit publishes a piece on 9/11 Truth. Some of these have been moderately informative, divulging the existence of U.S. dissidents while refraining from affirming that these dissidents are correct. However, most have been derogatory. Some have cleverly used the “underdog nationalistic” argument that U.S. people harbor an instinctive and baseless skepticism against their government due to historical reasons and extremist rhetoric, implying that their own audience is wise enough to not fall into that trap. A notable exception was the one-time publication by several European media of the discovery of nanothermite in the 9/11 dust in 2009. However, there was no follow up, not even to even wonder why earlier official investigations failed to identify the nanothermite.

Non-western media have been more open, but have still treated 9/11 Truth as a marginal subject. Media in Islamic countries have now and then published a piece casting doubt on the official myth, especially on the anniversaries of 9/11. But they have systematically failed to provide as straightforward information as the self-explanatory chart card for the twin tower’s demolition available at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (here as of 2010-Sep). For instance, on Sunday 2010-Sep-12, the self-proclaimed largest independent Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm published an article entitled “Nine years on, 9/11 questions linger.” They presented observations and speculations that assuredly would not make their way to any "respectable" U.S. newspaper. However, they provided almost no reference for their sources of information, even though 9/11 Truth leaders and their works are readily identifiable. They only glossed over the twin towers’ demolitions, briefly alluding to substantiated disagreements with the official story. By contrast, they devoted about one third of their article to the issue—which was sure to hit a raw nerve and inflame passions in Egypt—of the Israeli role in 9/11. A discerning reader could wonder whether it was a coincidence or a conspiracy that the first on-line comment came from a debunker and sent the readers to a single web site that countered most of the article’s allegations. Had Al-Masry Al-Youm designed this article to empathically placate the readers who were well aware of 9/11 Truth and steer them towards resenting Israel, they would have done a good job. Keeping in mind the Arab public’s good awareness of 9/11’s true nature, one will wonder whether Al-Masry Al-Youm’s editors wanted to truly educate their readers or rather distract them from 9/11.

The notable exception to the above-mentioned media blackout is the newest medium: the Internet. Independent—and often self-made—reporters, experts and analysts have provided—often at no charge—considerable information on the 9/11 false flag, its cover-up and its censorship. In fact, if it was not for the availability of 9/11-related information on the web, 9/11 awareness would probably be the privilege of a very small segment of the population apart from the 9/11 conspirators themselves.

Ironically , the first 9/11 dissidents who made a name for themselves on the web came from politically marginal groups who harbored a deep mistrust of the U.S. government and mainstream institutions (see section 3.2 ).

Many corporations directly exploit the public policies 9/11 gave birth to: private armies, military contractors, security companies, manufacturers of security and surveillance equipment. Others benefit from neocon-inspired economic policies of deregulation, tax reduction, job exportation, de-unionization, corporate fraud immunity, etc. It could be understood that their interests would call them to preserve the integrity of the official 9/11 myth.

However, it is not difficult to find corporations that suffer from the post-9/11 policies:

Corporations that could enjoy public subsidies if the U.S. government was not bankrupting itself into a continuous and seemingly endless war, for instance green corporations.

Corporations that suffer from delayed, scaled down or cancelled public projects as a result of the war economy, such as contractors in public infrastructure development and maintenance.

Corporations that suffer from the war-induced impoverishment of the U.S. population, for example commercial goods’ manufacturers and resellers.

These corporations—and the trade organizations they belong to—would stand to gain greatly from denouncing the 9/11 false flag and advocating the immediate cancellation of the wars and other 9/11-induced policies. It is remarkable that their leaders have acted against their owners’ and shareholders’ best financial interests by ignoring 9/11 Truth.

Civil and structural Engineers will easily identify a controlled demolition. Assuming that many would have been blinded by the 9/11 cover-up, a few would nonetheless have realized the reality of the twin towers’ demolitions. As they would interact with colleagues within the scope of their professional associations, it is likely that the topic of the official explanation’s inaccuracy would come up.

In this light, it is mind-boggling that the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) not only did not denounce the 9/11 cover-up, but took an active part in it. Notorious was its video representation of the structural damage of the Pentagon, where Dave von Kleist and others have exposed signs of obvious falsification.

Similarly, controlled demolition companies would unmistakably recognize their colleagues’ work. Yet they have generally stayed mum on the three 9/11 demolitions. One of the few professional demolitionists to recognize Building 7’s demolition was Danny Jowenko. Remarkably, he worked in Holland and had no prior knowledge of Building 7 when he was shown its video.

