And they even staged a trial with a blubbering Alex Jones receiving a crazy amount financial penalty for asking questions about Sandy Hook. He played his part there too scare everyone else from officially questioning any staged theatrical tragedy.
Same with Trump's fake trials. Equally as ludicrous and fabricated, staged for the intent purpose of making Trump into a martyr of systemic prosecution for his supporters as well as to create fear and division for both liberals and conservatives.
Very thoughtful and well presented piece! Miles Mathis causes me no end of bother in my mind though - his pieces are a maddening mixture of common sense and weirdness and his site just does not say "convincing" does it? However, I have actually talked to him - he suspected me of being an agent because of the people I'd managed to speak with through doing a biography of a guy who knew just about everybody in 60s London :-) We also talked about Paul McCartney and he was adamant Sir Paul is the very same guy, but he did offer to put one of my articles up on his site if I could convince him otherwise! I was impressed by his Lennon piece. When I spoke later to Peter McNamee, the director of Let Him Be, he (obviously) told me the film was entirely fictional (speaking in a very Lennon-esque voice on the phone) It is so very hard to sift through stuff:-/
Then again, celebrities have doppelgangers. For all we know, Paul may have doubles standing for him when he's not playing his guitar live or something like that. So even if Paul no. 1 is still around, doesn't mean there aren't other Pauls impersonating him whenever possible.
Which also, of course, indicates that what allegedly happened in 1966 is not what we're told. Maybe Paul got ill or wanted some brief solace from the media spotlight, so they had him disappear for a short while before coming back. During that brief period, they had doubles stand in for him at certain events, including presumably his twin brother according to Mathis. But most definitely he wasn't permanently replaced.
Ah, no - I meant the opposite. There's a lot more to the story than left-handed guitar playing. It goes deep and high and I've talked to a lot of people who were around the band at that time. Been working on book for a while now!
So are you saying that the teenager we see in in the first photo at the link I posted isn't the same person as the mature person we see in the second photo? They so look like the same person to me - especially that sort-of slightly wide-eyed look and the eybrows.
Hi Petra - point me to the link? It's hard to trust photos - has been for some time. Similarly voice - so much remastering. It was easier at the time...
Ah it was, of course, sorry - thanks! That first pic is an enhanced version of Mike McCartney's photo of his brother, featured in his book, which I am looking at now. The second is from Bill's Nigerian trip with the now sadly departed Denny, where we are told there was a mugging and all the songs for the album were stolen... Incidentally, Nigel (biography guy) made the promo video for Band on the Run.
I like your description of Mathis - 'maddening mixture of common sense and weirdness' - that's the kind of dissonance I get sometimes when I read his fake events stuff - I would imagine the earlier ones are more accurate, because there would've come a time when the 'committee at Langley' would've decided to 'use' him to spread misinformation by creating 'evidence' pointing to a 'fake event' which was in fact not a fake event - they know his methodology (wikipedia, genealogy, photo-debunking) so placing those clues for him in advance of poking him is the kind of thing I'd do if I was on that committee.
I still haven't gotten through all his fake events essays, but I'm focussing more on his science for now, which is, I have to say, extraordinary. I would imagine although they are using him to do that research (which is why he hasn't been bumped off) they also want to discredit that research by associating him with all these 'conspiracy theories'.
He is, nevertheless, one of the most fascinating characters on the planet. It would be an insult to bump him off. That's also what I'd say if I was on the committee...
The good thing and the bad thing about Miles Mathis is that his blog is de-referenced in the search engines.
Even my blog, which to date has 160,000 views since 2018 and currently averages 20 views per day, has been de-referenced.
For example, when we typed in the name of the actress "Ginnie Watson" (alleged survivor of the Bataclan), the first results were on my blog. I thought for a long time that wordpress was going to delete my blog, but it didn't, despite the fact that I advertised on very mainstream sites.
So when Mathis sometimes proclaims that the media are deliberately putting out certain specific fake news stories to target him, I tend to believe him.
We're still left with places to express ourselves (like Odyssey, Bitchute etc) but without the possibility of spreading ourselves like we used to on Youtube.
Yeah, it was a real bummer when they killed YT. I loved all the creative videos people put up and they just don't seem to be on the other platforms anymore, it's all dispersed. Perhaps they go on Discord, however, I find that a pain to use.
I think hits to my website have increased a little since I've had a substack as I put links in both my posts and comments there. Perhaps you could start one?
In the case of Miles have you seen Dawn French's listing of all his articles which I think she aims to keep up to date?
I will add events that you cover on canularisme to my Chronology of Psyops page - actually I'll probably do a new one on substack and try to incorporate as many as possible from various sites although as there's simply too many will need to rationalise in some way.
I've only just discovered Dawn French's substack. It's a very good initiative. It was my original intention to do the same thing with my blog, to provide a general understanding of the mechanisms of psy-ops, some types of examples and links to other sites. Knowing that I wouldn't have the motivation to be regular due to lack of audience. I've had very few relays. The French-speaking world on the subject is miserable (hence the creation of my blog).
So I don't think I'll be doing a list on substack for the time being. I comment very rarely and my blog is in French.
Plus, it would create a lot of suspicion if they bumped him off, which is probably not what they want to happen. For this reason, they're letting him stay around. They only need to shadow ban his work on certain topics, which is what they do.
P.S, by way of exposition, you may be interested in my substack. Unless someone stops me, I plan on something of an expose about this mother of all psyops, namely the 'false events narrative' soon enough. To me, it's become obvious - the main reason is because it's ventured into absurd territory, and it's designed to fuck up the so-called 'conspiracy theory' movement - i.e. the opposition.
Naturally, I myself could be the progenitor of the new controlled opposition. This is for the observer to decide.
I am a counter-subversion agent, and this narrative is pure subversion.
Take note to the agents - You really need to have a word here [with strikethrough] and stop professing belief in ludicrous ideas... You've gotten away with it so far, but it's become too much...
They also do 'psychological profiling' and then make their decision. In Mathis case, it's really easy because he is a self-centred piece of shit.
Thus better option when it comes to him (which they really, really don't want people to think about) is to give these people 'the offer they can't refuse'. In Mathis' case that's 'access to area 51' (cutting edge tech etc.) in exchange for 'we do your website from now on and spread the fake events narrative'.
The most important thing about Mathis is his science. His dumbass 'fake events narrative' is a misdirection. They really, really don't want you to think about his science...
Put it this way - if they offered me the genuine truth about stuff like 'what mars really looks like' and 'what venus really looks like' and so on, and 'what has your secret space telescope at L2 told you about the planetary system at Centauri', and 'the chance to work with the best physicists on the planet' or if you refuse 'we kill you and destroy everything you ever did' then that's a pretty easy decision.
The killer argument regarding Mathis is the same as with all these other makeshift 'opposition' - the dissonance between 'level of intelligence' and 'belief in dumb things' - that's the revealer. So the idea that Mathis hasn't yet worked out that the max. velocity of the quantum is a function of the elasticity of its material is, well, not credible.
Then again, it may well be that he's just a stupid, fascist piece of shit.
I would prefer to believe the latter.
But the best way to spot an agent is to assess the shit they say they believe in compared to their level of intelligence. If they display intelligence but also say they believe in ludicrous ideas then they either have MPD or they are a spy. There's no other logical option.
if, for example, they believe that 'germs aren't real' but otherwise they display a heightened level of intelligence then, hey, 99% chance they're a spy.
That's just one example.
Not naming any names, of course...
I would never expose them. Simply out of professional courtesy...
But they - or their handler - seriously need to have a meeting. Because it won't be long before this obvious contradiction gets mentioned...
Excellent article - you've laid out all these logical points in good order!
As you're aware from all our little comments on Iain's article about Manchester all these aspects have been in my contemplation recently. I like the way these things kind of 'digest' inside us and then get ordered and written out.
I'll probably have to go and think about all this even more but for an initial reaction I was thinking the following, mainly related to your point about 'they don't care about human life'.
I think one way of thinking about it is a kind of game theory approach, namely, 'think from your opponent's point of view'. In this case, I am minded to simply visualise their 'planning meeting'. In such a meeting they will have an 'objective' - let's say it's 'do terrorist attack'. And as you say, a psyop is actually about creating a publicly-consumed narrative, not necessarily about actually setting off a bomb (if we're using Manchester as our example). So, the approach they will take will simply be 'what is the most efficient way of achieving our objective?'. The point about them 'not caring about human life' is important here - if they decide that the most efficient way really is to just set off a bomb then that's what they'll do. Of course, if it's more about 'narrative control' then they will think a little differently about it, and will not want to 'overcomplicate' things and absolutely try and minimise, or eliminate entirely, the 'random' element. Thus, for example, in order to 'get the narrative message across', yes, they will need to have 'actors' involved, because otherwise they simply can't control what 'statements' the (genuine) victims will make. They also can't rule out the possibility that one or more of the victims might be 'someone important' or 'someone with important connections' - and that, especially, is a very, very important note there.
So, I think we should bear this in mind vis a vis the hypothesis of 'hybrid' events - i.e. 'a real attack' combined with 'actors involved in a psyop'. If their planning meeting decides that a hybrid is the most efficient way to achieve the objective, then that's what they'll do. If 'only actors' is most efficient, they'll do that. And if 'just setting off a bomb' is most efficient, then they'll choose that option.
Anyhow, you're laying down of all this logical analysis is excellent! Great article!
I will add some of your points to my article such as "overcomplicate", not having control of who is killed and who isn't. In fact, that thought was vaguely in my head I think but somehow not registering properly. I somehow thought it's a little like Shylock and his pound of flesh - he can't take the flesh without the blood. If you're going to destroy massive towers how can you be sure to only kill the people you don't care about? Of course, you can warn people but then you may not want all the people you care about to know what you're doing. It's a great point actually! Cannot be argued with.
Then again you have to wonder if those organising the scamdemic have failed to tell people they care about???
Sure the important people in the know would receive placebos but what about people connected to those in the know that those in the know want to spare from the jab from but cannot necessarily arrange that easily. Friends of those in the know may be totally onboard with the BS and may simply wish to go to a particular place to get the normal jab. I do wonder about that happening.
