UP | HOME

A Rational Critique Of Academic Research

With Examples

1. Expanding On Why Most Academic Research is Fake

While I like Blithering Genius’s essay, Why Most Academic Research is Fake, I personally feel that there’s multiple important ideas and clarifications that are missing from that essay. To an extent, I agree with some critics that that essay’s thesis needs more justification and specific examples.

For the record, there is still a lot of valid, good-faith scientific research out there, but most of the academic “research” produced in more recent decades is either fabricated, dishonest, plagiarized, redundant, outdated, and/or useless. This essay shall elaborate on this in detail.

NOTE: This webpage is a work in progress. It takes time to write stuff.

1.1. Fake Research, And What Counts As “Fake”

Before proceeding, we have to clarify that labeling anything as “fake” is a truth judgment that depends on a person’s belief network. What one person considers to be “fake” is not what someone else will consider to be “fake”. There is no fine line between “true and false” or “fact vs opinion”. Compiling a list of examples of “fake research” is thus subjective. Nevertheless, we have created a list of fake ideas with links and reasons as to why we deemed the listed ideas to be “fake”.

Most academic research produced in the 1800s and early 1900s probably wasn’t “fake”. Fake research is more of a recent problem in academia, so when we’re labeling most or a lot of academic research as “fake”, we’re usually (but not exclusively) referring to more recently published research. Say, from 1980 to the present.

To say that “most” academic research is “fake” also implies that we can quantify how much of it is fake or not. I can’t precisely estimate, quantify, and judge every academic paper that gets published out there, so I don’t claim to know exactly how much of the current research being published is reliable. It probably also varies by fields, and it’s possible for papers to include a mixture of true and fake data, reasoning, and conclusions. However, we can generally say that most recent research in humanities (or human-centric sciences) is fake, redundant, or useless; most research in earth-centric sciences is true, fake, or questionable; and most research in STEM fields is true, fake, outdated, or redundant.

An idea doesn’t need to have an air-tight proof or solid reliable data to be the “scientific consensus” of the current era. It only needs to be the most vogue opinion, the winner of a popularity contest essentially. Since academia is so insulated and self-contained, the most popular ideas are often chosen for ideological reasons, especially in the humanities. Being supported by the academic consensus doesn’t confer being truthful.

For physics, mathematics, and other hard sciences, we should note that erroneous research often arises simply because the more theoretical and undiscovered areas of fields are so intellectually difficult to understand and investigate correctly, especially when there are many more ways to be wrong than there are to be right. It’s often necessary to make mistakes and learn from them before arriving at the right conclusion(s), so this is a reason why fake research is sometimes created (unintentionally). However, that doesn’t excuse intentional fake research from being created. For example, a scientist might knowingly conduct some fake research for a disprovable hypothesis in a field that’s currently at a dead end or writer’s block for further investigation. The motivation would be that there’s a lot of pressure on them to do research for the sake of doing research, even if it’s false or probably false.

Although we may not necessarily know how or why exactly, a lot of physical theories are probably wrong to some extent, since physicists currently don’t have a reasonable explanation(s) for making the different branches of physics cohere together. In the future, we may find out why in more specific detail.

It’s also worth mentioning that a lot of curricula taught in schools can be fake too, even though it’s not considered academic research (e.g. IB’s TOK class, which I took in high school). The amount of fake curricula definitely varies by school. I could publish a webpage of all the fake ideas that I was personally taught in school, but some of it is nit-picky, and I doubt that most people would find it to be interesting, so I won’t publish it.

The best rule is not to assume that because an academic paper says X, that X is true. You can find academic papers that say all sorts of things. Pretty much anyone can find a paper that concludes what they want to believe, if they look for it. Instead, you should try to think about the type of evidence necessary to support a conclusion, and see if that evidence is presented. If it doesn’t, then the paper is probably “fake”.

