Very provocative analysis. I had never considered the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan to be anything but real. If your theory is true in that regard Petra, what are we seeing in the classic 'documentary' film examples of atomic bombs being detonated?
Like you, the understanding of the technique of "revelation of the method" was a turning point for me for grasping the mystery of why these things are. In fact, I think it was you Petra that introduced me to the concept. In this piece you again give me a new angle - the idea that it is intended that you know it is a lie from the beginning - and then to sin by acquiescencing to it. Wow, that is it. Rings true.
Not the same one, Evelyn. It wasn’t that I didn’t believe you, I simply had no idea what you were talking about. I’ve never seen any of the Star Wars films.
“My” Anthony Daniels who was a psychiatrist and wrote under the name Theodore Dalrymple.
You can be so sweet sometimes Petra! I knew perfectly well it was a different Anthony Daniels. I was just being mischievous with you.
Mind you, this probably proves beyond reasonable doubt that you’re not an Aussie spy (unless you’re an exceptionally good one of course - but ‘an exceptionally good Aussie spy’ is an oxymoron). Which reminds me again how I must write out my Aussie spy joke.
Here is yet another obvious example of a 9/11 psyop at work: the prompted testimony of Pentagon attack eyewitness Dawn Vignola, who is clearly reciting lines from a man behind her (start at 50 seconds of the below video to clearly hear it happening). You can include this in your post, too:
Next to Mark "Harley Guy" Walsh's dubious testimony, Vignola's deserves first place as being a blatant example of false testimony offered about the 9/11 attacks. It makes "Nayirah's Testimony" more believable in comparison.
What I find offensive about this video is that they didn't even bother masking the scripted nature of Dawn's testimony. They at least could've had Dawn practice her lines a few times before going live or feed her lines via an ear-plug or headphones. But since they apparently had no respect for their viewers' intelligence whatsoever, they didn't seem to even bother doing any of those options before or during the interview.
Speaking of offensive, when I asked DeepAI about this, they said the man heard speaking behind her was reciting a poem by Oriah Dreamer titled "The Invitation", whose lines bear no resemblance at all to what the man was telling Dawn to say. Perplexed, I pointed out this was not so, to which DeepAI conjured up an asinine explanation that he was capturing the "spirit" of the poem without reciting its lines ad verbatim. How is apparently instructing someone to repeat lines such as "Columbia Pike" and "into the Pentagon" encapsulating the essence of the poem, which (ironically) is centered around themes such as being true to oneself? They couldn't get any more ridiculous if they tried.
Here's the poem, if you're interested. Read and compare the lines to what the elusive man is repeating to Vignola:
I've added this and the Mark Walsh one too. What's interesting is that even though the video is published by someone who seems to accept the testimony as genuine, none of the commenters are buying it ... just as very few of the commenters on this CNN video of Robbie Parker buy his "press conference" either. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4rwdriJpkc
Thanks for adding them. You should also include Mark's most famous scripted line: that the towers fell "mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."
At least we can be comforted by the fact that not everyone falls for these transparent frauds. Otherwise, the world would probably be in a worser shape now than it is.
In the case of Sandy Hook they might get the whole thing is a fraud whereas in other psyops they might pick up on individual items or witnesses not adding up but not the whole psyop which is understandable because you don't necessarily see all the fraudulent pieces at once - I certainly didn't myself in the case of 9/11 for years.
The perps are wrong. If it is not Ethical - i.e., telling Us openly and unambiguously - then it does not count. If They initiate the idea and pay someOne else to manifest it, They are just as culpable as the One who did the work.
Petra sucks on the teat of a discredited researcher, Simon Shack that is a proven disinformation agent.
Simon Hytten (Shack) did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family....
9/11 Planes, Layers of Deception
Mark Conlon & Andrew Johnson on RichPlanet TV (Sept 2017) - 9/11 planes research into the "alleged" video fakery of Flight 175 videos.
