The hero stuff makes the audience think, "wow there are so many great people in this world", as opposed to, "these are engineered attacks".
Same as the "lets roll!" guys on UA 93 on 9.11 which obviously did not fall into the ground, but for those who can't let that go, well it wasn't dug up, so it must not have fallen into the ground even if you think it could (which is nonsense anyway).
OMG, blatant acting and bad at that. Mikki is a COINTELPRO operative and these folks crisis actors. How much LOVE did their daughter have? Enough to make Mikki's wife nearly breakout in laughter in the vid. Great pick-up Petra!
"... well it wasn't dug up, so it must not have fallen into the ground even if you think it could (which is nonsense anyway)."
The FBI would beg to differ, since they claim to have dug up "95%" of UA93 inside and near that Shanksville crater, which was more than what they found in the other crash sites.
But knowing that these people have lied so much about 9/11, we have no reason to believe they recovered anywhere near that amount.
Same with their claim of finding and identifying the dead from there (with the exception of the hijackers, oddly enough).
" ... we have no reason to believe they recovered anywhere near that amount."
As the evidence for the crash in the first place is non-existent we have no reason to believe they dug up anything at all.
My favorite item on Shanksville below. It's sobering to think that this could be the work of controlled operatives just as the song, Free Fallin', on WTC-7 most definitely is.
Not to mention the "miracle" finds from there such as CeeCee Lyles's and Ziad Jarrah's IDs. Or the lack of jet fuel at the crash site, a rare phenomenon in itself. It's one of the greatest fairytales ever told.
You have a point but a crime site should be completely dug up AND the parts spread out in a large bldg and categorized like any crime scene. I know a family whose member "died" in that plane, and when they go visit the scene they are told it would be too much for families so they don't show anything they dug up. So you can see the site and the memorial but not a wing or fuselage. It's all BS because planes don't sink into the ground, they break on the surface, maybe some small piece goes into the ground?
"You have a point but a crime site should be completely dug up AND the parts spread out in a large bldg and categorized like any crime scene."
They didn't even bother identifying ANY of the plane debris recovered from ANY of the crash sites as belonging to the aircraft in question via their serial numbers, much less taking the extra step of assembling them back together like they did with TWA800. Same with them neglecting to actually identify the hijackers or revealing who they really identified. That's how sloppy their "investigations" were.
"I know a family whose member "died" in that plane, and when they go visit the scene they are told it would be too much for families so they don't show anything they dug up. So you can see the site and the memorial but not a wing or fuselage."
Reminds me of how the FBI initially refused to show the Flight 93 families the CVR recording from the plane, saying it would be too painful for them to listen to and it would interfere with their "investigation" if they did allow them to hear its contents. They would only allow the families to privately listen to the tape after heavy pressure from them, under the condition that they won't reveal or write down what exactly was heard from the CVR.
And btw, no serial numbers are provided for either "black boxes" purported to be from United 93, either, so there's no way to verify that they indeed came from the plane. Same with American 77's "black boxes."
"It's all BS because planes don't sink into the ground, they break on the surface, maybe some small piece goes into the ground?"
If any plane debris burrowed into the ground, they would be heavy pieces such as engines. But even that wasn't really the case with UA93, since apparently one of its engines was only buried a few feet into the ground and another one flew off upon impact and rolled hundreds of yards away from the crater, with conflicting accounts saying it was either found in the woods, the bushes, or a lake nearby.
And don't get me started with the absence of jet fuel, a rare phenomenon in itself.
Thanks JC, I agree with all you have said yes. About the buried engines, I can’t remember exactly but they were either not the right make to fit with that kind of plane (or was that the engine they found (planted) on Murray (?) street in NYC?), or they were in a strange place in the ground for a plane that supposedly fell into the ground. It’s been 5-6 yrs since I went over that info so I don’t remember exactly, but the whole thing is 2+2=5 BS yes.
And since you claim to know relatives of one of the United 93 victims, have they expressed any thoughts about what happened in Shanksville and the aftermath? Do they have any doubts about the official story concerning Flight 93 or 9/11 in general?
I'm also curious to know if you're in touch with loved ones of victims from the other flights involved?
I wouldn't call the so-called passengers "victims", I call them "persons who seem to have disappeared" but they may not have disappeared. There was a woman who "died" on one of the planes who looks exactly like the woman her husband remarried, I can't find that info anymore. If you know it please tell, me. I will also ask Petra.
I only know one relative of UA 93. This person was a believer of the official story and said their family was too and still is, and they have visited the memorial together. Most people I know, my own relatives etc., they all believe the official story of 9.11 and Covid, etc. and there is no convincing them otherwise. I have known this person from before 9.11, still know them, and believe this person is telling me the truth that their relative is missing and what their family believes. I personally believe these missing persons are part of a society/fraternity where following orders to do certain things is part of their allegiance to the organization even if it means ditching their families and that they have been given new identities.
The person I know, after reading and talking with me, went thru phases of confusion, and now is sure things were scammed. How, is still a bit confusing to them but they do believe a crash would result in fuselage on the ground and digging up anything in the earth. They have not confronted their family as they want to avoid any conflict with them. Even a relative of mine-not immediate family- escaped one of the Towers on 9.11. They don't really engage in discussion on what was behind 9.11 and I do not push it. I don't know any other family of flight passengers. You may know that families of the missing passengers were given a lot of $ in damages, I think it was from a pay-out or settlement from a suit with Saudi Arabia.
Here is a link, I don't believe all of this is true, the original site is off line, but it gives some good info still about what might have happened to passengers and what relatives might do or think.
I find the coverage of this “flood” the opposite of the NC floods last year. They did not pre evacuate people in our area near Asheville. They also did not update the death count……
This is the first flood I've ever looked at where I've noticed fake rescue stories. We had big floods in northern NSW a few years ago and the rescue stories seemed very real. In 2011, there was a big flood in Brisbane where the dam overflowed. This was very much a predicted event in the couple of weeks or so beforehand and a friend of mine was living in a house that got flooded but was evacuated well before the flood event. But guess what? This happened before I had a clue about anything. I just looked it up to see exactly when it happened and I see that the death figure is 33. Hmmm. So this was a highly predicted event seemingly just like this Guadelupe River event.
I think my sister in law helped out with those floods in Brisbane. Clearly it's possible to have floods without 33 people dying. Why do they like that number? It doesn't mean shit in the real world! If it was me I'd choose the number 31, which is the first five octaves of the harmonic series, so it does exist in nature. 108 is another, which is something to do with protons.
The story of the guy saving 165 people on the first day of his job reminds me of the story of the FAA official who grounded thousands of flights on his first day working on 9/11. That older story was probably just as fake. You should include and dissect that story in this post, too.