1.2. Why Fake Research Is Created

Blithering Genius’s essay did a good job of identifying the main causes of fake academic research:

  • Ideological Bias
  • Perverse Incentives
  • Social Circularity
  • Naive/Fake Empiricism
  • Statistical Manipulation (e.g. p-Hacking)

Additionally, the methods used to create fake news are often used to create fake research as well. The establishment media rarely tell outright lies, but they often lie by selecting facts, images, interpretations, etc. to fit a preconceived narrative. The narrative comes first, and everything else is cherry-picked to fit the narrative. The process for writing academic papers often works similarly. If an academic already has a conclusion that they want to present, they may ignore everything else that should also be considered and/or rig the methodology to achieve the desired results.

Many researchers may also use the Sapir-Whorf Effect and provocative wordings to influence how people perceive their papers. Pretty much everybody does this whenever they present what they believe, but the first step to detecting this is to understand how language influences thought. Usually, people can detect some misleading phrases, while unwittingly letting others slip under their radar. Everybody could become much better at it if they consciously understood the philosophy behind it.

As Blithering Genius had mentioned, one reason why a lot of academic research is “fake” is because it builds off of false research, even if the author is unaware that their starting assumptions are false.

Also see: Why Most Academic Research is Fake, Explained with Graphs and Data by Sean Last

On my economics webpage, I identified multiple different types of planned obsolescence. One of them is Academic Planned Obsolescence, which is when academics dismiss the best solutions to the world’s problems and questions, in favor of fabricating fake ideas or less efficient ideas. The intention is to create an ever-lasting flow of academic research for them to publish, to satisfy the artificially high demand for research papers. For example, some academics might dismiss Georgism, so they can create dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of papers that endlessly speculate on the best taxation policy(ies) that society should use.1 As another example, some academics might dismiss race realism, so that they can postulate about an endless number of hazily conceivable environmental and societal factors for why racial disparities exist. In both cases and many others, the best answers to the questions at hand are actually straight-forward. But if the academics were to ever expose the correct answers, they wouldn’t be able to continuously wonder, speculate, and write about innumerous hypothetical “solutions” to the questions. In such a scenario, there would be no more research papers to write, and that could be the end of many academics’ careers. This is similar to the conspiracy in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, where Gag Halfrunt and a group of psychiatrists try to prevent everyone from discovering the Ultimate Question to the Life, Universe, and Everything, since it would be the end of their profession.

Based on its name, it might seem intuitive that Academic Planned Obsolescence would only produce outdated research, but it can also be used to produce fake and/or redundant research just as easily.

Ivory Tower
Figure 1: An ivory tower is a metaphor for a sheltered, overly-academic existence or perspective. It implies a disconnection or lack of awareness of reality or practical considerations. This image was created by Eric BVD.

The replication crisis is real in science. But it’s arguably less of an issue in computing science (minus the theoretical part), because computing scientists must always submit their code with the paper. So you can run the code and get the same results as the author. Hence, it’s probably easier to replicate results in computing science than other fields.

Mathwashing: Scientists are incentivized to make their work as inscrutable as possible. Scientists often use overly complex mathematical or statistical methods to obscure problems from reviewers. This works because most reviewers will not admit to not understanding details of work they are reviewing. The harder it is to spot an error, the less foolish you are for having failed to spot it. Unreadable academic prose can also serve a similar obfuscatory purpose, though this seems to be a bigger problem in the humanities.

It’s not true that researchers are always trying to confirm research. If you get to challenge a paper, then this can prove to be one of the best things for your career, period.

That still doesn’t mean that challenging existing papers is likely to produce more factual research. If anything, challenging solid and widely accepted papers just for the sake of doing so or for career advancement is likely to generate even more academic nonsense.

Regression to the Mean; What Regression to the Mean is, and how many statistical studies don’t account for it, thus contributing to the abundance of fake academic research.

Research Less Likely to Be True is Cited More

The Problem With Science Communication - Veritasium

1.3. Science Must Be Based On Philosophy

Some academics may want to deny it, but all Science is based in Philosophy.

Even the question “What counts as fake research?” is a philosophical question since it pertains to truth and knowledge.

