Transcending 9/11 — Part I — The Groundwork

Updated 2-Apr-2020.


Transcending 9/11

Part I – The Groundwork (10-May-2018) | 2,000 words

Part II – The TV Mega-Event (25-May-2018) | 4,000 words

Part III – The New (York) Mecca (26-May-2018) | 4,000 words


Introduction

In this series I will attempt to explicate what I see as the revelatory value of the thing/event we call ‘9/11’.

It boils down to this:

1) 9/11 was transmitted to us via our screens. The ‘9/11’ thing/event happened (happens) outside of the screen as well.

2) Stories of all kinds are transmitted to us via our screens. Films are a key form of this transmission.

3) There appears to be an interplay between ‘9/11’ and many other stories (films).

4) The field of sync is concerned with evaluating this interplay: finding examples of it, and pondering how/why it happens.

5) An understanding of media fakery, and the History Hoax, and sync, when taken together, may allow one to see what was previously unseen.

I will attempt to demonstrate that ‘9/11’ may be interpreted as the spark of initiation/revelation for those with eyes to see.

In this sense, ‘9/11’ may be appreciated as a key moment in the ‘history’ of not just ‘western civilisation’ but each/any of us as individuals.

Many confused and convoluted issues will need to be addressed. Therefore, this article will not be written in a traditional style.

By the end of this piece, you will have a better understanding of where I am coming from when I mention or discuss the relevant ideas and concepts elsewhere.

You will also have some insight into where I expect this website to go over the next twelve months or so, once the DinoSkeptic project is complete.


Previous work on Sync: see this page.

Previous work on the History Hoax: see this page.

Previous work on Media Fakery: see this page.


Sections

1 – Symbols

2 – Subjective vs Objective

3 – Avoiding Philosophical Tangents

4 – Subjective Interpretation of Art

5 – 9/11: Nobody Died, Nobody Got Hurt

6 – War is a Hoax


1 – Symbols
The Secret Teachings of All Ages
The arcana of the ancient Mysteries were never revealed to the profane except through the media of symbols. Symbolism fulfilled the dual office of concealing the sacred truths from the uninitiated and revealing them to those qualified to understand the symbols. Forms are the symbols of formless divine principles; symbolism is the language of Nature. With reverence the wise pierce the veil and with clearer vision contemplate the reality; but the ignorant, unable to distinguish between the false and the true, behold a universe of symbols. It may well be said of Nature–the Great Mother–that she is ever tracing strange characters upon the surface of things, but only to her eldest and wisest sons as a reward for their faith and devotion does she reveal the cryptic alphabet which is the key to the import of these tracings.
-Manly P Hall in The Secret Teachings of All Ages (page 496 of this pdf)

 

Whether or not you are familiar with Manly P Hall (or any of his fellow ‘occultists’) is only of tangential importance to the significance of this passage from The Secret Teachings.

What matters is this:

i) Symbols may be used for communication

ii) Symbols may be recognised by some while simultaneously ignored/unseen/misunderstood by others.

You know full well that ‘human beings’ communicate via symbols. We are doing it right now, this very instance, as you read these words. You see a bunch of letters on your screen; your mind somehow knows that these letters form a word; words mean certain things; and so forth.

Symbol -> interpretation -> understanding

The 26 letters (and a handful of grammatical characters such as ‘full stops’ and ‘commas’) you were taught as a child are very easy to interpret when in context. For example, generally speaking, even moronic people can read and understand newspapers.

So we can all see that humans communicate via symbols. The question is, what symbols might we (the masses) be ignoring, or failing to see, or misunderstanding?

And in the case of 9/11, are these symbols merely the product of ‘human’ thought and action, or is there something else at play?


2 – Subjective vs Objective

When I say ‘objective’, I am referring to something which I believe can/will be identified in similar terms by independent individuals.

When I say ‘subjective’, I am referring to something which I believe to be dependent on the individual and/or his own experience.

Subjective vs Objective

Sometimes two or more people may have subjective experiences which are similar. An objective thing, on the other hand, will necessarily entail similarity among the accounts of those who experience it.

For example, whether or not there is a TV in your lounge room is an objective thing. Whether or not it is ‘good’ that there is a TV in your lounge room is a subjective thing.