"As terrorists seized control of four airplanes on Sept. 11th, 2001, Ben Sliney, chief of air-traffic-control operations at the FAA's command center in Herndon, Va., gave the unprecedented order to ground 4,000-plus planes across the nation and redirect any in the sky to the nearest airport. It was his first day on the job."
"First day on the job" is a bit of a psyop motif. I shall edit my post to include and I might also replace some of my text on Scott with that of Miles Mathis as his is entertaining and generally better.
And what's ironic about this story is that the claim made by the magazine Jalopnik that Sliney's decision "was his and his alone to make" is essentially contradicted by other sources such as the 9/11 Commission Report and Wikipedia that say he acted under "the advice of an experienced staff of air traffic controllers and traffic managers" who lent him their assistance that day.
Yes, different versions bamboozling people is a psyop feature.
I asked ChatGPT where Apollo 13 commander, Jim Lovell, was at the time of the alleged explosion on the mission. It told me "inside the Command Module".
I responded that in an interview he said he was in the tunnel between the lunar module and command module dealing with tv cables. It came back saying yes you're right he was in the tunnel.
I responded that in an article it said that Fred Haise was in the tunnel. It responded yes you're right.
It's final words:
"Therefore, while Lovell was not in the tunnel at the exact moment of the explosion, he was nearby in the Command Module, and Haise was the one in the tunnel handling equipment from the broadcast."
But Jim Lovell said he was in the tunnel and surely he knew where he was ... assuming it happened.
When i used to watch TV, i would watch Judge Judy and she has a saying that goes... "If it doesn't make sense, it's not true." It's stood the test of time.
TBF, they do say that Sliney had "25 years of experience in air traffic control as part of FAA management", so he obviously wasn't a newbie to the profession by 2001. I could see him possibly redirecting and grounding a few dozen flights when given the chance; but the story that he managed to redirect and ground thousands of flights in a day is still a bit of stretch, in my book, especially in light of the fact this never happened before or since 9/11.
And does anyone in their right minds really believe that no one else in the FAA besides Sliney ever thought to halt all air traffic once the attacks took place, especially after the second attack in New York? It never came to anybody's minds there to do the obviously sensible decision that could - and did - minimize the scale and deadliness of the attacks?
Also, here's another tidbit from the article that made me chuckle. He was so lauded for his "heroism" that the producers of the 2006 propaganda flick "United 93" asked Sliney to play himself, which - in the words of the article - "he did." To quote:
"In fact, it's such a great story that when Universal Pictures decided to turn the heroism of the passengers of United Flight 93 into a movie, they not only didn't overlook Sliney's role — they asked him to play himself in the movie. Which he did."
How "gutsy", indeed, to borrow the bluff piece's vernacular.
People died in the WTC on 9/11 and in Kerrville at Camp Mystic on 7/4/2025.
It really is a fantastic fantasy to believe that all those people faked their deaths and all their family and friends went along with it. We are talking tens of thousands of people and not one of them has ever broken ranks and said it was all faked.
Not to mention this is incredibly disrespectful for anyone to use the losses of others to support their fantasies.
Find a jigsaw puzzle to put together and occupy your time. IDK. But not this.
I have written to you at least half a dozen times already that I know people who died on 9/11.
You choose to claim my direct knowledge isn't proof.
I am claiming that your distant perch and lack of direct experience renders your opinion a fantasy fueled belief.
I have also been to Kerrville and know the area. To believe all those people could have been evacuated without anyone in the area witnessing such a large endeavor is not possible.
As I've also written to you prior, find the NYC subway tallies for 9/11. That alone would tell you a great deal. There was a huge subway terminal in the basement of the WTC that virtually all workers in the buildings used to travel to work. If those receipts for the morning of 9/11 were down by 3,000 or so riders, you would have a stronger argument that the buildings were empty.
But, you don't take my suggestions on how you could prove your fantasy to be reality and instead cling to something you've over invested yourself into.
Fine. It's your choice. Refusing to learn is stupid.
Yes, but I've responded that "knowing people" doesn't constitute evidence for the reality of death.
Actor and comedian, Greg Fleet, knew the father he grew up with and thought he died when he had simply faked his death. It's an interesting story because when the father is found to be still alive his wife actually takes him back ... but then he disappears again.
I'm friends with the mother of twins who are both friends with two people who allegedly died in two different events in Australia - amazing coincidence! - which bear all the clear signs of psyops. They went to their funerals. The sisters also went to the same school as the alleged Christchurch shooter.
I know other people who know people who've allegedly died in events including 9/11. I know someone whose insurance agent allegedly died in one of the towers.
Knowing people doesn't in the least persuade me of the reality of death because it is perfectly consistent with both the fake and the real hypotheses. It wouldn't be possible for people participating in these events not to know people.
Obviously, if people participate as victims they will know people and while they might (or might not) tell their nearest and dearest they will certainly not be telling everyone they know.
I am not proposing no one has ever faked their death. I am saying just because there is an isolated faked death here and there does not prove many thousands of people faked their deaths.
That doesn't make any logical sense.
To pull off the logistics of faking that many deaths and all the ancillary faked disappearances of family, etc., since most people would not choose to leave their families behind is not logical.
To fake event after event after event and all the logistics involved and people kept alive to tell the truth makes no sense.
You seem stuck on one note in life and I will leave you to it.
Do you think that the power elite would respect societal taboos or exploit them?
Exploit them, right?
Yes, they exploit societal taboos and make it so it is very difficult for people to call out "fake death" because that's considered disrespectful. I remember the first time I told a friend about the Sandy Hook fakery. He got angry and told me to go over to the US and knock on the door of one of those parents and tell them just so they could punch me in the face. It puzzled me because I didn't have a sense of taboo around death, I didn't know people considered it offensive to say someone wasn't dead even though they were claimed to be. But I soon learnt.
What's disrespectful is the way that we are lied to and lied to and lied to and lied to so when it comes to the power elite one cannot afford to respect something that they exploit.
If those of us who don't believe in death and injury are wrong let it be so, don't censor it because it's disrespectful.
If your ONLY evidence is knowing people it's not much is it? I mean if they really killed 3,000 people and injured 6,000 then surely there would be ample evidence you could point to - that's 9,000 people we're talking about - surely there would be convincing evidence out there - but what you've put forward so far are:
1. You know people (however, I don't accept this as evidence because it is EXPECTED in the fake hypothesis that people will know people and I myself know people who know people in a number of these events including 9/11)
2. The false assumption that the fake hypothesis would mean thousands of people faked their deaths.
When I believe something to be true I like all the pieces of the puzzle to fit that belief ... and for 9/11 all the pieces fit perfectly.
It's all explained in numerous articles and films on my 9/11 page.
This is a 1-hour film made by a Russian couple Olga and Slava Klimova which I highly recommend. I'm not sure they get everything right but they get an awful lot right.
