It’s been my hope to unify dissenters of the 9/11 and Covid pandemic narratives for the last several years. My friend, Ted Walter, the Executive Director of the International Center for 9/11 Justice, organized a symposium this week to begin this process. This is huge IMO.
Walter was the author of the best literature to summarize the deficiencies of the official explanations surrounding the destruction of the twin towers and WTC 7 (Building 7), “Beyond Misinformation”. I read this document seven years ago, purchased 20 copies and handed some out to friends, left some in dentist waiting rooms and even handed one copy to once Presidential hopeful, Tulsi Gabbard in 2019 and pleaded her to read it.
Mr. Walter was also the Executive Producer of a compelling documentary about the life and tireless efforts of the late Dr. Graeme MacQueen, “Peace, War and 9/11”. MacQueen received his PhD in Buddhist studies from Harvard and taught in the Religious Studies department of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario for 30 years. In 1989, he became founding Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster.
These transcribed oral accounts which Dr. MacQueen meticulously compiled demolish NIST’s claim that there were no witnesses to explosive events prior to the collapse of the twin towers, exposing the organization tasked with setting the standards for how science is conducted for what they really were: the biggest complicit party in the official lie about 9/11. (Coming in a tie for second were Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, NPR, The NY Times, Washington Post, etc. etc.)
Needless to say, I was encouraged to see Walter’s organization take the bold step of associating themselves with the medical freedom movement and offering me the opportunity to speak alongside Niels Harrit, PhD, Piers Robinson, PhD, and Dr. Meryl Nass.
Please consider exploring the substantial evidence compiled for the public at the International Center for 9/11 Justice website, watching “Peace War and 9/11” and listening to a recording of the live-streamed symposium on the UK Column:
I believe this will prove to be an important step in mobilizing a powerful dissenting minority to the on-going centralized effort to dismantle individual freedom.
I used the opportunity to offer some insights into why seemingly rational and intelligent people cannot see what is front of them.
Here is a recording of my presentation with the transcript to follow:
Sometimes I am asked if I appreciate the irony of being an anesthesiologist trying to wake people up. I say, things aren’t always as they seem.
When patients ask anesthetists what we charge for putting them to sleep you can bet what the answer will be. We always say we do that for free. We only bill you for the waking up part.
Chaperoning an unconscious, fully anesthetized patient into an awake, interactive state takes patience and keen attention. In fact when we try to “bring them back” too early it can lead to life threatening consequences. Anesthetized patients must go through an intermediate stage, what we call “stage 2”, on their way to the awake state. Interestingly, this state is characterized by hyperreactivity, increased cardiovascular tone and the emergence of dangerous reflexes.
I’d bet that many of us have tried to play the central role of the anesthetist, attempting to wake our friends or family members from their slumber. It doesn’t always go well. Those of us in the 9/11 truth and medical freedom movements face identical challenges. Indeed, one could argue that we face the same adversaries.
It’s been my hope to bring these two groups together, so that we can brainstorm and help each other. There is the potential for a potent synergy between these two movements because in the end both seek the same things: a seat at the table and an opportunity to question those who have spread lies under the veils of patriotism, “science” or a need for more security.
Large institutions will have to be dismantled. But before that can happen, pervasive illusions will have to be revealed for what they really are: illusions.
This is going to take cooperation.
I am going to take my time to offer some thoughts and strategies we can use, each of us, to be more successful.
People are asleep. We hear this quite often in our circles. I don’t like the term, asleep. It connotes inactivity and unresponsiveness. The public at large is better thought to be in a dream state. They are dreaming a vivid dream where our authorities are imperfect but have our best interest in mind, where our military might is necessary to fight evil doers outside our borders, where agencies of public health and their officers are doing their best to protect us from the dangerous pathogens lurking in nature, in caves and in wet-markets.
The asleep are far from unresponsive and inert. They will, against common sense, cling to their dream and fiercely defend it when challenged.
It was only seven years ago when my wife casually showed me a thirty second video on YouTube. I thought it was a hotel in Vegas being demolished. In my experience, showing someone a clip of building 7 going down will always lead to some kind of awakening.
The person will open their eyes to one of two new realities. Either they will see, for the first time, like I did, the level of deception carried out by our authorities and the media. Or they will realize, for the first time, that you, their trusted friend, have been a closet nut-job conspiracy theorist.
It was much later when I realized that my reaction to seeing that video for the first time was rather unique. I didn’t go to the internet to see what people were saying about this. I went straight to the official explanation given by NIST, NCSTAR 1A “The Final Report on the Collapse of WTC 7”. How did they explain this rapid, symmetric and complete “collapse” of a steel skyscraper that had very little damage?
