False flag series part 1: General arguments against hoax theories, disinformation & coincidence shopping

In this series, I will cover extensive evidence that several high profile mass killings have likely had government covert/black operations components to them. The two key evidences indicating this are 1) the near universal presence of additional accomplices not recognized in the official stories; and 2) the subsequent cover-up by government/law enforcement and media regarding additional accomplices, among other things. Additionally, in many of these high profile shootings and attacks, the patsies (whether they be complete or partial patsies) show many signs of having been provoked, harassed, entrapped and manipulated into participating in the plots they were supposedly involved in primarily by what are likely private contractors composed of ex-intelligence services & law enforcement personnel (FBI, CIA, DHS, police, military, etc.) using a range of techniques from blackmail to psychoactive drugs to “electronic harassment”. At the very least, the vast majority of these highly publicized massacres have been extensively covered up for whatever reason.

My primary motivation for doing this is to counter popular theories propagated on social media platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, 4chan and Reddit that these events are “staged hoaxes” and “never happened.” These outlandish theories have become astonishingly popular since the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings , right as viral so-called “news” began to proliferate on social media through websites like nodisinfo, yournewswire, YouTube channels such as redsilverj/TeamWakeEmUP, LifttheVeil, etc. and additional throngs of dubious blogs and personalities. An entire cottage industry has emerged out of the analysis of mass shootings as staged events. The vast majority of the hoaxers’ arguments rest on highly questionable analysis of various video footage and photographs, their own incredulity regarding the event and the apparently bizarre behavior of those involved afterwards, which the hoaxers assert is proof positive that they are faking their involvement and that the shooting or bombing simply never occurred (hence the ever-so-popular term ‘crisis actor’). Many of their so-called evidences are literally outright lies and/or fabrications and several high-profile hoaxers routinely and consistently lie and fabricate evidence as well as directly or indirectly stalk, threaten and sue anyone who dares call them out on their deceits.


I won’t counter all specific claims made by hoaxers in relation to each event, as that has already been accomplished by others who have exhaustively poured over every detail of every irrelevant rabbit hole the hoaxers have ever gone down and refuted their claims, but I will, before diving into my evidences, address general claims and talking points hoax theory promoters put out seemingly every time any event occurs and discuss the near categorical implausibility of hoax explanations. Unfortunately, the conspiracy community has increasingly embraced absurdism and abandoned any sense of discernment or having a systematized method for analyzing events, and the hoaxers have contributed greatly to this.


By far the most powerful generalized argument against any staged/hoax theory is the first principle of compartmentalization, an umbrella under which keeping secrets/conspiracies as small as possible sits. Compartmentalization is essentially the practice within organizations (be they intelligence agencies, governments, corporations, private groups, etc.) of dividing jobs, tasks and the information required to do said jobs/tasks up amongst various individuals and/or groups. Within the context of this blog post (covert operations, intelligence agencies, etc.), each individual’s knowledge of the goings on in any other area of the group or conspiracy is limited as much as possible, and this is done so as to minimize the risk of the whole conspiracy/covert operation being exposed by someone within leaking to the press or any other interested party, accidentally spilling information, having information tortured out of them, etc. – the purpose is to keep the full conspiracy secret.

8063128However subtle this is, it is probably the most crucial aspect of maintaining strategic and operational secrecy (and therefore success) in any organization. It is how the CIA, NSA, FBI, MI6, Mossad, terrorist organizations, large police departments, many NGOs/think tanks, and large corporations (among many others) work and how they keep their plans under wraps – many large corporations even have highly secretive so-called “skunk works” divisions (named after Lockheed Martin’s formerly secret black budget aircraft development team in the desert outside Los Angeles) that carry out prototyping and high-level R&D known only to high level executives. If a conspiracy is not highly compartmentalized, it will almost surely at some point be exposed due to accidental or intentional leaks. Hardly anyone involved in Iran-Contra, the Manhattan Project, Watergate, MKULTRA, BCCI, Operation Gladio, Operation Paperclip, CIA drug running or any other conspiracy were aware of the whole operation before it became exposed. Sure, some have intimations and suspicions and perfect compartmentalization is impossible, but no full context or hard proof typically reaches anyone it’s not supposed to.

Any threat of leaks by those involved in covert operations and conspiracies is systematically drilled out of them through years of training to merely take orders and ask no questions as well as bribes and veritable threats/blackmail.