The people who believe in obvious lies such as a man saving 165 people from a flood on his first rescue mission are the same people who believe there are $1 villas in Italy for sale. Or the ones who believe hijackers who could barely fly Cessnas somehow managed to pilot Boeing 767s and 757s into their targets with only one case of failure.
Well I do believe there are $1 properties for sale in Italy, Jane, not necessarily villas though - old, abandoned houses in remote places which are sold for $1 but with the caveat that money must be spent to restore them. It's not that I know it's true, however, to me it doesn't seem implausible because it seems reasonable to me that people abandon places, old people die and their kids aren't interested, no one wants to buy, etc. Also, like Japan, Italy's population is declining so property in certain places will simply have no value.
I've watched a few videos of an Australian woman, Chani, who's moved to Japan. She bought a house in Wakayama for AUD20,000 (USD13,000) and spent about AUD20,000 fixing it - so AUD40,000 (USD26,000) total. She says the house actually has no value, only the land and even though she's fixed it up and made it perfectly livable, seemingly the house is still considered to have no value because the Japanese don't want old, not particularly well-built houses any more.
Another interesting thing I've learnt about buying Japanese houses is that often the deal is that you take the house as is with everything in it because disposing of stuff in Japan is considered a big hassle. I watched a video where all sorts of treasures were left behind - old kimonos and the traditional black wigs.
Wakayama seems an attractive, livable city (pop 350,000) on the water, an hour from Osaka to which there is a train line. The notion that you could even remotely get a house anywhere near AUD40,000 in Australia in an equivalent location is utterly laughable even though we're a much smaller population in a much bigger country.
What I meant by "people who believe there are $1 villas in Italy" is that there are those who naively think these houses are truly cheap bargains when they are not. They're really scams that end up costing a lot of money in repair and maintenance fees, money which could've been spent on buying a decent villa (in some cases for even less). Not surprising since this comes from the same country that brought us the Mob (no offense intended to all Italians, btw).
It's a good example of "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." It's akin to selling the Brooklyn Bridge for $1, with the subtle catch that the buyer will end up still wasting shit tons of money in the long run just for the maintenance of the bridge. If I had to make a choice, I would rather pay good money for a nice house and spend less on maintenance and/or repair in the long run.
A few things occur to me, all speculative and all quite intriguing IMO.
First, you should be wary of drawing the logical fallacy conclusion along the lines of 'the existence of a few fake stories/images etc. means ALL of it was fake.' Or worded slightly differently, 'existence of a few bits of fakery precludes the existence of the real'. This is a logical fallacy of course - especially when the bad guys do like to insert falsehoods within a list of truths, or vice versa, a few truths within a litany of lies. Because the logical possibility is that 'both are true'. That's to say, there are 'true' rescue and survival stories, but also fake ones.
Why they do this is another question, with many answers.
Second, I do think you should try and accept the psychological fact sometimes that the bad guys not only have zero compassion or pity or concern for normal people, but also they pathologically get off on seeing pain and suffering. If they 'fake' everything, then they are denying themselves that - and this undermines their addiction. Once you understand that it is, absolutely, an addiction, then you can readily understand and accept that they do not fake everything. In fact, most things would not be faked. Some things would, sure, but not everything. As soon as you start to say they fake most things then you are essentially 'humanising' them, or rehabilitating them. Like 'oh we didn't really want to hurt anyone on 9/11' - which is absurd, given the genocide it allowed them to do afterwards.
I think this is a vitally important point to remember. And it will help to analyse an event correctly. In fact it relates to my first point above - the existence of 'real' and 'fakery' in the same event.
It also raises an interesting speculation about whether this sudden flash flood was indeed artificially triggered. There are obvious reasons why they'd do that, not just because they enjoy seeing people suffer, but you're also talking massive profit opportunities afterwards in clean-up etc. Maybe they also wanted to fuck over some of the insurance companies (e.g. send the smaller ones bankrupt in order to be bought up by the larger ones, as per neoliberal business as usual). Then there's the sub-prime mortgages from residents who simply can't ever pay it back - the flood solves that problem and the mortgage company (debt-owner) might be able to claw it back via insurance.
Then there's the July 4 coincidence - combine this with all these hero stories and you have 'isn't America great (again)!'. It also serves as an MSM headline distraction from any other ongoing stories they may wish to suppress.
Just a few thoughts there. If you don't like them, I have others.
Evelyn, my response to your comment citing extracts of it:
"First, you should be wary of drawing the logical fallacy conclusion along the lines of 'the existence of a few fake stories/images etc. means ALL of it was fake."
From my post:
"I’m not going to make the same claims for the Guadelupe River flood as I make for 9/11 because at this stage I have no strong sense of how much is real and how much is fake. "
"In general, my research shows no clear evidence of genuine rescue although I wouldn’t argue it didn’t happen, of course.
Any other anomalies or clear evidence of rescue from readers welcome."
You: "I do think you should try and accept the psychological fact sometimes that the bad guys not only have zero compassion or pity or concern for normal people, but also they pathologically get off on seeing pain and suffering. If they 'fake' everything, then they are denying themselves that - and this undermines their addiction."
Where do I give any indication that I don't accept the bad guys have zero compassion? The evidence is abundant that they don't in their injuring, maiming and killing of people with the jab and the other inhumane measures enforced during the scamdemic (still going, in fact) ... apart from so many other examples.
SO LET ME MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR WHERE I THINK THEY FAKE STUFF:
WHERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THEY DO, OK, WHERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THEY ARE FAKING IT AND SO OFTEN THEY TELL US THEY'RE FAKING IT WITH THEIR REVELATION OF THE METHOD.
I've looked at a reasonable number of rescue / survivor stories and I will say that not all of them have the very obvious RoM we see in the examples in my post (at least undetected by me), however, not one of them is particularly convincing and some of them lack credibility. It is my surmise that not a single child was in any camp at any time during the flood and that it was known the flood was going to happen well in sufficient time to evacuate children from camps. It is my judgment that in an area known as Flash Flood Valley that children would be evacuated at the very first hint of any problem arising if for no other reason than that would be part of the camps' insurance contracts.
If there's SOME fakery in the rescue / survivor stories, Evelyn, that says that it was very well anticipated - whether deliberately made to happen or natural or a combination of both perhaps - and if it was anticipated then there's simply no reason to think that full evacuation wasn't conducted. Doesn't mean it was, however, there doesn't appear to be clear evidence that it wasn't. If you have any, let me know.
I think it's especially true in this case about evacuation and forewarning etc. Like, are we supposed to believe they can't predict the weather anymore?! Sure, you can maybe only predict it a few days in advance but that's more than enough time.
Perhaps it would be worth looking in the recent past (of the camp, I mean, i.e. say the last 50 years) for any other instances of flash floods leading to people dying and missing - or is it that every time there is one they evacuate in time. If so - they're a bunch of liars.
