The real crime - or rather the real alleged crime - wasn't telling us that planes were hijacked by terrorists when they weren't or telling us that buildings came down as a result of planes crashing into them when they didn't - the real alleged crime was the killing of 3,000 people including 265 alleged plane passengers with the rest of the deaths being building-related and injury to 6,000 people.
What do you have to say on the most important crimes of 9/11 - the alleged deaths of 3,000 people and injury to 6,000? Are these claims the one true part of the story or could those claims also be lies?
Now that is a novel response. Mostly, it's "How dare you! People died!"
Considering the seeming millions who've been injured, maimed and killed by the jab not to mention harmed in one way or another by the previous interventions - and, of course, however many deaths in the invasion of Iraq, 3,000 deaths on 9/11 seems neither here nor there now.
My intention isn't to rank hierarchy of crimes but simply to look at 9/11 from a different perspective. The point is that the death and injury generally - whether you believe or disbelieve the terrorist narrative - are simply accepted as being real when, a priori, if you don't believe the rest of the story there is no reason to accept that part of the story as true without clear evidence for a number of reasons:
1. If we recognise that 9/11 was a psyop then we expect that what is wanted is done for real while what is not wanted is faked. Psyops are all about mind control not doing things for real unless wanted and if things that aren't wanted are done for real then the duping element is reduced for no good reason. They don't want to minimise the duping element they want to maximise it.
2. There is no reason to think they wanted to kill people for real other than propaganda, eg, Jeremy Rys's "Conspiracy Solved!" which had me totally fooled ... until it didn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk. This isn't to say that a few people weren't deliberate targets or that there weren't any accidental deaths or injuries - it certainly was a big operation. However, it is abundantly clear from many different sources that in the main, death and injury were staged and the images of injury were achieved through drills. The images of alleged death are few and far between but here's a page on the fakery of the jumpers - https://septemberclues.org/jumpers.shtml
3. There was no reason for anyone to be killed or injured. 9/11 was essentially a demolition job where there is no reason not to think full evacuation of the buildings and surrounding areas wasn't achieved before the buildings came down as per standard protocols and we know off the bat that no one died in a plane crash because the plane crashes were faked.
4. A lot of people needed to be in on 9/11 - it was a massive operation - and it's hard to see how they would be persuaded to participate in the cold-blooded and callous killing of all those people in the buildings ... for a terror story. Sure, they've coerced and propagandised thousands upon thousands of health professionals to inject people with the toxic jab but that's on the back of 200 years of fraudulent medical science - cold-blooded and callous killing of people in buildings is an entirely different proposition.
A quote that massively applies to 9/11 is:
"All propaganda is lies even when one is telling the truth." George Orwell
There's so much truth pushed at us but all that truth about the buildings and the planes doesn't tell us the essential truth of 9/11 being a big drill cum demolition job.
So there is a four-hour symposium on the hijackings and failure of air defense. Forgive me if I don't watch it as I feel I know enough about 9/11 not to have to listen to a whole 4 hours of people not really getting to the kernel of truth. Is there a single mention of the plane crashes being faked and thus the alleged deaths of the alleged 265 passengers also being faked? Do they go anywhere near that fact in the four hours?
I've written to Piers Robinson a number of times explaining what I really think 9/11 was - no response.
Kevin Ryan and Ted Walter are controlled opposition agents whose job essentially is to smother the death and injury lie. Ted Walter "helped" the recently-departed 9/11 scholar, Graeme MacQueen, with his work on the 9/11 firefighter testimonies highlighting all the references to explosions. Poor old Graeme. Ted was just leading him down the garden path. The important truth of the firefighter testimonies isn't their references to explosions, the important truth is that they are complete fabrications - which they tell us Revelation of the Method style in that they are full of nonsensicalities that complete undermine their authenticity. https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/nonsensicalities-in-the-911-firefighter
If you go to my page on 9/11 you can short-cut a lot of research. 9/11 doesn't need loads of research, primarily it needs understanding of the False Dilemma propaganda strategy.
