Emery_FMFThis week’s guest is Chris Emery, independent journalist, media producer, and production associate at Free Mind Films. Chris and James discuss Free Mind Films’ epic documentary A Noble Lie (2011) from the perspective of the creators and Oklahoma City residents. They also cover Free Mind Films’ more recent projects, including State of Mind: The Psychology of Control (2013), the future release of A Noble Lie Directors’ Cut, and a forthcoming collaboration with author James Perloff examining the Council on Foreign Relations.

[Image Credit: Free Mind Films]

The bombing of the Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995 was one of the most horrific events in US history, resulting in the deaths of 168 individuals, 19 of whom were children. Despite the magnitude of the event the ensuing federal investigation raised many more questions than explanations of what took place on that fateful day. Close to ten years in the making, A Noble Lie tells a story that has been censored from official and popular recollections of Oklahoma City bombing.



Chris Emery is a film writer, director, and producer living in Oklahoma City. He is currently working on his seventh documentary film. Emery’s interest in the truth movement was spawned several years ago as he discovered a consistent pattern of lies and deception contained in the US government’s “official accounts” of the shootout at Ruby Ridge, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Waco massacre, the Oklahoma City bombing, the downing of TWA Flight 800, and the 9/11 fiasco.

Chris has given numerous presentations around the US regarding the documented links between the OKC bombing, 9/11, and other domestic and foreign false flag terrorist attacks.

Leave a Reply

50 thought on “Interventions in Public Knowledge and Memory”
  1. he discovered a consistent pattern of lies and deception contained in the US government’s “official accounts” of the shootout at Ruby Ridge, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Waco massacre, the Oklahoma City bombing, the downing of TWA Flight 800, and the 9/11 fiasco.


  2. Human elites (in governance/commerce) must be ruthlessly logical if they expect to “conquer the stars,” certainly if they expect to have any chance at surviving an encounter with an at least equally advanced extraterrestrial species–is it not dangerously naive to assume relations between terrestrial nations have ever been/are currently any different? Is it not all fundamentally a question of economic, technological, and political power and of preserving and advancing the political and social systems and territories you master over those of necessarily antagonistic foreign systems and powers which are and must necessarily and continually respond in kind? Is not this sort of Darwinism among nations and political and economic systems the only preparation possible for the even more ruthless, indeed perhaps hopeless challenges humans would be expected to encounter before a far more advanced alien species (whose survivability was itself forged through ruthless logic and immutable defiance of limits)? Should not events such as the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Crash be seen foremost through this ruthless light of elite defiance of commonly expected human limits?

    1. “Human elites (in governance/commerce) must be ruthlessly logical if they expect to “conquer the stars,””

      “conquer the stars”? who is proposing to do that? We can’t even fly to the Moon.

      “certainly if they expect to have any chance at surviving an encounter with an at least equally advanced extraterrestrial species”

      What? Who assumes such an eventuality? Who has ever assumed it, in all of human history? From where do you get this assumption?

      Let’s say there IS a race of beings on some other planet impossible light-years away, that somehow discovered out existence (smart people are laughing, I know, but stick with me here). Why is it that it is only NOW that they are about to meddle in our affairs? Why not during the 30 Years’ War? Or when England was colonizing America? What a coincidence that we are told to worry about it now. As Revelation is coming true.

      “Is not this sort of Darwinism among nations and political and economic systems the only preparation possible for the even more ruthless, indeed perhaps hopeless challenges humans would be expected to encounter before a far more advanced alien species”

      This is nonsense.

      If you read my first book, you will find a brief summary of Samuel Huntington’s book A Clash of Civilizations. Human society is not one, and cannot be made one, prior to the return of Jesus Christ. Civilizations are by definition incompatible with one another. They have irreconcilable differences, as the divorce lawyers put it.

      Islam, for instance, at its center, is a belief that Mohammed’s political/belief regime will one day rule the world. There is no compromise in that world view; either the Mohammedans abandon it, or the rest of us will have to cope with their eternal insistence on fulfilling the Islamic vision. Lots of other irreconcilables can be brought into view, but we don’t need any others to demonstrate the point. We are not one race, and won’t be, even if your ridiculous alien invasion assumptions were true.

      You sound exactly like the entities that abduct human beings, and experiment with them. The victims always report that they were told just this scenario by their abductors. There ARE aliens, of course, but they are already here; they are not visitors of another planet, the result of materialistic evolution elsewhere–they are invaders from a spiritual dimension (a recent comment here called them “out of towners,” which I found a delightful coinage). The Bible tells all about them.

