The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 was the practice run for the demolition of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11.
The early bombing was an ineptly managed false flag attack that didn't involve demolition, just a single bomb in a single vehicle, like Timothy McVeigh's smoke screen.
One of them. Controlled Demolition, Inc, achieved three of their four world records in large building demolition projects in the three years before 9/11.
LOL. That is so funny. Of course, they are and, in fact, destroying the World Trade Centre was a "legitimate" job. They followed standard evacuation protocols and all the rest of it. Mark Loizeaux did give a helping hand though to the "molten steel" propaganda stream.
"Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc, responsible for the cleanup of the WTC site, is quoted as saying:
External Quote:
hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse.
...
The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed"
I don't think anyone on here is going to claim that Mark Loizeaux was an unreliable witness who didn't know what he was looking at. He is also not a proponent of controlled demolition, so his testimony was not motivated by a desire to exaggerate the temperatures found in support of thermite.
I know what molten steel found a month later means to me, but this thread is more about what it means to skeptics of the 9/11 truth movement. It's over to you guys."
-------
Mark is, in fact, an "unreliable witness" because his words are simply a contribution to the "nanothermite/thermite" propaganda stream. There was no molten steel and what we see is fakery.
EDIT: I read the post further and found that when asked about seeing molten steel he said he didn't personally see it, a contractor did. It's obvious though that Mark was in on the ruse because as a" legitimate" demolition expert he would know that however the twin towers came down - and I believe the footage is fake as is suggested by Simon Shack - WTC-7's collapse is a perfect implosion and Mark would know that whether he was involved or not.
Fairly early on I gave very high probability to hologram planes, with explosives for immediate effect, and then DEW's to bring it all down. As to who was responsible...
Well, given "the government" is a for-profit corporation (since 1871) and owned by the same Ones who own all the other "government" corporations around the globe, who put on a show to cast sandy hooks into Our emotions and drag Us where They want Us...
That is who I would say did it. The owners... Whoever They are... Hidden hand. Likely names like Orsini, Medici, etc.
I can of course understand what you are saying but here is a rhetorical question/issue for you: did anyone get killed or injured (mildly or seriously) when the buildings collapsed? I don't mean anyone allegedly inside the buildings - given that none of them would survive and their bodies would be pulverised beyond recognition by thousands of tons of steel and concrete.
So the only (visible) 'death and injury' possible would be outside the buildings in the surrounding area. And there would be a wide variety of types and severity of injury.
So here's a question: you have previously said the buildings were 'evacuated' in the manner of a drill. Ok, was there a safe distance cordon set up in the surrounding area, as would be normal for a controlled demolition?
And that is rhetorical, because as soon as you start to think that one through in detail, you realise that there couldn't possibly have been such a cordon because until the buildings collapsed no one who didn't get the memo could possibly have thought the buildings would collapse, because without controlled demolition it's impossible for them to collapse with that amount of damage. People in the NY Fire Department would've known that, partly by experience, and partly because of something called the laws of physics.
You would also need to effectively accuse thousands of NYFD guys of being involved in this hideous conspiracy. And that's absurd, because these are ordinary New Yorkers, and working class too for that matter. Ask any of them if they want to take part in a scheme organised by the capitalist billionaire cabal and I think their response to you would be unbroadcastable before the watershed.
So - if all these people are suddenly told to 'set up a safe cordon' - which would have to be at a very big distance, given the size of those buildings - do you not think a sizeable number of them would have immediate and possibly angry issues about that? Like a fireman insisting on continuing to 'get people out of the building' (we're talking people who didn't get the memo, remember).
You also need to remember the number of innocent people who will die in the ensuing years from lung conditions due to the massive asbestos-tainted clouds rushing through the surrounding streets (I believe it's run into the many thousands by now) - which, naturally, shows that the planners didn't have an ounce of care about how many people would die.
In order to avoid exposing themselves, in other words, they have to act as if they don't know there's going to be a demolition/collapse. That means no safe cordon. That means collapsing those buildings in the middle of the city with no warning whilst thousands and thousands of people are within a danger area. So the idea of the demo company's 'record of safety' is another absurdity, by the way.
It is simply impossible to deny that people died and got injured on 9-11. The bad guys might call that 'collateral damage' but since when have they ever cared about collateral damage? They are doing this event, after all, in order to provide themselves with a pretext to commit genocide in the Middle East and Afghanistan. So any concern for not endangering lives is absurd. Most New Yorkers, after all, are just 'human beings' and therefore of no moral consequence. Certainly the working class ones are of no consequence.
So, you can certainly try and claim there wasn't anyone in the towers when they collapsed, but unless you can provide evidence of this safe cordon (which would have to be at a substantial distance - a far greater distance, by the way, than a usual cordon around a burning building, with gaps for fire and rescue crews to enter and exit) along with no one raising any obvious questions about why they are erecting a cordon, then fake pictures or not, I do think you have to revise your opinion that the whole thing was a drill. You can't hide a drill in the middle of Manhattan in the rush hour without anyone noticing!