If there is a TV in your lounge room, then any human capable of even basic communication will be able to agree with you that there is indeed a TV in your lounge room. Invite enough people over to your house and you may find that some of them think the TV is the best part of the lounge room, while others may feel that your lounge room would be better off without it. All will agree with the objective fact that the TV is there, while some will (subjectively) agree and disagree that it ought to be there.

For another example, consider a film. The film itself is objective: one frame follows from another, and another, for X period of time. Our interpretations of that film will however be subjective, and dependent on elements about ourselves which are unique: previous exposure to ideas and concepts, tendencies to focus on or prefer this thing or that thing, and so forth.


3 – Avoiding Philosophical Tangents

There are fields of philosophical inquiry which centre on further consideration of some of the ideas considered above:

Epistemology is concerned with knowledge. How can we ‘know’ that there is a TV in the lounge room?

Metaphysics is concerned with the nature of existence. In what way ‘is’ there a TV in the lounge room?

Ontology is concerned with the distinction of discrete items. What is a ‘TV’?

Sometimes concision is an ideal worth pursuing.

This article is not concerned with exploration of these kinds of questions. When I say that there is a TV in a lounge room, you either understand what I mean, or you do not. When I say that the ‘Twin Towers’ came down on 9/11, you either understand what I mean or you do not.

That is entirely up to you.

In another time and place I hope to properly delve into these philosophical tangents. They open up interesting questions. For the sake of brevity, this article is going to proceed on the premise that language is being used here to convey concepts which can be understood as they are, without the need for tedious elaboration on these fundamental/foundational philosophical concepts.


4 – Subjective Interpretation of Art

The objective vs subjective distinction is at the heart of art interpretation. The same piece of art can mean many different things to many different people, even though the artwork is objectively the same at all times. This is true of sculptures, paintings, music, and so forth. It is especially true of film stored digitally because the digits remain the same: the ones and zeroes which make up my copy of a film, will be identical to the ones zeroes which make up your copy — if we acquired our copies from the same source.

The Scream…

Above is a parody/meme of Edvard Munch’s The Scream. In the case of both the original and this parody/meme, what it means to you will be different than what it means to others, even though the image itself is identical on our computer screens i.e. the same ones and zeroes lead our screens to produce the same image.

If you can derive some kind of intangible benefit from the experience of viewing this piece of art, then why would it matter to you whether or not other people derive the same intangible benefit — or even if they derive any benefit whatsoever?

On a recent Member’s Skype Call we discussed the 2001 David Lynch film Mulholland Drive. My first viewing of the ‘Cowboy’ scene in that film led me to ponder a number of ideas and concepts in a way in which I had not considered them before. During that call I tried to convey some of those thoughts, but without any pretense of trying to ‘convince’ my interlocutor or the listener that my own interpretation is somehow ‘correct’ or in any way superior to others.

Merely by sharing our own interpretations we may derive some insights into our own minds, the minds of those around us, and the broader thing/event we call ‘life’/’reality’/’existence’.

In this article what I am going to do is share with you my own subjective interpretation of the thing/event we call ‘9/11’ and how it relates to the rest of my interaction with this realm.


5 – 9/11: Nobody Died, Nobody Got Hurt

I cannot ‘prove’ this to be the case, just as I cannot ‘prove’ that The People Who Run The Show already control all of the ‘nations’ on earth.

With that said, I do believe that, based on the available evidence, the best inference to be made about 9/11 is that nobody died, and nobody got hurt.

I believe it to be an objective fact that the alleged planes involved could not fly through the air at the alleged speeds, at the alleged altitudes, with the alleged levels of precision (even by experienced pilots), as is entailed by the official story of the event.

For more information, please see the following pieces:

JLB1706 – Skeptics DESTROYS 9/11 ‘Inside Job’ Conspiracy Theories (27-Jan-2017)

 

JLB1758 – 9/11: How Many REALLY Died or Got Hurt? (6-Jun-2017)

 

JLB1760 – Why the Truth Movement is a JOKE! (Part 1) (8-Jun-2017)


6 – War is a Hoax

The official narrative of 9/11 and the ‘War on Terror’ is easy to follow: bad guys kill innocent Americans, so America starts war(s) with countries housing the bad guys.