Scientific journals have published articles of dubious scientific value on the destruction of the twin towers. Most notable have been a few papers by Northwesten University civil engineering and material science professor Ba žant and others that purport to illustrate how the top of each twin tower could crush the body of the tower and itself, in a challenge to middle school-level scientific knowledge. At the same time, truth-seeking scientists have complained that the same journals systematically reject their articles, often for reasons that appear more like pretexts, and at times request that they water down their contents. Usually, such a publication will be followed—at times in the same edition of the same journal—by a rebuttal that favors the official lie. For instance, the ASCE took 2 years to publish, in 2010, a trivial criticism by Björkman of the above-mentioned Bažant et al. paper. Hold and behold, the same edition of their journal included a rebuttal by Bažant et al., pompously stating that attacking their work without referring to the fundamental equations of motion was invalid and cleverly inserting misleading and outright false information.

Liberal leaders blasted the Bush administration for waging a “war on science” focused on astronomy, biology, sexuality, and Climate Change. The same leaders omitted that the scope of this war on science included kinetics, thermodynamics and chemistry, and that it was slated to continue unabated under Bush’s successors.

Psychologists and sociologists ought to be very concerned at the cover-up and the censorship of 9/11, especially given the ensuing policies’ devastating impact on individual and collective mental health. Yet, although some have spoken up individually, their professional associations have failed to denounce 9/11. Cynics would observe that the post-9/11 collective fear has brought business to clinical psychologists and psychiatrists.

Lawyers ought to be outraged at the negligence that marred the investigations into 9/11 and the numerous legal shortcuts—to put it mildly—that the Bush administration pioneered as it deliberately circumvented numerous legal and constitutional obligations in the name of its “war on terror.” Yet, even though many legal associations and legal scholars have sternly criticized Bush and Obama for criminally subverting the laws they swore to obey under the pretext of preventing another 9/11, precious few of them have denounced the 9/11 false flag and its cover-up. Lawyers for 9/11 Truth counts very few members compared to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and as of 2010-Nov they take virtually no action apart from maintaining on the web a list of a few dozen lawyers who ask for a thorough 9/11 investigation. To make things worse, several lawyers who have apparently tried to elicit 9/11 justice have been accused of covertly subverting it.

University professors have a reputation of independence. Once tenured, they are supposedly unfirable. Yet civil engineering faculties have also failed to denounce the 9/11 cover-up. Videos have been recorded of civil engineering professors avoiding or obfuscating questions by 9/11 truth-seekers. Scholars in psychology, sociology, journalism, and law have also essentially ignored 9/11.

The 9/11 false flag fully qualifies as an act of evil. So do its cover-up, its censorship, and the policies it engendered. If evil spirits exist and observe human activity, they must have celebrated 9/11 with champagne. Behold the sick joke of Hitler’s soul congratulating Prescott Bush’s because 9/11 beats the Reichstag fire. In fact, any reasonable individual who believes in the existence of demons will view 9/11 as demonic. Few events would deserve this label better than the morbidly spectacular murder of 3,000 innocent civilians for the purpose of launching worldwide fear, war, repression and misery.

At its inception, Christianity was largely a spiritual answer to the Roman Empire’s ruthless oppression against the Palestinian Jews. Modern historians have brought us a picture of the Roman empire reminiscent of our contemporary corporate raiders: the Roman army would invade a territory, install a puppet government, and tax this government—which in turn would tax the population—so as to get a good return on their investment—the costs of the invasion and of the occupation. This clever process would fuel the Roman Empire’s continuous expansion and prosperity. Ordinary Palestinian Jews were painfully aware of this. A few years before Jesus’ alleged birth, the Roman legions crushed a revolt by publicly crucifying 2,000 of its leaders. Some time after Jesus’ death, as the Palestinians failed to come up with the required taxes, the Roman rulers collected the difference by enslaving enough of them to make up for the missing amount. It is largely believed that one reason for Christianity’s expansion among Palestinian Jews was its unique relevance to a population living under a harsh foreign military occupation. In fact, religious scholars have flagged many precepts of the New Testament as well suited to the religious needs of the lower social, political and economic strata in a careless society, making even modern Christianity a religion of choice for the oppressed.