'Which reminds us the south fork of the Guadalupe is a very small river, about the width of a four-lane in most places. It isn't the Nile. Which is why these places weren't even considered flood plain: they had never flooded before like this in history. Mystic has been around for almost a century and nothing like this ever happened before. You will say they didn't have cloud seeding until recently, which is true, but that is another part of the story that looks manufactured. The speed with which this was assigned to cloudseeding gone wrong is astonishing, with places like Infowars digging up government documents within 24 hours. How does Alex Jones have immediate access to stuff like this? He was doing it again yesterday, claiming he just got off the phone that morning with insiders at the Pentagon, CIA, and the White House, who confirmed the Epstein cover-up was due to internal wars in the Intelligence agencies. What? Why would those sources be taking calls from Alex Jones? Marjorie Taylor Greene almost immediately called for a ban on all weather modification. Does Congress normally work that fast? No, so that part of the story looks manufactured as well. The whole thing stinks of another vast Phoenician project, part of the purpose of which appears to bail out these rich camp people, and part of which is the usual promotion of civil war."
I read the full M/2 piece. Now I have been getting on top of my TBR list, I will have to resume my M/2 reading.
Glad to see he/they are using more humour. There were some great little lines in there (especially the one about the guy who rescued 165 girls only having one head). Maybe they've been reading my own stuff for inspiration and don't want to be outdone. If so, I'll mutter something about imitation and flattery.
If only Miles didn't present as such a nasty, misogynist, incel-esque transphobic bigot then I'd really, really like him. Hell, I might even send a postcard (peel away the back) to VX asking for a position on the effing committee. I'm sure the pay is pretty good.
That's very impressive, even by M/2's standards. (I'm calling the MM Committee M/2 from now on).
I wasn't aware of the stuff about people linking it with weather modification - mainly because I don't watch the news I suppose (and I don't live in America, thank the Goddess). Makes a lot of sense though. Especially that bit about the river being very narrow. Mind you a narrow bit of the river is a perfect place to create a flood, if you think about it, so maybe M/2 is doing a bit of sleight of hand there.
Still, glad he answered my question about whether anything like this has happened before. I think the fact it hasn't (if true) is one of the most telling aspects. And 'bailing out these rich people' - I agree. If there really are children 'missing', then this is a perfect way to 'abduct' them, following 'indoctrination' (both at home, and then at these camps). i.e. to disappear them into the Network (or the cabal, I mean, to undergo the next phase of their 'training'). All very dark stuff ultimately.
I like the jab at Alex Jones as well. That's always welcome. I think everyone knows he's CIA now though, don't they? Why does anyone take the guy seriously anymore? And why hasn't AJ talked about indoctrination at these camps and child abuse and all that stuff - I thought that was one of his big things. Mind you, again, I don't really follow him so he may have mentioned it.
The physical world is a direct outgrowth or appendage of the spiritual world. Lacking feeling for objective spiritual science (companion to natural science), material events can be perceived totally differently. Thinking, which makes sense of five-sense perception, will also be askew. Rudolph Steiner, founder of Anthroposophy, lectured that humans who lack a spiritual connection are literally ill. Healing is simply relinking to spiritual truth.
I'm not disputing the flooding, I'm only suggesting because of the clearly fake rescue stories and a lack of any that seem particularly convincing, that the area was - if not fully evacuated - much better evacuated than the media would have us believe. And if this is the case then it would seem they had very good warning or else they were really well prepared for such an event which seems a reasonable possibility considering this type of event is common as you say.
But I don't necessarily believe the numbers of dead and missing that they give us. Why should I? I know these numbers are lied about in so many other instances.
perhaps it would be enlightening for you to live in and during a flash flood, then you would know the reality people lived through. I lived through one and nearly died twice... its funny to post like you do but its totally wrong. Are you scared of your own shadow? This ws in the night, pitch black due to the heavy clouds, and few left in time as they know the area, while others were rudely awakened from their sleep to find they were starting to float down river... many are dead in their vehicles and RV's... If it was not for one man saving me and Mike during the flood we were in, we would also be dead. People save each other, not agencies or government... Agencies and government come in days after and save no one. I know media can no longer be trusted. But I live here, and know that you will never hear of all the hero stories that took place. Ever. Why because its not scary enough to use for propaganda.
Let's get things straight. I believe you when you say you and your husband were saved in a flood and that these events can be very scary and dangerous and that people certainly have died in them. However, judging by the fake rescue stories on this particular event it seems that there was simply sufficient warning to evacuate most if not all people. I cannot say I understand how they do it but that would seem to be the case.
I absolutely do not believe for one second there were any children at Camp Mystic.
Why don't you, Pete, and get back to me. What you require for a convincing case is obviously completely different from what I require.
I work very much on "burden of proof". The burden of proof is not on me to disprove the media story, the burden of proof is on the media to prove THEIR story ... and they don't do that and they make it easy for us to see that they don't do it because of their Revelation of the Method rule. I don't know why RoM doesn't work for others the way it works for me.
Edits to this post:
1. Addition of links to articles by Kitten, Gemma O'Doherty, Miles Mathis and Morgan Chase.
2. Addition of links re Mikki Willis.
3. Addition of examples of first-day-on-the-job for both 9/11 and Guadelupe.
it also wouldn’t surprise me if this was a planned event to stall the elimination of FEMA
The hero stuff makes the audience think, "wow there are so many great people in this world", as opposed to, "these are engineered attacks".
Same as the "lets roll!" guys on UA 93 on 9.11 which obviously did not fall into the ground, but for those who can't let that go, well it wasn't dug up, so it must not have fallen into the ground even if you think it could (which is nonsense anyway).
Yes, it's a supremely effective misdirection technique.
And it would be very rude to the heroes and victims to claim it was fake, so don't go there.
T-o-t-a-l-l-y.
But maybe just one among several sporadic cases of grifters?
The analysis needs more data, if not just for the sake of argument.
PM, check out a late addition to the post at the end on Mikki Willis.
OMG, blatant acting and bad at that. Mikki is a COINTELPRO operative and these folks crisis actors. How much LOVE did their daughter have? Enough to make Mikki's wife nearly breakout in laughter in the vid. Great pick-up Petra!
But maybe just one among several sporadic cases of grifters?
The analysis needs more data.
"... well it wasn't dug up, so it must not have fallen into the ground even if you think it could (which is nonsense anyway)."
The FBI would beg to differ, since they claim to have dug up "95%" of UA93 inside and near that Shanksville crater, which was more than what they found in the other crash sites.
But knowing that these people have lied so much about 9/11, we have no reason to believe they recovered anywhere near that amount.
Same with their claim of finding and identifying the dead from there (with the exception of the hijackers, oddly enough).
" ... we have no reason to believe they recovered anywhere near that amount."
As the evidence for the crash in the first place is non-existent we have no reason to believe they dug up anything at all.