The popular ‘alternative’ theory is just as simple: government kills innocent Americans to justify war(s) they wanted to have in the first place (for ‘resources’).

Both theories are a joke from start to finish, and among many reasons why, here is one: war is a hoax.

Watch this footage from the ‘Bombing of Baghdad’ and see for yourself:

 

This is something I have been speaking about for a long time. The following video is no longer available on YouTube, but I have uploaded it to my Vimeo account in order to share it here:

JLB1525 – ‘ISIS to Get Nukes’ – Wag the Dog Redux (24-May-2015)

Also worth revisiting is the following:

FMVU #01 – War Hoax Pt 1: Introduction (12-May-2017)

As far as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned, all you need to do is ponder this for a moment: how did these nations/countries come into being?

According to the official story, modern ‘Iraq’ was created by the British following ‘World War 1’, while modern Afghanistan was controlled by the British from the late 1800s.

To believe that Saddam Hussein truly controlled Iraq — independently from TPWRTS — or that Afghanistan was ever a ‘rogue nation’, necessarily entails belief that TPWRTS can lose control of a territory previously under their control. This means believing that heroes (villains?) come along and topple the prevailing power structure.

Cartoon stuff.

The other problem with the ‘US government did it to justify war’ line is that it rests on the notion that the US government has to ‘justify’ what it does (or claims to do) in the first place. Even if Iraq and Afghanistan were truly independent from TPWRTS, why on earth would the US government need to carry out a ‘false flag’ to ‘justify’ the invasion? Why would they even need to announce the invasion to the public? They can do whatever they want, and most people above college-age will never so much as turn up to a public protest, let alone make any serious attempt to somehow stop their own government from invading another country.

It truly is a comical narrative.

However, if we reject both the official story, and the popular ‘alternative’ theory, then how do we explain 9/11? What was its purpose? Why did it happen?

Somebody had to decide to produce and broadcast the footage. Somebody had to organise the destruction of the Twin Towers. A lot of work went into this. They must have had a reason.

So what could that reason possibly be?


Continue on to Part IIThe TV Mega-Event


Not yet a Member of johnlebon.com?

Join as a 2020 Member now and get access to the remaining parts of the Transcending 9/11 series plus:

* All new material posted in on johnlebon.com in 2020.

* Dozens of hours of exclusive JLB content from from the archives including videos, podcasts and articles.

* Your name in the credits for the rest of the year.

* An invitation to the JLB Discord server and Member forum.

Use the coupon covid1984 to reduce the one-off sing-up fee from AUD $119 to just AUD $89.

That’s about $55 USD at current exchange rates.

You’ll see coupon section just above the detail fields after you select 2020 Member from the dropdown below.

Level Price  
Full Member $60.00 now and then $30.00 per Month. Select
Full Member (Yearly) $299.00 now.
Membership expires after 1 Year.
Select
2020 Member $119.00 now. Select

Production notes: Published 10-May-2018. Minor revisions since then. ~2,000 words. Part 1 released to Part Members 21-Jun-2019. Made public 2-Apr-2020 as part of coronahoax promotion.


 

18 thoughts on “Transcending 9/11 — Part I — The Groundwork

  • 11-May-2018 at 10:22 pm
    Permalink

    It’s odd that they televise/broadcast what they are going to do, when it comes to war and what country they are going to annihilate next. It’s pretty stupid if you were actually going to do that.

    looking forward to part 2.

  • 12-May-2018 at 1:48 pm
    Permalink

    It seems unlikely that absolutely nobody died or got hurt in such a destructive event. That is, unless the event Managers care so much for human life that they evacuated a large area to protect everyone. Fabricating deaths at the Pentagon or Shanksville seems plausible but fabricating each and every NY firefighter death seems far more risky and complicated to pull-off than actual death. I know this is not the actual point of your most excellent article, I just find so many aspects of the New York event befuddling. Can’t wait for part two!

    • 17-May-2018 at 11:57 am
      Permalink

      I understand how unlikely it may seem that nobody died or got hurt in ‘9/11’. This is especially the case if one already believes that TPWRTS are evil and/or want to kill people (which is a common belief among those in the ACT realm).

      The way I see it is this: 9/11 was a made-for-TV movie. Like any movie, people within the narrative ‘die’, but the actors playing those people do not.

