My mother's partner, a 65 year old teacher, considers himself very open-minded but started yelling at me when I said that according to Newton, a plane could never slice through a steel façade. Yet that is what we saw and I showed him the picture of the outline of the plane in the building. He started getting uncomfortable, said 'so what are you exactly saying?' So I told him that the whole thing was fake, a planned event and most likely without any casualties because why would you want to have the family members of 3.000 plus people bothering you to investigate, critically looking at everything you do when you can just have some crisis actors pretending to be sad? He got so mad and started raising his voice because 'he had been to memorial' and 'how dare I bla bla'. I just remained calm and got back to the basics; can a plane slice through steel? I got the response 'I am not an expert bla bla' so I told him to ask a science teacher at the school he teaches. I don't think I have to tell you but he never asked the science teacher and he never got back to me on that question. This is a person that teaches teenagers, a person not even honest enough to answer and investigate simple questions.
So yes, they fake things all the time and they get away with it because most people don't even want to entertain the idea that almost everything is a lie.
I understand your belief, but it's not possible in reality. I don't think you understand NYC and how small it actually is, though over populated.
There is no way "they" could have coordinated the massive effort it would have taken to keep WTC towers clear of people that day. We are talking thousands of people. Hundreds of businesses not only in the offices but small businesses in the lower levels. Many thousands who were just regular working people. Not special ops.
Many of the people who worked in those building had worked there many years. They went home every night to the same apartments they had been living in, some for many years.
If suddenly they had been told to stay home and then the events of 911 had happened, people far and wide in many more thousands, family, neighbors, etc., would have been talking about it. New Yorkers are not shy or quiet people. There is absolutely no way that many people in NYC could have been "hushed up."
Also, if in some massive psyop "they" had been able to coordinate keeping all the people who worked in WTC towers away from the buildings that day, it would have been noticed on the ground at delis and coffee shops, subway trains, the businesses that were in the lower levels of WTC that sold all manner of things to the workers who arrived via subways to work every day. The subway conductors and other riders and the toll booth receipts would have easily revealed that many thousands did not go to work that day. AND all those businesses would have had to have been shut down and "hushed up", as well as their families, etc.
It's simply not feasible. You are talking about silencing tens of thousands of living New Yorkers and keeping them silent for over twenty years.
I was living in NYC when the towers fell on 911. I know people who died. When you keep pressing your simplistic theory that "no one died" you are insulting the people who were sacrificed that day. Who lost their lives to a cynical psyop. Children who lost their parents, loved ones, friends.
You are calling the people who grieved for those who died LIARS. You are declaring their pain and suffering FAKE. You are telling me my sadness over losing friends is FALSE. Think on that.
The logistics of successfully pulling off such a fraud is nigh impossible. It would be much easier to murder many and be done with it.
As for the victims families seeking answers and justice, I suppose you haven't looked into this. They have been. For over twenty years now.
Armchair ANYTHING is a silly ego pursuit, so you can feel smarter than everyone around you instead of thinking things through and being realistic. It's no wonder no one listens.
I have to disagree on “armchair anything.” I do actually think you can work out psyops (many at least) from your armchair as they are 100% media events. Not all psyops are clearcut events per se, eg, vaccines, but where a psyop is an event I think most you can work out from your armchair. One exception at least is “missing children” and there are no doubt others.
When you know people who allegedly die in these events that always makes it tricky. I don't know anyone myself but I know people who know people who allegedly died in events (those mentioned and more) including someone whose insurance agent was allegedly in one of the towers, however, knowing people doesn't argue for an event’s reality as it is expected that people will know people who fake their deaths, it's perfectly consistent with the staged hypothesis.
There is evidence that many floors in the towers were empty prior to demolition and there were also a number of subway drills and we must keep in mind that the first plane hit at 8:46 which is 15m before general office hours, causing a massive holdback of people on their way to work.
There isn’t any purported evidence that argues for the reality of the death and injury on 9/11 and generally it undermines itself, eg, ludicrous miracle survivor stories; reporter, Cynthia McFadden, outside a hospital in the morning and a trauma centre in the evening reporting no injured being admitted; images of alleged injured that betray no signs of the serious injury and maiming you’d expect from the destruction of 110-storey buildings; nonsensical so-called “oral” histories (we only get transcripts) from the firefighters and obvious fakery of a significant number of the alleged dead people.
I am aware of some of the people allegedly fighting for justice - Bob McIlvaine, Jersey Widows, April Gallop - and there is nothing inconsistent with their being actors and certain suggestions there are such as in the case of Bob photoshopped photos. Also, just as the Covid Investigative Committee is controlled opposition, the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry also looks like CO.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. I know someone who was there too and he said he saw a plane heading to the South tower ... while I believe he saw something it obviously wasn't either of the plane objects they show us in the "9/11 movie".
I've also engaged in comments with a guy, Jerms, who since 2004 has been in the FDNY but was working on Maiden Lane at the time and was evacuated. One of his FDNY colleagues is allegedly responsible for a testimony published by the NYT. I have pointed out to Jerms that the testimony doesn't add up and I've also analysed other testimonies which are completely nonsensical and absolutely do not fit the "real death and injury" hypothesis.
Knowing people simply doesn't mean anything because that is expected for both hypotheses. You cannot put forward something as evidence unless it favours one hypothesis over the other and knowing people doesn't. People who fake their deaths know people, they don't live in a vacuum and they're obviously not going to broadcast to all their acquaintance that they're going to fake their death ... so knowing people doesn't work as evidence. As I've said I know people who were friends of people in staged events in Australia and went to their funerals - it just doesn't mean anything.
What evidence do you have that favours real over fake? You need evidence. I've looked and I can't find any. The thing about the perps is that not only do they employ Revelation of the Method whereby they advertise they're duping us, they are, in fact, utterly scrupulous in never putting forward any piece of evidence so realistically that someone who believes their story can brandish it in defence of it. We have to give them that. They are very scrupulous in that.
Revelation of the Method isn't meant to dupe people as far as I'm aware - it's meant to humiliate them by rubbing the truth in their face underneath the propaganda - so if you think it can be made to dupe people I'm all ears how that is done because - yes - I want to try to protect myself from dupery as much as possible.
I never said I know for sure nobody died, I said most likely. And why should I trust you? I have never met you, don't know a thing about you. The most logical thing, as they have done with many of these terror events, is to fake casualties with crisis actors. But maybe you are right and in the case of 911, people died, however unlikely that is. You see, no need to get offended.
Let me explain it more clearly; you saying you know someone who disappeared after 9/11 means NOTHING to me. The person could have simply faked his death as many have in the past. It is NOT proof people died. Do you understand me now?
The plane through steel means it was planned long ago. Planned means you don't want any loose ends, you want control. Difficult to control are grieving parents, easy to control are crisis actors. It just makes more sense, but as I said in another comment; I SAID MOST LIKELY. So don't get emotional, Pirate, you can have your own truth.
I am going to hit all these post where Pirate claims to know someone.
Name of the deceased?
It is on the 9/11 memorial yes?
Thus it is public record...correct?
Tell me more about the people you knew that were killed that day.
By the way where did you work Pirate.... address, company/business
In a event so big I just want to verify every scrap of info....it is just how i am and there is nothing wrong with that, after all you are making a claim and interjecting yourself into the event itself by stating you were there.
was watching a Madeline McCann video last weekend about all the inconsistencies of the story. I still wonder what happened to her, I think part of it is meant to inflict psychological trauma on the masses that can be taken advantage to manipulate us to their goals.
We have a lesser known case in Australia with a little boy, William Tyrell, whose story keeps getting reported on with the suspect changing every few years.
Just read your link to the Tyrell case. You are right - revelation of the method all over the place, especially the 9/11 reference. Likewise the name 'Tyrell', like in Tyrell corporation from Bladerunner.
Interesting above all that they mention the child abuse possibility, but with probably small scale local low level paedo rings, but then one by one shoot that option down, even awarding one of the alleged suspects massive damages.
One thing Miri is definitely right on though is the fact that thousands (well, more like several million in the Network) go missing every year, but none of them are ever really named. Thus, concentrating on just one here and there is, indeed, somewhat suspicious in itself. And it can't have anything to do with stuff like 'middle class white people' like the McCanns, seeing as a lot of stuff happens to middle class white people. So, by only mentioning one or two to the nth degree, they are creating the impression in the public's mind that it's a very rare event, not a pandemic (which the Network is).
