31 thoughts on “JLB’s 9/11 Initiation in Bloom

  1. John le Bon

    Thanks to Ab for sharing this video. I felt too tired to do anything ‘productive’ last night, and making videos is my version of entertainment. When others are watching TV or playing video games or whatever, my own method of ‘relaxing’ is producing videos. I saw a video by Steve Willner (Labyrinth of the Psychonaut) which featured the ‘Rose’ tune by Ezra Sandzer-Bell, and for some reason felt like making a 9/11-related video with that music as the basis.

    There’s not one of those. There’s many of those.

    @TERRAN: It is not merely the footage of the planes fusing into the buildings which is dodgy. The story itself: planes flying at 500mph at sea level? The air is something like 3x as dense down here as it is up at cruising altitude. Think through the physics of this. It is absurd.

    Mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense.

    There is so much more to 9/11 than media fakery. The occult/esoteric elements are not only interesting but truly eye-opening. The synchromystics may come across as crazy or New Agey from time to time, because to some extent they are. But their ‘9/11 as a mass ritual’ (or ‘9/11 as a spiritual stargate’) concept is brilliant, as anybody who takes the time to engage with it will see for themselves.

    Are you guys scared of the men behind the curtain? Do you believe they are coming to get you? Do you believe they want you to be unhappy? Do you believe you have enemies who you can’t see and who have no direct contact with you?

    Through the 9/11 stargate, one can ascend; leaving behind the crabs in a bucket who want to wallow in misery.

    1. gaia

      Yeah, it’s such a beautiful piece of art. After all, “war is a hoax”, the parroting meme of the moment, it doesn’t matter that Afghans and Iraqis got invaded, taken over, chased from their lands, their cultures changed and their women “educated”, right?

      It’s all about the “Elites are not at all bad”, ain’t it?

      I don’t know fear, they don’t come to me, I am not unhappy and I don’t have enemies who I can’t see, drop that schtick, it gets greasy.

      1. John le Bon

        You are still buying into the false narratives on your telescreen.

        Iraq and Afghanistan were completely under control well before any ‘war on terror’.

        Who do you believe drew their ‘national borders’?

        Your crabs-in-a-bucket mentality is no good for you or anybody you associate with, including the innocent folk here at Fakeologist.com

        1. gaia

          Prof. Dr. John Le Con, the last time I watched the telescreen you were still playing with LEGO (or dolls, which may be more appropriate in your case; full domination without feedback). Another easy schtick you maybe need to take care of.

          Are you saying the Jordanian guy I met who hosted Syrian refugees in his house was lying to me? That the overall, bird-eye, helicopter view control of those “countries” was in the hands of we-all-know-who(-or-not) for centuries (indeed those lines on a map -not the terrain- are arbitrary) doesn’t change the situation on the ground. For real people.

          That day-to-day reality still seems to be a hard nut to crack for the comfy couch potatoes who dare to call themselves “Fakeologists”.

          “V2 rockets are fake, so all war is fake, nobody dies, nobody gets hurt, ever”

          “Only those who are here for the real truth, are willing to pay me 20 ozzie dollars a month [and still don’t get that “real truth”], visit and subscribe to my website JohnLeCon.com

          Your repertoire is getting greyer than George Soros’s pubic hair.

          Be creative, explore the world and acknowledge that what is truly real.

          1. John le Bon

            1) You are a grown man. Try to act like it.

            2) Yes, the person you spoke to may have been lying to you. People lie all the time. Of course, he may have been telling the truth — or, at least, the truth as he understood it.

            3) Are there ‘refugees’ leaving the middle east? Sure. I have met many of them here in Brisbane. Are these people fleeing an actual war? That is what is in contention. The ones I have met seemed quite happy to be in a first world country. If that means carrying themselves as ‘refugees’ in order to get into the country, then that is something they are happy to do.

            Please do not bother responding to this email unless you plan to behave like a grownup. Many people will read this thread, and the intelligent among them appreciate civil discourse over cheap name-calling and strawman arguments. Cheers.

    2. Terran Downvale

      JLB: Feel free to toss my half-baked impromptu catcher’s mitt theory onto the burn pile with the rest of the minutia musings. I agree that those kinds of details are ultimately meaningless and it’s the esoteric/symbolic layer where the real truther’s gold is to be found. Or more accurately, meant to be found. Some, like Faye below, may believe the fluorescence of symbolic meaning that emits from these events like a fox’s stench begging for a bloodhound is nothing but manipulation. A misdirection from more mundane criminal motives. But I can clearly see there is something more going on here beneath the surface that goes beyond things like money, power and control. And if there is a grand misdirection, it perhaps involves the popularly promoted view of what that “other thing” really is all about (which may be why intelligent people like Faye disregard it).