PhD stands for Philosophy Doctorate for a reason.

i

The Negative Effects Academia has had on Society; WhatIfAltHist describes how blind obedience to corrupt, partisan academics has held society back.

Humans have likely passed Peak Idea Production. This is yet another reason why the growth of factual Academic Research has slowed down significantly over the last half century. Since the supply of good ideas to discover is finite, ever-lasting academic progress is impossible.

One last criticism that I have about Academia is that lots of Academics don’t know how to write their papers in a manner that’s easily read by others. As a result, academic writing doesn’t tend to be comprehension friendly or easy-to-follow. One of the reasons why Blithering Genius’s content is so amazing is precisely because it’s written as clearly and as articulately as humanly possible, with little to no rhetorical or metaphorical language. This is something that seemingly most people are unable to do to some degree.

1.4. Education Has Devolved Into An Industry

Education was originally intended for teachers, clergy, and thinkers. (Thus the philosophy part of PhD). People that worked were merchants, craftsmen, or farmer/peasants. You learned on the job. College just morphed into another industry. Nowadays, Academia tends to works more like a rogue industry, rather than a group of noble thinkers who are trying to discover the truth.

There is a conflict between college rankings and intellectually-honest research. College rankings are complete and utter garbage (the same goes for basically all “best of” rankings in general). Citations per faculty is a terrible proxy for quality. The number of academic publications a school produces has almost nothing to do with the undergraduate experience. In fact, colleges that spend more time on research tend to place less emphasis on teaching. When folks reminisce about college, they mention things like the fun social environment and maybe one or two stand-out classes. What they don’t tend to remember is their school’s number of academic citations. Silly as this sounds, millions of students inadvertently choose schools based on this very criteria. All college rankings really do is reward those willing to play the game. And that’s of course assuming the research being cited is even good.

1.4.1. School And Academia Are Likely Biased Towards Women

2. Other Types Of Unproductive Research

Fake research is common, but it’s not the only type of bad research in Academia. Sometimes, research isn’t necessarily fake, but it’s still useless or unproductive in some way. Hence, it may be the case that the remaining ~40% of research in Academia is not fake, but it still doesn’t really improve society or humanity’s knowledge in any significant way. It’s important that we recognize and identify these types of research when evaluating Academia and its role in society. If much of Academia is focused on producing unproductive research, then that ought to be considered a waste of economic resources.

There is a lot of overlap between these types of unproductive research, but it’s still worth describing each of them, since they don’t always overlap.

2.1. Redundant Research

Redundant Research isn’t necessarily fake, but it just replicates or draws on research that has already been published before.

Examples:

  • A linguist creates a thesis paper and poster showing the application of a linguistic phenomenon, even though there’s already many papers out there like it before.
  • Over-Emphasis of Literary Analysis in Education - I haven’t learned anything from analyzing literature that has particularly led to great intellectual development. It is important to know how to read, write well, and get one’s point across, but analyzing literature does not build CTS. What should be emphasized in place of literature is rational philosophy and epistemology, because they actually build CTS and give people a sense of direction for how to live their lives.

2.2. Plagiarized Research

Plagiarized research is another serious problem in Academia. It could be considered a sub-category of redundant research. For plagiarized research, the pretense of creating original research is fake, but the content itself of the plagiarized research may not necessarily be false.

One study showed that Wikipedia has a tendency to shape the language in science papers.

In How Widespread Is Plagiarism in Academia?, one academic estimates that 7-9% of all PhD dissertations are plagiarized, although it may vary by the field of study.

2.3. Out-Dated Research

Out-dated research is closely related with redundant research in a sense, but still different. Outdated research is often useless, compared to newer and more innovative methods.

This is also kind of depends on what gets considered “outdated”. Like, optimality theory could be considered just a simpler method for modeling language phonology, not necessarily a completely outdated way of thinking about it, although it is definitely less sophisticated and less accurate.