Given Christianity’s incubation as an anti-imperialistic religion, one would expect Christians to overwhelmingly oppose the post-9/11 U.S. foreign policies, which in many respects mirror those of ancient Rome: “we’ll invade your country, give its natural resources and transportation corridors to our corporations for our trouble, and ruthlessly crush your opposition.” As such, Christian leaders ought to be eager to explore allegations that 9/11 could be a false flag. Yet to this date, even though many individual Christians, including some ministers, have embraced 9/11 Truth on account of their faith, Christian leaders and scholars have ignored—at best—9/11 Truth. From the Vatican to liberal denominations to fundamentalist denominations, no Christian organization has questioned the official 9/11 myth.

One notable exception to this rule has been theology professor emeritus David Ray Griffin , who turned into a leading 9/11 scholar. One of his books specifically attempted to wake up the Christian community to 9/11: “Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: a Call to Reflection and Action.” Alas, Christian leaders essentially ignored it, except for distancing themselves from it. As of 2010-Dec, a search for the book on the publisher's web returns nothing.

9/11-induced policies have hit Muslims disproportionately:

Post-9/11 wars and threats of war have targeted exclusively Muslim countries.

While Bush disingenuously proclaimed that the war on terror was not a war on Islam, his attorney general Ashcroft infamously rounded up over 1,000 Muslims residing in the United States, held them without charge for months, quietly deported some over immigration violations, and discreetly released the rest with no explanation. None of them was ever charged with any criminal offense linked to terrorism.

In the years following 9/11, U.S. authorities would often arrest Muslims for terror-related activities with great fanfare and cameras rolling, only to release them later with charges dropped.

Many elements of the U.S. public have understandably grown hostile to Islam and Muslims.

Vilification of Islam and Muslims has also grown in other western countries.

Against this ominous backdrop, Muslim leaders would be expected to embrace 9/11 Truth. Against all odds, they have instead trumpeted the mantra that “the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, but true Muslims don’t terrorize.” The fact that ordinary Muslims, in the West and in Muslim countries alike, are much more aware of the true nature of 9/11 than non-westerners and non-Muslims, adds another touch if irony to this fascinating twist of the 9/11 censorship.

In 2010, the 9/11 Truth movement experienced a crescendo of accusations that the Israeli secret service, known as Mossad, would be the prime author of 9/11 and that many prominent Jews would be involved in the cover-up and the censorship of 9/11 (see also 3.8). Jewish organizations ought to be extremely concerned that should the 9/11 censorship be overwhelmed—or purposely lifted—and should the Mossad’s responsibility be widely publicized, they could suffer a tremendous backlash, possibly condemning Jews to the second-class status Christian societies traditionally confined them to. Yet Jewish organizations have largely toed the official “Osama bin Laden’s fanatics did it” line.

Other religions have not been more open to the fact that 9/11 was a poorly covered false flag.

This claimed ignorance of 9/11’s true nature contrasts with the protests of countless religious outfits on a large number of issues, including 9/11-inspired policies such as wars, unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies, interfaith misunderstandings, political and religious repression, growing domestic poverty, inaction on global ecological problems, etc.

It would be hard to find a single neocon idea that labor unions would support. Indeed, organized labor was hostile to just about every Bush policy, written or unwritten:

Top-down corruption: Bush, more than any of his predecessors in recent memory, was notorious for appointing high-ranking U.S. officials based on personal affinity over competence and sense of public service.

As a side-note, section 6.5 provides a new light on this.

Deregulation: unions’ preferred method to solve conflicts is a binding procedure acceptable to all parties involved. They thrive in bureaucracy. The neocons despised bureaucracy and did not mind throwing the baby of public service with the bathwater of excessively rigid rules.

Free passes to white-collar criminals: one of the first administrative actions of Bush to make good on his promise that 9/11 was his administration’s “first priority” was to shift FBI resources away from white collar crimes and to terrorism. Union members—well-to-do yet poorly educated—would inevitably become preys of choice for white collar criminals who would know that the U.S. government was short on resources to track them down.

Institutionalized financial bubbles such as the irresponsible deregulation of credit that allowed unscrupulous mortgage brokers and credit card issuers to earn easy money on the back of gullible high-earners, typically union members.

Threatened pension monies: as a result of the economic shenanigans of the Bush and Obama administrations, largely excused by the pursuit of exhausting 9/11-justified wars, many pension funds appear under-funded and many corporations and governments claim to be overburdened by pensions.

