In 2001, I was a recent immigrant to the US and a law student. A friend of mine, a son of a military attaché in the American Embassy in Moscow i.e. a spy, told me that 9/11 was an inside job. I thought he must have had a drinking problem. Then I got a job at the US Treasury and observed how everyone knew that a financial crisis was in the making and no one did anything to prevent it or mitigate it. I did not know that the American government would be willing to destroy so many of its own people. Sixteen years later, after reporting my manager to the union, which is a protected action by the American federal law, I was fired from my job and had a plenty of time to watch YouTube videos, now all removed, showing towers' speedy fall that defied the laws of physics. So, after seeing one psyop, you can see others. My sister in my home country does not believe there are psyops.
Foreknowledge. They stoked it. The Federal Reserve deliberately tightened the money supply in the year leading up to Sept 2008 and Lehman Brothers. I used to have the papers on this as I was much more into following finance back then and got them from someone who had chronicled the Fed's actions during those 12 months. In those days there was a fantastically sophisticated discourse on sites like ZeroHedge with lots of once upon a time bond dealers spilling the beans because they now had plenty of time on their hands, so this was good stuff.
It was unmistakeably deliberate. But then of course it was. It was designed to be one of the great heists of all time, with Hank Paulson extorting Congress with the menaces of countrywide depression and troops on the street. Not only did they get $770 billion from Congress straight away but they also got a licence to do whatever they wished in the financial markets; an opportunity they took full advantage of by creating around $20 Trillion in new money from nowhere. It was a set piece and a jewel in their crown of thievery, just like covid was and 9/11 before it. (9/11 also allowed Alan Greenspan to drop interest rates to 2% and in doing so saved the banking industry from its excesses in the dotcom boom.)
No, that was always there. Cor, I’m getting rusty; ‘cos when I wrote that I had *completely* forgotten about the packaged mortgages, even though I lived every minute of that crisis and was friends with the person who did the first two of them at Merill Lynch. I even saw their listing particulars before they were issued. One was for The Mortgage Company and the other was for The Household something. I remember thinking (and probably saying) what a good idea idea it was and how that was exactly how technical finance should be done. Hahaha!
A really interesting adjunct to this, and which got them given a LOT of latitude, is that it was the US Govt that essentially showed the banks how to repackage mortgages, or at least affirm that it was OK in their eyes. The earlier Savings & Loan crisis had left the USG with a ton of mortgages on their books which they wanted to get rid of and this was how they did it. The government almost held their hand while they did it, so no one could really complain when the banks did it for themselves.
I can’t believe I had forgotten this was another of their bonanzas! And, once again, no one took a pay cut.
Very interesting. So the thing is - if I remember the film correctly - the guy who bet on their failure seemed to be the only one who could see it coming.
I don't think I've seen the film but IRL I think everyone saw it coming; they just didn't know where it was going to hit. This is why the Fed tightening worked so well. The overnight lending market had completely siezed up with no one lending to anyone else for fear of the size of the hole in their balance sheet. This is a concern with all banks, all of the time, as they are generally always trading while insolvent, not just because of the CDO market and the obvious fraud of rating these bonds Triple 'A'. There are plenty of derivative markets that are zero sum games across the sector and while we hear plenty about the profits it's not often that we hear from the counterparties who took the loss. My suspicion is that every bank has a massive black hole at its centre and as long as it's not discovered they can keep on using that amount of money as additional capital. They are also very aware that a massive problem today is going to be about half its size in 6 or 7 years time, and inconsequentially small in a few decades - or just a couple of decades if an actual crisis arises and brings its attendant inflation. So they always take the bet and go for the cover-up, 'cos there's nothing they can't drag out for 20 years.
Deliberately. Without question. One easy confirmation of this trying out of their new toys, having just secured the establishment of the Federal Reserve, is to remember that this led to Bretton Woods, which led to the confiscation of all privately held gold in the USA. No one is going to tell me *that* was an accident. ;)
Most excellent questions and also the underlying premise is worth a query now as well: ""Is the original no-virus gang (Bailey's, Cowan, et al) just a bunch of rodeo clowns" cuz lately they sure acting weird. Maybe they were gaining too much traction - the no-virus narrative starting to outpace the overall Truman Show script - so the psyop managers got them to overreact so as to cut their wings a bit?
Or maybe they just got weird cuz it's hard not to get paranoid and then overreact to a perceived threat to one's activism/business model? But they acting in concert as a gang of LARPers would.
-----
As for what's the most effective debate strategy to counter the pernicious narrative of flying viruses, I doubt that focusing exclusively on the issue of virology lacking proper controls will achieve better results. Steve Kirsch (who definitely knows better) would just retort: "We don't need all that since we already literally HAVE THE SEQUENCE!" And so on.
The bottleneck in this contagion debate seems to lie somewhere else, as when confronted with the question: "How do you know there's viruses flying in and out of the holes in your head?", the people almost uniformly reply: "Well, what else could it be? What else could making all the people sick? Of course it's a virus! Look here at this picture of the virus." And so on.
-----
If 911 happened today I think I would say to myself: "that looks like a controlled demolition, I wonder if even the planes are real people inside". Something like that.
But the only way they could have got to the sequence is by doing proper control experiments otherwise there's nothing that says you didn't pluck the sequence out of the air.
I knew it was an "inside job" from Day 1, because of the ridiculous "failure of NORAD" to stop a big, fat slow Boeing commercial jet crossing several state lines before it scored a perfect "hit" on the Pentagon. Even after Pearl Harbor, there had to be official scapegoats for failure: Admiral Kimmel and Maj. Gen. Short played that role in 1941. But who was the designated "failure" in the "chain of command" on 9/11? So from the beginning, it was obviously a Pentagon psyop. I only realized the central role of media fakery in 2005-2006, after closely examining the "CNN-Hezarkhani" and "ABC-Peter Jennings-Evan Fairbanks" so-called "amateur videos" of the alleged "Flight 175" smoothly disappearing into the steel reinforced concrete facade of the south Tower, like "Casper the Friendly Ghost". Then I knew the whole thing was a cartoon packaged by the media to explain away some massive racketeering and insurance fraud (Manhattan) and a pretext to invoke the NATO treaty for military action against "terrorists" (Pentagon). My basic views on 9/11 haven't changed much since 2006. They've just been supplemented, enhanced, reinforced and made more coherent in the details. How long did it take you to realize those were classic controlled demolitions? How long before you realized that fake digital imagery had been broadcast over the networks as "TV News"?
I remember pondering why no interceptors because I vaguely was aware of their existence but that’s where my thinking and analysis stopped because such a huge lie was outside my paradigm of how the world works.
I was so incredulous about the "Flight 77" story; hijacked with box cutters, no CCTV video from any of these major airports that might actually show "hijackers" boarding the planes they were supposedly hijacking. NO VIDEO evidence from the airports except for a single still photo that was supposedly one of the hijackers. getting cash out of an ATM machine in the Portland, Maine airport as they prepared to board a "connecting flight" to Boston's Logan Airport. What kind of hijackers would allegedly board a "connecting flight" for the actual flight they planned to hijack? It was so stupid, the story made no sense. That very afternoon, I fully expected that by the time I got home from work, there would have been major apologies and resignations from the USAF and Pentagon brass in charge of NORAD; also from the JCS and from the Sec. Def. (Rumsfeld) in response to such a massive UNTHINKABLE "failure" of our billion dollar air defense systems. And especially the defensive grid surrounding Washington, D.C and northern Virginia. I got home that evening in time to watch live C-Span coverage of the Senate Armed Services Committee (headed by John Wartner and Carl Levin) actually CONGRATULATE the senior brass for their "courageous performance that morning". They even confirmed USAF Gen. Richard Myers as permanent Chief of the JCS. I was stunned. Even worse,. every time I mentioned NORAD to people, they acted as though they'd never heard of it before or it had nothing to do with our failed "response" to alleged "hijackings". The pathetic excuses and rationalizations that people came up with to explain away NORAD's monumental "failure" were shocking to me. And this was long before I even bothered to look at the obvious controlled demolitions. We didn't march off to war because somebody demolished Larry Silverstein's real estate. That was just massive insurance fraud, reckless endangerment and racketeering. But the "hit" on the Pentagon automatically activated the NATO treaty that compelled all other members of NATO to "support" the US as our troops proceeded to bomb and invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
There were over 40 drills, wargame exercises and simulations going on the morning of 9/11.. Thousands of Pentagon employees and uniformed personnel participated in those drills. They may not have figured it out that very morning or the morning after. Maybe they were clueless for the first few months or the first year after the event. But after 23 years, I'm calling out the Pentagon brass and US officers' corps as 9/11 cowards (for refusing to ask the obvious questions and DEMANDING ANSWERS); as 9/11 liars (because ,whatever the truth was, they knew their leaders were LYING); and as 9/11 traitors to their country. It was more than just a miserable, inexplicable "failure" of due diligence. All these military personnel swore oaths toi uphold, preserve and DEFEND the US Constitution, and manifestly refused to ask even the simplest questions or challenge any detail of the ridiculous official "boxcutter hijack" story. And so I call out all of them as 9/11 traitors to their country. As far as I'm concerned, they're all cowardly traitors, collecting salaries and pensions. Their government is criminal and illegitimate. And I would never settle for anything less than courts martial or treason tribunals for ALL of them. What would that require as a political precondition? You can guess ....
Yes, from the getgo as you worked out even before getting to the buildings nothing made sense. This is General Richard Myers responding to the question from Cynthia McKinney in Congress, "Whether or not the activities of the four war games happening on the morning of 9/11 impaired the military’s ability to respond to the attacks?”
"There were over 40 drills, wargame exercises and simulations going on the morning of 9/11"
Is "40 drills" a particularly slow Tuesday morning? "Drills, etc." is what the military does all day long every day of the week, when not doing patrols or resting.
Although there's many elements of the story that are patently absurd, the part about "boxcutter hijack" actually sounds plausible to me, even though it's not what actually happened, imho.
Also, I don't know exactly if you can prosecute people for being brainwashed into believing in nonsense fake history stories. For example, look at how many doctors - even after going through CovidHoax - still believe in flying viruses.
With regards to 911, I was calling it an inside job within a week. I was already deeply sceptical of any official stories having woken up to the HIV/AIDS fraud in the mid 90s. When my Grandma chastised me for daring to think that George W would “kill his own people”, I rolled my eyes and gave up trying to explain anything to her. It would be many years before I would even begin to contemplate a scenario where there were no-planes let alone the possibility of no casualties.
When I read your suggestion that the ‘isolation issue’ could be ‘revelation of the method’, the first thing that came to my mind is the expression; “when you are a hammer everything is a nail”. My personal thinking is much more aligned with Stefan Lanka who describes virology as a misconception rather than an orchestrated fraud. I think we are in the situation where, over the course of several decades, virology has developed into a highly evolved pseudoscience greatly helped along by the fact that the mythology of ‘disease-causing pathogens’ is thoroughly embedded amongst the general population. The defenders of virology are being absolutely sincere when they act with incredulity towards those who claim that ‘viruses’ have never been proven to exist, because they absolutely believe in the legitimacy of virology and are completely unable to see that it does not adhere to the Scientific Method. I honestly don’t know how far up the pyramid of control one would have to climb to get to a level where the psyop perpetrators know that virology is complete nonsense. I am not even sure whether such a level actually exists.
The isolation issue is not difficult to understand. To quote Tom Cowan; “just isolate the damn virus!”. To use an analogy, if I hand you a black velvet bag containing numerous small objects and ask you to isolate the blue marbles from the bag, is there any ambiguity over what I am asking you to do? Yet, look at any method section in a virology paper which claims to have ‘isolated’ any virus and it is clear this is not what they are doing. Even if you allow them the non-sensical argument that there is never enough ‘virus’ to isolate directly from a sample taken from a sick host and it is necessary to perform their ‘culturing experiments’ first. After this stage they STILL do not isolate any ‘viral’ particles in order to prove a cause and effect relationship for diseases or in order to sequence such a particle.
The parallels I see between the 911 and the no-virus truther groups are depressing. With 911 we’ve had to witness endless arguments between the LHOPs vs. the MHOPs, thermite vs. directed energy weapons, planes vs. no-planes, etc. It’s no wonder there has been virtually no progress in reaching the majority who still believe the official narrative. Now, the ‘no-virus’ movement looks like it is going the same way with tedious in fighting over what is the best approach to falsify virology. Can we not just all agree that virology is pseudoscience from start to finish and that it can be challenged in more than one way?
I agree that perhaps virology might be a misconception rather than an orchestrated fraud overall but the pandemic is a 100% orchestrated fraud even though many participants are unaware of it.
The thing is Dr Wu said clearly, "The virus wasn't isolated," even though the virologists are saying it was. Why would he say that it wasn't? He didn't say, "Oh all the virologists are saying it was isolated but the processes they follow to allegedly isolate the virus are unscientific," did he? There is no way in the whole wide world that Dr Wu isn't up to his eyeballs in this fraud and his saying "The virus wasn't isolated," isn't an example of Revelation of the Method ... although at the same time perhaps a kind of bum steer in that the problem starts before isolation with the lack of controls. I'm sure scientists have pointed this out already but you'd actually need an awful lot of controls. Let's say you do the control experiment without the human sample and the result is quite different. You'd still have to do control experiments with human samples from healthy people and also people suffering other respiratory illnesses. I mean it would really just go on and on.
You wrote: “There is no way in the whole wide world that Dr Wu isn't up to his eyeballs in this fraud and his saying "The virus wasn't isolated," isn't an example of Revelation of the Method”
I disagree. If you watch the whole of the news feature from which this short clip is taken, you will see that the reporter is referring specifically to the samples which it is stated the Chinese took from the wet food market in early 2020. She then asks Dr Wu why this data has not been shared. What he appears to be saying is that the reason the data from the samples taken from the wet food market were not shared, was because there was no ‘viral isolation’ done specifically on these samples. This would be why he then goes on to express his doubts that the ‘virus’ originated from there. This would make sense since he would certainly be keen to try and absolve China of any blame for potentially causing a global viral outbreak. From this perspective I see no proof that he is consciously involved in any deception at this point.
I see your point but I’d argue that it’s still RoM because he doesn’t say, “They didn’t isolate the virus from samples from the wet market they only isolated the virus from samples from X.”
Where was the virus supposedly isolated?
He also says in response to the question about live animal samples, “It doesn’t tell you anything if they only tested positive.”
I’m not really sure how much more RoM you can get. He’s saying the test is a crock.
