Three major thesis are in competition concerning the culprit of the 9/11 attacks:
1. Islam Job: the official conclusion of the 9/11 Commission, blaming Muslim terrorists in general, and Osama bin Laden in particular;
2. Inside Job: the dominant thesis within the so-called 9/11 Truth movement, which accuses the American government, or a faction within the American Deep State;
3. Mossad Job: the rising alternative thesis within the community of truth seekers, which claim that the masterminds were a Zionist network close to the Israeli Likud.
There are variations on each thesis and middle grounds between them, but three camps can clearly be distinguished: the first ridicule the second as “conspiracy theorists”, while the second loath the third as anti-Semites. Each thus justifies its refusal to weigh the evidence produced by the other. Acknowledging this reality, by renouncing the bipolar vision of an information warfare between official liars and 9/11 truthers, and paying attention to the debate (or absence of the debate) between Inside-jobbers and Mossad-jobbers, is the first step toward a paradigm shift in “9/11ology”.
This article takes the view of the third thesis. The author belongs to those who, after thousands of hours of research, came to the conclusion that the 9/11 false flag operation was planned by a Zionist network, with the aim of dragging the United States into a “war on terror” of their invention, of which the only ultimate beneficiary will be Israel, as Netanyahu well understood from the very day: “It’s very good […], it will generate immediate sympathy […], strengthen the bond between our two peoples.”
I have already listed the evidence against Israel in a previous article and in my book JFK-9/11 (Progressive Press, 2014). The subject of this article is not the truth on 9/11—who did what and how—, but the media war on 9/11: who says what and why. Nevertheless, such an approach requires that we are able to weigh the credibility of each claim, and we will do that on a few key points.
We can notice from the outset that theses 1 and 3 each accuse a foreign power, unlike thesis 2. Before even looking at the evidence, it is obvious that an Outside Job thesis is more credible than the Inside Job thesis. There is something monstrous in the idea that a government can deceive and terrorize its own citizens by killing thousands of them, just for starting a series of wars which are not even in the nation’s interest. By comparison, a foreign power attacking the US under the false flag of a third power almost seems like fair play. This is an important remark, because it makes us wonder how and why the 9/11 Truth movement has been led to endorse massively the outrageous thesis 2 without even considering the more likely thesis 3. This is one of the questions I will tackle here.
The thesis that the masterminds of 9/11 worked for Israel does not mean that the Bush administration is innocent. Thesis 3 admits that thesis 2, unlike thesis 1, is not completely false and rests on hard evidence pointing to US complicity. But it claims that thesis 2 overrates that evidence while ignoring the evidence pointing to Israel. The question is to what extent it does so intentionally, that is, to what extent thesis 2 is a “controlled opposition” intended to cover up the truth of thesis 3.
Asking this type of question does not mean suspecting anyone who defends an erroneous or incomplete theory of being a hypocrite. Most people defending one theory or the other do so sincerely, based on the information they have access to. I have myself been a believer in thesis 1 for 7 years, and in thesis 2 for 2 years, before progressively moving on to thesis 3 from 2010. On the other hand, we can assume that those who lead masses into error on a long term, are not just mistaken but lying —they may also be lying to themselves, i.e., engaged in self-deception. In any case, it is legitimate to investigate the background and the means of opinion makers, and when they are caught lying or distorting the truth, we can ponder about their motivation.
This is what we will do in the first part, so as to demonstrate that liers are not confined to the official storytellers’ camp. It is not enough that someone challenges the official Big Lie for us to believe him blindly; his arguments and allegations should be judged by the same standard. The purpose of the two following examples is, firstly, to show the need for a critical mind when listening to dissenting theses, and, secondly, to show the need for a new paradigm taking into account the several layers of lies stacked on top of the truth. We will outline this new paradigm in a second part, in the form of a working hypothesis. Then, in a third part, we will see if this new paradigm is consistent with certain technical issues currently dividing 9/11 truthers.