9/11: are there a few irrefutable facts that prove what kind of event it was?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Petra Liverani, Mar 27, 2023.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    No. We don't have to speculate. We can literally ask the people who were actually there.

    Every single person involved - the victims, the first responders - everyone who was actually there - says it was real and can describe it at great length and their stories match. You can go and see the death records.

    Have you done any of that? The onus is on you to do so. You ask for evidence but have you looked at any?


    If that is not enough then there is nothing under the sun that will convince you. It means your theory is unfalsifiable. And that - that right there - is the hallmark of a conspiracy nut.


    I'm not saying this just as an excuse to call you names; your logic for determining the veracity of an event is faulty. You posit a theory but you do not offer a way it can be tested.


    I might as well posit that God did it. It's the same logic. There is no evidence that can be produced to prove that God did not do it. I guess God did it, eh? How are you going to convince me otherwise?
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2023
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    That's where we differ.

    I trust friends of mine who were actually there. You trust online mass media. There's a difference.
    What is funny is that you think that the actual scene that people observed was some massive magic trick "psyop" but you trust online mass media 100%.

    I have some bad news for you. There's propaganda on line. In fact, there is far more of it on line than anywhere else. And you fell for it.
    Why? Why couldn't it have been a "psyop?" They could have faked all the videos and the landings and the radio communications and the samples brought back and the first person stories and the Saturn V and the flag. After all, you have told us all that none of that matters. And if you go online - which is where you find everything that supports your beliefs - you can find a ton of "proof" that it was faked.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Petra Liverani Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    I don't particularly trust anyone or anything, I simply look at the evidence. The little girl I know - who was traumatised by the loss of her classmate - totally believed he died - and do you seriously think I'd try to disabuse her of that belief? I did mention to her mother ... but she wouldn't have a bar of it and then I thought to myself, "Well, why would I try to disabuse the mother of this gorgeous little girl of the notion that the little boy was exploited (and unwitting I have no doubt) to participate in this event and is still perfectly alive and well no doubt in his mother's homeland of Thailand? Why would I try to disabuse her? What is she supposed to do with that information? Tell her daughter or keep it secret from her? Either option is pretty awful.

    Masses and masses of it. And sure I've fallen for it - good and hard. I totally fell for the Five Dancing Israelis (originating in the mass media - now you tell me why that story - completely in opposition to the A-rab terrorist story - was put about by the mass media?) But the thing is I've woken up - whether it be mainstream propaganda or "controlled opposition" propaganda I've woken up to it. Not to say that I don't have more waking up to do, but I've already woken up to so very, very much - even if there's quite a lot more to wake up to, I've got the basic idea.

    You sound like a moonhoaxer although I know you're only playing devil's advocate. If there's one argument I absolutely loathe and detest it's "could have faked" ... except where there's already evidence of fakery or other serious anomalies in the story.

    When I woke up to 9/11, a "conspiracy theorist" friend (and he most definitely is a disbeliever-by-default) suggested I read Wagging the Moondoggie by Dave McGowan. I read most of it and thought it seemed quite compelling but, of course, I needed to check the evidence myself, right? As soon as I got to the radio communications I stopped dead in my tracks. "No way could these have been faked, no way," I thought to myself ... but regardless of my opinion on the ability to fake them, no evidence of fakery has been pointed out in hours and hours and hours of the stuff. That's not how psyop fakery is done. It's sloppy and they don't do hours and hours and hours of it for no reason. Yeah, loads and loads of propaganda but that's different from dedicated fakery. Similarly, every single image ... and there's loads of them betray a single very bright light source against a black sky - completely consistent with the sun on the moon (which has black sky day or night) and totally inconsistent with terrestrial conditions. How on earth would that be faked? Zero evidence of fakery, everything 100% consistent with expectations especially considering the vastly different lunar and terrestrial conditions, zero reason to suspect their lack of reality.

    I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, I am a psyop analyst - I know the difference between a real event and a psyop regardless of the seeming improbability of each.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    No, you only look online. That's where you find propaganda, not evidence.

    If you wanted evidence you'd go to Sandy Hook or New York City and actually look around. Talk to the people who were there. Look at the actual (not an Internet picture of ) death certificates. Talk to the firefighters who survived. That's how you get evidence.

