The 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is upon us. According to official sources, 19 mainly Saudi terrorists hijacked four planes, flying two into the World Trade Centre (WTC) complex and one into the Pentagon, with another crashing inside a hole in field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Other than some mainstream media broadcasts and reports, there is virtually no verifiable evidence to substantiate the official account.
Somehow we appear to have arrived at a point where people imagine that 9/11 truth is a matter of opinion. It most assuredly is not. The truth of what occurred that day and who was responsible is indelibly fixed in space and time. Our opinions about that truth do not affect it in any way.
We should examine the evidence to understand the facts that will reveal the truth. That is why, on the 20th anniversary of that terrible event, we need to recognise what 9/11 truth means.
We can say with certainty that nearly 3,000 people died that day and many thousands more have subsequently perished before their time as a result of their exposure to toxic WTC dust. We can also be certain that the evidence does not support the official "story" of 9/11.
According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, who led the official investigation into the WTC structural collapses, WTC 7 suffered a total collapse as a result of fires started by debris from WTC 2. This derived conclusion is one of the many official opinions which appear to be false.
A 2020 published, peer reviewed study from the University of Fairbanks Alaska proved that fires alone could not have caused the total collapse of WTC 7. It is likely that it was caused by some form of controlled demolition.
Therefore, the official account of 9/11 is unsupported and we have grounds for further investigation. That is all we need to know in order to demand a full investigation into what actually happened.
The wider evidence, into other aspects of the attacks, highlights so many unresolved questions that we have little reason to believe any part of the official account. It strongly suggests that 9/11 was yet another false flag attack.
While the logical position is that the official narrative is likely to be false, this does not mean that we should simply accept the contradictory evidence without questioning it. The debunker Mick West is among those who continue to do so. This is the right approach.
However, to deny the existence of evidence and, in doing so, maintain that the official account must be true, is wrong. Where contradictory evidence exists we cannot rightfully maintain a theory, or a subsequent narrative, unless we account for all of it, in full.
We should keep this in mind on the 20th anniversary of 9/11. The mainstream media (MSM) will uncritically report and broadcast the ceremonial speeches of politicians who claim to know what happened on 9/11. All reports by the MSM which assert that the official account is an established, known fact are wrong.
On the day of the attacks the BBC reported that WTC 7 had collapsed more than 20 minutes before it did. NIST would subsequently claim that the "progressive" total collapse of WTC7, caused by a fire, was a world first. That the BBC could predict this, 20 minutes in advance, is truly unbelievable.
The BBC even knew why it collapsed, saying the structure was weakened. This was more than 7 years before NIST would release its report essentially claiming the same thing.
Occam's razor suggests that the BBC had some foreknowledge of an unprecedented global event. This likelihood remains after the BBC's explanation failed to dispel it. In 2007 Richard Porter, then head of the BBC World News, issued a quite ridiculous response statement.
Porter claimed that, amid the confusion of the day, the BBC reported a unique historical event, 20 minutes before it allegedly transpired, by mistake. A truly mind bending coincidence, if he is to be believed. He also made sure to ridicule any suggestion that the BBC were involved in a "conspiracy" before stating that the BBC had lost all of its footage for that day.
Clearly Porter's farcical explanation gave him some kudos with the right people. He rapidly progressed to become editorial director of BBC Global News before eventually rising to his current position as Director of Communications for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Those who question 9/11 are often referred to as "conspiracy theorists" or "truthers." This labelling is intended to discredit critics and dissuade the broader public from ever considering the evidence they cite. The irony is that the official account of the 9/11 attacks is a theory about a conspiracy which lacks substantiating evidence.
We are given the impression by the MSM that everyone knows what happened on 9/11. The only people who question it are silly conspiracy theorists.
This frequently expressed MSM opinion doesn't appear to be true. A 2016 survey conducted by researchers at Chapman University in the US found that more than half of Americans thought the US government were hiding the truth about 9/11.
The MSM's task is to "debunk" any who question the official 9/11 story. They typically use ad-hominem attacks, strawman arguments or simply lie to protect the official account. For example in 2011 the BBC wrote:
"No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges despite the extensive hand searches and there is no evidence of any pre-cutting of columns or walls, which is routinely carried out in a controlled demolition."
The 2009 research paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered the Dust From the 9/11 World Trade Centre Catastrophe, published by the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, presented evidence of possible explosive charges. Similarly, the numerous photographs of what appear to be columns cut by shaped charges at ground zero is evidence suggestive of pre-cutting prior to collapse.
Neither the Copenhagen paper nor the images "prove" that explosives were used or (thermitic) cutting occurred. However, the BBC's assertion that the evidence pointing toward this possibility did not exist, or had "never been found," was a lie.
Another irony is the that the lack of peer review, which sadly has diminishing merit, is often used by so called debunkers to rubbish the research of their conspiracy theorists targets. Yet the entire 9/11 WTC collapse narrative is based upon NIST reports that have not been peer reviewed. This is always conveniently overlooked by those who promote the official 9/11 narrative.