This is a fact, Evelyn. There is no clear evidence of any injury or death. If you have some please let me know. They had drills going on before the event in the subway that would have stopped a lot of people going into buildings. They had time after the first alleged plane attack to also set up a cordon. I don't know what they did, all I know is that we can see, EFFECTIVELY, 9/11 was a big drill (cum massive demolition job) and that - in such a situation - they would make all efforts to ensure no death or injury.
Pete, perhaps people did get hurt or even killed. I certainly don't think that's a terribly unlikely circumstance. My main point isn't that absolutely no one died or was injured but that essentially the event was a drill cum massive demolition job and the evidence clearly supports that claim from every possible angle.
Look up injured 9/11 - you won't find anything convincing.
I understand that there's a massive discrepancy between the excruciating nature of the event and the relatively low number of reported casualties, excluding the thousands that are claimed to have succumbed to chronic disease due to the dust exposure. It's hard to go back now and check if the buildings were indeed ever more than 20% occupied.
Has anyone explored the identities of the deceased fireman & police, did they really die? I wanna believe that they survived.
I think that if a participating crisis actor ever has second thoughts so that they come forward from their post-911 lavish lifestyle proclaiming: "the drill went live, maybe we was sabotaged from inside!", then they get sent to the funny farm, or worse. Maybe they all go to live together in the same gated community, so they naturally keep an eye on another. But what about their families - where do they go?
--- a demolition job conducted by PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION CREWS who don't leave people behind in buildings nor in surrounding areas to be killed or injured for a terror story - not a thing Pete, not a thing - demolition crews leaving people behind in buildings or surrounding areas for terror stories is not a thing
I don't know what happened to the real people who allegedly died (important to bear in mind that quite a number were made up) but they have Witness Protection Programs so ...
The statement 'the drill went live' is the key - but you have to remember we would be talking thousands and thousands of people, if that were the case.
Petra would therefore need to provide evidence of those thousands of people being either 'sent to the funny farm' or 'worse'.
She can't. That's the point. It doesn't matter if there were drills or how many drills there were. As soon as it goes live, that's it. If there is no evidence of people saying 'it was a drill and then went live' then this hypothesis is absurd. Psychologically.
The statement "the drill went live" is not key because it is completely false. 9/11 comprised numerous drills: some started BEFORE so while you speculate about what must, could, should have happened in the financial district you have no idea, do you, Evelyn, of what drills had started BEFORE 9/11 that meant some areas were already cordoned off. If a drill started on the 10th then that creates quite a different scenario.
I won't say it again: the known facts all massively support death and injury being staged. There isn't a single FACT that contradicts that hypothesis, not one. Which doesn't say that NO ONE was injured or killed - I'm sure that some injuries or even deaths - deliberate or accidental - are not an unlikely scenario, however, in the main, all death and injury were staged.
It's just so simple. 9/11 was a demolition job where standard evacuation protocols were followed ... and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suspect any reason for that not being the case. The end.
I'm not going to engage anymore on this. Speculation about what should/would/must have happened when there is mountains of evidence supporting an hypothesis with none contradicting it kind of drives me crazy.
Just had another thought in response. The problem with a speculative argument is that often you can use it from both sides. Mainstream narrative supporters who wish to "teach us how to think" and have put up the website theconspiracytest.org pose the question before each of their conspiracy tests, "How probable is it that so many people would be involved in such a conspiracy?" The thing is that they don't understand:
--- how many participating in a conspiracy are not "in the know"
--- the Emperor's New Clothes nature of psyops and the magic of propaganda
--- certain background information that makes the alleged conspiracy much easier to understand, eg, we have been subjected to the germ theory fraud for two centuries.
So for 9/11 death and injury we can ask, "How probable is it that the significant number involved who were obviously in the know would be OK with some killing and injuring of people for a terror story? Wouldn't they all need to be reassured that it was essentially a big drill?" We know that the firefighters who've lent their names to the ludicrous testimonies that make up the "9/11 firefighter 'oral' histories" must be in the know. They know that they didn't do the ludicrous things that are written in their alleged transcripts but they certainly may have been at the site involved in the aftermath.
Speculation can work for both sides of the argument and I think we should simply avoid it when there are a great number of pieces of the puzzle that favour one hypothesis over another and none that favour any opposing hypotheses. Essentially, what it constitutes is the logical fallacy argumentum ad speculum or Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad Speculum): Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone, or asserting that, if hypothetically X had occurred, Y would have been the result.
Hmm. This 'hypothesis contrary to fact' as you put it - which is essentially the 'what if' or 'counterfactual' question, is in fact an excellent way to conduct analyses, because it forces you to address the known facts and test your existing hypothesis. It's absolutely not a 'logical fallacy'.