      In most cases, no actor is even necessary in the first place: the ‘death’ is only a story (within the story), the ‘dead’ person never existed, and no actor even pretended to be alive in order to pretend to die.

      We are told that about 3,000 people died on 9/11. We could be told it was 4,000, or 5,000, and nothing would be changing except for the story. We are not told that the death count was about 3,000 and then given about 3,000 names and faces. We are told it was about 3,000 and then we (usually) go along with it. The story is enough in and of itself.

      If we want to look into it further, we can find sets of names and faces of the alleged dead. Most people will never bother, and of those who do, most will no even countenance the possibility that each and every name/face is a fabrication.

      In other words, nobody needs to die (or even pretend to die) in order to propagate the ‘3,000 dead’ figure. It is nothing but a story.

      If you were making a film, or choreographing a public performance, and part of your narrative involved deaths, would you therefore kill people on set/stage? No. Of course not. Completely unnecessary. Worse than unnecessary: problematic.

      If people die, then you need to engage in a cleanup operation. Bodies have to be disposed of. Families and friends of the deceased have to be placated. Questions (organic questions from real people who are not involved in the performance) have to be answered or avoided. More work has to be done. And not just any kind of work, but work to pacify real people who may act in unpredictable ways.

      No sensible director would ever want to make more (unnecessary) work for himself, let alone of an unpredictable nature. In the case of 9/11, what benefit is derived from killing real people? None. So why go down that path?

      In other words, whether or not they ‘care about us’, there is still no reason to infer that TPWRTS would kill people on 9/11 if they did not have to. And they did not have to: the Twin Towers were empty, not just on 9/11, but from the day they were built. This is my opinion, based on evidence, which will be presented in Part II of this series.

      Thank you for the encouragement about the series. Part II should be published by tomorrow.

    • 12-May-2018 at 11:06 pm
      Permalink

      It’s obvious to me (subjective) that the Info Wars interview above was staged/setup and the way he points to Richard Gage’s group as the last word in the “mechanics” of the collapses leads me to conclude that he’s an actor.

      Did anyone else notice the screen in the background saying “explain the unexplainable”? Interesting.

      No exotic weapons (i.e. nano thermite or DEW or mini nukes, etc.) were necessary. They just cordoned off the area and blew up the buildings. What we saw on TV was similar to Independence Day’s blowing up of the Whitehouse.
      Independence Day White House

      Hoi Palloi over at Clues Forum has repeatedly sent out pleas to “victims’ family members” to come forward and disprove the “Vicsim Report” but it still stands as the most complete debunking of the official 9/11 “victim list” ever compiled. I’m no fan of the boys at Clues Forum but they have done some good work.

      I checked the Social Security Death Index for the State of New York on 9/11/2001 and there are the same number of deaths (+ or – a couple hundred) that day as any other day. Did somebody just take the day off and not record the “deaths” of all those people? Seems highly unlikely. It’s more likely that nobody died and nobody got hurt.

        • 17-May-2018 at 8:11 pm
          Permalink

          An Oscar is ostensibly given to those that can play a wide variety of roles. Am example would be Charlize Theron in “Monster”.

          If this guy’s only role is to play this character, his performance does not seem so unlikely. IMHO it would be fairly easy to train someone to believe that the story they are telling is real. The interview was obviously some years after the event and that time (as well as time leading up to the event) could have been spent conditioning him to “believe” the story he’s telling.

          He may also just be one of those people who was never let close enough to the set to really see anuthing but let the media and second-hand stories fill in the blanks. This would be similar to Jesse Waugh’s 9/11 story. He may have very well worked with firefighters that were “disappeared” after the event but that doesn’t seem likely to me as only a minuscule minority will ever really investigate and the normies will never listen to them, no matter how obvious the evidence is.

    • 17-May-2018 at 11:42 am
      Permalink

      My honest opinion is that this guy comes across as scripted. I openly admit that I may be biased: I may be projecting my own preconceived notions (nobody died, nobody got hurt) onto his words (performance).

      I will have to see if I can track down more of this guy to get a better read of him.