An unseating of a beam from one of 80 columns on one floor? Really? So they constructed a computer model, a finite element analysis. The model did not behave like the building. They proved their hypothesis wrong. Period. End of story.
I brought two friends together, one a mechanical engineer and the other a PhD in bio electrical engineering and layed out the basic facts to them. NIST’s hypothesis was dubious to begin with. Their own model proved they were wrong. They incomprehensibly chose to not look for explosive residues. What’s to discuss? All we had to do next was to call up NPR and The Times and let the truth get out! This was going to be easy!
Things aren’t always as they seem…
My two educated friends were unaware of building7. They were amused that I was asking some questions. But as soon as they realized that I was seriously questioning the official story, their eyes glazed over and their ears went deaf. A doctor with an engineering degree proves that all the applied mathematicians and structural engineers at the National Institute for Standards and Technology are wrong? Something like that could never happen in their world.
And there it is. They discovered that their friend, me, had been taken in by misinformation, and I discovered that there had been a different world in front of my eyes all along. A world where people who should know better didn’t. A world where a graduate education taught some people to obey first and think for themselves second.
I didn’t think that was possible. Now I realize that this phenomenon is rampant.
It didn’t take long for me to see that we don’t need more evidence, we have a much bigger problem in front of us.
We are confronted with people who adhere to a faith-based position. Faith-based positions can never be overturned with an evidentiary argument, because the evidence will be deemed invalid long before faith will be abandoned. After all, faith is choosing to believe something despite all evidence to the contrary.
My first attempt at penetrating this shell was to write a book which invited the reader to examine their own biases first and then layed out the most unequivocal evidence for controlled demolitions on 9/11.
But by the end of 2019 It was clear that what was really needed was another massive deception. I prayed that the powers that be, whoever they are, would once again tip their hand with an audacious and poorly disguised act, so that the world would wake up.
Just three months later, people, mainly the elderly and infirm, were succumbing to a very real and pernicious virus which miraculously jumped from bat to human with no evidence of any intermediary steps.
The insanity began almost immediately. I’m not a virologist, but I’ve worn a mask on my face for 40 thousand hours. We know very well what they can and cannot do. Every single doctor in the world remembers when they were a medical student and walked into an OR for the first time. We were two things from the jump: Don’t touch anything unless told. If you have to cough or sneeze, do not look away from the patient. Why? Any fool knows that what you cough up goes out the sides of the mask. Now these same doctors were putting masks on healthy people? Outside?!
Doctors bizarrely insisted that a yet to be developed vaccine would provide better immunity than an exposure to the pathogen itself. This was completely unsubstantiated and ran counter to basic tenets of immunology. These same doctors denigrated their colleagues who were able to treat Covid with cheap repurposed drugs with success. The entire medical community was commanded to not even attempt to treat people who were sick.
Our authorities effectively shut the world down. None of it was scientific or sensical.
So, I got my wish! As a rational, observant scientist myself I concluded the obvious: I must have been responsible for the Covid-19 Pandemic.
It is worthwhile to pause and note how closely the 9/11 script was followed in 2020 as Drs. Harrit and Robinson mentioned earlier.
The purported threat emerged from a cave in Asia, while in actuality the methods and key materials involved were a product of military research, most likely our own.
Forensic evidence that would prove the event was engineered was not sought (9/11) or was hidden from public view
All legacy media championed the same official narrative from the jump.
Any suggestion that an alternative explanation existed was treated as treason or heresy and all the age-old responses used to deal with witches and heretics were put into play. Careers ended, Protesters were vilified, reputations were effectively burned at the stake.
The chosen response required enormous public expenditures which funneled hundreds of billions of dollars into the two most powerful lobbying industries over years.
Objections to the official story were prevented from entering published, technical literature. The bedrock of what we scientists consider objective reality was corrupted.
Governmental organizations like NIST and the CDC offered faulty analysis but yet maintained their command over the narrative
Fear generated by the event led to a massive erosion of freedom
In both situations the public suffered the death of innocent lives from a real event or events, and the public’s perception in the aftermath was distorted through very sophisticated methods of mass programming. These were Psychological Operations. Psyops.
The 9/11 Truth movement and the Medical Freedom movement face the same challenges in remolding public perception.
“If it isn’t Al Qaeda or a Wet Market mishap, who then is behind all of this”? This is a reasonable and primary question we get asked. Common answers are:
Powerful psychopaths that get off on human suffering.