Those in power may not care about collateral damage but I really don't think demolition crews would not want to be as professional as possible and make sure no one dies or is injured as much as they are able. Also, the "collateral damage" is an uncontrolled situation as you say.
Yeah - these are all pertinent points. I'm not sure whether we're overthinking when we get to this point. With regards to the jabs given they came in batches, those batches would've been dispatched to particular areas I suppose, meaning they can control the collateral damage to a certain extent. But yes, it's a tricky one.
I think the prevalence of the placebos, however, was much greater than people might think. I wouldn't be surprised, in fact, if the prevalence of the damaging ones was precisely one sixth - that being the chance of shooting yourself playing Russian roulette. Psychopaths do think deviously and despicably, after all, and would 'enjoy' that 'irony' (revelation of the method too, perhaps). But certainly thinking from a purely statistical point of view, let's take the 650 MPs in the British parliament - the prevalence of 'side effects' in the general population was much higher than 1 in 650, so statistically it's utterly implausible that not one of those 650 MPs would come down with something serious. We could likewise add in even more numbers - say the British Olympic team, or other national sports squads. Then all those famous celebrities - or 'national treasures' we might say - if any of them come down with collateral damage then the population take notice. So yeah, the bad guys have to be really, really careful there.
With regards to the controlled demo crews - I take your point, which does kind of suggest that psychologically we must be talking about a controlled demo crew who were fully paid up bad guys who didn't care about collateral damage. As you say, a 'respectable' or 'professional' crew would, perhaps by definition, refuse to take part in such an operation - equally so, the planners would understand this in advance and so they would have to employ a different set of people. Either that, or the demolition company in question is itself entirely populated by sociopaths who can be relied upon not to care.
So yeah, adding all this 'psychology' into it is really insightful and can serve as pointers towards the culprits. I'm a big fan of psychology!
In Australia, one politician got Bell's Palsy and another one died "suddenly" at the age of 52 so some of ours didn't get the memo - as I avoid the news perhaps others were affected and some, of course, may have been affected without it getting in the news too.
Funny, I just noticed when writing the article that the demolition company that submitted a cleanup plan for the WTC 11 days after the event, Controlled Demolition Inc (CDI), has 4 world records for large building demolition, two of them in 1998, one in 2000 and one in 2012. (I knew they had world records before but I paid no attention to the dates.)
I think we know who had an awful lot to do with bringing the buildings down.
Interesting points. Perhaps those Australian politicians are an example of what we were talking about re collateral damage. On a statistical note, though, I don't know how many people there are in the Australian parliament - ok, I was lazy, it just took me five seconds to look it up - it's 76 - I'm not sure the exact statistics for those particular serious adverse events (here I am going to be lazy) but 2 out 76 is 1 in 38 (call it 3%), which seems about right - meaning most of them didn't get the memo as you say. Or only some of them did. I wonder political party they were in and what their political orientation was... Funny, in a deranged kind of way, but maybe they could've thought of getting rid of someone like Jeremy Corbyn with a jab.
As usual, I go away and my mind conjures up more thoughts. I've come to the conclusion that the issue of collateral damage is much, much more important than one might think. From a simple statistical point of view they can't inform everyone, and so the number of people (connected to people they inform/don't want to get caught up in it) just increases exponentially. Naturally, this favours the pure psyop idea, as it eliminates the possibility of such collateral damage, and therefore the dreaded 'random variable' element. It eliminates the 'luck factor' in other words (bad luck, I mean, from their point of view).
This makes an event like 9-11 extremely risky for them - and that just tells us the massive level of necessity and importance they attached to that operation. They wouldn't have been able to control the number of NY firefighters caught up in the buildings, for example - if they say 'get out' then that's suspicious and we're talking thousands of NYFD guys with no control over how many of them divulge that information. So in that sense, they knew perfectly well a lot of people would die. It's impossible for them to do 9-11 as a 'fake event' in that sense, with no one dying. That tells us a lot, especially about their planning meeting, not to mention their psychology (or psychopathology, rather)...
Thanks so much, Evelyn. And yes, I think we should think from their point of view, I don't think people tend to do that very much. Honestly, from all the points you mention isn't it pretty much a no-brainer in terms of efficiency. You either fake the thing entirely as in Manchester because you don't want any destruction or you do the bombing (because you want the destruction) while everything else is "controlled".
I thought of a related point here, which is we can perhaps distinguish between a psyop and a genuine terrorist attack by visualising the same planning meeting for a genuine terrorist group. A genuine terrorist attack would therefore look very different, because they want to kill as many innocent infidels as possible and create bold and brilliant terror.
That's what always got me about 7/7 for example - if they were genuine terrorists and I was their 'mastermind' I'd be very disappointed they 'only' killed 52 infidels. I would expect at least 52 for each of the four bombs. And better target selection. The British Museum, for example - great symbol of British colonialism.
Interestingly I visited the museum after 7/7 and all they had was a 'security checkpoint' manned by a single unarmed 'officer', who simply waved me through. That's not security and if I was accompanied by say, three other bad guys armed with Kalashnikovs then a single silenced 9mm to the officer and we'd be inside. Split up, shoot discriminately (AK's are like that - they're fucking lethal) and we'll soon have a death toll in the hundreds and a stand off which will be running news for us. So that tells me the security services either don't take security seriously or they are aware there's no threat, or 'they have it under control' as it were, or G-section (counter-terrorism) really need to sort out their recruitment protocol and get a better class of officer.
Contrast this with say the Bologna train station bomb (1980), in which over 80 people died and several hundred injured. That's a genuine terrorist attack - part of Gladio, which is right-wing terrorism, in the left-wing capital of Italy. The difference in 'outcome' compared to say 7/7 is blindingly obvious. At that 'planning meeting' the decision is clearly 'set off a bomb'.
Sept. 01 I was in Crete with daughters. For a while, airports closed down, we didn't know how long we'd have to stay in Europe--would my money hold out? Leaving tiny Heraklion airport, I was made to take down my (very long) hair, remove all hairpins. Post 9/11 terror attack, security at that teeny tiny airport was strict. Don't remember what happened at Athens or Heathrow. Landed at Dulles--and what? no extra security at all. At all. In the town where a plane had tried to fly into the Pentagon? At the time it just seemed strange. But in retrospect, it seems a bit chilllng.
Only Government by definition can be terrorist.....and who pulls off the psyops?
Government, its agencies, bureaus, departments, military and all the accompanying officers, agents, enFORCEr's, law abiding employees, contractors...etc.... are 'order followers' and order followers do not think because they are too busy following orders. I know this first hand when in Boot Camp I was told "Recruit follow orders, you do not get paid to think" Lets face it, if you are not thinking then the possibility of concluding you may be playing a part in something that is not as you have come to believe, trained, practiced, had reinforced, over and over and over is not to be suspected in the least.
I saw all of this in the Military....I mean how else can you get a man to give his one and only life to kill another man in a far away land who like you is in the same situation. War is a psyop simply because ALL Wars are started for reasons other than what the people who fight it are told.
War is a Racket, it is a scam. There has NEVER been a just war, War is a crime.....its planners, plotters financiers, fomenters and order followers are criminals win or lose!
The Government is a gang replete with gang colors, gang insignia, gang uniforms, gang hierarchy, gang symbols, gang anthems......etc
Government like religion has one main purpose. To keep serfs, Lilliputians, herd, sheep, tax slaves...etc....etc.... from killing the parasitic psychopaths.
So the notion of some 'genuine terrorist attack' is not a good description.
There is no such thing.
All so called Terrorist events are government and or their henchmen, lackeys...etc. Their purpose is to manage, control, shape, liquidate the people, wealth, resources...etc.... for the parasitic psychopaths who are behind all that keep the people in a life that is anything but 'mankind'...... I can come to no other conclusion with all the information to be known.
Good job Petra, this is a very fascinating and niche topic for people in this space! I hope you will continue with more details, how they fake the deaths, proof of persons still living etc. I had posts on Sharon Tate, JFK, and Abe the Japan PM, all shocked me the deeper I got.
I have a particular interest in the "Lets Roll" guys of UA 93, Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Tom Burnett, and Jeremy Glick. Besides the fact that there was no plane at the crash site, do you have any specific info on any of these guys still being alive?
I have very little on anyone at all still being alive apart from:
--- the Challenger crew
--- have seen pictures of the Sandy Hook children older and it seems they actually sang at a concert the next year - the pictures they used for the event were of them much younger so they weren't so recognisable
--- an alleged environmentalist, Judi Bari, was supposed to have been injured by a car-bomb later dying of breast cancer in 1990, however, Mark Tokarski, from Piece of Mindful looked her up and found a name fitting her age and region - https://pieceofmindful.com/2022/12/22/dave-foreman-rip/
--- It seems Todd Beamer was a vicsim (simulated victim) although seemingly based on a Todd Beamer who died in 1997 rescuing his pet dog - search on this cluesforum page for Todd - http://alturl.com/8nbm7
Thanks for the thorough reply and very kind of you. I will dig into the info and get back to you if I find any gems. I did see an interesting unanswered question someone asked on fakologist about the people standing at the supposed plane entrance window, were they able to get out down the stairs or they are holograms or something else?
No problem, I should try to do another piece at least addressing the vicsim aspect. There's a lot to it, PM. I have to admit the complexity of it is quite fascinating, however, as people struggle so much just to get the fundamentals of it being a massive demolition job cum massive exercise that is what I tend to focus on.
Thanks for the prompt. Yes, I've seen the vicsim report and I'm now going to add links to it in the post (which I should have done in the first place) as well as to great articles by Jon Revusky on the two Japanese people, Kazuhiro Anai and Takuya Nakamura who allegedly worked at the Nishi-Nippon bank that couldn't be found and Betty Ong. Presumably you've seen those? And links to individuals such as Mark Bingham and Todd Beamer that I put in my comment above to Proton Magic.
I don't even think the astronauts were on Saturn 5. There's too much risk. It's all scripted and edited and pre-filmed and very craftily choreographed right down to the capsule coming out of the sky with parachutes into the water. They're not going to risk losing the astronaut.