I don’t know why it is that I have to argue for RoM so much. To me it just seems so obvious but I’m always having to argue for it.
You wrote: “it’s still RoM because he doesn’t say, “They didn’t isolate the virus from samples from the wet market they only isolated the virus from samples from X.””
I don’t think it is possible to draw any firm conclusions from an edited interview. The reason Dr Wu did not explicitly state that he was referring to the samples from the wet market could be because the interviewer had made it clear that was referring specifically to the wet market samples in the preceding dialogue.
You wrote: “Where was the virus supposedly isolated?” If by isolated you mean ‘isolated’ (i.e. referring to virologists misuse of the words isolate/isolation which they falsely believe is a valid methodology proving the existence of viruses), my understanding is that papers claiming the ‘isolation’ of ‘Sars-cov2’ only started appearing in various countries across the world once they had access to the ‘viral sequence’ and the associated PCR ‘test’ that was released in early 2020. I do not know which was the very first paper to make this claim.
You wrote: “He also says in response to the question about live animal samples, “It doesn’t tell you anything if they only tested positive.” I’m not really sure how much more RoM you can get. He’s saying the test is a crock.”
I agree that this comment suggests that he is critical of the ‘test’, but I do not think from this you can conclude he knows that virology is complete nonsense from start to finish. There is a significant amount of disagreement amongst the proponents of virology whilst they remain blissfully unaware that they are completely lost in a world of pure imagination masquerading as Science.
You wrote: “I don’t know why it is that I have to argue for RoM so much. To me it just seems so obvious but I’m always having to argue for it.”
I think it is possible that could be because in some instances you are displaying confirmation bias.
In the previous comment you wrote: “the problem starts before isolation with the lack of controls.”
I think this is incorrect. If proof of viruses was conducted using the Scientific Method then isolation should be performed before any experimentation using controls takes place.
My observation of how those in the public speak is that they are always careful not to say things that in any way speak against the mainstream narrative so to me the words "They didn't isolate the virus" is clearly RoM, however, if you don't think that is a conclusion someone can draw with confidence that is your prerogative. To me it has a curated feel and is absolutely not what someone in his position would say ... except for RoM purposes ... but as I also say perhaps it was a combination of RoM and a form of distraction propaganda making us think it is all about virus isolation when first it needs to be determined if there is a virus.
I think it's as Tim West said at the start of the article about alien space badgers. If you test a sample of sputum in a petri dish with certain items against a control petri dish containing those items but without the sputum sample to see if the two petri dishes produce different results that is a valid experiment. If the sputum-sample petri dish produces nothing different from the control why would you bother then going further? Why would you think you have a virus in the sample? Aren't you putting the cart before the horse even trying to isolate a virus? There's an assumption that there is a virus to test for when there might not be. Determining if there is a virus needs to occur before the isolation process.
I am very interested to know your thoughts on this relatively small scale psyop example that I came across just yesterday:
A friend posted this video of Jake Collison, a 10 year old boy playing the guitar with the RPJ band at a festival a couple of month ago. The back story to this, as recounted by the lead singer, Rick, is that at a previous smaller festival the band played at, he spotted Jake in the crowd holding a sign saying ‘Let me play guitar with you’. The story continues that what follows was completely spontaneous event where Rick decided to take a ‘big risk’ and invite Jake on to the stage and give him the band’s ‘spare’ guitar to use whereupon the band were ‘totally amazed’ that Jake could actually play and as a result of this they decided they would invite him back when they played this much larger festival.
My overall impression was that this looked like it was rehearsed. A major red flag for me was the way Jake appeared totally comfortable with a guitar he had allegedly never played before, including needing to make no adjustment to the strap. But the smoking gun is that you can easily go to Jake’s YouTube channel and see him playing the exact same guitar with the exact same strap months before this alleged unplanned event took place. I.e. it’s clearly his own guitar.
This story was featured on the regional BBC news programme where the reporter repeated the lie that the incident was completely unplanned.
So my question to you is: would you consider the fact that they made no effort to hide that Jake was using his own guitar and that the event was completely staged as example of Revelation of the Method. Or could there be other explanations, e.g. they didn’t think most people would notice/care, they were just a bit lazy, or they thought if it was ever discovered in the future people would be like, well it doesn’t take away from the fact that Jake is an awesome guitarist so clearly this was done with the best of intentions, the ends justify the means?
Despite the fact that as each day passes I feel more and more like we could be living in a version of The Truman Show, I also don’t think that everything is as tightly controlled and scripted as I think you possibly do. Maybe that is wishful thinking on my part because I want to maintain the hope that whoever or whatever is hellbent on achieving total control over humanity are not as infallible as they would like us to think they are.
Also, it is logical to me that psyops may work best when the public facing proponents actually believe what they are saying and doing is based on sound principles, or at least in the best interest of the public. That way they will be far more convincing because it is much harder to spot someone who is lying when they believe their own lies. At this present time I don’t see any reason why people at the level of Dr Wu, Dr Fauci and even Bill Gates would be operating from a position where they know that virology is a total fiction.
I understand what Tim West is trying to say in defense of Jamie’s experiments which are designed to expose the faulty methodology employed by virologists. However, you may have noticed that there are already some virus apologists claiming that Jamie’s work is invalid because he did not perform an equivalent experiment using a sample containing a ‘virus’. This is where we encounter the absurd circular reasoning that virologists have unwittingly adopted. How do they know there is virus in the sample they use in their cell culture experiments? They simply assume it is there and then claim that the effects observed in subsequent experiments ‘prove’ that the virus must have been in the original sample.
Unlike Tim’s invisible space badgers, virologists are not claiming that ‘viruses’ are invisible. They are claiming that they can be visualised using electron microscopy and they also claim that they have been able to determine their precise composition and physiology as infectious agents. All these things are simply impossible without isolation.
I woke up with WBAI and Amy Goodman broadcasting from the firehouse. Not on TV but radio on Pacifica station KPFA. Without visuals for several minutes I came to the conclusion we witnessed an all American Auto-Golpe all out for Empire moment. Why? NORAD. No chance those planes would stay in the air even if George Bush Sr. was on board. Then looking for plane debris when TV turned on since my macabre wit wanted to see a plane jutting out of a building I decided smokeand mirrors. I was un interested actually once I saw no plane. That is controlled demolition was obvious. I was interested to know if we would respond immediately against the invisible enemy. So this is about one hour of time on 9/11 and only two news sources.
Rather quick. I recalled the Blind Sheikh and for years been very engaged and interested in what is called the Deep State. In 2001 I had years of work in the Antiwar movement both in Sacramento and the SF By Area. Funny too that I had followed the Pacifica takeover and shortly afterwards got to thinking about how convenient to have Amy Goodman proudly talking about being Banned from WBAI and locked out and broadcasting from the Firehouse. That reminded me of COINTELPRO.
I am unclear on fully evacuated demolition. I did not at that time think of other ways to bring the buildings down so nicely. No plane, buildings mainly collapse into their footprint. Obvious at the moment engineered.
It is clear though that the buildings were fully evacuated because all the images perfectly fit "drill" injured while none are consistent with the injuries and maimings you'd expect from the destruction of 110-storey buildings. Everything we get from hospitals also doesn't support "real" and the info on CDI at the bottom of my post is pretty telling wouldn't you say?
--- We were told that Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) presented its cleanup plan for the WTC eleven days after the fateful event.
--- Three of CDI’s four world records in large building demolition projects were achieved in the three years before 9/11: 1998 (2) and 2000 (1).
--- CDI is very proud of its safety culture.
So you worked out half the story immediately ... but the other half not.
Correct. The concept of a drill did not arise as I was thinking mostly about no planes and buildings and people exiting. Abstractly. I did not venture into the casualties but even later remained more interested in how the situation was done.
I think the masses can understand controls. I only did the most basic science at school and I understand controls. Certainly they can understand controls more easily than the process of isolation and genomic sequencing. The thing is - apart from the possible case of Dr Wu - I cannot see operatives pushing focus on isolation. I think because scientists and doctors genuinely wish to show that the isolation process is bogus they're doing that so I don't think there's a propaganda campaign to distract people from controls unlike 9/11 where there is a definite propaganda campaign to have everyone focused on the buildings and away from the staged death and injury. Nevertheless it's worth considering whether or not it would have been better (too late now though) simply to argue "no controls" rather than arguing all the various things that can be argued.
On 9.11 you first need some knowledge that these things can and are faked before being able to critically think. Honestly I did not have that in 2001.
On the virus, the masses think, "well there was no isolation but they found enough to say it's there", because they dont understand the importance and meaning of isolation. Again they need some info of the getting faked before many will look into it.
For us, we think these fakes are obvious, but we have to remember it is not easy for blue pillers.
There's a lot of reasonably red-pilled that still don't get 9/11 though, PM.
I don't think the masses think "no isolation", I think they don't have a clue and I think that isolation and genomic sequencing unnecessarily complicate things because BEFORE we get to them they break the scientific method. Sure they didn't isolate the virus but before they even tried they didn't do the control experiment to demonstrate any reason to suspect a virus in the first place.
The masses mostly think "they found it somehow and they have pictures, and people got sick right an I trust the NIH and CDC". This is the level of medial illiteracy of the majority.
I was completely medically illiterate too, PM, and I'm definitely not a particularly scientific thinker. I believed in viruses and vaccines but I wasn't psyop-illiterate and I could see all the psyop signs there. Nevertheless, while I figured out how the buildings were massively used as a distraction device for 9/11 (away from the staged death and injury) I didn't transfer that to isolation and genomic sequencing.
The thing is "lack of control" is really easy to understand even for the scientific illiterate but as soon as you get onto virus isolation and genomic sequencing it all gets much more complicated and people will just think, "I can't understand that so I'll just trust the scientists," whereas a presence or absence of control experiment is much easier to understand ... and so much more fundamental scientifically.
I see that problem with 911 and people raving on about DEW. The basics are very simple, a plane can not slice through steel.
With viruses it is a bit more tricky because people do get sick and sometimes one follows the other. But then, what to focus on? Maybe just the toxic jabs? Or that nobody has the right to mandate anyone putting anything in their body?
In Australia at least there is absolutely NOTHING that says there was a pandemic. I believe in many other western countries we can see how the ridiculous interventions caused excess mortality which is easy for people to assign to "pandemic" but in Australia - and a few other countries I think - there is simply NOTHING. Our flu cases the year before were much higher as was mortality from flu.
The unfortunate thing is that there are scientists out there who understand science much better than some of us no-virus-proven people generally ... but when it comes to psyops their brains switch off.
i know personally two very well published and very smart scientists who both believe in viruses. One i have argued with at great length but still claims that bacteriophages prove the exsistence. of course both caught convid one was jabbed and the other not but neither could escape the narrative.
i also did not have enough fakery knowledge back in 2001 but did remark on the day “how convenient” so i guess my subconscious knew. OTOH the apparent lack of timely fighter interception seemed very weird given how fast they intercepted that golfer’s leahjet. And of course the reports of folks using cell phones from the hijacked planes was clearly bs.
Neither did I. I ask the question simply for people to think about how differently they would approach 9/11 now ... or perhaps not because some people still don't get it.
How I would approach 9/11 now? Probably I'd be a bit sharper on the uptake, but basically I am a cynical SOB when it comes to mass media and always have been.
Let's look at how the media covered 9/11 at the time, because there are clues that stare us in the face. A psyop is treated usually differently from a sudden real and unanticipated mass terror event.
9/11 was the mother of all psyops, totally dominating the airwaves, including live TV coverage on all channels even in Japan, where regular programs were cut to accommodate the live feeds from the US. The only other times they cancelled programming in this way when the Showa Emperor was reported to have died, and following the Kobe and Tohoku Earthquakes. Even the Indian Ocean Tsunami didn't merit this level of coverage. As 9/11 wasn't a Japanese event, it seemed we were being subjected to "shock and awe" here, although I didn't know that phrase until Rumsfeld announced it later.
We had "Oh my goodness, there's another one," and the Harley Guy, Mark Walsh, explaining "And then I witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."
I used to subscribe to the Herald Tribune, and their front page was choreographed with a yellow banner at the top screaming "AMERICA UNDER ATTACK."
I felt at the time that the news coverage was choreographed, and not at all like the ad hoc way they cover things they have not rehearsed. Just my intuition.
Basically, I would try to ascertain whether the event was being presented as a news story or as a drama. That would be the first thing. In the case of 9/11, I felt it was being oversold. It was presented on TV and in the press as a if it was an unfolding drama.
But I admit, my memory of how I felt at the time may have been corrupted by what I've learned since.
Most psyops are not nearly as big as 9/11, but we should always keep our antenna up when the news reports come in so that get a feel for whether they seem real or fake. Let's make an effort not be lazy and sleepy and let's not accept the truth of what the media tells us as a default. Of course, you know this as well as I do.
How does it work? Who gave orders to the Japanese media to cover 9/11 to such an extent? Who ordered every country in the world to impose quarantine and mask wearing in 2020?
They're all connected at the top. I wondered what kind of deal Japan and the US had going considering Pearl Harbour was faked and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed just like all the other Japanese cities. Some enlightenment was provided by Part 3 of Scipio Eruditis's series on the fakery of the nuclear bomb where he shows the Japanese Freemason connection. Just scroll for the pictures if you're short on time, they're very telling, but his series is well worth reading.
with your help and a few other folks i think very differently now. The controlled demolition was obvious, especially when they cleared the debris away so fast, and the finding of a highjackers passport was ludicrous at the time, but it never occured to me back then that the tower planes were fake even though the pentagon one was clearly so.
Most recently the light has finally dawned on me how contagion works. I had a hard time understanding how folks in the same household could all get sick at the same time and share symtoms. It’s the inverse of spontaneous healing, inextricably tied into belief, believing the narrative of germ theory and contagion drummed into us from birth. Amazing how powerful indoctrination is.
Not sure now if Mullis was an actual expert witness in this Parenzee case. It seems that he was never a consenting witness but rather that his opinion was introduced tangentially by both sides looking to support their case.