Despite immense resistance to publication, the Fairbanks study added to the growing list of published, peer reviewed papers that question 9/11. Among those seeking the truth are the family members of 9/11 victims. There is no justification for continuing the false claim that the world knows what happened that day. It does not.
The need for a genuine investigation clearly exists. Only a truly independent, jury led inquiry, can possibly examine all the evidence and have any chance of finding the truth.
The State is potentially the culprit. Any State involvement in either the investigation or a public inquiry, beyond offering evidence, would reduce the chances of justice being served.
We know that the official account is extremely unlikely to be true and we also know that the reporting of 9/11 by the MSM is untrustworthy. On the 20th anniversary of the event that began the global war on terror where does that leave us?
It is crucial that we understand what "truth" means. The Oxford English Dictionary definition reads:
"The quality or state of being true.. that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.. a fact or belief that is accepted as true."
This is a relativistic definition of "truth." Something can be true if it is in accordance with fact and reality. However, if we accept the dictionary definition, something can also be said to be true if it is simply a belief which is accepted as truth.
Therefore, if we trust the dictionary definition, can we say that the official account of 9/11 is also not true because a majority believe it isn't? Is this acceptable? Is a belief that something is true (or not) really sufficient to claim it as reality?
There is only one truth and it is absolute. Truth is not a matter of perspective. A chain of events actually occurred, in reality, on September the 11th 2001. That reality is immutable and we can discover what it is by studying the evidence which will reveal the facts. No matter what our opinions may be, they won't change that reality.
Accepting the existence of a single, absolute truth contrasts to the relativism of postmodernist theory which has coloured so much of our contemporary society. It is extremely common to hear people talk of their truth, to claim that what is true for them is not necessarily true for you.
This relative view of reality (solipsism) denies both reality and truth. It maintains that truth only exists wherever we believe it, that we define truth through our perception. This is dangerous folly.
If there is no objective truth then what is the point of searching for it? It allows us to believe whatever we like and imagine that it is true, whether it is or not. It fosters apathy, providing us the erroneous self justification to abandon critical thinking. In such a psychologically damaged state we can be told anything and "believe it."
The truth can be deduced (known) using logical reasoning applied to the evidence. If we take this approach to the idea of "relative truth" we can immediately deduce that it is false (wrong).
"The truth is relative" is a claimed statement of absolute fact and is therefore self contradictory. If truth were merely a matter of perspective then the statement "the truth is not relative" would also be true. This mutually exclusive contradiction cannot exist in reality.
Apparent contradiction allows two opposing partial truths to exist simultaneously. This is because partially true statements can coexist. However, knowledge soon resolves that these two partial truths can never be the whole truth in and of themselves.
The famous meme of the dress that simultaneously appeared to be both blue & black and white & gold, allowed two opposing partial truths to coexist. "I see blue and black" and "I see white and gold" were both apparently true, depending upon your perspective.
However, our relative perspectives did not allow the dress to reflect opposing wavelengths of light at the same time. The whole truth was that it reflected fixed wavelengths.
Our different perceptions came from our assumptions about the lighting conditions. Our minds inferred different interpretations based upon whether we assumed the dress was lit by artificial light, mentally adding a yellow hue which removed the perception of shadow seen by those who assumed it was sunlit.
The illusion of white and gold was created by our assumptions about lighting conditions, it did not alter how light actually behaves. In reality the dress was blue and black. That is the absolute truth.
Those who advocate relative truth often suggest morality, in particular, is not absolute. Most people accept that it is morally wrong to kill someone. Yet we also accept that it can be justifiable to kill someone in self defence. This "proves," say the postmodernists, that morality is relative and that absolute moral truth does not exist. In doing so they deny the partial moral truths, which exists in reality. They also reject the whole, absolute moral truth.
It is partially true that killing is wrong but it is also partially true that killing is justified if that is the only way to defend your life or the lives of your family. The absolute truth is that it is wrong to initiate the use of lethal force. The aggressor is always wrong, there is no moral ambiguity, as relativism claims, and that is the absolute truth.
So how do we apply this knowledge of truth to 9/11?
It is absolutely true that someone or some group initiated the use of lethal force and murdered, ultimately, more than 3000 people. It is true that WTC 1, 2 & 7 collapsed entirely and that the Pentagon was damaged. It is true that the 9/11 attacks led directly to the so called war on terror which shaped the global political landscape for the first two decades of the 21st century.
It is true that there is a wealth of evidence which suggests the official account of 9/11 is not true. It is true that the evidence offered to substantiate the official account is weak and the evidence contradicting the official account is plausible.
It is true that the MSM have repeatedly lied about the evidence. It is true that, throughout history, governments have frequently used false flag attacks to initiate wars or for broader political objectives.
It is true that a failure to properly investigate the evidence would leave the victims and their families without justice. It is true that morality dictates we restore natural justice and fully investigate all of the evidence.
It is true that 9/11 truth is not a matter of perspective.
The post 9/11 Truth Is Not A Matter of Perspective appeared first on In This Together. Please visit In This Together - The Disillusioned Blogger .