Story A for the anticipated believers: Terrorists
Story B for the anticipated disbelievers: Rogue elements within US government and its co-conspirators
You claim - in your Moondoggie Story - to use logical fallacies to make your case, but in your ongoing diatribes, fail to recognize your own continuing use of linguistic fallacies. I can't guess your motivation, since I'm not a mind reader. But a meta analysis of your comments so far point to someone who - for whatever reason - uses bafflegab to confuse my audience and waste my time. To wit I present 14 examples to inform my audience:
1. Redefine: Psyops are about influencing perceptions and beliefs, which can sometimes involve real actions to reinforce the deception or make it more convincing.
2. Counterexample: There are instances where psyops have involved real actions, such as false flag operations or covert interventions, precisely because doing things for real can enhance the desired psychological impact.
3. Intent: The goal of psyops is not simply to maximize deception, but to achieve strategic objectives, and real actions can be part of that strategy when necessary.
4. Apply to self: If you believe that mind control is the primary focus, wouldn’t real actions enhance the mind control effect by making the manipulation appear more genuine?
5. Another outcome: By conducting real actions, they can create a more lasting psychological effect, ensuring the target believes the narrative even more strongly.
6. Metaphor/analogy: Psyops are like stage magic; sometimes, the illusion is so convincing because there’s a real trick behind it, not just sleight of hand.
7. Reframe: Doing things for real doesn’t reduce the duping element; it strengthens the overall deception by blurring the line between reality and fiction, making it harder to distinguish what is real.
8. Chunk up: What they really want is not just to dupe people, but to control how people interpret reality, and real actions can play a crucial role in that control.
9. Chunk down: In specific cases, such as military or political operations, real actions can be essential to creating the desired psychological effect, ensuring the psyop achieves its full impact.
10. Change frame size: You’re focusing on the element of duping, but in the broader context of psychological warfare, real actions are just one tool among many to achieve control over the narrative.
11. Positive intention: They may choose to do things for real when it serves the larger goal of creating long-term psychological influence, not just short-term deception.
12. Reality strategy: Their strategy isn’t limited to mind control; sometimes, real actions are necessary to create a deeper, more believable narrative that lasts beyond the immediate operation.
13. Model of the world: In their world, the distinction between real and fake is less important than the overall perception they create, and sometimes, real actions are the most effective way to craft that perception.
14. Alternative outcome: If they didn’t occasionally do things for real, people might become suspicious and the psyop would lose credibility, so real actions can actually enhance the overall deception.
OK, so I think the quote I most often cite is this and it is in relation to propaganda. Its author uses it in relation to communist propaganda and political correctness but it applies to propaganda generally - especially where psyops are involved - and I've edited it accordingly:
"The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control."
Edited quote from Theodore Dalrymple, aka Anthony Daniels, British psychiatrist.
I think this quote explains why Revelation of the Method is an essential part of psyops. We're told those in power TELL us the truth underneath the propaganda in order absolve themselves of karmic repercussions, however, obviously it works and they don't tell us the truth discreetly they really push the envelope with nonsense. It's as if propaganda has magical powers.
"1. Redefine: Psyops are about influencing perceptions and beliefs, which can sometimes involve real actions to reinforce the deception or make it more convincing."
What is your example of "real actions to reinforce the deception or make it more convincing" as I'd argue that that isn't the case at all.
2. false flag operations
I'd argue there is no such thing as a false flag operation, they're all 100% psyop and make my case here: https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/are-false-flags-a-thing. What is your example of a false flag where they kill / injure people for real?
3. Maximise deception goal
Sure there are OTHER goals but in relation to deception they maximise it, they don't introduce reality unless it's wanted. I don't say they don't want reality, I say they only have reality where wanted. Obviously, they wanted buildings down on 9/11 - they didn't want plane crashes though and they didn't want to kill and injure people they only wanted our belief in those things.