Why not? It's technically not impossible, even if it was implausible for the perpetrators to stage them (if we are to assume the Apollo missions were real). Plus, the audio listed isn't visual, physical evidence of said events having actually happened. There's no way to tell if they were actually recorded in space or on earth.
And what about the hours of 9/11 footage that's out there? Wouldn't it seem tedious or implausible to fake them all, as well?
Act 4 of his feature on 9-11 is about 93. One interesting thing is the MIC connections of course.(of the 'witnesses' I mean). Also the fact that a lot of these guys on the plane were apparently more than physically capable people (like 6ft 2 judo types), whereas Todd Beamer was absolutely not that type. Act IV is worth reading in full as it contains a lot of interesting thoughts and tidbits of info. Dave's conclusion was that (like 77) it was shot down. Whether that's true or they simply faked the crash site is another question. But regardless of his conclusion, the info (not to mention his great writing style) is well worth a visit.
Thanks Evelyn, Dave is largely correct, the plane can not be in the ground because that defies the laws of physics of plane and ground hitting each other and leaving the plane on the ground as usual (the earth has slightly more mass than a plane), and as it is a crime scene, it should be dug up and the pieces examined in a large tent like TWA 800. But Dave doesn't tell us clearly it's all fakery which is obviously is. Where are the real plane and passengers? Why is it necessary to invoke a real plane and passengers? That would be like saying , "people get asymptomatic cases of Covid-19". Regards.
Dave doesn't say clearly it's fakery because Dave - as Mark Tokarski points out below - is a spook which, funnily enough, was in a post I just came across yesterday when I was looking for what he said about Judi Bari, a person who was allegedly injured by a car-bomb later supposedly dying of cancer but who he looked up and found registered years later.
I knew Dave was a spook anyway because of the Apollo missions being real and his saying they weren't.
Actually, I've discussed Dave with Tom Siebert on his stack who met him when he did PR for his book, Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon. He said there was a 13% chance he was an agent :) Actually, it was Tom who inspired this post due to his lack of enthusiasm in accepting fakery of deaths.
"McGowan is a spook. I say “is” a spook, as he is said to have died on 11/22/15. That’s a spook date. Circumstances are, however, suspicious. I cannot locate them now, as they are not available anywhere. So rely on my memory, such as it is, and at your own risk. Prior to his death, maybe as early as 2014, he was doing interviews in which he chain smoked. In one, kind of bizarre, he was wearing a bathrobe and kneeling. Later he announced he had lung cancer and was going to die. I view his heavy smoking as probably of TV cigarettes, even as he could do the real ones and still, death might easily elude him. Most people who smoke die of other stuff, respiratory issues, and also lung cancer. Just smoking, however, is not a death sentence. The whole McGowan weird scene strikes me as predictive programming. I guess it is fitting the the author of Weird Scenes fakes his own death, along with most everyone else in that book.
McGowan, who is sporting what I think of as a shit-eating grin in the photo above, ran a website called Center for an Informed America, or CIA for short. No comment."
The evidence says they were real and what I see the disbelievers judging by are what they think could / would / must have happened according to their faulty understanding of space and rocketry rather than looking at the evidence to see how it matches the completely alien lunar conditions ... and also CHECKING what the Apollo enthusiasts have to say on the subject.
My two rules of critical thinking:
1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong (this means immersing yourself in argument against what you believe)
2. Confine analysis to the most irrefutable facts in the first instance.
All the claims made by the disbelievers have been debunked ... and when I say debunked I mean properly debunked, it's not a case of alleged debunking as in most fact-checking, the debunking stands up to scrutiny.
If we really didn't go to the moon then Wagging the Moondoggie would contain at least one item that exposed that truth. We know that agents mix truth and lies but there has to be some truth, right? There is no truth in that book ... unless someone can identify it. This is a debunking of the first two parts of the 14-part book.
Also, lots of people genuinely don't believe in the moon landings, of course, but you can tell from the way Dave writes that it's propaganda, it's not an expression of his genuine belief ... and he knows too much.
I largely agree with you. I'm not saying I always agree with everything Dave says but I do love his writing style... It's a breath of fresh air (like 93 perhaps, lol).
Thanks. the Point of Shanksville was mainly to instill the idea that planes were used in the attacks because the reality is they're were no planes, most likely holograms and they want to hide that. Secondarily was the hero propaganda and further fomenting desire for revenge against those scoundrels in Afghanistan that they themselves set up as enemy. Nifty plan huh?
I'm not going into the 'no-planes' thing, especially not holograms because that just gets a bit silly in my view and it looks like deliberate disinformation.
On the other paw, the 'dramatic storyline' for 93 is certainly a good point, and I've thought that myself. Even if the original intent was to say it was shot down (which seems to have been what the initial storyline/news reports on the day was in fact going with), that's still a nice dramatic story with the heroic interceptor pilot in an awful dilemma. A good screenwriter could make a good movie about that, especially if the hero pilot had a good backstory, and maybe some hero-worshipping son or something and an estranged wife who comes back to him at the end. Maybe they could get Spielberg to do it. Ah, no - better would be Ron Howard. Spielberg would be too obvious...
Yep. Here's two videos on the jumpers from FakeNukes Phil on bitchute - recommend his channel. I probably should include references to fake jumpers in the post.
It's "funny" and surely not coincidental that those truly looking for THE TRUTH are going to "stumble" - because no-one can find THE TRUTH it's the other way around THE TRUTH finds those looking for it fearlessly - upon the tidbits that connect the dots in each one's own particular way. Like a jigsaw puzzle being put together by an invisible hand - GOD ALMIGHTY - in order to reveal THE TRUTH.
I have stumbled upon the website you are referring to quite some time ago. Having already forgotten about it for the time being.
Sometime in the mid-teens, a Sandy Hook "mother" came to our very large suburban Phila. school district, with all district faculty in the h.s. auditorium. She gave a tear-filled Powerpoint presentation, lots of slides, lots of emoting. So what were we teachers supposed to do with this "information"? Bear in mind that by 2018, my "progressive" asst. principal was considering the idea of armed faculty.
Oh dear. The thing is I know schools can be dangerous places ... but I think every mass school shooting reported breathlessly around the world has been a fake which isn't at all to say that shootings don't occur in schools at least in the US.
So did you believe her and what about now? Do you recognise Sandy Hook as being a drill?
I was at that point accepting completely of the line fed to me. And my teaching consumed me completely--I had no time for news-gathering (watching or listening)--I was always either planning lessons or writing tests or grading until I went to bed at night. I did at that time note that every one of those school shooters was a male whose parents had divorced--this is pertinent because in my classes, I continually witnessed the difference in academic success between "divorced children" and children of intact marriages (a young colleague also noticed this). In case you should wonder, that information was made privy to teachers in the listing of guardians in their student rosters Much later did I learn that these young terrorists were all on anti-depressant prescriptions. Only a year or two ago---thanks to A Mid-Western Doctor---did I learn that SSRI's lead to violent, suicidal or murderous behavior. To your question, I haven't come to the recognition of these 'attacks' as drill: I should indeed be glad if I can. What I did conclude was that they were sponsored by a govt wanting to cancel the 2nd amendment, and moving in that direction by slowly changing the perception of citizens in favor of that. Attack the citizens at their most vulnerable point: their children. And if Sandy Hook was govt' sponsored, then 9/11 also could be: to gin up public support for a war. Thousands dead? In horrifying fashion? Casualties of war, don'cha know? The more dead, the more horrifyingly, the faster the acceptance of war.
It's not about mind control. In our worldly condition we are already mind-controlled. It's about spiritual accusation.
Our prideful self-centeredness is exposed by these fearful delusions, for the purpose of eventually producing conviction, contrition, and repentance. Or for NOT producing it, as the individual case may be.
Any narratives that scare us or tempt us are instruments of this process. Our blind worldliness will be thoroughly demonstrated for many years, but then at some later moment the humbling extent of our former blindness will be revealed to us.
We're not figuring anything out by our own clever insight. We're being shown.
Isaiah 66:4
4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2 Timothy 1:7
7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
Ecclesiasticus (Book of Sirach) 3:23-26
23 Be not curious in unnecessary matters: for more things are shewed unto thee than men understand.
24 For many are deceived by their own vain opinion; and an evil suspicion hath overthrown their judgment.
25 Without eyes thou shalt want light: profess not the knowledge therefore that thou hast not.
26 A stubborn heart shall fare evil at the last; and he that loveth danger shall perish therein.
Yes, I see what you're saying. I realise that, in my own way, I'm deluded in responding in the way I do to the world in prosaic, logical fashion, however, enlightenment eludes me at this point.
like V for vendetta, in the end, no one was killed (the masks come off)
Although the traumatization would not be well received....and to what reason, to contro( intention of psyops) is deceitful tyranny all the same.The plot thickens.....
I pray and hope this is the case, I do like happy endings.👍
People have been injured, maimed and killed one way or another in the scamdemic in very, very large numbers but it makes no sense to me. We're reducing our population naturally anyway.
A quick, concise article that's always a pleasure to read.
Unfortunately, the majority of conspiracy theorists continue to react in the same way as the majority of people when they are told about unofficial accounts.
With all the evidence over the years, there has been little change. I saw it again with the alleged attack of 22 March near Moscow.
I came across videos in French that demonstrated the Russians' implacable complicity. It's yet another hoax, but in Europe we can't even suggest it, as our comments will be immediately deleted for "incitement to hatred" and "negationism".
I think people are wising up a little more though with covid. Loads of people recognise the bridge wasn't an accident and I think fewer people than before think Moscow was real but maybe I'm in more of a bubble than I realise.
As soon as you know it's a hoax ... you know they're all in it together. It's phenomenal.
I'm afraid about the bubble effect. I had fun reading the comments under several videos about Moscow. I only spotted one comment that clearly said "this is Hollywood cinema".
Having said that, what about people like me who don't even dare to comment?
With hindsight, I'm surprised to have suffered so few reproaches and threats with my blog and when I posted on certain public forums.
I'm also thinking that maybe what I'm expressing is so insane that either I'm an agent or I'm totally insane and so my comments should be ignored.
"A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat.