It is listed on my article specific to the nuclear weapons hoax that I link to at the bottom of this post, however, I don't think it's the best laid out webpage and the rabid anti-Jewish element is a turnoff. I'm indebted to this site though for the introduction to Priesthood Agitator's fantastic YT videos on the hoax which so very sadly have disappeared, however, I've managed - in a limited way - to reproduce their contents, including:
--- separate links to the post-bombing videos of Tokyo and Hiroshima / Nagasaki while PA combined the two videos with a great commentary showing how the destruction profiles are identical.
--- the city of Imabari, 6 minutes flying time from Hiroshima, was supposedly bombed when it was really Hiroshima
--- Little Boy looks no different from conventional bombs.
The site has much information on that topic, which is off putting to some people.
If they were genuinely inquisitive people that would not be a issue ,as if not in agreement they can avoid it & research other avenues.
To evade the rest of the contents over one matter would signify they are not worthy of learning anyway., considering what is actually available there.
Rae has died recently, & a great friend of mine is taking on the site for Raes wifes wishes. I personally do not concur in many aspects with the taboo issue, & neither does the new site manager but he respects that what is already there is Raes outlook & TERMINOLOGY.
If a fuller comprehension of such things can be encouraged & built upon then that is something genuine freedom of thought lovers I hope will involve themselves with.
I'm not necessarily going to dispute the 'no nukes at Hiroshima & Nagasaki' thing, but what I would want to see is a definitive proof according to the laws of physics that a nuclear weapon is not possible. That's the only way to really prove there aren't any nukes.
I've mentioned somewhere else that even K2/C hasn't done that. You'd expect that Miles Mathis/Committee of all people would use physics to show that nukes are fake, instead of some fake photos. I find that a little suspicious myself.
I think the 'no nukes' thing may well be a psyop directed at the truth community (conspiracy theory subculture) for very high-end security reasons, namely the real so-called 'Samson Option', namely the blackmail threat of an extinction level event. The agencies should remember psychology, however, that the option would only be triggered if not triggering it 100% results in total permanent defeat, which is extermination, in other words. That means they can push the thing a lot further than they think. Removing one of the bombs and the operating cell would not trigger it. If they could then get info about how they function and then hit all of them simultaneously then bye bye Samson Option.
The blackmail threat of the ELE does also explain why it *looks like* 'they're all in it together' (on a global level, I mean). Naturally, this is not the sort of thing which the intel agencies would want to become public knowledge, so hopefully no one will take this comment seriously.
as far as I understand it, so far it seems that according to the laws of physics a nuclear weapon is possible. how to prove it is not possible? how to prove one isn't drunk? Logic, my dear Watson. OTOH Wernher v. Braun was friendly with Disney, so were those filmed mushroom explosions actual nuclear explosions or just horrifying Special FX?
Sure - from what I gather the prevailing theory is that most of the nuclear explosion footage was made at Lookout Mountain studio in Laurel Canyon. I'm not going to dispute that, but I often think of an (in)famous apocryphal bit of dialogue between Oppenheimer and General Groves, where Groves asks whether the nuclear weapon would set off a chain reaction which vaporises the entire atmosphere of the planet, and Oppenheimer says the chances are negligible.
But what if this piece of dialogue is actually a fabricated cover story, and the truth is that the calculations really did show that the chances are either very high or an absolute certainty? This would mean they'd have to fake the whole thing of course, and continue the cover up. And of course either never build such a weapon or build one and use it for ultimate blackmail purposes (Samson option).
Even more interesting is that allegedly the physics they were using was the 'standard model' which we know is wrong (cf. Miles Mathis, for example). So either their calculations were all wrong, or they discovered that the standard model is wrong. They would have to cover that up for sure because the real physics leads to stuff like free energy (and what people call UFOs etc.), which means the cabal could have no chance of social control or world domination, or neoliberalism (restricting availability of resources etc.).
Like I say, I think it's suspicious and fascinating that none of the 'nuclear weapons don't exist' crowd really talk about this, they only analyse fake photos. Similarly with Mathis, the great irony is that it's the physics which is the most important thing, but so many people are misdirected by his silly fake events narrative, which of course also serves to turn people off taking him seriously (thus limiting the hangout - a lot of cognitive infiltrators have this 'repulsion mechanism', in the form of an opinion or theory which is off-putting, like 'right wing bigotry' for example). So I think it's the physics which is the limited hangout - it suggests the agency behind him only has an incomplete understanding of physics, and is hoping to lure in highly intelligent people to complete that understanding, not realising that understanding will end up in the paws of the bad guys.