If they want death and injury as they obviously do with the jab then they have it (of course, in this case the propaganda is that the jab is saving people) whereas if they don't want it, they only want our BELIEF in it they don't do it for real.
Rule of thumb: when they tell you they're saving people they're killing them and when they tell you people are killed they're not.
(Of course, this is an exaggeration, I'm just making a point.)
The official UK position was that 67 UK nationals were killed on the day. This was established I understand by DNA sampling. The official UK coroner inquiry (a requisite under UK law for unexplained deaths in any jurisdiction) was I understand a combined inquiry, which is highly unusual, under one coroner ( effectively a judge in these circumstances) and was criticised for not allowing any narrative other than the official US one.
However, a brother of one of the victims, Geoff Campbell, who worked in one of the towers has been attempting, in vain so far, to have another inquiry held encompassing the new evidence. The UK justice system has denied him. For an interview see https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/an-inquest-denied-matt-campbell-demands-911-answers
This is a brother who has not been seen since 9/11, for whom there is DNA evidence. On these criteria a real death has occurred, which he has in common with another 66 UK families. I strongly doubt that these people are lying about their loved one’s deaths.
Anything told to us about 9/11 should be treated as a possible lie without clear evidence so just because they tell us something about DNA doesn't mean it's true nor does the claim of being a loved one of someone who died on 9/11, they could be a crisis actor.
It is helpful to understand that the evidence shows there is no such thing as a "false flag", that is, an event where Group A blames Group/Individual B for Crime C where Group A is really responsible. That kind of event never happens - at least not any one I've looked at - and the term "false flag" applies to the secondary propaganda stream targeted to the 10% disbeliever profile so we're all duped, believers and disbelievers alike.
What we see with all events deemed "false flags" is that Group A colludes with Group/Individual B to STAGE the alleged Crime C. Obviously, in the case of 9/11, the buildings came down, that actually happened ... but the evidence shows that nothing else did, it's all smoke'n'mirrors. Essentially, 9/11 was a fully-evacuated demolition job as per standard protocols where the death and injury and the plane crashes were faked. I've written a post, Are false flags a thing? - https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/are-false-flags-a-thing
Thank you. I've added this one to my 9/11 graph, and may draw out nodes from there on a day when I'm less busy.
https://embed.kumu.io/053b07464a961c190fa562f5af0972a0
The real crime - or rather the real alleged crime - wasn't telling us that planes were hijacked by terrorists when they weren't or telling us that buildings came down as a result of planes crashing into them when they didn't - the real alleged crime was the killing of 3,000 people including 265 alleged plane passengers with the rest of the deaths being building-related and injury to 6,000 people.
What do you have to say on the most important crimes of 9/11 - the alleged deaths of 3,000 people and injury to 6,000? Are these claims the one true part of the story or could those claims also be lies?
is there some kind of contest to decide which crime is worse than the other? Where do I find this hierarchy?
Now that is a novel response. Mostly, it's "How dare you! People died!"
Considering the seeming millions who've been injured, maimed and killed by the jab not to mention harmed in one way or another by the previous interventions - and, of course, however many deaths in the invasion of Iraq, 3,000 deaths on 9/11 seems neither here nor there now.
My intention isn't to rank hierarchy of crimes but simply to look at 9/11 from a different perspective. The point is that the death and injury generally - whether you believe or disbelieve the terrorist narrative - are simply accepted as being real when, a priori, if you don't believe the rest of the story there is no reason to accept that part of the story as true without clear evidence for a number of reasons:
1. If we recognise that 9/11 was a psyop then we expect that what is wanted is done for real while what is not wanted is faked. Psyops are all about mind control not doing things for real unless wanted and if things that aren't wanted are done for real then the duping element is reduced for no good reason. They don't want to minimise the duping element they want to maximise it.
