How do we wake people up?

In search of a magic bullet

People change their minds. It happens all the time. It is happening now, as every day more people realise that the government and the media are not operating in their best interests and are in fact working to hide the truth from the wider public.

Those who have already come to this realisation often look for an answer as to how to speed the process in others. Sometimes this task feels futile and with some people it may be, but we cannot know for sure that is the case. We can only make two observations; that people do 'wake up,' and that it feels as though some never will. One is demonstrable and the other is a pessimism, albeit often well-founded.

Given that some people do break through the propaganda and the conditioning, it prompts the question of what catalyses the collapse of the old paradigm. Commonly it is the result of a growing awareness that the information being presented by state or media sources does not make sense. When this recurs, or the issue causing discordance continues over a period of time, it provokes a search for answers. For our own safety we are predisposed to make sense of the world. In pulling at the corner of the curtain, we begin to peel it back to see more of the bigger and more authentic picture.

There are many state narratives that are questionable if not downright false, but obviously if the truth was straightforwardly obvious to the majority, it would be more widely known. The edifice of lies is built on propaganda and authority and it is supported by a misplaced and innocent trust. It requires incontrovertible rationale for it to be shaken. Those who question official narratives look for the undeniable point that will open the eyes of the unsuspecting. In response, around narratives from JFK to Covid-19, the state has detonated huge clouds of misinformation between the public and the truth. It has often been challenging for researchers to paw their way through this debris to secure solid footing. Is there a subject that provides us with a certainty that we can present to those still trusting the state?

Many of the suspect state narratives that have proved pivotal in our recent history require the intercession of authority to provide credibility. We are asked to subordinate our senses and experience of the world variously to experts in ballistics, astronomy, physics, or virology. These authorities have the equipment and training that allow them to act as interpreters who can translate the apparently obvious into the language of a state narrative. They become conjurers of magic bullets and computer graphics and models that reframe and contradict our direct or firsthand impressions.

Those who dispute state narratives seek a revealing benchmark upon which all can agree that ‘this is true and this is not.' We require an aspect of a controversial narrative in which there is an overlap between the perceptions of both believers and critics of the state narrative, and in which the entire truth is revealed. Critical thinkers are looking for an instructive portion of the Venn Diagram where the two social circles intersect. To progress we must have more in common than the English language and the highway code, especially as that commonality is frequently tenuous.

In order to effect a paradigm shift we are looking for evidence that is self-explanatory and has immediate impact. We are seeking to avoid the interminable discussions that surround the number of shooters and their locations in Dealey Plaza, or the direction of the shadows on the moon, or the virus or vaccine issues. For those inclined to believe state narratives all these topics require reading, research, and the sifting and evaluation of evidence. Certainty in these issues can require a scientific or mathematical understanding. Even those people who feel they have the requisite skills and critical faculties to evaluate such evidence do not necessarily have the luxury of time or the motivation for the pursuit. When challenging a consensus people become acutely aware of the possibilities of being misled, or of not being fully informed -in a way that does not occur to them when accepting state narratives in the security of the herd. It follows that many people do not feel confident in reaching a conclusion that conflicts with a media-constructed and state-backed social consensus.

A state narrative becomes emotionally embedded in the public consciousness in the immediate aftermath of what is often a traumatic event, as a result of the ensuing media coverage. Once we adopt a standpoint on an issue, it becomes difficult for us to relinquish it. For those with a disposition to do so, careful and dispassionate consideration of evidence takes not just time but sometimes funding, and so the truth often begins to fasten the laces of its boots long after the lie has circumnavigated the world, settled down, and put its feet up. The results of independent scientific inquiry often emerge slowly and take longer still to surface in the currents of public awareness, when feelings are less raw.

We are all prepared to believe that governments work in opposition to the interests of their public when those governments are significantly removed from ourselves by either geography or time. We will listen calmly and rationally to accusations of state crimes in foreign lands or in our own country in the distant past. The greater these distances the more inclined we are to accept accounts of such crimes. This is possibly because the information does not come with the imperative or responsibility to do anything about it. There is no implicit threat to our safety. What's done is done. The perpetrators and victims are too far off, too old or too long dead, to necessitate any action. There is a much greater emotional impact to the idea of our government committing crimes against us now, for we are the only bulwark against it.

So, in order to effect a realisation of the extent of government and media lies we require a point of evidence that

-people can see for themselves.

-can be immediately understood and requires no expert intercession.

-is not so recent as to provoke an emotional response and yet not so distant as to be thought irrelevant to current affairs.

-involves an official narrative contradicting our intuitive understanding of the nature of the world.

-is inexplicable except by contradicting the relevant official narrative.

-reveals state lies and media complicity.

-is bolstered by scientific and documented analysis.

We must not expect an immediate transformation and paradigm shift (although that is possible) but rather to plant a seed of disquiet that can either be added to, or that can germinate alone. If the evidence is strong, our peers will examine it and find it troubling enough to contemplate.