Just read Miri's take on it - I think the microchip idea is a bit ludicrous tbh. I can think of better ways to get people microchipping their children - one single disappearance 18 years ago wouldn't be enough. There are other child abductions/murders, after all. I'd say they'd need to bust a child abuse ring (obviously not the *real* Network - they can't ever allow the public to know about that) and fill the MSM with it. This would have the added bonus of misdirecting people about the Network, so they are given a different image of it. A third benefit to this would be if they made the abductors/abusers of the Asian persuasion (even better - Muslims) - they could increase support for the fascists (which definitely seems to be on their current agenda - speaking as a resident of France in an area with near-majority support for le Pen - which is unsettling to say the least).
Sometimes, as well, there can be more than one explanation/agenda. But I am certainly getting the impression that there is a Network connection to the McCann case, and thus, anything which distracts from that will be necessary, both for public consumption, and for 'conspiracy theorist' consumption. Most so-called conspiracy theorists I've come across, after all, really don't know much about the Network at all, and that's a real glaring anomaly, because once you understand the Network you not only know who the bad guys are but you also perfectly understand their psychology, and you also know precisely what you need to expose about them to the public to motivate the public to wake up, because if there's one thing the public really would get out the pitchforks for, it's Category A child abuse. This, I would say, is the bad guys Achilles heel.
I wouldn't be surprised, then, if that's what the McCann case is really about, whether as a psyop/total fake event or as a misdirection. So I would likewise say that trying to convince people it's all about microchips is either a misdirection, or just an error in reasoning. I'll give Miri the benefit of the latter for now, absent some catalysing event that shines a new light on the matter.
While I do think people would get out the pitchforks if the "network" were exposed in its horrific entirety at this point, I also think this is a kind of conditioning of acceptance. Like "breaking" a horse.
First, in order to train a horse into obedience, you have to systemically "break its SPIRIT". You don't just throw a bridle in its mouth and a saddle on its back and jump on for a ride. Regardless of the romanticised portrayals of cowboys and corrals and bucking broncos. That is no way to successfully train a horse.
You begin by brushing a halter on its face and neck which the horse balks at very much. Over time, once it becomes accustomed to the halter, you slip it on. Then so on and so on until finally you have created submission in the horse with some willing to charge into battle against their own best natural instincts.
The same is being done with the acceptance of pedophilia. The elite view "human beings" as nothing more than complex animals and are training them as they would any other animal. So eventually man the animal will quietly and willingly give over his own progeny for their "use".
This has nothing to do with microchips. No one needs microchipping. Successful tracking of the "herd" is almost complete now without clunky chips. I wish people would stop furthering the idea as it is complete misdirection and the promulgation of the idea only serves to make people look stupid.
AND provides a laugh to our "overlords" as well as justification for their dominance over such an inferior "bunch".
I pray for people to grow-the-hell-up before its too late, but I'm not holding my breath. God Bless.
That is an exceptionally good psychological comment and I don't think I could add to it or word it any better. I agree completely! Softly, softly, catchy human.
I think I have come to the conclusion that, absent some catalysing event (which will not happen without divine or ETI intervention), it is too late and people will not grow up in time. As we shall doubtless be seeing tomorrow in the British General Elections...
I'm more a 'she' for the divine than a 'he', but in the end that's kind of irrelevant. I think the higher forces have limits, in the sense that they will allow things to get to a certain level of dystopia, in the hope that the masses might grow up, learn the lessons, and develop an immunity to the monsters ('that which does not kill us..' etc.) - but if this clearly isn't going to happen, then they need to intervene.
The same reasoning applies for ETIs - if the monsters in control of this world threaten to acquire interstellar travel and WMDs to go with it then intervention would be required. But given their intelligence, that intervention would happen at an earlier stage, rather than waiting until the last minute.
And I do totally agree that if people understood things would change instantly. In the same way, if people generally believed in reincarnation they'd have a completely different outlook. I did, at one time, start a PhD thesis about that, unfortunately I had to give it up - but it essentially does say that a person's spiritual understanding has a significant effect on their actions. Hence the way the bad guys have created anti-spiritual ideologies to usurp and destroy the spiritual (pagan/animist/natural etc.). Monotheism in particular.
Yes, there's definitely a thesis in there somewhere... And nothing short of a rapture is going to do the trick.
Just read Miri's other take on the McCann case on her Substack (only subscribers can comment though, which is probably just as well in my case), and I think it's interesting that she doesn't once mention the Network (or child abuse of any kind). One would be forgiven for thinking the only conspiracy theory about the McCann case was that the parents killed her. I had, in fact, not even heard that theory before. The abduction by the Network (possibly 'allowed to happen' or 'arranged' by the parents, whether voluntarily or under duress) is the most obvious and likely scenario. It was the one I was familiar with from the very start. So, maybe the conspiracy theory narrative has been made to change as well.
So, both the 'they killed her' theory and the 'fake event to get people microchipped' theory are both misdirections. From a certain ironic point of view, if all children are microchipped, where is the Network going to get their children from?! Unless it's easy to remove/neutralise these chips (which it would be, actually - even for a layperson with a basic knowledge of electronic interference, or a local anaesthetic and a scalpel). Although most abducted children for the Network come from orphanages and foster homes, and from families who are already in the Network. Or foreign children in war zones and the like, and there are always plenty of them, creating an endless stream of refugees.
So I don't buy Miri's theory in the slightest. Like I say, there are far more effective ways of making people want to chip their kids. To give her the benefit of the doubt again, though, maybe she's just misreading the narrative.
The narrative, after all, is key to understanding all these events.
Those sketches have been largely debunked as yet more smoke and mirrors. Though there is SO much smoke and SO many mirrors around this case, I don't claim definitive knowledge.
I am saying, don't take those sketches seriously. Does anyone think if the Podestas were actually involved in the child's disappearance the sketches would have been widely and infamously plastered all over the place? Likely not if it were true.
The Podestas are fall guys for the elite. They handle PR and are used to the heat.
The release of sketches was likely "fun" for them. A prank on the public.
Obviously, the e-fits are fabricated but the question is, “Why fabricate two e-fits that look like the Podesta brothers and say they represent a single suspect?”
Why wouldn’t they be involved? Have you seen the images of children on Tony Podesta’s walls? I’m not saying they are, but the e-fits are obviously very strange.
Yes, I've studied the Podestas in detail. I think the greater question is NOt why does Tony Podesta collect such obvious pedo artwork, but why did he allow photos of his home to be published. Again, far and wide?
Magicians use sleight-of-hand to fool the audience.
That's what I'm saying about the e-fits and the artwork. They are tricks. To confuse the minds of the audience.
I'm NOT saying the Podestas weren't involved in the child's disappearance. I'm saying what is being shown to the public is distraction to make the people who say the Podestas were involved due to the bogus e-fits, etc., look like LOONIES. It's for a laugh and to cover.
Why allow photos to be published? Shamelessness? I mean why have the paintings there in the first place? The trickery isn't so far that they actually place the paintings for show and then remove them surely. Anyone who has the photos on the wall is a sicko ... end of.
The thing is in the case of Madeleine I don't think we can know the truth, can we? When it's adults who go "missing" I just write them off as entering something akin to a Witness Protection Program but when it's kids it's different because we know there are VIP networks that do terrible stuff to kids.
At the time I thought it was all real, and I empathized accordingly.
Now I can see this event and most other media spectacles like it are hoaxes designed to manipulate people into thinking and subsequently doing certain things, presumably to the benefit of those responsible for the hoax.
I don’t recall anyone expressing displeasure or outrage at seeing an “abducted child” on the screens at the time. That all came later for me, and I suspect most who were there still think the story was real.
The story of the girl going missing is very likely real. Then coupled with many psyops to inflict desired warping of people's minds and dissolution of morals and ethics. Like having their pleasures disrupted with disparaging thoughts. Once this is done to people often enough they reject the "spoiling" of their pleasure by becoming cold to the emotions the disruption provokes, etc.
People generally suppress darker thoughts and only express conditioned "acceptable" thoughts in public and many times suppress those unpleasant thoughts to themselves, thus sowing hypocrisy in their minds. What is commonly called "cognitive dissonance" in psycho-babble. The older term hypocrisy now being seen as distasteful and rightfully so.