I'll formulate it this way: 'If X happened, then you would expect to see Body of Evidence Y'.
What you would then do is look for evidence Y - if you can't find it, or even more so you find evidence which makes Y logically impossible, then you can discard your hypothesis 'X', and start with a new/revised one.
This is essentially how the scientific method works, actually.
If you don't see the evidence that you should see, then X didn't happen, or didn't happen in the way that you think it did. This applies to any number of historical narratives, of course.
Anyhow, applying it to your 'drill' hypothesis, we simply need to think 'what evidence would we expect to see'. The main one is psychological, actually. And it's very simple. Because we're talking here about a 'drill which turned into a live event' aren't we? So, whilst I can accept thousands of people being perfectly happy agreeing to carry out a drill, once everything changes and planes start flying into buildings and skyscrapers start collapsing then you have a totally different psychology going on.
Question - do we see evidence of that different psychology, that's to say the switch from drill to live? How many witness statements are there saying 'we were doing this drill and then suddenly we found ourselves in a live situation'? Psychologically, you would expect to find hundreds, if not thousands of statements saying precisely that. If you don't find any, that's simply not psychologically realistic or believable and therefore your hypothesis cannot possibly be correct.
Compare this to, for example, 7/7, in which a guy called Peter Power was carrying out a simulation of a terrorist attack at precisely the tube stations involved in the incident, which obviously, as far as he and his team were concerned, turned live. He appeared on TV later that day telling the MSM all about it. Probably because he may have realised he was a loose end and thus revealing it might keep him safe. But still, my point is this is precisely the evidence you would expect to see. And 7/7 was a much lower-level event than 9-11.
So, if you stick with your drill theory, you need to provide ALL the evidence you would expect to see. It's not up to me to disprove it. It's up to you to eliminate every anomaly and fill in the gaps.
If you want to disagree with the accepted understanding that argumentum ad speculum is a logical fallacy then so be it. I don't call it Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, others do. However, what I will say is that I don't like Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, I'd prefer Hypothesis without consideration of the facts.
No it wasn't a drill switching to live. It was essentially a movie where a lot of footage and imagery would have been taken at other times. It was not a single drill but a compilation of drills.
I don't think we see anything we wouldn't expect to see for a compilation of drills made into a movie with some live footage. Have you watched September Clues? I highly recommend it and I really think you should see it. If you don't watch it then fine but I won't be discussing this issue further before you do because it will explain a lot of things you have questions about.
I am finding this fakery fascinating, I have to say. The reason is because irony. This video shows fake stuff, right?
And yet you are taking it at face value. Lol!
I shall watch the rest of it. Of course. It actually saves me the effort of having to point out the fakery myself - I was going to do an article about the existence of fake stuff. My take, however, was going to be all about cognitive infiltration and how the bad guys have created all this fakery not for the general public, who they know will never watch it, but for 'conspiracy theorists'.
It goes like this: create fakery. Make a video compilation about it. Present it to reinforce the 'no planes' psyop. Now get your shills to promote it.
Anyway - the big picture point about the fakery is actually about the existence of the fake events narrative, not about the event itself. If you solely focus on these manufactured fake videos then all you are doing is creating your theory based on the fake videos. You are saying nothing about the event itself. All of your evidence, in other words, is 'after' the fact, not 'at the time' - even though it masquerades as 'at the time'.
What totally destroys all of this fakery is something I have said before. What if there were ordinary members of the public who had video cameras and filmed it. If there were no planes, at least one of them would've recorded it and uploaded it to youtube within (let's be generous) a year. But that never happened. The truth movement would've been all over it. But no, there was nothing. All of these 'videos' are 'found footage' only released, what 'five years' after the event. I automatically get suspicious about that. Psychologically, it would've been released very, very soon after. But none of it was.
I strongly recommend you re-watch the Loose Change video - and I mean the original version, not the final cut. The second plane impact is no longer in the final cut - and that is very, very telling (offer you can't refuse etc.). The second plane hit is right at the beginning of the original version of LC. But no one talks about that anymore, do they?
Welcome to the Mandela Effect, and the fake events narrative. Brilliant!
I will watch it shortly. But I do still make the basic, obvious psychological point about a drill turning live. If you don't think it 'turned live' then you have to prove that every single person knew the towers were going to collapse.
We're talking thousands and thousands of firefighters and police and workers in all the businesses in the vicinity of the towers. Actually, we're talking maybe 20,000 people here, Petra. Actually, more than this if we count everyone who lives and works in that area. Multiply by ten, let's say. 200,000 people. Do you have any evidence for that? Witness statement, for example?
These are working class people, by the way, who have nothing to do with the cabal. Are you seriously trying to tell people that not one of those ever said a damn word about a 'drill'?
