Priming the disbelievers: the moon landings and 9/11
Priming the disbelievers: the moon landings and 9/11
They will try every trick in the book to deceive you as much as if you're inclined to believe or disbelieve them
“If you’re not wondering whether you’re under mind control you probably are.”
“We want our adversaries to find themselves in a wilderness of mirrors.”
James Angleton, head of counterintelligence operations, CIA
While we can trace the predictive programming for the 9/11 mainstream narrative to well before the Twin Towers were even built (see reference to “the towers” in Porky Pig, 1949) we can also trace predictive programming of a different kind: for those with an inclination to disbelieve the authorities, seeds were planted before both the moon landings and 9/11.
In this post, I will show how three artefacts - one for the moon landings and two for 9/11 - planted seeds for the disbelievers.
The News-Benders, 1968 - planting the seeds that the moon landings were faked
The News-Benders (1968) is a BBC drama in the anthology drama series, 30-Minute Theatre. Set in 1967, it follows a session conducted by a recruiter, J.G., for a fictional British intelligence organisation in which he “persuades” recruitee, Robert Larkin, to join the service in order to help “plan the news” for 1973.
While the drama is fictional, one can sense that truth is being told obliquely. At the same time, however, as we can reliably infer that intelligence agents are behind this drama - because only intelligence agents would so brazenly speak of such a taboo truth as the fabrication of news events - we can anticipate that any truth told will be distorted and that clear lies will also be thrown in for good measure.
One distortion is that models are used for fabrication of news events for cost reasons. While there is evidence of models in some fabrication, eg, model buildings being blown up for the Pearl Harbour event, models would rarely if ever be used to fabricate an event entirely and often not at all. The fabricators are very good at recouping well in excess of their costs through various methods, fundraising for fake victims being a particularly lucrative one … and, of course, selling news is a big moneymaker.
One of the implied lies is that a fabricated event for 1973 will be a joint moon landing made by the US and Russia. Rather ironically, US astronauts landed on the moon in 1969, the very year after this program aired, well before the more distant year planned for the fakery and we can only infer that at that point there was every confidence both that astronauts would land on the moon and US astronauts would do it alone - it was a space race after all.
At 14:16
J.G. shows Larkin a model used to fake an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which he says is a scientific impossibility.
Larkin: Well, if this rocket doesn’t work, then the others?
J.G: They have a fireworks party at Cape Kennedy almost every other day. Well, you didn’t really believe there were all these things whizzing about up there, sputniks and rockets, astronauts crossing their legs for eight days?
Larkin: How long has this been going on ?
J.G: Since Hiroshima.
At 18:01
J.G. You may remember the Americans let off their two atomic bombs. Well, they didn’t want other people doing the same thing.
We’re told that ICBMs are primarily a deterrent weapon, have never been used in combat and thus have never been dispatched in anger with “nuclear warheads”. We’re also told that they have a range between 5,000 and 15,000 km and an accuracy radius from a few tens of metres to a few hundred metres. As the evidence shows that - like many other Japanese cities - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed using conventional methods and nuclear bombs have never been shown to exist there is no particular reason to believe that ICBMs or any weapon supposedly containing a “nuclear warhead” actually exist - at least not with the “nuclear warhead”. Curious to know what readers think.
In the footage of the aftermath of the bombings, we see the destruction profiles of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are identical - fire-resistant objects remain while those susceptible to fire do not.
On the other hand, all the evidence presented for the moon landings is consistent with the alien lunar conditions and the 1,000 hours of audio communications for the Apollo missions between astronauts and mission control is patently authentic and clearly unfakeable. Sure, they fake stuff all the time but it is unmistakably faked - indeed, they advertise their fakery with their Revelation of the Method technique! It is difficult to fake certain phenomena without detection and there is simply no possibility that 1,000 hours of audio communications could be faked without detection - in order to prove that claim wrong I present the challenge of finding evidence of fakery or faking it yourself for just one hour.
(Explanation for why there aren’t stars in the Apollo photos.)
Moreover, analyses of prominent works alleging that the moon landings were faked including those of Dave McGowan’s, Wagging the Moondoggie, and Massimo Mazzucco’s, American Moon, show that there is nothing put forward by the authors that contradicts the reality of the moon landings and we can safely infer both authors are agents whose purpose - just like that of this drama - is to mislead those inclined to disbelieve (correctly most of the time) into disbelieving that unique, superficially implausible but astonishing achievement. Similarly, Bart Sibrel, is clearly an agent - see Exposing the Lies of Bart Sibrel and Bill Kaysing, the first prominent moon hoaxer, is a cartoon character who says things that no person who was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne would say. He made the hilariously nonsensical claim that captain of the Apollo 15 mission, James Irwin, called him to confess to the fakery of the moon landings but - concerned about phone tapping - arranged a call for another day. Billy tells us that the day before the call was to take place James Irwin died of a heart attack.
The News-Benders is very deliberately named: the power elite “bend” the news and the drama itself “bends” what is real and what isn’t and ultimately provides no useful truth about what news is fabricated and how.