      No, your points are all foolishness–and certainly are not inspired by the interview.

      1. Patrick, thank you, you always make so much sense. I, for one, am really glad you are a regular contributor. Boy there be a void if you were silent.

  3. I always thought that you were just cynical, Patrick, but I see I was quite wrong. You’re as nutty as a fruitcake, as ideologically deranged as Sue. Aliens from a spiritual dimension abducting humans? I wonder what proportion of the American people believe stuff like this.

    1. Congratulations on forming a coherent sentence Mark(or is it Mork?). Too bad it only happens when you are insulting people. Anyway, Nanu Nanu. As for the abduction phenomena I suggest you check out the research of John Mack (Harvard), or David Jacobs (Temple).

      Corrupting the Image by Douglas Hamp is an excellent book on the subject. Sorry to be off topic.

    2. Well.

      This is interesting.

      Here we are, at a web site devoted to investigating the hidden realities that shape our consciousness, and good old Mark gives us a terrific insight into just that.

      Now, since I’m libertarian–that is, I hate the state–it’s understandable that Mark disagrees with me politically. He’s a statist. I suspect full-bore communism is his bag, but he can define the nuances to a nicety and it won’t look much different than stalinism, so far as I can tell from long correspondence.

      He says he thought I’m “just cynical,” which is true enough; I am a cynic. But his flat rejection of the existence of the spiritual dimension of our universe, and his calling the recognition of it “nutty” and “deranged” is worthy of discussion.

      Communists (and for all practical purposes Mark is one) derive their world view, in significant part, from something called “dialectical materialism.” The idea is that there is nothing except physical matter. There is no world we can’t detect with physical instruments.

      Well, that’s an assumption. It is an assumption that flies in the face of human experience. Alien abductions, crop circles, the entire–vast–UFO phenomenon, demon possession, SRA/DID; need I go on? The spirit realm is intruding into this material plane all the time. And increasingly.

      I like Mark, so I laugh when he says that I’m “nutty as a fruitcake” and “ideologically deranged,” and that this somehow explains why I would talk about “aliens from a spiritual dimension abducting humans.”

      This is odd. We, here, agree that the world as presented to us is false. So when I, or anyone like me, posits that there is a dimension that overlaps our own, and that beings from there can enter our world–and that these intrusions explain the events materialism cannot explain–one would expect a bit more, how to say, latitude? Here?

      Mark, dear friend, read the Bible. If you do, you will find that dialectical materialism is an empty ideology. There is a heavenly realm, full of beings who can enter our world and manifest in many ways–sometimes as one of us, sometimes scary-evil, sometimes scary-wonderful. they are way more powerful than us. They can deceive us.

      Now, you don’t have to do that. You don’t have to study the Bible, and learn about the spiritual reality that surrounds this one. You also don’t have to believe the testimonies of the abductees–however compelling and irrefutable they are in fact. You could, if you wish, choose to be a heroin addict, or a soldier of fortune–or a writer for The Nation (God forbid). But choosing a false thing does not make the truth false. On the other hand, choosing the true thing puts all false things into perspective.

      Here’s wishing you choose wisely.

      Your friend,,


      1. I’m with Mark.

        There are no “alien abductions,” Patrick, and no, we who comment on this site AREN’T “devoted to investigating the hidden realities that shape our consciousness.” We’re interested in investigating hoaxes perpetrated by our government, or the “rogue government,” if you will. That consists entirely of humans, however reptilianly they may behave.

        To the extent any “aliens” have ever appeared and been verified by some means, they are the result of mischief, probably military. Read Houdini’s book about illusions and frauds.

        Your point that one must question why they would be visiting now, as opposed to during the 30 Years War, would be better if you asked why they didn’t visit during the whole 4.5 billion years of Earth’s existence, or why they chose Earth out of jillions of jillions of other possibilities just in our solar system, not to mention the whole universe.

        But that’s because they didn’t choose Earth. They’re not here. They’re not coming. They’re not influencing human affairs.

        1. To the extent any “aliens” have ever appeared and been verified by some means, they are the result of mischief, probably military.

          Are you talking about the same military that paid men to stare at goats, and used remote viewing(psychics) as a tool for spying?