This 'argumentum ad speculum' or whatever, is a way of examining the evidence 'that you should expect to see if X was true'. If you don't see the evidence, then X isn't true.
You apply this yourself. Example: you don't believe in nuclear weapons because you haven't seen any 'evidence' of a nuclear bomb at Hiroshima. Ok. So no Hiroshima bomb. How many people does it take to cover that up? What evidence would you expect to see?
If no nuclear weapons, then every subsequent test must also have been faked.
How many people does that involve to fake it? How do you explain all the servicemen with lasting hereditary cancers which they passed on to their children?
See, you can perfectly well look at photos and say 'oh, that looks a bit odd' but making the leap to 'what would you expect to see if it was true' is beyond your analysis.
You would need to explain how tens or even hundreds of thousands of people could be complicit in these conspiracies.
And I am talking hundreds of thousands here, if all the things you assert are true (like 'no viruses').
My point is you can't provide evidence for any of that psychological absurdity.
There is a limit to how many people you can get to take part in a conspiracy, Petra. My educated guess is it's a single multiple of Dunbar's number. Let's say '10', meaning 1500 people. I will accept that. But psychologically, you are asking us to accept a further order of magnitude. 15,000 people. Or even two orders of magnitude. 150,000 people.
If you are asking us to do that extraordinary thing, you need to provide extraordinary evidence.
Ok - now I have said my piece, I will look at your fakeology video link.
I've got another for you. If we assume that it wasn't planes hitting buildings, then this means it was explosions. So that, in turn, means a massive amount of glass shards and cladding and possibly chunks of concrete falling like a hail of arrows to the ground. By the time they reach street level their velocity is seriously high.
So, if there are any people on the streets below then there is definitely going to be death and injury. And there will be people, lots of people (no seats though, perhaps, lol) because it's the rush hour (08:46 for the North Tower) in the financial district of Manhattan.
What I do, Evelyn, is look at the evidence ... because there's a significant amount of it. I speculate about what I think should, would, must have happened as little as possible.
People could have been genuinely injured and they didn't show us their injury - this is possible. But we have no evidence of it. We know that they had people standing at empty windows prior to 9/11 ... so perhaps they removed the glass.
If you have any clear evidence of death and injury please let me know what it is. I have little interest in what we think should or would have happened because we simply don't know. It is clear that they conducted this thing as a big drill so they simply would have taken all the precautions necessary to avoid death and injury - which isn't to say it didn't happen, we just have no evidence of it.
Also, if you’ve not checked out Dr. Judy Woods research/book you might find that good as well.
I’m with you, there are parts of 9/11 that were staged but there seems to be no doubt that people did die. There were close to 100 jumpers, they were not crash test dummies, they were people.
Maybe it wasn't real steel, instead it was they built the buildings from tennis rackets. Enuf electric current the graphite composite will sublimate - turn into carbon dioxide dust.
NASA aerospace has all kinds of crazy materials like that.
I know a number of people who know or are even good friends with people who have allegedly died in various staged events and in some cases went to their alleged funerals. While we can see that some of the alleged victims for 9/11 have been completely made up, real people also allegedly died including the 246 plane passengers whose deaths certainly didn't occur in the alleged airliners.
We can only infer these people simply moved away never to return and were probably given new identities. But look at the Challenger disaster hoax - the alleged astronauts didn't even change their names. It's quite hilarious - https://fakeotube.com/video/3665/nasa-challenger-crew-alive
I'm not disputing the fakery involved in such events - the Boston Marathon was so obviously a smoke bomb with crisis actors used as a test for instituting martial law. I've been looking into 9-eleven for over 20 years and am sure that I'm not sure about anything. Still, my sister's next door neighbor boarded a plane at Logan on that Tuesday morning and never returned home. Witness protection, firing squad, or crashed out at sea, who knows what became of her?
The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 was the practice run for the demolition of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11.
As probably was the earlier bombing of the WTC.
The early bombing was an ineptly managed false flag attack that didn't involve demolition, just a single bomb in a single vehicle, like Timothy McVeigh's smoke screen.
One of them. Controlled Demolition, Inc, achieved three of their four world records in large building demolition projects in the three years before 9/11.
https://www.controlled-demolition.com/world-records/
One of what?
One of the practice runs.
Controlled Demolition has had nothing to do with any of them, being a legitimate demolition contractor with plenty of work.
LOL. That is so funny. Of course, they are and, in fact, destroying the World Trade Centre was a "legitimate" job. They followed standard evacuation protocols and all the rest of it. Mark Loizeaux did give a helping hand though to the "molten steel" propaganda stream.
From this comment: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/molten-steel-in-the-debris-pile-cool-down-time.9255/#post-215543
"Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc, responsible for the cleanup of the WTC site, is quoted as saying:
External Quote:
hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse.
...