It isn't humane to simply dismiss the child at the center of this as a hoax.
That is a trick of lie of the mind. The mind naturally wants to "settle" on an answer to then be filed away so the mind can move on to solving other problems. That's one way mind control works.
I'm not criticizing you. I'm trying to explain what I've learned on how mind control is successfully used.
> The story of the girl going missing is very likely real.
Why do you say that? Can you point me to the strongest piece of evidence that convinced you that the story is true?
> It isn't humane to simply dismiss the child at the center of this as a hoax.
If I wanted to run a PsyOp, this is the kind of thinking I would seek — self-policing of acceptable speech based on social taboos.
It would allow me, the hoax organiser, to do and say what I wanted while shielded from skeptical criticism and scrutiny.
As a parent myself, I would **never** allow my child and my family to be dragged through the news cycles in such a scenario. I would be beyond despair and craving privacy, and so would the people I know personally.
Nobody in my world would ever agree to the absolute circus that accompanied this story.
This is the part where you attempt to rationalize “everyone grieves differently” as if that glib handwave is also not a hoax (when in fact, in lived reality, it is).
I'm not rationalizing grief and made no attempt to do so. I don't know where you came up with this other than a straw to grasp.
The girl is gone. Where? IDK. It's not hard to know it would be virtually impossible to hide her at home or something. There are many people who knew the child. Her face is extremely recognizable by many from all the relentless press.
I said the child being gone is very likely real because it's logical.
If you want to believe otherwise, of course that's opinion.
But whatever you think, don't let it get in the way of your sport spectating.
There is no reason to believe the child wasn't "disappeared" and that many of the circumstances surrounding her "disappearance" were also fabricated.
I think it's likely she met with some horrific fate. I think it's plausible her parents and others participated in bringing about that fate then also participating in the ensuing fabrications.
This is the most likely explanation in my opinion as well. And that would, of course, mean that all the other 'speculating' serves the simple purpose of misdirection, like I've suggested elsewhere.
I also think that usually these sorts of incidents happen without coming to public attention. Sometimes, though, public attention can't be avoided, usually because of that 'random luck element', like a police officer or reporter not receiving the memo, or an unexpected witness with a fair amount of money or social influence who can't simply be shut up. These are the ones that require a huge amount of lily-gilding in order to make it look like something else...
Jay Slater family linked to another case in Dewsbury, UK, where mother hid her daughter at an accomplice flat. Shannon Mathews case. Another scam. Richard D Hall's website richplanet.net looks at many incidents, Manchester Arena bombing ( I know of girls there who believed it was real), London bombings, MP Murder, Jo Cox, and many, many more.
Oh they always have the "victim" come out and say that trolls are accusing them of this or that. I looked it up - so Jay's mother is saying that they are comparing her to Karen Matthews who hid her daughter, Shannon, in the hope of getting the reward money for finding her.
Excellent to have a new post from you, Petra - I always love reading your stuff because it invariably gets my brain working. Even if I don't agree with everything. Like, although I am totally open to the faking of an event idea, I do find it impossible to accept that literally everything is faked. The sheer amount of logistical work involved, in my view, makes it counter-productive - and the bad guys do indeed have limited resources, so they have to think hard about how they allocate those resources. I can imagine they have regular planning meetings, where they all sit down either with their coffee and their bacon bagels or their beer and takeout and someone will first of all go through that list of resources. I'd imagine they have a kind of wish list, but then they have to whittle it down to a manageable level.
Obviously I admit I know next to nothing about the goings on in Australia, but I would imagine that incidents like the ones you mention do actually happen 'naturally' - a bus or truck crash, for example, or a gun-related death. So in those circumstances they simply need to get the MSM to 'narrate' the incident the 'right way'. However if they are concerned about the 'timing' of an incident, they can't rely on something happening when they want it to so yes, in those circumstances, best fake it. It's the narrative that's key, which if often about the timing - so I think one good way to tell whether something is faked is to assess how it fits into the narrative. If it doesn't fit, or is 'unexpected' (from the bad guys point of view) maybe it's a real event.
I also think there's a big difference between these comparatively minor events and the major ones, in the sense that the major ones are sufficiently few and far between to be entirely manageable with the resources they have available, so I'm kind of with you on that one.
The other consideration, however, which, as a well-educated but admittedly amateur historian, should always be considered for events quite some way in the past, is the possibility that rather than the original incident being faked, it's the historical record which has been altered. If we're talking online information this is easy - they just concoct an algorithm to do a 'find + replace'. We then have a kind of Mandela effect (Mathis wrote a good one about that - I'm sure you've read that one?). This would work really well because human memory is entirely fallible, humans are 'suggestible', and they will usually defer to trusted 'epistemic authorities'. So if an epistemic authority keeps repeating 'X happened this way', then even if the individual's 'memory' of it is different, eventually they will accept the official version.
So I do think that if we are examining historical events we do need to first examine the authenticity or otherwise of the source information (whether primary or secondary sources). Thus, for example, if Mathis comes across an 'altered' genealogy record, then the only conclusion that can be drawn from that is 'the record has been altered', not that 'oh in that case the answer is such and such'. For a historian, you would always just dismiss faked evidence and 'whatever remains which you can prove is authentic' should be the only evidence you analyse. I think it's ironic that Mathis accepts that they fake historical records all the time, but still uses those fake records to say 'X is fake', rather than the more obvious conclusion 'the event happened, but they have changed the narrative'.
So the 'Mandela effect' creates cognitive dissonance which means no one, especially historians and alternate researchers (what they call 'conspiracy theorists'), can trust the source material anymore - I think that's the really sinister thing, because it means they really can rewrite history, 1984-style.
I don't know enough about the hijacking you mentioned, but did any group claim responsibility for it? One issue the fakers must face is if they do something 'in the name of terrorist organisation X' and they don't control X as patsies etc., then what happens when X denies responsibility?
Still, I am totally willing to believe hijackings like that are faked - it perfectly serves the required narrative. So I'm with you on that one.
I agree that some event types occur naturally such as bus and truck accidents - of course (I know people involved in both) - while other event types never do - mass school shootings and self-immolations. In the case of others such as hijackings, not sure.
Then again, while bus accidents occur naturally they are also often faked. After recognising the Hunter Valley fake I discovered analyses of other fakes.
With regard to historical fabrication, in the case of psyops I think they stick to their Revelation-of-the-Method so you can work out an event such as the Great Fire of London 1666 nearly 400 years ago in the same way as a modern day one and we can see the connections - Christopher Wren presented the new plans for London on 9/11/1666 and constables were strangely not at their posts just like the interceptors failed their duty on 9/11. This is a great article by Gloria Moss. https://off-guardian.org/2019/09/01/the-great-fire-of-london-cui-bono/
They tell us, Evelyn, it's that simple. They tell us. Doesn't matter what side of the conspiracy fence there always seems to be resistance to a complete taking on board of Revelation of the Method. The moment I heard it I embraced it to my bosom as it explained so much that made no sense until that point ... and I have never had any reason to have anything but the greatest confidence in their faithful employment of that technique.
We know they fake it because they tell us they fake it ... if for no other reason.
You've just given me lots more reading material! And just at the point where I have to go and do the dishes.
Especially the great fire thing - for this, I would definitely have to check the original source material, for claims like the 9/11 date, or constables not being on duty. Remember they didn't have police in those days (until the Peelers, early C19th). Samuel Pepys' diary would be a good place to start. I can totally understand the idea of burning down your own city to then get all the rebuilding contracts and gentrify things though (and clear out the plebs) - there are loads of examples of that. Nero springs to mind. Grenfell likewise. I know Mathis thinks that was the case with Dresden but that's stretching things a bit imho.
I think the Nero fire is a great example of possibly the earliest serious false flag event in the historical record, especially as the Establishment as it was at the time was able to blame it on the subversive 'enemies of the state' - where have we heard that one since, eh! And fiddling whilst it's going on is the typical rubbing people's noses in it (kind of what you mean perhaps by revelation of the method).