Unless of course I'm just making up fun sci-fi spy stories again. Which, naturally, I very much enjoy doing...
Simon explains how he has the name Simon Shack. His first name is Simon (nothing remarkable) and Shack is the English word for Hytten in Norwegian which is his real second name and while not a common surname in Norway is registered - 1 in 30,000 people have it. My surname is Liverani, carried by 1 in 14,000 people in Italy and absolutely no one other than my sister in Australia as far as I know.
"I’m a 50%-50% Norwegian/Swede currently living in the countryside near Rome (Italy) with my dog, Mira. Simon 'Shack' is my artist name officially registered at the Swedish Musicians' Union (STIM) since 1993. At the time, a fellow musician (who was finding my original Norwegian surname 'Hytten' hard to pronounce) coined the 'Shack' moniker - and it stuck. As it is, 'Hytten' means 'the hut'."
I don't agree with Simon on the moon landings (as you know I think the moonlandings "hoax" is a psyop) and he has not responded to criticisms of his Tychos model in the correct way - but I still don't think he's an agent because he says too much truth on 9/11 - I suppose that could be interpreted as he's just a very high-level operative but I simply don't think he is.
Here's another interesting account from Scott Cook, who reportedly was near the Pentagon on 9/11. He was perplexed as to how he missed the "big 757" passing by his window on its way to crashing into the building. To quote Cook:
“We didn’t know what kind of plane had hit the Pentagon, or where it had hit. Later, we were told that it was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon. I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight.”
His recollection of AA77's flight path also differs from its official version, which shows the plane never flying over D.C. - where the White House, the Capitol, and the Washington Monument are, of course, located - before crashing into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. I cover this in my extensive article about the anomalies with Flight 77's flight path:
I always start chuckling reading your accounts before I've got two words in. Reminds me of the JFK magic bullet.
I shall add your flight path anomalies articles to my website page on the planes. That's a very detailed analysis you've got there. Impressive. There's a couple of items on 77 on my page that might interest you. My favorite is the instructor interview.
“Revelation of the method” is not remotely what you describe.
It’s a Michael A. Hoffman phrase describing the alchemical process of inducting the unaware populace into the fraud of the occult Masonic governance, while bound under the spell of the spectacle.
It’s trauma based, mass mind control.
In this esoteric context, the “revelation” is for the Masonic cult members, and “the method” is the trauma bonding of the illusion, on the audience.
The Revelation of the method is the alchemical processing of humanity : solve et coagula.
I first heard of Revelation of the Method from Ole Dammegard who said an insider told him about it. I have my suspicions about OD, however, regardless of whether he’s genuine or not how do we really know what the intention behind RoM is? An insider can tell us what it is but that doesn’t mean they’re telling the truth and Michael A. Hoffman can tell us whatever he thinks but, really, we simply need to use our best judgement. I think what he says certainly has a lot of merit but obviously “revelation” is going to get out somewhere along the line so that non-Masonic cult members get it too … as we do.
Not all psyops are trauma-based and thus not all RoM is either. The moon landings hoax is a psyop and there’s RoM all over Bill Kaysing, the first person to tell us astronauts didn’t land on the moon. There’s RoM all over Chelsea Manning too - not really trauma-based. There’s psyops galore and there’s always RoM with them, trauma-based or not.
One of the most ludicrous 9/11 psyops is eyewitness testimony of seeing faces behind Flight 77's windows seconds before it hit the Pentagon while the plane was traveling at 530+ mph. Here's an example for you to read and weep in sheer laughter at tragically silly it is:
Of course, after reading the above tripe, it should be apparent to any thinking person how asinine the story is. How could this woman witness such details from a speeding plane that was flying 100 yards (or 300 feet) from her? She probably would've barely discerned any windows, much less a woman staring back at her in disbelief and terror from one of the windows, on a plane flying past her at over 530 mph.