      Anyway, as I discussed below with the Paperman cartoon, the leading esoteric theory in my mind regarding 9/11 has to do with the symbolic destruction of male/female, or perhaps even duality itself. The divided 2 as opposed to the unified 1. I’ll give you another example of possible 9/11 foreshadowing/pre-explanation that you might find interesting. The music video for the Cole Porter duet “Well, Did You Evah!” performed by Deborah Harry and Iggy Pop from the Red Hot + Blue AIDS benefit album released in September of 1990, 11 years before 9/11.


      From the “WAKE UP” message at the beginning to the Elite “High Society” commentary and prediction by Frank and Bing to the opening shot of the Twin Towers, I say this video spells things out pretty clearly. We have a male/female duet and another cheeky message at the end of the video by Deborah Harry about the “end of sex.” Pay special attention to the dialogue and imagery between 2:44 and 3:26. The Twin Towers make another appearance along with a flying dragon, a wrecking ball and a building collapse after a discussion about Pickfair, the historic estate that symbolized another famous male/female union.

      Here are the lyrics:


      And finally, the video. If the symbolism here is merely a misdirection from the mundane, it must have had a VERY specific target since as far as I can tell, I’m the only one on Earth who evah noticed it!

  2. gaia

    Terran, the imagery of 9/11 with planes morphing into buildings is not refuted on the basis of “media fakery” (which it is of course), but on the basis of physical laws.

    Please provide a coherent, logical and above all physical description how a highly heterogeneous object as a plane can produce complete homogeneous “collision” behavior with another heterogeneous object (the WTC tower).

    Feel free to include the terms:
    – density
    – point mass
    – area
    – velocity
    – rigidity
    – shear stress
    – kinetic energy
    – friction angle
    – Poisson ratio
    – tensile strength
    – compressibility
    – and similar useful parameters for this challenging question

    Feel also free to avoid the terms:
    – red herring
    – ad hominems
    – argument of ignorance
    – and more empty words

    I look forward to your deconstruction of this constructed plane-can-morph-into-building narrative!

    1. Terran Downvale

      Gaia: First, while I’m not totally throwing away what could reasonably be argued as a throw-away theory, I did concede below that the relatively short time window between the two reported plane strikes may pose less of a problem than I had previously thought regarding the live eyewitnesses, if you didn’t catch it.

      That said and going along with the original theory, I’m afraid I don’t have the necessary knowledge to get very scientific about it. I just wonder if a particular section of the tower (the target “window”) could have been constructed in a way (using certain materials and engineering) that would be easily penetrable by a special type of plane that was also constructed to easily penetrate it without creating any heavy damage to the interior of the building that was constructed in a special way to effectively “catch” the object. Think of how any object in a stunt scene can be constructed to easily break while still looking like the real object it represents. Sorry I’m being so vague. I’m just offering the general hypothetical concept without any specific details about materials, physics, etc. Perhaps someone here with an engineering mind could brainstorm about it.

      I guess the main thing I’m saying is we should not assume that the Twin Towers were necessarily built in a “normal” way. And that if the plane strike only involved a small section of the building, that section could have been built in a special way, too. Same with the hypothetical airplane, which we should also not assume would be built like a normal passenger plane. This principle applies to the use of “asbestos” in the building materials as well and all the assumptions that go along with that.

      1. gaia

        Many if not the majority of the buildings of the 70s were built using asbestos, it is not strange to assume the WTC was no exception.

        The idea you sketch means that 7 floors were not massive concrete, like they should have been, that steel columns were not steel, how can you ever explain how such a “structure” can support the outside parts of the 30 floors above? You don’t have to be an engineer to understand that such a “structure” cannot exist.

        The plane is even more impossible. Consider what a plane is, it is not a coherent single piece, it is a collection of different parts, made of different materials, with different densities, different material properties (see above), different point masses (compare a flimsy wing to an indestructible engine), different areas, different velocities (front and back).
        Consider the 38 degree banking angle and the 17 degree from vertical angle which made the left part “collide” first.
        Consider how planes really collide with rigid materials, even with fecking birds!

        In the beginning when the whole physics dawned on me (on Sep 12, 2001 when I saw the footage for the first time there was already a voice in my head that said “impossible” but I went with the mainstream peer pressure), I was contemplating your position, but threw that out of the 80th floor quickly, when you think about it for a few seconds you know it cannot happen.

        It is the most blatant example of cartoon physics of history.