Interestingly, from Pepys' diaries it's clear that the King (Charles II) got involved on the streets with the firefighters helping out. Maybe he was a very popular King and they like being seen as a man of the people and all that, but it's still a weird thing from a certain point of view. Bit like Rumsfeld running around the Pentagon to help with the so-called plane crashing into the bit of the Pentagon where they just happened to be investigating the 2.3 trillion he mentioned he couldn't find only the day before. Lol. I heard the backup files were in building 7, but you might know more than me on that one.
Anyway, I must do my chores or I'll be in trouble.
Oh - are those links you gave in another comment about the McCann case a good place to start? Or do you have other links? I know little about that case but I've become increasingly agitated to know more about it. Especially if it relates to the Network (child abuse etc.), which is sort of relevant to my story and will be cropping up later on.
I'll have to follow up your link about the Australian case as well.
Gloria Moss is a professor and shows great scholarship ... but I read a little beyond her article and everywhere I turned I could see Revelation of the Method.
An excerpt:
"Drought and timber structures
What arguments do those who do not suspect any malfeasance use? Very often, they cite the fact that the summer had been hot and dry and, as one commentator put it, the ‘houses creaked with dry joints’. However, the combination of these two points do not immediately explain the extent of the fire since a major fire had occurred in 1633, also a time of drought (see weatherwebdotnet) but this fire destroyed no more than 122 buildings, 42 at the northern end of London Bridge and 80 on Thames Street. This figure that compares with the 300 buildings burned down in 1666 in the space of the first morning alone.
So, the conditions normally cited as causing the Great Fire (ie the hot weather and the timber frames of the buildings) cannot on their own explain the fiendish nature of the fire in 1666."
Yes to Nero and yes to King Charles and Rumsfeld - totally!
The links for Maddy I wouldn't say are particularly good per se, one is to Miri's take on the case which I'm not entirely sure about but is certainly worth considering and the other is to an article showing two e-fits that clearly fit John and Tony Podesta but are supposed to represent a single suspect - no idea what's actually in the article but it's mainstream so ...
I have come across Miri once before and she seems quite interesting, so I'll have to follow up on that.
If I recall correctly, when we learned about the Great Fire at school (it was during my childhood so I can't really trust a damn thing about the very few flashes of memory I have, but I think this one is ok because it was neutral) we were told it was started 'accidentally' in 'Pudding Lane', and then just spread. Well, in terms of the spread I can understand that seeing as we're talking tightly packed wooden houses and such like (presumably they may have used flammable tar and stuff for binding agents, but I'm no architect so what do I know). But the idea of starting it by accident, maybe because of some drunk bakery assistant, seems a bit dubious. Fires like that would've been a regular occurrence in places with open fires and ovens and all the rest of it, but would've been easy to put out, so it never becomes a conflagration. This suggests it was started deliberately (possibly in more than one place) but then the Pudding Lane thing was just a convenient scapegoat/explanation the public would buy. Obviously they didn't have investigative reporters or search engines and mass communication in those days so the bad guys would be able to spread any rumour they wanted and have people believe it. In that sense, they wouldn't need to 'fake' an actual event, they'd just need to report that something happened even though nothing did happen. I'm sure that kind of lie/propaganda happened regularly. In the modern age, with mass communication technology etc., your version of these fake events has a lot more credence I think, because they can't just say 'X happened' and get away with it, without actually making 'something' happen, even if that 'something' is, say, some fake video footage, or an overturned bus planted by the side of the road.
I would imagine, though, that the modern idea of the Great Fire being not what we were told would, indeed, require the manufacturing of fake historical records, because I really don't think they thought in the same way as the bad guys do today - that's to say that date 9/11 would not have had the same significance as it has done in more recent times (e.g. 1973 Chile). It would be like someone 'discovering' some lost Roman scroll saying Nero's fire happened on some auspicious date and for, I don't know, '33' hours or something. The thing is, I think that kind of thing is revelation of the method of altering records. So even though this is not to deny that this or that event was 'staged' or a 'false flag' or whatever, for some of these events we do need to distinguish between the 'records of the event' and the 'false flag event itself' - after all, the most important thing for them in the end is the narrative, and for most things, that's all they need, a narrative. Which, ironically, is more circumstantial evidence in favour of the fake events idea. So, alongside your noticing signs of the revelation of the method, we also need to ask 'what narrative purpose does it serve' - in my view, if the answer to that second question isn't obvious, then possibly it suggests it was a real event?
Personally, though, I think the further back in history we go, the fewer and further between the fakes really are. Today, yes, quite frequent, but in terms of social history, there was less and less need for them the further back you go, precisely because of the lack of mass communication, so you just tell the plebs anything and no one can contradict you...
In the case of the Great Fire - just like 9/11 - it was a real event, however, it didn't happen how they said it happened. Pudding Lane was just one of the propaganda streams they pushed as they did for 9/11 and I'm sure the baker, Thomas Farriner, was in on it. We are told his family fled over the rooftops to escape but unfortunately the maid baulked and perished. Yeah, right.
We get one story about an ember starting it and another telling us that a 22 year-old French watchmaker, Robert Hubert, did it (how many modern day culprits are 22 years old?) but they give us details that very obviously don't add up such as there was no window that he could have thrown the lighted torch through and other nonsenses. 15 years later the Swedish captain of the boat that Hubert was allegedly on tells us he couldn't have been the culprit because he was on the boat at the time the fire started.
Also, the well-known playwright, James Shirley, and his wife, allegedly made refugees by the fire and put into a refugee camp, allegedly died on the same day one month after the fire from "fright and exposure". I thought it strange that they both died on exactly the same day and were put into a refugee camp. I wondered, "Could he have just wanted to disappear? Did he owe money perhaps?" You'll never believe it. I looked up his oeuvre and he wrote a play, The Gamester, "noteworthy for its realistic and detailed picture of gambling in its era."
The Great Fire reeks of psyop from start to finish.
I had a look at Gloria's article and it is very persuasive, certainly. I also only just realised that 'farriner' is a derivation of 'farine' which is the French for flour. Maybe he just took on that surname to match his trade, like they used to. Interesting, though, that not only did they not teach us any of this stuff at school but even when I read a bit about it later none of these things occurred to me. Still, the qui bono question certainly answers a lot of issues. Think I'll read what Mathis has to say about it next... Something about bankers, clearly.
I have found that if I look at things like a play or circus being played out on the LITERAL world STAGE, with live props and participatory audience, scripted to cast sandy hooks into Our emotions and drag Us where They want Us, things make a whole lot more sense. Because there's too much that just makes Me scratch My head, otherwise.
My mother's partner, a 65 year old teacher, considers himself very open-minded but started yelling at me when I said that according to Newton, a plane could never slice through a steel façade. Yet that is what we saw and I showed him the picture of the outline of the plane in the building. He started getting uncomfortable, said 'so what are you exactly saying?' So I told him that the whole thing was fake, a planned event and most likely without any casualties because why would you want to have the family members of 3.000 plus people bothering you to investigate, critically looking at everything you do when you can just have some crisis actors pretending to be sad? He got so mad and started raising his voice because 'he had been to memorial' and 'how dare I bla bla'. I just remained calm and got back to the basics; can a plane slice through steel? I got the response 'I am not an expert bla bla' so I told him to ask a science teacher at the school he teaches. I don't think I have to tell you but he never asked the science teacher and he never got back to me on that question. This is a person that teaches teenagers, a person not even honest enough to answer and investigate simple questions.
So yes, they fake things all the time and they get away with it because most people don't even want to entertain the idea that almost everything is a lie.
Summed it up perfectly.
I understand your belief, but it's not possible in reality. I don't think you understand NYC and how small it actually is, though over populated.
There is no way "they" could have coordinated the massive effort it would have taken to keep WTC towers clear of people that day. We are talking thousands of people. Hundreds of businesses not only in the offices but small businesses in the lower levels. Many thousands who were just regular working people. Not special ops.
Many of the people who worked in those building had worked there many years. They went home every night to the same apartments they had been living in, some for many years.
If suddenly they had been told to stay home and then the events of 911 had happened, people far and wide in many more thousands, family, neighbors, etc., would have been talking about it. New Yorkers are not shy or quiet people. There is absolutely no way that many people in NYC could have been "hushed up."