Video footage of the demolition of World Trade Centre Building 7 (WTC7) satisfies these requirements. It is accepted by all parties that Building 7 fell suddenly, symmetrically and at freefall acceleration. The suddenness and the symmetry of the destruction are immediately striking. The evident lack of resistance in the fall of the building is compelling. These features of the footage are simple, visual, and require no intercession to be understood. The fall of Building 7 is not a collapse. All of its supporting structure has been removed simultaneously in the manner of a controlled demolition.

We have never seen a building collapse in the manner of a controlled demolition that has not been a controlled demolition. This places the onus on those who assert a different mechanism of destruction to produce it. A magic bullet is again required. A suspension of disbelief. What does the state say caused the demolition? The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) asserted a hitherto unknown form of collapse that they “had trouble getting a handle on,” for 7 years. Yet the fire department and the authorities warned in advance that “the building would "be coming down,” that it would be “brought down,” and that it was “about to blow up.” The media repeatedly reported the collapse having occurred before it happened. NIST eventually concluded that the demolition occurred because of the sudden failure of a single column -that could not have been anticipated by, or visible to, onlookers. A ‘magic column’ was produced. NIST’s computer models do not match the observed reality and NIST declared that to reveal its input data “might jeopardize public safety.”

Building 7 was a forty-seven storey skyscraper that, at 610 feet high, would be one of the taller buildings in many cities around the world. It came down in 6.5 seconds, and this was explained as being due to normal office fires. Most people would be seriously concerned if the building they lived in could collapse completely to rubble in 6.5 seconds due to a normal fire – even if that home was a bungalow.

Building 7 was not hit by a plane. No fire safety or building codes were changed in the aftermath of its supposed collapse, and there are many instances of steel framed skycrapers having been ravaged by fire and remaining standing. The only steel framed skyscrapers to fall due to fire fell on 9/11.

One example of foreknowledge of the demolition of WTC7 is that of the BBC's Jane Standley reporting it twenty-three minutes before it occurred -whilst it was still standing in shot behind her as she delievered her account live on television. This is such a bizarre piece of evidence that occasionally people find it hard to believe that it is genuine, but it is. The BBC initially responded to an outcry on the subject by reporting this footage lost. When people on the nascent internet produced recorded copies of Standley’s report, the BBC found its own footage and explained its accurate predictions of an unprecedented incident in the future as being due to a, “confusing and chaotic situation.”

Why does footage of the demolition of Building 7 not often feature on corporate news -to the extent that more than two decades later many people are still unfamiliar with the fact that a third tower was brought down on 9/11? Why has the media apparently actively sought to avoid showing that footage? Why were the findings of a four year and $300,000 investigation into the demolition of Building 7 by the University of Alaska Fairbanks not widely reported?

The Fairbanks analysis returned that “The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”

It was presumably a curious quirk of fate that those findings were delivered on March 25th, 2020, just as the world was subjected to another “catastrophic and catalysing event” that precipitated a renewed assault on personal freedoms. The war on terror was superseded by the war on a virus.

Why in the main, do our politicians, past and present, not speak of Building 7? Instead they seek to dissuade people from considering alternatives to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Perhaps it is propaganda and belief in the state narrative that deters the anti-war movement from addressing Building 7, despite the ongoing 9/11 wars? Perhaps the same is true of charities and NGOs who purport to serve the victims in the countries ravaged by the 9/11 wars? It is curious that freedom of speech organisations did not champion the cause of those who lost their jobs by questioning the official story of 9/11. Perhaps the world is more controlled than we like to believe.

Is footage of Building 7 coming down not shown on television because what it shows is so clear? A controlled demolition would have to have been planned in advance and would have required more than a few chaotic hours in a burning building that was enveloped in a dust cloud of debris. It could have taken weeks of preparation and would have required access to the core and perimeter columns of the building. Would this have been possible without official sanction? Building 7 was one of the most secure buildings on earth containing as it did offices for the DOD, IRS, CIA, SEC, the Secret Service, the Salomon Smith Barney bank, as well as the NY Office for Emergency Management (which was abandoned on 9/11).

In recent years society has been undermined by an excess of trust. Understanding the nature of current policies, restrictions, and propaganda, requires a demolition of that trust. Until recently, despite misgivings about individuals, the public has largely believed that their government, media, and the operation of the state, is benign. This has provided a seemingly insurmountable obstacle of incredulity for those questioning far-reaching state narratives.

The power of the footage of Building 7 is that it serves to explode that belief. It demonstrates that the government will lie to justify wars of aggression that kill and displace millions and that this murderous ruthlessness is not limited to being inflicted on foreigners. Governments kill their own people. Politicians and media around the world have been complicit in the crimes of 9/11. In pursuing the 9/11 wars and removing the freedoms of their people, national governments have acted in concert with one another.

Unless our understanding of the world is so flawed as to be useless, then WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. Footage of the event provides a unique, indisputable, and immediate visual exhibit of evidence that in its implications lays bare the nature of the world we inhabit. We do not need to plead its case as it makes its own eloquently. We need only to show it to people. There will be those who refuse to look at it, those who disregard its import, and those who will attempt to explain it away. Many more will see it for what it is and recognise why it has been hidden from them.