The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed"
I don't think anyone on here is going to claim that Mark Loizeaux was an unreliable witness who didn't know what he was looking at. He is also not a proponent of controlled demolition, so his testimony was not motivated by a desire to exaggerate the temperatures found in support of thermite.
I know what molten steel found a month later means to me, but this thread is more about what it means to skeptics of the 9/11 truth movement. It's over to you guys."
-------
Mark is, in fact, an "unreliable witness" because his words are simply a contribution to the "nanothermite/thermite" propaganda stream. There was no molten steel and what we see is fakery.
EDIT: I read the post further and found that when asked about seeing molten steel he said he didn't personally see it, a contractor did. It's obvious though that Mark was in on the ruse because as a" legitimate" demolition expert he would know that however the twin towers came down - and I believe the footage is fake as is suggested by Simon Shack - WTC-7's collapse is a perfect implosion and Mark would know that whether he was involved or not.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/molten-steel-in-the-debris-pile-cool-down-time.9255/post-215547
Why would they be responsible for evacuating a demolition site 'three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed?'
Fairly early on I gave very high probability to hologram planes, with explosives for immediate effect, and then DEW's to bring it all down. As to who was responsible...
Well, given "the government" is a for-profit corporation (since 1871) and owned by the same Ones who own all the other "government" corporations around the globe, who put on a show to cast sandy hooks into Our emotions and drag Us where They want Us...
That is who I would say did it. The owners... Whoever They are... Hidden hand. Likely names like Orsini, Medici, etc.
Who Do You Think Did This? (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/who-do-you-think-did-this
Come for the September Clues watch party part 2 tonight https://Fakeologist.com/live
more on the VicSims: https://odysee.com/@swprs:3/911-vicsims-compilation-2012:9
I can of course understand what you are saying but here is a rhetorical question/issue for you: did anyone get killed or injured (mildly or seriously) when the buildings collapsed? I don't mean anyone allegedly inside the buildings - given that none of them would survive and their bodies would be pulverised beyond recognition by thousands of tons of steel and concrete.
So the only (visible) 'death and injury' possible would be outside the buildings in the surrounding area. And there would be a wide variety of types and severity of injury.
So here's a question: you have previously said the buildings were 'evacuated' in the manner of a drill. Ok, was there a safe distance cordon set up in the surrounding area, as would be normal for a controlled demolition?
And that is rhetorical, because as soon as you start to think that one through in detail, you realise that there couldn't possibly have been such a cordon because until the buildings collapsed no one who didn't get the memo could possibly have thought the buildings would collapse, because without controlled demolition it's impossible for them to collapse with that amount of damage. People in the NY Fire Department would've known that, partly by experience, and partly because of something called the laws of physics.
You would also need to effectively accuse thousands of NYFD guys of being involved in this hideous conspiracy. And that's absurd, because these are ordinary New Yorkers, and working class too for that matter. Ask any of them if they want to take part in a scheme organised by the capitalist billionaire cabal and I think their response to you would be unbroadcastable before the watershed.
So - if all these people are suddenly told to 'set up a safe cordon' - which would have to be at a very big distance, given the size of those buildings - do you not think a sizeable number of them would have immediate and possibly angry issues about that? Like a fireman insisting on continuing to 'get people out of the building' (we're talking people who didn't get the memo, remember).
You also need to remember the number of innocent people who will die in the ensuing years from lung conditions due to the massive asbestos-tainted clouds rushing through the surrounding streets (I believe it's run into the many thousands by now) - which, naturally, shows that the planners didn't have an ounce of care about how many people would die.
In order to avoid exposing themselves, in other words, they have to act as if they don't know there's going to be a demolition/collapse. That means no safe cordon. That means collapsing those buildings in the middle of the city with no warning whilst thousands and thousands of people are within a danger area. So the idea of the demo company's 'record of safety' is another absurdity, by the way.
It is simply impossible to deny that people died and got injured on 9-11. The bad guys might call that 'collateral damage' but since when have they ever cared about collateral damage? They are doing this event, after all, in order to provide themselves with a pretext to commit genocide in the Middle East and Afghanistan. So any concern for not endangering lives is absurd. Most New Yorkers, after all, are just 'human beings' and therefore of no moral consequence. Certainly the working class ones are of no consequence.
So, you can certainly try and claim there wasn't anyone in the towers when they collapsed, but unless you can provide evidence of this safe cordon (which would have to be at a substantial distance - a far greater distance, by the way, than a usual cordon around a burning building, with gaps for fire and rescue crews to enter and exit) along with no one raising any obvious questions about why they are erecting a cordon, then fake pictures or not, I do think you have to revise your opinion that the whole thing was a drill. You can't hide a drill in the middle of Manhattan in the rush hour without anyone noticing!