Doesn't seem from this document that Mullis was a bad guy going around helping to frame people for 'spreading AIDS'; in fact, it seems just the opposite:
"Several of the witnesses for the prosecution – in particular, Professor Gallo
and Professor McDonald – gave evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Professor
McDonald stated that there was, however, some controversy as to the mechanism
by which HIV leads to AIDS.30 Much of Professor McDonald’s evidence in this
regard arose when he was recalled to be cross-examined on correspondence
between him and Dr Mullis, who was later cited by counsel for the applicant as a
potential witness in the event of a retrial. I will deal with the evidence in more
As a bonus, I also have one about the mechanism of action of Ivermectin (specifically on Sars-Cov2), showing how it interplays with the human immune system (which is why they really, really didn't want people to know about it, so they suppressed it and spread misinformation about Ivermectin, essentially bad-mouthing it - when you read this paper you'll understand what an amazing drug it really is. I believe it won a Nobel prize, and I'm not surprised). One thing I found extremely fascinating, not to mention revealing, is how Ivermectin suppresses the S-protein of Sars-Cov2. Obviously that related specifically to the so-called mRNA jabs (bioweapons).
From the paper you mentioned: "This work has several limitations, inherent to any analysis of spontaneous AE reports, such as missing data, under-reporting, and lack of clinical information. Another important limitation is indication bias, where cases of pruritus reflect the indication (scabies-related pruritus), rather than the AE. Moreover, the ROR does not represent the incidence of any particular AE, since the total number of individuals treated with ivermectin is unknown. The data cannot be automatically applied to use in COVID-19 since no SCARs were recorded in this recent setting. Although we focused on reports in which ivermectin was the primary suspect drug, in three out 25 SCAR cases there was concomitant use of secondary suspects known to cause SCARs, which weakens the possible association. Lastly, a causal relationship between drug exposure and the reported AE cannot be fully ascertained."
Furthermore, this paper is from April 2022, by which time the PTB were seriously attacking the use of Ivermectin - and the introduction/abstract clearly demonstrates this anti-Ivermectin bias (also I wouldn't like to comment on the ethnicity of the authors). As the above proviso says there isn't much clinical info, so we don't know whether the patients in questions took far more than a safe dose, or what concomitant meds they were taking or underlying conditions and so on. In other words, this paper is frankly worthless.
From the first paper: "266 articles were assessed and 17 met the inclusion criteria. 6 cases and 11 cases series reports in patients treated for strongyloidiasis, onchocerciasis, loiasis and scabies infections reported SN occurrence..."
So that's only 17 out of 266 articles, and they could only find 17 cases. Out of how many times IVM has been prescribed for these conditions? That's essentially negligible.
The second paper is '3 case reports' - same point - out of how many prescriptions. Again, negligible.
9-11, the most likely narrative. Which was, I hasten to add, pretty fucking obvious from the start. Ah - sorry - apparently Dave McGowan was an agent. Anyway, here's what happened.
1/ 4 genuine planes are commandeered (I will not say hijacked, as that's a moot point). Most likely all the 'passengers' are involved in the operation. If not, then they would have to be 'disposed of'. Use CIA Alec Station to organise the patsies. Make sure there's a Saudi connection in order to use as blackmail against the Saudis in future. Sure, anyone who knows, knows that Al Qaeda are a CIA asset/proxy, but most of the stoopid American Public dunno that, so we don't think that'll be a problem.
2/ Planes are flown and landed at other locations - notably Stewart Airforce base, which had earlier that year been privatised and bought by an Israeli company. If the 'passengers' (if there even were any) are not involved in the operation, then get them to do their phone calls at Stewart and then kill them. Poison gas in the buses to take them to their next destination would be the most easy method. But that gets messy, so let's not bother with fucking passengers apart from our own people, who will be happy to make those stupid phone calls. The most important aspect of these first two parts of the operation are to create the radar track data/air traffic control. That's why it's easiest to use 4 genuine planes.
3/ Two remote-controlled drones are launched from Stewart and then flown into the north and south towers (whether these were the same 2 planes that were hijacked earlier or not is irrelevant, and only important for the purposes of air traffic monitoring data - and that's not difficult to fuck with).
4-a/ Explosives detonated at the Pentagon to make it look like a plane impact (see Dave McGowan's take on this part of 9-11). Stupid debris scattered over the lawn, some poles blown out, planted witness statements. Etc. Excellent excuse to lose all the files relating to the 2.3 trillion black ops budget mentioned by Rumsfeld the day before. Sorry, can't answer your questions about that old chap. See also Building 7.
4-b/ Alternative option - launch cruise missile from Stewart to hit the pentagon. Rinse and repeat regarding debris on the lawn etc. - Well, I think the explosives option is a little easier, don't you? Hmm, guess so. Not as fun though, eh? All in favour of the cruise missile option say 'Aye!' Aye! And those in favour of the explosives option? AYE! AYE! Damn - I was hoping for the cruise missile.
5/ Flight 93 - crash site mocked up near Shanksville overnight. A few witness statements released about conflicting reports regarding either 'shot down' or 'passengers fight back'. Choose best dramatic story and make a movie out of it. Use Ron Howard. He already did the Apollo 13 official narrative so he can be relied on to do the F-93 narrative. And he wasn't Fonzy, so he's not cool.
6/ Bring down the towers in controlled demolition. For some bizarre reason, bring down building 7 later that afternoon. What reason to bring down 7? There must've been some serious information in the building. CIA NYC HQ. MK-Ultra perhaps? More black ops budget shit. You know.
7/ At the planning meeting, this above scenario is the most efficient way to achieve all the objectives.
8/ Now, for planning meeting purposes, compare with the idea of NOT FLYING PLANES INTO THE TOWERS. Which version is easiest to get away with? How easy is it to get away with 'no planes at all' whilst 10,000 New Yorkers are watching the towers WITH THEIR OWN EYES BECAUSE THERE'S A BIG EFFING LOAD OF SMOKE COMING OUT OF THE NORTH TOWER?!! Oh - look, an explosion just happened in the south tower! But the news says it was a plane - see, here's the TV! But there wasn't a plane! It was just an explosion! REPEAT THIS CONVERSATION ANOTHER THOUSAND TIMES!!!
9/ IF THERE WERE NO PLANES IMPACTING THE TOWERS, HOW COME THERE WAS NEVER A CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT NO PLANES FOR AT LEAST, WHAT, FIVE YEARS AFTER THE EVENT?!!!
You'd think someone would've fucking noticed if there weren't any planes, wouldn't you?!
I'm a little confused. Do you think there were planes into the twin towers or not? This is my response if not. I think Gerard Holmgren and others were onto the planes much sooner than five years later.
I know someone who was in the vicinity on the day and he told me he saw a plane heading to the South tower - but didn't see it crash. I don't think he is the kind of person who "saw" the plane in hindsight after seeing it on the news so I cannot say what he saw. Perhaps it was some kind of hologram as has been suggested. Whatever he saw it wasn't what they showed us on television because what they show us completely disobeys crash physics. This is a great little video comparing showing how the crash physics of the plane in the Medusa Touch (9/11 predictive programming) resembles real crash physics better than what they showed us for 9/11. They really did a deliberately sloppy job of it and had a great old chortle while they were about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuhNR6lx97E
I have nothing more to say on the planes - said it all - so if you don't accept what I put forward that's fine, Evelyn, we shall simply have different opinions on the subject.
With regard to WTC-7
WTC-7 was a decoy - so much propaganda whether true or false was about keeping the focus away from the staged death and injury. They wanted to make it all about the buildings because destroyed buildings doesn't necessarily mean any fake deaths whereas faked planes means faked passenger deaths ... and that's a slippery slope. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is going gangbusters (a highly-infiltrated organisation if not setup from the getgo - tend to favour the latter) while Pilots for 9/11 Truth is dead as a dodo. All planned that way.
I watched the video (Medusa touch). I remember watching that movie when I was quite young, maybe ten years old or something, so not long after it came out, and it did have quite an effect on me I remember.
Comparing the relatively primitive and not-very-high budget special effects of that movie to 9-11 is such a red herring and straw man that you really, really have to wonder about the people who made this comparison. I'd say they are cognitive infiltrators.
As for the video at the end of the clip about the plane impacting the north tower (first plane), this video never existed at the time of 9-11. It's not the Naudet brothers video, which is taken from a completely different angle. I don't recall seeing this new video before, ironically enough, so I can't say when it was manufactured. It is obviously a fake video, as I'm sure you can see for yourself. It doesn't resemble a real plane crash in the slightest, and the angle of impact is very different to the Naudet brothers video. In other words, this is not a video which was taken on 9-11. Meaning, it is no evidence whatsoever either for or against the no-plane hypothesis. What it is evidence for, however, is the definite fake events narrative. After all, why else would 'they' fake a video like this and then disseminate it on the internet?
As I said, Evelyn, I've said all I have to say about the planes. Bottom line: none of the alleged airliners crashed so no one died in a plane crash ... and that's all we really need to know.
No one died in a plane crash.
And the buildings were fully evacuated as per standard demolition protocols.
I learned a lot from this weirdo docu film about how they might be always watching and breadcrumbing the people in real time, so the story appears to change, and nothing to the investigators seems for certain anymore:
"Watch Don't F**k with Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer
Netflix
A twisted criminal's gruesome videos drive a group of amateur online sleuths to launch a risky manhunt that pulls them into a dark underworld.
Also, when the plane strikes the solid object/building, the rear of the plane should be immediately changing course so that the tail meets the building at a new spot that is distinct from where the nose hit the building.
I think prolly no plane or drone crashes and prolly not missiles either, just fakery + Mandela Effects in the people's minds.
Also: planes & missiles you only get one shot and most often it will be a miss, so the psyop planners wouldn't take no such chances to get caught in the act.
And in general, the psyop planers would always tend to opt for the lowest number of moving parts.
I had a look at the trailer for that Netflix series, and it does look disturbing. It immediately made me think about snuff movies of course (which are a real thing). Maybe this kind of series is designed to divert people's attention from real life snuff movies, I don't know. I'd like to see a similar series in which, say, a thousand badass vigilantes hunt down the makers and purveyors of these snuff movies (obviously filming their exploits) and then discover them and film them turning the tables on the motherfuckers. That would make a great series.
With regards to the planes - your final point about lowest number of moving parts is in fact precisely my own point. I've been referring to it, however, as the 'random bad luck factor'. This is the thing which always needs to be minimised, and this would be one of the main focuses of discussion at the planning meeting. Always, always consider the discussion at the planning meeting.
So, applying this logic to 'planes or no planes' option, it becomes quite clear the more these planners think about it that 'real planes' is a far better way to minimise the bad luck factor than 'no planes'. This is in no small part because it minimises the number of people who need to be 'in on it' - every single one of these people, remember, is essentially a 'moving part'. You have to consider the second plane to hit in particular here, which happens about 17 minutes after the first one when there are scores of TV camera crews around (some in helicopters), and thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers with their eyes glued to the North Tower which is belching out smoke etc. The 'random bad luck factor' here, then, is the distinct possibility of 'amateur photographers' and 'amateur filmmakers' - that's to say, any ordinary member of the public who happens to have a handheld video camera and decides, as you would, to train that camera on this incredible event that just happened. And statistically speaking, out of all those thousands of people you are going to get a lot more than just 'one guy with a camera' - you could potentially get dozens. So here's the thing - what happens when these dozen, let's say, ordinary Joes rewatch their own footage on their VCR and go 'hold on, there was no plane hitting the South Tower, it just kinda had an explosion in the corner there' - ??
My point here is that this is precisely the kind of random bad luck possibility that the planners would've needed to consider at the planning meeting.
Beyond this, there is the need to pass the appropriate memo and script to every single TV news station and every one of their employees - and remember, despite 'Operation Mockingbird' most of the ordinary employees of TV stations really are just ordinary guys - they are not fully paid up members of the cabal, or mind-controlled Monarchs.
Oh - and please forget the ridiculous idea of 'holograms' and 'smoke and mirrors'. That's not technically feasible - even if it was, it would require even more 'moving parts'. I think that kind of theory has only been inserted by cognitive infiltrators into the truth movement to make the truth movement look silly.
With 9-11 you have to always remember this event didn't just happen in broad daylight in public, it happened with probably hundreds of millions of people watching. That's an entirely different kettle of fish from a neatly contained, out of the general public's view, little 'false flag' or 'fake event', like, I dunno, the Manchester Arena bombing, which took place in a room which could be sealed off for the few minutes necessary in which only your handful of conspirators are present.
So, for 'moving parts' - always remember this includes 'people'. And there really, really is a limit to the number of people you can use in a conspiracy. I would imagine it's got something to do with Dunbar's number, actually. I shall have to add that piece of psychology to my list of articles-to-be-written.
I'm getting even more fascinated by this, sorry about that. It's worth watching from the beginning actually because it makes the fakery a little more evident. So this guy comes round and starts filming and says OMG a lot, right. That's the reaction of someone who is seeing it for the first time. Later, however, he explicitly says he saw what was going on so came outside to see it. In other words, he must've already known. The same is true for when the girls join them around 03:00. One of them even smiles and jumps around. During those first few minutes they do discuss the plane vs. bomb idea, which is not something they would really do you'd think. OMG guy even at this early stage says something like 'no way can a plane fly that low' and 'it would've hit that other building' and 'they would've heard it' and so on. In filmmaking terms that's called 'priming' the audience via suggestion (which would usually take place in Act I, or just before a little fright if we're talking horror movies). So OMG guy is already saying 'it was a bomb' several minutes before the second tower incident.
Also notice a quick take shot of a bloke lower down to the right with a phone watching it. That shows my point about random people with camera phones. So maybe this well-made video was intended to eclipse all of those possible bits of found footage.
Yeah, I feel an essay coming on. Do take the time to watch it from the beginning though. Up until the major edit when they have moved from the balcony down on to the street (I mistakenly thought they'd simply moved to the right, but it's clearly a larger edit - that's around the 6.30 mark). So it's really the first 6.30 that is the interesting bit. Maybe I'll watch the rest of it sometime, but not today.
I found another very interesting bit of fakery in this video. You have to scroll back a couple of minutes though. Here's the link to around 04:00 minutes: https://youtu.be/ahC-dOZGCnI?feature=shared&t=246
This is a few seconds before the same loud-mouthed bloke starts doing his 'oh my god' act (he does it again when the 'explosion' sequence happens. Interestingly, if you then keep watching this guy doesn't seem to be there anymore after the next *edit* when the camera operator has to move to the right along the street which (handily) obscures the South Tower. I wouldn't be surprised, actually, if it's the first 7 minutes or so of the video which is manufactured post-hoc. The group of people watching don't seem too emotionally concerned about what's happened and just being voyeurs. All actors, perhaps.
