The Hypothesis


"There must be some rationale and logic

to the scheduling of the 9/11 event

and associated terrorist events."

This study focusses on the analysis of the timing or scheduling of these events and their associated narratives, by following the basic principles of the usual grammar, logic and rhetoric analyses, as defined in the Trivium method.


If the Trivium method is able to be applied comprehensively to all of the available evidence, it should provide the reasoning and possible answers to all of the analytical questions which must be asked about any narrative under consideration :

The Trivium method should always ask the following crucial, analytical questions :

  • What ?
  • Where ?
  • Why ?
  • Who ?
  • How ?
  • When ?

See also : Five Ws

Whether there is awareness of this process or not and irrespective of how strictly it is applied, it is in fact what is done or attempted, to varying degrees, when narratives are investigated and evaluated.

The study of "9/11 Truth" should be an example of the Trivium method, where grammar, logic and rhetoric analyses, asks those questions of the narrative and attempts to find answers.

So far so good.


However, there is a fundamental problem with how these principles have been applied :

The problem with every narrative studied is that everyone attempts to address the questions of the Who? - What? - Where? - Why? and the How? - while completely ignoring "the When?".

For example, regarding the 9/11 crime, I often ask the question :

"Why do you think the perps, whomever they really are, chose September 11, 2001 for the date of the crime and not some other day ?

So far, meaningful answers to this crucial question remain elusive. 


Nobody seems to know how to approach the question, let alone be able to provide any possible answer. The best response was that the date of 9/11 was chosen because it was a symbolic reference to the U.S. emergency services telephone number 911 !

To this day, I remain perplexed why everybody tries to analyse and find answers to the What? - Where? - Why? - Who? and the How?, while neglecting the missing question of, "the When?", thus revealing a gaping hole in the analytical method.

It's as if "the When?" does not matter and so therefore students of these narratives do not even consider it, which to me, is very odd.

I suggest that there must be reasons why these events are planned to occur when they do.

The alternative is to consign the event scheduling to the random chaos of chance, which is simply untenable.

Irrespective of what side of the 9/11 fence one sits, whether one considers that the 9/11 crime was as officially described or otherwise, the question of it's timing is perceived as being of little or no value.

Typical responses include :

  • why should we be concerned about when they did it, if we know that what they said happened is provably false?
  • why does it matter when they did it - how does knowing that help with understanding?
  • what is the point of trying to find out if there is a rationale which underpins the event scheduling?

All valid and critical questions, which also appear to be rhetorical, with implied answers already assumed to be in the negative and which are therefore, a priori suggestive that any timeline study would be of no useful value.

However, research has proved that the issue of event scheduling is a fundamental consideration, rather than one to be ignored and discarded.

In any case, the question of "the When?" is a crucial step in the Trivium analytical method and therefore must be included, not ignored and discarded.

Research has shown that the study of event relationships reveals the use of allegories within the narratives.  

Definition : Allegory

noun: allegory; plural noun: allegories

  • "Pilgrim's Progress" is an allegory of the spiritual journey.
  • a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
  • synonyms: parable, analogy, metaphor, symbol, emblem;
  • story, tale, myth, legend, saga, fable, apologue
  • a symbol.

The events described in the narratives are scheduled to form allegorical references or relationships to other events and it is these allegorical relationships which reveal :

  • the complaints which form the motivations & reasons for the main event
  • the faction which is likely responsible for the main event

From this analysis and the revelation of allegorical references, it is possible to interpret the narratives beyond their superficial meaning, this leads to a true understanding of the narratives and events, confirmation of why they really happened and also, crucially, why they were planned to occur when they did.

I aver that the study of the event relationships is the only way that the narratives can be fully interpreted and understood.

I am told that the FBI uses similar techniques when investigating serial killer cases.

That comprises my answer to those quesitons and is what this study covers, the missing question of :  "the When?" : Why was it done on that particular day?

Subsequent "9/11 type crimes", the so-called "Al Qaeda terrorist events", revealed that the 9/11 event was the start of a new paradigm - a continuing series of related terroristic events, which I term, "The 9/11 Project".

At first, it was a very difficult subject to study, I had no idea of where or how to even begin.  After many years of research, I am now very confident that there is a "method to the madness", there is a rationale and framework used to schedule these  events.

Think of the 9/11 crime as the start of the "9/11 Project", and consider the subsequent event series in terms of Project Management, because that's what it is, a planned and managed project consisting of a series of events, designed and scheduled to produce desired outcomes.