  • 17-May-2018 at 10:33 pm
    Permalink

    The Towers could not have been completely unoccupied since the day they were built. I have a photo of my Uncle and his family from the late 90’s on the observation deck with the other tower in the background. It’s a scan of print with the date on it. I spoke to him about it and he remembers eating at a restaurant there with his family. Granted, it is possible a very large portion of the building was unoccupied of course.

    I disagree that faking ALL deaths and maintaining that story for years to come would be easier to pull off than actual death. I can imagine a large portion of the numbers are accounted for this way, as you suggest (e.g. all the ‘passenger’s’ on the ‘planes’) but not all.

    The New York Fire Department and all it’s personnel would need to bought off if literally zero firefighters died instead of the claimed 300+. Crushing at least some actual bodies under tonnes of rubble makes the event real in the minds of people. Furthermore, crushing the bodies of archetypal ‘hero’ types would serve to propogate the story far and wide for years to come.

    I have not seen any evidence to suggest that literally zero Firefighters died that day. Quite the opposite. Have you ever known or spent time with Firefighters? They are known to be highly sceptical of authority outside of the Fire Department.

    What compellingly evidence is there showing the entire New York Fire Department and it’s members have been bought off? Or are you suggesting they built memorials of their brothers and documentaries/YT vids criticising Giuliani just for teh lolz?

    I remain open-minded either way and I accept your thinking around this topic is more cohesive than mine.

    But for the life of me I cannot imagine a working model or a mechanism by which the entire Fire Dept. and it’s members are made to work both as Firefighters AND Actors (i.e. propogaters of massive fraud) after 9/11 rather than just work as Firefighters. It would be far cleaner to cast them them in the movie of 9/11 and simply not tell them about the movie.

    To say there is no reason for killing people is a touch naive in my book. People are killed all the time with far less at stake.

    • 18-May-2018 at 1:46 pm
      Permalink

      Also does anyone really think it’s possible to have such iconic buildings empty for 30 odd years?

    • 18-May-2018 at 9:54 pm
      Permalink

      Windows On The World, a restaurant at the top of one of the towers, was one of the only businesses I have seen compelling evidence showing was operating at the time of 9/11. It was closed at the time of the attacks as they didn’t serve breakfast – Supertramp anyone?

      It is quite possible that they had some tenants in the buildings over the years but like Chris Kendall of Hoaxbuster’s Call points out, there is a lot of missing debris if they were occupied. For instance, there should have been hundreds of tons of office furniture, miles of network/phine cable, thousands of refrigerators and other appliances, etc. if 2 110 story office buildings were even 50% occupied. Instead, all we saw was some fluttering pieces of paper. Where did it all go?

      As anyone who has ever spent any time in NY will tell you, most people there are too busy to spend time investigating whether or not all of the thousands of buildings in New York are occupied and while I’m sure millions of people visited Windows On The World, I believe it was mostly there so people could dismiss “outlandish conspiracy theories” like the one about the unoccupied towers. Most people would just tell you – “Of course they’re occupied, real estate in Manhattan is too valuable to sit vacant.”

      I have tried to “debunk” the empty tower theory but have come up short. Perhaps one of our members here can accomplish that.

      Peace

  • 20-May-2018 at 2:51 am
    Permalink

    I just wanted to add my opinion on the nature of war. It seems to me that Jon’s main problem with the afghan/iraq war is that it was based on a lie and is therefor unjust. This is something i have been thinking about lately; can a war ever actually be just? Heres what i think: war can be just under two circumstances: 1. if women and children are violated in any way. To do so is base and dishonerable and as far as i am concerned those who perpitrate these crimes forfit their right to life. 2. War can be just if it is waged for war’s sake alone. What do i mean by that? Men have a desire to test themselves against other men both physically and mentally (both of which are aspects of war (think combat and strategy). This desire is part of our nature. Therefor i believe it is just for armies to meet each other on the battlefield and beat the shit out of each other until one side yields as was done in days of old.

    So to circle back to the topic. No the Iraq and Afghan wars are not just and i can understand why that may bother some. Suppose the war is a hoax theory is correct and nobody is actually dying in these wars and provocations; it seems to me, if this be true, that the only war that exists lies within the hearts and minds of those who believe in such narratives. Is this a bad thing? i do not think so. As i posted in another thread, narratives, even false ones, may add to peoples lives meaning and purpose in so that they may converse and debate others about such topics evoking primarily emotional reactions. I think this leads into a much larger problem with the human condition that i shall write more about later. Thanks for reading.