When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
True as a general rule, but...there were 529k more deaths in the US in 2020 than there were in 2019--an unprecedented increase of 18.5%. That's according to the official US data, which is collected from death certificates issued in the states/counties. Seems like 99% of people are not aware of this, and there is a media blackout on it--one of the reasons why I don't think these deaths were faked. The characteristics of the deaths also do not support the official covid narrative--another reason why I don't think these deaths were faked. This was a real democide IMO--that is why no one is talking about it and no one knows about it. https://www.virginiastoner.com/us-mortality-guide
Wow! That's an incredible number. In Australia, as far as I'm aware, there was no appreciable rise in mortality in 2020 ... only in 2021-22 and we just had a 6 hour inquiry session into excess mortality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmpci8hg4WM
Your book is a very important document and it's good that it simply reports the data so that people can make the inferences for themselves.
I don't think they fake mortality figures, they only conduct fraud with relation to cause. From information gleaned here and there it seems that the deaths that are faked don't get included in the mortality figures.
The only time they'd want real deaths is if it's to silence genuine whistleblowers or it's easier than faking them. From my observations, that's seldom the case. I've yet to encounter any bona fide insider dissident who was 'offed' by the psychopaths, for example, but who knows for sure.
And speaking of fake 9/11 casualties, this reminds me of the acknowledged stories of charlatans posing as 9/11 survivors. One example is the story of Alicia 'Tania' Head who claimed to have miraculously survived the alleged attack and collapse of the South Tower. 'Tania' said she was in the impact zone when it happened, working for Merrill Lynch (despite it not having offices in that building by 2001), and alleged to had a lover who died in the North Tower. Her story was later revealed to be a hoax, including her claim of being in New York that day.
With that in mind, it's only logical to assume that many more similar stories told by other "survivors" were faked. The admitted fakes were probably a small fraction of the dozens more fictional stories being told but aren't being disclosed as fraudulent by the mainstream media, such as this equally unbelievable story of a man who survived the same South Tower attack only a few floors above Head's. If the recreation below is to be believed, he was almost right in front of where Flight 175 hit, which reduces his chances of living to near-zero. And the way he tells his story also feels phony, almost as if he's reading from or reciting from memory a Hollywood script.
Yep, they often push out "admitted" fakes along with the fakes that aren't admitted for maximum confusion. It's not as if Tania was a "genuine" fake so to speak - they pushed her out.
On the other hand, I think the woman, Fiona Harvey, who outed herself as the real person the stalker in the Netflix series, Baby Reindeer, is based on but claims she really isn't a stalker, really is a stalker and is not acting the part ... although it would be truly hilarious if she was just acting. That shit is very surreal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sdVXTDOYOo
Regarding Fiona Harvey, I'm curious to know why you think she's genuine? Certainly, the media coverage of her story is manufactured, so I don't see why Fiona herself would be an exception.
I can vouch for Judi Bari being wounded in Oakland , as I visited her in hospital, and witnessed her injuries...(though I can't speak directly as to whether or not it was by a pipe bomb blast, or if she was an agent of sorts)
This is fascinating. Looking at her Wiki bio she does strike me as likely being a chaos agent (a term I recently discovered is used instead of "controlled opposition agent") and in Judi's case, assuming she was/is an agent, chaos certainly fits. According to her bio, she had both the anti-environmentalists and environmentalists upset with her and seemed to be active all over the place. We can certainly see why ultimately she might have needed to "disappear".
And they made a film about her - nothing indicates fake to me more than a film being made though, of course, it doesn't qualify as evidence, it's just that so often a film is made - they exploit fakery every which way.
What particularly strikes me as Revelation of the Method (RoM) is this (under Events of Investigation - which seems a strange heading of itself to me):
"Based on his personal observations of bomb damage to the car, FBI Special Agent Frank Doyle filed a public affidavit that the bomb had been carried on the back seat floorboard of Bari's vehicle. The FBI was granted a search warrant on May 25 at 2:21 a.m., and agents used a helicopter to quickly reach Bari's home and search it. Agents also searched the premises of the "Seeds of Peace" house in Berkeley, where Bari and Cherney had visited the day before the explosion. ...
"FBI analysis of the explosive device determined it was a pipe bomb with nails wrapped to its surface to create shrapnel. It was equipped with a timer-armed motion trigger, so that it would explode only when the car was driven. The bomb was confirmed to have been placed on the floorboard directly under the driver's seat, not on the floorboard behind the seat, as Agent Doyle had claimed. That evidence suggested that the bomb was an anti-personnel device intended to kill the driver of Bari's car. The FBI investigation remained focused on the theory that the explosion was an accidental detonation of a device knowingly transported by Bari. They attempted to match roofing nails transported in Bari's car to finishing nails used with the bomb. After seven weeks of news stories reporting the police claims that all evidence pointed to Bari and Cherney, the Alameda County District Attorney announced that he would not file any formal charges against the pair due to insufficient evidence against them. Law enforcement agencies never fully investigated evidence that the bombing was an attempt on Bari's life. The crime has remained unsolved."
Revelation of the Method (RoM):
1. The exact time of a search warrant issued at 2:21AM on May 25 seems odd, especially when no indication of time at all of the bomb going off on May 24 is given.
2. That helicopters were dispatched to do a house search seems odd for the level of urgency.
3. If the FBI determined the bomb was equipped with a timer-armed motion trigger to explode only when the car was driven then why would they determine that Judi was carrying the bomb in her own car?
So when you say you witnessed her injuries, Edward, what exactly did you witness? Did you witness actual injury or indications of injury such as a cast?
Memory is a tricky thing, but I seem to recall bruising and evidence of bolts for pelvic/leg injuries. I will say she seemed genuinely in pain/discomfort. I can't imagine I was brought there to witness something fake- so as to reify a narrative (then, or now- some 34 years later) but anything is possible.
What is also possible, of course, is that she was injured some other way and they turned her injury into a "car bombing". That sort of thing definitely happens.
Petra, I tried to send you an email a week ago or so and it bounced. There was some stuff I wanted to bring to your attention. I assume you have my email address. Could you drop me a note?
You have to answer a question i have. What did they do with all of yhe firefighters that supposedly died that day, if they didnt actually die like you think. Each double house has about 50 reg firemen and 8 bosses. Some firehouses lost multiple guys that day. Eng54L4 lost 15 men. Those fifteen men were people that worked among other firefighters for years. They were good friends of other firemen. If their deaths were faked on 9/11–where did they go? Did they get put in witness protection?
A firehouse losing a bunch of men has to either have actually happened, or all 60 men who worked there had to be in on it.
Like i said before a lot of this shit is faked. Things like the Boston Marathon were for sure fugazy, but 9/11 being a drill is something that i will have a tough time being convinced of. I think they blew up the buildings with people in it.
I don't think it was completely faked. Obviously buildings were damaged, and some deaths might have occurred. But I suspect many more were made up. In the firefighters' case, I'd say it's 50/50.
Of course it was, sorry! That first pic is one that has been touched up so many times... I've got (what I take to be) the original in Mike McCartney's book - he took that pic, along with many other less than beautiful shots of his brother :-). The second is from the very strange Nigerian trip with Denny (sadly recently departed) where SO much weird stuff happened and a lot of songs etc were allegedly stolen from Bill and the band. The guy whose biography I wrote did a video of Wings doing Band on the Run. The McCartney MS has been sitting in my drawer for way too long. I must go back to it!
And they even staged a trial with a blubbering Alex Jones receiving a crazy amount financial penalty for asking questions about Sandy Hook. He played his part there too scare everyone else from officially questioning any staged theatrical tragedy.
Same with Trump's fake trials. Equally as ludicrous and fabricated, staged for the intent purpose of making Trump into a martyr of systemic prosecution for his supporters as well as to create fear and division for both liberals and conservatives.
I was just about to ask the author how come Alex Jones’ lawyers couldnt prove there were no real victims?
Alex being in on it makes sense tho.
Yes, it's called a show trial.
Very thoughtful and well presented piece! Miles Mathis causes me no end of bother in my mind though - his pieces are a maddening mixture of common sense and weirdness and his site just does not say "convincing" does it? However, I have actually talked to him - he suspected me of being an agent because of the people I'd managed to speak with through doing a biography of a guy who knew just about everybody in 60s London :-) We also talked about Paul McCartney and he was adamant Sir Paul is the very same guy, but he did offer to put one of my articles up on his site if I could convince him otherwise! I was impressed by his Lennon piece. When I spoke later to Peter McNamee, the director of Let Him Be, he (obviously) told me the film was entirely fictional (speaking in a very Lennon-esque voice on the phone) It is so very hard to sift through stuff:-/
When you say MM was adamant that Sir Paul is the very same guy do you mean that Paul McCartney has always been the same person so to speak because I am also of that opinion and it baffles me that anyone would think he "switched". How many left-handed guitar players are there for a start? https://www.quora.com/As-left-handed-guitars-were-almost-unheard-of-when-Paul-McCartney-began-to-play-why-had-he-not-considered-just-playing-right-handed-as-many-left-handed-people-have-done
Then again, celebrities have doppelgangers. For all we know, Paul may have doubles standing for him when he's not playing his guitar live or something like that. So even if Paul no. 1 is still around, doesn't mean there aren't other Pauls impersonating him whenever possible.
Which also, of course, indicates that what allegedly happened in 1966 is not what we're told. Maybe Paul got ill or wanted some brief solace from the media spotlight, so they had him disappear for a short while before coming back. During that brief period, they had doubles stand in for him at certain events, including presumably his twin brother according to Mathis. But most definitely he wasn't permanently replaced.
Ah, no - I meant the opposite. There's a lot more to the story than left-handed guitar playing. It goes deep and high and I've talked to a lot of people who were around the band at that time. Been working on book for a while now!
So are you saying that the teenager we see in in the first photo at the link I posted isn't the same person as the mature person we see in the second photo? They so look like the same person to me - especially that sort-of slightly wide-eyed look and the eybrows.
Hi Petra - point me to the link? It's hard to trust photos - has been for some time. Similarly voice - so much remastering. It was easier at the time...