The fundamental problem with hoax/staged explanations for mass killings is that an entirely staged event would be impossible to compartmentalize, in other words, it would have to involve far too many people with near full knowledge of the plot (if not before, after the fact when it gets on the news) for it to succeed either in its goal or keeping the fact that it was a hoax secret. In order to pull of a full or even partial hoax staged openly and in public, hundreds upon hundreds of people would have to be involved – tens if not hundreds of crisis actors pretending to be victims and/or witnesses (and if the “victims” and their families and everyone who knows them are real people, you must hide them for the rest of eternity), all law enforcement and medical professionals who came in contact with the scene, reporters/media personnel on scene, etc. It would have to be ensured that none of the involved actors’ families or friends ever found out, that no one who was in the vicinity of the hoax or anyone who witnessed anything who weren’t supposed to ever say anything, identities would have to be faked or manipulated for the victims and perpetrators (and cover stories created), many people would have to pretend to have known the victims & perpetrators, etc.

Additionally, if, as many of the hoax theorists claim, the “crisis actors” involved in the hoax are unemployed B-rate acting school graduates (and many times this accusation is the result of lazy and haphazard background searches), are they really expected to reliably keep such a massive secret, even if they are bribed or threatened? To think so would be preposterous – they aren’t spooks or government contractors used to simply taking orders and not talking out of school who are aware of the very serious repercussions of doing so. And yet, we haven’t had a single whistleblower from inside any of these supposed staged hoaxes exposing the event, naming names, giving specifics, etc.

It would be one thing if there were a plot involving this many people where no one individual (except the group hatching the orchestrating the plot) knew the entire operation or its purpose, but a hoax shooting, bombing or attack would require that everyone be aware of the narrative/story being spun (far in advance too, of course) and all in one place at the same time (in other words, almost zero compartmentalization). It is utterly implausible and highly unlikely that anything on that magnitude could be contained with that many of full knowledge of the conspiracy being involved even if compartmentalization is attempted – the entire plot is simply impossible to obfuscate.

Why go through all the trouble of “staging” this convoluted disjointed mess when you could simply make it happen?

The hoax theory unnecessarily overcomplicates any explanation of a shooting or bombing, has no discernible motive (why a hoax when they can just hire mercenaries to carry out a real attack – much cleaner), is not required to account for any observations in any highly publicized massacre so far and virtually every oddity the hoaxers have ever dug up have far simpler and far more likely alternate explanation that account for all of the observations. The official stories of Sandy Hook, Columbine, 9/11, OKC, Aurora, Boston Bombing, etc. do not overcomplicate the matter, but on the other hand cannot account for all of the observations surrounding the events, such as multiple credible eyewitness reports and occasional video evidence of accomplices not present in the official story. A much simpler explanation than a staged hoax exists that comports with and explains all observations and anomalies exists for many of these events – a very real massacre was carried out by one or more deniable mercenaries (likely privately contracted) under the direction of some government-connected entity whose roles are covered up as well as potentially the attacker the entire event is pinned on – they are either partial or full patsies who are typically killed after they’ve played their part.

This kind of covert operation is relatively simple – it very easy to compartmentalize/divide responsibility for and to keep rather small. It would only have to involve several people – the people orchestrating and hatching the false flag, patsy or patsies, one to three additional shooters or bombers, a couple handlers for the patsy, and however many (probably no more than a small division) critical law enforcement personnel to cover up for the accomplices, who are usually from special divisions within the FBI and state police and probably don’t ever have any direct involvement or knowledge of the conspiracy – they are merely predictable law enforcement officers who carry out orders and cover up whatever they’re told to for whatever reason (if one is even given). Theoretically, most of the participants wouldn’t even necessarily have to interact with each other, no one would have to know of the full plot in the run up/planning stage and it wouldn’t be unnecessarily complex or cumbersome.

“No evidence” of an attack

Many hoaxers, after all of their specific claims are countered, will resort to claiming that there simply isn’t enough photographic or video evidence to satisfy them and convince them that anyone died. The problem with this is that 1) they never specify what is “enough” evidence as well as what kind of evidence counts as evidence to them and will simply continually move the goal post; and 2) “lack of evidence” of A (the official story) is not proof of B (a staged hoax). Just because photos of deceased victims haven’t been released does not mean that a hoax occurred – 1) in most states, homicide victim images as well as images from autopsy reports and any other evidences related to criminal investigations (such as surveillance footage) are exempt from disclosure to anyone. In all other states, disclosure is strictly limited to next of kin, estate representatives, prosecutors, etc. and in states where entire autopsies are public record by default, autopsy photos can be withheld at the discretion of law enforcement; and 2) if the latter somehow didn’t apply, this could mean and would more likely mean (taking into account evidence of accomplices) that a cover up has ensued because law enforcement does not want to expose the presence of accomplices of the patsy’s.

