The Parallels of 9/11 & Charlie Kirk False Flag Ops | Madhava Setty

Is the slaying of Charlie Kirk a day before the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 False Flag a warning to stay silent?

[This article was originally published on Madhava Setty’s Substack, An Insult to Intuition — with minor changes. Setty is the science advisor to the International Center for 9/11 Justice. If you appreciate Madhava’s perspective, please subscribe to his Substack.]

For the last week I have been obsessed with learning more about the assassination of the young conservative influencer and head of the organization Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk.

was in Washington DC last week to emcee the first day of the “Turning The Tide” symposium hosted by The International Center for 9/11 Justice and other 9/11 truth organizations. It was being live-streamed by the popular independent media platform, REDACTED.

There was a lot of excitement around the event. In recent months and years the 24 year old truth movement had finally caught the attention of powerful influencers like Clayton Morris, Candace Owens, Russell Brand and even Tucker Carlson who was planning on appearing on the livestream on day 2.

We also had strong support from former Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Kurt Weldon. And, for the first time, a sitting US Senator, Ron Johnson had met with point persons in the truth movement earlier in the afternoon of September 10. Senator Johnson agreed to appear at our event as well.

Was this going to be the event that would catalyze a massive change in national conversation about the events of 9/11 that we have been envisioning for so long? I certainly thought so.

As I was preparing to take the podium to kick off the three day event we learned that Charlie Kirk had been shot. By the end of my 18 minute long commentary we learned that Kirk was confirmed dead.

Strangely, it wasn’t American news organizations who broke the news. It was the PM of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu on X:

I certainly didn’t know much about Charlie Kirk and the huge influence he had over millions of conservative youth. Personally, I regard conservatism vs liberalism as a dichotomy that actually serves to avert attention from the real battle: a growing authoritarian state against a population that is willingly surrendering their rights in exchange for a sense of security.

One of the points I made in my commentary centered around the rapidly changing attitude around openly challenging the official 9/11 story:

“I distinctly remember that just five years ago challenging the fantasy we were told about 9/11 relegated you to remote corners of discussion on social media. You couldn’t bring it up in polite conversation.

Now, openly supporting the official narrative invites serious questions about your credibility. Today one’s take on 9/11 is the best litmus test of one’s own sensibility as it applies to nearly every other contentious issue.”

This is the context through which I had formed my opinion about Charlie Kirk. What did Charlie Kirk know about the events of 9/11? Nothing outside of the fantasy our government told us.

In this exchange a veteran probes Kirk’s understanding of 9/11. The veteran and “9/11 Truther” is animated while Kirk remains composed. Kirk is bombarded with a gish-gallop of “alternative” viewpoints about all wars, CIA/Israeli ties and the twin tower destruction. Unfortunately the veteran quickly veers into antisemitic tropes.

Nevertheless

• Kirk wasn’t aware of the passport of the alleged Saudi hijacker “miraculously” found close to ground zero days after three skyscrapers were blown apart.
• Neither was he aware of all the evidence that points to controlled demolition or
• the scarcely believable piloting demonstrated by these supposed hijackers flying multi-engined jet planes for the first time in their lives nor
• the infamous “Operation Northwoods” proposal that bears uncanny resemblance to a more cohesive story around the events of 9/11

That’s okay. Kirk was like most people, intelligent or otherwise who have never heard a cogent counter argument to governmental propaganda about 9/11. In other words, I never paid attention to what this young man was saying before he was unalived.

The murder of this young man, a husband and father, was a tragedy and, particularly untimely. National attention was diverted to this quickly unfolding story and not the one we were attempting to bring to the public.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk and how it was being spun bears a striking similarity to the psyop which was unleashed upon a stunned public after September 11, 2001…

Less than an hour after the second tower fell, the world was told exactly what had happened and why. The three dozen news sources which all reported massive explosions during the collapse of our iconic twin towers never mentioned them again.

The new “facts” were offered by former Israeli PM Ehud Barak who coincidentally happened to be nearby to BBC studios when it was all coming down:

There was no question what this attack was about, according to Barak. It was an attack by terrorist organizations and the countries who harbor them upon not just America but on Israel and Democracy itself. The world would be forever different he predicted. He was right.

The misdirection was taking hold before anyone could know what really happened.

In my speech I reminded the audience of how, in our effort to protect Democracy from Al Qaeda, we had to accept that extraordinary rendition was necessary, that confessions obtained through torture at CIA black sites would be admissible in court and that incarceration on mere suspicion alone would be okay.

All these attacks on the Constitution of the United States were neatly spelled out in the Patriot Act, ironically.

Somehow Barak knew exactly what happened and why seven hours before another giant skyscraper dropped to the ground in classic controlled demolition style at the WTC complex. Unfortunately for Barak and the spin doctors, Building 7 was not hit by a plane.

He was also unaware of another inconvenient incident uncovered that morning:

A woman in Jersey City (across the Hudson River from the twin towers) noticed a group of five Arab appearing men filming the destruction of the twin towers. They were dancing in celebration.

They were taken into custody. They weren’t Arab. They were Israeli. They confessed that they were there to “document” the event. After finding several thousands of dollars in cash and passports from a number of different countries on their person, our FBI did what we would expect under the circumstances: quietly release them to Israeli authorities some weeks later.

Were they Mossad agents? Where are they now? Who knows? However all can agree on two important points:

They must have had foreknowledge of the 9/11 tragedy and

They were celebrating.

Most of the public is still unaware of these inconvenient details.