Profit driven companies that make trillions when such tragedies occur.
A Depopulation agenda that has been in play for decades.
Commercial Bank owners that reap vast sums on the back end of public deficit spending, made possible by Central Banks, every time humanity faces a catastrophe.
Undoubtedly some or all of these possibilities are true, but what is behind all of them? This a dance that has been in play since humans have existed. It is the interplay between love and fear, or more practically speaking, between freedom and control.
We don’t have to identify all the central characters in this drama. However we should be able to see that a small group of individuals cannot control a vast majority against their will. It would be an inherently unstable situation as history has proven over and over again. The public must ask to be controlled.
The first step would be to get the populace to tolerate or better yet, request surveillance of private communication. This, I believe, was the primary intent behind the events of 9/11.
The next step would be to convince the public that censorship is necessary for their own safety. This was accomplished quite efficiently with the pandemic. I say efficiently because it wasn’t radical ideologues that were targeted. Highly credentialed and published doctors and scientists were muzzled and defrocked. If a population allows their scientists and doctors to be silenced, they will allow anybody to be silenced.
It doesn’t matter if you want to call it a globalist agenda, a deep state, or a corporatocracy. At this point it doesn’t matter. They are telling us what the plan is: world wide threats of pandemics, terrorism and misinformation must be met with multinational cooperation. Governments and private industry must work together. This idea is not new. In the past we would call this fascism. Today it is called public-private partnerships.
We have to win public opinion to put a stop to this. We are in the difficult position of having to shift public opinion without the support of large media platforms. Legacy media is complicit in every massive conspiracy.
This is most certainly why changing sides is so difficult for most people–it comes with two difficult pills to swallow: 1-If you cannot trust the media, how can you be sure of anything? And 2-It leads directly to the fact that one has to rely on one’s own wits, intellect, gumption and intuition. In other words, it exposes an uncomfortable reality for the most educated–they have learned how to submit to their instructors and not how to challenge them. In my experience, those with letters after their names are in the deepest state of denial around this.
Given that most of the public accepts, more or less, the narrative coming from the top, a movement towards clarity must come from the bottom up. To nurture a grassroots movement, it is vital to understand what we are up against.
The Asch Conformity Experiments
Solomon Asch was a social psychologist who conducted a number of pivotal experiments at Swarthmore college in the early 1950’s. I want to take a few minutes to review what these experiments revealed about people’s perception and need to conform.
Subjects were given a very simple task, to identify which of three lines most closely matched the referent:
Without any influence from others, the task was indeed quite simple for the subjects, they identified the correct line 99.3% of the time. However when put into a group of seven actors who offered the same, wrong line as the answer, more than ⅓ of responses conformed to the majority's incorrect response.
Interestingly, Asch identified distinct subgroups of subjects among those who conformed with the incorrect majority. There were those who knew the majority was wrong but went along anyway, there were others who believed that they themselves were mistaken so they conformed and a third group whose perception changed to conform to the majority.
The point here is that there is a proclivity to conform, even to an opinion which is known to be incorrect. As I just mentioned, only about ⅓ of respondents were influenced by the incorrect majority. The other 65% or so stuck to their guns.
But in these experiments there was no punishment for standing alone. When it comes to bucking the ascendant position with regard to 9/11 or the pandemic response, publicly resisting the narrative comes with severe castigation in the form of social exclusion, being called pejoratives like anti-vaxxer, anti-science, conspiracy theorist, etc., etc. During the pandemic, dissenters were forced to leave their jobs or faced with delicensure. There were even public calls to shame the unvaccinated and deny them medical care.
Soon after the events of 9/11 muslims in the U.S. became targets of suspicion. In 2003 I was a young doctor living in a small town. I had a thick beard and long hair. One morning a state police detective appeared at my front door asking if he could come in and take a look around. I let him in. He eventually told me that the building superintendent reported that I owned an instructional manual about how to make bombs. He saw it on my bookshelf when he was servicing my air conditioner the day before. The book was “The making of the Atomic Bomb” by Richard Rhodes, a NYT Bestseller.
There was no real pressure to conform in the Asch experiments. Moreover, compared to Asch’s simple test of what is true, it is much more difficult to trust one’s own eyes when it comes to building demolitions or vaccine safety. Especially when the chosen cadre of “experts” tell us that our eyes cannot be trusted or that the science is too difficult for the public to understand.