2. There is no reason to think they wanted to kill people for real other than propaganda, eg, Jeremy Rys's "Conspiracy Solved!" which had me totally fooled ... until it didn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk. This isn't to say that a few people weren't deliberate targets or that there weren't any accidental deaths or injuries - it certainly was a big operation. However, it is abundantly clear from many different sources that in the main, death and injury were staged and the images of injury were achieved through drills. The images of alleged death are few and far between but here's a page on the fakery of the jumpers - https://septemberclues.org/jumpers.shtml
3. There was no reason for anyone to be killed or injured. 9/11 was essentially a demolition job where there is no reason not to think full evacuation of the buildings and surrounding areas wasn't achieved before the buildings came down as per standard protocols and we know off the bat that no one died in a plane crash because the plane crashes were faked.
4. A lot of people needed to be in on 9/11 - it was a massive operation - and it's hard to see how they would be persuaded to participate in the cold-blooded and callous killing of all those people in the buildings ... for a terror story. Sure, they've coerced and propagandised thousands upon thousands of health professionals to inject people with the toxic jab but that's on the back of 200 years of fraudulent medical science - cold-blooded and callous killing of people in buildings is an entirely different proposition.
A quote that massively applies to 9/11 is:
"All propaganda is lies even when one is telling the truth." George Orwell
There's so much truth pushed at us but all that truth about the buildings and the planes doesn't tell us the essential truth of 9/11 being a big drill cum demolition job.
So there is a four-hour symposium on the hijackings and failure of air defense. Forgive me if I don't watch it as I feel I know enough about 9/11 not to have to listen to a whole 4 hours of people not really getting to the kernel of truth. Is there a single mention of the plane crashes being faked and thus the alleged deaths of the alleged 265 passengers also being faked? Do they go anywhere near that fact in the four hours?
I've written to Piers Robinson a number of times explaining what I really think 9/11 was - no response.
Kevin Ryan and Ted Walter are controlled opposition agents whose job essentially is to smother the death and injury lie. Ted Walter "helped" the recently-departed 9/11 scholar, Graeme MacQueen, with his work on the 9/11 firefighter testimonies highlighting all the references to explosions. Poor old Graeme. Ted was just leading him down the garden path. The important truth of the firefighter testimonies isn't their references to explosions, the important truth is that they are complete fabrications - which they tell us Revelation of the Method style in that they are full of nonsensicalities that complete undermine their authenticity. https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/nonsensicalities-in-the-911-firefighter
If you go to my page on 9/11 you can short-cut a lot of research. 9/11 doesn't need loads of research, primarily it needs understanding of the False Dilemma propaganda strategy.
Story A for the anticipated believers: Terrorists
Story B for the anticipated disbelievers: Rogue elements within US government and its co-conspirators
Reality C: US govt BUT death and injury staged.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911
You claim - in your Moondoggie Story - to use logical fallacies to make your case, but in your ongoing diatribes, fail to recognize your own continuing use of linguistic fallacies. I can't guess your motivation, since I'm not a mind reader. But a meta analysis of your comments so far point to someone who - for whatever reason - uses bafflegab to confuse my audience and waste my time. To wit I present 14 examples to inform my audience:
1. Redefine: Psyops are about influencing perceptions and beliefs, which can sometimes involve real actions to reinforce the deception or make it more convincing.
2. Counterexample: There are instances where psyops have involved real actions, such as false flag operations or covert interventions, precisely because doing things for real can enhance the desired psychological impact.
3. Intent: The goal of psyops is not simply to maximize deception, but to achieve strategic objectives, and real actions can be part of that strategy when necessary.
4. Apply to self: If you believe that mind control is the primary focus, wouldn’t real actions enhance the mind control effect by making the manipulation appear more genuine?
5. Another outcome: By conducting real actions, they can create a more lasting psychological effect, ensuring the target believes the narrative even more strongly.
6. Metaphor/analogy: Psyops are like stage magic; sometimes, the illusion is so convincing because there’s a real trick behind it, not just sleight of hand.