The same goes for the withholding of any information/photographs/videos of the official perpetrators or shooters – they are not necessarily public record and may compromise the official story or the cover-up of what actually happened, but their absence is not proof of a hoax. Also, a common practice among those who are suspicious of the official stories surrounding mass bombings and shootings is searches for victims and alleged perpetrators on background checking sites such as Whitepages, Spokeo, Intelius, Pipl, Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, etc. No one should ever come to any final conclusions based solely on queries of these sites – the databases they search are very often incomplete or not up to date, their web crawlers can extract incorrect information and very often estimate or infer information, etc. Genealogies, birth/death certificates and phone numbers are particularly prone to being totally inaccurate.

Search engine document/cache timestamps, indexing

Some webpages & tweets relating to attacks such as Sandy Hook, the Boston Bombing, etc. appear to have been, based upon various search engine date published/document & cache timestamps, published before the event took place, indicating foreknowledge of the attack or hoax. The problem with this is that these timestamps are not entirely accurate and can be off by several years in some cases (especially if time restriction is used in the search). Each time Google or Bing’s web crawlers & spiderers visit a webpage/html file, they attempt to estimate or infer the date the page was published and/or last updated based upon data available to be extracted from the html file and URL – sometimes the available data allows for a more accurate time and date and sometimes it doesn’t, and the search engine’s algorithms must work harder to estimate a time and date, and these can be off quite dramatically.

Highlighted area is not always accurate

In other words, the timestamp displays what Google, Bing or Yahoo thinks was the date the page was published, not the exact time that page was indexed by the search engine (although that index date can be incorporated into the estimate). The exact time a given page is published is typically only known to the webmaster and the time a page is first indexed or crawled may or may not be stored by Google or Yahoo or Microsoft and can only be determined by the webmaster by searching their server logs for visits from Google’s crawler (the “Googlebot”). Additionally, some webpages and items on webpages are not indexable and the displayed cache timestamp is based off a redirected URL or a duplicate page, however you will never know that the specific page whose cache time & date you are looking at was never technically indexed.

Highlighted area not always accurate (prone to error) and not necessarily the cache for the specific item you’re looking for.

Any number of “errors” can occur when document or cache timestamps are generated – items on websites can be postdated or backdated even though the material was actually posted at a later/earlier date than displayed, old date information can be retained from URLs that change dynamically, etc. (meaning the cache timestamp could be for something you aren’t even looking for, it could be entirely useless). Twitter timestamps are also known to be inaccurate and Facebook page date founded timestamps do not update when the name of a page is changed. Also, common sense would tell you that a shadowy group who is otherwise competent enough to near flawlessly execute gigantic staged hoaxes wouldn’t make the simple mistake of publishing webpages and online material related to the event a whole day before it occurred and that, for example with Sandy Hook, they wouldn’t involve the website for a random school in rural Ohio in their grand hoax conspiracy.

Photographic/video evidence:

Photo and video analysis is all highly interpretive and all debatable. Many conspiracy theorists (and hoaxers in particular) not only present an incomplete picture by selectively picking and choosing what photos and videos they display in order to bolster their narrative, but also outright manipulate their evidence by cropping, blurring, editing, and otherwise butchering it. This is precisely why YouTube is the premier hoaxer outlet – people like to laze around eating a bowl of ice cream watching the equivalent of a movie instead of parsing and digesting text.

“Crisis actor” evidence

The above is really a misnomer. There has been no real evidence that anyone involved in a terror attack or shooting or interviewed or captured on tape by the media have been crisis actors, only hoaxers contending that said people must be crisis actors based on their own personal evaluation of their behavior (often not in context, or presented in a totally incorrect one) – people in media video footage after the event are sometimes captured “smiling”, making strange faces, reading off cards (not at all rare for anyone interacting with the media to do in any circumstance), supposedly changing their story, etc. Another favorite is face overlays and comparisons which are supposed to prove that people from two different photos who are ostensibly different people are actually the same person. This is sheer trickery and nothing else and virtually every one of these “same person” claims have been exposed as incorrect and often fraudulent.


This kind of “analysis” is laughably shaky and isn’t proof or even an indication of anything outside that individual and by far the weakest hoax evidence there is (and, curiously enough, by far the most prevalent). And, again, this could mean many other things besides the shooting or bombing having been a staged event. Many hoaxers will back up their claims with background check site searches which allegedly prove that their “crisis actors” are actors by trade, but, as we’ve already established, those sites are often inaccurate and many of the hoaxers specific claims have been incorrect. For example with Sandy Hook, Gene Rosen was alleged to have been a member of the Screen Actors’ Guild based off a background query, but it turns out that whoever’s Spokeo or LinkedIn result they paraded all around YouTube was in fact a different Gene Rosen’s than the one involved in Sandy Hook who had never lived in Connecticut.

This isn’t to say that “crisis actors” may not be used (likely to a very small extent) to further sensationalize and emotionalize events such as mass shootings – government contractors providing “crisis actors” do exist – but there is no strong evidence or indication of this and it does not lend itself to the conclusion that “no one died” or that the entire event was a DHS “drill” or “simulation”, only that dubious “witnesses” are presented to the news media.