          The Studies on abductions were intended to disprove the phenomena. Begrudgingly, the researchers had to admit there is something going on, its real, and their peers could find no fault in their research method.

          The world is in as big a mess as it ever has been, and I personally don’t think its the result of just men. Anyway, I think this all started when Patrick replied to a comment regarding Space Aliens. I’m pretty sure he was implying the absence of such creatures in his comment. The reality, no matter how hard to swallow, is worse. The sad part is, even most Christians will not believe the truth.

          As for being “with Mark” on anything, I would proceed with caution. He employs no subterfuge in his comments. He revels in the destruction of America.

      2. I was just preparing dinner when this comment from “Loic” came to mind:

        “Also, perhaps you could elaborate on the discourse used by the “entities” you reference”

        I intended to say: please reference Rich’s perfectly apt comment. Google those researchers, read the books.

        By the time I made it back to the computer, dinophile, whom I dearly love, demonstrated an abject lack of knowledge of the subject. I am sorry to say.

        It’s true that UFOlogy takes some gumption to face, but so is the fact that the federal government did OKC and 9/11.

        The abduction phenomenon is not imaginary. These people are (reluctantly) telling the truth. People like us need to stand with them, not denounce them as frauds.

        I am sorry you feel that way, dino, but “feel” is what you are doing. If you THINK, as you are so well capable of, researcher that you are, you will find that this connects to the Deep Underground Military Bases, the cattle mutilations, and the Denver Airport you probably know a lot about.

        I’m frankly surprised. I’d have thought you knew all about this material.

        Watch the youtube videos of Phil Schneider, for a start.

    3. Mark – no worries, Mate. We al lhave diffing levels of tolerance of novelty and affinity for comfortable world views. Some folks can allow that their own perceptions and analysis are valid, while others leave it to experts and officials to figure things out and tell them the facts. Your dismissal with prejudice of a phenomenon that is clearly supported by the facts, facts that would convict a murderer in a court of law, means only that your level of understanding does not support such a thought. That is fine. But why the disparagement of another person who simply holds a differing view? You insist that YOUR view be honored but do not return the favor. Telling.

  4. I don’t know how we got on this subject but as long as we are here, Loic has a point. In the 1960’s a Russian scientist Shlovskii wrote a book on possible space civilizations and Carl Sagan filled it out to publish it joinltly as INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSIE. It posed a very interesting question, or at least one I found interesting. If there are other technical civilizations in the universe, do they exist on the order of ten light-years away, 100 light-years, or a 1000 light-years.

    The two scientists develop a long equation which had as variables an estimate of the number of stars, the average number of planets for each star, the average distance of the planets from the stars, etc.

    What was interesting about the equation is that the answer of the distance between technical civilizations depended on the LIFESPAN of the civilization. The longer the lifespan of course, the closer the civilizations would cluster. For no good (physical) reason the scientists assumed that the lifespan of a space civilization averaged 6 million years, and consequently the distance between space peoples, should they exist, would be on the order of 100 light-years.

    having resolved your curiosity on that point, we can now resume our interest in an even more puzzling question: whether there is intelligent life on earth.

    1. You are thinking of the Drake Equation, devised by Frank Drake, the radio astronomer at Cornell who has had the Search for Extraterrestrial Life going for over 50 years. This is a big array of radio telescopes pointing all over the galaxy looking for radio emissions which might indicate extraterrestrial civilizations. So far, they have found none.

      Starlarvae is also right about panspermia being a viable theory to account for life on earth. But I don’t think that bacterial endospores persisting in space, and colonizing planets, are what Patrick means by “aliens” landing here! We’ve previously had discussions on this site about Tommy Gold, too, another Cornell astrophysicist, who developed the abiogenic theory of oil, gas, & coal.

      Drake, Gold, and Carl Sagan co-taught Astronomy 101-102 at Cornell in 1972-73, which I took. It was a memorable experience.

      1. No, I don’t think life evolved at all, here or elsewhere. Certainly, the desperate theory that life arose from dead matter elsewhere in the universe and somehow crossed the impossible lightyears to start a colony here is laughable on its face. Evolution is physically impossible, on dozens of levels. It is a pathetic joke.

        Life was created in its infinite complexity by God, who also created another dimension filled with intelligent beings who have the power to enter into this one. They, like us, have free will, and many of them have chosen to muck up things here. We might complain, and say it’s not fair that they are more powerful than we, and that we should have the power to go into the Heavenly realm and disrupt their lives the way they do ours, but we can’t make it any different than it is by complaining.

