Ever watch the the original Neil Armstrong and crew interview after their moon landing? You go watch and tell me IF these guys really landed on the moon. They look like they just killed grandma and buried her in the back yard. IF I were one of those 3 astronauts and we just came back from the moon it would be like winning the Super Bowl and kissing Raquel Welch ….1.

2. 911 3 buildings 2 planes controlled demolition

Where are the jet engines ?

Inside job just saying

Dr woods has some very intriguing ideas on 911

And people still wear mask?

And the lies just get being told while people clean their houses and are too busy trying to

Do routines to pay attention.

Expand full comment

Hmmm ... so if I'm struggling to just keep a house clean and pay the bills, exactly how I am supposed to add these bits of theory to my psyche? I think I will just side with "I don't know" until a better time. Gotta pick your battles, and I've picked mine.

Expand full comment

The WTC7 collapse is cited by many as the big tell, but for people who understand how tall buildings are designed and built, the collapses of WTC 1+2 are equally ridiculous, if not more so. For WTC 1+2, no confession is needed--the basic physics and building engineering principles are more than enough to demonstrate that the planes were yet another ‘magic bullet’.

Here’s a post I shared elsewhere on this topic.

9/11 is the big lie based on ‘Terrorism’; Covid is the big lie based on ‘Virus’. All part of a grand tapestry of deception.


The very first tell was visible exactly as the first tower began to fall. I watched it happen on TV, about 45 minutes after the planes hit the buildings. Strangely, the second tower struck collapsed before the first. Weird.

The collapse that unfolded went against every structural engineering principle known and employed to construct buildings of this size. I saw the buildings fall straight down at astonishing speed. Basic physics seemed suspended. I was shocked.

The WTC towers are a Type I structure, which require 3 hours of fire protection. This is because Type I structures don’t have a height limitation. Very tall structures require time to evacuate and deploy firefighters. So while a two story apartment building might only have a 1 hour rating, tall buildings are held to a stricter standard. This is primarily driven by insurance, as most building codes have been since their inception. This doesn’t mean 3 hours to collapse, but 3 hours until a certain level of deformation takes place. The building is still expected to stand, not collapse. In real life, no fire-protected Type I building has ever suffered catastrophic collapse before or since the WTC. This is very important.

We have to remember that these were, at one time, the tallest towers on the planet. They weren’t built to simply *meet* the building codes of the time, but to vastly *exceed* them. These towers were designed with a highly redundant structural system that paired vertical load bearing and shear resistance in its interior and a web-like network of structural steel at its perimeter that lent the towers remarkable stiffness and resiliency (an essential characteristic for tall buildings subjected to hurricane force winds which can come from any direction). In addition to the robust redundancy of the structural design, all of the steel was either encased or covered with fire-protective material, be it concrete, gypsum, or asbestos-containing coatings available at the time.

I have personally worked intimately on the design and construction of these kinds of tall buildings, and when I saw these buildings collapse on that fateful day, I knew immediately it was an Op. And a very large and elaborate one.

On that day, the TV told me to ignore training, education, and experience, and just be afraid. It told us that somehow jetliners crashing into the buildings made them fall, like Luke Skywalker—a single X-Wing taking down the Death Star. That’s fine for a movie plot line, with accompanying special effects; but from a structural engineering perspective, it’s utter fantasy. It would take much more than a single plane, and the collapse wouldn’t have looked like that. What it looked like was controlled demolition. Full stop.

Every structural engineer and architect worth their salt should have jumped out of their seats and exclaimed, “WTF?” Instead, most sat and waited, silent. My team members and peers were curiously silent, hesitant to ask questions. Most said nothing and changed the topic when probed. They were uncertain. Afraid to speak out. Like an unmasked person in a crowd of masked faces, they feared being isolated. Perhaps there was something they didn’t know?

There were so many angles to pick this apart based on basic principles, but almost no one noticed and fewer said anything. No one seemed to see the rate of fall, the way the collapse self-corrected early on at the top third. No one seemed to question how it is that relatively minor damage to one side of a redundant structure played out as a very uniform and organized collapse.