Project Management is all about managing and scheduling events in a timeline, where every event in that timeline series is predicated on achieving precisely timed outcomes, using critical paths between the dates of key events.

The evidence we have now in 2019, absolutely defines the 9/11 crime as the start of the 9/11 Project, comprising many subsequent events occuring on specific dates.

It is the dates of the narrative events, whether real or invented, which are related in special ways to the dates of other root events.

Once these event relationships are discerned, their obvious meaning and significance reveal the real reasons why the main event was scheduled to occur when it did and usually, also either specifically depict or otherwise imply, the faction(s) responsible for the main event and  / or in whose name it was done and why.

Here is a simple example to illustrate this method :

Context : Post 9/11 : The build up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Main event : On September 12, 2002, POTUS GW Bush delivered a speech at the United Nations, defining the complaints against Iraq.


The first Gulf War in 1991 resulted from Iraq's, August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait, a former province of Iraq, after the U.S. Ambassador, April Glaspie, under instructions from the GHW Bush White House, gave Saddam Hussein the green light to do just that.  Referring to the disputed border, which Kuwait was claiming Iraq had moved forward 20km, Glaspie's cable states : ",,, then, as now, we took no position on these Arab affairs".

Iraq had a long history of territorial disputes with it's former province Kuwait, which had been a protectorate of the British Empire since 1899, when it's new boundaries, separate from Iraq, were arbitrarily first defined.

Early attempts at resolving these long-standing territorial and sovereignty disputes, culminated in the exchange of formal letters of mutual recognition in July and August 1932.

On July 21, 1932, the Prime Minister of Iraq signed it's letter of recognition, formally recognising the territory and sovereignty of the State of Kuwait.

In return, Iraq's letter of recognition was accepted and ratified by Kuwait in it's letter of acceptance, signed by the Emir on August 10, 1932.

In the immediate aftermath of Gulf War I, this 1932 recognition agreement was mentioned in the United Nations Security Council Resolution - UNSCR 687, adopted on April 3, 1991.

UNSCR 687 / 1991, defined the terms of Iraq's post-war compliance and urged Iraq and Kuwait to respect the boundary between the two countries and called on the UN to assist in it's definition.

As part of the build up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Gulf War II, the casus belli for Gulf War I - Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait, was also mentioned by POTUS GW Bush in his September 12, 2002 UN address, where he specified the complaints against Iraq.  

This is the main event under consideration in this example : The announcement of the complaints against Iraq at the UNSC :

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly


September 12, 2002

 "Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself. "

Subsequently, the propaganda effort focussed on the issue of Iraqi WMD, but the initial rationale clearly referenced Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and thereby it's transgression of the 1932 border recognition agreement.

Here is the main reason why the GW Bush, "complaints against Iraq" speech at the UN, was scheduled on that day, because September 12, 2002 was, precisely :

= 666 months, 666 weeks, 666 days

since the 1932 Iraq / Kuwait sovereignty and border recognition agreement was ratified on August 10, 1932.


Clearly, no "Islamic terrorists" were involved in the scheduling of the GW Bush Iraq war PR event at the UN.

This is a classic example of the type of event relationships which form the glue that binds events into a narrative.

In this example, the grammar and logic analyses, is very simple.  

Using clear and obvious rhetoric, POTUS GW Bush was telling the world about the complaints against Iraq, amongst which, the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was specifically referenced.  

This grammar and rhetoric provides the clear and obvious answers to the questions : Who? What? Where? Why? and How?

  • the Who? - being Iraq, Saddam Hussein's, the U.S. and other governments
  • the What? - being the justification case being made for a UNSC Resolution.
  • the Where? - being Iraq.
  • the Why? - being the list of complaints against Iraq.
  • the How? - being implied milltary action for which POTUS GW Bush at the UNSC, was seeking authorisation.

What is not clear and obvious from this grammar and rhetoric, is the answer to the missing question : the When?

So : What about the When?  

Why was September 12, 2002 chosen as the date to make those complaints against Iraq and not some other day?

The answer to this hitherto, neglected and completely ignored question, will never be found from the grammar, rhetoric and logic analyses alone, because the answer is not clear and obvious from the interpretation of any of those categories.

The answer as to the When? can only be discerned from the exposition of the relationships from the main event, to other, contextually meaningful root events.

I aver that the narratives are designed this way and so therefore should be decoded similarly.



Next :  Kabbalistic WMD