        Why are the crop circles made? Why are they so impossibly mathematically complex?

        Why are the cattle mutilations so surgically exact, leaving not a drop of blood and removing only organs that would be used for genetic experimentation?

        Why are abductees almost always sexually exploited? Why are they often re-abducted and made to “bond” with their hybrid offspring?

        Why have these things only started to happen in recent decades?

        I can answer these questions. Most people are afraid to even acknowledge that they are worthy of being asked.

      2. Yikes. Who said anything about life arising “from dead matter elsewhere in the universe”?

        Evolution is not only not “physically impossible,” Patrick, it is supported by at least five firmly established branches of science (e.g., the fossil record, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, natural selection, artificial selection). It stands on a foundation of thousands upon thousands of pieces of evidence, independent observations and experiments–and corroborations–by scientists all over the world.

        Quite unlike the handful of anecdotes about “alien abductees,” crop circles, and cattle mutilations–and what significance would those have on whether or not evolution is occurring, anyway?

        Patrick, you are a smart guy, and I agree with you about much when it comes to false flags and psyops–and I, too, want to keep on topic–but you would do well to take a college biology course. You don’t know what you’re missing! You are making such a grave error to assert there is no support for evolution. You are dead wrong.

        1. The thousands of pieces of evidence and corroboration of the scientists of which you speak all rely on their belief in evolution. My question would be: If billions of people could be deluded into believing in God, or the various other gods; how hard would it be to delude a few thousand, or hundred thousand scientists into believing in evolution, creating a priesthood based on that, and charging other people money to become versed in their religion, and to spread their word?

      3. “Who said anything about life arising “from dead matter elsewhere in the universe”?”

        You did, dino. That’s the meaning of the term “panspermia”: evolution (dead material becoming alive, and adding new information spontaneously, forever) happened on some remote world and somehow made its way here.

        “You are making such a grave error to assert there is no support for evolution. You are dead wrong.”

        On the contrary. I have spent long hours investigating this topic. Biology flatly contradicts evolution. Impossible complexity is what biology evidenced, everywhere life is found. No baby-steps exist, non-complex life forms that somehow became increasingly complex. As for the fossil record, there are no “in-betweens,” anywhere. All organisms found are fully formed, and distinct from one another.

        As I say there are dozens of layers of proof that evolution is a hoax, and I would gladly step you through them one by one, if you want to be decontaminated from that mental poison. I will offer two, as a start.

        1) Left-handed amino acids. All life is comprised of them exclusively. In the non-living world, there is an equal proportion of right and left-handed amino acids. It is statistically impossible for this to have occurred randomly (which is what evolution posits).

        2) The butterfly. It starts out growing into a worm, which spins a cocoon around itself inside of which it dissolves into a gloopy glop of amino acids and then reassembles itself into anything but a worm–something that flies, and eats an entirely different diet. Provide me with a step-by-step scenario of how this process randomly evolved by chance mutations (be explicitly specific–I want details).

        Bonus question: how did sex develop, if random mutations over endless eons explain biology? Every random mistake in the genome (which is a digital code, incidentally, which cannot occur randomly, being information) would have to be done TWICE, (in both sexes) in order to be compatible for reproduction–and in the exact same locality, so the mutual mutation can be passed along. How that offspring could find a mate with the same “mistakes” on board is a problem that will be faced every generation for millions of years in every species, forever.

        Statisticians have calculated the improbabilities of each and every branch of science, when it comes to evolution, and in every instance they come to the impossibility number. That is the point when something is so improbable that it is scientifically impossible.

        I could go on all day, offering proofs of evolution’s impossibility. I can offer you a list of scholarly works that inform my opinion. I cheerfully offer these services to you. You call me ignorant to disbelieve evolution. I offer you the same diagnosis for believing in it.

        1. Patrick, you are revealing gross ignorance about a number of things. Here’s a quick response to your points:

          1. Panspermia has to do with the travel through space of MICROBES, not “dead matter.” No one said anything about dead matter becoming alive.

          2. The long hours you have spent “investigating evolution” have not been spent in the right places. Try looking into endosymbiosis, which explains why mitochondria in eukaryotic (plant and animal) cells are identical to certain prokaryotes (bacteria–in this case Rickettsiae). The bacteria were ingested by them. Chloroplasts in plant leaf cells are also virtually identical to simple one-celled photosynthetic prokaryotes called cyanobacteria, so again were ingested.