U.S. industrial meltdown: while Bush and Obama were busy and distracting “us the people” with their illusory wars, they let traditional U.S. industries shut down, overlooked the export of jobs and competencies to China and India, and deliberately favored imports. Many of the U.S. jobs that disappeared in the process were high-paying union jobs.

It bears repeating that the war on terror boosted the popularity of the neocons and the neocon-dominated Republican Party. As a response, Democratic politicians, traditional allies of unions, weakened and felt a pressure to veer to the right.

Similarly, Bush and a pliant senate put in place almost half of U.S. judges, based on dubious “anti-terror” credentials. These right-wing judges are widely believed to be hostile to organized labor.

Against this backdrop, it would seem unbelievable that labor unions would not exploit the slightest discrepancy in the official 9/11 story in a desperate attempt to discredit or attenuate the clout of their political nemesis. Yet unions have essentially embraced the 9/11 myth and actively clamped down on internal dissenting voices such as Kevin Bracken's in Australia in 2010.

This is particularly egregious in the case of firefighters’ unions. After all, over 200 of their members were summarily executed in the twin towers. Their unions’ failure to scream for justice is nothing short of scandalous.

Furthermore, tens of thousands of rescue workers worked feverishly on 9/11 and in the following days in a desperate attempt to rescue survivors from the twin towers. These individuals unknowingly did what nobody is believed to have done ever before: they breathed controlled demolition residues. Indeed, a regular controlled demolition takes place only after the area has been evacuated and the clean-up crew enters the neighboring area only after the gases have gone and the powder has settled down. As a result of breathing the demolition’s by-products, rescue workers have been afflicted by poorly understood diseases. As of 2010-Sep, over 900 have died, over 60,000 are sick, and many of them are financially broke from the double whammy of being unable to work and being unable to pay for extremely expensive yet often poorly effective medical care.

To their credit, some unions have adopted the cause of the dire medical and financial condition of the first responders, but none has tracked the problem back to its root and squarely denounced the fact that people in position of high authority knew that the first responders would encounter no survivors and would needlessly expose themselves to yet unknown diseases.

The average U.S. liberal typically associates the phrase “civil rights” with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU emphasizes an interpretation of the U.S. constitution that uncompromisingly favors the individual, occasionally taking positions that offend part of its liberal base. It is common knowledge that if 20 gang leaders were found dead in Manhattan and if there was a reason to suspect that the NY Police Department’s investigation into this crime was a cover-up, the ACLU would mount a forceful campaign to denounce its shortcomings and request corrective action. However, the ACLU has gone to great lengths to ignore the barely camouflaged arbitrary execution of 2,000+ reputable individuals in the twin towers on 9/11. The ACLU did not even denounce the summary destruction of 9/11’s forensic evidence and the consensus within the U.S. government as a whole to conduct no criminal investigation while rushing to war in Afghanistan.

Another prominent watchdog that “saw no evil” on 9/11 is Amnesty International (AI). AI has built, over their few decades of existence, an unmatched reputation for independence and impartiality, which probably contributed to propel it to the status of a highly respected—and feared—human rights watchdog. It vividly illustrlated this in the 1980’s, as it almost single-handedly protested publicly the revival of the death penalty in the USA against a very contrary and hostile public opinion. AI has systematically reviewed each case of imminent legal execution in the USA, looking for particular grounds to request that the execution be stayed or the death sentence commuted, apart from the human right to life it systematically invokes, no matter how convincingly the specifics of the crime may justify an execution. AI also systematically and aggressively pursues leads of extrajudicial executions worldwide. Yet when it came to 9/11, it ignored the innumerable clues—starting on the very day of 9/11—that 9/11 was a set of 3,000 barely hidden extrajudicial executions of honorable individuals. This is hard to excuse, for its research staff is reputed to comb through just about every source of information there is.

From the standpoint of the average liberal, leftist, compassionate, intelligent follower of the ACLU or AI, the conclusion is self-evident: if there was a remote possibility that 9/11 would be a false flag, the ACLU or AI would have raised hell.