(And I love how they add that she even met a Flight 77 victim's relative who was moved to tears by her story and told her that she probably saw his mother behind that doomed plane's windows. It really pulls the heartstrings, doesn't it? I can hear the sad violin music playing in the background.)
But as you point out, propaganda doesn't need to be logical or believable to get its points across, and this is one perfect example of that. The emotional undertones of such a ridiculous tall-tale is enough to sway the gullible zombies, who will predictably lap it up and chastise anyone who may question or disbelieve it as "disrespectful" or "cruel to the poor victims and their families".
"If she was going to her contracting office in Alexandria how does "So I left en-route to go to the Pentagon, to go to a meeting," make sense?"
It doesn't need to make sense for the average lemming because they'll believe it, anyway, and the-powers-that-be know this. Hence why they can publish these asinine stories without second thought, and likely deliberately so to mock our intelligence. That's the whole point.
You have already said what needs to be discussed and I thank you.
''and thus absolve themselves of karmic repercussions,‘’
You are referring to the Law of Free Will. A Natural Law. A Universal Principle.
Principle: A rule of action; A fundamental truth.
‘’It is an enduring truth, which can never be altered, that every infraction of the Law of nature must carry its punitive consequences with it. We can never get beyond that range of cause and effect.’’
If the Law of Free Will or any other Law is transgressed, then Metaphysical debt,(karmic repercussions), is incurred. That, is a rule of action.
So, ‘’they’’ know this. ‘’They’’ have studied this.
These Laws and effects come from somewhere. What other Laws can people use to their advantage? CAUSE AND EFFECT?
So, I ask again, what is karma and where does it come from?
Very provocative analysis. I had never considered the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan to be anything but real. If your theory is true in that regard Petra, what are we seeing in the classic 'documentary' film examples of atomic bombs being detonated?
Like you, the understanding of the technique of "revelation of the method" was a turning point for me for grasping the mystery of why these things are. In fact, I think it was you Petra that introduced me to the concept. In this piece you again give me a new angle - the idea that it is intended that you know it is a lie from the beginning - and then to sin by acquiescencing to it. Wow, that is it. Rings true.
I give the probabilities that "atomic weapons" exist somewhere approaching zero. They were claimed to provoke fear.
There is no evidence that "nukes" exist outside of Superman comix. And quite a lit of evidence that they don't:).
Indeed, that was My point. Maybe I should rephrase... I give probabilities approaching zero that "atomic weapons" exist anywhere.
If you are hungry for lies, check in with the government who is always providing nothing but the best. What to believe anymore?
Thank you. You make it very easy to read, too.
Kudos for getting in that quote by C3PO, Petra. Nice one.
What quote?
The one by Anthony Daniels, obviously. Look up the Star Wars cast list if you don't believe me. 👽🤖🦿
Not the same one, Evelyn. It wasn’t that I didn’t believe you, I simply had no idea what you were talking about. I’ve never seen any of the Star Wars films.
“My” Anthony Daniels who was a psychiatrist and wrote under the name Theodore Dalrymple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk-PHDHqlqU
You can be so sweet sometimes Petra! I knew perfectly well it was a different Anthony Daniels. I was just being mischievous with you.
Mind you, this probably proves beyond reasonable doubt that you’re not an Aussie spy (unless you’re an exceptionally good one of course - but ‘an exceptionally good Aussie spy’ is an oxymoron). Which reminds me again how I must write out my Aussie spy joke.
Here is yet another obvious example of a 9/11 psyop at work: the prompted testimony of Pentagon attack eyewitness Dawn Vignola, who is clearly reciting lines from a man behind her (start at 50 seconds of the below video to clearly hear it happening). You can include this in your post, too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh2iFhTYX5s
Next to Mark "Harley Guy" Walsh's dubious testimony, Vignola's deserves first place as being a blatant example of false testimony offered about the 9/11 attacks. It makes "Nayirah's Testimony" more believable in comparison.
What I find offensive about this video is that they didn't even bother masking the scripted nature of Dawn's testimony. They at least could've had Dawn practice her lines a few times before going live or feed her lines via an ear-plug or headphones. But since they apparently had no respect for their viewers' intelligence whatsoever, they didn't seem to even bother doing any of those options before or during the interview.