          3. Left-handed amino acids are found in PROTEINS. There are right-handed amino acids in other compounds and other life forms. For example, D-amino acids (right-handed) are found in bacterial cell walls.

          4. As to the metamorphosis of a butterfly–from a CATERPILLAR, not a WORM!–look up “imaginal disk,” for a start. The adult structures are there in the juvenile. They just don’t expand until maturity, triggered when certain hormones start being produced. The “program” for development is there in the Lepidopteran genome, just as it is in humans.

          5. As for inheritance of mutations, this is a very complex subject, but here’s one brief example. Much of the divergence between proto-humans and chimps six million years ago appears due to the inversion and translocation of a single chromosome. It was not a sex chromosome, so mating was still possible.

          I hope that helps, but you must first realize that you have some very strong prejudices which you are going to have to cast aside in order to learn what the true scientific explanation is.

  5. I remember a dinner I had about this time with a physical scientist from Austria. He was known for arguing that the microbes on a meteor that landed on earth were from outer space. The conventional scientific view was that they were contamination from earth. He was explaining the argument to me when, after summarizing the physical evidence, he began summarizing the theological evidence.

    The theological evidence? The guy was as crazy as a loon. The university eventually realized it and sent him back to Austria. He has no doubt since passed on to Glory, which is too bad, because he would have made a good dinner companion for Patrick.

    1. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the prospect of extraterrestrial viruses and bacteria, or their potential role in terrestrial evolution. See, for example, here:
      http://www.panspermia.org/bacteria.htm and scroll down to the “What’s New” section.

      Researchers continue to identify increasingly complex organic molecules in interstellar space, including amino and nucleic acids. Plus, certain bacteria, dubbed “extremophiles,” remain viable despite exposure to extremes of heat, pressure/vacuum, and radiation. There’s no longer any reason to limit models of biogenesis to the terrestrial sphere.

  6. Ok guys, let me, just for a moment if I may, get back to Chris Emery and “A Noble Lie”. He does a great job proving that McVeigh could not have acted alone, and that the supposed ammonium nitrate bomb did not destroy the building. I would like to have heard him speculate a little more on what he thinks the purpose of the attack was from the point of view of the perpetrators.

    Obviously it was used to promote an early version of the Patriot Act, authored at the time by then senator Joe Biden. The destruction also enabled the disappearance of incriminating documents pertaining to the Whitewater investigation. However a third ramification of this event was the effect it had on altering the renovation plans at the Pentagon.

    Because the Murrah building was so badly damaged by a truck bomb parked out on the street, a new plan to reinforce the outer west wall of the Pentagon was drafted. Here is a quote from Kevin Ryan’s “Another Nineteen”:

    “in 1997, a new plan for the renovation project was crafted by Hamre, reportedly in response to the mid-1990s terrorist attacks in Oklahoma City and abroad. This new plan appeared to be an effort to improve the resistance of the exterior of the building to an explosive impact, with additional actions taken to reduce the possibility of fire damage.”

    It seems that the events in Oklahoma City led directly to the renovations at the Pentagon, which we now know played an essential role in staging the terrorist attack on that building on 911. Could they also have led to a “terrorist proofing” upgrade at the World Trade Center? I think that this is an enormously significant question, which leads us to the conclusion that all three major terrorist attacks in the decade from 1993 through 2001 were connected, deliberate, and staged by a government spanning three different presidential administrations. Here is proof that we live under the control of Peter Dale Scott’s “Deep State”.

    1. “Because the Murrah building was so badly damaged by a truck bomb parked out on the street…”

      The truck bomb did not so much as scorch the facade of the building. Its energy never reached the building; it only blew a hole in the street. Fertilizer wasn’t even used, which we know because such explosives are dirty, and leave a disgusting residue everywhere, which did not happen. Everything about this event is a lie.

      Sure, the monsters who did it made that case, but we should never allow ourselves to fall into the trap of agreement with the lie. The building was (partially) brought down from within. McVey and the Ryder truck had nothing to do with it. Ben Partin did fantastic work explaining the lie (http://www.orwelltoday.com/okpartin.shtml).

      “I think that this is an enormously significant question, which leads us to the conclusion that all three major terrorist attacks in the decade from 1993 through 2001 were connected, deliberate, and staged by a government spanning three different presidential administrations. Here is proof that we live under the control of Peter Dale Scott’s “Deep State”.”