Ironically, the ACLU, Amnesty International and just about every watchdog of the judicial liberal vein ignored 9/11—most probably deliberately—but jumped on the bandwagon of protesting the infamous Patriot Act, conveniently sending their members and supporters on an open-ended campaign against Bush’s legal and constitutional abuses and distracting them from the real problem. They would also, in unison, protest the scandal of hundreds of indefinite detentions in the Guantánamo military base with no judicial oversight and criticize specifics of the kangaroo courts some of the detainees were processed through. However, they never deplored the defense attorneys’ inexcusable failure to produce the overwhelming evidence that would straightforwardly undermine the alleged connection between Islamic fanatics and the structural failures of the twin towers. Appeals to correct these egregious mistakes have been generally ignored or given canned answers along the lines of “send us your information” or “I’ve reviewed 9/11 Truth and it’s not convincing.”

On the right/conservative side of the U.S. political arena, the picture is hardly brighter. For instance, the National Rifle Association (NRA), which assertively promotes individual rights to own and bear loaded firearms, has protested the abuse of the fear of terrorism to restrict access to weapons—for instance U.S. Sen. Lautenberg’s 2009 “Terror Watch List” bill aimed at people “deemed to be suspected dangerous terrorists”—but has failed to notify its members that the 9/11 false flag demonstrates the terrorist threat to be a boogeyman and also suggests that the very real problem of criminality in the USA, which gun control advocates keep throwing at the NRA, is at least partly engineered (see section 5.2 ).

Peace groups of many kinds aggressively oppose the 9/11-justified wars. Yet the large majority of them somehow “forget” the premises of these wars.

For instance, as of 2010, anti-war leaders exhort their followers to ask Obama to end his war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and justify this request with countless reasons. Yet they miss the most fundamental one, namely that the Bush administration went to war frivolously, without even giving the Afghan government a chance to initiate judicial proceedings against Osama bin Laden (see section 3.8).

Similarly, peace groups and congressional Democrats made a big deal of Bush’s alleged lies regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But this political posturing conveniently contributed to erasing from the public’s memory the fact that in 2003 Saddam’s purported weapons of mass destruction, on their own merits, were not an urgent concern to the U.S. population. They would certainly represent a threat to Iran, to Israel, to Europe, but their direct threat to the United States could be demonstrated only through Osama's logistical means to smuggle them into mainland U.S. territory as proven by the official 9/11 narrative. In other words, the rationale for the Iraq war was double-pronged: Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and Osama could deliver them through his 9/11 logistics. Without 9/11, the justification for the Iraq war would crumble. Keeping in mind that the Bush administration had to go through lengthy political maneuvering before being able to launch the Iraq war, it is likely that the absence of 9/11 would have made it impossible.

Yet, as of 2010-Oct, with very few small-scale exceptions—such as Veterans for 9/11 Truth and Cindy Sheehan—the peace movement has ignored 9/11 Truth. Some prominent peace leaders, such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor emeritus Noam Chomsky, are actually among its most rabid opponents. As of 2010, Chomsky was reported to state that he would review 9/11 Truth only after some MIT structural engineering professor would communicate to him that the twin towers were demolished. Knowing that the average high school kid will understand the demonstration of the twin towers’ demolitions, Chomsky’s challenge is tantamount to confessing that he knows 9/11 to be a false flag but will wait for others to denounce it. In 2010-Nov, PressTV reported that Chomsky stated that "the Taliban [...] requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any [because] they did not have any." However, he stopped way short of going to the logical end of his reasoning, affirming instead that the FBI "believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emirates and Germany." This disingenuous statement could easily be interpreted as a damage-control tactic in the wake of David Ray Griffin's 2010-June essay on the illegality of the Afghan war based on the reality of 9/11.

Peace leaders’ failure to speak up on 9/11 adds another tricky piece to the puzzle of the 9/11 censorship. Since 9/11 Truth is by far the surest and quickest way to summarily cancel the post-9/11 wars and since 9/11 Truth holds the promise of preventing future false flags and therefore future wars, its benefit to the peace movement is self-evident. Chomsky and other peace leaders’ concerted efforts to steer their followers away from 9/11 Truth and send them on a wild goose chase behind a multitude of issues that 9/11 Truth would nullify are baffling.

Overlooked in the mysteries surrounding 9/11 has been terrorist groups' very real failure to leverage 9/11 Truth. By publishing the U.S. government's resort to morbid and spectacular violence for the evil purpose of fomenting war, they would legitimize their use of the same on a much lower scale and for the laudable purpose of correcting real or perceived social or political injustice .