“Drills” & “simulations”

Almost every time a shooting or bombing ever occurs, it is revealed that some kind of terror or mass shooting drill or training simulation had taken place either within the same couple days as the event, or, in some cases, simultaneously. This is largely coincidence shopping given the fact that law enforcement terror drills & training simulations occur very frequently (often every week to every other day in major metropolitan areas) in both North America and Europe and, moreover, drills and simulations are not necessarily required to explain all observations during the event. However, it can’t be totally dismissed because it’s still rather unlikely that almost every single highly publicized mass killing just so happens to occur around a local law enforcement drill of some sort. What I can say is that the presence of some kind of drill or simulation is not proof or really even a strong indication of a staged event/hoax – simpler explanations include coincidence and that these kinds of false flag events are intentionally planned during already existing drills and simulations so that law enforcement resources (particularly law enforcement personnel not connected to the cover up) are diverted so as not to disrupt or ruin the false flag (this was particularly true on 9/11 and we do need to invoke the existence of drills to account for the lack of following of procedure by the military).


Why, assuming these events are entirely staged hoaxes and that the media entirely controlled by the [insert a spooky-sounding term like NWO or Illuminati], would the perpetrators of the deception disseminate all of the information that always comes out that tends to contradict not only other information being released, but the official story itself? Why not just put out an airtight story and eliminate any doubt as to what happened, especially if we’re dealing with something as fragile as a hoax? It makes no sense. I posit instead that firstly, the media is not entirely or largely actively controlled (it is effectively and mostly passively controlled through executives and editors) and that anomalies and discrepancies occur in media reports (especially initial ones) precisely because the media is not totally controlled and therefore cover-ups do not take effect immediately, different media organizations compete to break stories first (leading to inaccuracies), etc.

sandy-hook-second-shooter-cover-up-vik-battaile-politics-1356087588Of course, the “skeptics” (who are really there to defend the government’s story) are not immune from criticism here, either. They simply cannot explain away discrepancies as to the number of shooters or suspects or any other anomalies by simply asserting that early media reports tend to be inaccurate. Firstly, how true this is isn’t specifically known. Secondly, the initial reports in the media are not founded upon nebulous theories or speculation (that’s an easy way to get sued), they are founded upon witness statements and available information on the ground. Those witness statements and other such information remain and typically make it into official police reports as well. It’s not as if the information is positively “incorrect” – someone somewhere makes the decision not to incorporate that information into the sterilized narrative, most often based upon what a senior law enforcement official or media executive (who may or may not be involved in cover up) dictates. Thirdly, this is almost always just asserted flat-out based on how the narrative of the attack changes in the media itself and the fact that an official and final story is eventually converged on in the media. The skeptics define what is an accurate narrative based on the very thing being disputed – what actually occurred, which they define as the official/government story (in other words, the “skeptic” argument is circular).

Skeptics will also unfairly attack the reliability of eye witnesses. The oft-repeated claim that eye witness statements are unreliable entirely neglects the fact that eye witness statements must be individually evaluated based on their context and is largely predicated upon studies of eye witness reliability from suspect line-ups and court room testimony. Obviously, it is one thing for someone to pick from a line up of faces who exactly they saw commit a given crime and an entirely different thing for someone who witnessed part of a mass shooting or terror attack to merely recall the general characteristics of a person they saw (such as their frame, what color clothes they were wearing, whether they had a mask or cap on or not, etc.), when and where they saw that person, if that person was with someone else, if they saw two clearly different people, etc. Additionally, most eye witness testimony is recorded the day of the event or within the following days, meaning the memory does not have much time to be distorted or warped by outside or conflicting information and people tend to remember significant details, such as how many people they saw the day of a massacre and how they were dressed. People tend to inaccurately recall more insignificant details, such as the color of the car they witnessed hit someone else’s car in the Walgreens parking lot.

It becomes even more dire for the skeptics when multiple eye witness statements correlate and reinforce other eyewitness statements, as is the case with most of the false flags I will cover. Unreliable eyewitness accounts are expected to deviate in a roughly random way from what actually happened and from other eyewitness accounts. Instead what we see in many instances is matching eyewitness accounts (not only within individual events but also across separate false flag events) – this is almost impossible to account for if eyewitness accounts are assumed to be so hopelessly unreliable, as skeptics would have you believe. Eyewitness confidence is also another major predictor of eyewitness accuracy as well, and eyewitnesses of mass shootings and bombings tend to be confident as to who they believe they saw.