      The Deep Politics go back to the 50s, at least. Everything is deception. We don’t need the fake fertilizer bomb to connect these events. Maybe they used the fakery to justify the renovations to the Pentagon, but I doubt it–they need make no explanations for such things, because they are unaccountable, so who cares what they say? They are laughing at us. And certainly, the WTC had no such upgrades implemented–and in any event, everything they said about WTC is a lie; no planes, no Arabs, no “terrorism.”

      Same with OKC. All a lie.

    2. Yes, Christo, it would have been interesting to hear his opinion about the reason for the bombing, apart from the implied connection to the destruction of the FBI Whitewater files. But I don’t blame him for not including speculations about motive because that would have decreased the credibility of the physical evidence in the film.

      It has been suggested that McVeigh and Nichols were frontmen for a mideast terrorist organization. See http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-real-story-of-the-oklahoma-city-bombing/

      I don’t believe that for a second, but it seems quite plausible that someone among the perps may have wanted to blame a (fake) group of Arab terrorists if the need arose. Instead, Clinton chose to blame the Patriot-types. Pinning the blame on domestic extremists would also make the disastrous Waco attack look a little better.
      The WTC 1993 bombing provided a clear precedent for crazy Moslems trying to blow up an important building, and used a truck bomb too. (I don’t know whether the 1993 bombing was a real but idiotic plot, or an FBI set-up.)
      Supposedly there was an assassination attempt on Clinton in 1995 by some Bin Laden types. That too would have provided cover for a Moslem extremist plot.

      I suppose the FBI files by themselves would have provided ample reason for Clinton to blow up the building. The Clintons were involved in all sorts of bad stuff, not just Whitewater, but drug-running and murders (not directly of course).

      The WTC (and Building 7) bombing in 2001 may have the Republicans’ reply to the Clintons; you blew up a building to cover your ass, we can do that too – only bigger and better!

  7. “Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.”

    John Lennon

    Never really considered the era of the hippy movement was a failed social manipulation, tax payer funded experiment.

    Stumbled on this site that is full of links to his great man’s life and is so relevant today.


    Peace and love to all!

    1. “All we are saying, is give peace a chance!”

      Perhaps we have discovered their mode of operation, whenever all the records are sealed on a murder, or those released are pure rubbish, it is another false flag.

  8. Patrick- I think that my argument was not clear enough.

    Bureaucrats always need justifying reasons to undertake actions like the renovations at the Pentagon. They needed an excuse to spend money hardening the west wall against a domestic terrorist attack like the one staged at OKC. The bombing was merely a pretext to accomplish this. The perpetrators chose to place the truck out on the street rather than inside the Murrah building’s parking garage, because they wanted to make the case that steel reinforced concrete buildings were vulnerable to a truck bomb parked outside the building- exactly what General Partin said should not have happened.

    This thinking would also have applied to perceived vulnerabilities at the World Trade Center, which had finally restricted access to its parking garage after the 1993 bombing. Remember that the stated aim of the first attack on the WTC complex was to collapse one building onto its twin, causing, in the words of Ramsi Yoseff, the deaths of 250,000 people. So the OKC bombing also created a bureaucratic pretext to consider ways to prevent one WTC building from toppling over sideways onto its neighbor from the effects of a truck bomb.

    The only way to accomplish this, short of banning all traffic near the buildings, or surrounding them with a bomb proof barrier, would have been to somehow rig the buildings with some kind of fireproof explosive in order to collapse them into their own footprint in the event of an attack. This is in fact exactly what was done. We know that the demolition charges in the WTC buildings were fireproof because they did not detonate during the fires which preceded their collapse.

    The reason that I am belaboring this point is that it should give us an insight into how the national security state could do something as insidious as setting up the World Trade Center for demolition, even as unwitting New Yorkers used it for their business. This helps overcome a major hurdle in getting Americans to accept the notion that their government could have prewired the WTC buildings for an explosive collapse. They did it, you see, “to help save lives”.

    Of course, once we see that all of these events were deliberately staged and connected, we know the real truth.

  9. “According to Britain’s…The Mail on Sunday, quoting the head of Ukraine intelligence, the insidious design of the pro-Russian rebels (supported by Moscow) was to shoot down a Russian commercial airline plane, with a view to blaming the Ukrainian government. The objective of this alleged “false flag” covert op was to create a justifiable and credible pretext for Vladimir Putin to declare war on Ukraine.