Anyway. The clip in question is one (well two) of those 'jumpers'. I'll deal with that first of all but just to note the clever filmmaking technique here because the 'explosion sequence' happens very shortly after this, in other words the viewer is psychologically both primed and distracted. Notice also the little camera shudder timed to coincide with the body hitting the ground. That's great filmmaking from a psychological level. It's also quite an amazing feat of camerawork if it was real. First, being able to spot the falling object in the first place (notice it's too small from their vantage point) and then to focus/zoom in so quickly and accurately and then follow the motion of the body down - that takes expert camera operating that does. It also, perhaps, takes a script, because the camera guy knew exactly where to focus (despite, presumably, looking through the viewfinder and only going by the other people there uttering their cries of shock - a normal person's reaction would be 'what? what is it?' by which time the body has already passed by. See what I mean?).
So, we know this is not a person jumping for the following reasons. 1/ there is no movement from the body. No flailing arms or legs or anything as you would expect from a person who is still alive. Unless they went all Zen or something - in which case they wouldn't have jumped. 2/ Notice the distance between the body and the tower - the world long jump record is 8.95m (Mike Powell, 1991). I think that 'body' is a hell of a lot further away from the tower than 8.95m. Wind assistance doesn't come into it because you can tell from the smoke that even though the wind may be blowing in that direction it's not blowing fast enough to push a body that much further out.
[they pick up another 'falling body' a short time later actually (just after 05:00). With little emotional reaction it must be said (aside from the OMG guy). This happens just 10 seconds before the explosion sequence. Despite just capturing two falling bodies the camera operator inexplicably pans to the left and conveniently misses the key moment. Also, notice the audio the cries of shock do not continue. This is not psychologically believable.]
Anyway - this leaves the following options: 1/ it was an already dead body that was somehow propelled out of the building (requires more than just a couple of people throwing it out - again, they wouldn't be able to achieve the distance - it would require some catapult device or similar), or 2/ it was a mannequin, likewise propelled out, or 3/ it's CGI. [same applies to the second falling body - good that they remembered to add a shadow, though]. I'm going for option 3 because 1 and 2 are beyond ludicrous and verging on Monty Python territory: https://youtu.be/YT6K8PGs2Fo?feature=shared&t=118 [do watch the whole sketch though because it's hilarious]
What I find amongst other aspects quite fascinating about this is the camera work. I am of course thinking from a director's point of view here, perhaps, but it's really good filmmaking for sure. If people assume it's authentic (why wouldn't they) then they are not going to question any of these issues. Also, up to the point where the camera moves off to the right there are a few clear edits. Putting those edits in is an interesting question of course, and perhaps lends weight to this fake events narrative/Mandela effect psyop, because they are 'telling you what they are doing' (Petra's 'revelation of the method' thing).
Given my love of filmmaking and screenwriting and stuff (ask Katrina lol) thank you for sharing this clip because it's one for a bookmark and would possibly even merit an entire essay.
Another though I just had is that it's interesting that the filmmakers of this bit 'just happened to be there' (like the Dancing Israelis), 'to document the event'.
I think that little clip is exactly what I've been talking about with regards to the planning meeting and the random bad luck element of ordinary members of the public with cameras, many of whom would record and publicise the *fact* that no plane hit the second tower.
This video is clearly a fake, almost by definition. One of the most obvious points is how this video wasn't available almost immediately following the attacks. Even if we say 'within a year' to be extremely generous, this video should not only have been available on the internet but would've been openly discussed in EVERY SINGLE CONSPIRACY THEORY FORUM. But it wasn't, was it? If this is allegedly clear recorded eyewitness evidence of 'no planes' then you'd think it would've been doing the rounds as soon as YouTube got going.
And to be honest, I think the existence of this video totally proves my point. We're also, as you say, talking Mandela effect here - the bad guys deliberately create a video like this, insert it into the internet and there you go - cognitive dissonance, people start doubting their own memories, thus developing learned helplessness, Room 101 style. Fake events narrative.
I would imagine that one of the main bits of fakery in this video is the audio - why, after all, does the loudest voice immediately start doing the 'no planes' spiel? That's suspicious. And yes, prompted by the girl. But no one else?!! Why don't you hear a load of other voices saying 'there was just a massive explosion just happened in the Tower! Fuck me!' - if it was just an explosion you would've had A LOT of voices saying that. Also notice how the camera pans away from the tower conveniently a few seconds before the explosion.
Also, the explosion doesn't match with the (official/TV cameras) footage from the other angles - in other words, although the *original* version of the video bit of all this might be authentic, this little added section is not. My guess it has been 'spliced' into the original. If indeed there even was an original - because like I say, if this video had existed at the time it would've been on the Internet much, much earlier.
Just a little snippet - have you watched the whole of the Medusa Touch? It's a great film if I remember correctly (it was ages ago but it did stick with me). If you're talking predictive programming and RoM and all that then it's definitely worth watching the whole thing. If I remember correctly there's a sequence with some astronauts on the moon, for example. There's also some talk about a nuclear meltdown. I wouldn't want to give you any spoilers though. Richard Burton is great in it, and I think it was Lee Remick who was the other main character, who was also pretty good.
Anyway - that's Evie's movie recommendation for today.
I've had a brief look at your 4 fake plane crashes page.
You make a few false assumptions with laws of physics, like 4/ a plane crashing into a 500,000 ton building' - no, that's not how physics works, Petra. The plane did not crash into a 500,000 ton building. it crashed into a small fraction of that building, namely the outer frontage, which is considerably less mass than the plane. I'm being a little pedantic there, for sure, but the point is valid. One thing I should've mentioned earlier, actually, is that you should examine the damage done to the tower, which is freely visible, and does not look like the damage pattern you'd see if explosives were placed inside the building. Also notice in the Naudet brothers video that 1/ there is the SOUND of the plane, and 2/ dust coming out of the other side a few seconds after the impact - those two facts are vitally important details for establishing that it really was a genuine impact. That doesn't say it was a 'commercial airliner' though - it only says it was a genuine impact by 'something' (like I suggested, most likely remote controlled drone launched from Stewart).
3/ 'don't look like airliners' - yes, as i suggested, we're talking remote controlled drones here. They only needed to 'vaguely resemble' airliners for the purposes of footage.
5/ 175 popping out the other side - sure, but if you examine the angle of impact that's not surprising - it almost missed! If it was 'faked' why would they fake an 'almost miss'? Given the first plane was a bullseye, why wouldn't they do the same for 175?
I'll have to study your other links though before i reply in full to them (it's getting a bit late here too and I really should go to bed). But it's certainly intriguing stuff and I'm grateful for your research and collecting it all into a very accessible place.
Given what I just said about the verified existence of Sars-Cov2, here is the most likely, SCIENTIFIC explanation for the 'pandemic'.
Mark and remember.
1/ the 'spread' of the virus does not follow natural spread (epidemiology).
2/ Therefore, the virus was unleashed into 100 different locations around the world at the same time, in order to provide the pretext for global lockdown - and everything that followed.
3/ The cognitive infiltrators immediately spread a number of different 'conspiracy theories' in order to distract from the truth.
4/ The one they clearly have decided is the most effective 'conspiracy theory', the one that has gained traction, is this utterly pseudoscientific 'no viruses' psyop. This is like the fucking flat earth of biology. They must be laughing their fucking heads off at the sheer number of dumbass conspiracy theorists who genuinely believe there's no such thing as viruses! If you don't believe in viruses then you will immediately dismiss the truth. That's the point!
5/ How do they get away with this pseudoscience? Easy - because they know perfectly well that 99.9% of 'conspiracy theorists' know fuck all about biochemistry. That's how. And the 0.1% who do can simply be shouted down or algorithmed out of the picture.
6/ The truth, then, is this. A relatively harmless coronavirus was unleashed across the world at the same time, provoking lockdown. Genuinely effective treatments like Ivermectin were suppressed, in order to push the 'vaccines'. Making people scared (nocebo effect) and thinking that 'vaccines are the only way to release the lockdowns' was then pushed. Then comes the rollout of the 'vaccines', which are the real 'bioweapon'. But of course, if you don't believe in 'viruses' or 'isolation' then you also don't believe in 'mRNA' or the use of 'mRNA plus reverse transcriptase' to program human cells to produce the most toxic part of the Sars-Cov2 genome, namely the S-protein (the S-protein, amongst other attributes, inhibits the production of cytokines/antibodies). The 'evil genius' of the mRNA injections is that it specifically attacks the human immune system, meaning that people, over the course of many, many years, in increasing numbers, die of OTHER DISEASES. Thus the initial bioweapon is disguised. What they have effectively done, here, then, is create a global AIDS pandemic. AIDS, as I'm sure you know, is NOT caused by a harmless passenger virus like HIV.
The more you drone on about 'viruses don't exist' and 'viral isolation yadda yadda fucking yadda' the more you are doing their work for them, by preventing 'truthers' from understanding what actually happened with the 'pandemic'. You are spreading pseudoscience.
For now, however, given I am aware you don't understand biochemistry or epidemiology etc., I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, and simply give you some professional courtesy advice. Stop making yourself look like an idiot.
Thanks for the advice, Evelyn, however, from Day One my understanding of psyops told me there was no virus - nothing to do with my non-existent understanding of anything to do with virology at the time - because I knew they only wanted us to BELIEVE in a virus they didn’t want a virus and a real virus wouldn’t fit their narrative which they obviously had planned.
And sure enough, you can see all the BS they show us including drills in hospitals, etc. Moreover, we can see the reflection of the lack of a virus in the mortality figures in Europe in April 2020. While there were excess spikes in most European countries there weren’t excess spikes in Germany and Portugal, the only two countries that didn’t implement the aggressive drug trials from the WHO and Oxford University.
I don’t understand why it is so difficult for people to understand the basic principles of psyops … because they’re just so basic. They are magician’s tricks, they’re all about MIND CONTROL - not doing anything for real unless wanted. If they really could spread a virus - what’s the need for a “vaccine” to cause injury and death?
It's a bit late so I'll just have to reply briefly. A real virus does not have to imply extra mortality rates. As i said, Sars-Cov2 is in fact a relatively harmless coronavirus which would not add to overall mortality (nocebo effect notwithstanding). In the usual 'flu season' the elderly tend to die of 'pneumonia' (my 95-yr old grandmother is an example, she died in 2013 - the death certificate would've just said 'pneumonia' it wouldn't have specified a pathogen). Pneumonia can be caused by a very wide variety of respiratory infections and with these people it's a case of 'the next infection will kill them' regardless of what that infection is. So, in the case of a harmless coronavirus, this will simply blend in to the usual raft of infections that result in the typical number of deaths. The pathogen itself is not listed on the death certificate, only 'pneumonia' is - and that's very unspecific.
Obviously, therefore, listing 'covid' on a death certificate does tell us that this is not normal practice. It should've just said 'pneumonia'. But clearly, they replaced 'pneumonia' (i.e. flu season) with 'covid', even when they didn't test for it and only 'suspected' it.
But my point is that it's a logical fallacy to conclude from that that there was no virus at all. It's more likely there was a virus but that this virus was no more harmful than any other and did not add to excess mortality in any way. Whether this was a 'novel' virus, a manufactured one, or one that had been circulating for years but just given a new name, is not important for the purposes of this argument.
What is important, however, which is my point, is that the cabal simply cannot control every single person in every single lab throughout the world. We're talking millions of people here. Every hospital has a biochemistry lab, for example. They can't get every one of those people to fake a test and come up with the same result each time. Thus, the easiest way for the bad guys to do their pandemic is to have a genuine virus which can be tested for and verified. That virus, like i say, doesn't have to be new, or engineered, it just needs to have a new name. Combine that with propaganda and you have people believing in a deadly pandemic.
Remember - the 'belief' you talk of is not about a virus, it's about a pandemic. it's not the virus which is the narrative, it's the pandemic, and specifically the 'deadly nature' of the pandemic. The virus, in that sense, is almost irrelevant. All of it was designed to 1/ do lockdowns and everything that went with it, and 2/ get enough people to take the mRNA injections. The mRNA injections are the real bioweapon, not the virus. But both objectives 1 and 2 are far, far easier to achieve if there really is some 'newly named infection' which independent labs can test for. It's far more difficult to achieve if there is no virus and you have to get a million lab technicians to all read from the same script.
In 2001, I was a recent immigrant to the US and a law student. A friend of mine, a son of a military attaché in the American Embassy in Moscow i.e. a spy, told me that 9/11 was an inside job. I thought he must have had a drinking problem. Then I got a job at the US Treasury and observed how everyone knew that a financial crisis was in the making and no one did anything to prevent it or mitigate it. I did not know that the American government would be willing to destroy so many of its own people. Sixteen years later, after reporting my manager to the union, which is a protected action by the American federal law, I was fired from my job and had a plenty of time to watch YouTube videos, now all removed, showing towers' speedy fall that defied the laws of physics. So, after seeing one psyop, you can see others. My sister in my home country does not believe there are psyops.
Interesting about the obvious foreknowledge of the financial crisis and I'm sorry you were fired for doing the right thing.
Yes but inside job, Sonja, is only part of the story. It's a double-layer psyop.
Are you Russian? Russian couple, Olga and Slava Klimova have made an excellent 1 hour film on 9/11.
https://archive.org/details/911FraudAndTerrorAgendaEarthlyFireFlies.org
Foreknowledge. They stoked it. The Federal Reserve deliberately tightened the money supply in the year leading up to Sept 2008 and Lehman Brothers. I used to have the papers on this as I was much more into following finance back then and got them from someone who had chronicled the Fed's actions during those 12 months. In those days there was a fantastically sophisticated discourse on sites like ZeroHedge with lots of once upon a time bond dealers spilling the beans because they now had plenty of time on their hands, so this was good stuff.
It was unmistakeably deliberate. But then of course it was. It was designed to be one of the great heists of all time, with Hank Paulson extorting Congress with the menaces of countrywide depression and troops on the street. Not only did they get $770 billion from Congress straight away but they also got a licence to do whatever they wished in the financial markets; an opportunity they took full advantage of by creating around $20 Trillion in new money from nowhere. It was a set piece and a jewel in their crown of thievery, just like covid was and 9/11 before it. (9/11 also allowed Alan Greenspan to drop interest rates to 2% and in doing so saved the banking industry from its excesses in the dotcom boom.)
So the film The Big Short is propaganda then, the financial crisis wasn't really caused by irresponsibility with subprime mortgage packages?