The link was in the my previous comment. You need to click More in the article to see both photos of Paul - one as a teenager and one as an adult.
https://www.quora.com/As-left-handed-guitars-were-almost-unheard-of-when-Paul-McCartney-began-to-play-why-had-he-not-considered-just-playing-right-handed-as-many-left-handed-people-have-done
Ah it was, of course, sorry - thanks! That first pic is an enhanced version of Mike McCartney's photo of his brother, featured in his book, which I am looking at now. The second is from Bill's Nigerian trip with the now sadly departed Denny, where we are told there was a mugging and all the songs for the album were stolen... Incidentally, Nigel (biography guy) made the promo video for Band on the Run.
I like your description of Mathis - 'maddening mixture of common sense and weirdness' - that's the kind of dissonance I get sometimes when I read his fake events stuff - I would imagine the earlier ones are more accurate, because there would've come a time when the 'committee at Langley' would've decided to 'use' him to spread misinformation by creating 'evidence' pointing to a 'fake event' which was in fact not a fake event - they know his methodology (wikipedia, genealogy, photo-debunking) so placing those clues for him in advance of poking him is the kind of thing I'd do if I was on that committee.
I still haven't gotten through all his fake events essays, but I'm focussing more on his science for now, which is, I have to say, extraordinary. I would imagine although they are using him to do that research (which is why he hasn't been bumped off) they also want to discredit that research by associating him with all these 'conspiracy theories'.
He is, nevertheless, one of the most fascinating characters on the planet. It would be an insult to bump him off. That's also what I'd say if I was on the committee...
The good thing and the bad thing about Miles Mathis is that his blog is de-referenced in the search engines.
Even my blog, which to date has 160,000 views since 2018 and currently averages 20 views per day, has been de-referenced.
For example, when we typed in the name of the actress "Ginnie Watson" (alleged survivor of the Bataclan), the first results were on my blog. I thought for a long time that wordpress was going to delete my blog, but it didn't, despite the fact that I advertised on very mainstream sites.
So when Mathis sometimes proclaims that the media are deliberately putting out certain specific fake news stories to target him, I tend to believe him.
We're still left with places to express ourselves (like Odyssey, Bitchute etc) but without the possibility of spreading ourselves like we used to on Youtube.
Yeah, it was a real bummer when they killed YT. I loved all the creative videos people put up and they just don't seem to be on the other platforms anymore, it's all dispersed. Perhaps they go on Discord, however, I find that a pain to use.
I think hits to my website have increased a little since I've had a substack as I put links in both my posts and comments there. Perhaps you could start one?
In the case of Miles have you seen Dawn French's listing of all his articles which I think she aims to keep up to date?
https://theresearchofmilesmathis.substack.com/p/categories-of-content
I will add events that you cover on canularisme to my Chronology of Psyops page - actually I'll probably do a new one on substack and try to incorporate as many as possible from various sites although as there's simply too many will need to rationalise in some way.
I've only just discovered Dawn French's substack. It's a very good initiative. It was my original intention to do the same thing with my blog, to provide a general understanding of the mechanisms of psy-ops, some types of examples and links to other sites. Knowing that I wouldn't have the motivation to be regular due to lack of audience. I've had very few relays. The French-speaking world on the subject is miserable (hence the creation of my blog).
So I don't think I'll be doing a list on substack for the time being. I comment very rarely and my blog is in French.
Do you get many francophone readers in other European and African countries or is it mostly French?
Full stats in this pdf link :
https://www.mediafire.com/file/7q1bpbprcb1hvdr/canularisme.wordpress.com-countryviews-day-03_30_2024-03_30_2024.pdf/file
Unsurprisingly, France is well ahead, followed by Belgium, then Canada and then the USA.
60,000 views for the home page.
I can't imagine the number of bots among the views.
But the possibility of having helped a certain number of people was well worth the effort.
The blog was mostly active, with a fair number of comments in the first two years.
Plus, it would create a lot of suspicion if they bumped him off, which is probably not what they want to happen. For this reason, they're letting him stay around. They only need to shadow ban his work on certain topics, which is what they do.
P.S, by way of exposition, you may be interested in my substack. Unless someone stops me, I plan on something of an expose about this mother of all psyops, namely the 'false events narrative' soon enough. To me, it's become obvious - the main reason is because it's ventured into absurd territory, and it's designed to fuck up the so-called 'conspiracy theory' movement - i.e. the opposition.
Naturally, I myself could be the progenitor of the new controlled opposition. This is for the observer to decide.
I am a counter-subversion agent, and this narrative is pure subversion.
Take note to the agents - You really need to have a word here [with strikethrough] and stop professing belief in ludicrous ideas... You've gotten away with it so far, but it's become too much...
Spot on.
They also do 'psychological profiling' and then make their decision. In Mathis case, it's really easy because he is a self-centred piece of shit.
Thus better option when it comes to him (which they really, really don't want people to think about) is to give these people 'the offer they can't refuse'. In Mathis' case that's 'access to area 51' (cutting edge tech etc.) in exchange for 'we do your website from now on and spread the fake events narrative'.
The most important thing about Mathis is his science. His dumbass 'fake events narrative' is a misdirection. They really, really don't want you to think about his science...
Put it this way - if they offered me the genuine truth about stuff like 'what mars really looks like' and 'what venus really looks like' and so on, and 'what has your secret space telescope at L2 told you about the planetary system at Centauri', and 'the chance to work with the best physicists on the planet' or if you refuse 'we kill you and destroy everything you ever did' then that's a pretty easy decision.
The killer argument regarding Mathis is the same as with all these other makeshift 'opposition' - the dissonance between 'level of intelligence' and 'belief in dumb things' - that's the revealer. So the idea that Mathis hasn't yet worked out that the max. velocity of the quantum is a function of the elasticity of its material is, well, not credible.
Then again, it may well be that he's just a stupid, fascist piece of shit.
I would prefer to believe the latter.
But the best way to spot an agent is to assess the shit they say they believe in compared to their level of intelligence. If they display intelligence but also say they believe in ludicrous ideas then they either have MPD or they are a spy. There's no other logical option.
if, for example, they believe that 'germs aren't real' but otherwise they display a heightened level of intelligence then, hey, 99% chance they're a spy.
That's just one example.
Not naming any names, of course...
I would never expose them. Simply out of professional courtesy...
But they - or their handler - seriously need to have a meeting. Because it won't be long before this obvious contradiction gets mentioned...
Excellent article - you've laid out all these logical points in good order!
As you're aware from all our little comments on Iain's article about Manchester all these aspects have been in my contemplation recently. I like the way these things kind of 'digest' inside us and then get ordered and written out.
I'll probably have to go and think about all this even more but for an initial reaction I was thinking the following, mainly related to your point about 'they don't care about human life'.
I think one way of thinking about it is a kind of game theory approach, namely, 'think from your opponent's point of view'. In this case, I am minded to simply visualise their 'planning meeting'. In such a meeting they will have an 'objective' - let's say it's 'do terrorist attack'. And as you say, a psyop is actually about creating a publicly-consumed narrative, not necessarily about actually setting off a bomb (if we're using Manchester as our example). So, the approach they will take will simply be 'what is the most efficient way of achieving our objective?'. The point about them 'not caring about human life' is important here - if they decide that the most efficient way really is to just set off a bomb then that's what they'll do. Of course, if it's more about 'narrative control' then they will think a little differently about it, and will not want to 'overcomplicate' things and absolutely try and minimise, or eliminate entirely, the 'random' element. Thus, for example, in order to 'get the narrative message across', yes, they will need to have 'actors' involved, because otherwise they simply can't control what 'statements' the (genuine) victims will make. They also can't rule out the possibility that one or more of the victims might be 'someone important' or 'someone with important connections' - and that, especially, is a very, very important note there.
So, I think we should bear this in mind vis a vis the hypothesis of 'hybrid' events - i.e. 'a real attack' combined with 'actors involved in a psyop'. If their planning meeting decides that a hybrid is the most efficient way to achieve the objective, then that's what they'll do. If 'only actors' is most efficient, they'll do that. And if 'just setting off a bomb' is most efficient, then they'll choose that option.
Anyhow, you're laying down of all this logical analysis is excellent! Great article!
I will add some of your points to my article such as "overcomplicate", not having control of who is killed and who isn't. In fact, that thought was vaguely in my head I think but somehow not registering properly. I somehow thought it's a little like Shylock and his pound of flesh - he can't take the flesh without the blood. If you're going to destroy massive towers how can you be sure to only kill the people you don't care about? Of course, you can warn people but then you may not want all the people you care about to know what you're doing. It's a great point actually! Cannot be argued with.
Then again you have to wonder if those organising the scamdemic have failed to tell people they care about???
Short point about the jabs - I think the existence of 'placebos' explains that one. All the 'important' people would've received placebos.
On another thought, though, the other thing they don't care about is 'collateral damage' (I think Mathis makes that point in his 9-11 article).
Sure the important people in the know would receive placebos but what about people connected to those in the know that those in the know want to spare from the jab from but cannot necessarily arrange that easily. Friends of those in the know may be totally onboard with the BS and may simply wish to go to a particular place to get the normal jab. I do wonder about that happening.
Those in power may not care about collateral damage but I really don't think demolition crews would not want to be as professional as possible and make sure no one dies or is injured as much as they are able. Also, the "collateral damage" is an uncontrolled situation as you say.
Yeah - these are all pertinent points. I'm not sure whether we're overthinking when we get to this point. With regards to the jabs given they came in batches, those batches would've been dispatched to particular areas I suppose, meaning they can control the collateral damage to a certain extent. But yes, it's a tricky one.
I think the prevalence of the placebos, however, was much greater than people might think. I wouldn't be surprised, in fact, if the prevalence of the damaging ones was precisely one sixth - that being the chance of shooting yourself playing Russian roulette. Psychopaths do think deviously and despicably, after all, and would 'enjoy' that 'irony' (revelation of the method too, perhaps). But certainly thinking from a purely statistical point of view, let's take the 650 MPs in the British parliament - the prevalence of 'side effects' in the general population was much higher than 1 in 650, so statistically it's utterly implausible that not one of those 650 MPs would come down with something serious. We could likewise add in even more numbers - say the British Olympic team, or other national sports squads. Then all those famous celebrities - or 'national treasures' we might say - if any of them come down with collateral damage then the population take notice. So yeah, the bad guys have to be really, really careful there.