    In an utterly twisted logic, according to Ukraine’s head of intelligence:

    “the [Donesk] rebels were meant to down [the] Aeroflot plane… to justify the invasion [of Ukraine by Russia]“,

    Valentyn Nalyvaichenko…, head of Ukraine intelligence confirms that the pro-Russian rebels were “aiming at a Russian passenger plane “so Putin had reason to invade”.

    “the crime was planned as a ground for bringing of Russian troops into Ukraine, that is – CASUS BELLI for the Russian military invasion.”…

    In a bitter irony, the alleged “false flag” covert op got muddled. The Donesk rebels got it all wrong and hit the MH17 plane by mistake.

    That’s the “official line” now emanating from Kiev’s “intelligent” Secret Service (SBU), yet to be corroborated by their Western intelligence counterparts including the CIA and Britain’s MI6 which are actively collaborating with Ukraine’s SBU.”


    The above scenario strikingly mirrors (literally, as it is reversed) this comment posted to Reddit on the day of the incident itself: “A true coincidence reveals the lie. In the first instance, a Malaysian Airlines 777 is accidentally shot down by American war game forces in the Pacific, this cannot be admitted to and all that follows is a lie. In the second instance, CIA-backed clandestine forces intentionally down a passenger jet over eastern Ukraine, having primed Western populations to blame Russia over other actors or countries–the intent, to turn the public against Russia and generate all manner of pretexts for open Western-backed isolation/aggression against Russia. However, a great and most unforeseen coincidence occurs, the second ‘incident’ unintentionally mirrors the first in such emblematic similarities (i.e. same airline company and airplane type) as to become a flag connecting the two (through the near impossibility of chance and the near certainty of lies) and suggesting a web of misdirection, deception, and strategically murderous raisons d’État in a manner that can only be described as an accusatory actus Dei against the American dark state.”


  10. Isn’t that clever! Eventually the Kiev involvement in the shootdown will drift out, and since the regime is controlled by the US forces, the implication of the US involvement in a false flag will gain traction. It can be blunted to some extent by the lies put out by Kiev, the precise contrary of the truth, which the US might endorse publically if it flies at all. Clever damage control like this is an advantage of being ruled by psychopaths.

    The shootdown was very effective In getting the EU and Germany to agree to sanctions. This way the leaders can cover their asses as the truth becomes known.

    1. ” the precise contrary of the truth”–The “world in inverse” is precisely the code thats followed in the literature of hegemonic apology, it is the continuation of the hermetic (not precisely literally) tradition of the “allegory of reversal” used to convey hidden truths through a paradoxical discourse of concealed revelation and alternatively vice versa, creating movement out of stasis and false calm covering incessant machinations. See Philip Bobbitt, Leo Strauss, and ultimately Heidegger.

      1. I quote from here for a clearer explanation: “Heidegger intended to replace metaphysics by a new kind of thought about that which he called Sein, but in his works this noun is very far from meaning the act of being such as it has been traditionally conceived by Western philosophy. His explanations as to what he does mean by Sein underline his departure from traditional metaphysics. Sein is no longer to be understood as the act of the things that exist in the eternal world, but as something revealed to the human mind in an esoteric way. The association of this esoteric revelation of Sein with Hölderlin’s theosophy led Heidegger to put forward a new gnosis organized as a substitute of metaphysics and of Christian theology as well.”


      2. Very interesting critique on the subject (especially the revelation of Strauss’s sympathy for “Roman thought”), though I disagree with its conclusions: https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24717-the-german-stranger-leo-strauss-and-national-socialism/

        Also, does this not say it all?: “Strauss’s argument is not that the medieval writers he studies reserved one exoteric meaning for the many (hoi polloi) and an esoteric/hidden one for the few (hoi aristoi), but that said writers succeeded in conveying meaning proper at the heart of their writings—a heart or message irreducible to “the letter” or historical dimension of texts.

        Explicitly following G.E. Lessing’s lead, Strauss indicates that medieval political philosophers, no less than their ancient counterparts, in writing, carefully adapted their wording to the dominant moral views of their time, lest their writings be condemned as heretical or unjust, not by “the many” (who did not read), but by those “few” whom the many regarded as the most righteous guardians of morality: precisely those few righteous personalities would be most inclined to persecute or ostracize anyone who is in the business of exposing the noble or great lie upon which stands or falls the authority of the few over the many.”