My favorite item on Shanksville below. It's sobering to think that this could be the work of controlled operatives just as the song, Free Fallin', on WTC-7 most definitely is.
Hoodwinked at Shanksville - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2_em8G6DJE
Free Fallin' - https://youtu.be/Vgx8Uwo-Vxc
Not to mention the "miracle" finds from there such as CeeCee Lyles's and Ziad Jarrah's IDs. Or the lack of jet fuel at the crash site, a rare phenomenon in itself. It's one of the greatest fairytales ever told.
You have a point but a crime site should be completely dug up AND the parts spread out in a large bldg and categorized like any crime scene. I know a family whose member "died" in that plane, and when they go visit the scene they are told it would be too much for families so they don't show anything they dug up. So you can see the site and the memorial but not a wing or fuselage. It's all BS because planes don't sink into the ground, they break on the surface, maybe some small piece goes into the ground?
"You have a point but a crime site should be completely dug up AND the parts spread out in a large bldg and categorized like any crime scene."
They didn't even bother identifying ANY of the plane debris recovered from ANY of the crash sites as belonging to the aircraft in question via their serial numbers, much less taking the extra step of assembling them back together like they did with TWA800. Same with them neglecting to actually identify the hijackers or revealing who they really identified. That's how sloppy their "investigations" were.
"I know a family whose member "died" in that plane, and when they go visit the scene they are told it would be too much for families so they don't show anything they dug up. So you can see the site and the memorial but not a wing or fuselage."
Reminds me of how the FBI initially refused to show the Flight 93 families the CVR recording from the plane, saying it would be too painful for them to listen to and it would interfere with their "investigation" if they did allow them to hear its contents. They would only allow the families to privately listen to the tape after heavy pressure from them, under the condition that they won't reveal or write down what exactly was heard from the CVR.
And btw, no serial numbers are provided for either "black boxes" purported to be from United 93, either, so there's no way to verify that they indeed came from the plane. Same with American 77's "black boxes."
"It's all BS because planes don't sink into the ground, they break on the surface, maybe some small piece goes into the ground?"
If any plane debris burrowed into the ground, they would be heavy pieces such as engines. But even that wasn't really the case with UA93, since apparently one of its engines was only buried a few feet into the ground and another one flew off upon impact and rolled hundreds of yards away from the crater, with conflicting accounts saying it was either found in the woods, the bushes, or a lake nearby.
And don't get me started with the absence of jet fuel, a rare phenomenon in itself.
Thanks JC, I agree with all you have said yes. About the buried engines, I can’t remember exactly but they were either not the right make to fit with that kind of plane (or was that the engine they found (planted) on Murray (?) street in NYC?), or they were in a strange place in the ground for a plane that supposedly fell into the ground. It’s been 5-6 yrs since I went over that info so I don’t remember exactly, but the whole thing is 2+2=5 BS yes.
And since you claim to know relatives of one of the United 93 victims, have they expressed any thoughts about what happened in Shanksville and the aftermath? Do they have any doubts about the official story concerning Flight 93 or 9/11 in general?
I'm also curious to know if you're in touch with loved ones of victims from the other flights involved?
I wouldn't call the so-called passengers "victims", I call them "persons who seem to have disappeared" but they may not have disappeared. There was a woman who "died" on one of the planes who looks exactly like the woman her husband remarried, I can't find that info anymore. If you know it please tell, me. I will also ask Petra.
I only know one relative of UA 93. This person was a believer of the official story and said their family was too and still is, and they have visited the memorial together. Most people I know, my own relatives etc., they all believe the official story of 9.11 and Covid, etc. and there is no convincing them otherwise. I have known this person from before 9.11, still know them, and believe this person is telling me the truth that their relative is missing and what their family believes. I personally believe these missing persons are part of a society/fraternity where following orders to do certain things is part of their allegiance to the organization even if it means ditching their families and that they have been given new identities.
The person I know, after reading and talking with me, went thru phases of confusion, and now is sure things were scammed. How, is still a bit confusing to them but they do believe a crash would result in fuselage on the ground and digging up anything in the earth. They have not confronted their family as they want to avoid any conflict with them. Even a relative of mine-not immediate family- escaped one of the Towers on 9.11. They don't really engage in discussion on what was behind 9.11 and I do not push it. I don't know any other family of flight passengers. You may know that families of the missing passengers were given a lot of $ in damages, I think it was from a pay-out or settlement from a suit with Saudi Arabia.
Here is a link, I don't believe all of this is true, the original site is off line, but it gives some good info still about what might have happened to passengers and what relatives might do or think.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170325192740/http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/the-911-passenger-conspiracy-paradox-of.html
I find the coverage of this “flood” the opposite of the NC floods last year. They did not pre evacuate people in our area near Asheville. They also did not update the death count……
This is the first flood I've ever looked at where I've noticed fake rescue stories. We had big floods in northern NSW a few years ago and the rescue stories seemed very real. In 2011, there was a big flood in Brisbane where the dam overflowed. This was very much a predicted event in the couple of weeks or so beforehand and a friend of mine was living in a house that got flooded but was evacuated well before the flood event. But guess what? This happened before I had a clue about anything. I just looked it up to see exactly when it happened and I see that the death figure is 33. Hmmm. So this was a highly predicted event seemingly just like this Guadelupe River event.
I think my sister in law helped out with those floods in Brisbane. Clearly it's possible to have floods without 33 people dying. Why do they like that number? It doesn't mean shit in the real world! If it was me I'd choose the number 31, which is the first five octaves of the harmonic series, so it does exist in nature. 108 is another, which is something to do with protons.
'666' is Mark of The Beast'. They sneaky, so they often use '66'.
Thirty-three is only half-evil. Ha-ha-ha.
lol
The story of the guy saving 165 people on the first day of his job reminds me of the story of the FAA official who grounded thousands of flights on his first day working on 9/11. That older story was probably just as fake. You should include and dissect that story in this post, too.
"As terrorists seized control of four airplanes on Sept. 11th, 2001, Ben Sliney, chief of air-traffic-control operations at the FAA's command center in Herndon, Va., gave the unprecedented order to ground 4,000-plus planes across the nation and redirect any in the sky to the nearest airport. It was his first day on the job."
https://www.jalopnik.com/man-who-grounded-4-000-planes-on-9-11-was-on-first-day-5838772/
You're a 9/11 treasure trove, Jane.
"First day on the job" is a bit of a psyop motif. I shall edit my post to include and I might also replace some of my text on Scott with that of Miles Mathis as his is entertaining and generally better.
Oh, you're so flattering. I appreciate that.
And you're more than welcome to use my material, provided you credit me for sharing what I found, as usual.