This is a fact, Evelyn. There is no clear evidence of any injury or death. If you have some please let me know. They had drills going on before the event in the subway that would have stopped a lot of people going into buildings. They had time after the first alleged plane attack to also set up a cordon. I don't know what they did, all I know is that we can see, EFFECTIVELY, 9/11 was a big drill (cum massive demolition job) and that - in such a situation - they would make all efforts to ensure no death or injury.
I would like to see more positive of evidence of fakery, not just absence of evidence that people got hurt.
For example, that Las Vega mass shooting they had videos of 'victims' in the hospital with such fake wounds it took me 2 minutes to decide all fake.
Pete, perhaps people did get hurt or even killed. I certainly don't think that's a terribly unlikely circumstance. My main point isn't that absolutely no one died or was injured but that essentially the event was a drill cum massive demolition job and the evidence clearly supports that claim from every possible angle.
Look up injured 9/11 - you won't find anything convincing.
Also, burden of proof is on the initial claimant.
Thanks, Petra.
I understand that there's a massive discrepancy between the excruciating nature of the event and the relatively low number of reported casualties, excluding the thousands that are claimed to have succumbed to chronic disease due to the dust exposure. It's hard to go back now and check if the buildings were indeed ever more than 20% occupied.
Has anyone explored the identities of the deceased fireman & police, did they really die? I wanna believe that they survived.
I think that if a participating crisis actor ever has second thoughts so that they come forward from their post-911 lavish lifestyle proclaiming: "the drill went live, maybe we was sabotaged from inside!", then they get sent to the funny farm, or worse. Maybe they all go to live together in the same gated community, so they naturally keep an eye on another. But what about their families - where do they go?
Evelyn may use the statement "the drill went live", however, 9/11 wasn't a drill that went live. That's an absurdity. 9/11 was a number of things:
--- a movie comprising still and moving imagery and audio already taken from prior drills combined with live footage
--- a kind over overarching big exercise comprising many drills - prior, ongoing and post. They tell us about some of the drills here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001 and Webster Tarpley - a high-level controlled opposition agent - tells us about more drills, however, he omits, of course, the drills producing the fake injured
--- a demolition job conducted by PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION CREWS who don't leave people behind in buildings nor in surrounding areas to be killed or injured for a terror story - not a thing Pete, not a thing - demolition crews leaving people behind in buildings or surrounding areas for terror stories is not a thing
I don't know what happened to the real people who allegedly died (important to bear in mind that quite a number were made up) but they have Witness Protection Programs so ...
The statement 'the drill went live' is the key - but you have to remember we would be talking thousands and thousands of people, if that were the case.
Petra would therefore need to provide evidence of those thousands of people being either 'sent to the funny farm' or 'worse'.
She can't. That's the point. It doesn't matter if there were drills or how many drills there were. As soon as it goes live, that's it. If there is no evidence of people saying 'it was a drill and then went live' then this hypothesis is absurd. Psychologically.
The statement "the drill went live" is not key because it is completely false. 9/11 comprised numerous drills: some started BEFORE so while you speculate about what must, could, should have happened in the financial district you have no idea, do you, Evelyn, of what drills had started BEFORE 9/11 that meant some areas were already cordoned off. If a drill started on the 10th then that creates quite a different scenario.
I won't say it again: the known facts all massively support death and injury being staged. There isn't a single FACT that contradicts that hypothesis, not one. Which doesn't say that NO ONE was injured or killed - I'm sure that some injuries or even deaths - deliberate or accidental - are not an unlikely scenario, however, in the main, all death and injury were staged.
It's just so simple. 9/11 was a demolition job where standard evacuation protocols were followed ... and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suspect any reason for that not being the case. The end.
I'm not going to engage anymore on this. Speculation about what should/would/must have happened when there is mountains of evidence supporting an hypothesis with none contradicting it kind of drives me crazy.
Just had another thought in response. The problem with a speculative argument is that often you can use it from both sides. Mainstream narrative supporters who wish to "teach us how to think" and have put up the website theconspiracytest.org pose the question before each of their conspiracy tests, "How probable is it that so many people would be involved in such a conspiracy?" The thing is that they don't understand:
--- how many participating in a conspiracy are not "in the know"
--- the Emperor's New Clothes nature of psyops and the magic of propaganda
--- certain background information that makes the alleged conspiracy much easier to understand, eg, we have been subjected to the germ theory fraud for two centuries.
So for 9/11 death and injury we can ask, "How probable is it that the significant number involved who were obviously in the know would be OK with some killing and injuring of people for a terror story? Wouldn't they all need to be reassured that it was essentially a big drill?" We know that the firefighters who've lent their names to the ludicrous testimonies that make up the "9/11 firefighter 'oral' histories" must be in the know. They know that they didn't do the ludicrous things that are written in their alleged transcripts but they certainly may have been at the site involved in the aftermath.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/nonsensicalities-in-the-911-firefighter
Speculation can work for both sides of the argument and I think we should simply avoid it when there are a great number of pieces of the puzzle that favour one hypothesis over another and none that favour any opposing hypotheses. Essentially, what it constitutes is the logical fallacy argumentum ad speculum or Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad Speculum): Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone, or asserting that, if hypothetically X had occurred, Y would have been the result.
