College of Disinformation Recognition

DR115 - Lies Predicated Upon Lies

At the dawn of the 21st century, U.S. civilians still expected government officials and other institutional spokesmen to tell the truth, or at least not explicitly blatantly lie to them. That is what made so effective the 180-degree lie (eg, "Islamo-Fascists") and compound lie tactics of the U.S. government and media around the time of 9/11 and the accompanying birth of "The Homeland" and the launch of "The War Against Terrorism". This course, DR115, will teach you how a special kind of compound lie is a very powerful form of disinformation, and show you how that disinformation tactic has been used repeatedly, to great effect, against the terrorized, shocked, awed, and still-trusting American people.

Once people recognize the dishonorable tactics that have been used against them to foist certain false beliefs upon them, that should make it easier for people to rid themselves of the false beliefs that have spread like disease through our minds.

The special compound lie we are concerned with here is one in which one of the lies would have to be true in order for the rest of the questionable statement to be true, or even make sense. In other words, to even consider one part of the statement, the other part must be assumed to be true, and then the underlying, implied lie is reinforced whenever the more overt lie is being challenged, because the overt lie is predicated upon the presumption that the underlying lie must be true. Thus a well-crafted double-lie can trick critics and even detractors into reinforcing a multiple-false legend's most critical element even as they think they are attacking the legend by raising doubts over its other false aspects. Getting people to think and talk about and even argue over something fictitious or fallacious, as if it was real, will probably prevent them (and most observers) from ever seeing through that portion of a false legend.

We learned this tactic in the years following 9/11 by observing the masters of deception in Washington D.C., whom we consider to be far more skilled propagandists than what Hitler and Stalin ever dreamed of. As they say, learn from the best... So let's consider, and dissect, a wonderful example provided by (now ex-) U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in early 2003 as part of a U.S. government disinformation campaign to make it seem reasonable to attack and invade (even though that is a Nuremberg War Crime -- the very lesson the USA harshly taught German Nazis after WW II) a militarily weak sovereign nation which posed no threat to the mighty United States.

As you may recall, by early 2003, it had been decided to generate and use the belief that Iraq possessed some Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD) as domestic political justification (pretext) for launching a military invasion. And one of the psychological weapons used to bolster the belief underlying that rationalization was a powerful double-lie verbal disinformation bomb dropped on the unsuspecting American people by Rumsfeld when he appeared on national Sunday morning talk shows. Amidst a national debate regarding the existence of Iraqi WMDs, Rumsfeld stated, "We know where they are" :

Those 5 little words were very concentrated powerful disinformation. Not only did they contain what turned out to be a double lie, but they totally shifted the discussion from whether or not the (supposed) WMDs existed, to whether or not the U.S. military knew where they were. But in order to have that discussion, one must presume that they do exist. (It would be pretty silly to argue over whether or not someone knows where something is if that something does not even exist.) That implication, or insinuation, was very powerful.

So if Rumsfeld can get people to take sides in the argument over whether or not the claim is true that the military knows where "they are", everyone will presume that "they are", or, in other words, that they exist. (Because who could imagine a national leader being so dishonest as to go on national TV and tell a blatant compound lie? Or a nation -- a democracy -- deciding whether or not its military knew the location of something that did not even exist?)

Well Rumsfeld was successful in getting people to take sides in that false argument, and with half the people barking up the wrong tree and the other half barking down the wrong tree, people did not, before it was too late, realize that they were arguing over fiction instead of reality.

Pretty amazing how powerful those 5 little words were, isn't it?

(end of lesson 1 - homework)

Now that we've seen an example of the incredible power and effectiveness of such a carefully-crafted double lie (and also that the lie-teller has never been held accountable for manufacturing the deadly consent/acquiescence of the U.S. population under false pretenses), let's see if we can apply this knowledge to help us better understand The Big Lie(s) of 9/11, and see if perhaps 9/11 is the ultimate example of an extreme extension of this kind of powerful, false reality creating, compound lying.

That night, ABC TV news aired yet another report based solely upon information from a claimed cell phone call supposedly from a passenger aboard a purported doomed flight. (Just as we shouldn't waste too much time arguing over whether or not someone knows the location of something that does not exist, we probably should not place too much creedence in the ability of cell phones to work from reported flying airliners, or thus in the veracity of any such information.) This report was about smoke coming from the wing of "Flight 93" before "it" crashed :

The insinuation, that "Flight 93" had not been taken down by "heroic passengers", but had suffered mechanical failure, was clear. This was pretty much guaranteed to generate a controversy -- one that continues to this day -- among skeptics over whether or not it was true that "Flight 93 had been shot down":

But we have a hole in the ground without airliner wreckage. Our eyes tell us "no airliner crashed there", even as we are being told that Flight 93, a Boeing 757, crashed there:

So there is this long-standing controversy over whether or not "Flight 93" was shot down, presented on a silver platter by the media (which never followed up on the flimsy report once it had served its disinformative purpose), that insidiously insinuated the existence and demise of "Flight 93" in Shanksville, PA. As long as people are arguing over whether or not "Flight 93" was shot down, that helps make "Flight 93" seem real, and so people are more likely to continue to believe that the hole in the ground was made, for whatever reason, by "Flight 93".

