Wednesday, November 12, 2008

What Did We See On 9/11?

See my commentary at end of post.

Media fakery is nothing new

by Matthew D. Jarvie
November 11, 2008

This is an example of how Hollywood puts out truth in movies, where it's right in people's faces. Most people shrug it off as something that could only happen on the big screen, when it likely happens on a regular basis without their knowing or even their suspicion. They are putting in your face and laughing at you.

In the the years after the attacks on 9/11, independent truthseekers have come forward with the media's own footage showing clear evidence of the manipulation of the images that will forever be etched in most people's minds of the planes hitting the World Trade Center towers. Excellent videos like September Clues present glaring questions that have not been answered: How does an aluminum plane plow through a steel-frame building, with a 47-column steel core, only for its fiberglass nosecone to emerge fully intact on the other side? Why did every media network airing live footage of the event show a "fade to black" screen as Flight 175 was plowing through the south tower, as if to cover up their error at the last minute? Why do we see numerous approach angles for Flight 175 as it closes in on the south tower? In some of the footage we see the plane coming in straight, while in others it makes a diving approach. In one of the clips we don't even see any plane hitting. Why do certain shots show the Empire State Building in the foreground, with one network showing the building to the left of the towers and the other to the right, despite the fact that the backgrounds for both are the same and appear to be shot from the same location? This would suggest some sort of digital, blue screen layering was used to have full control over what the people were seeing on their television screens.

So if no planes hit the towers, is it not a legitimate question to ask why so many people reported to see planes that day? I have no doubt that people saw something. However, initial reports from that morning were conflicting. Some people reported seeing a plane other than the commercial airliners we were told struck the buildings. Some people reported seeing and hearing what they believed to be a missile, while some people reported seeing nothing other than a giant fireball emerge from the buildings. It is possible that whatever hit the buildings -- whether it was a plane or otherwise -- happened so fast that people weren't able to really tell exactly what it was, but that the media's power to manipulate is so great that once the official story came out, it became hard for people to believe it being anything other than a Boeing-767? Is it possible that there were people planted on the streets surrounding the World Trade Center to be interviewed by news reporters, to present the authorized, pre-scripted version of what happened to the public?

Take a look at the clip below. You see a guy on the streets surrounding the World Trade Center being interviewed by a FOX News reporter, who sounds more like an actor than just some regular person who happened to witness the events. Who is this guy, and what makes him an expert on how the buildings fell? Why is he telling us how the buildings fell before even many of the so-called "experts" knew? Why is he talking like he is trying to sell you something, kind of like the people you see in infomercials? This seems more than just a little fishy.

Consensus reality is a manufactured prison for the mind. It is indoctrinated into us from birth by our parents and teachers, whose beliefs, too, are products of this artificial reality. The media then picks up where our parents and teachers left off to further condition us into the desired mindset with endless soundbites, while ridiculing anything that goes against these established viewpoints that are given to the people to parrot without question. These viewpoints are designed to condition you to be easily lead in the direction seen by the controllers.

Nothing is to be trusted without suspicion and scrutiny. People have become domesticated, and trust has overridden the human instinct of self-preservation. People have become accustomed to depending on their abusers for everything. It has gotten so bad that people even depend on their abusers to think for them, because they are unable or unwilling to think for themselves. People like Zbigniew Brzezinski were writing about this back in the early 70s, and it has since become a reality.

One of the leading purveyors of modern-day propaganda, Edward Bernays, in his aptly-titled book, Propaganda (1928), perhaps said it best when he stated:

"As civilization becomes more complex, and as the need for an invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which public opinion may be regimented. With printing press and newspaper, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly, and even instantaneously, across the whole of America.

“We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. What ever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by a relatively small number of persons, a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million, who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, and who harness old social forces and contrive new ways TO BIND AND GUIDE THE WORLD” [emphasis mine].

Bernays' beliefs are identical to those of elitists throughout history. This belief system centers around the idea that the average "commoner" is little more than cattle to be used to the controllers' advantage by obediently serving the state. They keep the cattle obedient by their control over human consciousness, keeping the people dumb, docile, and preoccupied with trivia and mindless entertainment while providing them only with the information they need to be good cogs in the system. The key to unlock your mind from their proverbial shackles begins with understanding the techniques they use against you, and for what purpose.



Mr. Jarvie questions the media participation in the 9/11 attacks in the above and the possibility that many of the videos we have seen may have been manipulated.

I don't look at him as a 'no planer' but that there are still too many unanswered questions.

The newly released videos from, which came from a FOIA request that took about 4 years, gives a chance to analyze and speculate if any of these have been altered.

Since they came from our 'government' I suppose once again it's "Viewer Beware"

kenny's sideshow"

I agree very much with kenny. I am not a "no-planer," but the ease with which technology may be manipulated casts many questions upon "seeing is believing."

However, do not let such issues distract from the overall. Whatever slammed into those towers could not have caused them to descend at free-fall speed in a controlled demolition. And if it were something that could do that, then it could not have been airplane fuel that felled the towers (and I'm not even mentioning WTC 7, a building not even hit my an object) and the government account is a lie.

Don't let these issues of what happened on your tv screen distract from NORAD's stand-down and Dick Cheney's war games or the many other anomalies, such as what hit the Pentagon. The fact is NOTHING should have gotten through the Pentagon's defense systems, nor should an airplane (if that's what it was) would have been allowed to fly so close without a signaling transponder to the Pentagon.

Rather than continue to expound upon 9/11 issues (which would take months), let me leave with with this small consideration to the "debate"

Thanks to author Mike Whitney's research, we now know:

"In researching the Bush administration’s manipulation of public perceptions, I came across an interesting summary of the State Department’s Philip Zelikow, who was Executive Director on the 9-11 Commission, that greatest of all charades. According to Wikipedia:

"Prof. Zelikow’s area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, 'public myths’ or 'public presumptions’ which he defines as 'beliefs (1) thought to be true ( although not necessarily known with certainty) and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.’ In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called 'searing’ or 'molding’ events (that) take on transcendent’ importance and therefore retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene….He has noted that 'a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make the connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all." ("Thinking about Political History" Miller center Report, winter 1999, p 5-7)

Isn’t that the same as saying there is neither history nor truth; that what is really important is the manipulation of epochal events so they serve the interests of society’s managers? Thus, it follows that if the government can create their own "galvanizing events", then they can write history any way they choose.

If that’s the case, then perhaps the entire war on terror is cut from whole cloth; a garish public relations maneuver devoid of meaning...." -- source--"

One of the guys Bernays was talking about.