Hmm. This 'hypothesis contrary to fact' as you put it - which is essentially the 'what if' or 'counterfactual' question, is in fact an excellent way to conduct analyses, because it forces you to address the known facts and test your existing hypothesis. It's absolutely not a 'logical fallacy'.
I'll formulate it this way: 'If X happened, then you would expect to see Body of Evidence Y'.
What you would then do is look for evidence Y - if you can't find it, or even more so you find evidence which makes Y logically impossible, then you can discard your hypothesis 'X', and start with a new/revised one.
This is essentially how the scientific method works, actually.
If you don't see the evidence that you should see, then X didn't happen, or didn't happen in the way that you think it did. This applies to any number of historical narratives, of course.
Anyhow, applying it to your 'drill' hypothesis, we simply need to think 'what evidence would we expect to see'. The main one is psychological, actually. And it's very simple. Because we're talking here about a 'drill which turned into a live event' aren't we? So, whilst I can accept thousands of people being perfectly happy agreeing to carry out a drill, once everything changes and planes start flying into buildings and skyscrapers start collapsing then you have a totally different psychology going on.
Question - do we see evidence of that different psychology, that's to say the switch from drill to live? How many witness statements are there saying 'we were doing this drill and then suddenly we found ourselves in a live situation'? Psychologically, you would expect to find hundreds, if not thousands of statements saying precisely that. If you don't find any, that's simply not psychologically realistic or believable and therefore your hypothesis cannot possibly be correct.
Compare this to, for example, 7/7, in which a guy called Peter Power was carrying out a simulation of a terrorist attack at precisely the tube stations involved in the incident, which obviously, as far as he and his team were concerned, turned live. He appeared on TV later that day telling the MSM all about it. Probably because he may have realised he was a loose end and thus revealing it might keep him safe. But still, my point is this is precisely the evidence you would expect to see. And 7/7 was a much lower-level event than 9-11.
So, if you stick with your drill theory, you need to provide ALL the evidence you would expect to see. It's not up to me to disprove it. It's up to you to eliminate every anomaly and fill in the gaps.
If you want to disagree with the accepted understanding that argumentum ad speculum is a logical fallacy then so be it. I don't call it Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, others do. However, what I will say is that I don't like Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, I'd prefer Hypothesis without consideration of the facts.
No it wasn't a drill switching to live. It was essentially a movie where a lot of footage and imagery would have been taken at other times. It was not a single drill but a compilation of drills.
I don't think we see anything we wouldn't expect to see for a compilation of drills made into a movie with some live footage. Have you watched September Clues? I highly recommend it and I really think you should see it. If you don't watch it then fine but I won't be discussing this issue further before you do because it will explain a lot of things you have questions about.
https://fakeotube.com/v/31
I've watched the first 30 minutes or so.
I am finding this fakery fascinating, I have to say. The reason is because irony. This video shows fake stuff, right?
And yet you are taking it at face value. Lol!
I shall watch the rest of it. Of course. It actually saves me the effort of having to point out the fakery myself - I was going to do an article about the existence of fake stuff. My take, however, was going to be all about cognitive infiltration and how the bad guys have created all this fakery not for the general public, who they know will never watch it, but for 'conspiracy theorists'.
It goes like this: create fakery. Make a video compilation about it. Present it to reinforce the 'no planes' psyop. Now get your shills to promote it.
Anyway - the big picture point about the fakery is actually about the existence of the fake events narrative, not about the event itself. If you solely focus on these manufactured fake videos then all you are doing is creating your theory based on the fake videos. You are saying nothing about the event itself. All of your evidence, in other words, is 'after' the fact, not 'at the time' - even though it masquerades as 'at the time'.
What totally destroys all of this fakery is something I have said before. What if there were ordinary members of the public who had video cameras and filmed it. If there were no planes, at least one of them would've recorded it and uploaded it to youtube within (let's be generous) a year. But that never happened. The truth movement would've been all over it. But no, there was nothing. All of these 'videos' are 'found footage' only released, what 'five years' after the event. I automatically get suspicious about that. Psychologically, it would've been released very, very soon after. But none of it was.
I strongly recommend you re-watch the Loose Change video - and I mean the original version, not the final cut. The second plane impact is no longer in the final cut - and that is very, very telling (offer you can't refuse etc.). The second plane hit is right at the beginning of the original version of LC. But no one talks about that anymore, do they?
Welcome to the Mandela Effect, and the fake events narrative. Brilliant!
I will watch it shortly. But I do still make the basic, obvious psychological point about a drill turning live. If you don't think it 'turned live' then you have to prove that every single person knew the towers were going to collapse.