In other words, after a few back and forths over whether or not "it" had been shot down, "it", in this context, has come to mean "Flight 93". Any subsequent reference to "it" (or "the plane") reinforces the unsubstantiated belief in the government's unproven claims about Flight 93 ("it"... beware the pronoun, as we shall see later) having crashed there, even as doubt is being cast over the precise cause of how what did not happen there happened.

Just as we saw with our "we know where they are" example, the predicate was insidiously reinforced, and made to seem real, by people who were arguing over something whose presence had never been established.

So when Alex Jones had on his radio show some Colonel who claimed to know the person who shot down "Flight 93", it may have seemed as if the radio show was attacking the government's credibility and legend of 9/11 by casting doubt upon the heroic-passengers-fought-back part of the legend when, in fact, it was accomplishing just the opposite by helping support the legend's bigger lie about the aircraft itself (the predicate), by taking sides in that false argument over what happened to "it".

(end of lesson 2 - homework)

Now that we've seen two examples of getting people to argue over unsubstantiated predicates as if they were real, let's look for other similar examples in the 9/11 legend, and also examine how the uncertainty leads to certainty if the uncertainty gets everyone talking about the uncertain predicate as if it was real (and/or not talking about the evidence which disproves the predicate).

We've all been told that Flight 77, a Boeing 757, piloted by purported hijacker Hani Hanjour, slammed into the Pentagon on 9/11. There was even a scrap or two of debris to "prove" it:

However, numerous other images of the scene reveal scant hints of the presence of a large commercial airliner having impacted there:

In a 2001 interview with Parade Magazine, Donald Rumsfeld referred to "the missile to damage this building". As if that wasn't enough, it was while questioning our old friend Donald Rumsfeld that 9-11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick added to the uncertainty by asking, "Where were our aircraft when they -- when a missile is heading toward the Pentagon?" .

Further, the only image of an incoming attack aircraft ever released to the public came from the government itself, and the aircraft it seems to barely show is too small to be a 757:

So once again we have an instance of a serious government claim without much, if any, good evidence to back it up, yet most people are talking about it as if we do, even though that involves denying the above government evidence of government fraud.

It seems we've been set up to have an endless argument between whether it was Flight 77 or a missile. It's endless because there is not enough evidence to prove it was either. Such an argument helps perpetuate the presumed viability of the belief that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. This argument distracts us and diverts attention away from the fact that the government's own evidence indicates that it was not Flight 77 -- which is an easy thing to do when so many people are too busy arguing over what did hit the Pentagon to recognize that multiple pieces of evidence conclusively indicate that whatever happened to the Pentagon did not involve Flight 77.

    The blatant lack of supportive evidence plus repeated references to a "missile" seems to encourage many people to take sides regarding what hit the Pentagon, which, in turn, diverts the skepticism of others away from the government's claim and onto the various opinions. With skepticism thus misdirected away from the government's claim, those who are skeptical of anyone who is skeptical of the government's claim will challenge, "If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then what happened to it?" (as if anyone who can show that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon is also obligated to prove what did happen to it, and any failure to do so somehow affirms the government's claims), instead of asking the appropriate question: "If Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, what happened to it?".

    The vast difference between those two questions illustrates the misdirective power of mis-framing discussions. Such power can easily be misused to facilitate a coverup, for if people are too busy asking the wrong questions to ever ask the right questions, they're pretty much guaranteed of never getting the right answers.

To most semi-disinterested observers of such squabbles, as long as everyone is talking about "Flight 77", and being directed to misnamed (disnamed?) supposed-opposition web sites such as, it will continue to be widely presumed that Flight 77 is, or at least could be, what hit the Pentagon, despite the contrary indications and the severe lack of supportive evidence. This is a consequence of the discussion being mis-framed, with so many people talking about -- as if they knew -- what did hit the Pentagon (and how horrible that was...), instead of talking about what so obviously, upon further review, did not happen there.

Note that the claims about Flights 93 and 77 serve as each other's predicates, and reinforce one another, under the comforting anchor-belief that no one in a position of responsibility and authority would ever dare tell such a huge compound lie about anything anywhere near as serious as 9/11.

(end of lesson 3 - homework)

By now most people have come to recognize a 4 X 5 grid (-1) of pseudo mug shots as "the 19 hijackers".

¿presumed guilty?

Without proof, these 19 individuals, or identities, have, along with others, become considered guilty for 9/11. Of course, there's been a lot of talk, and remember that talking about fictions can make them seem real.

So when, in Farenheit 911, Michael Moore spent all that time talking about flying members of the bin Laden family out of the country in the days after 9/11 when Americans were still not allowed to fly, and about connections between the Bush and bin Laden families, was that intended to make Bush out to be a bad guy by connecting him to people who were supposedly somehow connected to the people who'd been publicly presumed guilty of 9/11? Does [suspiciously talking about] the flying of family members out of the country prove that the government's "Muslim hijackers" claims are true, or does it merely, prejudicially, seem to?