        And is it not equally applicable to the larger, even the majority of “respected” high political discourse in America and elsewhere? Especially so post-911.

      3. “who is in the business of exposing the noble or great lie upon which stands or falls the authority of the few over the many.” Though said “exoteric” philosophers do it not for the benefit of “hoi polloi” (which either could never understand or would respond chaotically), but rather for that of the most perceptive elements and “changers” within the elite itself, i.e. those intuitively privy to the same mysterious esoterica guiding and more clearly seen by the aforesaid philosophers themselves.

  11. Pedantic Skirt’s comment on the downplaying of the investigation of the shootdown of MH 17 is an example of Jame’s “Publicity of the Unspeakable.” the professional truthers embedded in the American and Western truth institutions are warned, as they mostly already know, that this is Forbidden Knowledge and to work around it. the aim is to delay the knowledge until it is Old News, when it doesn’t matter anymore.

  12. Loic, when I was a young undergraduate at the U of Chicago (it took me decades to unlearn what they taught me there) I heard a public lecture by Leo Strauss on Machiavelli. Pure cliché, bullshit, and blowhard enunciation of the usual exposition of his wickedness. I couldn’t understand why the university had someone like that give the public lectures.

    I only learned three or four decades later that Strauss considered himself a devotee of Machiavelli, and really believed the exact contrary of what he publically stated. I had been given a Machiavellian lecture on Machiavelli! Well I was very young then (Chicago recruited students before they finished high school) and it never occurred to me that the university would deliberately lie to me.

    But it was funded by Rockefeller, et al, and the oligarchs, who do not possess an overly careful regard for the truth, to put it mildly. Chicago still sends me letters and gets people to call me to contribute money to them. Fat chance. Largely through the ‘publicity of the unspeakable’ they teach students the precise contrary of the reality-based historical truth.

  13. I just want to add some evidence to my earlier comment about the use of the OKC bombing to justify the placing of prophylactic demolition charges in the WTC buildings. One might be skeptical that even at a top secret level, bureaucrats would approve this approach to solving the” toppling over into each other” problem which was presented by the two extremely tall, massive and close together structures of WTC1 and WTC2.

    However this skepticism fails to consider the nature of the nanothermite used to collapse these buildings into their footprints. Nanothermite can be engineered to ignite at a very high temperature. Here is a passage from 911blogger.com:

    “Also, the multilayer structure can be engineered to provide desired ignition temperatures and detonation characteristics. For example, the multilayer explosive can be engineered to be ignited by a mechanical scratch at room temperature, or to be as insensitive to ignition as a mixture of powder components. In addition, the ability to control the thickness (from 10 to 10,000 angstroms) of the various layers in the multilayer structure provides control over ignition sensitivity. Thicker layers in the multilayer structure produce a more stable material.”

    All that would be required to make the installation of prophylactic demolition charges acceptable would be to prove that they would not detonate anywhere near the temperature of normal office fires.

    For those who doubt that the proximity of the two WTC buildings to each other was really considered such a serious problem for the “security experts” at Stratasec, I would point to the design of the new buildings which have replaced them. By creating memorials in the former footprints of the old WTC buildings, the designers of the new buildings have placed them much further apart, thus paying lip service to the boogyman which was used to facilitate the destruction of those two white elephants from the 70s.

  14. Apropos the topic of the scientific “psychology of control”: David Foster Wallace, a writer known above all else for his dystopian novel ‘Infinite Jest,’ having been on antidepressant pharmacopeia for decades clearly at least suspected the centrality of all manner of mind control in American society, as is reflected in the symbolic centrality, within the aforesaid novel, of a visual mind control/hypnotic device of ‘infinite jest’ used for terroristic/destabilizing effects. The question: Is there a potential for areas of the Internet or indeed for Internet-connected electronic devices to become instruments of visual/radiative mind control and hypnosis, albeit to a usually less intense and paralyzing degree than that described in the novel?

    Also, before his demise Wallace complained of a sense of a dissipation of reality itself coinciding with the ethereal yet exponential expansion of the Internet. Is reality itself possibly being undermined, even terrorized by the exponential chaos of the permanently recorded yet intensely disordered expressions of human thought and consciousness that “infinitely” play on the electronically-mediated “telepathic” streams of the Internet?

Leave a Reply