Transcending 9/11 — Part I — The Groundwork

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

Also available in Video and Audio format
(Member content)

Transcending 9/11 Review

JLBA #50a – Transcending 9/11 (Review) (4-Sep-2020) | 48 minutes


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.


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?

Members can continue on to

Part IIThe TV Mega-Event

Not yet a Member?

You’re invited to join us!

Unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive content
and get access to our Member-only discord server


Still Undecided?

Here’s what some of the current Members have to say…

John le Bon YouTube Review


John le Bon YouTube Review

Dante from New York

John le Bon YouTube Review


Support independent media and get all the benefits which come with it 😎

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. Updated 5-Sep-2020 with Transcending 9/11 (Review) video. Slightly edited 13-Mar-2021 as part of creating the Free Content page.


Leave a Reply