No, that was always there. Cor, I’m getting rusty; ‘cos when I wrote that I had *completely* forgotten about the packaged mortgages, even though I lived every minute of that crisis and was friends with the person who did the first two of them at Merill Lynch. I even saw their listing particulars before they were issued. One was for The Mortgage Company and the other was for The Household something. I remember thinking (and probably saying) what a good idea idea it was and how that was exactly how technical finance should be done. Hahaha!
A really interesting adjunct to this, and which got them given a LOT of latitude, is that it was the US Govt that essentially showed the banks how to repackage mortgages, or at least affirm that it was OK in their eyes. The earlier Savings & Loan crisis had left the USG with a ton of mortgages on their books which they wanted to get rid of and this was how they did it. The government almost held their hand while they did it, so no one could really complain when the banks did it for themselves.
I can’t believe I had forgotten this was another of their bonanzas! And, once again, no one took a pay cut.
Very interesting. So the thing is - if I remember the film correctly - the guy who bet on their failure seemed to be the only one who could see it coming.
I don't think I've seen the film but IRL I think everyone saw it coming; they just didn't know where it was going to hit. This is why the Fed tightening worked so well. The overnight lending market had completely siezed up with no one lending to anyone else for fear of the size of the hole in their balance sheet. This is a concern with all banks, all of the time, as they are generally always trading while insolvent, not just because of the CDO market and the obvious fraud of rating these bonds Triple 'A'. There are plenty of derivative markets that are zero sum games across the sector and while we hear plenty about the profits it's not often that we hear from the counterparties who took the loss. My suspicion is that every bank has a massive black hole at its centre and as long as it's not discovered they can keep on using that amount of money as additional capital. They are also very aware that a massive problem today is going to be about half its size in 6 or 7 years time, and inconsequentially small in a few decades - or just a couple of decades if an actual crisis arises and brings its attendant inflation. So they always take the bet and go for the cover-up, 'cos there's nothing they can't drag out for 20 years.
absolutely :-(
So, what do you think about the Great Depression? Did they do it deliberately or they did not know what they were doing?
Deliberately. Without question. One easy confirmation of this trying out of their new toys, having just secured the establishment of the Federal Reserve, is to remember that this led to Bretton Woods, which led to the confiscation of all privately held gold in the USA. No one is going to tell me *that* was an accident. ;)
'....the 1929 market crash unleashed four years of hell in America [and] quickly spread across Europe under the great depression.... this was not inevitable, but rather a controlled blowout...." - https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/how-to-crush-a-bankers-dictatorship
That was a terrific article. Thanks for the link. :)
Most excellent questions and also the underlying premise is worth a query now as well: ""Is the original no-virus gang (Bailey's, Cowan, et al) just a bunch of rodeo clowns" cuz lately they sure acting weird. Maybe they were gaining too much traction - the no-virus narrative starting to outpace the overall Truman Show script - so the psyop managers got them to overreact so as to cut their wings a bit?
Or maybe they just got weird cuz it's hard not to get paranoid and then overreact to a perceived threat to one's activism/business model? But they acting in concert as a gang of LARPers would.
-----
As for what's the most effective debate strategy to counter the pernicious narrative of flying viruses, I doubt that focusing exclusively on the issue of virology lacking proper controls will achieve better results. Steve Kirsch (who definitely knows better) would just retort: "We don't need all that since we already literally HAVE THE SEQUENCE!" And so on.
The bottleneck in this contagion debate seems to lie somewhere else, as when confronted with the question: "How do you know there's viruses flying in and out of the holes in your head?", the people almost uniformly reply: "Well, what else could it be? What else could making all the people sick? Of course it's a virus! Look here at this picture of the virus." And so on.
-----
If 911 happened today I think I would say to myself: "that looks like a controlled demolition, I wonder if even the planes are real people inside". Something like that.
But the only way they could have got to the sequence is by doing proper control experiments otherwise there's nothing that says you didn't pluck the sequence out of the air.
What are you even talking about? You think every time there's a virus they need to look inside the electron microscooper to know which virus it is?
They just do PCR. They have all the sequences in the data base, LITERALLY MILLIONS OF SEQUENCES :)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/tools/primer-blast/index.cgi?LINK_LOC=BlastHome
An intriguing perspective! Indeed, there are no controls in "virology." Or "contagionology," either. Perhaps that IS the tack We should take.
But about 9/11... I was giving it a very high probability of being a psyop on 9/12. So....
I knew it was an "inside job" from Day 1, because of the ridiculous "failure of NORAD" to stop a big, fat slow Boeing commercial jet crossing several state lines before it scored a perfect "hit" on the Pentagon. Even after Pearl Harbor, there had to be official scapegoats for failure: Admiral Kimmel and Maj. Gen. Short played that role in 1941. But who was the designated "failure" in the "chain of command" on 9/11? So from the beginning, it was obviously a Pentagon psyop. I only realized the central role of media fakery in 2005-2006, after closely examining the "CNN-Hezarkhani" and "ABC-Peter Jennings-Evan Fairbanks" so-called "amateur videos" of the alleged "Flight 175" smoothly disappearing into the steel reinforced concrete facade of the south Tower, like "Casper the Friendly Ghost". Then I knew the whole thing was a cartoon packaged by the media to explain away some massive racketeering and insurance fraud (Manhattan) and a pretext to invoke the NATO treaty for military action against "terrorists" (Pentagon). My basic views on 9/11 haven't changed much since 2006. They've just been supplemented, enhanced, reinforced and made more coherent in the details. How long did it take you to realize those were classic controlled demolitions? How long before you realized that fake digital imagery had been broadcast over the networks as "TV News"?
I remember pondering why no interceptors because I vaguely was aware of their existence but that’s where my thinking and analysis stopped because such a huge lie was outside my paradigm of how the world works.
I was so incredulous about the "Flight 77" story; hijacked with box cutters, no CCTV video from any of these major airports that might actually show "hijackers" boarding the planes they were supposedly hijacking. NO VIDEO evidence from the airports except for a single still photo that was supposedly one of the hijackers. getting cash out of an ATM machine in the Portland, Maine airport as they prepared to board a "connecting flight" to Boston's Logan Airport. What kind of hijackers would allegedly board a "connecting flight" for the actual flight they planned to hijack? It was so stupid, the story made no sense. That very afternoon, I fully expected that by the time I got home from work, there would have been major apologies and resignations from the USAF and Pentagon brass in charge of NORAD; also from the JCS and from the Sec. Def. (Rumsfeld) in response to such a massive UNTHINKABLE "failure" of our billion dollar air defense systems. And especially the defensive grid surrounding Washington, D.C and northern Virginia. I got home that evening in time to watch live C-Span coverage of the Senate Armed Services Committee (headed by John Wartner and Carl Levin) actually CONGRATULATE the senior brass for their "courageous performance that morning". They even confirmed USAF Gen. Richard Myers as permanent Chief of the JCS. I was stunned. Even worse,. every time I mentioned NORAD to people, they acted as though they'd never heard of it before or it had nothing to do with our failed "response" to alleged "hijackings". The pathetic excuses and rationalizations that people came up with to explain away NORAD's monumental "failure" were shocking to me. And this was long before I even bothered to look at the obvious controlled demolitions. We didn't march off to war because somebody demolished Larry Silverstein's real estate. That was just massive insurance fraud, reckless endangerment and racketeering. But the "hit" on the Pentagon automatically activated the NATO treaty that compelled all other members of NATO to "support" the US as our troops proceeded to bomb and invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
There were over 40 drills, wargame exercises and simulations going on the morning of 9/11.. Thousands of Pentagon employees and uniformed personnel participated in those drills. They may not have figured it out that very morning or the morning after. Maybe they were clueless for the first few months or the first year after the event. But after 23 years, I'm calling out the Pentagon brass and US officers' corps as 9/11 cowards (for refusing to ask the obvious questions and DEMANDING ANSWERS); as 9/11 liars (because ,whatever the truth was, they knew their leaders were LYING); and as 9/11 traitors to their country. It was more than just a miserable, inexplicable "failure" of due diligence. All these military personnel swore oaths toi uphold, preserve and DEFEND the US Constitution, and manifestly refused to ask even the simplest questions or challenge any detail of the ridiculous official "boxcutter hijack" story. And so I call out all of them as 9/11 traitors to their country. As far as I'm concerned, they're all cowardly traitors, collecting salaries and pensions. Their government is criminal and illegitimate. And I would never settle for anything less than courts martial or treason tribunals for ALL of them. What would that require as a political precondition? You can guess ....
Yes, from the getgo as you worked out even before getting to the buildings nothing made sense. This is General Richard Myers responding to the question from Cynthia McKinney in Congress, "Whether or not the activities of the four war games happening on the morning of 9/11 impaired the military’s ability to respond to the attacks?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6crfATz6PI&t=377s
Salaries and pensions are indeed all they care about.
"There were over 40 drills, wargame exercises and simulations going on the morning of 9/11"
Is "40 drills" a particularly slow Tuesday morning? "Drills, etc." is what the military does all day long every day of the week, when not doing patrols or resting.
Although there's many elements of the story that are patently absurd, the part about "boxcutter hijack" actually sounds plausible to me, even though it's not what actually happened, imho.
Also, I don't know exactly if you can prosecute people for being brainwashed into believing in nonsense fake history stories. For example, look at how many doctors - even after going through CovidHoax - still believe in flying viruses.
With regards to 911, I was calling it an inside job within a week. I was already deeply sceptical of any official stories having woken up to the HIV/AIDS fraud in the mid 90s. When my Grandma chastised me for daring to think that George W would “kill his own people”, I rolled my eyes and gave up trying to explain anything to her. It would be many years before I would even begin to contemplate a scenario where there were no-planes let alone the possibility of no casualties.
When I read your suggestion that the ‘isolation issue’ could be ‘revelation of the method’, the first thing that came to my mind is the expression; “when you are a hammer everything is a nail”. My personal thinking is much more aligned with Stefan Lanka who describes virology as a misconception rather than an orchestrated fraud. I think we are in the situation where, over the course of several decades, virology has developed into a highly evolved pseudoscience greatly helped along by the fact that the mythology of ‘disease-causing pathogens’ is thoroughly embedded amongst the general population. The defenders of virology are being absolutely sincere when they act with incredulity towards those who claim that ‘viruses’ have never been proven to exist, because they absolutely believe in the legitimacy of virology and are completely unable to see that it does not adhere to the Scientific Method. I honestly don’t know how far up the pyramid of control one would have to climb to get to a level where the psyop perpetrators know that virology is complete nonsense. I am not even sure whether such a level actually exists.
The isolation issue is not difficult to understand. To quote Tom Cowan; “just isolate the damn virus!”. To use an analogy, if I hand you a black velvet bag containing numerous small objects and ask you to isolate the blue marbles from the bag, is there any ambiguity over what I am asking you to do? Yet, look at any method section in a virology paper which claims to have ‘isolated’ any virus and it is clear this is not what they are doing. Even if you allow them the non-sensical argument that there is never enough ‘virus’ to isolate directly from a sample taken from a sick host and it is necessary to perform their ‘culturing experiments’ first. After this stage they STILL do not isolate any ‘viral’ particles in order to prove a cause and effect relationship for diseases or in order to sequence such a particle.
The parallels I see between the 911 and the no-virus truther groups are depressing. With 911 we’ve had to witness endless arguments between the LHOPs vs. the MHOPs, thermite vs. directed energy weapons, planes vs. no-planes, etc. It’s no wonder there has been virtually no progress in reaching the majority who still believe the official narrative. Now, the ‘no-virus’ movement looks like it is going the same way with tedious in fighting over what is the best approach to falsify virology. Can we not just all agree that virology is pseudoscience from start to finish and that it can be challenged in more than one way?
I agree that perhaps virology might be a misconception rather than an orchestrated fraud overall but the pandemic is a 100% orchestrated fraud even though many participants are unaware of it.
The thing is Dr Wu said clearly, "The virus wasn't isolated," even though the virologists are saying it was. Why would he say that it wasn't? He didn't say, "Oh all the virologists are saying it was isolated but the processes they follow to allegedly isolate the virus are unscientific," did he? There is no way in the whole wide world that Dr Wu isn't up to his eyeballs in this fraud and his saying "The virus wasn't isolated," isn't an example of Revelation of the Method ... although at the same time perhaps a kind of bum steer in that the problem starts before isolation with the lack of controls. I'm sure scientists have pointed this out already but you'd actually need an awful lot of controls. Let's say you do the control experiment without the human sample and the result is quite different. You'd still have to do control experiments with human samples from healthy people and also people suffering other respiratory illnesses. I mean it would really just go on and on.
You wrote: “There is no way in the whole wide world that Dr Wu isn't up to his eyeballs in this fraud and his saying "The virus wasn't isolated," isn't an example of Revelation of the Method”
I disagree. If you watch the whole of the news feature from which this short clip is taken, you will see that the reporter is referring specifically to the samples which it is stated the Chinese took from the wet food market in early 2020. She then asks Dr Wu why this data has not been shared. What he appears to be saying is that the reason the data from the samples taken from the wet food market were not shared, was because there was no ‘viral isolation’ done specifically on these samples. This would be why he then goes on to express his doubts that the ‘virus’ originated from there. This would make sense since he would certainly be keen to try and absolve China of any blame for potentially causing a global viral outbreak. From this perspective I see no proof that he is consciously involved in any deception at this point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW3SrG94eYs
I see your point but I’d argue that it’s still RoM because he doesn’t say, “They didn’t isolate the virus from samples from the wet market they only isolated the virus from samples from X.”
Where was the virus supposedly isolated?
He also says in response to the question about live animal samples, “It doesn’t tell you anything if they only tested positive.”
I’m not really sure how much more RoM you can get. He’s saying the test is a crock.
I don’t know why it is that I have to argue for RoM so much. To me it just seems so obvious but I’m always having to argue for it.
You wrote: “it’s still RoM because he doesn’t say, “They didn’t isolate the virus from samples from the wet market they only isolated the virus from samples from X.””
I don’t think it is possible to draw any firm conclusions from an edited interview. The reason Dr Wu did not explicitly state that he was referring to the samples from the wet market could be because the interviewer had made it clear that was referring specifically to the wet market samples in the preceding dialogue.
You wrote: “Where was the virus supposedly isolated?” If by isolated you mean ‘isolated’ (i.e. referring to virologists misuse of the words isolate/isolation which they falsely believe is a valid methodology proving the existence of viruses), my understanding is that papers claiming the ‘isolation’ of ‘Sars-cov2’ only started appearing in various countries across the world once they had access to the ‘viral sequence’ and the associated PCR ‘test’ that was released in early 2020. I do not know which was the very first paper to make this claim.