Make no mistake, those who orchestrated the events of 9/11 knew very well that they could blow up three skyscrapers on a sunny Tuesday morning in Manhattan and blame it on someone else.
We who can see clearly are indeed a minority and a courageous one at that. This is another reason why it is vital that we stand together.
The results of these experiments and others are clearly well known to authorities and their operatives who seek to ensure their false narratives take hold in the collective. They are also aware of another phenomenon Asch uncovered in subsequent experiments.
Though the human mind is prone to conformity, especially when it comes with distinct advantages, the Asch experiments offered some hope. In a series of further experiments, when one of the actors was instructed to dissent with the incorrect majority opinion, subjects’ tendency to confirm with the majority was reduced significantly.
All it took was a minority of dissenters to break the spell of the presumptive legitimacy of the majority. It’s far safer to switch groups than it is to stand alone.
This is why there has been an all out effort to ensure that those with opposing opinions do not get a seat at the table. No debates are permitted. Scientific literature is scrubbed of findings that run counter to the narrative. Independent scientists lose their accounts on social media. Independent media platforms get demonetized.
We, the ambassadors of clarity on these pivotal matters, are the dissenting minority and we pose a formidable threat to the powers that be, but only if we do not squander our opportunities to engage with the other side when such opportunities arise.
I would like to leave you with some observations and suggestions which I believe can be helpful for everyone, especially if you don’t have an audience or platform.
Remember that Practically speaking, Facts are Subjective
Time and time again when I ask intelligent and educated people what would it take for them to change their mind, the most common answer is: I will believe your facts when the NYT reports them.
We can only be certain of what isn’t, not what is
Be careful insisting that you are absolutely certain about what happened or what is playing out. Being certain is not a reason for anyone to believe you. It is much easier and productive to dismantle a false narrative than it is to prove what is. Science is, after all, the never ending pursuit to establish what is.
Avoid using the word “truth”.
Truth implies certainty and immutability. I prefer using the word “clarity”, i.e. a viewpoint that is free of bias. That actually is the best we can do.
Beware of false narratives from our side
In order to upend the myths told by the CDC, the ONS, the MHRA we must convince doctors that they have been wrong. Only then will these agencies of public health surrender their sway over public health. There’s no way any doctor in the medical orthodoxy will listen to you when you begin with the idea that viruses do not exist.It may be fair to say that you haven’t seen evidence strong enough to convince that they do, but averring that they don’t is epistemologically unsound as you would be asserting the null hypothesis proven.
Similarly, using the argument that plane wings, made of aluminum, could never damage steel is incorrect. If the energy of collision is great enough, both the aluminum and steel would be destroyed.
The obvious problem is that making unsound statements leads to a wholesale rejection of all the valid points you may have. I have found that well-intending people on the side of clarity do as much damage our efforts by making false claims than those of the orthodoxy who push the false narrative.
When engaged with someone you disagree with on social media, understand that that person will never concede. That’s not the goal. The objective is not to convince them that they are wrong. The objective is to convince the audience that you have a better argument. Very often the audience will not be able to judge who has the better argument but will be willing to open their mind if you comport yourself better than the other side.
Legacy media is the primary conspirator in all large conspiracies. We are winning this battle. Support independent media.
It is vitally important to form networks with many nodes, not one or two large voices of “truth”. It’s much easier for them to attack one or two highly influential spokespersons than a distributed network which is loosely affiliated with each other. Share content from lesser known voices
Know your audience. This is not always possible. It’s best to start where there is the highest likelihood of agreement. I recently spoke to an old medical school classmate of mine who I hadn’t talked to since before the pandemic. She’s a doctor in Austin TX. I assumed that she probably realized that the Covid vax didn’t do a whole lot of good but was unwilling to accept that it was dangerous. So I started there. I was surprised to discover that in her experience the vaccine was very protective initially and she was very angry at people who didn’t get vaccinated. My chances went to zero immediately.
Finally, I’d like to offer some strategies to engage with people who believe they are too smart to be taken in by misinformation, whether from authorities or from a subversive conspiracy theorist like me.
Knowing vs Believing, What’s the difference?
People are very quick to equate believing with knowing. Knowing comes with an inner certainty and deep understanding. Believing comes with trust in another source, one that could be fallible. When given an opportunity to address an audience that may not agree with me I begin by demonstrating how easily even an alert mind can conflate believing with knowing.
The NSF conducted a survey in the United States in 2012. They asked a thousand people if they thought the sun orbited the Earth or whether the Earth orbited the Sun. 25% of those surveyed got it wrong. They believed that the Sun went around the Earth everyday. 25% seems like an embarrassingly high number, even for Americans.
