No, but

Introduction

The latest round of “9/11” perception management operations was launched with Tucker Carlson’s five-part series that was supposed to mark some kind of “watershed” moment in the quest for “9/11 truth.”

The idea, broadly speaking, is that Carlson has done a great service by shifting the Overton window in such a way as to render questioning of the official “9/11” narrative more socially acceptable.

In my terms, he is (allegedly) helping to break through to Camp 1, i.e., those who blindly swallow mainstream narratives, and “we” are meant to be grateful for that and to build upon his efforts if ever “we” are to reach the sleeping masses.

James Corbett characterises this as the “Yes, and” tactic. Rather than denigrating Carlson for his obvious role as a Camp 2 leader (i.e., away from the truths that matter most), Corbett proposes that it is more productive to use Carlson as a springboard for conversation — yes, Carlson raises some valid points, and we should add to them. This, supposedly, is how we “wake up” the “normies.”

Modelling that tactic, Piers Robinson and Ted Walter of the “International Centre for 9/11 Justice” address Carlson’s five-part series and ostensibly seek to improve upon it. Yes, Carlson is right to question the official “9/11” narrative, and there are things he could have done better. For example, Carlson gives too much credence to the idea of “incompetence” on the part of the US Government; he should be more open to the possibility of “intentionality.”

What Kind of Gaslighting Is This?

24 years have passed. We are far beyond the mind games described above. Do we really need to kowtow to Tucker Carlson of all people? Should we be grateful to him for the obvious influencing operation that he is conducting? Are we really still stuck, two decades later, at debating “incompetence” vs. “intentionality” on the part of the US government?

Robinson and Walter suspect that “Carlson actually leans toward believing that 9/11 was an inside job” and that he wants a “new investigation.”

The impotent call for a “new investigation” is all that Camp 2 ever offers; it creates the illusion that the “truth movement” has teeth. No such investigation ever materialises. Even if did, why would the US government, supposedly responsible for the “inside job,” ever allow it?

Robinson and Walter’s piece is premised on whether the “US government” let the attacks happen on purpose (LIHOP) or made them happen on purpose (MIHOP).

It is a false dichotomy, dating back over two decades. The US government did not “let” or “make” the “9/11” attacks happen. It is widely accepted that President George W. Bush was clueless on the day.

The attacks were planned and executed at a higher level, which I refer to as the transnational deep state. True, criminal elements within the government were implicated, but it was not the US government that pinned the blame on Osama bin Laden 45 seconds after the South Tower being hit. It was Fox News.

The transnational deep state reaches far wider than “the government.” Keeping the focus on “the government” is misleading. It is like blaming the attacks on Muslims, Israelis, Saudis, etc. In each case, there is a clearly identifiable scapegoat on which to pin the blame.

This was by design: anything to prevent recognition of the real power structure.

Why Accept the Logic of “Yes, and”?

Yes — but what exactly does Tucker Carlson get right? That the official narrative is a lie? Duh.

It is the “and” part which is so insidious. Yes, Carlson pokes holes in the official narrative, and we should accept the findings of the “International Centre for 9/11 Justice.”

According to Robinson and Walter, Carlson posits that

officials may have wanted “conspiracy theories” to thrive in order to distract from more obvious truths, citing “directed energy weapons” as one such “far out” theory. Although actions such as destroying crime scene evidence clearly weren’t taken for the specific purpose of feeding far-fetched “conspiracy theories,” there is no doubt that certain theories have been disseminated to misguide the public.

This is disgustingly disingenuous. “Yes, and” here morphs into an uncalled for attack on Dr. Judy Wood’s work (the authors dare not name her) as “far out,” “far-fetched,” and intended to “misguide the public.”

As usual with Camp 2, no evidence is provided to corroborate those claims. Reaching Camp 1 in this particular psy-op is presented as more important than reaching the truth. As always with Camp 2, Camp 3 is excluded. The hard scientific evidence presented in Where Did The Towers Go?, which points towards the use of classified military technology, must be kept hidden at all costs.

The pursuit and defence of the truth are not about “yes, and” (a matter of building consensus). They are not about a Camp 2 influencing operation ostensibly intended to reach Camp 1. They are not about perception management.

Why Pay Attention to Carlson?

The truth is the truth. Anyone who is serious about finding the truth should not be playing games by trying to piggy-back on Tucker Carlson’s latest influencing operation.

The scientific evidence regarding the destruction of the Twin Towers has been readily available for almost two decades, thanks to the work of Dr. Judy Wood. It does not involve a “consensus” set by Camp 2 influencers such as Carlson and the “International Centre for 9/11 Justice.”

In fact, there is no reason for anyone who is serious about establishing the truth about “9/11” to pay any attention whatsoever to Carlson, whose credibility is seriously undermined by his longstanding role in the mainstream media, his previous attacks on “9/11 truthers,” and his current role in the mainstream alternative media.

Why, then, are Corbett and the “International Centre for 9/11 Justice” deferentially lining up behind Carlson?

Why do they openly support the work of Richard Gage, who is known to be the handsomely remunerated head of a global influencing operation? When I asked Gage in 2023 why the alleged underground infernos had not damaged the two massive freon tanks beneath the Twin Towers, he feigned ignorance of them. He is not a credible figure.

Despite Corbett’s attempt to portray anyone asking critical questions about Carlson/Gage as negative and unproductive, and his patronising use of a sound effect to convey that the “yes/and” approach is better, the simple fact is that Carlson and Gage are influencers who are committed, not to the truth, but to manipulating public opinion.

The Limits of “Yes, and”

Corbett challenges those who disagree with him to engage in the spirit of “yes, and” regardless. Were we to fall for this trap, we might say yes to Corbett’s excellent work on “9/11” down the years, and:

• Why was the debris pile from two 110-story buildings immediately at ground level?
• Why were thousands of people caught up in the dust clouds not burned, if the Twin Towers were destroyed at extremely high temperatures?
• Why were nearby cars toasted but not people?
• Given that the flight and crash dynamics of the alleged planes defied the laws of physics, and given that the ACARS data did not match the radar data, why should we entertain stories about hijackers and remote-controlled aircraft?

I get into those questions in my interview with Paul Hellier. But the point is, even if we were to follow Corbett’s advice and go down this route, would it actually prompt him to look seriously at the work of, say, Judy Wood and Mark Conlon?

There is no reason to think that his notoriously evasive attitude towards Wood’s research would change, especially as long as he remains allied to Gage. Indeed, there is no obvious reason to suppose that he will ever engage seriously with any of the above questions.

Therefore, unless Corbett proves willing to explore such questions in good faith, there is no reason to place any stock in his “yes, and” tactic, because it will not work on him.

“Yes, and” sounds like an open and inclusive tactic, but in reality it excludes certain views and questions, as we saw with Robinson and Walter’s “far-fetched ‘conspiracy theories.’” That which Camp 2 deems “far-fetched” is not allowed into the conversation. The gatekeeping is robust.

No, but

In the final analysis, anyone who is serious about the pursuit and defence of the truth should reject the propagandistic “Yes, and” method and instead adopt the scepticism inherent in the scientific method: “no, but.”

No, Carlson and the “International Centre for 9/11 Justice” are not to be trusted, for obvious reasons, but there is plenty of hard scientific evidence available for public examination.

Commentators such as Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, Richard D Hall, Mark Conlon, and 9/11 Revisionist have striven to examine that evidence impartially. They do not seek to close down debate. They do not gaslight. They do not use devious propaganda tactics.

I know whose approach I find more credible and worthy of respect.