You wrote: “He also says in response to the question about live animal samples, “It doesn’t tell you anything if they only tested positive.” I’m not really sure how much more RoM you can get. He’s saying the test is a crock.”
I agree that this comment suggests that he is critical of the ‘test’, but I do not think from this you can conclude he knows that virology is complete nonsense from start to finish. There is a significant amount of disagreement amongst the proponents of virology whilst they remain blissfully unaware that they are completely lost in a world of pure imagination masquerading as Science.
You wrote: “I don’t know why it is that I have to argue for RoM so much. To me it just seems so obvious but I’m always having to argue for it.”
I think it is possible that could be because in some instances you are displaying confirmation bias.
In the previous comment you wrote: “the problem starts before isolation with the lack of controls.”
I think this is incorrect. If proof of viruses was conducted using the Scientific Method then isolation should be performed before any experimentation using controls takes place.
My observation of how those in the public speak is that they are always careful not to say things that in any way speak against the mainstream narrative so to me the words "They didn't isolate the virus" is clearly RoM, however, if you don't think that is a conclusion someone can draw with confidence that is your prerogative. To me it has a curated feel and is absolutely not what someone in his position would say ... except for RoM purposes ... but as I also say perhaps it was a combination of RoM and a form of distraction propaganda making us think it is all about virus isolation when first it needs to be determined if there is a virus.
I think it's as Tim West said at the start of the article about alien space badgers. If you test a sample of sputum in a petri dish with certain items against a control petri dish containing those items but without the sputum sample to see if the two petri dishes produce different results that is a valid experiment. If the sputum-sample petri dish produces nothing different from the control why would you bother then going further? Why would you think you have a virus in the sample? Aren't you putting the cart before the horse even trying to isolate a virus? There's an assumption that there is a virus to test for when there might not be. Determining if there is a virus needs to occur before the isolation process.
I am very interested to know your thoughts on this relatively small scale psyop example that I came across just yesterday:
A friend posted this video of Jake Collison, a 10 year old boy playing the guitar with the RPJ band at a festival a couple of month ago. The back story to this, as recounted by the lead singer, Rick, is that at a previous smaller festival the band played at, he spotted Jake in the crowd holding a sign saying ‘Let me play guitar with you’. The story continues that what follows was completely spontaneous event where Rick decided to take a ‘big risk’ and invite Jake on to the stage and give him the band’s ‘spare’ guitar to use whereupon the band were ‘totally amazed’ that Jake could actually play and as a result of this they decided they would invite him back when they played this much larger festival.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c0FCI8lnkM&
Curious, I found the video of the previous ‘unplanned’ event at the smaller festival.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVEg-J51zfM
My overall impression was that this looked like it was rehearsed. A major red flag for me was the way Jake appeared totally comfortable with a guitar he had allegedly never played before, including needing to make no adjustment to the strap. But the smoking gun is that you can easily go to Jake’s YouTube channel and see him playing the exact same guitar with the exact same strap months before this alleged unplanned event took place. I.e. it’s clearly his own guitar.
This story was featured on the regional BBC news programme where the reporter repeated the lie that the incident was completely unplanned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD1G2n3WAMM&
So my question to you is: would you consider the fact that they made no effort to hide that Jake was using his own guitar and that the event was completely staged as example of Revelation of the Method. Or could there be other explanations, e.g. they didn’t think most people would notice/care, they were just a bit lazy, or they thought if it was ever discovered in the future people would be like, well it doesn’t take away from the fact that Jake is an awesome guitarist so clearly this was done with the best of intentions, the ends justify the means?
Despite the fact that as each day passes I feel more and more like we could be living in a version of The Truman Show, I also don’t think that everything is as tightly controlled and scripted as I think you possibly do. Maybe that is wishful thinking on my part because I want to maintain the hope that whoever or whatever is hellbent on achieving total control over humanity are not as infallible as they would like us to think they are.
Also, it is logical to me that psyops may work best when the public facing proponents actually believe what they are saying and doing is based on sound principles, or at least in the best interest of the public. That way they will be far more convincing because it is much harder to spot someone who is lying when they believe their own lies. At this present time I don’t see any reason why people at the level of Dr Wu, Dr Fauci and even Bill Gates would be operating from a position where they know that virology is a total fiction.
I understand what Tim West is trying to say in defense of Jamie’s experiments which are designed to expose the faulty methodology employed by virologists. However, you may have noticed that there are already some virus apologists claiming that Jamie’s work is invalid because he did not perform an equivalent experiment using a sample containing a ‘virus’. This is where we encounter the absurd circular reasoning that virologists have unwittingly adopted. How do they know there is virus in the sample they use in their cell culture experiments? They simply assume it is there and then claim that the effects observed in subsequent experiments ‘prove’ that the virus must have been in the original sample.
Unlike Tim’s invisible space badgers, virologists are not claiming that ‘viruses’ are invisible. They are claiming that they can be visualised using electron microscopy and they also claim that they have been able to determine their precise composition and physiology as infectious agents. All these things are simply impossible without isolation.
I woke up with WBAI and Amy Goodman broadcasting from the firehouse. Not on TV but radio on Pacifica station KPFA. Without visuals for several minutes I came to the conclusion we witnessed an all American Auto-Golpe all out for Empire moment. Why? NORAD. No chance those planes would stay in the air even if George Bush Sr. was on board. Then looking for plane debris when TV turned on since my macabre wit wanted to see a plane jutting out of a building I decided smokeand mirrors. I was un interested actually once I saw no plane. That is controlled demolition was obvious. I was interested to know if we would respond immediately against the invisible enemy. So this is about one hour of time on 9/11 and only two news sources.
Wow! Hats off. So how long did it take you come to the realisation that it was a fully evacuated demolition?
Rather quick. I recalled the Blind Sheikh and for years been very engaged and interested in what is called the Deep State. In 2001 I had years of work in the Antiwar movement both in Sacramento and the SF By Area. Funny too that I had followed the Pacifica takeover and shortly afterwards got to thinking about how convenient to have Amy Goodman proudly talking about being Banned from WBAI and locked out and broadcasting from the Firehouse. That reminded me of COINTELPRO.
I'm not sure how that explains going from controlled demolition to fully evacuated demolition.
I am unclear on fully evacuated demolition. I did not at that time think of other ways to bring the buildings down so nicely. No plane, buildings mainly collapse into their footprint. Obvious at the moment engineered.
It is clear though that the buildings were fully evacuated because all the images perfectly fit "drill" injured while none are consistent with the injuries and maimings you'd expect from the destruction of 110-storey buildings. Everything we get from hospitals also doesn't support "real" and the info on CDI at the bottom of my post is pretty telling wouldn't you say?
--- We were told that Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) presented its cleanup plan for the WTC eleven days after the fateful event.
--- Three of CDI’s four world records in large building demolition projects were achieved in the three years before 9/11: 1998 (2) and 2000 (1).
--- CDI is very proud of its safety culture.
So you worked out half the story immediately ... but the other half not.
Correct. The concept of a drill did not arise as I was thinking mostly about no planes and buildings and people exiting. Abstractly. I did not venture into the casualties but even later remained more interested in how the situation was done.
you’re right the lack of controls is a show stopper but as mentioned the masses don’t understand controls so wouldn’t miss their lack.
I think the masses can understand controls. I only did the most basic science at school and I understand controls. Certainly they can understand controls more easily than the process of isolation and genomic sequencing. The thing is - apart from the possible case of Dr Wu - I cannot see operatives pushing focus on isolation. I think because scientists and doctors genuinely wish to show that the isolation process is bogus they're doing that so I don't think there's a propaganda campaign to distract people from controls unlike 9/11 where there is a definite propaganda campaign to have everyone focused on the buildings and away from the staged death and injury. Nevertheless it's worth considering whether or not it would have been better (too late now though) simply to argue "no controls" rather than arguing all the various things that can be argued.
On 9.11 you first need some knowledge that these things can and are faked before being able to critically think. Honestly I did not have that in 2001.
On the virus, the masses think, "well there was no isolation but they found enough to say it's there", because they dont understand the importance and meaning of isolation. Again they need some info of the getting faked before many will look into it.
For us, we think these fakes are obvious, but we have to remember it is not easy for blue pillers.
There's a lot of reasonably red-pilled that still don't get 9/11 though, PM.
I don't think the masses think "no isolation", I think they don't have a clue and I think that isolation and genomic sequencing unnecessarily complicate things because BEFORE we get to them they break the scientific method. Sure they didn't isolate the virus but before they even tried they didn't do the control experiment to demonstrate any reason to suspect a virus in the first place.
The elephant in the room is transmission something they've still never credibly proven
Ok true on 9.11.
The masses mostly think "they found it somehow and they have pictures, and people got sick right an I trust the NIH and CDC". This is the level of medial illiteracy of the majority.
I was completely medically illiterate too, PM, and I'm definitely not a particularly scientific thinker. I believed in viruses and vaccines but I wasn't psyop-illiterate and I could see all the psyop signs there. Nevertheless, while I figured out how the buildings were massively used as a distraction device for 9/11 (away from the staged death and injury) I didn't transfer that to isolation and genomic sequencing.
The thing is "lack of control" is really easy to understand even for the scientific illiterate but as soon as you get onto virus isolation and genomic sequencing it all gets much more complicated and people will just think, "I can't understand that so I'll just trust the scientists," whereas a presence or absence of control experiment is much easier to understand ... and so much more fundamental scientifically.
I see that problem with 911 and people raving on about DEW. The basics are very simple, a plane can not slice through steel.
With viruses it is a bit more tricky because people do get sick and sometimes one follows the other. But then, what to focus on? Maybe just the toxic jabs? Or that nobody has the right to mandate anyone putting anything in their body?
In Australia at least there is absolutely NOTHING that says there was a pandemic. I believe in many other western countries we can see how the ridiculous interventions caused excess mortality which is easy for people to assign to "pandemic" but in Australia - and a few other countries I think - there is simply NOTHING. Our flu cases the year before were much higher as was mortality from flu.
I dont think the masses know what to control and what that means, even PhDs in biol fields think a (ficticious) genome and illness is enough.
The unfortunate thing is that there are scientists out there who understand science much better than some of us no-virus-proven people generally ... but when it comes to psyops their brains switch off.
i know personally two very well published and very smart scientists who both believe in viruses. One i have argued with at great length but still claims that bacteriophages prove the exsistence. of course both caught convid one was jabbed and the other not but neither could escape the narrative.
i also did not have enough fakery knowledge back in 2001 but did remark on the day “how convenient” so i guess my subconscious knew. OTOH the apparent lack of timely fighter interception seemed very weird given how fast they intercepted that golfer’s leahjet. And of course the reports of folks using cell phones from the hijacked planes was clearly bs.
Neither did I. I ask the question simply for people to think about how differently they would approach 9/11 now ... or perhaps not because some people still don't get it.
How I would approach 9/11 now? Probably I'd be a bit sharper on the uptake, but basically I am a cynical SOB when it comes to mass media and always have been.
Let's look at how the media covered 9/11 at the time, because there are clues that stare us in the face. A psyop is treated usually differently from a sudden real and unanticipated mass terror event.
9/11 was the mother of all psyops, totally dominating the airwaves, including live TV coverage on all channels even in Japan, where regular programs were cut to accommodate the live feeds from the US. The only other times they cancelled programming in this way when the Showa Emperor was reported to have died, and following the Kobe and Tohoku Earthquakes. Even the Indian Ocean Tsunami didn't merit this level of coverage. As 9/11 wasn't a Japanese event, it seemed we were being subjected to "shock and awe" here, although I didn't know that phrase until Rumsfeld announced it later.
We had "Oh my goodness, there's another one," and the Harley Guy, Mark Walsh, explaining "And then I witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."
I used to subscribe to the Herald Tribune, and their front page was choreographed with a yellow banner at the top screaming "AMERICA UNDER ATTACK."
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-front-page-international-herald-tribune-september-12th-2001-911-21349187.html
I felt at the time that the news coverage was choreographed, and not at all like the ad hoc way they cover things they have not rehearsed. Just my intuition.
So what would be the first thing you would do to determine what kind of event 9/11 was ... or is there a first thing?
Basically, I would try to ascertain whether the event was being presented as a news story or as a drama. That would be the first thing. In the case of 9/11, I felt it was being oversold. It was presented on TV and in the press as a if it was an unfolding drama.
But I admit, my memory of how I felt at the time may have been corrupted by what I've learned since.
Most psyops are not nearly as big as 9/11, but we should always keep our antenna up when the news reports come in so that get a feel for whether they seem real or fake. Let's make an effort not be lazy and sleepy and let's not accept the truth of what the media tells us as a default. Of course, you know this as well as I do.
How does it work? Who gave orders to the Japanese media to cover 9/11 to such an extent? Who ordered every country in the world to impose quarantine and mask wearing in 2020?
They're all connected at the top. I wondered what kind of deal Japan and the US had going considering Pearl Harbour was faked and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed just like all the other Japanese cities. Some enlightenment was provided by Part 3 of Scipio Eruditis's series on the fakery of the nuclear bomb where he shows the Japanese Freemason connection. Just scroll for the pictures if you're short on time, they're very telling, but his series is well worth reading.
https://dfreality.substack.com/p/the-coincidence-zone-atomic-edition-1ec
It's a monolith. But they heavily propagate polycentric narratives on the "world stage" as "managed" or "low intensity" conflict.
with your help and a few other folks i think very differently now. The controlled demolition was obvious, especially when they cleared the debris away so fast, and the finding of a highjackers passport was ludicrous at the time, but it never occured to me back then that the tower planes were fake even though the pentagon one was clearly so.
Most recently the light has finally dawned on me how contagion works. I had a hard time understanding how folks in the same household could all get sick at the same time and share symtoms. It’s the inverse of spontaneous healing, inextricably tied into belief, believing the narrative of germ theory and contagion drummed into us from birth. Amazing how powerful indoctrination is.
What they say about the HIV/AIDS is true about all of the virology pseudoscience scam.
Enjoy!
https://www.theperthgroup.com/HIV/TPGVirusLikeNoOther.pdf
Great insight Mysqif.com when the lights go out secured site
"9/11: A 101ST FLOOR SURVIVORS PERSONAL STORY"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjSibD3qbOs
.
Of course, she was on the 101st floor in the south tower working for AON -
.
"What went wrong with the AON center, Chicago: The structure and its failure."