One of the most curious aspects of the “hoax theory” phenomenon is how it all of the sudden miraculously appeared immediately after Sandy Hook occurred. After looking extensively into the relevance of search terms associated with hoaxer online content (such as ‘crisis actor’, ‘false flag’ and ‘hoax shooting’) before and after Sandy Hook as well using time restricted search results to determine whether pre-Sandy Hook/Aurora attacks, bombings and shootings were ever subject to a barrage of hoax conspiracy theories, I’ve come to the conclusion that the abrupt arrival of the hoaxers and their mindless sloganeering cannot be entirely or even largely accounted for by natural forces and was very likely not spontaneous, but rather the result of a concerted effort by disinformation experts to derail real conversation and discredit plausible conspiracy theories by means of co-opting. The operational arm of this is very likely from within the Department of Defense/military intelligence/NSA and their contractors, not the CIA. ‘CIA’ has become a blanket term under which all covert operations have fallen, but the DoD, with it’s utterly immense budget and greater breadth, is more likely from what we know in charge of disinformation operations, either directly itself or indirectly through private contractors.

Aerial photo of MacDill Air Force Base south of Tampa Florida
MacDill AFB in Tampa, FL, where many military intelligence disinformation operations are rumored to be based out of.

Just as a preface, this isn’t an unheard of idea. Cass Sunstein, who was the head of the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs under Obama from 2008-2012 and named to an NSA Advisory Panel in 2014 (all the while remaining one of Obama’s closest advisors), wrote a paper in 2008 which proposed “cognitive infiltration” of so-called extremist groups and “groups that produce conspiracy theories” involving the introduction of “cognitive diversity”, which could very well mean, when implemented, the insertion of false narratives into conspiratorial discourse to discredit any discussion of conspiracy at all. The timing of this is all too suspicious – all the hoaxers come out the woodwork only a few months after Sunstein departs from his (official) position with the Obama administration. It was revealed in the Snowden leaks that the NSA and GCHQ, through GCHQ’s “Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group” (or JTRIG), had operational cognitive infiltration schemes whose two primary tactics were “(1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable.”


Buckley AFB in Aurora, CO. A major operational base for the NSA and another rumored disinformation center.

The US military has awarded contracts to government IT contracting corporations to carry out online psychological operations and various other “web engagement” operations using bots and sock puppet accounts to “create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.” This kind of activity of course predates the Obama administration – the Bush Pentagon employed teams of former generals to pose as “independent media analysts” while secretly coordinating with the Pentagon. Of course, there are many other examples that could be given, but the precedent has been set.





I became curious as to whether the terms ‘crisis actor’ and ‘shooting/bombing hoax’ and ‘shooting/bombing false flag’ and ‘false flag’ in general were ever really of any relevance before Sandy Hook or if they even existed at all, because presumably these terms wouldn’t just appear out of nowhere if highly publicized suspicious mass shootings had occurred in the past when the internet was around (which they have).

So, I looked at the Google Trends results (basically shows the search volume relative to total searches) for the terms (with and without quotations) ‘crisis actor(s)’, ‘false flag’, ‘shooting/bombing hoax’, and ‘shooting/bombing false flag’ and it turns out that crisis actor(s) and ‘shooting/bombing hoax/false flag’ more or less didn’t exist at all before Aurora and Sandy Hook (July 2012-January 2013 time period). This is highly suspicious (although I admit that Google Trends/search analytics is a somewhat blunt instrument). After 2012 they clearly adopted a new, much higher baseline relative search volume and also spike way more dramatically than they did before 2012. I excluded results before May 2006 (they start in 2004) because Google Trends backdated/inferred those results and so they tend to generally overstate any given index, they’re incredibly choppy (likely overfitted) and most of the time don’t even seem to correspond to any real world events or news articles or make any sense at all. I also tried to account for the meteoric rise in these terms’ usage by looking at the Trend results for “shooting” and “bombing” and “conspiracy”, and, although their relative search volume has risen quite a lot since 2012, their proportional rise in relative search volume is outdone by magnitudes by the proportional rise in search volumes of crisis actor/hoax/false flag terms (which is often by factors of over 100).

Google Trends indexes and time restricted search results posted at bottom of post 

Google Trends index for ‘shooting hoax’ w/o quotations
Google Trends index for ‘crisis actors’ w/ quotations
Google Trends index for ‘false flag’ w/ quotations. As you can see, it wasn’t an essentially nonexistent search term before Sandy Hook as ‘crisis actor’ and ‘shooting/bombing hoax’ were, but clearly adopted a new baseline and spike far more dramatically around bombings and shootings post Aurora-Sandy Hook.