Also, if in some massive psyop "they" had been able to coordinate keeping all the people who worked in WTC towers away from the buildings that day, it would have been noticed on the ground at delis and coffee shops, subway trains, the businesses that were in the lower levels of WTC that sold all manner of things to the workers who arrived via subways to work every day. The subway conductors and other riders and the toll booth receipts would have easily revealed that many thousands did not go to work that day. AND all those businesses would have had to have been shut down and "hushed up", as well as their families, etc.
It's simply not feasible. You are talking about silencing tens of thousands of living New Yorkers and keeping them silent for over twenty years.
I was living in NYC when the towers fell on 911. I know people who died. When you keep pressing your simplistic theory that "no one died" you are insulting the people who were sacrificed that day. Who lost their lives to a cynical psyop. Children who lost their parents, loved ones, friends.
You are calling the people who grieved for those who died LIARS. You are declaring their pain and suffering FAKE. You are telling me my sadness over losing friends is FALSE. Think on that.
The logistics of successfully pulling off such a fraud is nigh impossible. It would be much easier to murder many and be done with it.
As for the victims families seeking answers and justice, I suppose you haven't looked into this. They have been. For over twenty years now.
Armchair ANYTHING is a silly ego pursuit, so you can feel smarter than everyone around you instead of thinking things through and being realistic. It's no wonder no one listens.
I have to disagree on “armchair anything.” I do actually think you can work out psyops (many at least) from your armchair as they are 100% media events. Not all psyops are clearcut events per se, eg, vaccines, but where a psyop is an event I think most you can work out from your armchair. One exception at least is “missing children” and there are no doubt others.
When you know people who allegedly die in these events that always makes it tricky. I don't know anyone myself but I know people who know people who allegedly died in events (those mentioned and more) including someone whose insurance agent was allegedly in one of the towers, however, knowing people doesn't argue for an event’s reality as it is expected that people will know people who fake their deaths, it's perfectly consistent with the staged hypothesis.
There is evidence that many floors in the towers were empty prior to demolition and there were also a number of subway drills and we must keep in mind that the first plane hit at 8:46 which is 15m before general office hours, causing a massive holdback of people on their way to work.
There isn’t any purported evidence that argues for the reality of the death and injury on 9/11 and generally it undermines itself, eg, ludicrous miracle survivor stories; reporter, Cynthia McFadden, outside a hospital in the morning and a trauma centre in the evening reporting no injured being admitted; images of alleged injured that betray no signs of the serious injury and maiming you’d expect from the destruction of 110-storey buildings; nonsensical so-called “oral” histories (we only get transcripts) from the firefighters and obvious fakery of a significant number of the alleged dead people.
I am aware of some of the people allegedly fighting for justice - Bob McIlvaine, Jersey Widows, April Gallop - and there is nothing inconsistent with their being actors and certain suggestions there are such as in the case of Bob photoshopped photos. Also, just as the Covid Investigative Committee is controlled opposition, the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry also looks like CO.
I invite you to look at my page with links on 9/11. https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911
I was there. I know people who died.
This is exactly what I mean by "armchair" experts.
My first hand experience is inferior to your armchair theories in your mind.
I'm not trying to be insulting. I've studied many aspects of 911.
We all have our own opinions but some are closer to the truth than others.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. I know someone who was there too and he said he saw a plane heading to the South tower ... while I believe he saw something it obviously wasn't either of the plane objects they show us in the "9/11 movie".
I've also engaged in comments with a guy, Jerms, who since 2004 has been in the FDNY but was working on Maiden Lane at the time and was evacuated. One of his FDNY colleagues is allegedly responsible for a testimony published by the NYT. I have pointed out to Jerms that the testimony doesn't add up and I've also analysed other testimonies which are completely nonsensical and absolutely do not fit the "real death and injury" hypothesis.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/nonsensicalities-in-the-911-firefighter
Knowing people simply doesn't mean anything because that is expected for both hypotheses. You cannot put forward something as evidence unless it favours one hypothesis over the other and knowing people doesn't. People who fake their deaths know people, they don't live in a vacuum and they're obviously not going to broadcast to all their acquaintance that they're going to fake their death ... so knowing people doesn't work as evidence. As I've said I know people who were friends of people in staged events in Australia and went to their funerals - it just doesn't mean anything.
What evidence do you have that favours real over fake? You need evidence. I've looked and I can't find any. The thing about the perps is that not only do they employ Revelation of the Method whereby they advertise they're duping us, they are, in fact, utterly scrupulous in never putting forward any piece of evidence so realistically that someone who believes their story can brandish it in defence of it. We have to give them that. They are very scrupulous in that.
I was there. I worked six blocks north of the towers.
Your knowing someone who claims they were there is not the same as actually being there.
It just isn't.
I know your opinion. I'm not trying to change it and you certainly won't change my experience. My actual experience over rides your opinion for me.
The revelation of the method can be used to dupe you as well as anything else.
Revelation of the Method isn't meant to dupe people as far as I'm aware - it's meant to humiliate them by rubbing the truth in their face underneath the propaganda - so if you think it can be made to dupe people I'm all ears how that is done because - yes - I want to try to protect myself from dupery as much as possible.
"I was there, I worked six blocks north of the tower" is evidence, fact and proof of nothing other than you worked six blocks north of the tower.
Well then what are the names of the people you knew who died?
It is obviously public record now that the names are inscribed on the memorial.
Were they office workers, firefighters, EMT, Police....
I never said I know for sure nobody died, I said most likely. And why should I trust you? I have never met you, don't know a thing about you. The most logical thing, as they have done with many of these terror events, is to fake casualties with crisis actors. But maybe you are right and in the case of 911, people died, however unlikely that is. You see, no need to get offended.
I have no idea what you're referring to or talking about.
Let me explain it more clearly; you saying you know someone who disappeared after 9/11 means NOTHING to me. The person could have simply faked his death as many have in the past. It is NOT proof people died. Do you understand me now?
Can a plane slice through steel?
Just to say Pirate Studebaker isn't questioning "inside job" just the "death and injury staged" claim.
No!
The subject is NOT planes cutting through steel but whether people died in the towers. Is this not OBVIOUS to you from reading the comment I made?
The plane through steel means it was planned long ago. Planned means you don't want any loose ends, you want control. Difficult to control are grieving parents, easy to control are crisis actors. It just makes more sense, but as I said in another comment; I SAID MOST LIKELY. So don't get emotional, Pirate, you can have your own truth.
I am going to hit all these post where Pirate claims to know someone.
Name of the deceased?
It is on the 9/11 memorial yes?
Thus it is public record...correct?
Tell me more about the people you knew that were killed that day.
By the way where did you work Pirate.... address, company/business
In a event so big I just want to verify every scrap of info....it is just how i am and there is nothing wrong with that, after all you are making a claim and interjecting yourself into the event itself by stating you were there.
was watching a Madeline McCann video last weekend about all the inconsistencies of the story. I still wonder what happened to her, I think part of it is meant to inflict psychological trauma on the masses that can be taken advantage to manipulate us to their goals.
We have a lesser known case in Australia with a little boy, William Tyrell, whose story keeps getting reported on with the suspect changing every few years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_William_Tyrrell
The MM reporting is ridiculous. This is Miri's take on it: https://miriaf.co.uk/madeleine-mccann-the-media-and-the-microchip/
However, I think there is some Satanic element. Are you familiar with the two e-fits that are supposed to represent "the suspect" when clearly the two e-fits clearly look like two different people, namely John and Tony Podesta. Seriously. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/madeleine-mccann-police-issue-two-efit-images-in-new-appeal-8877748.html
Just read your link to the Tyrell case. You are right - revelation of the method all over the place, especially the 9/11 reference. Likewise the name 'Tyrell', like in Tyrell corporation from Bladerunner.
Interesting above all that they mention the child abuse possibility, but with probably small scale local low level paedo rings, but then one by one shoot that option down, even awarding one of the alleged suspects massive damages.
One thing Miri is definitely right on though is the fact that thousands (well, more like several million in the Network) go missing every year, but none of them are ever really named. Thus, concentrating on just one here and there is, indeed, somewhat suspicious in itself. And it can't have anything to do with stuff like 'middle class white people' like the McCanns, seeing as a lot of stuff happens to middle class white people. So, by only mentioning one or two to the nth degree, they are creating the impression in the public's mind that it's a very rare event, not a pandemic (which the Network is).