For example, over the past decade (as of 2010), the Colombian FARC have been widely vilified as a ruthless and egoistic gang of bandits thriving off extortion under penalty of death, kidnapping for ransom, and drug commerce. 9/11 Truth gave them a golden opportunity to contrast their armed struggle purportedly aimed at the very real repression directed against Colombian socialist leaders with the U.S. government's execution of 9/11 for the sake of open-ended war. Yet the FARC evidently have preferred to endure public hostility rather than spill the 9/11 beans. How the leaders of FARC and countless other terrorist and guerilla organizations took the self-defeating decision to keep to themselves the specifics of 9/11 is assuredly one of the most puzzling questions raised by 9/11. Of course, a tempting answer would be that the same outfit that organized something as big as 9/11 could pull major strings within the FARC and other terrorist organizations. Sections 5 and 6 bring evidence supporting this theory.

Most surprising has been the denial of 9/11 by supporters of Islamic terror. "Jihadists" of all kinds have suffered a tremendously bad press in the wake of 9/11, including among many Muslims who would support violence within "reasonable" limits. Yet some of them are occasionally reported to brag about 9/11, such as Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi on 2011-Feb-5.

Subsection 3.1 reminded us how poorly the 9/11 false flag was covered up. Following subsections explored different aspects of the ensuing censorship. They established that just about every outfit or watchdog of importance that would have a vested interest in denouncing the 9/11 false flag or its cover-up has failed to do so. Since the cover-up was so evident and so amateurish, it stands to reason that these watchdogs’ failures to bark were intentional. In other words, the watchdogs were largely aware that 9/11 was a false flag but went along with the cover-up instead of proclaiming the truth, helping the public see through the official lie, and taking their part in unraveling what would have turned into a scandal of historical proportions. In a nutshell, the watchdogs censored 9/11.

Consequently, even though the U.S. government did a sloppy job of covering up the 9/11 false flag, the public essentially accepted the official 9/11 myth. Without this tight censorship by leaders and outfits who would ostensibly abhor the post-9/11 policies, the 9/11 false flag would have fallen flat, Bush and his aides would have resigned in disgrace, the entire upper crust of the U.S. government would have been wiped out, and the human community would have been spared a decade of gratuitous suffering . Instead, the watchdogs made up for the poor cover-up and knowingly allowed the infamous post-9/11 policies.

Summarizing the above, we are rediscovering antique Greek scholar Aeschylus' aphorism that “in war, the first casualty is truth:”

The 9/11 terror attacks were a false flag.

Their cover-up was poor.

However, just about every watchdog that would normally be counted on to denounce the false flag and its cover-up did not do so.

T his provided the cover-up with an excellent censorship.

This excellence of the censorship made the general public believe the cover story and stay ignorant of the fact that 9/11 was a false flag.

Consequently, the public did not summarily reject the post-9/11 policies as irrelevant, unneeded, cruel and financially exhausting. Instead, even their opponents integrated the official 9/11 myth as a fact and restricted their arguments against these policies to the high road of deploring "irrational or immoral responses to a horrific tragedy."

The most logical next step is for 9/11 truth-seekers to borrow a page from the quality textbook of Japanese corporations:

Accept the impenetrable 9/11 censorship as a fact.

Keep emotions out of its awareness.

Develop a better understanding of it.

Accordingly devise a more appropriate course of action.

The next section proposes to accomplish precisely that.

The 9/11 censorship, as seen above, has been tight, worldwide, enduring, has encompassed just about every entity that would have been expected to denounce the 9/11 false flag and its cover-up, and has cut across all traditional intra-human boundaries: territorial, ideological, religious, linguistic, economic, moral, legal, etc.

The 9/11 censorship has been tighter in the West, especially in the USA.

The 9/11 censorship has 2 major components:

The watchdogs deliberately ignore the true nature of 9/11 as well as any piece of information that points to 9/11 as a false flag or to the official 9/11 narrative as a cover-up.

The watchdogs occasionally criticize the 9/11 Truth movement, under various forms: Ignorance—“I don’t remember hearing of this, do you have information so I can review it later?” Condescendence—“these conspiracy theories are not convincing.” Logical fallacies —“some watchdog would have heard of that.” Attack—using demeaning epithets and statements.



This similar behavior among highly dissimilar watchdogs raises the question as to how they all got to censor 9/11 in lockstep. One possible explanation is that they spontaneously made the same decision and adopted the same policy regarding 9/11, independently of each other. However, this is hard to believe:

Literally tens of thousands of outfits, operating under vastly diverse principles and circumstances, would somehow make the immoral and criminal decision in unison.