With regards to the controlled demo crews - I take your point, which does kind of suggest that psychologically we must be talking about a controlled demo crew who were fully paid up bad guys who didn't care about collateral damage. As you say, a 'respectable' or 'professional' crew would, perhaps by definition, refuse to take part in such an operation - equally so, the planners would understand this in advance and so they would have to employ a different set of people. Either that, or the demolition company in question is itself entirely populated by sociopaths who can be relied upon not to care.
So yeah, adding all this 'psychology' into it is really insightful and can serve as pointers towards the culprits. I'm a big fan of psychology!
In Australia, one politician got Bell's Palsy and another one died "suddenly" at the age of 52 so some of ours didn't get the memo - as I avoid the news perhaps others were affected and some, of course, may have been affected without it getting in the news too.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/10/labor-senator-kimberley-kitching-dies-suddenly-in-melbourne-aged-52
Funny, I just noticed when writing the article that the demolition company that submitted a cleanup plan for the WTC 11 days after the event, Controlled Demolition Inc (CDI), has 4 world records for large building demolition, two of them in 1998, one in 2000 and one in 2012. (I knew they had world records before but I paid no attention to the dates.)
I think we know who had an awful lot to do with bringing the buildings down.
All fake jabs, Bro. Just voodoo effects.
Interesting points. Perhaps those Australian politicians are an example of what we were talking about re collateral damage. On a statistical note, though, I don't know how many people there are in the Australian parliament - ok, I was lazy, it just took me five seconds to look it up - it's 76 - I'm not sure the exact statistics for those particular serious adverse events (here I am going to be lazy) but 2 out 76 is 1 in 38 (call it 3%), which seems about right - meaning most of them didn't get the memo as you say. Or only some of them did. I wonder political party they were in and what their political orientation was... Funny, in a deranged kind of way, but maybe they could've thought of getting rid of someone like Jeremy Corbyn with a jab.
As usual, I go away and my mind conjures up more thoughts. I've come to the conclusion that the issue of collateral damage is much, much more important than one might think. From a simple statistical point of view they can't inform everyone, and so the number of people (connected to people they inform/don't want to get caught up in it) just increases exponentially. Naturally, this favours the pure psyop idea, as it eliminates the possibility of such collateral damage, and therefore the dreaded 'random variable' element. It eliminates the 'luck factor' in other words (bad luck, I mean, from their point of view).
This makes an event like 9-11 extremely risky for them - and that just tells us the massive level of necessity and importance they attached to that operation. They wouldn't have been able to control the number of NY firefighters caught up in the buildings, for example - if they say 'get out' then that's suspicious and we're talking thousands of NYFD guys with no control over how many of them divulge that information. So in that sense, they knew perfectly well a lot of people would die. It's impossible for them to do 9-11 as a 'fake event' in that sense, with no one dying. That tells us a lot, especially about their planning meeting, not to mention their psychology (or psychopathology, rather)...
Thanks so much, Evelyn. And yes, I think we should think from their point of view, I don't think people tend to do that very much. Honestly, from all the points you mention isn't it pretty much a no-brainer in terms of efficiency. You either fake the thing entirely as in Manchester because you don't want any destruction or you do the bombing (because you want the destruction) while everything else is "controlled".
I thought of a related point here, which is we can perhaps distinguish between a psyop and a genuine terrorist attack by visualising the same planning meeting for a genuine terrorist group. A genuine terrorist attack would therefore look very different, because they want to kill as many innocent infidels as possible and create bold and brilliant terror.
That's what always got me about 7/7 for example - if they were genuine terrorists and I was their 'mastermind' I'd be very disappointed they 'only' killed 52 infidels. I would expect at least 52 for each of the four bombs. And better target selection. The British Museum, for example - great symbol of British colonialism.
Interestingly I visited the museum after 7/7 and all they had was a 'security checkpoint' manned by a single unarmed 'officer', who simply waved me through. That's not security and if I was accompanied by say, three other bad guys armed with Kalashnikovs then a single silenced 9mm to the officer and we'd be inside. Split up, shoot discriminately (AK's are like that - they're fucking lethal) and we'll soon have a death toll in the hundreds and a stand off which will be running news for us. So that tells me the security services either don't take security seriously or they are aware there's no threat, or 'they have it under control' as it were, or G-section (counter-terrorism) really need to sort out their recruitment protocol and get a better class of officer.
Contrast this with say the Bologna train station bomb (1980), in which over 80 people died and several hundred injured. That's a genuine terrorist attack - part of Gladio, which is right-wing terrorism, in the left-wing capital of Italy. The difference in 'outcome' compared to say 7/7 is blindingly obvious. At that 'planning meeting' the decision is clearly 'set off a bomb'.
Anyway - a few more thoughts there...
Sept. 01 I was in Crete with daughters. For a while, airports closed down, we didn't know how long we'd have to stay in Europe--would my money hold out? Leaving tiny Heraklion airport, I was made to take down my (very long) hair, remove all hairpins. Post 9/11 terror attack, security at that teeny tiny airport was strict. Don't remember what happened at Athens or Heathrow. Landed at Dulles--and what? no extra security at all. At all. In the town where a plane had tried to fly into the Pentagon? At the time it just seemed strange. But in retrospect, it seems a bit chilllng.
A Terrorist attack is a psyop.
Only Government by definition can be terrorist.....and who pulls off the psyops?
Government, its agencies, bureaus, departments, military and all the accompanying officers, agents, enFORCEr's, law abiding employees, contractors...etc.... are 'order followers' and order followers do not think because they are too busy following orders. I know this first hand when in Boot Camp I was told "Recruit follow orders, you do not get paid to think" Lets face it, if you are not thinking then the possibility of concluding you may be playing a part in something that is not as you have come to believe, trained, practiced, had reinforced, over and over and over is not to be suspected in the least.
I saw all of this in the Military....I mean how else can you get a man to give his one and only life to kill another man in a far away land who like you is in the same situation. War is a psyop simply because ALL Wars are started for reasons other than what the people who fight it are told.
War is a Racket, it is a scam. There has NEVER been a just war, War is a crime.....its planners, plotters financiers, fomenters and order followers are criminals win or lose!
The Government is a gang replete with gang colors, gang insignia, gang uniforms, gang hierarchy, gang symbols, gang anthems......etc
Government like religion has one main purpose. To keep serfs, Lilliputians, herd, sheep, tax slaves...etc....etc.... from killing the parasitic psychopaths.
So the notion of some 'genuine terrorist attack' is not a good description.
There is no such thing.
All so called Terrorist events are government and or their henchmen, lackeys...etc. Their purpose is to manage, control, shape, liquidate the people, wealth, resources...etc.... for the parasitic psychopaths who are behind all that keep the people in a life that is anything but 'mankind'...... I can come to no other conclusion with all the information to be known.
I know it's Easter and a time of resurrection an' all, but I heard you were dead, Smed?
Kinda like Snake Plissken, I mean.
But I totally agree with you - war is indeed a racket and we know who the real criminals are...
Good job Petra, this is a very fascinating and niche topic for people in this space! I hope you will continue with more details, how they fake the deaths, proof of persons still living etc. I had posts on Sharon Tate, JFK, and Abe the Japan PM, all shocked me the deeper I got.
I have a particular interest in the "Lets Roll" guys of UA 93, Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Tom Burnett, and Jeremy Glick. Besides the fact that there was no plane at the crash site, do you have any specific info on any of these guys still being alive?
I will add your events to my Chronology page PM.
I have very little on anyone at all still being alive apart from:
--- the Challenger crew
--- have seen pictures of the Sandy Hook children older and it seems they actually sang at a concert the next year - the pictures they used for the event were of them much younger so they weren't so recognisable
--- an alleged environmentalist, Judi Bari, was supposed to have been injured by a car-bomb later dying of breast cancer in 1990, however, Mark Tokarski, from Piece of Mindful looked her up and found a name fitting her age and region - https://pieceofmindful.com/2022/12/22/dave-foreman-rip/
--- It seems Todd Beamer was a vicsim (simulated victim) although seemingly based on a Todd Beamer who died in 1997 rescuing his pet dog - search on this cluesforum page for Todd - http://alturl.com/8nbm7
--- More on lies about Todd Beamer from letsroll - https://letsrollforums.com/index.php?threads/todd-beamer-9-11-victim-wrong-photo-date-in-rome-by-the-surgeon.757/
--- This is a discussion about Jeremy Glick - https://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?t=1131&start=270
--- Mark Bingham on LetsRollForums - http://alturl.com/kef6t
cluesforum.info and fakeologist.com are probably the best places for fakery but I don't find the websites very user-friendly.
There also used to be a good site, funnily enough called letsrollforums but it disappeared.
EDIT: letsrollforums is back. https://www.letsrollforums.com/
Thanks for the thorough reply and very kind of you. I will dig into the info and get back to you if I find any gems. I did see an interesting unanswered question someone asked on fakologist about the people standing at the supposed plane entrance window, were they able to get out down the stairs or they are holograms or something else?
No problem, I should try to do another piece at least addressing the vicsim aspect. There's a lot to it, PM. I have to admit the complexity of it is quite fascinating, however, as people struggle so much just to get the fundamentals of it being a massive demolition job cum massive exercise that is what I tend to focus on.
Have you seen this?
https://fake11.com/vicsim
Thanks for the prompt. Yes, I've seen the vicsim report and I'm now going to add links to it in the post (which I should have done in the first place) as well as to great articles by Jon Revusky on the two Japanese people, Kazuhiro Anai and Takuya Nakamura who allegedly worked at the Nishi-Nippon bank that couldn't be found and Betty Ong. Presumably you've seen those? And links to individuals such as Mark Bingham and Todd Beamer that I put in my comment above to Proton Magic.
https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/revisiting-911-betty-ong-and-the-mystery-of-black-betty/?display=showcomments
https://heresy.is/revusky/discreet-japanese/
I don't even think the astronauts were on Saturn 5. There's too much risk. It's all scripted and edited and pre-filmed and very craftily choreographed right down to the capsule coming out of the sky with parachutes into the water. They're not going to risk losing the astronaut.