Jane, I've quoted the jalopnik article (with thanks to you) and also replaced my stuff on Scott Rusnak with MM's.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
And what's ironic about this story is that the claim made by the magazine Jalopnik that Sliney's decision "was his and his alone to make" is essentially contradicted by other sources such as the 9/11 Commission Report and Wikipedia that say he acted under "the advice of an experienced staff of air traffic controllers and traffic managers" who lent him their assistance that day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Sliney#Actions_on_September_11,_2001
Yes, different versions bamboozling people is a psyop feature.
I asked ChatGPT where Apollo 13 commander, Jim Lovell, was at the time of the alleged explosion on the mission. It told me "inside the Command Module".
I responded that in an interview he said he was in the tunnel between the lunar module and command module dealing with tv cables. It came back saying yes you're right he was in the tunnel.
I responded that in an article it said that Fred Haise was in the tunnel. It responded yes you're right.
It's final words:
"Therefore, while Lovell was not in the tunnel at the exact moment of the explosion, he was nearby in the Command Module, and Haise was the one in the tunnel handling equipment from the broadcast."
But Jim Lovell said he was in the tunnel and surely he knew where he was ... assuming it happened.
https://chatgpt.com/share/683af411-c5ec-800a-99f4-8a65586a5e67
Whenever a story doesn't add up, I call bullshit. Seems this story is no exception.
Yes the fatal error people make is "allowing" bullshit. As soon as you've got bullshit you've got a big fat lie.
Or, even worse, immersing themselves in bullshit.
Once you let the first lie slide by you're done for.
When i used to watch TV, i would watch Judge Judy and she has a saying that goes... "If it doesn't make sense, it's not true." It's stood the test of time.
Love this quote. I shall add it to my arsenal. Thank you ... and will put it at the top of this post.
TBF, they do say that Sliney had "25 years of experience in air traffic control as part of FAA management", so he obviously wasn't a newbie to the profession by 2001. I could see him possibly redirecting and grounding a few dozen flights when given the chance; but the story that he managed to redirect and ground thousands of flights in a day is still a bit of stretch, in my book, especially in light of the fact this never happened before or since 9/11.
And does anyone in their right minds really believe that no one else in the FAA besides Sliney ever thought to halt all air traffic once the attacks took place, especially after the second attack in New York? It never came to anybody's minds there to do the obviously sensible decision that could - and did - minimize the scale and deadliness of the attacks?
Also, here's another tidbit from the article that made me chuckle. He was so lauded for his "heroism" that the producers of the 2006 propaganda flick "United 93" asked Sliney to play himself, which - in the words of the article - "he did." To quote:
"In fact, it's such a great story that when Universal Pictures decided to turn the heroism of the passengers of United Flight 93 into a movie, they not only didn't overlook Sliney's role — they asked him to play himself in the movie. Which he did."
How "gutsy", indeed, to borrow the bluff piece's vernacular.
No Epstein list, no chemtails....what next, no Santa. I'm so disillusioned.
You’re spelling the river wrong...it’s Guadalupe...doesn’t help the credibility of your claims, just sayin
Thanks for that correction. Very strange because I actually checked the spelling but obviously simply read the word incorrectly.
they didnt use the local fire brigade for the manchester arena hoax…definitely a sign of a hoax to look out for
People died in the WTC on 9/11 and in Kerrville at Camp Mystic on 7/4/2025.
It really is a fantastic fantasy to believe that all those people faked their deaths and all their family and friends went along with it. We are talking tens of thousands of people and not one of them has ever broken ranks and said it was all faked.
Not to mention this is incredibly disrespectful for anyone to use the losses of others to support their fantasies.
Find a jigsaw puzzle to put together and occupy your time. IDK. But not this.
Where is your evidence?
I have written to you at least half a dozen times already that I know people who died on 9/11.
You choose to claim my direct knowledge isn't proof.
I am claiming that your distant perch and lack of direct experience renders your opinion a fantasy fueled belief.
I have also been to Kerrville and know the area. To believe all those people could have been evacuated without anyone in the area witnessing such a large endeavor is not possible.
As I've also written to you prior, find the NYC subway tallies for 9/11. That alone would tell you a great deal. There was a huge subway terminal in the basement of the WTC that virtually all workers in the buildings used to travel to work. If those receipts for the morning of 9/11 were down by 3,000 or so riders, you would have a stronger argument that the buildings were empty.
But, you don't take my suggestions on how you could prove your fantasy to be reality and instead cling to something you've over invested yourself into.
Fine. It's your choice. Refusing to learn is stupid.
Yes, but I've responded that "knowing people" doesn't constitute evidence for the reality of death.
Actor and comedian, Greg Fleet, knew the father he grew up with and thought he died when he had simply faked his death. It's an interesting story because when the father is found to be still alive his wife actually takes him back ... but then he disappears again.
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/gone-daddy-gone-years-after-being-presumed-dead-greg-fleets-father-was-found-alive-20150824-gj6eev.html
I'm friends with the mother of twins who are both friends with two people who allegedly died in two different events in Australia - amazing coincidence! - which bear all the clear signs of psyops. They went to their funerals. The sisters also went to the same school as the alleged Christchurch shooter.
I know other people who know people who've allegedly died in events including 9/11. I know someone whose insurance agent allegedly died in one of the towers.
Knowing people doesn't in the least persuade me of the reality of death because it is perfectly consistent with both the fake and the real hypotheses. It wouldn't be possible for people participating in these events not to know people.
Obviously, if people participate as victims they will know people and while they might (or might not) tell their nearest and dearest they will certainly not be telling everyone they know.
I am not proposing no one has ever faked their death. I am saying just because there is an isolated faked death here and there does not prove many thousands of people faked their deaths.
That doesn't make any logical sense.
To pull off the logistics of faking that many deaths and all the ancillary faked disappearances of family, etc., since most people would not choose to leave their families behind is not logical.
To fake event after event after event and all the logistics involved and people kept alive to tell the truth makes no sense.
You seem stuck on one note in life and I will leave you to it.
Another thing, PS.
Do you think that the power elite would respect societal taboos or exploit them?
Exploit them, right?
Yes, they exploit societal taboos and make it so it is very difficult for people to call out "fake death" because that's considered disrespectful. I remember the first time I told a friend about the Sandy Hook fakery. He got angry and told me to go over to the US and knock on the door of one of those parents and tell them just so they could punch me in the face. It puzzled me because I didn't have a sense of taboo around death, I didn't know people considered it offensive to say someone wasn't dead even though they were claimed to be. But I soon learnt.
What's disrespectful is the way that we are lied to and lied to and lied to and lied to so when it comes to the power elite one cannot afford to respect something that they exploit.
If those of us who don't believe in death and injury are wrong let it be so, don't censor it because it's disrespectful.
