Critical thinking: The moon landings, 9/11 and covid - Part 2

How those in power have influenced the disbelievers' thinking with regard to both 9/11 and the moon landings

Part 1: The two fundamental rules of critical thinking

Part 2: How those in power have influenced the disbelievers’ thinking with regard to both 9/11 and the moon landings

Part 3:  The second fundamental rule of critical thinking applied to covid

---

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Those in power understand how we break into different inclination-to-believe profiles and they target us with their propaganda accordingly. They target those who are willing to believe them with certain propaganda and those who are willing to disbelieve them with different propaganda so we all get it wrong.

Mind control techniques are implemented that encourage our belief biases and logically fallacious thinking. The first two listed below completely exploit our nature as humans to be social and hierarchical. Humans tend to not want to stand out from the crowd nor speak against authority. To do so makes us feel vulnerable and thus we avoid it – so handy for those who wish to control us. The third one, Appeal to Emotion, is targeted to all of us, believers and disbelievers alike. Oh my goodness is the tendency to have our thinking affected by appeals to our emotions massively exploited regardless of what kind of tendency-to-believe profile we fit.

Appeal to authority – Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.

Appeal to common belief – When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence for the claim. Accepting another person’s belief, or many people’s beliefs, without demanding evidence as to why that person accepts the belief, is lazy thinking and a dangerous way to accept information.

Appeal to emotion – Manipulation of an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

Anchoring bias – A cognitive bias that causes us to rely too heavily on the first piece of information we are given about a topic. When we are setting plans or making estimates about something, we interpret newer information from the reference point of our anchor, instead of seeing it objectively. This can skew our judgment, and prevent us from updating our plans or predictions as much as we should.

Sunk-cost fallacy – Our tendency to follow through on an endeavour if we have already invested time, effort, or money into it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits.

Argument from incredulity – Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed.

Argument from intimidation – The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim.

Cherry-picking – When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

How those in power control our thinking with regard to the moon landings

“When I first got into 9/11 activism, I had a theory that there would be about 10% of the population who would automatically assume that the government did it, even if they didn’t have any evidence and about 10% who would never believe it, no matter how much evidence they got.” – 9/11 researcher, Gerard Holmgren, A Theory

After my semi-awakening to the true nature of 9/11 in 2014, encouraged by a friend who didn’t believe in them, I studied the moon landings. A reading of the book, Wagging the Moondoggie, by Dave McGowan, seemed to present persuasive arguments against their reality but when I started to look at the evidence myself it became clear to me the moon landings were real. All the visual evidence was consistent with the lunar conditions so very different from those on earth and the explanations provided by the debunkers of the moon hoax arguments are perfectly reasonable and evince far greater knowledge of the moon and space travel.

I found, however, it was like talking to a brick wall when I tried to persuade my sister and disbelieving friends that the evidence showed the moon landings were real. It then struck me that those in power would be well aware of the disbeliever-by-default profile my sister and disbelieving friends seemed to fit and that they might, in fact, target this group with propaganda encouraging them to disbelieve the moon landings in order to undermine them Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style when they called out so many other events which the authorities do lie about. Those in power want to be able to control all our minds, believers and disbelievers alike, and what could be a more perfect vehicle than the moon landings? They were, after all, a rather improbable achievement.

When I looked up Bill Kaysing, the first person to claim the moon landings were fake, the clear signs of a psyop leapt from the page. We are told that Kaysing was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne, and had a nephew named Dietrich von Schmausen, allegedly a professor at the North American Institute for Xenobiological Research (of which no record outside this video).