So after this I searched for specific results w/ these terms in relation to three major attacks/bombings/shootings that occurred before 2012, were highly publicized, had video footage and photographs of the event and the aftermath, occurred during a time in which the internet was widely available in the US and were subject to conspiracy theories – 9/11, OKC, London tube bombing, Columbine, DC Sniper, 2009 Ft. Hood and Virginia Tech. All of these also had plenty of video footage of both the event and the aftermath, which is the basis for basically all hoax/crisis actor claims. I noticed that basically all the hoax/crisis actor videos and articles surrounding them were published after 2012 (they really began popping up around 2013-2015), but after restricting the results to a year within which those shootings occurred (giving sufficient room for error in document timestamps) as well as a year before the event occurred until around 2012 (Aurora & Sandy Hook), I found that there were almost no hoax/crisis actor videos or articles in those time periods., and the ones that did exist were extremely low in the search rankings or if they were YouTube videos very few views (and most of them aren’t pushing a 100% hoax/staged theory – it’s all very mild compared to the flavor of the stuff you see today on YouTube). Generally the pattern is that the vast majority of the hoax videos and articles relating to these events come after Sandy Hook.

jwnosteelMore hoax-related results showed up for 9/11 than any other event, but they mostly refer to very specific videos, images and one phone call that was the subject of a 2004 article that was proven to have been faked in the mainstream press. There were very very few articles or videos stating that the entire event was a gigantic hoax that was entirely staged (as happened with Aurora, Sandy Hook & Boston Bombing, Paris, Orlando, San Bernardino, etc.), mostly people referring to certain parts of it having been staged in order to bolster their personal theory of what really happened. And a lot of the results are merely clickbait that don’t really have any content or analysis relating to 9/11 being a hoax. It gets even more dire when you search with quotations. Almost all of the hoax/staged results in relation to 9/11 occur after 2008 and most of the post-2008 (when Cass Sunstein took office) results are post-Sandy Hook. It’s my opinion that the Loose Change no-plane at the Pentagon as well as the lunatic Judy Woods “dustification” narratives were disinformation around 9/11, but neither one of these purports that no event actually occurred – the proposition that 9/11 was a “staged hoax” is a relatively new one that has only become relevant since Sandy Hook.

I searched for OKC hoax results from 1995 to 2012, and virtually nothing. You would think that since these were much bigger events that you would have more articles about these events being hoaxes or staged even years after they happened when the internet became more widespread (adjusted for the size of the internet at the time). There are a lot of articles about 9/11 and OKC being “inside jobs”, but very very little about total hoaxes or stagings (and basically none about OKC, as far as I can tell from a cursory search).

This is clearly anomalous. You would think that some constant proportion of the population/conspiracy would think that certain events (9/11, OKC, VA Tech, Columbine, etc.) were hoaxes/staged/had crisis actors regardless of whether it’s actually true or not (at the time of the event) and that that proportion wouldn’t just randomly explode during 1 or 2 events – previous events such as 9/11 and Columbine have been analyzed by hoaxers after 2012, so why not when they happened? I’ve yet to think up any way as to how this drastic and sudden spike in hoax-related theories and search terms could have been an emergent or natural pattern or trend – the growth of the internet in general and the “viral news” aspect of social media whereby people more or less shop for the most absurd and sensational headlines and the consequent devolution of conspiracy analysis in general has enabled it and can likely explain some of it, but not nearly all of it. I very strongly suggest that this false hoax narrative began being deliberately introduced somewhere around Aurora and Sandy Hook (likely between the two of them).

Credit: Fitzpatrick Informer

The overall point is that disinformation campaigns (likely carried out by disparate parties, not necessarily one group or organization) and viral media, which, in my opinion have spawned and legitimized the staged hoax theories, have opened the floodgates for sheer absurdism and given any idiot with a YouTube channel or Twitter account carte blanche to spew any ludicrous theory or conjure up any set of meaningless coincidences they please without being rightly ridiculed. They have sufficiently muddied the water so that every time any anomalies or ostensible cover-ups are discovered in relation to these massacres that are bolstered in the press, everyone jumps to the conclusion that the event “didn’t happen” because that notion has been maliciously inserted into the discourse.

Credit: Fitzpatrick Informer

This trend of absurdist disinformation of course includes the new (or, more accurately renewed) trend of legions of so-called “independent researchers” and “internet sleuths” contriving ludicrous pedophile and child trafficking ring conspiracy theories and “solving puzzles” based on vague passages from emails, poems supposedly encoded into the titles of YouTube videos with ROT-13 algorithms, numerology, entirely made up out of whole cloth “cheese pizza hazelnut handkerchief” code languages, comments on Instagram posts, Google maps results, supposed Masonic occult symbolism, etc. These really aren’t even theories because they aren’t attempting to explain or predict anything, they are just contrivances spun entirely out of weak coincidences and loose connections whose conclusions are arbitrarily arrived at. These are the real hoaxes and shams that take one or two disinformation artists or political operatives to conjure up and let loose, not mass shootings and bombings that are impossible to fake. Truly, the absurdist hoaxer flat earth pizza/pedogate segment is a plague upon not only conspiracy analysis but also real victims of shootings and bombings.