Thousands of people didn't fake their own deaths because quite a number were made up. https://fakeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/9-11-9-the-Vicsim-Report.pdf
If your ONLY evidence is knowing people it's not much is it? I mean if they really killed 3,000 people and injured 6,000 then surely there would be ample evidence you could point to - that's 9,000 people we're talking about - surely there would be convincing evidence out there - but what you've put forward so far are:
1. You know people (however, I don't accept this as evidence because it is EXPECTED in the fake hypothesis that people will know people and I myself know people who know people in a number of these events including 9/11)
2. The false assumption that the fake hypothesis would mean thousands of people faked their deaths.
When I believe something to be true I like all the pieces of the puzzle to fit that belief ... and for 9/11 all the pieces fit perfectly.
It's all explained in numerous articles and films on my 9/11 page.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911
This is a 1-hour film made by a Russian couple Olga and Slava Klimova which I highly recommend. I'm not sure they get everything right but they get an awful lot right.
You need to take a proper look, PS.
https://archive.org/details/911FraudAndTerrorAgendaEarthlyFireFlies.org
According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, Kerrville and surrounding area were in a severe prolonged drought that nobody is mentioning.
The people who believe in obvious lies such as a man saving 165 people from a flood on his first rescue mission are the same people who believe there are $1 villas in Italy for sale. Or the ones who believe hijackers who could barely fly Cessnas somehow managed to pilot Boeing 767s and 757s into their targets with only one case of failure.
Well I do believe there are $1 properties for sale in Italy, Jane, not necessarily villas though - old, abandoned houses in remote places which are sold for $1 but with the caveat that money must be spent to restore them. It's not that I know it's true, however, to me it doesn't seem implausible because it seems reasonable to me that people abandon places, old people die and their kids aren't interested, no one wants to buy, etc. Also, like Japan, Italy's population is declining so property in certain places will simply have no value.
I've watched a few videos of an Australian woman, Chani, who's moved to Japan. She bought a house in Wakayama for AUD20,000 (USD13,000) and spent about AUD20,000 fixing it - so AUD40,000 (USD26,000) total. She says the house actually has no value, only the land and even though she's fixed it up and made it perfectly livable, seemingly the house is still considered to have no value because the Japanese don't want old, not particularly well-built houses any more.
Another interesting thing I've learnt about buying Japanese houses is that often the deal is that you take the house as is with everything in it because disposing of stuff in Japan is considered a big hassle. I watched a video where all sorts of treasures were left behind - old kimonos and the traditional black wigs.
Wakayama seems an attractive, livable city (pop 350,000) on the water, an hour from Osaka to which there is a train line. The notion that you could even remotely get a house anywhere near AUD40,000 in Australia in an equivalent location is utterly laughable even though we're a much smaller population in a much bigger country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjMA8rbIohU&list=PLr8jJHrLxSwyOsOQ9uW9f-x9JdRHNmE0y&index=23
What I meant by "people who believe there are $1 villas in Italy" is that there are those who naively think these houses are truly cheap bargains when they are not. They're really scams that end up costing a lot of money in repair and maintenance fees, money which could've been spent on buying a decent villa (in some cases for even less). Not surprising since this comes from the same country that brought us the Mob (no offense intended to all Italians, btw).
It's a good example of "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." It's akin to selling the Brooklyn Bridge for $1, with the subtle catch that the buyer will end up still wasting shit tons of money in the long run just for the maintenance of the bridge. If I had to make a choice, I would rather pay good money for a nice house and spend less on maintenance and/or repair in the long run.
A few things occur to me, all speculative and all quite intriguing IMO.
First, you should be wary of drawing the logical fallacy conclusion along the lines of 'the existence of a few fake stories/images etc. means ALL of it was fake.' Or worded slightly differently, 'existence of a few bits of fakery precludes the existence of the real'. This is a logical fallacy of course - especially when the bad guys do like to insert falsehoods within a list of truths, or vice versa, a few truths within a litany of lies. Because the logical possibility is that 'both are true'. That's to say, there are 'true' rescue and survival stories, but also fake ones.
Why they do this is another question, with many answers.
Second, I do think you should try and accept the psychological fact sometimes that the bad guys not only have zero compassion or pity or concern for normal people, but also they pathologically get off on seeing pain and suffering. If they 'fake' everything, then they are denying themselves that - and this undermines their addiction. Once you understand that it is, absolutely, an addiction, then you can readily understand and accept that they do not fake everything. In fact, most things would not be faked. Some things would, sure, but not everything. As soon as you start to say they fake most things then you are essentially 'humanising' them, or rehabilitating them. Like 'oh we didn't really want to hurt anyone on 9/11' - which is absurd, given the genocide it allowed them to do afterwards.
I think this is a vitally important point to remember. And it will help to analyse an event correctly. In fact it relates to my first point above - the existence of 'real' and 'fakery' in the same event.
It also raises an interesting speculation about whether this sudden flash flood was indeed artificially triggered. There are obvious reasons why they'd do that, not just because they enjoy seeing people suffer, but you're also talking massive profit opportunities afterwards in clean-up etc. Maybe they also wanted to fuck over some of the insurance companies (e.g. send the smaller ones bankrupt in order to be bought up by the larger ones, as per neoliberal business as usual). Then there's the sub-prime mortgages from residents who simply can't ever pay it back - the flood solves that problem and the mortgage company (debt-owner) might be able to claw it back via insurance.
Then there's the July 4 coincidence - combine this with all these hero stories and you have 'isn't America great (again)!'. It also serves as an MSM headline distraction from any other ongoing stories they may wish to suppress.
Just a few thoughts there. If you don't like them, I have others.
Evelyn, my response to your comment citing extracts of it:
"First, you should be wary of drawing the logical fallacy conclusion along the lines of 'the existence of a few fake stories/images etc. means ALL of it was fake."
From my post:
"I’m not going to make the same claims for the Guadelupe River flood as I make for 9/11 because at this stage I have no strong sense of how much is real and how much is fake. "
"In general, my research shows no clear evidence of genuine rescue although I wouldn’t argue it didn’t happen, of course.
Any other anomalies or clear evidence of rescue from readers welcome."
You: "I do think you should try and accept the psychological fact sometimes that the bad guys not only have zero compassion or pity or concern for normal people, but also they pathologically get off on seeing pain and suffering. If they 'fake' everything, then they are denying themselves that - and this undermines their addiction."
Where do I give any indication that I don't accept the bad guys have zero compassion? The evidence is abundant that they don't in their injuring, maiming and killing of people with the jab and the other inhumane measures enforced during the scamdemic (still going, in fact) ... apart from so many other examples.
SO LET ME MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR WHERE I THINK THEY FAKE STUFF:
WHERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THEY DO, OK, WHERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THEY ARE FAKING IT AND SO OFTEN THEY TELL US THEY'RE FAKING IT WITH THEIR REVELATION OF THE METHOD.