    But since that would end up deflating your beliefs, I suspect you will never do that.
    There is plenty of "evidence" of fakery of the moon landings on line. The "fake" flag waving. The "fake" shadows. The "fake" thermal control system. The "fake" pictures of the Earth. The "fake video of Armstrong's first steps. The "fake" video of the LM lifting off. You can find movies that "prove" it's fake, websites, documents, reports, and narratives.

    So there is a ton of evidence if you live on line.
    On a sound stage. Evidence:
    The rocks are numbered just like they would be on a sound stage.
    The shadows don't match up, meaning there are lights rather than one sun.
    The flag waves even when no one touches it due to the air on the sound stage.

    Etc etc. All just as strong as the evidence that Sandy Hook was staged, and the people were crisis actors.
    No, you really don't.
     
  8. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    266
    Good work, comrades. But you can do better.
    Remember, the loser will be sent to Bakhmut.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2023
    candy likes this.
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Petra:

    Tell me how you concluded that the moon landings were not a psyop.

    What was it about simply looking at the evidence that told you the moon landings were certainly not a psyop?

    What particular evidential features of events should we look at that can prove they aren't psyops?

    After 4+ years of study on such things, you must have a great list of criteria for telling psyops from non-psyops.

    I'm also interested to learn what you think of all the people who believe the moon landings were faked. Would you say those people are stupid, for thinking there's a conspiracy when it is obvious to you that there's no possibility of a psyop there?

    If people had wanted to conduct a convincing psyop to fake the moon landings, what would they have needed to do? Can you please point to some of the things that they would have needed to do to make a good psyop of the moon landings, but which you have proven were not actually done in the case of the moon landings?
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2023
  10. Petra Liverani Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    Psyops are government/corporation/agency/media events. How do you know about Sandy Hook? From the media. Now if the media are going to tell us a story they need to back it up with substance otherwise why should we believe it? It's up to them to prove their story not up to me to disprove it.

    You only believe Sandy Hook because the media and government told you to believe it, you didn't evaluate the information presented in any shape or form because if you had you would have had a few questions.

    When Sandy Hook happened in 2012 I was clueless about psyops, nor did I pay too much attention to it, just thinking it was a very tragic affair ... but even in my cluelessness and bare attention a couple of things puzzled me:
    1. The strange, inhuman-looking face of the alleged shooter, Adam Lanza, which I discovered later was photoshopped.
    2. A story about police going to Adam Lanza's house on a good lead that he had a cache of weapons but then - for reasons unexplained - didn't enter his house. Why didn't they I wondered or if they didn't why didn't they tell us why. You see how they play with our hearts and minds, making us think, "Oh, if only the police had entered Adam Lanza's house and found his cache of weapons! Oh, if only." Back then I only wondered because the notion it was a staged event was so beyond my paradigm of how the world worked I never would have thought that these anomalies signified anything ... but later I realised.

    The flag waving, shadows, and all the rest of it have been explained billvon, totally explained. Moreover, there are lots of little details we absolutely would not expect from fakery such as minute amounts of dust on the landing pads that can only be seen with the magnifying tool and a faint radial exhaust pattern underneath the lunar module. I've checked, billvon, and all the seeming anomalies have been explained ... not like the ginormous, ludicrous anomaly of catastrophic failure of the world's mightiest defence and military infrastructure - not like that ungettoverable anomaly.

    I'm still waiting for the evidence.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    How do you know about the moon landings? From the media.
    Previously, you said that if there's no evidence of fakery, then you'll accept it. Now you seem to be saying you need positive evidence of a lack of fakery.

    Which is it?
    Bad assumption, Petra.

    In reply, suppose I suggest that the only reason you don't believe the story the mass media gave you about Sandy Hook is that you didn't evaluate the information presented in any shape or form, because if you had all your questions would have been satisfactorily answered?

    See the problem?
    The same can totally be said about 9/11. All of the conspiracy theory points that you have raised so far in this thread about 9/11 have been totally explained. Moreover, there are lots of little details we absolutely would not expect from fakery.
    We have checked - in some cases we did this 20 years ago - and all the seeming anomalies about 9/11 have been explained.
    I'm still waiting for the evidence that 9/11 was a psyop. You know, actual evidence. Not guesswork and wishful thinking and reading things into media reports and making assumptions. Evidence. That thing you say you value above all else.
     