Speaking of offensive, when I asked DeepAI about this, they said the man heard speaking behind her was reciting a poem by Oriah Dreamer titled "The Invitation", whose lines bear no resemblance at all to what the man was telling Dawn to say. Perplexed, I pointed out this was not so, to which DeepAI conjured up an asinine explanation that he was capturing the "spirit" of the poem without reciting its lines ad verbatim. How is apparently instructing someone to repeat lines such as "Columbia Pike" and "into the Pentagon" encapsulating the essence of the poem, which (ironically) is centered around themes such as being true to oneself? They couldn't get any more ridiculous if they tried.
Here's the poem, if you're interested. Read and compare the lines to what the elusive man is repeating to Vignola:
https://www.familyfriendpoems.com/poem/the-invitation-by-oriah-mountain-dreamer
I've added this and the Mark Walsh one too. What's interesting is that even though the video is published by someone who seems to accept the testimony as genuine, none of the commenters are buying it ... just as very few of the commenters on this CNN video of Robbie Parker buy his "press conference" either. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4rwdriJpkc
Thanks for adding them. You should also include Mark's most famous scripted line: that the towers fell "mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."
At least we can be comforted by the fact that not everyone falls for these transparent frauds. Otherwise, the world would probably be in a worser shape now than it is.
Oh yeah the too intense line.
In the case of Sandy Hook they might get the whole thing is a fraud whereas in other psyops they might pick up on individual items or witnesses not adding up but not the whole psyop which is understandable because you don't necessarily see all the fraudulent pieces at once - I certainly didn't myself in the case of 9/11 for years.
The perps are wrong. If it is not Ethical - i.e., telling Us openly and unambiguously - then it does not count. If They initiate the idea and pay someOne else to manifest it, They are just as culpable as the One who did the work.
But yes, all of these are dupings of Humanity!
Petra sucks on the teat of a discredited researcher, Simon Shack that is a proven disinformation agent.
Simon Hytten (Shack) did work for the European Space Agency. His father worked for the United Nations and his brother had connections to the Bin Laden family....
9/11 Planes, Layers of Deception
Mark Conlon & Andrew Johnson on RichPlanet TV (Sept 2017) - 9/11 planes research into the "alleged" video fakery of Flight 175 videos.
Link: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/911-planes-layers-of-deception
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part One)
Exposing The Disinformation
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Two)
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception-086
September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Three)
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-layers-of-deception-3ff
September Clues - Addendum - Deceptions - Part One
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-addendum-deceptions
September Clues - Addendum Deceptions - Part Two
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/september-clues-addendum-deceptions-bcd
Simon Shack’s Amateur Effort of Video Fakery
Cutting Through the Disinformation
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/simon-shacks-amateur-effort-of-video
Simon Shack "Misrepresents" Plane Flight Path in 9/11 Video
Independent Analysis: Exposing Falsehoods of Simon Shack
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/simon-shack-misrepresents-plane-flight
Why Ace Baker's Video Fakery Compositing Theory Is Invalid
Independent Analysis of Ace Baker's Video Compositing Theory
Article: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/why-ace-bakers-video-fakery-compositing
And who has a name like "Simon Shack" anyway? Or "Richard D Hall"?? Only in Spooksville! 😄
How to spot the shills=
The one site that had the guts & compiled the information you are so familiar with now was
RAE WESTS - BIG LIES site & archive of NUKE LIES SITE
Why is this never mentioned, while other are taking credit?
Because that is the disgusting game being played to keep everyone HALF AWARE & HALF INFORMED ?
https://www.big-lies.org/index.html
It is listed on my article specific to the nuclear weapons hoax that I link to at the bottom of this post, however, I don't think it's the best laid out webpage and the rabid anti-Jewish element is a turnoff. I'm indebted to this site though for the introduction to Priesthood Agitator's fantastic YT videos on the hoax which so very sadly have disappeared, however, I've managed - in a limited way - to reproduce their contents, including:
--- separate links to the post-bombing videos of Tokyo and Hiroshima / Nagasaki while PA combined the two videos with a great commentary showing how the destruction profiles are identical.