Operation Northwoods, 1962 (“declassified” in 1998)
Operation Northwoods is a set of documents supposedly declassified in 1998, three years before 9/11, that purports to represent an approval process for a proposed false flag attack against the US by Cuba which we are told was rejected by the President, JFK. However, as shown in my post, Operation Northwoods: false-flag proposal or a case of Who's on First?, the documents including memos and similar reveal obvious fakery Revelation-of-the-Method style as the documents are mismatched, unsigned and undated and contain textual elements that in the context can only be described as gobbledygook. They are also stamped UNCLASSIFIED not DECLASSIFIED as would be expected of genuine documents.
The document receiving the most focus is the Pretexts document which outlines the false flag actions and those who disbelieve the 9/11 official story have understood this document to show that the US military is willing to actually kill people in planned false flag operations.
But here’s the thing: while one may receive the strong impression that killing is included in the plan it isn’t really. Of the numerous actions listed it is only action 4. that alludes to killing and it is only put forward as a possibility … but a possibility that really makes no sense as shown below.
”The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated).”
However, there are a few things to take note of:
“boatload of Cubans” has a casual non-military ring to it
The plan’s actions generally are all about smoke’n’mirrors fakery from go to whoa. Why would the “real” death possibility be inserted just for this action when no other action puts this possibility forward and we see no reason not to be able to fake the sinking of the “boatload of Cubans” just like everything else? Faking the sinking of a “boatload of Cubans” is just part and parcel of intelligence operations. It’s no biggie.
In fact, sinking the “boatload of Cubans” for real seems to be far more problematic than faking it and makes precisely zero sense:
Where would the boatload come from? How would they orchestrate it? Would they lure Cubans wishing to flee Cuba onto a boat and then betray them by sinking them? Or would they keep watch for a boatload, hoping it showed up in a timely manner, and then sink it - doesn’t really seem to fit the style of this kind of operation, does it? In psyops they like to control both the action and the information and waiting around for a “boatload of Cubans” to appear in order to sink it is simply not part of psyop MO.
And if they should manage to orchestrate it, isn’t there the risk of the “friendly Cubans” included in other actions in the plan learning of this boatload-of-their-compatriots sinking? How would they feel about that?
A “boatload of Cubans” are people fleeing enemy shores to seek refuge in your country and who no doubt would become willing allies in future fighting of your enemy. It seems pretty churlish to sink them for absolutely no good reason whatsoever nor would it be a great morale-boosting action for your soldiers to engage in.
Rebuilding America's Defenses, published by think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), September 2000
The document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," outlines a strategy for maintaining and expanding U.S. military dominance globally, advocating for increased defense spending, modernization of forces, and preemptive military actions to address perceived threats.
It contains the infamous line that disbelievers of the 9/11 story have taken at face value (emphasis added):
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
What a chortle the authors and their cronies would have had over that very deliberately planted line. They knew that Pearl Harbor was an evacuated bombing just as 9/11 was going to be a fully evacuated demolition … like every other professional demolition known to mankind.
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.
In the case of Pearl Harbor, the planes were purely decoration - we don’t see a single bomb being dropped from a plane - and any bomb activity is shown to be coming from the sea/sea level (please correct me if I’m wrong) while in the case of 9/11, the alleged passenger airliner crashes are all fake although whether there were any aeronautical devices flying around the WTC on the day I cannot say - some say they saw them.
RELATED READING
.
Great to distribute the NEWS BENDERS, but your defense of the moon landing is ridiculous. Of course the radio messages recorded are REAL! The messages were between land based astroNOTs pretending to be in SPACE and mission control. They also talked to President Nixon.
Regarding the 1,000 hours of exchanges between astronauts and Mission Control, two problems:
1: Easily faked, even in 1969, and even if real, the evidence is only of people talking to each other, but has no bearing on where they were when the words were spoken. Other possible locations could be anywhere, as in Nevada or LEO, or Houston. The voices could be anyone, including men working shifts for minimums wage. Since it's NASA, most likely it was college grads who signed NDAs. It is certain that if the moon landings were faked, that all involved would be cognizant that some evidence would have to be on hand. Also, microphones used would have to distort on one end to make it seem that the voices were distant. Easily done. Even in 1969.
2. Unless you've listened to the 1,000 hours, you've no evidence that there are 1,000 hours of recordings. You're just taking NASA's word for it.
There is no record of A11 taking off in a consistent single reel movie. Phil Pollacia did one on a Super 8, and the bearings of the takeoff were verified against the tower to make sure that the film was in sync with real time. Thereafter we find that at 105 seconds the rocket is at the cirrostratus level, 26,000 feet where NASA places it at 79,000. (Cirrostratus can be as low as 18,000 feet.) This tells me that the rocket went somewhere, but not the moon, as it did not have the necessary thrust to escape LEO.
Without piling on, the evidence that they did not go to the moon is stronger than that they did. The thing that perplexes me is why? Given the technology involved in just achieving LEO with humans aboard (if there were), there was some unstated objective. At one time I suspected space weaponry and spy satellites and all of that, a possibility, but saying they were going to the moon to cover for that is such a far reach. I know JFK (the fake martyr) said we had to get there before 1970, but I doubt he knew what we was saying, only reading a script. So it appears that as early as 1961 it was known that the moon landings would be faked in 1969. You say that 911 was foreshadowed in 1947. Why not the moon?
All very confusing. A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
"Revelation of the method" could be nothing more than failure to dot i's and cross t's.