To be fair however, it is inevitable that some research will become outdated/obsolete when new ideas are shared all over the world by brilliant minds who have done a lot of thinking, especially when the rate of the flow of information around the world is the fastest it has ever been in human history.

Examples:

  • One linguist’s PhD dissertation used stochastic optimality, but it was outdated by maximum entropy phonotactics just a few years later.
  • How one person’s master’s thesis studied belief networks, but it was outdated by large language models just a couple of decades later.

2.4. Useless Research

Useless Research is characterized by being undiscovered or uninvestigated (hence it’s not redundant or out-dated), but it still doesn’t improve human society by and large in any conceivable way.

One could make the argument that much of the research that falls into this category may have a theoretical and yet undiscovered application that could benefit humanity in the future, but that’s unlikely to be true for many things.

Examples:

  • The linguistics professor who has published 10+ papers studying how American and Canadian hockey players affect each others’ dialects.

3. Listing Fake Ideas

In this section, I will list fake ideas that are present and widely accepted in Academia. Each fake idea will be followed by a link for reading more about it.

  • The unreasonable inefficiency of economics
  • Pretty much everything having to do with morality
  • Even worse, many academics mistakenly believe that their moral philosophies count as knowledge. All human-centric theories that are based around moral assumptions have flaws to the extent that they fail to accurately account for their moral biases.
  • Most Epistemological Theories
  • The false dichotomy between visual learning, hands-on learning, etc.
  • Many Psychological Theories
  • The Real Causes Of Depression: Depression isn’t merely chemical balances in the brain. Depression is a natural biological reaction to having a shitty life, and is caused by:
    • Childhood trauma
    • Deadening and boring work
    • Instability in life
    • Poor social connections
    • Lack of good values
    • Low Social Status
    • Grief
  • Many Sociological Theories
  • Many Nutritional Theories
  • The Myers-Briggs Personality Test -This is a terrible personality test with little scientific basis and great variations with every attempt, and yet its use is very widespread. Professional psychologists and scientists prefer the Big 5 Personality Traits Test. The widespread use of the Myers-Briggs Test can probably be attributed to its categorization of all personalities into 16 personality types, which is fetishized among the public and the brain’s tendency to categorize things. In reality, personalities are far too diverse to pigeonhole into just 16 types and a series of spectrums is a much better way to record them and their differences. Myers-Briggs is not a valid personality test.
  • Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs -There are many contradictions to Maslow’s Hierarchy.
  • Many linguistic theories regarding hypothetical super language families.
  • Many linguistic theories regarding grammar and syntax are redundant, but not necessarily incorrect. Though, some are more practical than others.
  • The endorsement of trans fats instead of saturated fats backfired catastrophically.
  • Demographic Transition Theory
  • The Laffer Curve – Georgism is a more effective approach to taxation, so the Laffer Curve is obsolete and irrelevant.
  • Market Capitalization
  • Almost much every take on free will that doesn’t utilize the subject-object dichotomy.
  • Just about every take on knowledge/truth that doesn’t utilize the subject-object dichotomy. https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2023/08/theories-of-knowledge.html
  • Pretty much all takes on Mind-Body Problems.
  • IB’s Theory of Knowledge (TOK) Course -This has absolutely no scientific basis, and is one of the main reasons why I hate the IB curriculum. It makes about as much sense as the Bible, the Koran, or any other nonsensical theological text. I can’t believe that money is being stolen from people to teach these nonsensical contradictory garbage to adolescents. IB is overrated.
  • The Linear Model of Linguistic Morphology -… ../language/morphological-typology
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles#Neil_Fleming's_VAK/VARK_model
    • Visual / Hands-on|Kinesthetic / Auditory / Reading Method of Learning -i
    • I can remember questioning if this theory of learning styles ever made any sense since it seemed that many of the subjects that I learned in school could only be learned by reading.
  • Neuro-Linguistic Programming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
  • Keynesian Economics -…
  • Wealth Inequality: There are many economics papers that try to postulate what causes wealth inequality. What most academics have failed to figure out is that there are two main causes wealth inequality: 1. hereditarian genetics, and 2. unequal land ownership distribution.
  • “Immigration is always good” -…
  • Many economists don’t fully understand the effects that fertility rates and overpopulation have on economies, if at all.
  • Many sociologists don’t fully understand the effects that fertility rates and overpopulation have on economies, if at all.
  • Overpopulation and resource competition are the primary causes of war.
  • Prescriptivism and Parts of Speech -…
  • Aspects of Political Science -i
  • Aspects of Gender Studies -Aside from feminism, sexuality, sexology, and some biology studies, the rest of gender studies is cultish, unscientific, and a waste of time. Biology and feminist activism are more practical things to study.
  • Vegan diets -Vegan diets are unhealthy and they don’t work. Believing that you can get all the nutrients that you need to function from a plant-based diet when humans evolved to be omnivores is wishful thinking. A better and more practical solution than veganism would be entomo-vegan diets or entomo-vegetarian diets.
  • College Rankings, Best City Rankings, etc.
  • Green Energy Studies
  • Breakfast Company Funded Studies on the supposed importance of breakfast
    • Breakfast is the most important meal of the day -There is no evidence that skipping breakfast by itself will make a person less healthy. Studies that reach this conclusion have been funded by breakfast companies, might have had their results exaggerated (like the Harvard study), or may have failed to account for correlations. Thus they have made a Correlation Implies Causation Fallacy. Although people that skip breakfast tend to be less healthy, this is because they tend to do other unhealthy stuff too like smoking, not exercising, and other bad health decisions. When people wake up, they should eat when they’re hungry, and if they’re not hungry, then they should eat later.
  • Pornography is a bad thing because the chemicals released in the brain when someone watches porn are the same chemicals released in the brain when someone takes highly addictive illegal drugs, and every single time someone wants to reach the same high (euphoric feeling of pleasure), they have to watch even more extreme porn, just as a drug user has to take higher and higher doses to feel the same high -This argument is the Guilt by Association Fallacy. By the same reasoning, they would also have to conclude that falling in love is a bad thing since romantically falling in love someone also releases the same chemicals in the brain associated with highly addictive illegal drugs, which is exactly why it is so hard for some people to get over breakups, deceased loved ones, and why some people even love their former partners until the day that they die. The people making this argument would probably insist that love is a good thing (since Fight The Drug is funded by the Church of Latter Day Saints), so their argument contains a contradiction.
  • The Food Pyramid / My Plate -Corporations lobbied the US government to teach this false curriculum in schools. Over half of the world’s humans are lactose intolerant, so they can’t consume dairy products. Not to mention that it is unethical to eat meat if that requires inhumanely killing life that wants to live.