--- the city of Imabari, 6 minutes flying time from Hiroshima, was supposedly bombed when it was really Hiroshima
--- Little Boy looks no different from conventional bombs.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/nuclear-weapons-hoax.html
Yes , it is laid out for a older mind of early computer interfacing.
& also the Jewish stance while pertinent in many ways is also repulsive in many others, I agree.
Rae is now gone, & it is sad as he was a distinctly individual voice of much insight & experience, worth considering even when in disagreement.
I hope the BIGLIES site continues but I see little support for it among the NuGuRus who have no respect for the foundations they have appropriated.
A friend of mine has been asked to take it on but they are finding trouble with collaborators, & it is mostly due to the Jewish content.
Rae West talks about the you-know-who's and that is a big no no:).
The site has much information on that topic, which is off putting to some people.
If they were genuinely inquisitive people that would not be a issue ,as if not in agreement they can avoid it & research other avenues.
To evade the rest of the contents over one matter would signify they are not worthy of learning anyway., considering what is actually available there.
Rae has died recently, & a great friend of mine is taking on the site for Raes wifes wishes. I personally do not concur in many aspects with the taboo issue, & neither does the new site manager but he respects that what is already there is Raes outlook & TERMINOLOGY.
If a fuller comprehension of such things can be encouraged & built upon then that is something genuine freedom of thought lovers I hope will involve themselves with.
Didn't know Rae had passed. Sad news.
I'm not necessarily going to dispute the 'no nukes at Hiroshima & Nagasaki' thing, but what I would want to see is a definitive proof according to the laws of physics that a nuclear weapon is not possible. That's the only way to really prove there aren't any nukes.
I've mentioned somewhere else that even K2/C hasn't done that. You'd expect that Miles Mathis/Committee of all people would use physics to show that nukes are fake, instead of some fake photos. I find that a little suspicious myself.
I think the 'no nukes' thing may well be a psyop directed at the truth community (conspiracy theory subculture) for very high-end security reasons, namely the real so-called 'Samson Option', namely the blackmail threat of an extinction level event. The agencies should remember psychology, however, that the option would only be triggered if not triggering it 100% results in total permanent defeat, which is extermination, in other words. That means they can push the thing a lot further than they think. Removing one of the bombs and the operating cell would not trigger it. If they could then get info about how they function and then hit all of them simultaneously then bye bye Samson Option.
The blackmail threat of the ELE does also explain why it *looks like* 'they're all in it together' (on a global level, I mean). Naturally, this is not the sort of thing which the intel agencies would want to become public knowledge, so hopefully no one will take this comment seriously.
as far as I understand it, so far it seems that according to the laws of physics a nuclear weapon is possible. how to prove it is not possible? how to prove one isn't drunk? Logic, my dear Watson. OTOH Wernher v. Braun was friendly with Disney, so were those filmed mushroom explosions actual nuclear explosions or just horrifying Special FX?
Sure - from what I gather the prevailing theory is that most of the nuclear explosion footage was made at Lookout Mountain studio in Laurel Canyon. I'm not going to dispute that, but I often think of an (in)famous apocryphal bit of dialogue between Oppenheimer and General Groves, where Groves asks whether the nuclear weapon would set off a chain reaction which vaporises the entire atmosphere of the planet, and Oppenheimer says the chances are negligible.
But what if this piece of dialogue is actually a fabricated cover story, and the truth is that the calculations really did show that the chances are either very high or an absolute certainty? This would mean they'd have to fake the whole thing of course, and continue the cover up. And of course either never build such a weapon or build one and use it for ultimate blackmail purposes (Samson option).
Even more interesting is that allegedly the physics they were using was the 'standard model' which we know is wrong (cf. Miles Mathis, for example). So either their calculations were all wrong, or they discovered that the standard model is wrong. They would have to cover that up for sure because the real physics leads to stuff like free energy (and what people call UFOs etc.), which means the cabal could have no chance of social control or world domination, or neoliberalism (restricting availability of resources etc.).