    • 07-June-2018 at 10:53 am
      Permalink

      —Heres what i think: war can be just under two circumstances: 1. if women and children are violated in any way. To do so is base and dishonerable and as far as i am concerned those who perpitrate these crimes forfit their right to life. —

      what if men are violated? what are we chopped liver? : )

      —– if this be true, that the only war that exists lies within the hearts and minds of those who believe in such narratives. Is this a bad thing—-

      i’ve often thought…what if one reason TPWRTS recruit soldiers – deceived as they may be by false national pride – as a means to thin the herd of those with latent inclination to kill strangers? not a well developed theory at all…but if it’s all theater, and most of the physical actors are oblivious to the script, there could be some aspects like this they deem necessary.

      • 08-June-2018 at 4:26 am
        Permalink

        Dante, since I first started to realize that war is a hoax (Markus Allen was the first person I ever heard float this theory), I hypothesized that TPWRTS used war as a vehicle to not only cull some of the more violent men from the herd (who else would enlist?) but to also channel that violence against others of the same bent. It keeps them from hurting peaceful normies or worse yet, TPWRTS themselves. This idea has been in my head for the last 2.5 years or so but I’ve never put it out there.

        My uncle was in Vietnam and he is convinced that his friend was killed. It was by “mortars” so it’s obvious to me that they had no clue who actually fired the mortars but I believe it’s likely that people do die in these events. By having a line of work that is based on violence (the military), TPWRTS can separate violent people from society. They can further sort those that sign up using “aptitude and psychological tests” so that only the most violent end up in harm’s way. As cruel as it sounds, it is probably good for society.

  • 06-June-2018 at 10:18 am
    Permalink

    How’s this for a 9/11 sync story?

    I worked for United Airlines for 9 years and was at work on 9/11.
    There was only 1 name on the ‘victims’ list of flight crew members at United that I recognised as someone I had worked with before… Cee Cee Lyles.
    Due to a unique set of circumstances, I was assigned to work a flight from Florida to Washington D.C. in the days following the “attack”.
    The flight was in operation solely to transport the parents of one of the ‘victims’ to Washington DC, in order to “meet the President”. (that is what we were told).
    The plane was empty, except for a few men in suits (they appeared to be govt.), and the two parents.
    Who’s parents were we told they were?
    Cee Cee Lyles.

    Keep in mind that United had tens of thousands of flight attendants at the time. The ‘coincidence’ blew me away.
    I had no reason to doubt that Cee Cee had actually died at the time, either. Though I do doubt it now. There are many red flags in her bio, and it makes sense to me that there were real people who were involved as ‘actors’, planted months in advance, to legitimise the story.

  • 22-August-2018 at 4:57 pm
    Permalink

    Been reading thru the “Transcending 9/11” series and got an idea we should organize a MSC just on 9/11.

    I have so many questions/remarks I wish we could discuss:

    what’s the deal with the firefighter who seems legit (https://youtu.be/E_NlCUKYV7U?t=300)
    how come there is only 1 sunrise photo of the “hollow towers”
    the amateur videos of the 2nd plane is faked, I get it. If my memory serves me I recall Simon Shack saying “they” used some kinda electromagnetic weapon which prevented the millions of people in New York to shoot actual footage of the towers. This is far out stuff..
    Ok, I get that the videos of planes hitting the towers is faked. The jumping people footage is also faked – OK. What about the falling towers? Is that also faked? If so how come we don’t have actual footage shot say from 20 miles away?

    I have been looking into 9/11 since 2006 and I still have all these questions. Like Chad says “I want to know how the magic trick works”.

    The sync element of 9/11 is the most interesting one yet. What is going on here?

    • 22-August-2018 at 7:19 pm
      Permalink

      Excellent idea. Perhaps we ought to have a call on September 11? Or maybe the weekend before?

      According to my calendar, the weekend prior to 9/11 this year is the weekend of September 8/9.

      If others are interested, I would be more than happy to get our own Discord server up and running in time for that.

      In fact I had been planning to get a Discord server going in time for the Dave J special.

Leave a Reply