Examples Of Motivated Pseudo-Science In Our Society:

  • Corn syrup and seed oils drive obesity, not saturated fats.
  • Academia pushed quantum theory, black holes, and Einstein’s theories in physics off some very weak and spotty evidence.
  • Academia basically invented modern monetary theory with no evidence.
  • Academia rejected the idea that there are lessons to history with no evidence.
  • All the humanities are ideologically motivated, where everything must fit inside a Leftist prism. The humanities assume the Blank Slate, which has been disproven strongly.
  • Almost every trait, including personality and intelligence is half genetic, but academia (and our society) operates off the Blank slate assumption.
  • We assume human nature is rational, but most studies actually aim to rationalize our emotions.
  • The inaccurate reporting of the American divorce rate -
  • The college graduation rate of people with ADHD -See the Stack Exchange response
  • 30 million word gap -This study has been cited over 8000 times, but it is based on extremely bad data and ridiculous extrapolations. i
  • Just about everything favoring prescriptive language over descriptive language
  • Body language accounts for 90% of communication -This is obviously not true for all types of communication and it is more limited in scope than most people realize. It only applies when people are communicating their likes and dislikes. It is intellectually dishonest that many people lazily spread this false claim without also saying the context that it applies to and it overemphasizes body language, even though body language is very important. A better way to emphasize body language is to not spread false claims like this around since lies/dishonest statements do not move academia forward. It is also likely that different people and different cultures would use body language more than others since everybody is different and likely has different ways of communicating, so it is also dishonest to suggest that this is a universal statement.