Like I say, I think it's suspicious and fascinating that none of the 'nuclear weapons don't exist' crowd really talk about this, they only analyse fake photos. Similarly with Mathis, the great irony is that it's the physics which is the most important thing, but so many people are misdirected by his silly fake events narrative, which of course also serves to turn people off taking him seriously (thus limiting the hangout - a lot of cognitive infiltrators have this 'repulsion mechanism', in the form of an opinion or theory which is off-putting, like 'right wing bigotry' for example). So I think it's the physics which is the limited hangout - it suggests the agency behind him only has an incomplete understanding of physics, and is hoping to lure in highly intelligent people to complete that understanding, not realising that understanding will end up in the paws of the bad guys.
Unless of course I'm just making up fun sci-fi spy stories again. Which, naturally, I very much enjoy doing...
''I'm not necessarily going to dispute the 'no nukes at Hiroshima & Nagasaki' thing,''
''I think the 'no nukes' thing may well be a psyop directed at the truth community ''
''I would want to see is a definitive proof according to the laws of physics''
Hi Evelyn, did you find the proof? For either ''thing''?
What about the people that jumped or fell from the twin towers to the ground? Were they faked as well?
Nope.
Have you got any pictures of said people?
All you gotta do is watch one of the many videos of the burning towers and there’s at least a few dozen people, jumping or falling.
James, Simon Shack has done an analysis of the fakery of the jumpers.
https://septemberclues.org/jumpers.shtml
I also recommend other imagery analysis by him.
https://septemberclues.org/imagery_analyses.shtml
Shack is an intelligence cutout.
Simon explains how he has the name Simon Shack. His first name is Simon (nothing remarkable) and Shack is the English word for Hytten in Norwegian which is his real second name and while not a common surname in Norway is registered - 1 in 30,000 people have it. My surname is Liverani, carried by 1 in 14,000 people in Italy and absolutely no one other than my sister in Australia as far as I know.
https://book.tychos.space/about
"I’m a 50%-50% Norwegian/Swede currently living in the countryside near Rome (Italy) with my dog, Mira. Simon 'Shack' is my artist name officially registered at the Swedish Musicians' Union (STIM) since 1993. At the time, a fellow musician (who was finding my original Norwegian surname 'Hytten' hard to pronounce) coined the 'Shack' moniker - and it stuck. As it is, 'Hytten' means 'the hut'."
I don't agree with Simon on the moon landings (as you know I think the moonlandings "hoax" is a psyop) and he has not responded to criticisms of his Tychos model in the correct way - but I still don't think he's an agent because he says too much truth on 9/11 - I suppose that could be interpreted as he's just a very high-level operative but I simply don't think he is.
He's a medium-high level operative:).
Acquiescing...
Here's another interesting account from Scott Cook, who reportedly was near the Pentagon on 9/11. He was perplexed as to how he missed the "big 757" passing by his window on its way to crashing into the building. To quote Cook:
“We didn’t know what kind of plane had hit the Pentagon, or where it had hit. Later, we were told that it was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon. I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20011109174631/http://www.clothmonkey.com/91101.htm
His recollection of AA77's flight path also differs from its official version, which shows the plane never flying over D.C. - where the White House, the Capitol, and the Washington Monument are, of course, located - before crashing into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. I cover this in my extensive article about the anomalies with Flight 77's flight path:
https://janecena.substack.com/p/the-flight-path-anomalies-of-american
I always start chuckling reading your accounts before I've got two words in. Reminds me of the JFK magic bullet.
I shall add your flight path anomalies articles to my website page on the planes. That's a very detailed analysis you've got there. Impressive. There's a couple of items on 77 on my page that might interest you. My favorite is the instructor interview.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/four-faked-plane-crashes.html
I also saved my article at Wayback Machine in case it gets deleted or made private. Here it is:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250531070547/https://janecena.substack.com/p/the-flight-path-anomalies-of-american
“Revelation of the method” is not remotely what you describe.
It’s a Michael A. Hoffman phrase describing the alchemical process of inducting the unaware populace into the fraud of the occult Masonic governance, while bound under the spell of the spectacle.
It’s trauma based, mass mind control.
In this esoteric context, the “revelation” is for the Masonic cult members, and “the method” is the trauma bonding of the illusion, on the audience.