        The “funny” thing is that the mainstream responded producing 1 paper on the cartoon physics. There they talk about “46% kinetic energy”. I bet the kids who produced that paper didn’t look long at their own equations… It’s hilarious.

        1. Terran Downvale

          Gaia: I definitely won’t argue with the common sense physics. Such a structure doesn’t make sense to me either as far as I can imagine. I’d like to know if someone else could offer a possibility, though. Because the idea that the WTC was an anomalous structure built in a very specific way that allowed for its main ultimate purpose (to come crashing down in a spectacular yet safe manner) makes perfect sense to me. So I would have to disagree with your statement:

          Many if not the majority of the buildings of the 70s were built using asbestos, it is not strange to assume the WTC was no exception.

          I think there’s EVERY reason to believe the WTC was an exceptionally-built structure. And the reported dangers of asbestos were well-known long before its construction (according to the official asbestos narrative), so this is something that would have surely been addressed with what was likely the most painstakingly planned building demolition in history, with the building’s entire construction based on facilitating its planned demolition. Again, I can’t even begin to say “how they did it,” just that the concept makes sense if the plan was NOT to hurt anyone.

          But back to the possible (or rather improbable) “dummy” section of the WTC, I remember seeing something a few years back when I wrote my posts in this forum thread. Unfortunately, I think a number of the links are now dead, including the “Lies” music video itself. And while I would have written my posts differently now as I still had a lot to learn back then, I do still maintain that the Thompson Twins “Lies” video does contain 9/11 foreshadowing.

          In that thread, I linked to another video by the band for the song “Bombers in the Sky.” At the end of the video, we see a gremlin flying toward NYC’s Pan Am Tower (now MetLife). The gremlin appears to be approaching a section of the tower that looks “different” than the rest. I’m not sure how it’s constructed but I just wonder if it could be a hint about the specialized construction of the Twin Towers? Not that it necessarily meanings anything. Just another theory! Watch at 3:40:

  3. Terran Downvale

    Watching the “hot knife through butter” footage got me thinking. If the towers were built specifically to be taken down with relative ease and minimal “danger” (see the possible “asbestos” red herring, Gaia), could it also be that they were designed to easily absorb an airplane and even “catch it” in the way we see in the footage? The “no planes” idea always bothered me as the potential mass eye witness problem would be too difficult to deal with. So maybe there were “planes” (also possibly specifically crafted for this purpose) that were efficiently and conveniently “caught” by the towers like a catcher’s mitt?

      1. Terran Downvale

        And how have you determined that this is absolutely not possible? It could be just as easy as tossing a paper airplane into an open window.

        1. Faye

          Terran, there are many reasons that stand against your hypothesis, even if we assume that the buildings were built for that “plan”. We take as given that there were no attacks by any terrorists in real Manhatten, but only on Tv.
          What is the easiest, fastest, most predictable and secure way to disappear buildings ?

          1. Terran Downvale

            Well, of course there were no “attacks.” It was a harmless stunt/trick. Could they not have performed the stunt live? And of course the towers were taken down by controlled demolition, in the safest and easiest way possible. Toss a couple “paper airplanes” in what are essentially “open windows” along with some harmless special effect explosions, turn on some smoke machines and then demolish the towers. It could be that what was shown on TV was not an actual recording of this “live stunt” but something more dramatic and impressive. But the live stunt could have loosely approximated it enough to fool the NYC live audience.

            I think as far as alternative theories go, this one could be worth consideration. No holograms or energy weapons required. Or is “no planes” a hard and fast rule at Fakeologist?

            I just found an interesting animated short by Disney that won an Oscar in 2013. Sorry for the Daily Motion link and ads but it was the only place I could find the full original version:



            The short was shown in theaters with Wreck-It Ralph and is featured on the DVD release. A possible controlled demolition reference?

            The story takes place in NYC. It involves two potential lovers “trapped” in “twin towers” and the man’s failed attempts to toss a paper airplane in her window. Some say 9/11 was an occult ritual symbolizing the destruction of the “divine masculine and feminine.” In the Twin Towers’ place, we now have the Freedom Tower (the Baphomet union of the sexes and “freedom” from the rules of Creation). In the last shot of the short, we see the male and female characters standing against the skyline in the background.

            Also, the final destination of all the failed airplanes reminds me of the hats in The Prestige (i.e. magic trick). Anyway, thumb me down if you want. Just doing a bit of free thinking!

            1. Faye

              I am convinced that all the stories about occult, spritual and other such stuff are plain marketing exploiting the emotive qualities of humans. There is nothing spiritual or transcendental of any kind in criminal deception as program.
              We do not know how exactly the film sequences were produced other than they were not produced on that day. My personal favorite of hypothesis is, that they used architectural models.