Unlikely/Contradictory Hypotheses That Gain Unreasonable Attraction The main reason why these hypotheses get so much attention among the populace is most likely because they: 1. spark interesting conversations, 2. are easy to explain, 3. fit well in story-telling. However, these hypotheses have several holes in them, and it is dishonest to teach them as fact for that reason.

  • Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis -By and large, most linguists have rejected the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. There have been very very few cases where language has been proven to determine thought. And if you think about, it wouldn’t make a lot of sense if language determined thought because thought has existed at least hundreds of thousands of years before language ever did.
  • Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics -This theory breaks probability, but it gets taught a lot since it is relatively easy to explain and fits well with story telling.
  • Cognitive Tradeoff Hypothesis -The CTH has several holes inside it: …
  • All attempts to defend Creationism and Intelligent Design
  • All attempts to defend God
  • All attempts to defend Labor Theory of Value, Marxism, and Communism

There is something to learn from everybody -At minimum, it only takes just one counterexample out of billions of people to prove this wrong. And there are probably at least millions maybe even a couple billion or more people from whom the smartest human beings or even smarter-than-average humans wouldn’t have anything to learn from. Since millions to billions of humans all have the same lifestyle, education, major life choices, and/or surrounding circumstances, lots of people’s advice would become quite similar and repetitive.

People that can brainstorm more curse words may be more intelligent -The internet articles that make this claim are intentionally hiding critical information in the misleading titles and the content. The truth is that studies show that people that can brainstorm more cursewords demonstrate an ability to be able to brainstorm all kinds of different words in general, and being able to think of different cursewords is just a small section of the vocabulary that they are able to brainstorm. God-Given Rights -The only place where God exists is in the imaginations of those who choose to believe in such a ridiculous nonsensical concept. Rights are not given by a magical man, but rather they are the well-reasoned conclusion of the Non-Aggression Principle.

FACT: In the long run, training wheels actually don’t make it easier to learn how to ride a balance bike. They make it arguably harder since training wheels don’t require counter steering to steer, whereas balance bikes do. So when the training wheels are removed and one must learn how to ride a balance bicycle, one has to unlearn turning and relearn how to turn (this time with counter-steering for balancing the bicycle).

3.1. Analysis Of Fake Research

The denial of the biological validity of race is an exclusively Western phenomena, biologists are less likely to deny race than anthropologists, and the global scientific consensus is overwhelmingly opposed to race-denialism. A lot of fake research occurs in the West due to the denial of biological realities.

4. Reasons Why The Collapse Of The World Trade Center Was A Controlled Demolition

There are a lot of crazy and ridiculous conspiracy theories about there about what caused 9/11, but the most sane one is the one that bases its judgements completely off of physics and nothing else.

The evidence is abundantly clear that the collapses of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 on 2001 September 11 were all caused by controlled demolitions. I don’t deny that the 5 planes were hijacked on 911, and I recognize that all the destruction at the Pentagon was completely caused by American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the building. But it’s physically impossible for WTC 1, 2, and 7 to have collapsed the way that they did solely by the plane crashes, fires, and gravity.

  • WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 all collapsed with free fall acceleration, which is not physically possible for a fire and gravity collapse.
  • A fire collapse would actually look like this: eeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
  • A gravity collapse would actually look something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse.
  • There are no skyscrapers that are known to have collapsed due to fire and/or gravity. WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 are the only skyscrapers that are claimed to have collapsed solely due to fire and/or gravity, and even this is dubious.
  • It’s not possible for fire and jet fuel to have caused an explosion at the top of the tower(s), as shown in the videos.
  • A plane once accidentally crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945 and caused a huge fire, but that wasn’t enough to make the Empire State Building collapse.
  • WTC 7 didn’t even have a plane crash into it, and it still collapsed with free fall acceleration.
  • There was no jolt when the highest level of the tower first fell down.
  • The steel spire was still left standing after all the floors around it collapsed with free fall acceleration.
    • By Newton’s Laws of Motion, if there was enough force to cause the floors to collapse, then it had to have been strong enough to make the steel spire collapse as well, but it wasn’t.
    • Instead, the steel spire stayed standing for 10-15 seconds (as captured by multiple videos), before its bottom got cut somehow, and then it fell like a chopped falling tree.
  • Even if extremely hot steel can still remain both solid and flexible, it’s still not possible for said steel to have become weak enough to cause the buildings to collapse with free fall acceleration.
  • There was nano-thermite found in the debris, which is military-grade explosive material.
  • There were small iron spheres found in the debris, which could’ve only been created from the result of an explosion.
  • There was eutectic steel with Swiss cheese holes found in the rubble, which could’ve only been created from the result of an explosion.
  • Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel, yet there was still melted steel found at the ground zero site.
  • Ground Zero remained hot for days after the towers collapsed, which is not possible for a fire and gravity collapse.
  • The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) removed the phrase “EEEEEEEEEEEE physically possible” from their final report on how the towers collapsed, which means that they’ve implicitly acknowledged that the government-backed theory for the towers collapsing is not physically possible.
  • Since the government has removed this phrase, and they have no plans to investigate it any further, this suggests that some kind of Deep State is responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. If they weren’t responsible for destroying the skyscrapers, then why aren’t they interested in creating physically feasible descriptions for how the buildings collapsed? The most likely reason is that some government figure or connection to the US government is responsible for the destruction.
  • i
  • i
  • The 9/11 controlled demolitions has to be the most impressive stunt ever pulled off by the deep state. They managed to totally level three buildings in the most populated city in America by precisely preparing explosives while they were occupied, and trick most of the population into thinking plane crashes were enough to cause it.
  • This will have seriously negative geopolitical implications (for the US) if we expose the lie. If the American people can’t trust their own government (as cliche as that sounds), then every country around the world will spring to the opportunity to use this as an excuse for why they can’t trust the US government either, even if/when they do the right thing(s).
    • There is reason to believe why exposing this lie would shift the balance of power. To a great extent, there are a lot of open lies in geopolitics that everybody knows about, but there are serious consequences if people say them out loud.
    • For example, China knows that the US and Taiwan don’t support China annexing or reunifying with Taiwan, but if either Taiwan or the US said that out loud, then China would start invading Taiwan ASAP in order to defend their territorial claims.
    • It’s complicated, but that’s just how geopolitics works. Lies can’t be universally accepted as lies unless the key adversaries involved admit/acknowledge them.
  • If we exclude the number of deaths and casualties caused by the controlled demolitions on 9/11 from the US government reported number of deaths and casualties, then the total number of people who died on 9/11 solely from the terrorist attacks would only be everybody on the five hijacked flights, and the people who died from AA flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. That would be less than 400 people. This would thus make the 1941 Attack on Pearl Harbor the deadliest attack on American soil that was caused by a foreign entity. There’s even some evidence to suggest that US intelligence knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor was going to happen before the Japanese military attacked it, which would imply that the first two or three deadliest attacks on American soil were all known about by the US government to some extent beforehand.
  • Since all the deaths caused on 9/11 were caused by two separate causes (1. plane hijacking and crashes, and 2. controlled demolitions), we should separate everything that happened on that day (the causalities, events, timeline, etc) into two separate categories.
  • If WTC 1, 2, and 7 were all destroyed by controlled demolitions and WTC 1 and WTC 2 were struck by planes before they were blown up, then the controlled demolitions had to have been timed so that the towers would blow up after the planes crashed into the towers. This means that whoever blew up the towers knew that the planes were going to eventually crash into them, and they timed the controlled demolitions so that the plane crashes would seem to what caused the destruction of the towers to the public.
  • i
  • i
  • i
  • i
  • i

The 9/11 Truth Movement has uncovered overwhelming evidence that the destruction of the World Trade Center was a crime that required:

  • Long-term inside access to the buildings.
  • Access to military-grade demolition materials.
  • The ability to coordinate the demolitions with the hijacker scenario.
  • The elaborately staged fumbling of what should have been routine interceptions.
  • A massive cover-up that began on the day of 9/11.