  12. Petra Liverani Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    It's just so simple, James. Everything put forward for the moon landings is consistent with expectations considering the unique lunar conditions - especially that wonderful brightly sunlit lunar surface against the black sky - love that. There are simply no signs of fakery and all is consistent with expectations. Catastrophic failure of the world's mightiest military and intelligence infrastructure, however, four times in one morning is simply completely against expectations and every other piece of evidence put forward can be seen to be pseudo-evidence and doesn't conform with expectations in any shape or form.

    I am furious with moonhoaxers because they undermine people like me trying to tell the truth about the real lies. Absolutely furious! But you can't reason with them just like you can't reason with ...

    When I worked out the moon landings were real and then tried to tell my identical twin sister (who's still convinced they were fake) and other disbelievers and found it was like talking to a brick wall I realised there was a profile of people who just disbelieve no matter what (a bit like the people who believe no matter what but the other extreme) and then I wondered if those in power might try to exploit this phenomenon by encouraging the disbelievers to not believe in the moon landings Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style. Sure enough! Sure enough! I checked out the first person to say we didn't land on the moon, a certain Mr Bill Kaysing, allegedly Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne. What a knee-slapper! No one in his position would spout the nonsense he spouted but those in power understand us so well, James, they understand us so much better than we understand ourselves because they knew that no moonhoaxer would pick up that his job title didn't correspond with his nonsense and that people who believed the moon landings would simply wave away his highly anomalous job title if they even noticed it. But I didn't wave it away and I certainly noticed it because I'm a psyop analyst and I know what to look for.
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,521
    See post 87.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Petra:
    I would say that everything put forward about the events of 9/11 in the generally-accepted narrative is consistent with expectations, too. Another expectation of mine is that conspiracy theories about 9/11 will turn out to be bunk, and the evidence I have seen has supported those expectations every time.

    Clearly, our expectations can differ about things.

    Do you think that your prior expectations are alway a reliable guide to deciding what is true?
    There are no signs of fakery in 9/11, either.

    But notice, in both the case of the moon landings and 9/11, there are lots of people (still a tiny minority of the general population, and almost devoid of any actual experts on the subject matter) who claim that there's a ton of evidence of fakery.

    Somebody is right here, and somebody is wrong, in both cases. Either the moon landings were real, or they were faked. Either 9/11 happened as described by the official investigations and mass media, or it didn't. Different people expect different things, but there's only one truth, in each case.

    You say you believe in the 9/11 psyop because you have evidence of it. Some other conspiracy theorists say they believe the moon landings were faked because they have evidence of it. You say the moon landing conspiracy evidence doesn't withstand critical scrutiny. But you also say that your 9/11 evidence can withstand such scrutiny, and indeed that you spent 4 years trying your best to probe all the evidence and disprove the conspiracy hypothesis.

    It sounds like you're very sure of yourself about both the moon landings and 9/11. And yet, despite your 4 years of investigation, already some of the evidence you have posted here in support of the 9/11 conspiracy theory has been shown to be ludicrously fragile and unconvincing as evidence of what you allege.

    Is it possible that you've just done a really bad job of analysing the 9/11 evidence? Maybe you simply lack the expertise to make sense of some of it. Maybe you have overlooked simple explanations, because you've been too focused on your "expectation" that it was all faked. Maybe you've put too much trust in untrustworthy sources of data and/or analysis.
    But was there a catastropic failure of the world's mightiest military? And, if so, could it only be due to a grand conspiracy that the military participated in (how many people would have had to be in on it, and keep silent all these years afterwards)? Or could there be other reasons why the military response was inadequate on 9/11? What explanation did the official inquiries give for the failures of the military? Were those explanations manifestly inadequate?
    Think about this. Maybe you can start to see why your family and friends might be furious at you for undermining the victims of 9/11 or Sandy Hook.
    So you know what it's like to try talking to somebody who has been captured by a conspiracy theory you don't accept. That's what talking to you is like for the 99% of people who accept the official accounts of 9/11 and Sandy Hook. You're going to just disbelieve no matter what, as far as they can tell. There's no reasoning with you, because if one piece of your evidence for the conspiracy is knocked down, you have another 1000 pieces ready to put up in defence. Who is going to have the patience to dismantle them one by one?