Harsh Choudhary
Jan 20, 2023
https://medium.com/@harsh_choudhary/what-went-wrong-with-the-aon-center-chicago-the-structure-and-its-failure-be2c2c07c4a0
"Pruitt-Igoe Implosion"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=738WpY2_JV8
.
"People also ask
Who was the architect of Pruitt Igoe?
Who designed the WTC twin towers?"
She is just another masked order follower which have proven to be the problem.
Yep, you're right.
Not sure now if Mullis was an actual expert witness in this Parenzee case. It seems that he was never a consenting witness but rather that his opinion was introduced tangentially by both sides looking to support their case.
Doesn't seem from this document that Mullis was a bad guy going around helping to frame people for 'spreading AIDS'; in fact, it seems just the opposite:
"Several of the witnesses for the prosecution – in particular, Professor Gallo
and Professor McDonald – gave evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Professor
McDonald stated that there was, however, some controversy as to the mechanism
by which HIV leads to AIDS.30 Much of Professor McDonald’s evidence in this
regard arose when he was recalled to be cross-examined on correspondence
between him and Dr Mullis, who was later cited by counsel for the applicant as a
potential witness in the event of a retrial. I will deal with the evidence in more
detail later in these reasons."
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/HIV/2007-SASC-143-Parenzee.pdf
It would be a pleasure. Here are the two that I would usually cite.
This one is basically a review of all the various methods of viral isolation and examination, which also discusses the pros and cons of each method:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8093571/
This one is specifically about the interaction of Sars-Cov2 with the human immune system, specifically Interferon:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7390284/
As a bonus, I also have one about the mechanism of action of Ivermectin (specifically on Sars-Cov2), showing how it interplays with the human immune system (which is why they really, really didn't want people to know about it, so they suppressed it and spread misinformation about Ivermectin, essentially bad-mouthing it - when you read this paper you'll understand what an amazing drug it really is. I believe it won a Nobel prize, and I'm not surprised). One thing I found extremely fascinating, not to mention revealing, is how Ivermectin suppresses the S-protein of Sars-Cov2. Obviously that related specifically to the so-called mRNA jabs (bioweapons).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00491-6
If these aren't enough for you, I have more. In the meantime, whilst you're delving into these, I'll look up that Perth Group thing you mentioned.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1346-8138.16398
Toxic snake oil for a fictitious virus in a rather obvious fake pandemic
From the paper you mentioned: "This work has several limitations, inherent to any analysis of spontaneous AE reports, such as missing data, under-reporting, and lack of clinical information. Another important limitation is indication bias, where cases of pruritus reflect the indication (scabies-related pruritus), rather than the AE. Moreover, the ROR does not represent the incidence of any particular AE, since the total number of individuals treated with ivermectin is unknown. The data cannot be automatically applied to use in COVID-19 since no SCARs were recorded in this recent setting. Although we focused on reports in which ivermectin was the primary suspect drug, in three out 25 SCAR cases there was concomitant use of secondary suspects known to cause SCARs, which weakens the possible association. Lastly, a causal relationship between drug exposure and the reported AE cannot be fully ascertained."
Furthermore, this paper is from April 2022, by which time the PTB were seriously attacking the use of Ivermectin - and the introduction/abstract clearly demonstrates this anti-Ivermectin bias (also I wouldn't like to comment on the ethnicity of the authors). As the above proviso says there isn't much clinical info, so we don't know whether the patients in questions took far more than a safe dose, or what concomitant meds they were taking or underlying conditions and so on. In other words, this paper is frankly worthless.
https://ejhp.bmj.com/content/29/Suppl_1/A167.2 try this too https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40278-023-32770-z
From the first paper: "266 articles were assessed and 17 met the inclusion criteria. 6 cases and 11 cases series reports in patients treated for strongyloidiasis, onchocerciasis, loiasis and scabies infections reported SN occurrence..."
So that's only 17 out of 266 articles, and they could only find 17 cases. Out of how many times IVM has been prescribed for these conditions? That's essentially negligible.
The second paper is '3 case reports' - same point - out of how many prescriptions. Again, negligible.
More people die from Aspirin every day.
What are the serious adverse events induced by IVM?
Ps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAMfzHPKejg
9-11, the most likely narrative. Which was, I hasten to add, pretty fucking obvious from the start. Ah - sorry - apparently Dave McGowan was an agent. Anyway, here's what happened.
1/ 4 genuine planes are commandeered (I will not say hijacked, as that's a moot point). Most likely all the 'passengers' are involved in the operation. If not, then they would have to be 'disposed of'. Use CIA Alec Station to organise the patsies. Make sure there's a Saudi connection in order to use as blackmail against the Saudis in future. Sure, anyone who knows, knows that Al Qaeda are a CIA asset/proxy, but most of the stoopid American Public dunno that, so we don't think that'll be a problem.
2/ Planes are flown and landed at other locations - notably Stewart Airforce base, which had earlier that year been privatised and bought by an Israeli company. If the 'passengers' (if there even were any) are not involved in the operation, then get them to do their phone calls at Stewart and then kill them. Poison gas in the buses to take them to their next destination would be the most easy method. But that gets messy, so let's not bother with fucking passengers apart from our own people, who will be happy to make those stupid phone calls. The most important aspect of these first two parts of the operation are to create the radar track data/air traffic control. That's why it's easiest to use 4 genuine planes.
3/ Two remote-controlled drones are launched from Stewart and then flown into the north and south towers (whether these were the same 2 planes that were hijacked earlier or not is irrelevant, and only important for the purposes of air traffic monitoring data - and that's not difficult to fuck with).
4-a/ Explosives detonated at the Pentagon to make it look like a plane impact (see Dave McGowan's take on this part of 9-11). Stupid debris scattered over the lawn, some poles blown out, planted witness statements. Etc. Excellent excuse to lose all the files relating to the 2.3 trillion black ops budget mentioned by Rumsfeld the day before. Sorry, can't answer your questions about that old chap. See also Building 7.
4-b/ Alternative option - launch cruise missile from Stewart to hit the pentagon. Rinse and repeat regarding debris on the lawn etc. - Well, I think the explosives option is a little easier, don't you? Hmm, guess so. Not as fun though, eh? All in favour of the cruise missile option say 'Aye!' Aye! And those in favour of the explosives option? AYE! AYE! Damn - I was hoping for the cruise missile.
5/ Flight 93 - crash site mocked up near Shanksville overnight. A few witness statements released about conflicting reports regarding either 'shot down' or 'passengers fight back'. Choose best dramatic story and make a movie out of it. Use Ron Howard. He already did the Apollo 13 official narrative so he can be relied on to do the F-93 narrative. And he wasn't Fonzy, so he's not cool.
6/ Bring down the towers in controlled demolition. For some bizarre reason, bring down building 7 later that afternoon. What reason to bring down 7? There must've been some serious information in the building. CIA NYC HQ. MK-Ultra perhaps? More black ops budget shit. You know.
7/ At the planning meeting, this above scenario is the most efficient way to achieve all the objectives.
8/ Now, for planning meeting purposes, compare with the idea of NOT FLYING PLANES INTO THE TOWERS. Which version is easiest to get away with? How easy is it to get away with 'no planes at all' whilst 10,000 New Yorkers are watching the towers WITH THEIR OWN EYES BECAUSE THERE'S A BIG EFFING LOAD OF SMOKE COMING OUT OF THE NORTH TOWER?!! Oh - look, an explosion just happened in the south tower! But the news says it was a plane - see, here's the TV! But there wasn't a plane! It was just an explosion! REPEAT THIS CONVERSATION ANOTHER THOUSAND TIMES!!!
9/ IF THERE WERE NO PLANES IMPACTING THE TOWERS, HOW COME THERE WAS NEVER A CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT NO PLANES FOR AT LEAST, WHAT, FIVE YEARS AFTER THE EVENT?!!!
You'd think someone would've fucking noticed if there weren't any planes, wouldn't you?!
FFS.
I'm a little confused. Do you think there were planes into the twin towers or not? This is my response if not. I think Gerard Holmgren and others were onto the planes much sooner than five years later.
I know someone who was in the vicinity on the day and he told me he saw a plane heading to the South tower - but didn't see it crash. I don't think he is the kind of person who "saw" the plane in hindsight after seeing it on the news so I cannot say what he saw. Perhaps it was some kind of hologram as has been suggested. Whatever he saw it wasn't what they showed us on television because what they show us completely disobeys crash physics. This is a great little video comparing showing how the crash physics of the plane in the Medusa Touch (9/11 predictive programming) resembles real crash physics better than what they showed us for 9/11. They really did a deliberately sloppy job of it and had a great old chortle while they were about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuhNR6lx97E
This is my page on the four plane crashes - https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/four-faked-plane-crashes.html
I have nothing more to say on the planes - said it all - so if you don't accept what I put forward that's fine, Evelyn, we shall simply have different opinions on the subject.
With regard to WTC-7
WTC-7 was a decoy - so much propaganda whether true or false was about keeping the focus away from the staged death and injury. They wanted to make it all about the buildings because destroyed buildings doesn't necessarily mean any fake deaths whereas faked planes means faked passenger deaths ... and that's a slippery slope. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is going gangbusters (a highly-infiltrated organisation if not setup from the getgo - tend to favour the latter) while Pilots for 9/11 Truth is dead as a dodo. All planned that way.
I watched the video (Medusa touch). I remember watching that movie when I was quite young, maybe ten years old or something, so not long after it came out, and it did have quite an effect on me I remember.
Comparing the relatively primitive and not-very-high budget special effects of that movie to 9-11 is such a red herring and straw man that you really, really have to wonder about the people who made this comparison. I'd say they are cognitive infiltrators.
As for the video at the end of the clip about the plane impacting the north tower (first plane), this video never existed at the time of 9-11. It's not the Naudet brothers video, which is taken from a completely different angle. I don't recall seeing this new video before, ironically enough, so I can't say when it was manufactured. It is obviously a fake video, as I'm sure you can see for yourself. It doesn't resemble a real plane crash in the slightest, and the angle of impact is very different to the Naudet brothers video. In other words, this is not a video which was taken on 9-11. Meaning, it is no evidence whatsoever either for or against the no-plane hypothesis. What it is evidence for, however, is the definite fake events narrative. After all, why else would 'they' fake a video like this and then disseminate it on the internet?
As I said, Evelyn, I've said all I have to say about the planes. Bottom line: none of the alleged airliners crashed so no one died in a plane crash ... and that's all we really need to know.
No one died in a plane crash.
And the buildings were fully evacuated as per standard demolition protocols.
I learned a lot from this weirdo docu film about how they might be always watching and breadcrumbing the people in real time, so the story appears to change, and nothing to the investigators seems for certain anymore:
"Watch Don't F**k with Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer
Netflix
A twisted criminal's gruesome videos drive a group of amateur online sleuths to launch a risky manhunt that pulls them into a dark underworld.
https://www.netflix.com/title/81031373"
---
Also, when the plane strikes the solid object/building, the rear of the plane should be immediately changing course so that the tail meets the building at a new spot that is distinct from where the nose hit the building.
I think prolly no plane or drone crashes and prolly not missiles either, just fakery + Mandela Effects in the people's minds.
Also: planes & missiles you only get one shot and most often it will be a miss, so the psyop planners wouldn't take no such chances to get caught in the act.
And in general, the psyop planers would always tend to opt for the lowest number of moving parts.
I had a look at the trailer for that Netflix series, and it does look disturbing. It immediately made me think about snuff movies of course (which are a real thing). Maybe this kind of series is designed to divert people's attention from real life snuff movies, I don't know. I'd like to see a similar series in which, say, a thousand badass vigilantes hunt down the makers and purveyors of these snuff movies (obviously filming their exploits) and then discover them and film them turning the tables on the motherfuckers. That would make a great series.
The movie is how they breadcrumb the internet sleuths in real time.
They always trying to trick you!
With regards to the planes - your final point about lowest number of moving parts is in fact precisely my own point. I've been referring to it, however, as the 'random bad luck factor'. This is the thing which always needs to be minimised, and this would be one of the main focuses of discussion at the planning meeting. Always, always consider the discussion at the planning meeting.
So, applying this logic to 'planes or no planes' option, it becomes quite clear the more these planners think about it that 'real planes' is a far better way to minimise the bad luck factor than 'no planes'. This is in no small part because it minimises the number of people who need to be 'in on it' - every single one of these people, remember, is essentially a 'moving part'. You have to consider the second plane to hit in particular here, which happens about 17 minutes after the first one when there are scores of TV camera crews around (some in helicopters), and thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers with their eyes glued to the North Tower which is belching out smoke etc. The 'random bad luck factor' here, then, is the distinct possibility of 'amateur photographers' and 'amateur filmmakers' - that's to say, any ordinary member of the public who happens to have a handheld video camera and decides, as you would, to train that camera on this incredible event that just happened. And statistically speaking, out of all those thousands of people you are going to get a lot more than just 'one guy with a camera' - you could potentially get dozens. So here's the thing - what happens when these dozen, let's say, ordinary Joes rewatch their own footage on their VCR and go 'hold on, there was no plane hitting the South Tower, it just kinda had an explosion in the corner there' - ??
My point here is that this is precisely the kind of random bad luck possibility that the planners would've needed to consider at the planning meeting.
Beyond this, there is the need to pass the appropriate memo and script to every single TV news station and every one of their employees - and remember, despite 'Operation Mockingbird' most of the ordinary employees of TV stations really are just ordinary guys - they are not fully paid up members of the cabal, or mind-controlled Monarchs.
Oh - and please forget the ridiculous idea of 'holograms' and 'smoke and mirrors'. That's not technically feasible - even if it was, it would require even more 'moving parts'. I think that kind of theory has only been inserted by cognitive infiltrators into the truth movement to make the truth movement look silly.
With 9-11 you have to always remember this event didn't just happen in broad daylight in public, it happened with probably hundreds of millions of people watching. That's an entirely different kettle of fish from a neatly contained, out of the general public's view, little 'false flag' or 'fake event', like, I dunno, the Manchester Arena bombing, which took place in a room which could be sealed off for the few minutes necessary in which only your handful of conspirators are present.
So, for 'moving parts' - always remember this includes 'people'. And there really, really is a limit to the number of people you can use in a conspiracy. I would imagine it's got something to do with Dunbar's number, actually. I shall have to add that piece of psychology to my list of articles-to-be-written.