Fast forward 24 years to the heartfelt tweet from another Israeli PM, Netanyahu, for his slain young friend, Charlie Kirk.

“Charlie Kirk was murdered for speaking truth and defending freedom”

What truths was he speaking? Who murdered him, Prime Minister?

Netanyahu answers the latter in his interview on Fox a day after the assassination:

“The radical Islamists and their union with the ultra-progressives—they often speak about ‘human rights,’ they speak about ‘free speech’—but they use violence to try to take down their enemies.”

Radical Islamists are at it again! This time in cahoots with ultra-progressives.

What was Kirk saying that was so provocative to the “ultra-progressives”? Of course he held beliefs that didn’t resonate with ultra-progressives. He was a Christian conservative who was a “lion hearted friend to Israel”. That has always been the case. So why was he murdered now??

If you have not been following this story, Kirk had been changing his tune, not about his Christian faith but about his feelings on Israel.

Max Blumenthal, Editor-in-Chief of The Grayzone lays out the evidence for Kirk’s change of heart.

Granted, though suspicious, all this could be coincidental. If we want hard facts we really ought to drop our speculation and listen to the authorities who, solved the crime “33 hours” later.

It was Tyler Robinson, a 22 yo Utah resident who took matters into his own hands. It was Kirk’s preaching of traditional values that drove Tyler to silence him with a round to the neck (Robinson was in love with his transitioning roommate, a biological male).

The FBI released communications between Robinson and his roommate. The BBC published them here.

In this rambling and sometimes poignant exchange, Robinson confesses to the murder and strangely drops precise details of his motivation and means by which he offed Charlie Kirk on September 10:

Robinson: If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. Going to attempt to retrieve it again, hopefully they have moved on. I haven’t seen anything about them finding it.

Roommate: How long have you been planning this?

Robinson: a bit over a week I believe. I can get close to it but there is a squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don’t wanna chance it

Robinson: I’m wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle…. I’m worried what my old man would do if I didn’t bring back grandpas rifle … idek if it had a serial number, but it wouldn’t trace to me. I worry about prints I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits. didn’t have the ability or time to bring it with…. I might have to abandon it and hope they don’t find prints. how the [expletive] will I explain losing it to my old man….

only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel….

remember how I was engraving bullets? The [expletive] messages are mostly a big meme, if I see “notices bulge uwu” on fox new I might have a stroke alright im gonna have to leave it, that really [expletive] sucks…. judging from today I’d say grandpas gun does just fine idk. I think that was a $2k scope;-;

Robinson: delete this exchange

Robinson: my dad wants photos of the rifle … he says grandpa wants to know who has what, the feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. Hes calling me rn, not answering.

Robinson: since trump got into office [my dad] has been pretty diehard maga.

Robinson: Im gonna turn myself in willingly, one of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff.

Robinson: you are all I worry about love

Roommate: I’m much more worried about you

Robinson: don’t talk to the media please. don’t take any interviews or make any comments. … if any police ask you questions ask for a lawyer and stay silent

And there it is. We have the entire story now. Thank you Tyler for filling in all the details for us! We now know, thanks to the crack detective work by the Feds in pulling this from a chat on Discord that:

Every loose end has been tied, just like those teen mystery novels I used to read when I was 12.

Except for a few details:

• Since when do 22 year olds text things like “grab it unseen”, “attempt to retrieve it”, “squad car”? And a few other minor things like…
• Where is the ballistics report?
• Where is the bullet?
• What did the autopsy report show?
• Video footage shows a Kirk was bleeding from a large wound from the front of his neck which is more indicative of an exit wound.
• Where is the footage from the camera mounted behind Kirk when he was shot?
• How did Tyler Robinson disassemble the weapon in a matter of seconds and put it in a backpack before leaping from the roof?
• Why did he reassemble the weapon before hiding it in a bush?
• And who was George Zinn, the “crazy old man” who after the shot was fired screamed that he had done it and implored the security to shoot him?

Should these questions be answered before “allowing” Utah Valley University to pave over the courtyard where Kirk was assassinated?

Don’t be silly. After all, there was no reason to examine any physical evidence at ground zero after the twin towers were blown to bits. What’s the point of looking for more clues if we already know happened? Get it out of here and let the healing begin!

Conclusion

Is the public going to trust the authorities on this con job again? I don’t think so. Unlike 24 years ago, we now have a public that is deeply suspicious of legacy media and their handlers, the “special interests” which control Federal government. Independent voices that command audiences which dwarf those of legacy media have already been clamoring for accountability and transparency.

I was anticipating writing a lot about the proceedings of the Turning the Tide event in DC. There were so many important scientific presentations by researchers and analysts. Powerful speeches for unity and transparency from former and sitting legislators. Heartfelt messages from family members of the victims who have been waiting decades for transparency and resolution.

However the story right now is about another psyop to which the public is being subjected. One doesn’t have to agree with the values Charlie Kirk espoused to grieve his death. One doesn’t have to identify with his political leanings to acknowledge that this 31 year old was doing something different. He was taking his position to hostile settings and inviting all comers to prove him wrong.

Dialogue between factions is the most dangerous thing to interests that exert their influence by keeping us from speaking to each other. Is this why he was killed? Or were there other reasons?

24 years ago the public was fooled into surrendering key Constitutional rights before a single war was waged to protect them. And today as Charlie Kirk is widely memorialized as fierce defender of free speech Attorney General Pam Bondi believes she has a mandate to crack down on “hate speech”.

That’s how they do it.

Will this be the real “Turning Point” for the USA?