However, if you “knew” that the Earth orbits the sun every year, how would you prove it to the other 25% without referring to a third party? How did we prove it to ourselves four hundred years ago? The reality is that no matter if it is 2024 or 1624 you cannot look out your window and know. Moreover, it can never be proven from observational astronomy from the Earth’s surface alone. We had to first accept that the motion of objects with mass can be reliably predicted before we could assert which model is, in fact, true.
The point here is that of those 75% who got the answer right, very few know it to be true. Unless a person understands what could be known, when it was known and how we arrived at our conclusion, they don’t know that the Sun sits at the center of our solar system, they’re just believing what others have told them.
Unwillingness to research source documents
This is another possible way of engaging a person who claims that they are steadfastly objective. How do they know that the three skyscrapers in Manhattan fell by a gravitational collapse and not a controlled demolition? Unless they have read the technical explanations of these events offered by NIST, they will have to concede that they are trusting a third party’s opinion of the official analysis. They are free to do this, but their position is founded in trust, not objectivity.
I have yet to speak with a person who believes the government’s 9/11 tale who has read any of NIST’s technical documents. Neither have I met a single person, doctor or otherwise, who believes the safe and effective narrative who has read any of the published data and methodology around the initial mRNA vaccine trials.
Putting the Cart before the Horse
One of the biggest impediments to clarity around evidence that points to a very large conspiracy is the idea that it couldn’t possibly be true to begin with. If this belief is held as axiom a priori, it would be logical to dismiss any evidence that supports the conspiracy. In essence, evidence is invalidated based on a foregone conclusion.
This is completely backwards. Objectivity requires us to assess the evidence first and then draw a conclusion. People are free to approach this backwards if they wish, but they cannot say that they are being objective or scientific. They are, in fact, being dogmatic.
What do you do when experts disagree?
The vast majority of people are not experts, even in their own fields. How then do they approach a situation where experts outside their own fields of study disagree?
First, one has to be aware that there is a body of dissenting experts. Many are not aware that there are thousands of architects and engineers that believe the official 9/11 story to be wrong. Many are also unaware that there are superb, extensively published medical researchers, epidemiologists and doctors who don’t agree with our agencies of public health.
This begs the question, on what grounds can a layperson or even a highly educated person know who is right? If they were truly being objective, they would have to acknowledge that this is indeed impossible for them. It opens up a powerful way of cracking the dogmatic prison that they are in.
They should be able to see that both sides are mirror images of each other. Both insist that they are right. Both sides accuse the other of being inexplicably gullible and falling for false narratives. Both accuse the other of spreading dangerous misinformation. There is only one difference:
One side is pleading for a debate and the other believes that such an exercise is not just futile but dangerous. That doesn’t prove anything but it invites the question, how would the side which outlaws debate ever know if they were wrong?
Conclusion
I am optimistic. Clarity will eventually emerge. I’ve never met anyone who once thought the twin towers were blown up, change their mind and go with the official story. Neither have I talked to anyone who suspected that the mRNA shots were dangerous, did some earnest research and then head to CVS to get jabbed.
It’s a one-way street. Their side is losing by attrition. With more dissenting voices will come a more rapid movement to clarity. This is precisely why the powers that have commandeered media are intent on siloing groups, hyperpolarizing the public and pushing for censorship.
Their strategy is to separate and fragment, ours must be to unite. We don’t have to agree on the details to be on the same team.
Your background in both engineering and medicine qualify you perfectly to expose the affinities between 9/11 and Covid-19. What’s more, your exposition is lucid and practical, since you mention logical considerations as well as psychological elements in terms of discussing major cover-ups with people who disagree with you. The suggestions you offer for approaching those discussions are very helpful, thanks for this brilliant post.
Your explanation of the state of the human brain under anesthesia, and then the way you develop it into a metaphor for mass formation psychosis, is brilliantly illuminating. Thank you! The rest of your article is fascinating, too.
Your background in both engineering and medicine qualify you perfectly to expose the affinities between 9/11 and Covid-19. What’s more, your exposition is lucid and practical, since you mention logical considerations as well as psychological elements in terms of discussing major cover-ups with people who disagree with you. The suggestions you offer for approaching those discussions are very helpful, thanks for this brilliant post.
Your explanation of the state of the human brain under anesthesia, and then the way you develop it into a metaphor for mass formation psychosis, is brilliantly illuminating. Thank you! The rest of your article is fascinating, too.