Simply put, avoid 4chan, 8chan, Voat, Reddit, Crowdsourcing the Truth and all these other ridiculous message boards and forums infested with clickbait peddlers and disinformation experts where fruitless rabbitholes and puzzleholes are spawned which serve only to distract from real conspiracy.

The next installation in this series will be on the mother of all hoaxer events, Sandy Hook.

Google Trends indexes (you can go to Google Trends and download the Excel file for any of these to check these results):

‘Crisis Actor’ May 2006-November 2012 (Before Sandy Hook/before Obama 2nd term): – Average index: 3.99

‘Crisis Actor’ December 2012-present (after Sandy Hook/after Obama 2nd term): – Average index: 20.39

‘Crisis Actor’ w/ quotes May 2006-November 2012 (before Sandy Hook): – Average: .228

‘Crisis Actor’ w/ quotes December 2012-present (after Sandy Hook): – Average: 14.833

‘Crisis Actors’ May 2006-November 2012 (before Sandy Hook/before Obama 2nd term): – Average index: .07

‘Crisis Actors’ December 2012-present (after Sandy hook/after Obama 2nd term): – Average index: 12.075

‘Crisis Actors’ w/quotes May 2006-November 2012 (before Sandy Hook): – Average: 0

‘Crisis Actor’ w/ quotes December 2012-present (after Sandy hook): – Average: 11.32

‘False Flag’ May 2006-June 2012 (before Aurora): – Average: 5.365

‘False Flag’ July 2012-present (after Aurora): – Average: 15.425

‘False Flag’ w/ quotes May 2006-June 2012 (before Aurora) – Average: 4.95

‘False Flag’ w/ quotes July 2012-present (after Aurora): – Average: 14.966

‘Shooting’ May 2006-June 2012 (before Aurora): – Average: 20.25

‘Shooting’ July 2012-present (after Aurora): – Average: 29.135

‘Shooting Hoax’ May 2006-November 2012 (before Sandy Hook): – Average: .316

‘Shooting Hoax’ December 2012-present (after Sandy Hook): – Average: 10.26

‘Shooting Hoax’ w/ quotes May 2006-November 2012 (before Sandy Hook): – Average: .24

‘Shooting Hoax’ w/ quotes December 2012-present (after Sandy Hook): – Average: 10.98

‘Shooting False Flag’ May 2006-June 2012 (before Aurora): – Average: .203

‘Shooting False Flag’ July 2012-present (after Aurora): – Average: 8.017

‘Shooting False Flag’ w/ quotes May 2006-June 2012 (before Aurora) – Average: .054

‘Shooting false flag’ w/ quotes July 2012-present (after Aurora): – Average: 6.932

‘Conspiracy’ w/ quotes May 2006-June 2012 (before Aurora): – Average: 34.08

‘Conspiracy’ w/ quotes July 2012-present (after Aurora): – Average: 38.6

Time-restricted search results (keep in mind some document timestamps may be inaccurate – use discretion and be sure to click through links not only to check for dates but also content):

‘Sandy Hook hoax’ Dec 14 2011-2013 – https://www.google.com/search?q=sandy+hook+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A12%2F14%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F14%2F2013&tbm=#q=sandy+hook+hoax&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:12/14/2011,cd_max:12/14/2013&start=0

‘Sandy Hook hoax’ Dec 14 2011-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=sandy+hook+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A12%2F14%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F11%2F2017&tbm=

‘9/11 hoax’ Sept 11 2000-2002 – https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F11+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A9%2F11%2F2000%2Ccd_max%3A9%2F11%2F2002&tbm=

‘9/11 hoax’ Sept 11 2000-2012 – https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F11+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A9%2F11%2F2000%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2012&tbm=#q=9/11+hoax&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:9/11/2000,cd_max:1/1/2012&start=10

‘9/11 hoax’ 2012-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F11+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A12%2F1%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F11%2F2017&tbm=

‘OKC hoax’ Aprl 19 1994-1996 – https://www.google.com/search?q=okc+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F19%2F1994%2Ccd_max%3A4%2F19%2F1996&tbm=

‘OKC hoax’ April 19 1994-2012 – https://www.google.com/search?q=okc+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F19%2F1994%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2012&tbm=

‘OKC hoax’ 2012-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=okc+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F11%2F2017&tbm=

‘Columbine hoax’ April 20 1998-2000 – https://www.google.com/search?q=columbine+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F20%2F1998%2Ccd_max%3A4%2F20%2F2000&tbm=