We're talking thousands and thousands of firefighters and police and workers in all the businesses in the vicinity of the towers. Actually, we're talking maybe 20,000 people here, Petra. Actually, more than this if we count everyone who lives and works in that area. Multiply by ten, let's say. 200,000 people. Do you have any evidence for that? Witness statement, for example?
These are working class people, by the way, who have nothing to do with the cabal. Are you seriously trying to tell people that not one of those ever said a damn word about a 'drill'?
This 'argumentum ad speculum' or whatever, is a way of examining the evidence 'that you should expect to see if X was true'. If you don't see the evidence, then X isn't true.
You apply this yourself. Example: you don't believe in nuclear weapons because you haven't seen any 'evidence' of a nuclear bomb at Hiroshima. Ok. So no Hiroshima bomb. How many people does it take to cover that up? What evidence would you expect to see?
If no nuclear weapons, then every subsequent test must also have been faked.
How many people does that involve to fake it? How do you explain all the servicemen with lasting hereditary cancers which they passed on to their children?
See, you can perfectly well look at photos and say 'oh, that looks a bit odd' but making the leap to 'what would you expect to see if it was true' is beyond your analysis.
You would need to explain how tens or even hundreds of thousands of people could be complicit in these conspiracies.
And I am talking hundreds of thousands here, if all the things you assert are true (like 'no viruses').
My point is you can't provide evidence for any of that psychological absurdity.
There is a limit to how many people you can get to take part in a conspiracy, Petra. My educated guess is it's a single multiple of Dunbar's number. Let's say '10', meaning 1500 people. I will accept that. But psychologically, you are asking us to accept a further order of magnitude. 15,000 people. Or even two orders of magnitude. 150,000 people.
If you are asking us to do that extraordinary thing, you need to provide extraordinary evidence.
Ok - now I have said my piece, I will look at your fakeology video link.
I've got another for you. If we assume that it wasn't planes hitting buildings, then this means it was explosions. So that, in turn, means a massive amount of glass shards and cladding and possibly chunks of concrete falling like a hail of arrows to the ground. By the time they reach street level their velocity is seriously high.
So, if there are any people on the streets below then there is definitely going to be death and injury. And there will be people, lots of people (no seats though, perhaps, lol) because it's the rush hour (08:46 for the North Tower) in the financial district of Manhattan.
Do you have an answer to that point?
What I do, Evelyn, is look at the evidence ... because there's a significant amount of it. I speculate about what I think should, would, must have happened as little as possible.
People could have been genuinely injured and they didn't show us their injury - this is possible. But we have no evidence of it. We know that they had people standing at empty windows prior to 9/11 ... so perhaps they removed the glass.
If you have any clear evidence of death and injury please let me know what it is. I have little interest in what we think should or would have happened because we simply don't know. It is clear that they conducted this thing as a big drill so they simply would have taken all the precautions necessary to avoid death and injury - which isn't to say it didn't happen, we just have no evidence of it.
You might be interested in this Stack: https://open.substack.com/pub/911revision?r=o9q29&utm_medium=ios
Also, if you’ve not checked out Dr. Judy Woods research/book you might find that good as well.
I’m with you, there are parts of 9/11 that were staged but there seems to be no doubt that people did die. There were close to 100 jumpers, they were not crash test dummies, they were people.
Thanks for the link - looks very intriguing. I shall definitely be perusing that archive shortly...
Maybe it wasn't real steel, instead it was they built the buildings from tennis rackets. Enuf electric current the graphite composite will sublimate - turn into carbon dioxide dust.
NASA aerospace has all kinds of crazy materials like that.
What about the people I went to High School with. My ex husband best friends little brother. They died in the towers
I know a number of people who know or are even good friends with people who have allegedly died in various staged events and in some cases went to their alleged funerals. While we can see that some of the alleged victims for 9/11 have been completely made up, real people also allegedly died including the 246 plane passengers whose deaths certainly didn't occur in the alleged airliners.
We can only infer these people simply moved away never to return and were probably given new identities. But look at the Challenger disaster hoax - the alleged astronauts didn't even change their names. It's quite hilarious - https://fakeotube.com/video/3665/nasa-challenger-crew-alive
I just recently read about that … it’s crazy 🤪
I'm not disputing the fakery involved in such events - the Boston Marathon was so obviously a smoke bomb with crisis actors used as a test for instituting martial law. I've been looking into 9-eleven for over 20 years and am sure that I'm not sure about anything. Still, my sister's next door neighbor boarded a plane at Logan on that Tuesday morning and never returned home. Witness protection, firing squad, or crashed out at sea, who knows what became of her?
Midnight in Samara
Dr Greg Ford's tell all tale
Weapons smuggled to Wuhan
Guess who was the second man in the Oklahoma Bombing incident James Comey