These outfits hold different—at times opposite—views on many matters.

These outfits hardly communicate with each other.

For these obvious reasons, the hypothesis of spontaneous censorship is highly unlikely and deserves no further consideration. This leads us to the alternative explanation that postulates some deliberate coordination between these outfits as far as the 9/11 censorship is concerned. Some single entity would have convinced these organizations to censor 9/11. This hypothesis raises its own lot of enigmatic objections:

This organization would be secret.

This organization would enjoy tight and effective communication lines to all the censoring outfits, irrespective of their above-mentioned diversity.

This organization would have enough clout to persuade these outfits to censor something as important as 9/11, knowing that many—if not most—of them would violate their stated missions, work counter to their publicly stated objectives, and expose themselves to terribly adverse consequences for covering an extremely serious crime.

This second hypothesis looks incredible on its face, but is worth exploring, starting by reviewing which international outfits could provide a cover to that central organization.

The international community of nations has put in place several powerful outfits with a worldwide reach, for instance the United Nations, the World Bank, Interpol, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. There also exists a whole assortment of less-known worldwide organizations set up by treaties for sundry purposes, such as international air travel, international mail, or worldwide operation and safety of portable computers. Many of these organizations have legal power to force individual nations to adopt specific measures in their areas of competence.

Could it be that the 9/11 censors somehow infiltrated or co-opted some of these worldwide organizations? Since they were able to infiltrate and control a multitude of U.S. agencies to allow—if not perpetrate—the false flag and to cover it up, it stands to reason that they were able to infiltrate and control some of these worldwide outfits as well. After all, a group capable of infiltrating the U.S. government may be quite capable of infiltrating the United Nations, and a group capable of infiltrating the FBI may be quite capable of infiltrating Interpol. As such, these worldwide organizations’ internal communication capabilities and personal networks may have been put at the service of the global 9/11 censorship.

Nations have also put in place numerous regional, continental, and affinity-based international and supranational organizations. Many of them have military and law enforcement capabilities, for instance NATO, a military alliance of Western countries dominated by the United States. Since the 9/11 conspirators obtained the compliance of the U.S. Air Force and of the U.S. military-controlled nanothermite procurement system in the execution of 9/11, it is not impossible that the 9/11 censors enrolled NATO too. The impact of regional and affinity-based organizations on the 9/11 censorship cannot be underestimated, for they often provide tighter bonds and have more authority than worldwide organizations.

There also exist less formal yet highly influential global outfits, such as the G-20, a gathering of political leaders of the most powerful nations, which often comes up with some common decisions. With the G-20 leaders demonstrably on board of the 9/11 censorship, it is plausible that while they hold their informal meetings on their public agenda, some of their aides would discuss specifics of the 9/11 censorship in separate meetings.

The Bilderberg Group is a very discreet club of the international Who’s Who of politics and finance. Strangely, mainstream media have hardly ever reported on it. Not even paparazzi approach it. This has given birth to many conspiracy theories, up to equating the Bilderberg Group with an actual “global government.” Without going that far and keeping in mind that the Bilderberg members undoubtedly know 9/11 to be a poorly covered false flag, it cannot be discarded that some communications related to its censorship would use the Bilderberg meetings and relationships as a conduit.

The Roman Catholic Church has a worldwide presence. It enjoys some secrecy privileges in many countries as well a highly centralized power hub in Rome, making it conceivable for a single office to dispatch worldwide communications related to the 9/11 censorship.

In the late 20th century, numerous corporations, including small ones, have gone multinational. Corporations are generally more moral than governments, as many people familiar with both public and private working methods have attested. As such, corrupting workers in the private sector is often harder than in the public sector. However, the use of multinationals by the 9/11 censors cannot be discarded:

Corporations generally run more efficiently than governments, are less bureaucratic and more results-oriented. They tend to give their personnel more operational freedom as they trust them to act in compliance with their corporate missions. Their internal international communications are accordingly more direct, more effective, and less subject to intrusive internal control.

Corporations have contacts in the different countries they operate in: not only suppliers (including mass media for advertising), partners and customers, but also government agencies for international commerce, taxes and regulation.

Some multinationals knowingly engage in outright evil activities. A few, such as Xe (previously known as Blackwater and infamous for its ruthless operations in Iraq), even barely hide evil as their principal raison d’être.