The Revelation of the method is the alchemical processing of humanity : solve et coagula.
I first heard of Revelation of the Method from Ole Dammegard who said an insider told him about it. I have my suspicions about OD, however, regardless of whether he’s genuine or not how do we really know what the intention behind RoM is? An insider can tell us what it is but that doesn’t mean they’re telling the truth and Michael A. Hoffman can tell us whatever he thinks but, really, we simply need to use our best judgement. I think what he says certainly has a lot of merit but obviously “revelation” is going to get out somewhere along the line so that non-Masonic cult members get it too … as we do.
Not all psyops are trauma-based and thus not all RoM is either. The moon landings hoax is a psyop and there’s RoM all over Bill Kaysing, the first person to tell us astronauts didn’t land on the moon. There’s RoM all over Chelsea Manning too - not really trauma-based. There’s psyops galore and there’s always RoM with them, trauma-based or not.
One of the most ludicrous 9/11 psyops is eyewitness testimony of seeing faces behind Flight 77's windows seconds before it hit the Pentagon while the plane was traveling at 530+ mph. Here's an example for you to read and weep in sheer laughter at tragically silly it is:
https://www.wfmz.com/news/area/lehighvalley/local-woman-witnessed-flight-77-crashing-into-pentagon/article_151e20c5-d68e-5438-a14d-47541c973556.html
Of course, after reading the above tripe, it should be apparent to any thinking person how asinine the story is. How could this woman witness such details from a speeding plane that was flying 100 yards (or 300 feet) from her? She probably would've barely discerned any windows, much less a woman staring back at her in disbelief and terror from one of the windows, on a plane flying past her at over 530 mph.
(And I love how they add that she even met a Flight 77 victim's relative who was moved to tears by her story and told her that she probably saw his mother behind that doomed plane's windows. It really pulls the heartstrings, doesn't it? I can hear the sad violin music playing in the background.)
But as you point out, propaganda doesn't need to be logical or believable to get its points across, and this is one perfect example of that. The emotional undertones of such a ridiculous tall-tale is enough to sway the gullible zombies, who will predictably lap it up and chastise anyone who may question or disbelieve it as "disrespectful" or "cruel to the poor victims and their families".
Hilarious! Had a great chuckle over that one.
They also make it completely nonsensical in other ways, eg:
"The morning of September 11th, I got in my car to go visit my contracting office down in Alexandria, Virginia.
We saw on the TV that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. So I left en-route to go to the Pentagon, to go to a meeting."
If she was going to her contracting office in Alexandria how does "So I left en-route to go to the Pentagon, to go to a meeting," make sense?
I've added this to a new heading in the article, "Invitation to readers to submit your favourite Revelation of the Method story"
"If she was going to her contracting office in Alexandria how does "So I left en-route to go to the Pentagon, to go to a meeting," make sense?"
It doesn't need to make sense for the average lemming because they'll believe it, anyway, and the-powers-that-be know this. Hence why they can publish these asinine stories without second thought, and likely deliberately so to mock our intelligence. That's the whole point.
Hi Petra,
''and thus absolve themselves of karmic repercussions,''
So, ''they'' fear karma? Something that ''they'' fear, yet no discussion on the subject.
Strange indeed.
I'm not sure what you think needs to be discussed Max.
‘’I'm not sure what’’
You have already said what needs to be discussed and I thank you.
''and thus absolve themselves of karmic repercussions,‘’
You are referring to the Law of Free Will. A Natural Law. A Universal Principle.
Principle: A rule of action; A fundamental truth.
‘’It is an enduring truth, which can never be altered, that every infraction of the Law of nature must carry its punitive consequences with it. We can never get beyond that range of cause and effect.’’
If the Law of Free Will or any other Law is transgressed, then Metaphysical debt,(karmic repercussions), is incurred. That, is a rule of action.
So, ‘’they’’ know this. ‘’They’’ have studied this.
These Laws and effects come from somewhere. What other Laws can people use to their advantage? CAUSE AND EFFECT?
So, I ask again, what is karma and where does it come from?
''and thus absolve themselves of karmic repercussions,''
Hi Petra, what is karma? And where does it come from?