Augustine’s Amazing Commentary

  • How did they installed explosives and thermite cutting charges in the building over the course of at least a month while it was occupied with over a thousand people.
  • That was definitely the most difficult task. Everything else was fairly easy by comparison and really difficult to stop because it happened so quickly and the public didn’t have time to react.
  • But there was plenty of time to discover bombs in the towers.
  • I bet that a large percentage if not all of the security staff were agents.
  • Maybe the fourth plane was intended to hit WTC7 but it didn’t make it.
  • I vaguely remember a testimony from one of the former tower occupants that leading up to the attacks they remember an unusual amount of supplies being hauled around by people who looked like engineers. I can’t remember where I found that.

It’s probably not a coincidence that 9/11 occurred about ~10 years after the Cold War ended. Ever since the Cold War ended, US military spending had been declining. Given that the Military Industrial Complex has conflicts of interest and likely has strong ties to the US deep state, there’s reason to believe that the US Military Industrial Complex blew up the World Trade Center in order to create a false flag operation and excuse for starting new wars in the Middle East, in an effort to boost declining US military spending.

US Military Spending Timeline
Figure 2: US military spending rose during the 80s and fell after the Cold War ended, until 9/11 happened.

There were definitely multiple agencies that were complicit with the plot. It benefited the MIC, Israel, many corrupt politicians, and even the owner of the Twin Towers: Larry Silverstein Earned [4 And A Half Billion Dollars] From Insurance Summarize video’s points, with/from transcript.

And the US intelligence agencies because it was used as a justification for The Patriot Act. The members of congress that were opposed to the bill were assassinated by anthrax. I’m not sure if this is true yet but it is definitely possible.

9/11 was a false flag operation.

The 2004 Osama bin Laden video was probably staged, given its lateness following the 9/11 attacks, and how it was somehow timed to be released just before the 2004 US Presidential Election.

How did the explosives get into the Twin Towers in the first place? Is there any video footage showing people bringing all the explosive materials into the buildings?

It’s crazy how the New World Trade Center Tower is designed to supposedly be impossible to destroy, even though the original WTC towers were actually destroyed by controlled demolitions.

There only one true fire-gravity collapse that I know of is a building in Brazil that was probably much weaker than the Twin Towers. It had to be completely engulfed in flames before it finally collapsed. In the case of the Twin Towered it happened far to quickly and with far too many discrepancies to be purely a fire-gravity collapse.

9/11 was a premeditated shock and awe event that was instrumental in a larger plan. It allowed the administration to immobilize the population through fear and manipulate their outrage displaced toward the designated enemy. 9/11 provided cover for a protracted attack on our democratic values and an orgy of outrageous national behavior that defined the entire Bush administration, much of which continues today. 9/11 brought us the fiction of “preemptive” wars as a fig leaf for naked military aggression, the fiction of “illegal enemy combatants,” to pretend the Geneva Conventions did not apply, and the fiction of “enhanced interrogation” as though that were any different from torture pure and simple. It brought us routine drone assassinations, the expansion of secrecy, the unleashing of the NSA to conduct universal surveillance, the destruction of nearly every one of our civil liberties, attacks on journalism and the murder of journalists, paranoid fear of immigrants in general and Arabs in particular, and the demonization of Islam as a uniquely violent religion. This list is far from complete.

Footnotes:

1

In fact, Neo-Classical Economics was created and funded by rich land barons to keep Georgism out of Academia. See: Neo-Classical Strategem As A Strategy Against Henry George

Last Modified: 2024 March 03, 15:58

Author: Zero Contradictions