I've looked at a reasonable number of rescue / survivor stories and I will say that not all of them have the very obvious RoM we see in the examples in my post (at least undetected by me), however, not one of them is particularly convincing and some of them lack credibility. It is my surmise that not a single child was in any camp at any time during the flood and that it was known the flood was going to happen well in sufficient time to evacuate children from camps. It is my judgment that in an area known as Flash Flood Valley that children would be evacuated at the very first hint of any problem arising if for no other reason than that would be part of the camps' insurance contracts.
If there's SOME fakery in the rescue / survivor stories, Evelyn, that says that it was very well anticipated - whether deliberately made to happen or natural or a combination of both perhaps - and if it was anticipated then there's simply no reason to think that full evacuation wasn't conducted. Doesn't mean it was, however, there doesn't appear to be clear evidence that it wasn't. If you have any, let me know.
All excellent points, Petra. Accepted.
I think it's especially true in this case about evacuation and forewarning etc. Like, are we supposed to believe they can't predict the weather anymore?! Sure, you can maybe only predict it a few days in advance but that's more than enough time.
Perhaps it would be worth looking in the recent past (of the camp, I mean, i.e. say the last 50 years) for any other instances of flash floods leading to people dying and missing - or is it that every time there is one they evacuate in time. If so - they're a bunch of liars.
Miles Mathis has written an interesting post which speaks quite a bit about Camp Mystic. Excerpt below:
https://mileswmathis.com/flood.pdf
'Which reminds us the south fork of the Guadalupe is a very small river, about the width of a four-lane in most places. It isn't the Nile. Which is why these places weren't even considered flood plain: they had never flooded before like this in history. Mystic has been around for almost a century and nothing like this ever happened before. You will say they didn't have cloud seeding until recently, which is true, but that is another part of the story that looks manufactured. The speed with which this was assigned to cloudseeding gone wrong is astonishing, with places like Infowars digging up government documents within 24 hours. How does Alex Jones have immediate access to stuff like this? He was doing it again yesterday, claiming he just got off the phone that morning with insiders at the Pentagon, CIA, and the White House, who confirmed the Epstein cover-up was due to internal wars in the Intelligence agencies. What? Why would those sources be taking calls from Alex Jones? Marjorie Taylor Greene almost immediately called for a ban on all weather modification. Does Congress normally work that fast? No, so that part of the story looks manufactured as well. The whole thing stinks of another vast Phoenician project, part of the purpose of which appears to bail out these rich camp people, and part of which is the usual promotion of civil war."
I read the full M/2 piece. Now I have been getting on top of my TBR list, I will have to resume my M/2 reading.
Glad to see he/they are using more humour. There were some great little lines in there (especially the one about the guy who rescued 165 girls only having one head). Maybe they've been reading my own stuff for inspiration and don't want to be outdone. If so, I'll mutter something about imitation and flattery.
If only Miles didn't present as such a nasty, misogynist, incel-esque transphobic bigot then I'd really, really like him. Hell, I might even send a postcard (peel away the back) to VX asking for a position on the effing committee. I'm sure the pay is pretty good.
Yeah, the Scott Ruskan story was pretty funny.
What does VX stand for, Evelyn?
Vauxhall Cross - where the MI6 building is.
That's very impressive, even by M/2's standards. (I'm calling the MM Committee M/2 from now on).
I wasn't aware of the stuff about people linking it with weather modification - mainly because I don't watch the news I suppose (and I don't live in America, thank the Goddess). Makes a lot of sense though. Especially that bit about the river being very narrow. Mind you a narrow bit of the river is a perfect place to create a flood, if you think about it, so maybe M/2 is doing a bit of sleight of hand there.
Still, glad he answered my question about whether anything like this has happened before. I think the fact it hasn't (if true) is one of the most telling aspects. And 'bailing out these rich people' - I agree. If there really are children 'missing', then this is a perfect way to 'abduct' them, following 'indoctrination' (both at home, and then at these camps). i.e. to disappear them into the Network (or the cabal, I mean, to undergo the next phase of their 'training'). All very dark stuff ultimately.
I like the jab at Alex Jones as well. That's always welcome. I think everyone knows he's CIA now though, don't they? Why does anyone take the guy seriously anymore? And why hasn't AJ talked about indoctrination at these camps and child abuse and all that stuff - I thought that was one of his big things. Mind you, again, I don't really follow him so he may have mentioned it.
Americans, eh.
This writer does a good job pulling some historical data. https://substack.com/@deepdive2/p-167689516
Thanks, Nick. I've added the post to my post.
That's an excellent and succinct post that one. Always good to have some proper scientific evidence. Thanks for the link!
The physical world is a direct outgrowth or appendage of the spiritual world. Lacking feeling for objective spiritual science (companion to natural science), material events can be perceived totally differently. Thinking, which makes sense of five-sense perception, will also be askew. Rudolph Steiner, founder of Anthroposophy, lectured that humans who lack a spiritual connection are literally ill. Healing is simply relinking to spiritual truth.
I'm not disputing the flooding, I'm only suggesting because of the clearly fake rescue stories and a lack of any that seem particularly convincing, that the area was - if not fully evacuated - much better evacuated than the media would have us believe. And if this is the case then it would seem they had very good warning or else they were really well prepared for such an event which seems a reasonable possibility considering this type of event is common as you say.
But I don't necessarily believe the numbers of dead and missing that they give us. Why should I? I know these numbers are lied about in so many other instances.
perhaps it would be enlightening for you to live in and during a flash flood, then you would know the reality people lived through. I lived through one and nearly died twice... its funny to post like you do but its totally wrong. Are you scared of your own shadow? This ws in the night, pitch black due to the heavy clouds, and few left in time as they know the area, while others were rudely awakened from their sleep to find they were starting to float down river... many are dead in their vehicles and RV's... If it was not for one man saving me and Mike during the flood we were in, we would also be dead. People save each other, not agencies or government... Agencies and government come in days after and save no one. I know media can no longer be trusted. But I live here, and know that you will never hear of all the hero stories that took place. Ever. Why because its not scary enough to use for propaganda.
Let's get things straight. I believe you when you say you and your husband were saved in a flood and that these events can be very scary and dangerous and that people certainly have died in them. However, judging by the fake rescue stories on this particular event it seems that there was simply sufficient warning to evacuate most if not all people. I cannot say I understand how they do it but that would seem to be the case.
I absolutely do not believe for one second there were any children at Camp Mystic.
You can investigate all those kids and their friends have social media accounts. If not just for the sake of argument.
Why don't you, Pete, and get back to me. What you require for a convincing case is obviously completely different from what I require.
I work very much on "burden of proof". The burden of proof is not on me to disprove the media story, the burden of proof is on the media to prove THEIR story ... and they don't do that and they make it easy for us to see that they don't do it because of their Revelation of the Method rule. I don't know why RoM doesn't work for others the way it works for me.
1) So if there’s no RoM it’s not fake?
2) What if what you call “RoM” is just some stuff embedded to signal to The Ai Machine that fake?