Scripted? Over two hundred hours of scripting?
https://archive.org/details/Apollo11Audio
Why not? It's technically not impossible, even if it was implausible for the perpetrators to stage them (if we are to assume the Apollo missions were real). Plus, the audio listed isn't visual, physical evidence of said events having actually happened. There's no way to tell if they were actually recorded in space or on earth.
And what about the hours of 9/11 footage that's out there? Wouldn't it seem tedious or implausible to fake them all, as well?
Dave McGowan has a fair amount to say about flight 93 and the 'let's roll' thing. Hold on, I'll dig out the link.
Here it is: https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/september11-act-iv-part-i/
Act 4 of his feature on 9-11 is about 93. One interesting thing is the MIC connections of course.(of the 'witnesses' I mean). Also the fact that a lot of these guys on the plane were apparently more than physically capable people (like 6ft 2 judo types), whereas Todd Beamer was absolutely not that type. Act IV is worth reading in full as it contains a lot of interesting thoughts and tidbits of info. Dave's conclusion was that (like 77) it was shot down. Whether that's true or they simply faked the crash site is another question. But regardless of his conclusion, the info (not to mention his great writing style) is well worth a visit.
Thanks Evelyn, Dave is largely correct, the plane can not be in the ground because that defies the laws of physics of plane and ground hitting each other and leaving the plane on the ground as usual (the earth has slightly more mass than a plane), and as it is a crime scene, it should be dug up and the pieces examined in a large tent like TWA 800. But Dave doesn't tell us clearly it's all fakery which is obviously is. Where are the real plane and passengers? Why is it necessary to invoke a real plane and passengers? That would be like saying , "people get asymptomatic cases of Covid-19". Regards.
Dave doesn't say clearly it's fakery because Dave - as Mark Tokarski points out below - is a spook which, funnily enough, was in a post I just came across yesterday when I was looking for what he said about Judi Bari, a person who was allegedly injured by a car-bomb later supposedly dying of cancer but who he looked up and found registered years later.
I knew Dave was a spook anyway because of the Apollo missions being real and his saying they weren't.
Actually, I've discussed Dave with Tom Siebert on his stack who met him when he did PR for his book, Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon. He said there was a 13% chance he was an agent :) Actually, it was Tom who inspired this post due to his lack of enthusiasm in accepting fakery of deaths.
https://pieceofmindful.com/2021/11/26/moondoggie-nobody-went-anywhere/
"McGowan is a spook. I say “is” a spook, as he is said to have died on 11/22/15. That’s a spook date. Circumstances are, however, suspicious. I cannot locate them now, as they are not available anywhere. So rely on my memory, such as it is, and at your own risk. Prior to his death, maybe as early as 2014, he was doing interviews in which he chain smoked. In one, kind of bizarre, he was wearing a bathrobe and kneeling. Later he announced he had lung cancer and was going to die. I view his heavy smoking as probably of TV cigarettes, even as he could do the real ones and still, death might easily elude him. Most people who smoke die of other stuff, respiratory issues, and also lung cancer. Just smoking, however, is not a death sentence. The whole McGowan weird scene strikes me as predictive programming. I guess it is fitting the the author of Weird Scenes fakes his own death, along with most everyone else in that book.
McGowan, who is sporting what I think of as a shit-eating grin in the photo above, ran a website called Center for an Informed America, or CIA for short. No comment."
Wait so the moon landings werent faked?
The evidence says they were real and what I see the disbelievers judging by are what they think could / would / must have happened according to their faulty understanding of space and rocketry rather than looking at the evidence to see how it matches the completely alien lunar conditions ... and also CHECKING what the Apollo enthusiasts have to say on the subject.
My two rules of critical thinking:
1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong (this means immersing yourself in argument against what you believe)
2. Confine analysis to the most irrefutable facts in the first instance.
All the claims made by the disbelievers have been debunked ... and when I say debunked I mean properly debunked, it's not a case of alleged debunking as in most fact-checking, the debunking stands up to scrutiny.
If we really didn't go to the moon then Wagging the Moondoggie would contain at least one item that exposed that truth. We know that agents mix truth and lies but there has to be some truth, right? There is no truth in that book ... unless someone can identify it. This is a debunking of the first two parts of the 14-part book.
Also, lots of people genuinely don't believe in the moon landings, of course, but you can tell from the way Dave writes that it's propaganda, it's not an expression of his genuine belief ... and he knows too much.
https://waggingthemoondoggiedebunked.blogspot.com/2018/08/wagging-moondoggie-part-1-debunked.html
https://waggingthemoondoggiedebunked.blogspot.com/2018/08/wagging-moondoggie-part-2-debunked.html
i completely disagree...even the astronauts lost the plot when old and let it slip that "no one went to the moon".
I largely agree with you. I'm not saying I always agree with everything Dave says but I do love his writing style... It's a breath of fresh air (like 93 perhaps, lol).
Thanks. the Point of Shanksville was mainly to instill the idea that planes were used in the attacks because the reality is they're were no planes, most likely holograms and they want to hide that. Secondarily was the hero propaganda and further fomenting desire for revenge against those scoundrels in Afghanistan that they themselves set up as enemy. Nifty plan huh?
I wondered the purpose of the Shanksville plane. You certainly give a reasonable explanation. The magic of propaganda!
I'm not going into the 'no-planes' thing, especially not holograms because that just gets a bit silly in my view and it looks like deliberate disinformation.
On the other paw, the 'dramatic storyline' for 93 is certainly a good point, and I've thought that myself. Even if the original intent was to say it was shot down (which seems to have been what the initial storyline/news reports on the day was in fact going with), that's still a nice dramatic story with the heroic interceptor pilot in an awful dilemma. A good screenwriter could make a good movie about that, especially if the hero pilot had a good backstory, and maybe some hero-worshipping son or something and an estranged wife who comes back to him at the end. Maybe they could get Spielberg to do it. Ah, no - better would be Ron Howard. Spielberg would be too obvious...
Holograms are definitely not silly, the engineering for holograms has been going on a long time.
Here at 8:12 you can see plane hologram but see from the start
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JjV1FFgS6s
and here you can see CNN photo of 911 plane melting into bldg, an impossibility
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/secrets-of-the-orbs
and hologram science is referenced.
Question: regarding 9/11... what about the people jumping from the Towers? Those are fake?
Yep. Here's two videos on the jumpers from FakeNukes Phil on bitchute - recommend his channel. I probably should include references to fake jumpers in the post.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/PfVYizmn8fta/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/dtiCpmW8eve4/
And here's a page I have on one image of an alleged jumper - WARNING gruesome.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/9-11-fake-dead-body.html
It's "funny" and surely not coincidental that those truly looking for THE TRUTH are going to "stumble" - because no-one can find THE TRUTH it's the other way around THE TRUTH finds those looking for it fearlessly - upon the tidbits that connect the dots in each one's own particular way. Like a jigsaw puzzle being put together by an invisible hand - GOD ALMIGHTY - in order to reveal THE TRUTH.
I have stumbled upon the website you are referring to quite some time ago. Having already forgotten about it for the time being.
Sometime in the mid-teens, a Sandy Hook "mother" came to our very large suburban Phila. school district, with all district faculty in the h.s. auditorium. She gave a tear-filled Powerpoint presentation, lots of slides, lots of emoting. So what were we teachers supposed to do with this "information"? Bear in mind that by 2018, my "progressive" asst. principal was considering the idea of armed faculty.
Oh dear. The thing is I know schools can be dangerous places ... but I think every mass school shooting reported breathlessly around the world has been a fake which isn't at all to say that shootings don't occur in schools at least in the US.
So did you believe her and what about now? Do you recognise Sandy Hook as being a drill?
From a comment on another stack just now:
https://21stcenturywire.com/2016/06/18/casting-crisis-orlandos-actors-agents-and-casualty-role-players/
and so I can see how these 'events' could be put together. Amazing what I find on the stacks.
This is gold. Thank you so much. I knew about Crisis Cast (and there's a UK company, Crisis Solutions,) but didn't think to mention it.
I will include mention of this article in my post. Thanks again.
Most welcome!
I was at that point accepting completely of the line fed to me. And my teaching consumed me completely--I had no time for news-gathering (watching or listening)--I was always either planning lessons or writing tests or grading until I went to bed at night. I did at that time note that every one of those school shooters was a male whose parents had divorced--this is pertinent because in my classes, I continually witnessed the difference in academic success between "divorced children" and children of intact marriages (a young colleague also noticed this). In case you should wonder, that information was made privy to teachers in the listing of guardians in their student rosters Much later did I learn that these young terrorists were all on anti-depressant prescriptions. Only a year or two ago---thanks to A Mid-Western Doctor---did I learn that SSRI's lead to violent, suicidal or murderous behavior. To your question, I haven't come to the recognition of these 'attacks' as drill: I should indeed be glad if I can. What I did conclude was that they were sponsored by a govt wanting to cancel the 2nd amendment, and moving in that direction by slowly changing the perception of citizens in favor of that. Attack the citizens at their most vulnerable point: their children. And if Sandy Hook was govt' sponsored, then 9/11 also could be: to gin up public support for a war. Thousands dead? In horrifying fashion? Casualties of war, don'cha know? The more dead, the more horrifyingly, the faster the acceptance of war.
It's not about mind control. In our worldly condition we are already mind-controlled. It's about spiritual accusation.
Our prideful self-centeredness is exposed by these fearful delusions, for the purpose of eventually producing conviction, contrition, and repentance. Or for NOT producing it, as the individual case may be.
Any narratives that scare us or tempt us are instruments of this process. Our blind worldliness will be thoroughly demonstrated for many years, but then at some later moment the humbling extent of our former blindness will be revealed to us.
We're not figuring anything out by our own clever insight. We're being shown.
