Is the inference that journalists were speaking candidly when alluding to controlled demolition on 9/11 a false premise?

This is not a political forum. 

I was curious to see what responses would be put forward but obviously no one is putting forward an explanation for how the "scripted" hypothesis favours "speaking candidly" so I put forward the explanation myself.

First I put forward four premises that need to be accepted in order to understand why "scripted" is the correct explanation and "speaking candidly" is a false premise.

Premise 1 - Staging of death and injury
Death and injury were staged (in the main at least with no clear evidence of reality for any of the 9,000 people allegedly affected) on 9/11 thus rather than being a terrorist attack or an "inside job" per se, 9/11 was, in reality, a Trauma-based Mind Control Psychological Operation (psyop) in the form of a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise comprising a number of smaller exercises and drills - many of which they informed us of with a crucial few they didn't, pushed out as a real terrorist attack. All that happened for real on the day was damage to and destruction of buildings, which eventually led to the entire destruction of all seven buildings at the WTC; the planes were faked and death and injury were staged.

Premise 2 - They tell us they did it
In psyops, there are always signs above and beyond any weaknesses in the base narrative that we are, in fact, being psyopped. In the case of 9/11 the base narrative is preposterous to start with - impossible catastrophic failure of the mightiest nation's multi-trillion dollar military and intelligence infrastructure, coupled with claims that defy Newton's Laws of Motion every which way. These are added to with many gratuitous extras such as a claim by an alleged flight instructor about Hani Hanjour (the alleged pilot of the 270 manoeuvre into Defence HQ) that he cried when asked to attempt steep turns and stalls.

Premise 3 - Confident reliance on the Emperor's New Clothes effect and its great elasticity
The perps know, of course, their story is preposterous but they also know from centuries, millennia even, of experience that the Emperor's New Clothes effect means most people will accept it - they know there will, of course, be those who will reject it but they know they won't be in sufficient number to worry about. They also know that they can push out the truth one day and then bring it back the next - waving it away, pretending it didn't happen, providing ill-fitting explanations for it.

Premise 4 - Creation of a false dilemma through a propaganda strategy
For those they anticipate will reject their story they push the lie of real death and injury in a way specially targeted to them thus creating a "false dilemma" effect where the only two options people tend to believe are:
1. The terrorists were responsible for alleged death and injury
2. The US government was responsible for alleged death and injury
Close scrutiny of the evidence, however, shows us that what is outlined in Premise 1 describes 9/11.

So now we get to the journalists being "scripted".
I put forward three reasons although there may be more.

1. Premise 2 says part of psyop MO is that they tell us the truth underneath the propaganda so having the journalists allude to controlled demolition is just one of the ways they tell us the truth, however, with the elasticity of the Emperor's New Clothes mentioned in Premise 3 they can bring it back as if it never happened. It's just all waved away, doesn't mean anything - and, of course, you have explanations put forward as we see by Arlo. Having Brian Williams use the very specific industry term "to go in" used for implosions ( "Can you confirm it was No. 7 that just went in?" ) is just one of the subtleties of their "telling us underneath the propaganda" MO and a little joke they probably enjoyed. I had no idea about this term until I saw a comment on a YouTube video.

2. As 9/11 is a story the journalists will, of course, be scripted. They wouldn't have journalists just saying whatever they wanted - what would they say? It's a narrative, it's not real (apart from the buildings) and as they're targeting the anticipated rejecters of their story with "real death and injury" propaganda it wouldn't work very well to have journalists scripted to allude to fire, especially in the case of WTC-7 whose collapse wasn't disguised by even a single lick of flame. If the journalists alluded to fire on the day that would start to make the rejecters of the 9/11 story suspicious that the journalists were in on it and that would be very puzzling, wouldn't it? All the journalists in on the callous, cold-blooded murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens?

Two birds with one stone: the perps manage to "tell the truth" as part of their MO and at the same time keep rejecters of the 9/11 narrative unsuspecting that the journalists were "in on" 9/11.

I tend to think that the journalists may not even have spoken the words they said on 9/11 but were told to participate in an exercise at some other time. Then on the day, their words were rolled out as if being spoken in real time. Whatever happened they had to be in on it but when, of course, we know 9/11 was, in effect, a massive exercise, that completely changes the complexion of their being in on it. A pretty large number of people had to be in on 9/11 one way or another. That's why, although I recognise the overwhelming evidence for astronauts landing on the moon, I never use the "too many people" argument.

3. We simply wouldn't expect journalists to allude to such an incriminating means of destruction as controlled demolition voluntarily when the terrorist narrative has already been established; journalists know what side their bread is buttered on and power has an amazing ability to create a taboo effect so we absolutely would not expect journalists to volunteer allusions to CD. However, alluding to it as part of a script makes sense when we consider Premises 3 and 4 above. Yes, it's incriminating but while the perps know they can get away with it, it's all under control, journalists wouldn't have the same attitude at an individual level.