Almost that very day, a blanket of silence spread out over the topic. It was as if a mass suggestion spell had been cast and nearly everyone had bought the ruse. It was as if the TV and headlines had been scripted beforehand, structured to obscure and direct inquiry away from the forensic evidence. Is it any wonder that the overwhelming majority of the steel remains were quickly freighted off to asia for smelting? Forensic examination wasn’t a goal, it was to be avoided.

Many point to the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania crash as big tells, but for me, it was the WTC collapses that spoke volumes. Basic physics, Newtonian Mechanics, high rise design principles, all had been violated; and we’re not talking about particle physics here, but basic principles that have been used to design buildings for centuries. How could this possibly be?

Immediately, within the space of weeks, the industry rags devoted special issues reporting theories of collapse. The theories were all ridiculous, but like the NEJM or the Lancet, does anyone question Architecture or Structure? Never mind that all of a sudden, the normal advertisements changed on a dime to market security bollards, fire-rated glass, and terrorist-resistant building security systems. The people who read these initial theories fell into three camps: skeptics, acceptors, and those who stayed silent. I would estimate around 75% were acceptors, 5% were skeptical, and 20% were afraid to give voice to their questions.

Much like the doctors during the pandemic outbreak, only a few professionals in connected fields spoke out, many were cowed into silence, and a great many went along in blind acceptance. Honest truth: a huge number of architects suck at structural engineering, even on an intuitive level, and outsource even fundamental design to engineers—they like to spend an inordinate amount of effort on prettifying the packaging. People who raised questions were drowned out by official pronouncements via NIST and the media.

What followed reads like a template for now. Computer models were created to cartoon animate a brand-new phenomena: Progressive Collapse. Mathematics professors were called upon to write papers demonstrating the mathematics, proving the theory. Most people couldn’t understand the language or read the papers being written. But those who could, knew the computer model was bullshit and the mathematics made no sense. I waded through the poorly written paper and confirmed it was another part of the Op.

The most oft-cited paper at the time basically tried to argue that through a combination of potential energy and momentum of collapsing floors one could numerically demonstrate that there was adequate energy in the system to demonstrate the feasibility of the collapse. What laypeople didn’t know, and what the reporting in this failed to grok, is that the equations in that paper were based on a fantasy. The analysis failed to account for the total amount of energy required to demonstrate not just the collapse, but the observable evidence: cutting of massive steel beams and columns, the pulverizing of enormous amounts of concrete into dust, along with corrugated steel, truss joists, even connecting bolts, so much reduced to dust and slag. The paper was an exercise in obfuscation—using math to bolster the psyop, invisible to all but the most intrepid.

There is nothing that will cause a steel frame structure to pancake collapse at close to free fall speed without removing vertical support below the falling mass first. This is fundamental. All of the structural connections and supports below the falling mass have to fail at each floor in order without affecting the speed of collapse. If the mechanism cited by the paper had been true, you would have observed slowing collapse, not a uniform one. Further, the pile of rubble at ground level would more likely have been a broken stack of floor plates, and not the overwhelmingly atomized debris sprayed out over many city blocks in all directions.

Eventually this deeply deceptive model was refined and tweaked, with various propositions suggesting failure of poorly-applied fire-proofing and faulty truss joist connections as the culprits behind the failure. Much of this made its way into the 9/11 Commission report even though it is all an elaborate lie. But telling a lie repeatedly to people that don’t understand the basis for the lie has been shown to be a very effective strategy. Eventually, fortified by ‘official’ decree, even the basic laws of physics must bow.

Very few considered that the towers had undergone retrofitting in the years leading up to the collapse, much of the work happening at night to avoid disruptions to public business operations. Funny that.