It seems no disbeliever of the moon landings has worked out that Kaysing was an agent despite the obvious signs (they didn’t pull any punches in making him absurd) so we ask the question why not? Why did no disbeliever work out that Kaysing was an agent despite many of them having great familiarity with “controlled opposition” agents? The creators of “Bill” could have made him a lowly clerk at Rocketdyne which might have made his wild claims about big craters being expected under the lunar modules and “sand and rocks being blasted everywhere” a little more credible but no, they didn’t make him a lowly clerk, they made him Head of Technical Publications. At this point in an interview he speaks of how the flame of the ascent module showed no colour that would be expected from a hypergolic fuel. In fact, hypergolic fuels are a class of fuels (see Point 10) and while some hypergolic fuels have a visible flame others do not. No one in such a position would have displayed this kind of ignorance of hypergolic fuels. Hypothetically, if astronauts hadn’t landed on the moon, in explaining how that didn’t happen a Head of Technical Publications would have made his arguments in a manner that sounded scientifically credible. But despite the glaring lack of credibility, the creators of “Bill” anticipated he wouldn’t be picked up as an agent by virtually anyone … and it seems until 50 years later he wasn’t. The creators knew that “Bill” would go undetected by the disbelievers while those who recognised the moon landings as real would dismiss him as an idiot, ignoring his anomalous job title. Some disbelievers pick up Dave McGowan as being an agent although not because of what he says in Wagging the Moondoggie but on other subjects.

It seems even before astronauts landed on the moon those in power were starting to cultivate disbelief among the disbelievers of real phenomena, including the moon landings. In the half-hour 1968 BBC drama, The News-Benders, we are given clear indications of the real phenomenon of the planning and fabrication of news events mixed with intimations that moon rockets, ballistic missiles and satellites are also fabrications. We are also told that the H bomb is not real (no reason to doubt that) while the atom bomb is – however, the post-bombing destruction profile of Hiroshima clearly matches that of fire-bombed Tokyo and there are a number of other reasons to believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fire-bombed just as many other Japanese cities were.

We can be certain that when an eye-watering truth such as the years-in-advance-planning and fabrication of news events is revealed in mainstream media that intelligence agents will be behind it and that that kind of truth will be controlled in some way. The truth of planning and fabrication of news events is mixed with the lies that atom bombs are real while moon rockets, ballistic missiles and satellites are not real. A common propaganda technique – tell us things that are real aren’t, tell us things that aren’t real are, creating a wonderfully bamboozling mix of truth with lies. It works a treat.

How those in power control our thinking with regard to 9/11

“The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.” – Edited quote from Theodore Dalrymple, aka Anthony Daniels, British psychiatrist, my emphasis

“The official narrative is preposterous. On its face it is a ludicrous explanation. We don’t accept it.” – Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Media Studies, NYU

“If journalists continue to endorse the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Centre, they should begin their articles by saying: ‘I believe in miracles - lots of them.’” – Emeritus Professor of philosophy of religion and theology, Claremont School of Theology and prolific researcher and author, David Ray Griffin

​"The official story required either that one descended into total intellectual senility in order to still believe it – perhaps deliberately made ridiculous for that very purpose – or else that one keep one's intellect alive but destroy almost everything that one had previously believed about how society works." – 9/11 researcher, Gerard Holmgren, A Theory

The 9/11 story, as suggested by Gerard Holmgren, was deliberately made ridiculous. It’s not as if the perps don’t know their story is ridiculous. They wrote it, they know and we can see they over-egged the omelette at every turn. Completely against reality, they had not just one or two but four passenger airliners lumbering around the best defended skies in the world with one of them supposedly sailing into Defence HQ. And they didn’t just have the airliners crash into two tall buildings, they made them bring them down along with another, whose impeccable implosion they showcased to us from seven angles.

From centuries (see The Great Fire of London – Cui Bono and ‘Remember Remember the 5th of November…’), millennia even, of experience those in power know that they can have total confidence in the limitless elasticity of the Emperor’s New Clothes effect. It doesn’t matter how nonsensical – the more nonsensical the better, in fact – the majority of people will accept what they’re told. They may not believe it enthusiastically but they will accept it … and that is all that is required.

But what to do with the anticipated minority who won’t accept their nonsense? How will their minds be controlled?

There’s a large cast of logical fallacies playing roles in the 9/11 propaganda strategy, including all those mentioned above but the absolute star of the show is the logical fallacy, false dilemma, or the “fake binary” as referred to by Catte, in her article, The Function of the Fake Binary.

False dilemma - When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes.

The perps present the stark choice intimated by Gerard Holmgren:

Option A: Terrorists were responsible for killing and injuring all the people on 9/11.
Option B: Rogue elements within the US government were responsible for killing and injuring all the people on 9/11.

