When I first started to look with skeptical eyes at official narratives and try to determine the truth I wasn’t aware that I followed certain rules. It was only in hindsight that I realised I followed two rules that I spoke about in my first Substack, Critical thinking: The moon landings, 9/11 and covid - Part 1.
The rules are:
Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
Confine analysis to the most relevant, incontrovertible facts in the first instance
Implicit is the rather obvious rule of being open to revision when evidence previously unknown requires it.
What I pay little to no attention to:
Claims of impossibility and possibility where there is no hard data to support them.
Below I put summaries of the processes I followed applying these two rules to determine the truth about the 9/11 and moon landing narratives, which resulted in a recognition of the massive lie that is the 9/11 narrative but a recognition of the moon landings narrative being true (or mostly true). While my understanding of these two events is still being refined as I become aware of more information, I believe nevertheless that my fundamental beliefs are too-well supported at this stage for a serious reversal - but I always keep an open mind.
9/11
I looked at the building destructions and the planes and determined from both the analyses done by others and my own that:
the fire explanation has no merit - ultimately, the fact it has no basis in forensic data or precedence but is purely theoretical means it has no credence from any angle
the alleged footage of the planes was clearly faked, there was no wreckage at any of the alleged crash sites, only bits of debris and there was no reasonable explanation provided for the catastrophic failure of the US multi-trillion dollar military and intelligence infrastructure four times in one morning including penetration of Defence HQ
Later I determined by prompting from Simon Shack’s, Clues Forum, that:
death and injury were staged and essentially 9/11 was a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terror Exercise comprising a number of exercises we were informed of … with a crucial few we weren’t. The evidence for this is clear, including: highly anomalous reporting of no dead and injured being taken to hospital, images of the alleged injured being perfectly consistent with “drill” injured, fakery of dead people and highly anomalous “oral” histories from firefighters.
the footage of the building destructions was faked - my favourite clue being the Chrysler building peekabooing behind the twin towers.
a False Dilemma propaganda strategy targeting both the anticipated believers and disbelievers has been implemented in order that both groups believe in death and injury and thus everyone - believers and disbelievers alike - have a false notion of the kind of event 9/11 really was.
The 9/11 narrative is an Emperor’s New Clothes affair that falls over every step of the way. It’s only the magic of propaganda and people’s lack of ability or willingness to comprehend the Big Lie that allows it to continue.
See 9/11 - various
The moon landings
Much of my study of the moon landings has involved switching between the claims of anomalies in the narrative that indicate impossibility or fakery and the responses to those claims that included: lack of technology, lack of stars in photos, destruction of data, Van Allen belts radiation, flag waving, lack of parallelism in shadows, lack of blast crater under LEM, film would have melted and wires visible on astronauts. In all cases I found that the explanations for the alleged anomalies were perfectly reasonable and made by people who showed a superior knowledge of space and spacecraft.
I’ve also learnt that many of these claims originated with people who are agents tasked with encouraging disbelief of the moon landings in order to both dupe those with a perfectly reasonable inclination to disbelieve official narratives and to undermine them when they called out the very many real lies such as 9/11. All the alleged anomalies listed above originated in the book, We Never Went to the Moon (1974) by agent, Bill Kaysing, exposed in my post, The first moon hoaxer: Billy the Buffoon.
The more I checked the explanations for the alleged anomalies, the more I learnt (not that I still know very much) which helped me appreciate how the evidence presented perfectly met expectations of the alien lunar conditions, for example, the imagery of very bright monolit expanses against a black sky characteristic of a celestial object without an atmosphere whose sky is black day and night so unlike earth.
One Apollo mission story, however, has some hallmarks of a psyop, namely, Apollo 13, which I believe was probably a “live” exercise where there was the reality of slingshotting the moon as stated but no suffering of an explosion.
See Apollo resources and refutation of debunking material
Please respond to the questions rather than put a piece of information forward that you think refutes the moon landings or similar.
My rules are pretty simple - I focus on what words are used and, what aren't. As soon as I come to a 'maybe,' 'possibly,' 'could've,' I stop reading, cause you're wasting my time. Obama for example, never completely said what the majority of people heard.