The 20th century also saw the birth of many international grassroots organizations, many of them for arguably laudable purposes: Amnesty International, GreenPeace, etc. Like multinational corporations, they have their own nimble international communication systems, some of which — especially with informants — are kept confidential from the outside world, and they tend to exercise minimal control over their members—not unlike corporations—because they trust them to operate in line with their mission. It stands to reason that they may provide a convenient cover for some international communications related to the 9/11 censorship.

Last but not least, since the 9/11 false flag, its cover-up and its censorship were criminal acts, it is highly possible that the 9/11 conspirators and the 9/11 censors used the services of international criminal organizations:

Recreational drugs are a major international criminal commodity, from growing to processing to transportation to distribution and sale. There have been many allegations of collaboration between government agencies and drug traffickers, sometimes resulting in criminal proceedings against public servants.

Another notorious type of international criminal business is weapons traffic. Firearms have a knack for finding their way from reputable weapon factories to the hands of drug lords, warlords and guerillas. Suspicions abound of shady dealers using legal and illegal means to carry them across borders.

Terrorist and guerilla groups commonly build underground ramifications across borders. It bears remembering that they have apparently been supporting the 9/11 censorship (see section 3.17 ).

In recent years (as of 2010), some light has been shed on what could be an increase in the international commerce of sex workers, as large numbers of women are conveyed across borders, often illegally, for the purpose of prostituting them.

A list of international crime syndicates is not complete without money laundering. International illegal activities rely on frequent and large monetary transfers across borders and under the radar of national and international fiscal authorities. Money laundering is a form of banking. As such, it relies on reliable and confidential international accounting and communication systems, including those of reputable banks, which could be advantageously used by the 9/11 censors to support their communications.

The previous section outlines a broad array of organizations (literally hundreds of them) that could be infiltrated by the 9/11 censors to carry international messages to promote, organize, maintain and correct the 9/11 censorship.

Which of these organizations have been used by the 9/11 censors is unknown. What is obvious, though, is that the 9/11 censors may have been able to infiltrate and use resources from several of them, and that they could pick between a large number of highly dissimilar outfits.

Such an infiltration of existing multinational organizations would complement the infiltration of national and local outfits that the 9/11 censors obviously accomplished. It would allow some cross-border coordination of activities and give the censorship its global cement. If the infiltration covered organizations of different—and possibly opposite—inclinations, it would also make the censorship tighter and more homogeneous.

We are putting together a model for the 9/11 censorship that relies on a large number of individuals with highly differentiated backgrounds, worldwide, linked by a web of personal or professional affinities. These relationships are extremely diverse, cut across all traditional boundaries, and link people who often publicly oppose each other. This raises the objection that this web of censorship would be naturally improvised, that many of its links would be shaky, and that information would inevitably leak.

It is reasonable to expect leaks from the global 9/11 web of censorship as outlined in the previous subsection. Keeping tens of thousands of outfits permanently censored is a daunting task. “Stealth” censorship is a very delicate business. Censored information would inevitably leak. This raises the question as to how the 9/11 censors would plug their leaks.

Let us tackle this question from the perspective of the 9/11 censors and assume that some institution leaks a piece of censored information on 9/11. For instance, a regional newspaper with a circulation of 100,000 publishes an objective piece on the local 9/11 Truth group.

How will the 9/11 censors be aware of this? This question is self-answering. Since so little objective information is ever published on 9/11, 9/11 Truth web sites will rush to alert their readers to the leak. So simply monitoring 9/11 Truth webs gives the 9/11 censors timely information on their latest problem. This saves them the trouble of putting in place and maintaining a complex network of monitors.

Once the 9/11 censors are aware of the leak, their next logical step is to analyze it and determine if it hints at a problem worth addressing. Assuming they answer affirmatively, they logically identify who can take corrective action to stop the leak and reinforce the 9/11censorship at the leaking spot. The corrective action will usually be to turn a specific individual—in the above example a logical choice could be the newspaper’s editor—into a 9/11 censor and absorb her/him intto the censorship’s web.

The most effective way to plug a leak is to call a plumber. A 9/11 plumber would be a 9/11 censor—i.e. an individual who knows 9/11 to be a false flag but knowingly promotes the official myth and actively works against 9/11 Truth—with the will and capability to “plumb the leaker,” i.e. reach out to her/him and turn her/him into a fellow censor. The typical plum