In the end, not very different from a virus (relatively small fire with poor fuel stock) somehow ripping through the population (the first ever/since examples of catastrophic failure in buildings of this type due to fire), mass dissemination of prepared mathematical manipulation, mixed with copious amounts of fear messaged through the media (Bin Laden, Bin Laden, Bin Laden), followed by governmental mandates (Patriot Act) and actions (War), benefitting the super-rich (war profiteers and the security state).

There’s that old adage about repeating history when we fail to understand it…

Expand full comment

First of all, let me say that I worked on the Apollo project from 1968-1972 as a junior test engineer at the MIT Instrumentation Lab in Cambridge, Mass.I ended up working there for 40 years until 2008. These were some pretty, pretty, pretty smart dudes that I worked for and with. My boss of 30+ years was number two in the class of 1963 at MIT. The man did calculus in his head. I met several of the astronauts when they toured the lab.

Up until the 2000s, had you posed this theory, I would have had a serious disagreement with you. However, at this point in time (I'm 75) I am not so sure. Covid really put me over the top. Anything can be faked and or distorted to the point of seeming real. At some point, you have to trust someone. I just don't think that it is government in any shape or form.

All the other events you posed, I"m with you 100%.

Good info as usual Mark.

Expand full comment

So much to digest, but digest we must.

Personally, as for 9/11, I no longer subscribe to the "controlled demolition" explanation of how the towers came down, due to the fact that the buildings actually turned to dust mid-air and there was very little debris from those two monster-sized towers + WTC 7. For further study, read Dr. Judy Wood's excellent book "Where Did the Towers Go?" Dr. Wood's work is highly compelling.


And check out some video explanation from this site, or any other site you come across in your inquisitiveness, and as always, use skepticism, critical/analytical thinking and logic.


Expand full comment
Sep 23, 2022Liked by Mark Crispin Miller

Thanks for writing this! There were several books early on that pointed out discrepancies. More recently the authors Sibrel, Weaver, Walsh and others have provided deep technical analysis. For instance, they were able to locate an end-to-end video of the lift off into orbit of Apollo 11. This means it was not spliced together. They measured and determined it could NOT have reached Earth orbit. It probably went into the ocean. Where were the astronauts for that time period? Remember the stresses they were under, they could not tell their wives the truth. Many of them got divorced.

The Apollo 13 capsule washed up over near Europe and the Russians got it ! The US negotiated to get it back. The whole Apollo 13 episode was a farce. A made for TV movie. Apollo had to be one of the greatest Propaganda efforts ever.

Expand full comment

The 1st one was faked, but the next 5 were real?🤷🏻‍♂️😏

Expand full comment

"If you are to be a fully functioning adult, you are called on to identify your boundaries, to communicate your boundaries, and to defend your boundaries.

Those boundaries call on you to recognize evil in your midst and to stand against it. You don’t need to conquer the globalists, you just need to conquer your own life, your own family, your own home, and perhaps your own community. You need conquer evil and drive it out, wherever it exists in your circle influence. No matter how big or small that circle is, that is the work of the virtuous man.

Do that, fight that battle throughout life, stay focussed on your values, grow, and you will be unconquerable. You will have defeated evil in your midst and in your circle of influence." - Allan J. Stevo

Expand full comment

See this interesting video on the WTC, which was clearly a controlled demolition: https://youtu.be/lESol88wOi0

and see Paul Craig's article covering the evidence from all sides: https://www.unz.com/proberts/the-11th-anniversary-of-911/

I thank Mark Crispin Miller for having the courage to put this in his News from Underground.

Expand full comment

Brilliant compelling article. Question Everything. The Epic ongoing corrupt Convid-1984 experience of the last few years is a golden gateway to unravelling 'events' and orchestrated globalist lies stretching back decades and through the entire last century, or more.

As a young boy in the early 1970s I had a plastic model of the Lunar Lander (that "hilariously rickety contraption") and a map of the moon. Looking back now and with greater understanding of the harsh engineering complexities (and political deceptions), it's hard to believe that it would survive the impact of landing let alone be able to lift off again and make it back to Earth - relying on primitive puny computing capability.