Everybody "saw" planes but really they were tricked by the TV repetition trickery + Mandella effects:
Gerard Holmgren @ St. Mark's Church NYC 2006 on Media Fakery 9/11 (youtube.com)
Look how fake: "just randomly exploded!"
https://youtu.be/ahC-dOZGCnI?t=377
I'm getting even more fascinated by this, sorry about that. It's worth watching from the beginning actually because it makes the fakery a little more evident. So this guy comes round and starts filming and says OMG a lot, right. That's the reaction of someone who is seeing it for the first time. Later, however, he explicitly says he saw what was going on so came outside to see it. In other words, he must've already known. The same is true for when the girls join them around 03:00. One of them even smiles and jumps around. During those first few minutes they do discuss the plane vs. bomb idea, which is not something they would really do you'd think. OMG guy even at this early stage says something like 'no way can a plane fly that low' and 'it would've hit that other building' and 'they would've heard it' and so on. In filmmaking terms that's called 'priming' the audience via suggestion (which would usually take place in Act I, or just before a little fright if we're talking horror movies). So OMG guy is already saying 'it was a bomb' several minutes before the second tower incident.
Also notice a quick take shot of a bloke lower down to the right with a phone watching it. That shows my point about random people with camera phones. So maybe this well-made video was intended to eclipse all of those possible bits of found footage.
Yeah, I feel an essay coming on. Do take the time to watch it from the beginning though. Up until the major edit when they have moved from the balcony down on to the street (I mistakenly thought they'd simply moved to the right, but it's clearly a larger edit - that's around the 6.30 mark). So it's really the first 6.30 that is the interesting bit. Maybe I'll watch the rest of it sometime, but not today.
I found another very interesting bit of fakery in this video. You have to scroll back a couple of minutes though. Here's the link to around 04:00 minutes: https://youtu.be/ahC-dOZGCnI?feature=shared&t=246
This is a few seconds before the same loud-mouthed bloke starts doing his 'oh my god' act (he does it again when the 'explosion' sequence happens. Interestingly, if you then keep watching this guy doesn't seem to be there anymore after the next *edit* when the camera operator has to move to the right along the street which (handily) obscures the South Tower. I wouldn't be surprised, actually, if it's the first 7 minutes or so of the video which is manufactured post-hoc. The group of people watching don't seem too emotionally concerned about what's happened and just being voyeurs. All actors, perhaps.
Anyway. The clip in question is one (well two) of those 'jumpers'. I'll deal with that first of all but just to note the clever filmmaking technique here because the 'explosion sequence' happens very shortly after this, in other words the viewer is psychologically both primed and distracted. Notice also the little camera shudder timed to coincide with the body hitting the ground. That's great filmmaking from a psychological level. It's also quite an amazing feat of camerawork if it was real. First, being able to spot the falling object in the first place (notice it's too small from their vantage point) and then to focus/zoom in so quickly and accurately and then follow the motion of the body down - that takes expert camera operating that does. It also, perhaps, takes a script, because the camera guy knew exactly where to focus (despite, presumably, looking through the viewfinder and only going by the other people there uttering their cries of shock - a normal person's reaction would be 'what? what is it?' by which time the body has already passed by. See what I mean?).
So, we know this is not a person jumping for the following reasons. 1/ there is no movement from the body. No flailing arms or legs or anything as you would expect from a person who is still alive. Unless they went all Zen or something - in which case they wouldn't have jumped. 2/ Notice the distance between the body and the tower - the world long jump record is 8.95m (Mike Powell, 1991). I think that 'body' is a hell of a lot further away from the tower than 8.95m. Wind assistance doesn't come into it because you can tell from the smoke that even though the wind may be blowing in that direction it's not blowing fast enough to push a body that much further out.
[they pick up another 'falling body' a short time later actually (just after 05:00). With little emotional reaction it must be said (aside from the OMG guy). This happens just 10 seconds before the explosion sequence. Despite just capturing two falling bodies the camera operator inexplicably pans to the left and conveniently misses the key moment. Also, notice the audio the cries of shock do not continue. This is not psychologically believable.]
Anyway - this leaves the following options: 1/ it was an already dead body that was somehow propelled out of the building (requires more than just a couple of people throwing it out - again, they wouldn't be able to achieve the distance - it would require some catapult device or similar), or 2/ it was a mannequin, likewise propelled out, or 3/ it's CGI. [same applies to the second falling body - good that they remembered to add a shadow, though]. I'm going for option 3 because 1 and 2 are beyond ludicrous and verging on Monty Python territory: https://youtu.be/YT6K8PGs2Fo?feature=shared&t=118 [do watch the whole sketch though because it's hilarious]
What I find amongst other aspects quite fascinating about this is the camera work. I am of course thinking from a director's point of view here, perhaps, but it's really good filmmaking for sure. If people assume it's authentic (why wouldn't they) then they are not going to question any of these issues. Also, up to the point where the camera moves off to the right there are a few clear edits. Putting those edits in is an interesting question of course, and perhaps lends weight to this fake events narrative/Mandela effect psyop, because they are 'telling you what they are doing' (Petra's 'revelation of the method' thing).
Given my love of filmmaking and screenwriting and stuff (ask Katrina lol) thank you for sharing this clip because it's one for a bookmark and would possibly even merit an entire essay.
Another though I just had is that it's interesting that the filmmakers of this bit 'just happened to be there' (like the Dancing Israelis), 'to document the event'.
I think that little clip is exactly what I've been talking about with regards to the planning meeting and the random bad luck element of ordinary members of the public with cameras, many of whom would record and publicise the *fact* that no plane hit the second tower.
This video is clearly a fake, almost by definition. One of the most obvious points is how this video wasn't available almost immediately following the attacks. Even if we say 'within a year' to be extremely generous, this video should not only have been available on the internet but would've been openly discussed in EVERY SINGLE CONSPIRACY THEORY FORUM. But it wasn't, was it? If this is allegedly clear recorded eyewitness evidence of 'no planes' then you'd think it would've been doing the rounds as soon as YouTube got going.
And to be honest, I think the existence of this video totally proves my point. We're also, as you say, talking Mandela effect here - the bad guys deliberately create a video like this, insert it into the internet and there you go - cognitive dissonance, people start doubting their own memories, thus developing learned helplessness, Room 101 style. Fake events narrative.
I would imagine that one of the main bits of fakery in this video is the audio - why, after all, does the loudest voice immediately start doing the 'no planes' spiel? That's suspicious. And yes, prompted by the girl. But no one else?!! Why don't you hear a load of other voices saying 'there was just a massive explosion just happened in the Tower! Fuck me!' - if it was just an explosion you would've had A LOT of voices saying that. Also notice how the camera pans away from the tower conveniently a few seconds before the explosion.
Also, the explosion doesn't match with the (official/TV cameras) footage from the other angles - in other words, although the *original* version of the video bit of all this might be authentic, this little added section is not. My guess it has been 'spliced' into the original. If indeed there even was an original - because like I say, if this video had existed at the time it would've been on the Internet much, much earlier.
It's also suspiciously good picture quality.
So I'm calling BS on this one.
Just a little snippet - have you watched the whole of the Medusa Touch? It's a great film if I remember correctly (it was ages ago but it did stick with me). If you're talking predictive programming and RoM and all that then it's definitely worth watching the whole thing. If I remember correctly there's a sequence with some astronauts on the moon, for example. There's also some talk about a nuclear meltdown. I wouldn't want to give you any spoilers though. Richard Burton is great in it, and I think it was Lee Remick who was the other main character, who was also pretty good.
Anyway - that's Evie's movie recommendation for today.
I've had a brief look at your 4 fake plane crashes page.
You make a few false assumptions with laws of physics, like 4/ a plane crashing into a 500,000 ton building' - no, that's not how physics works, Petra. The plane did not crash into a 500,000 ton building. it crashed into a small fraction of that building, namely the outer frontage, which is considerably less mass than the plane. I'm being a little pedantic there, for sure, but the point is valid. One thing I should've mentioned earlier, actually, is that you should examine the damage done to the tower, which is freely visible, and does not look like the damage pattern you'd see if explosives were placed inside the building. Also notice in the Naudet brothers video that 1/ there is the SOUND of the plane, and 2/ dust coming out of the other side a few seconds after the impact - those two facts are vitally important details for establishing that it really was a genuine impact. That doesn't say it was a 'commercial airliner' though - it only says it was a genuine impact by 'something' (like I suggested, most likely remote controlled drone launched from Stewart).
3/ 'don't look like airliners' - yes, as i suggested, we're talking remote controlled drones here. They only needed to 'vaguely resemble' airliners for the purposes of footage.
5/ 175 popping out the other side - sure, but if you examine the angle of impact that's not surprising - it almost missed! If it was 'faked' why would they fake an 'almost miss'? Given the first plane was a bullseye, why wouldn't they do the same for 175?
I'll have to study your other links though before i reply in full to them (it's getting a bit late here too and I really should go to bed). But it's certainly intriguing stuff and I'm grateful for your research and collecting it all into a very accessible place.
Given what I just said about the verified existence of Sars-Cov2, here is the most likely, SCIENTIFIC explanation for the 'pandemic'.
Mark and remember.
1/ the 'spread' of the virus does not follow natural spread (epidemiology).
2/ Therefore, the virus was unleashed into 100 different locations around the world at the same time, in order to provide the pretext for global lockdown - and everything that followed.
3/ The cognitive infiltrators immediately spread a number of different 'conspiracy theories' in order to distract from the truth.
4/ The one they clearly have decided is the most effective 'conspiracy theory', the one that has gained traction, is this utterly pseudoscientific 'no viruses' psyop. This is like the fucking flat earth of biology. They must be laughing their fucking heads off at the sheer number of dumbass conspiracy theorists who genuinely believe there's no such thing as viruses! If you don't believe in viruses then you will immediately dismiss the truth. That's the point!
5/ How do they get away with this pseudoscience? Easy - because they know perfectly well that 99.9% of 'conspiracy theorists' know fuck all about biochemistry. That's how. And the 0.1% who do can simply be shouted down or algorithmed out of the picture.
6/ The truth, then, is this. A relatively harmless coronavirus was unleashed across the world at the same time, provoking lockdown. Genuinely effective treatments like Ivermectin were suppressed, in order to push the 'vaccines'. Making people scared (nocebo effect) and thinking that 'vaccines are the only way to release the lockdowns' was then pushed. Then comes the rollout of the 'vaccines', which are the real 'bioweapon'. But of course, if you don't believe in 'viruses' or 'isolation' then you also don't believe in 'mRNA' or the use of 'mRNA plus reverse transcriptase' to program human cells to produce the most toxic part of the Sars-Cov2 genome, namely the S-protein (the S-protein, amongst other attributes, inhibits the production of cytokines/antibodies). The 'evil genius' of the mRNA injections is that it specifically attacks the human immune system, meaning that people, over the course of many, many years, in increasing numbers, die of OTHER DISEASES. Thus the initial bioweapon is disguised. What they have effectively done, here, then, is create a global AIDS pandemic. AIDS, as I'm sure you know, is NOT caused by a harmless passenger virus like HIV.
The more you drone on about 'viruses don't exist' and 'viral isolation yadda yadda fucking yadda' the more you are doing their work for them, by preventing 'truthers' from understanding what actually happened with the 'pandemic'. You are spreading pseudoscience.
For now, however, given I am aware you don't understand biochemistry or epidemiology etc., I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, and simply give you some professional courtesy advice. Stop making yourself look like an idiot.
Thanks for the advice, Evelyn, however, from Day One my understanding of psyops told me there was no virus - nothing to do with my non-existent understanding of anything to do with virology at the time - because I knew they only wanted us to BELIEVE in a virus they didn’t want a virus and a real virus wouldn’t fit their narrative which they obviously had planned.
And sure enough, you can see all the BS they show us including drills in hospitals, etc. Moreover, we can see the reflection of the lack of a virus in the mortality figures in Europe in April 2020. While there were excess spikes in most European countries there weren’t excess spikes in Germany and Portugal, the only two countries that didn’t implement the aggressive drug trials from the WHO and Oxford University.
I don’t understand why it is so difficult for people to understand the basic principles of psyops … because they’re just so basic. They are magician’s tricks, they’re all about MIND CONTROL - not doing anything for real unless wanted. If they really could spread a virus - what’s the need for a “vaccine” to cause injury and death?
It's a bit late so I'll just have to reply briefly. A real virus does not have to imply extra mortality rates. As i said, Sars-Cov2 is in fact a relatively harmless coronavirus which would not add to overall mortality (nocebo effect notwithstanding). In the usual 'flu season' the elderly tend to die of 'pneumonia' (my 95-yr old grandmother is an example, she died in 2013 - the death certificate would've just said 'pneumonia' it wouldn't have specified a pathogen). Pneumonia can be caused by a very wide variety of respiratory infections and with these people it's a case of 'the next infection will kill them' regardless of what that infection is. So, in the case of a harmless coronavirus, this will simply blend in to the usual raft of infections that result in the typical number of deaths. The pathogen itself is not listed on the death certificate, only 'pneumonia' is - and that's very unspecific.
Obviously, therefore, listing 'covid' on a death certificate does tell us that this is not normal practice. It should've just said 'pneumonia'. But clearly, they replaced 'pneumonia' (i.e. flu season) with 'covid', even when they didn't test for it and only 'suspected' it.
But my point is that it's a logical fallacy to conclude from that that there was no virus at all. It's more likely there was a virus but that this virus was no more harmful than any other and did not add to excess mortality in any way. Whether this was a 'novel' virus, a manufactured one, or one that had been circulating for years but just given a new name, is not important for the purposes of this argument.
What is important, however, which is my point, is that the cabal simply cannot control every single person in every single lab throughout the world. We're talking millions of people here. Every hospital has a biochemistry lab, for example. They can't get every one of those people to fake a test and come up with the same result each time. Thus, the easiest way for the bad guys to do their pandemic is to have a genuine virus which can be tested for and verified. That virus, like i say, doesn't have to be new, or engineered, it just needs to have a new name. Combine that with propaganda and you have people believing in a deadly pandemic.
Remember - the 'belief' you talk of is not about a virus, it's about a pandemic. it's not the virus which is the narrative, it's the pandemic, and specifically the 'deadly nature' of the pandemic. The virus, in that sense, is almost irrelevant. All of it was designed to 1/ do lockdowns and everything that went with it, and 2/ get enough people to take the mRNA injections. The mRNA injections are the real bioweapon, not the virus. But both objectives 1 and 2 are far, far easier to achieve if there really is some 'newly named infection' which independent labs can test for. It's far more difficult to achieve if there is no virus and you have to get a million lab technicians to all read from the same script.