‘Columbine hoax’ April 20 1998-2012 – https://www.google.com/search?q=columbine+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F20%2F1998%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2012&tbm=

‘Columbine hoax’ 2012-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=columbine+hoax&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F11%2F2017&tbm=

‘Virginia Tech hoax’ April 16 2006-2008 – https://www.google.com/search?q=virginia+tech+hoax&client=opera&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F16%2F2006%2Ccd_max%3A4%2F16%2F2008&tbm=

‘Virginia Tech hoax’ April 16 2006-2012 – https://www.google.com/search?q=virginia+tech+hoax&client=opera&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F16%2F2006%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2012&tbm=

‘Virginia Tech hoax’ 2012-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=virginia+tech+hoax&client=opera&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F11%2F2017&tbm=

‘7/7 bombing hoax’ Jul 7 2004-2006 – https://www.google.com/search?q=7%2F7+bombing+hoax&client=opera&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F7%2F2004%2Ccd_max%3A7%2F7%2F2006&tbm=

‘7/7 bombing hoax’ Jul 7 2004-2012 – https://www.google.com/search?q=7%2F7+bombing+hoax&client=opera&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F7%2F2004%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2012&tbm=

‘7/7 bombing hoax’ 2012-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=7%2F7+bombing+hoax&client=opera&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F11%2F2017&tbm=

‘DC Sniper hoax’ October 2001-2003 – https://www.google.com/search?q=dc+sniper&client=opera&hs=W7J&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F10%2F2001%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F10%2F2003&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/10/2001,cd_max:1/10/2003&q=dc+sniper+hoax

‘DC Sniper hoax’ October 2001-2012 – https://www.google.com/search?q=dc+sniper+hoax&client=opera&hs=1ne&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F10%2F2001%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F10%2F2012&tbm=

‘DC Sniper hoax’ 2012-present – https://www.google.com/search?q=dc+sniper+hoax&client=opera&hs=F9J&biw=1366&bih=629&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A6%2F14%2F2017&tbm=



4 thoughts on “False flag series part 1: General arguments against hoax theories, disinformation & coincidence shopping”

  1. Good article. I have avoided things like the alleged Sandy Hook hoax entirely as well as Judy Woods dubious 9/11 space beams theory simply because the people pushing these narratives are relentless in their advocacy of said narratives and it ends up just causing more division, and also because at the time, I myself was unsure of what actually happened. I wasn’t going to rush to a quick conclusion like they were. I will say, though, that the simultaneous drills reports on 9/11 do appear to be legitimate. I especially like your bit about the media not being 100 per cent monolithic. A lot of truthers struggle with this, largely due to ignorance about how the media actually operates on a day-to-day basis. The media does mess things up…all the time and not always deliberately. However, I have to admit that the media acted very uniformly during the JFK coverup, for example, a New Zealand newspaper carrying a story about Lee Harvey Oswald being the gunmen before he was even arrested in Dallas. But, as you point out, the media outlet’s motive in this cause could have been in the spirit of media competition, which happens all the time. It could have been a case of some overseas black operative tipping them off. And from their point of view, it’s just another scoop. As you know, it’s not difficult to manipulate the media, especially when they are subject to the law and fair game, unlike the disinformants manipulating them.

    The astroturf appearance of these Seth Rich/Pizzagate activists bears the same appearance as these “It was a hoax” activists. They flood online channels in a very systematic fashion and with 100 per cent confidence that they are right. And like the former, they seem to work round the clock spreading their theories.

    Another red flag regarding the obsession with Sandy Hook (hoax or not) is that it has nearly completely overshadowed 9/11 research. Only people like Christopher Bollyn are still talking about 9/11. And why not, 9/11 was far bigger than Sandy Hook, not only in terms of its execution and involvement of conspirators but, more importantly, in its effect. I never actually watched Loose Change. Does it endorse the no planers nonsense? Even king shill Alex Jones couldn’t endorse that one. But he certainly didn’t spend much time, if any at all, debunking it, which tells me he was OK with the theory floating around (big surprise).

    I like your identification of the rise in conspiracy hoax proliferation and the simultaneous activities of Cass Sunstein in the Obama admin. Very telling.

    Look forward to the next installment!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I haven’t looked into that much but right off the bat it’s much easier for me to believe that it may have been entirely faked because it wouldn’t have to involve that many people and there is a potential motive – if the US government wants to make people think it can go to the moon but actually can’t (whether it’s just too expensive or not possible at the time) then there is a motive for the hoax, unlike with shootings and terror attack


  2. The fact that drills are carried out regularly may mean that there is no special coincidence in a drill taking place during an event like 911 or the London bombings. However, when one considers that the drills in question (especially in the case of the London bombings) were meant to reproduce exactly the scenario that was playing out in real life, the coincidence is indeed alarming.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s