            2. UNreal

              The fact the planes can be seen entering the buildings in the footage does require a better explanation than what is normally accepted.

              As many wonder whether the footage of the plane crash was real or CGI – the real indication is lurking just behind these techniques that both are misleading – and why so many well-known alt-truthers bring them up.

              We know that the demolition was planned and we have realistic images where the planes enter the building.

              The only explanation that really holds up to what we observe from the 911 footage and from what we know about PsyOps is that the videos are elaborate recordings made ahead of the collapse and staged with an exact scale-model of the WYC where the Towers where not made in steel – but in plexiglass, plaster cardboard and plastic…

              So the planes were realistic looking because they were miniature and solid – moreso than the tall, static buildings that needed to be fragile in order to make a convincing fall later – all prerecorded and programmed long before the actual attack where the perpertrators followed to playbook already prepared and ready to go. The planes would in a scale-model be able to produce the very images we have of the impacts. Hence the building 7 falling too early – just a mishap in timing or and inside pun (Seven/Zayin/Mindgame).

              1. Terran Downvale

                Interesting idea about the models as opposed to pure CGI. I’m inclined to think actual physical elements would always be preferable to purely digital ones from the standpoint of the movie makers, for 9/11 and any other hoax we’ve seen since then. But I know this goes against the CluesForum position. One example where I really disagreed with the CGI claims was the Bataclan balcony dangler. I also think we are regularly being baited by “simulated simulation” where things are intentionally made to appear as if they could be CGI when they are not (possible example, the recent YouTube shooter).

              2. UNreal

                Maybe we ought to entertain the idea that Cluesforum are not always right – nor investigates every type of alternative truth*.

                Lately they have fostered some very poor models in their Flat Earth DBA* (acronym BAD) where they set up a perfect strawman argument tearing down the messenger thus dispensing themselves for any serious inquiry.

                The latest foray into the vacuum of space with TYCHOS (acronym – The Sycho) model is just as misleading where they analyse a gravity driven space with heavy objects floating in a vaccum – which is simply not reproducible nor rely on proved science (gravity is a theory – and a bad one).

                Despite Clues forum’s extensive postings, their merits are too heavily depending on reputation which has never been more clear in the case of their latest analyses of flickering light-sources that might be detailed but still dead in the bathwater as they base their findings on contrived science.

                So thanks for the music and the media fakery analyses, and no thanks for cultic behaviour, gravity driven space and WTC CGI.

                *Appeal to Conspiracy Fatigue (CF)

                *Flat Sea’er

      1. Terran Downvale

        Or maybe enough rope to climb out of the echo chamber? This is just a theory, of course. I’m in no way stating it as a “rule” like no planes. And I should make it clear that the “hot knife through butter” clip we see could just be a stylized, made-for-TV version of what actually happened “live” with the planes and towers, as I mentioned in my previous comment.

        1. ab Post author

          If we realize nothing else over the years dear Terran it is to say that the less evidence you provide, the fewer eye witnesses you have talking and the more you just say over and over again that black is white the more success you will have at your hoax. Your idea has too many reasons why it could go wrong and therefore to just say they were planes and say it over and over again ad infinitum is far easier than actually producing any.

          1. Terran Downvale

            Well, I can certainly see that working with the first plane. The second one is more of a problem as there were surely MANY eyes on those towers at that point. But yes, the smoke screens, etc. So I will revise my theory from “yes planes” to “yes PLANE” (possibly).

            1. Faye

              Terran, the “first” and the “second plane” existed only in the film material. In reality the buldings were not demolished in the time modus.
              We do not know the exact time and time modus of the real destruction of the buildings. Even if thousands of eyes were viewing the buildings disappearing from in one or the other perspective, they would not know how they disappeared. The explanation came afterwards.

              1. Terran Downvale

                OK, it’s been a while since I looked at the timeline of events and I didn’t remember exactly how it played out. With a mere 17 minute window between reported “plane strikes,” I can see how the power of suggestion might be enough. A plane-catching stunt tower would be impressive, though! Carry on.

                1. Faye

                  I think you come closer to the idea that there were two different “events” on that day: the film and the reality. All you know about planes and minutes, 08:46 north t, 09:02 south t, etc. etc. was only in the film. In reality was only controlled demolishion.

        2. ab Post author

          It actually does not matter who saw what at the actual site. Millions around the world saw planes. The sheer numbers that believe one thing versus the insignificant few who may have seen something, anything completely negates eyewitness testimony. Media is the most potent weapon and cannot be overcome.


Leave a Reply to Faye Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

wp-puzzle.com logo

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.