9/11 revisited – In attempting to debunk the idea that 9/11 was a false-flag operation, the argument is often espoused that “with so many people who would have been involved, it would be impossible to keep it a secret – somebody would have talked.” That is not necessarily the case, as former British MI5 officer Annie Machon describes in this video: “…there might be one or two people who have the over-all picture, and then other people would have compartmentalized views of what happened…it’s very much a “need to know.”
“…even if it were the case that thousands of people were involved in something illegal on 9/11 that came out of the American administration – the American government – they would probably keep quiet. Where would their interest lie in going public about it? One, it would certainly ruin their livelihood, and it might well jeopardize other things, up to and including their lives. So those are strong incentives to keep quiet if you’re involved in those sorts of things.”
In addition, if a false-flag operation took place during same-day drills for the same kind of attack (9/11 and London’s 7/7 drills), most people involved would be simply performing their normal duties.
“The false flag phenomenon is distinctively modern and used as an ideological weapon to control populations with the fear of a manufactured enemy. They are used in ostensibly democratic systems where people believe they have inalienable rights. Such democratic systems–primarily the United States, Israel, and Great Britain–must shock people into sociopolitical and geopolitical consent and, as such, require sophisticated modern propaganda systems and advanced covert operations teams with highly proficient skills.”- Swift
Signs of a False Flag Operation:
There is an immediate comprehensive narrative, including a convenient culprit. Law enforcement, government agencies, and the mainstream media immediately proffer a narrative that completely explains the event and encourages citizens to tie their intellectual understanding of the tragedy to the emotions they experience. In his lecture at Contact in the Desert, [author and researcher] Richard Dolan noted that a distinguishing characteristic of a false flag operation is that the official narrative IS NOT questioned by the media. There are often legislative, ideological and sociopolitical power plays waiting in the wings, which the government can immediately implement.
The official narrative has obvious domestic and geopolitical advantages for the governing body. The Bush administration used 9/11 to usher in the War on Terror, which has served as a lynchpin for countless civil liberty infringements by the national security state, including ubiquitous domestic surveillance and indefinite detention.
The narrative behind the attack serves to leverage emotions like fear, as well as patriotism, in order to manufacture consent around a previously controversial issue. For example, many of the recent domestic terror attacks, including the Aurora [and Orlando] shooting[s], have exacerbated and reinforced advocacy of gun control legislation.
Military training drills and police drills occur on the day of and very near the attack itself, causing confusion to obscure eye witness testimony and allowing orchestrators to plant both patsies, disinformation and backup operatives. This is no small point. An incredible percentage of major domestic or international terror attacks have involved simultaneous “training drills.” This list includes, but is not limited to, the infamous NORAD drills of 9/11, the 7/7 London Bombings, the 2011 Norway shooting, the Aurora shooting, Sandy Hook, and the Boston Marathon. Though none of the aforementioned events can be confirmed or denied without a doubt, they bear a striking resemblance to previous false flag attacks and should be looked at with an investigative eye.
Lets now tie in the repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act which ends the ban on domestic propaganda in 2013.