Isaiah 66:4
4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2 Timothy 1:7
7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
Ecclesiasticus (Book of Sirach) 3:23-26
23 Be not curious in unnecessary matters: for more things are shewed unto thee than men understand.
24 For many are deceived by their own vain opinion; and an evil suspicion hath overthrown their judgment.
25 Without eyes thou shalt want light: profess not the knowledge therefore that thou hast not.
26 A stubborn heart shall fare evil at the last; and he that loveth danger shall perish therein.
Yes, I see what you're saying. I realise that, in my own way, I'm deluded in responding in the way I do to the world in prosaic, logical fashion, however, enlightenment eludes me at this point.
Yes. The death clingers and corpse clutchers are assisting the MSM lies by agreeing with body counts without first insisting upon evidence.
#AUTOHOAX
Very interesting article,
like V for vendetta, in the end, no one was killed (the masks come off)
Although the traumatization would not be well received....and to what reason, to contro( intention of psyops) is deceitful tyranny all the same.The plot thickens.....
I pray and hope this is the case, I do like happy endings.👍
People have been injured, maimed and killed one way or another in the scamdemic in very, very large numbers but it makes no sense to me. We're reducing our population naturally anyway.
A quick, concise article that's always a pleasure to read.
Unfortunately, the majority of conspiracy theorists continue to react in the same way as the majority of people when they are told about unofficial accounts.
With all the evidence over the years, there has been little change. I saw it again with the alleged attack of 22 March near Moscow.
I came across videos in French that demonstrated the Russians' implacable complicity. It's yet another hoax, but in Europe we can't even suggest it, as our comments will be immediately deleted for "incitement to hatred" and "negationism".
I think people are wising up a little more though with covid. Loads of people recognise the bridge wasn't an accident and I think fewer people than before think Moscow was real but maybe I'm in more of a bubble than I realise.
As soon as you know it's a hoax ... you know they're all in it together. It's phenomenal.
I'm afraid about the bubble effect. I had fun reading the comments under several videos about Moscow. I only spotted one comment that clearly said "this is Hollywood cinema".
Having said that, what about people like me who don't even dare to comment?
With hindsight, I'm surprised to have suffered so few reproaches and threats with my blog and when I posted on certain public forums.
I'm also thinking that maybe what I'm expressing is so insane that either I'm an agent or I'm totally insane and so my comments should be ignored.
I hear you.
"A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat.
When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
Dresden James
True as a general rule, but...there were 529k more deaths in the US in 2020 than there were in 2019--an unprecedented increase of 18.5%. That's according to the official US data, which is collected from death certificates issued in the states/counties. Seems like 99% of people are not aware of this, and there is a media blackout on it--one of the reasons why I don't think these deaths were faked. The characteristics of the deaths also do not support the official covid narrative--another reason why I don't think these deaths were faked. This was a real democide IMO--that is why no one is talking about it and no one knows about it. https://www.virginiastoner.com/us-mortality-guide
Wow! That's an incredible number. In Australia, as far as I'm aware, there was no appreciable rise in mortality in 2020 ... only in 2021-22 and we just had a 6 hour inquiry session into excess mortality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmpci8hg4WM
Your book is a very important document and it's good that it simply reports the data so that people can make the inferences for themselves.
I don't think they fake mortality figures, they only conduct fraud with relation to cause. From information gleaned here and there it seems that the deaths that are faked don't get included in the mortality figures.
The only time they'd want real deaths is if it's to silence genuine whistleblowers or it's easier than faking them. From my observations, that's seldom the case. I've yet to encounter any bona fide insider dissident who was 'offed' by the psychopaths, for example, but who knows for sure.
And speaking of fake 9/11 casualties, this reminds me of the acknowledged stories of charlatans posing as 9/11 survivors. One example is the story of Alicia 'Tania' Head who claimed to have miraculously survived the alleged attack and collapse of the South Tower. 'Tania' said she was in the impact zone when it happened, working for Merrill Lynch (despite it not having offices in that building by 2001), and alleged to had a lover who died in the North Tower. Her story was later revealed to be a hoax, including her claim of being in New York that day.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/9-11-fantasists-survivors-world-trade-center-b2164064.html
With that in mind, it's only logical to assume that many more similar stories told by other "survivors" were faked. The admitted fakes were probably a small fraction of the dozens more fictional stories being told but aren't being disclosed as fraudulent by the mainstream media, such as this equally unbelievable story of a man who survived the same South Tower attack only a few floors above Head's. If the recreation below is to be believed, he was almost right in front of where Flight 175 hit, which reduces his chances of living to near-zero. And the way he tells his story also feels phony, almost as if he's reading from or reciting from memory a Hollywood script.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XIuAmCX5AqQ
Yep, they often push out "admitted" fakes along with the fakes that aren't admitted for maximum confusion. It's not as if Tania was a "genuine" fake so to speak - they pushed her out.
On the other hand, I think the woman, Fiona Harvey, who outed herself as the real person the stalker in the Netflix series, Baby Reindeer, is based on but claims she really isn't a stalker, really is a stalker and is not acting the part ... although it would be truly hilarious if she was just acting. That shit is very surreal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sdVXTDOYOo
Regarding Fiona Harvey, I'm curious to know why you think she's genuine? Certainly, the media coverage of her story is manufactured, so I don't see why Fiona herself would be an exception.
I can vouch for Judi Bari being wounded in Oakland , as I visited her in hospital, and witnessed her injuries...(though I can't speak directly as to whether or not it was by a pipe bomb blast, or if she was an agent of sorts)
This is fascinating. Looking at her Wiki bio she does strike me as likely being a chaos agent (a term I recently discovered is used instead of "controlled opposition agent") and in Judi's case, assuming she was/is an agent, chaos certainly fits. According to her bio, she had both the anti-environmentalists and environmentalists upset with her and seemed to be active all over the place. We can certainly see why ultimately she might have needed to "disappear".
And they made a film about her - nothing indicates fake to me more than a film being made though, of course, it doesn't qualify as evidence, it's just that so often a film is made - they exploit fakery every which way.
What particularly strikes me as Revelation of the Method (RoM) is this (under Events of Investigation - which seems a strange heading of itself to me):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judi_Bari
"Based on his personal observations of bomb damage to the car, FBI Special Agent Frank Doyle filed a public affidavit that the bomb had been carried on the back seat floorboard of Bari's vehicle. The FBI was granted a search warrant on May 25 at 2:21 a.m., and agents used a helicopter to quickly reach Bari's home and search it. Agents also searched the premises of the "Seeds of Peace" house in Berkeley, where Bari and Cherney had visited the day before the explosion. ...
"FBI analysis of the explosive device determined it was a pipe bomb with nails wrapped to its surface to create shrapnel. It was equipped with a timer-armed motion trigger, so that it would explode only when the car was driven. The bomb was confirmed to have been placed on the floorboard directly under the driver's seat, not on the floorboard behind the seat, as Agent Doyle had claimed. That evidence suggested that the bomb was an anti-personnel device intended to kill the driver of Bari's car. The FBI investigation remained focused on the theory that the explosion was an accidental detonation of a device knowingly transported by Bari. They attempted to match roofing nails transported in Bari's car to finishing nails used with the bomb. After seven weeks of news stories reporting the police claims that all evidence pointed to Bari and Cherney, the Alameda County District Attorney announced that he would not file any formal charges against the pair due to insufficient evidence against them. Law enforcement agencies never fully investigated evidence that the bombing was an attempt on Bari's life. The crime has remained unsolved."
Revelation of the Method (RoM):
1. The exact time of a search warrant issued at 2:21AM on May 25 seems odd, especially when no indication of time at all of the bomb going off on May 24 is given.
2. That helicopters were dispatched to do a house search seems odd for the level of urgency.
3. If the FBI determined the bomb was equipped with a timer-armed motion trigger to explode only when the car was driven then why would they determine that Judi was carrying the bomb in her own car?
So when you say you witnessed her injuries, Edward, what exactly did you witness? Did you witness actual injury or indications of injury such as a cast?
Memory is a tricky thing, but I seem to recall bruising and evidence of bolts for pelvic/leg injuries. I will say she seemed genuinely in pain/discomfort. I can't imagine I was brought there to witness something fake- so as to reify a narrative (then, or now- some 34 years later) but anything is possible.
What is also possible, of course, is that she was injured some other way and they turned her injury into a "car bombing". That sort of thing definitely happens.
On a video with regards to the 322 Russia show, I posted 'As many people died here as when they shot TenneT in this location.'
I got many insults and few likes :)
"I got many insults and few likes."
Meme I relate to: I try to be nice ... but people are so stupid.
Excuse my ignorance, who/what is TenneT?
There's a similar scene in a theatre in Kiev (Estonia in real life) in Christopher Nolan's film "Tenet", released in 2020.
https://twitter.com/LezLuthor/status/1771861700544770396
Thanks, Thibault, I remember hearing about that film now.
Petra, I tried to send you an email a week ago or so and it bounced. There was some stuff I wanted to bring to your attention. I assume you have my email address. Could you drop me a note?
You have to answer a question i have. What did they do with all of yhe firefighters that supposedly died that day, if they didnt actually die like you think. Each double house has about 50 reg firemen and 8 bosses. Some firehouses lost multiple guys that day. Eng54L4 lost 15 men. Those fifteen men were people that worked among other firefighters for years. They were good friends of other firemen. If their deaths were faked on 9/11–where did they go? Did they get put in witness protection?
A firehouse losing a bunch of men has to either have actually happened, or all 60 men who worked there had to be in on it.
Like i said before a lot of this shit is faked. Things like the Boston Marathon were for sure fugazy, but 9/11 being a drill is something that i will have a tough time being convinced of. I think they blew up the buildings with people in it.
I don't think it was completely faked. Obviously buildings were damaged, and some deaths might have occurred. But I suspect many more were made up. In the firefighters' case, I'd say it's 50/50.
Of course it was, sorry! That first pic is one that has been touched up so many times... I've got (what I take to be) the original in Mike McCartney's book - he took that pic, along with many other less than beautiful shots of his brother :-). The second is from the very strange Nigerian trip with Denny (sadly recently departed) where SO much weird stuff happened and a lot of songs etc were allegedly stolen from Bill and the band. The guy whose biography I wrote did a video of Wings doing Band on the Run. The McCartney MS has been sitting in my drawer for way too long. I must go back to it!