    There is an answer to this, by the way. The answer is that lots of different people have already taken apart your 1000 pieces of conspiracy theory, and posted their reasons and analysis all over the web - a lot of it conveniently located in discussions with conspiracy theorists just like you. But there's always the possibility that any or all of those debunking are fake, too, and all the people doing the debunking are part of the conspiracy. You can find lots of reasons to ignore the debunkings or to say they are fake, too. You'll be a brick wall unless you're willing to accept that, just maybe, people don't always have hidden agendas and form hidden cabals to distribute false propaganda.

    If the conspiracy was true, ask yourself: what else would have to be true? How many thousands of people would have to be in on it? How many would have to stay silent for 20+ years, with none ever breaking ranks and spilling the truth? Where did all the missing people go? It is really possible to invent 3000+ fake people and then plant whole families of fake relatives who will act exactly as if their fake relatives really died in 9/11, but only lie about this and otherwise live completely normal lives? There are so many reasons why a conspiracy theory this vast just makes no sense.
    You seem to be very confident that "those in power" - those mysterious faceless men - have almost superhuman abilities. Admittedly, they would need them to perpetrator any fraud as vast as the one you allege for 9/11.

    My own opinion when I look at government or the military or the CIA is that they look to me like organisations run by average human beings, just like you and me. The President of the United States has power, but he isn't superhuman. He can't read your mind. He can't click his fingers and disappear 3000 people. He can't understand you better than you understand yourself. He's just an ordinary man who got elected by a bunch of people. All organisations are made of people. Grand conspiracy theories always require a belief in magic to make them work properly, but people aren't that magical. They are fallible and flawed and petty and ordinary, just like you and me.
    How does one become a psyop analyst? Does it pay well? Does it make you superhuman?
     
  15. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    266
  16. Petra Liverani Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    Yes, I know about the moon landings from the media ... and all the evidence stacks up. I know about Sandy Hook from the media ... but the evidence doesn't stack up, nor does it stack up for 9/11.

    All seeming anomalies about 9/11 have been explained. Absolutely love it!

    OK, where is the explanation for the catastrophic failure of the US multi-trillion dollar military and intelligence infrastructure four times in one morning that to my mind is so far beyond "seeming anomaly" you can't even really discuss it? But please I'm keen to see your explanation.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    It was not a failure. They were not tasked with shooting down wayward aircraft - so they did not.

    100% consistent with the facts.
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    The thing about 9/11 is that it was unprecedented. It falls under Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns". It simply never occurred to anyone before this that terrorists might deliberately pilot a commercial aircraft into a populated structure, vaporizing themselves in the process.

    There is very little that can be done to prevent such a ploy once it's in-play (what're they gonna do? shoot it out of the sky over downtown New York? How many lives would that cost?) Moving forward, the military effort will concentrate on identifying the threat before it's too late.

    20/20 hindsight about what the military could have done is meaningless.
     
  19. Petra Liverani Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    I cannot argue against this, it's simply too ridiculous.
     
  20. Petra Liverani Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    Can you explain the interception protocol for planes going off-course, Dave?
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    Do you think that the military is currently tasked with intercepting and/or shooting down any aircraft that go off course?
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    Oh, I did not realize that was considered an acceptable response. Good to know.

    Let's roll this whole thread back to post 1, and post 2 will be:

    I cannot argue against this, it's simply too ridiculous.

    Seriously, this thread you started is in the Fringe section, and by definition stretches credulity, so you waive your right to think something is too ridiculous to address.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2023
    exchemist likes this.
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    I can - there is none.

    When there's an obvious problem (like an aircraft over, say, the White House at low altitude) ATC will often call the DOD and they will dispatch aircraft. But there are no protocols for "an airplane going off course." In fact, a great many aircraft in the US fly VFR, where they are not required to hold to any specific course. And a pilot has the right to deviate from any flight plan as much as he needs to to ensure the safety of his aircraft and passengers; hundreds of aircraft do that every day, for issues as minor as avoiding turbulence to as major as a loss of cabin pressure or an engine failure.

    Let me guess. You're not a pilot, but you read something on the Internet.
     
    exchemist likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page