Yes, good point, focusing on one or two distracts from the millions who go missing.
Just read Miri's take on it - I think the microchip idea is a bit ludicrous tbh. I can think of better ways to get people microchipping their children - one single disappearance 18 years ago wouldn't be enough. There are other child abductions/murders, after all. I'd say they'd need to bust a child abuse ring (obviously not the *real* Network - they can't ever allow the public to know about that) and fill the MSM with it. This would have the added bonus of misdirecting people about the Network, so they are given a different image of it. A third benefit to this would be if they made the abductors/abusers of the Asian persuasion (even better - Muslims) - they could increase support for the fascists (which definitely seems to be on their current agenda - speaking as a resident of France in an area with near-majority support for le Pen - which is unsettling to say the least).
Sometimes, as well, there can be more than one explanation/agenda. But I am certainly getting the impression that there is a Network connection to the McCann case, and thus, anything which distracts from that will be necessary, both for public consumption, and for 'conspiracy theorist' consumption. Most so-called conspiracy theorists I've come across, after all, really don't know much about the Network at all, and that's a real glaring anomaly, because once you understand the Network you not only know who the bad guys are but you also perfectly understand their psychology, and you also know precisely what you need to expose about them to the public to motivate the public to wake up, because if there's one thing the public really would get out the pitchforks for, it's Category A child abuse. This, I would say, is the bad guys Achilles heel.
I wouldn't be surprised, then, if that's what the McCann case is really about, whether as a psyop/total fake event or as a misdirection. So I would likewise say that trying to convince people it's all about microchips is either a misdirection, or just an error in reasoning. I'll give Miri the benefit of the latter for now, absent some catalysing event that shines a new light on the matter.
Well stated. Thank you.
While I do think people would get out the pitchforks if the "network" were exposed in its horrific entirety at this point, I also think this is a kind of conditioning of acceptance. Like "breaking" a horse.
First, in order to train a horse into obedience, you have to systemically "break its SPIRIT". You don't just throw a bridle in its mouth and a saddle on its back and jump on for a ride. Regardless of the romanticised portrayals of cowboys and corrals and bucking broncos. That is no way to successfully train a horse.
You begin by brushing a halter on its face and neck which the horse balks at very much. Over time, once it becomes accustomed to the halter, you slip it on. Then so on and so on until finally you have created submission in the horse with some willing to charge into battle against their own best natural instincts.
The same is being done with the acceptance of pedophilia. The elite view "human beings" as nothing more than complex animals and are training them as they would any other animal. So eventually man the animal will quietly and willingly give over his own progeny for their "use".
This has nothing to do with microchips. No one needs microchipping. Successful tracking of the "herd" is almost complete now without clunky chips. I wish people would stop furthering the idea as it is complete misdirection and the promulgation of the idea only serves to make people look stupid.
AND provides a laugh to our "overlords" as well as justification for their dominance over such an inferior "bunch".
I pray for people to grow-the-hell-up before its too late, but I'm not holding my breath. God Bless.
That is an exceptionally good psychological comment and I don't think I could add to it or word it any better. I agree completely! Softly, softly, catchy human.
I think I have come to the conclusion that, absent some catalysing event (which will not happen without divine or ETI intervention), it is too late and people will not grow up in time. As we shall doubtless be seeing tomorrow in the British General Elections...
Agreed. About growing up. In the years to come people will willingly give up their children. It's only a matter of time.
I do hold hope for Divine Intervention. Everything else He said has come to pass/is coming true, so I have no reason to doubt Him.
Though I also think there is a slim chance people will realize we aren't animals. That life is eternal. We are immortal.
If people really understood this, believed it, knew it was true down to the bone, the world would change in an instant.
These are interesting times. To say the least. I'll keep my eyes on the British Elections. Thanks.
I'm more a 'she' for the divine than a 'he', but in the end that's kind of irrelevant. I think the higher forces have limits, in the sense that they will allow things to get to a certain level of dystopia, in the hope that the masses might grow up, learn the lessons, and develop an immunity to the monsters ('that which does not kill us..' etc.) - but if this clearly isn't going to happen, then they need to intervene.
The same reasoning applies for ETIs - if the monsters in control of this world threaten to acquire interstellar travel and WMDs to go with it then intervention would be required. But given their intelligence, that intervention would happen at an earlier stage, rather than waiting until the last minute.
And I do totally agree that if people understood things would change instantly. In the same way, if people generally believed in reincarnation they'd have a completely different outlook. I did, at one time, start a PhD thesis about that, unfortunately I had to give it up - but it essentially does say that a person's spiritual understanding has a significant effect on their actions. Hence the way the bad guys have created anti-spiritual ideologies to usurp and destroy the spiritual (pagan/animist/natural etc.). Monotheism in particular.
Yes, there's definitely a thesis in there somewhere... And nothing short of a rapture is going to do the trick.
Just read Miri's other take on the McCann case on her Substack (only subscribers can comment though, which is probably just as well in my case), and I think it's interesting that she doesn't once mention the Network (or child abuse of any kind). One would be forgiven for thinking the only conspiracy theory about the McCann case was that the parents killed her. I had, in fact, not even heard that theory before. The abduction by the Network (possibly 'allowed to happen' or 'arranged' by the parents, whether voluntarily or under duress) is the most obvious and likely scenario. It was the one I was familiar with from the very start. So, maybe the conspiracy theory narrative has been made to change as well.
So, both the 'they killed her' theory and the 'fake event to get people microchipped' theory are both misdirections. From a certain ironic point of view, if all children are microchipped, where is the Network going to get their children from?! Unless it's easy to remove/neutralise these chips (which it would be, actually - even for a layperson with a basic knowledge of electronic interference, or a local anaesthetic and a scalpel). Although most abducted children for the Network come from orphanages and foster homes, and from families who are already in the Network. Or foreign children in war zones and the like, and there are always plenty of them, creating an endless stream of refugees.
So I don't buy Miri's theory in the slightest. Like I say, there are far more effective ways of making people want to chip their kids. To give her the benefit of the doubt again, though, maybe she's just misreading the narrative.
The narrative, after all, is key to understanding all these events.
I hadn’t seen the Podesta suspects… OMG
Those sketches have been largely debunked as yet more smoke and mirrors. Though there is SO much smoke and SO many mirrors around this case, I don't claim definitive knowledge.
I am saying, don't take those sketches seriously. Does anyone think if the Podestas were actually involved in the child's disappearance the sketches would have been widely and infamously plastered all over the place? Likely not if it were true.
The Podestas are fall guys for the elite. They handle PR and are used to the heat.
The release of sketches was likely "fun" for them. A prank on the public.
Obviously, the e-fits are fabricated but the question is, “Why fabricate two e-fits that look like the Podesta brothers and say they represent a single suspect?”
Why wouldn’t they be involved? Have you seen the images of children on Tony Podesta’s walls? I’m not saying they are, but the e-fits are obviously very strange.
Yes, I've studied the Podestas in detail. I think the greater question is NOt why does Tony Podesta collect such obvious pedo artwork, but why did he allow photos of his home to be published. Again, far and wide?
Magicians use sleight-of-hand to fool the audience.
That's what I'm saying about the e-fits and the artwork. They are tricks. To confuse the minds of the audience.
I'm NOT saying the Podestas weren't involved in the child's disappearance. I'm saying what is being shown to the public is distraction to make the people who say the Podestas were involved due to the bogus e-fits, etc., look like LOONIES. It's for a laugh and to cover.
Distraction from the truth.
Why allow photos to be published? Shamelessness? I mean why have the paintings there in the first place? The trickery isn't so far that they actually place the paintings for show and then remove them surely. Anyone who has the photos on the wall is a sicko ... end of.
The thing is in the case of Madeleine I don't think we can know the truth, can we? When it's adults who go "missing" I just write them off as entering something akin to a Witness Protection Program but when it's kids it's different because we know there are VIP networks that do terrible stuff to kids.
I recall seeing ‘Maddy’ on the big screens during the half time break at the 2007 FA Cup Final at Wembley Stadium.
Utterly mad that a missing child (in Portugal!) would be sufficiently important an event to broadcast to that audience at that time.
In hindsight the entire thing was fairly obviously a trauma PsyOp of some type.