How about supposedly finding a purported hijacker's passport amidst all that unexplained nanodust at ""Ground Zero""? Did that prove hijacking, or did it merely, prejudicially, seem to?

Consider how disinformative (ie, what the hidden implicit predicate in) the phrase "the 20th hijacker" (it keeps getting recycled: 1 2) is, and recall how much coverage the show trial of Zacarias Moussaoui received.

Consider also all the attention paid to all the ways in which the government's claims that it should have foreseen what it claims happened, as if that's what did happen, even though it also claims it did not foresee that scenario, even though there were war games in progress that very morning which, coincidentally and contradictorily, included that very scenario. From Condi Rice's nefarious May 2002 statement, to the Time 2002 person of the year story about how the FBI was thwarted, from within, from preventing the attacks the government claims occurred, to the 8/6/01 PDB, about which we learned with such drama, regarding "Osama determined to attack inside the U.S.", to the mainstream media coverage of "Able Danger" about blaming people for not having been more vigilant in tracking Mohammed Atta, as if the supposed "lead hijacker" of Flight 11 can, as the government contends, actually be blamed for 9/11; all such 'news' stories falsely insinuate the truthfulness of the government's impossibly false "19 Muslim hijackers did all that" conspiracy theory.

Talking about how the government should have done more to prevent what it claims happened on 9/11, as if that is what really did happen on 9/11, is a powerful application of this powerful form of disinformation.

(end of lesson 4 - homework)

As we saw in previous lessons, multiple false elements of a huge horrible false legend will tend to reinforce one another, and act as each other's predicates, in part because that fabric of lies is how everyone's come to know the event, and also because the vast majority of any population will be incapable of believing that people in positions of power and authority and responsibility would ever dare tell such monstrous compound lies.

But after a certain number of examples, a pattern can be recognized: Once people in such positions of great trust talk about solemn fictions as if they are real, others will do the same. The fictions will become self-reinforcing, as when the Sun travelling across the sky daily reinforced the flat-earth belief that a chariot pulled the Sun across the sky every day. And once enough people talk, and thus think, of something as being real, it effectively is real. In this way, belief in 9/11 tends, like a religious belief, to be based upon faith (and emotion, and how widely it is perceived to be accepted as truth) instead of rationality.

Consider how the beliefs in hijackers, hijacked airliners, impacts to buildings, and subsequent WTC devastation are all mutually reinforcing elements to the Official Government Conspiracy Theory of 9/11. We were given an incredible explanation for an incredible sequence of events, and we've never been given a better explanation, so what's not to believe? (Even if we were handed a better explanation, it would probably at least initially seem far more incredible, or less credible, so any better explanation -- including the perfect one -- would be a tough sell.)

But even if we never attain the complete explanation for 9/11, we can still deconstruct the one we've been given.

By now you should have a leg up on recognizing the predicates/claims in the reports that hijackers hijacked airliners.

The reports that hijacked airliners were flown by hijackers into buildings are loaded with claims and predicates. Given the lack of crash scene evidence for the claimed airliners, we cannot be sure what crashed, much less why. And, even allowing for the belief that it was the claimed airliners that hit the buildings, one possible reason for why the claimed hijacked airliners were not unhijacked via remote ground control overrides is that they'd been hijacked -- control had been overridden -- via that same digital flight control system which came standard on all four of the planes in question. Regardless of the actual truth of the matter, this widely accepted but unproven wad of hijacking claims and predicates forms the foundation of the official legend of 9/11.

But once we recognize that even if the claims about hijacked airliners were true, that still could not possibly account for what became of the World Trade Center twin towers and WTC building 7 (the nearby 47-story skyscraper), it eventually becomes clear that claims about hijackers and airliners merely serve as a cover story for what happened, and who to blame for "it". But it also becomes clear how these lies reinforce one another, and have become the predicates for additional (lie-sustaining) lies.

Once such emotional enemy-creating reports become widely accepted as true, they are socially self-sustaining: we already know who to blame (and to mass-hate), everybody knows, seemingly too many people would have to know for it to be otherwise, our leaders whom we trust to protect us would never lie to us about something like that, and even the government's impossibly false claims are too horrible for most people to think clearly about anyway (and would be even if their thinking was not distorted by misplaced trust and hatred).

(end of lesson 5 - homework)

As we've seen, in a given context, a simple pronoun can take the place of something whose presence, and perhaps even existence, has never been established. In our "we know where they are" example, they was sufficient to refer to imaginary weapons as if "they" were real. In our lesson2 "shot down" example, "it" or "the plane" was all it took to powerfully reinforce belief in that unsubstantiated predicate.

Now "9/11", or even "it", refers to the popularized but impossible legend of what happened that day, and "they" refers to the purported 19 human hijackers who've been, in absentia, tried and convicted in the media for things "they" could not possibly have caused.

(pronouns can deftly refer to false predicates)

Note how lower layer double-lies reinforce upper layer lies

(end of course material - homework)