But what if both options are simply propaganda creations? What if the truth is something other than either of the two?

When we blow away the magic propaganda dust we do, in fact, find a third option:

Option C: Yes, the US government was responsible for 9/11 but not for the alleged death and injury because the evidence shows it was staged – not to say with certainty that no one died or was injured, but there is no clear evidence of any death or injury while there is very clear evidence of both staging and propaganda targeted to the anticipated disbelievers of the story to maintain their belief in real death and injury.

The propaganda campaign targeted to the anticipated disbelievers has a number of streams, three of which I outline below:

Indignant people fighting for justice for their alleged loved ones who allegedly died in the buildings are really actors playing roles. The notion of people playing loved ones seems to provoke strong reactions in people but we must consider that anything at all that tends to provoke our reactions is something that the power elite will exploit … so if the idea that loved ones of alleged dead people being actors disturbs you I urge you to consider that of all the lies we’re told how bad is the lie of people pretending to be loved ones? Do you think that those in power would not stoop so low?

Israel did it! There are numerous streams of propaganda implicating Israel. While “Israel did it!” in general functions as distraction – and distraction always weakens the opposition argument – it also serves to explain more credibly who pulled the trigger on the buildings. When I read the story of the white van containing suspicious Israelis I reasoned, “I see, they used outsiders to do the dastardly deed of bringing the buildings down, killing all those poor people. Yes, that makes sense, they got outsiders to do the dastardly deed, not US citizens.” Of course, I realised later the story is an absurdity and I laugh at how I was so suckered in. Not to say that Israel wasn’t involved. Of course, it was … but then so was every man and his dog. My own PM, John Howard, just happened to be paying a surprise visit to Washington on the fateful day.

As all seven of the World Trade Centre buildings came down eventually the question arises as to why WTC-7 was brought down in such an obviously self-incriminating fashion on 9/11 when it wasn’t part of the terror story. Why not bring it down later discreetly as WTCs 3-6 were? What explains the seemingly counterintuitive gratuitous self-incrimination is simply the limitless elasticity of the Emperor’s New Clothes effect. The lie that a passenger airliner managed to sail into Defence HQ is really no less self-incriminating than showing us the reality of WTC-7’s implosion and explaining it as fire – both are equally ridiculous but the perps know they can get away with both lies.

The mistake the disbelievers make in analysing WTC-7 is to not recognise that the perps very deliberately targeted its collapse to them, showcasing it from seven angles and having reporters allude to controlled demolition when discussing it. I think a reasonable inference to make is that the perps wanted to have the focus mainly on the buildings and far less on the much more revealing planes:

--- Fake planes means fake passenger deaths which automatically partly contradicts the claims of deaths and provides the slippery slope to questioning all the purported deaths

--- Fake planes means by definition the buildings came down by a controlled means which simplifies analysis and they don’t want simplification, they want complication which better masks the truth

--- The planes keep highlight on the impossible failure of defence

It is most important to understand how disbelievers of the narrative are very much taken into consideration by those in power and will be targeted with their own special propaganda (or sometimes propaganda that will “land” differently for them) in various ways.

Part 3:  The second fundamental rule of critical thinking applied to covid

REFERENCES:
Debunkers of the moon hoax arguments
​Moon hoax: Debunked!, Paolo Attivissimo
Debunking of Dave McGowan's, Wagging the Moondoggie (incomplete).
Debunking of Massimo Mazzucco's, American Moon  (Part 1)
Debunking of Massimo Mazzucco's, American Moon (Part 2)
Apollo Hoax.net (shows links to other sites)
Debunking the Apollo Hoax

Analysts who recognise that 9/11 was a Full-Scale Anti-Terror Exercise
Olga and Slava Klimova (Earthly Fireflies) - their 1-hour film, 9/11 Fraud and Terror Agenda, is the single best source to understand 9/11
Miles Mathis
Fakeologist
John Le Bon
Simon Shack
Allan Weisbecker
Jon Revusky
Piece of mindful
Cutting through the fog
The Unexpected Cosmology - Noel Joshua Hadley