Trauma psyop to provoke the exact reaction you had as well as other reactions. Insensitivity. Cold-heartedness. Coarseness. Fear. Anxiety.
How dare "they" interrupt my pleasure to broadcast a photo of an abducted child. etc.
It worked.
At the time I thought it was all real, and I empathized accordingly.
Now I can see this event and most other media spectacles like it are hoaxes designed to manipulate people into thinking and subsequently doing certain things, presumably to the benefit of those responsible for the hoax.
I don’t recall anyone expressing displeasure or outrage at seeing an “abducted child” on the screens at the time. That all came later for me, and I suspect most who were there still think the story was real.
Thanks for explaining further.
The story of the girl going missing is very likely real. Then coupled with many psyops to inflict desired warping of people's minds and dissolution of morals and ethics. Like having their pleasures disrupted with disparaging thoughts. Once this is done to people often enough they reject the "spoiling" of their pleasure by becoming cold to the emotions the disruption provokes, etc.
People generally suppress darker thoughts and only express conditioned "acceptable" thoughts in public and many times suppress those unpleasant thoughts to themselves, thus sowing hypocrisy in their minds. What is commonly called "cognitive dissonance" in psycho-babble. The older term hypocrisy now being seen as distasteful and rightfully so.
It isn't humane to simply dismiss the child at the center of this as a hoax.
That is a trick of lie of the mind. The mind naturally wants to "settle" on an answer to then be filed away so the mind can move on to solving other problems. That's one way mind control works.
I'm not criticizing you. I'm trying to explain what I've learned on how mind control is successfully used.
> The story of the girl going missing is very likely real.
Why do you say that? Can you point me to the strongest piece of evidence that convinced you that the story is true?
> It isn't humane to simply dismiss the child at the center of this as a hoax.
If I wanted to run a PsyOp, this is the kind of thinking I would seek — self-policing of acceptable speech based on social taboos.
It would allow me, the hoax organiser, to do and say what I wanted while shielded from skeptical criticism and scrutiny.
As a parent myself, I would **never** allow my child and my family to be dragged through the news cycles in such a scenario. I would be beyond despair and craving privacy, and so would the people I know personally.
Nobody in my world would ever agree to the absolute circus that accompanied this story.
This is the part where you attempt to rationalize “everyone grieves differently” as if that glib handwave is also not a hoax (when in fact, in lived reality, it is).
I'm not rationalizing grief and made no attempt to do so. I don't know where you came up with this other than a straw to grasp.
The girl is gone. Where? IDK. It's not hard to know it would be virtually impossible to hide her at home or something. There are many people who knew the child. Her face is extremely recognizable by many from all the relentless press.
I said the child being gone is very likely real because it's logical.
If you want to believe otherwise, of course that's opinion.
But whatever you think, don't let it get in the way of your sport spectating.
Everyone can take pot shots.
There is no reason to believe the child wasn't "disappeared" and that many of the circumstances surrounding her "disappearance" were also fabricated.
I think it's likely she met with some horrific fate. I think it's plausible her parents and others participated in bringing about that fate then also participating in the ensuing fabrications.
Yes, I agree.
This is the most likely explanation in my opinion as well. And that would, of course, mean that all the other 'speculating' serves the simple purpose of misdirection, like I've suggested elsewhere.
I also think that usually these sorts of incidents happen without coming to public attention. Sometimes, though, public attention can't be avoided, usually because of that 'random luck element', like a police officer or reporter not receiving the memo, or an unexpected witness with a fair amount of money or social influence who can't simply be shut up. These are the ones that require a huge amount of lily-gilding in order to make it look like something else...
Jay Slater family linked to another case in Dewsbury, UK, where mother hid her daughter at an accomplice flat. Shannon Mathews case. Another scam. Richard D Hall's website richplanet.net looks at many incidents, Manchester Arena bombing ( I know of girls there who believed it was real), London bombings, MP Murder, Jo Cox, and many, many more.
Oh they always have the "victim" come out and say that trolls are accusing them of this or that. I looked it up - so Jay's mother is saying that they are comparing her to Karen Matthews who hid her daughter, Shannon, in the hope of getting the reward money for finding her.
"I just can't face it." Boo hoo.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/23/jay-slater-mother-claim-compare-karen-matthews-tenerife/
It's just incredible how they follow the formula.
Oh yeah, I know all about the Manchester Bombing ... and a few others.
Excellent to have a new post from you, Petra - I always love reading your stuff because it invariably gets my brain working. Even if I don't agree with everything. Like, although I am totally open to the faking of an event idea, I do find it impossible to accept that literally everything is faked. The sheer amount of logistical work involved, in my view, makes it counter-productive - and the bad guys do indeed have limited resources, so they have to think hard about how they allocate those resources. I can imagine they have regular planning meetings, where they all sit down either with their coffee and their bacon bagels or their beer and takeout and someone will first of all go through that list of resources. I'd imagine they have a kind of wish list, but then they have to whittle it down to a manageable level.
Obviously I admit I know next to nothing about the goings on in Australia, but I would imagine that incidents like the ones you mention do actually happen 'naturally' - a bus or truck crash, for example, or a gun-related death. So in those circumstances they simply need to get the MSM to 'narrate' the incident the 'right way'. However if they are concerned about the 'timing' of an incident, they can't rely on something happening when they want it to so yes, in those circumstances, best fake it. It's the narrative that's key, which if often about the timing - so I think one good way to tell whether something is faked is to assess how it fits into the narrative. If it doesn't fit, or is 'unexpected' (from the bad guys point of view) maybe it's a real event.
I also think there's a big difference between these comparatively minor events and the major ones, in the sense that the major ones are sufficiently few and far between to be entirely manageable with the resources they have available, so I'm kind of with you on that one.
The other consideration, however, which, as a well-educated but admittedly amateur historian, should always be considered for events quite some way in the past, is the possibility that rather than the original incident being faked, it's the historical record which has been altered. If we're talking online information this is easy - they just concoct an algorithm to do a 'find + replace'. We then have a kind of Mandela effect (Mathis wrote a good one about that - I'm sure you've read that one?). This would work really well because human memory is entirely fallible, humans are 'suggestible', and they will usually defer to trusted 'epistemic authorities'. So if an epistemic authority keeps repeating 'X happened this way', then even if the individual's 'memory' of it is different, eventually they will accept the official version.
So I do think that if we are examining historical events we do need to first examine the authenticity or otherwise of the source information (whether primary or secondary sources). Thus, for example, if Mathis comes across an 'altered' genealogy record, then the only conclusion that can be drawn from that is 'the record has been altered', not that 'oh in that case the answer is such and such'. For a historian, you would always just dismiss faked evidence and 'whatever remains which you can prove is authentic' should be the only evidence you analyse. I think it's ironic that Mathis accepts that they fake historical records all the time, but still uses those fake records to say 'X is fake', rather than the more obvious conclusion 'the event happened, but they have changed the narrative'.
So the 'Mandela effect' creates cognitive dissonance which means no one, especially historians and alternate researchers (what they call 'conspiracy theorists'), can trust the source material anymore - I think that's the really sinister thing, because it means they really can rewrite history, 1984-style.
I don't know enough about the hijacking you mentioned, but did any group claim responsibility for it? One issue the fakers must face is if they do something 'in the name of terrorist organisation X' and they don't control X as patsies etc., then what happens when X denies responsibility?
Still, I am totally willing to believe hijackings like that are faked - it perfectly serves the required narrative. So I'm with you on that one.
I agree that some event types occur naturally such as bus and truck accidents - of course (I know people involved in both) - while other event types never do - mass school shootings and self-immolations. In the case of others such as hijackings, not sure.
Then again, while bus accidents occur naturally they are also often faked. After recognising the Hunter Valley fake I discovered analyses of other fakes.
Chattanooga - https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=10525
Here is a thread on fakeologist discussing a number of dodgy bus accidents: https://fakeologist.com/forums/topic/suspicious-bus-crashes/#post-853258
With regard to historical fabrication, in the case of psyops I think they stick to their Revelation-of-the-Method so you can work out an event such as the Great Fire of London 1666 nearly 400 years ago in the same way as a modern day one and we can see the connections - Christopher Wren presented the new plans for London on 9/11/1666 and constables were strangely not at their posts just like the interceptors failed their duty on 9/11. This is a great article by Gloria Moss. https://off-guardian.org/2019/09/01/the-great-fire-of-london-cui-bono/
They tell us, Evelyn, it's that simple. They tell us. Doesn't matter what side of the conspiracy fence there always seems to be resistance to a complete taking on board of Revelation of the Method. The moment I heard it I embraced it to my bosom as it explained so much that made no sense until that point ... and I have never had any reason to have anything but the greatest confidence in their faithful employment of that technique.