When we see through the Big Lie we gain gritty clarity and are not so easily fooled about anything ever again. Organic rigorous rugged truth scrutiny and verification shatters elaborate fabricated lies and masterful deception.

Expand full comment

Add in the chemtrials as well, for 20+ years they have been killing us and making our lives poisoned.

Centralized large government kills, when it's allowed to profit from suffering. Like Max Igan says, step away and grow food, drop the cellphone. That last one will be tough for many, I know, but the phones make you ever more comprimisable, killable if you have had the jabs. see https://zeeemedia.com/interview/live-extended-interview-covid-19-injection-hacks-your-brain-enslavement-through-ai-with-karen-kingston/

Expand full comment

As for the Moon landings...

1) what about the Van Allen radiation belts?

2) getting there is one thing. How did the astronauts get back?

3) Why hasn't America - or any other country - been back in over 50 years? That's kind of inexplicable.

4) as for 9/11, I was a journalist at the time and I documented 64 anomalies that contradicted the official narrative

Expand full comment

My father worked on Naval radar systems during the Korean War and upon returning worked for Lockheed Martin on the Apollo Space missions. He ‘designed’ the electronic circuitry.

He left Lockheed in 1968 and moon landing 1969.

Now the strange thing—

His next job was at MGM just as they were making 2001 A space odyssey. My parents went to the world premier.

I have never understood the connection between Apollo and MGM in his job history. My sister rationalised that he was just working with accounts. Well, what about developing radar?

On another note - he was present when Kennedy was killed in Los Angeles.

He never spoke of his work on NASA or MGM. He gave it all up and went for having a car dealership.

Weird Huh?

I can’t find the link, but off-guardian posted an old 1960’s Sci-Fi drama from the bbc. I believe it was called News Busters. All about how the computer decides the news narrative and the crew make up the visuals. They show the Moon Landing set (all miniatures). Made before moon landing.


“ Earth's average surface gravity is about 9.8 meters per second per second. When an object is tossed off a building top or a cliff apex, for instance, it accelerates toward the ground at 9.8 meters per second per second. The Moon's surface gravity is about 1/6th as powerful or about 1.6 meters per second per second”

So how could you swing a gulf club and hit the golf ball?

Consider the space craft in 2001 Space Odyssey vs Apollo space mission. Which looks most likely to make it out of our orbit?

Space Odyssey ship

Expand full comment

Our entire reality is fake and scripted

The World Is A Stage


Death of the Queen and Numerical "Coincidences"


The Hidden History of the Revived Roman Empire II.Knights of Malta, Jesuit Papacy and the 9/11 Attacks


Expand full comment

I won't claim to know the whole story about JFK, the moon landings, 9/11, or any other momentous events, but these days I simply assume that the government is substantially lying.

Some 20 years ago, I lived next door to a former NASA engineer. He told me couple stories that would be hard to square with the official version of history. He didn't outright say it was fake, but it led me to questioning in a way I never had before.

Expand full comment

We talk about this a lot. It provokes the same kind of anger as questioning COVID. It's part of a status reality that shapes the way people think.

There's a very compelling case that the moon landings were simulated, but it isn't important whether they were or not. There really can't be a definitive answer for everyone. No matter what evidence is produced, there will always be some who credit the historical narrative, and those who dispute it.

Robert Anton Wilson calls this "reality tunnels". We like to tunnel between them.

The issue isn't whether these astronauts went to the moon or not, it's cognitive authority.

Who do you allow to define reality? Whose evidence do you give credence to? If a "debunker" offers a shallow straw-man case and proceeds to shred it with authority arguments, are you likely to accept it?

These ideas are worth exploring, even if they turn out to be garden paths, because it's an opportunity to re-examine assumptions and see how derivative information actually is. Most of us have no idea about these events other than what we've been told. It takes a critical synthesis to form a viewpoint which balances competing narratives to arrive at some semblance of truth.

Expand full comment