We know they fake it because they tell us they fake it ... if for no other reason.
You've just given me lots more reading material! And just at the point where I have to go and do the dishes.
Especially the great fire thing - for this, I would definitely have to check the original source material, for claims like the 9/11 date, or constables not being on duty. Remember they didn't have police in those days (until the Peelers, early C19th). Samuel Pepys' diary would be a good place to start. I can totally understand the idea of burning down your own city to then get all the rebuilding contracts and gentrify things though (and clear out the plebs) - there are loads of examples of that. Nero springs to mind. Grenfell likewise. I know Mathis thinks that was the case with Dresden but that's stretching things a bit imho.
I think the Nero fire is a great example of possibly the earliest serious false flag event in the historical record, especially as the Establishment as it was at the time was able to blame it on the subversive 'enemies of the state' - where have we heard that one since, eh! And fiddling whilst it's going on is the typical rubbing people's noses in it (kind of what you mean perhaps by revelation of the method).
Interestingly, from Pepys' diaries it's clear that the King (Charles II) got involved on the streets with the firefighters helping out. Maybe he was a very popular King and they like being seen as a man of the people and all that, but it's still a weird thing from a certain point of view. Bit like Rumsfeld running around the Pentagon to help with the so-called plane crashing into the bit of the Pentagon where they just happened to be investigating the 2.3 trillion he mentioned he couldn't find only the day before. Lol. I heard the backup files were in building 7, but you might know more than me on that one.
Anyway, I must do my chores or I'll be in trouble.
Oh - are those links you gave in another comment about the McCann case a good place to start? Or do you have other links? I know little about that case but I've become increasingly agitated to know more about it. Especially if it relates to the Network (child abuse etc.), which is sort of relevant to my story and will be cropping up later on.
I'll have to follow up your link about the Australian case as well.
Gloria Moss is a professor and shows great scholarship ... but I read a little beyond her article and everywhere I turned I could see Revelation of the Method.
An excerpt:
"Drought and timber structures
What arguments do those who do not suspect any malfeasance use? Very often, they cite the fact that the summer had been hot and dry and, as one commentator put it, the ‘houses creaked with dry joints’. However, the combination of these two points do not immediately explain the extent of the fire since a major fire had occurred in 1633, also a time of drought (see weatherwebdotnet) but this fire destroyed no more than 122 buildings, 42 at the northern end of London Bridge and 80 on Thames Street. This figure that compares with the 300 buildings burned down in 1666 in the space of the first morning alone.
So, the conditions normally cited as causing the Great Fire (ie the hot weather and the timber frames of the buildings) cannot on their own explain the fiendish nature of the fire in 1666."
Yes to Nero and yes to King Charles and Rumsfeld - totally!
The links for Maddy I wouldn't say are particularly good per se, one is to Miri's take on the case which I'm not entirely sure about but is certainly worth considering and the other is to an article showing two e-fits that clearly fit John and Tony Podesta but are supposed to represent a single suspect - no idea what's actually in the article but it's mainstream so ...
I have come across Miri once before and she seems quite interesting, so I'll have to follow up on that.
If I recall correctly, when we learned about the Great Fire at school (it was during my childhood so I can't really trust a damn thing about the very few flashes of memory I have, but I think this one is ok because it was neutral) we were told it was started 'accidentally' in 'Pudding Lane', and then just spread. Well, in terms of the spread I can understand that seeing as we're talking tightly packed wooden houses and such like (presumably they may have used flammable tar and stuff for binding agents, but I'm no architect so what do I know). But the idea of starting it by accident, maybe because of some drunk bakery assistant, seems a bit dubious. Fires like that would've been a regular occurrence in places with open fires and ovens and all the rest of it, but would've been easy to put out, so it never becomes a conflagration. This suggests it was started deliberately (possibly in more than one place) but then the Pudding Lane thing was just a convenient scapegoat/explanation the public would buy. Obviously they didn't have investigative reporters or search engines and mass communication in those days so the bad guys would be able to spread any rumour they wanted and have people believe it. In that sense, they wouldn't need to 'fake' an actual event, they'd just need to report that something happened even though nothing did happen. I'm sure that kind of lie/propaganda happened regularly. In the modern age, with mass communication technology etc., your version of these fake events has a lot more credence I think, because they can't just say 'X happened' and get away with it, without actually making 'something' happen, even if that 'something' is, say, some fake video footage, or an overturned bus planted by the side of the road.
I would imagine, though, that the modern idea of the Great Fire being not what we were told would, indeed, require the manufacturing of fake historical records, because I really don't think they thought in the same way as the bad guys do today - that's to say that date 9/11 would not have had the same significance as it has done in more recent times (e.g. 1973 Chile). It would be like someone 'discovering' some lost Roman scroll saying Nero's fire happened on some auspicious date and for, I don't know, '33' hours or something. The thing is, I think that kind of thing is revelation of the method of altering records. So even though this is not to deny that this or that event was 'staged' or a 'false flag' or whatever, for some of these events we do need to distinguish between the 'records of the event' and the 'false flag event itself' - after all, the most important thing for them in the end is the narrative, and for most things, that's all they need, a narrative. Which, ironically, is more circumstantial evidence in favour of the fake events idea. So, alongside your noticing signs of the revelation of the method, we also need to ask 'what narrative purpose does it serve' - in my view, if the answer to that second question isn't obvious, then possibly it suggests it was a real event?
Personally, though, I think the further back in history we go, the fewer and further between the fakes really are. Today, yes, quite frequent, but in terms of social history, there was less and less need for them the further back you go, precisely because of the lack of mass communication, so you just tell the plebs anything and no one can contradict you...
In the case of the Great Fire - just like 9/11 - it was a real event, however, it didn't happen how they said it happened. Pudding Lane was just one of the propaganda streams they pushed as they did for 9/11 and I'm sure the baker, Thomas Farriner, was in on it. We are told his family fled over the rooftops to escape but unfortunately the maid baulked and perished. Yeah, right.
We get one story about an ember starting it and another telling us that a 22 year-old French watchmaker, Robert Hubert, did it (how many modern day culprits are 22 years old?) but they give us details that very obviously don't add up such as there was no window that he could have thrown the lighted torch through and other nonsenses. 15 years later the Swedish captain of the boat that Hubert was allegedly on tells us he couldn't have been the culprit because he was on the boat at the time the fire started.
Also, the well-known playwright, James Shirley, and his wife, allegedly made refugees by the fire and put into a refugee camp, allegedly died on the same day one month after the fire from "fright and exposure". I thought it strange that they both died on exactly the same day and were put into a refugee camp. I wondered, "Could he have just wanted to disappear? Did he owe money perhaps?" You'll never believe it. I looked up his oeuvre and he wrote a play, The Gamester, "noteworthy for its realistic and detailed picture of gambling in its era."
The Great Fire reeks of psyop from start to finish.
Well now, they definitely teach us THAT at school!
22 years old - lmao! They must think we're total knobheads.
I had a look at Gloria's article and it is very persuasive, certainly. I also only just realised that 'farriner' is a derivation of 'farine' which is the French for flour. Maybe he just took on that surname to match his trade, like they used to. Interesting, though, that not only did they not teach us any of this stuff at school but even when I read a bit about it later none of these things occurred to me. Still, the qui bono question certainly answers a lot of issues. Think I'll read what Mathis has to say about it next... Something about bankers, clearly.
I just KNEW there was a good reason for why I like you so much! LOL
Yeah, you tell 'em. And when they donut believe, donut worry, I'd say the odds are HUGELY in your favor. Woof! Good post! I'm sharing.
I made a meme that says:
I have found that if I look at things like a play or circus being played out on the LITERAL world STAGE, with live props and participatory audience, scripted to cast sandy hooks into Our emotions and drag Us where They want Us, things make a whole lot more sense. Because there's too much that just makes Me scratch My head, otherwise.
Good work!!!