7. Reframe: Doing things for real doesn’t reduce the duping element; it strengthens the overall deception by blurring the line between reality and fiction, making it harder to distinguish what is real.
8. Chunk up: What they really want is not just to dupe people, but to control how people interpret reality, and real actions can play a crucial role in that control.
9. Chunk down: In specific cases, such as military or political operations, real actions can be essential to creating the desired psychological effect, ensuring the psyop achieves its full impact.
10. Change frame size: You’re focusing on the element of duping, but in the broader context of psychological warfare, real actions are just one tool among many to achieve control over the narrative.
11. Positive intention: They may choose to do things for real when it serves the larger goal of creating long-term psychological influence, not just short-term deception.
12. Reality strategy: Their strategy isn’t limited to mind control; sometimes, real actions are necessary to create a deeper, more believable narrative that lasts beyond the immediate operation.
13. Model of the world: In their world, the distinction between real and fake is less important than the overall perception they create, and sometimes, real actions are the most effective way to craft that perception.
14. Alternative outcome: If they didn’t occasionally do things for real, people might become suspicious and the psyop would lose credibility, so real actions can actually enhance the overall deception.
OK, so I think the quote I most often cite is this and it is in relation to propaganda. Its author uses it in relation to communist propaganda and political correctness but it applies to propaganda generally - especially where psyops are involved - and I've edited it accordingly:
"The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control."
Edited quote from Theodore Dalrymple, aka Anthony Daniels, British psychiatrist.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/124952-political-correctness-is-communist-propaganda-writ-small-in-my-study
I think this quote explains why Revelation of the Method is an essential part of psyops. We're told those in power TELL us the truth underneath the propaganda in order absolve themselves of karmic repercussions, however, obviously it works and they don't tell us the truth discreetly they really push the envelope with nonsense. It's as if propaganda has magical powers.
"1. Redefine: Psyops are about influencing perceptions and beliefs, which can sometimes involve real actions to reinforce the deception or make it more convincing."
What is your example of "real actions to reinforce the deception or make it more convincing" as I'd argue that that isn't the case at all.
2. false flag operations
I'd argue there is no such thing as a false flag operation, they're all 100% psyop and make my case here: https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/are-false-flags-a-thing. What is your example of a false flag where they kill / injure people for real?
3. Maximise deception goal
Sure there are OTHER goals but in relation to deception they maximise it, they don't introduce reality unless it's wanted. I don't say they don't want reality, I say they only have reality where wanted. Obviously, they wanted buildings down on 9/11 - they didn't want plane crashes though and they didn't want to kill and injure people they only wanted our belief in those things.
If they want death and injury as they obviously do with the jab then they have it (of course, in this case the propaganda is that the jab is saving people) whereas if they don't want it, they only want our BELIEF in it they don't do it for real.
Rule of thumb: when they tell you they're saving people they're killing them and when they tell you people are killed they're not.
(Of course, this is an exaggeration, I'm just making a point.)
I must have missed the part where anyone said that deaths were faked. do you have a timestamp for reference?
The official UK position was that 67 UK nationals were killed on the day. This was established I understand by DNA sampling. The official UK coroner inquiry (a requisite under UK law for unexplained deaths in any jurisdiction) was I understand a combined inquiry, which is highly unusual, under one coroner ( effectively a judge in these circumstances) and was criticised for not allowing any narrative other than the official US one.
However, a brother of one of the victims, Geoff Campbell, who worked in one of the towers has been attempting, in vain so far, to have another inquiry held encompassing the new evidence. The UK justice system has denied him. For an interview see https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/an-inquest-denied-matt-campbell-demands-911-answers
This is a brother who has not been seen since 9/11, for whom there is DNA evidence. On these criteria a real death has occurred, which he has in common with another 66 UK families. I strongly doubt that these people are lying about their loved one’s deaths.
Crisis actors are people employed in staged events to play the role of witness, survivor, loved one, etc. https://21stcenturywire.com/2016/06/18/casting-crisis-orlandos-actors-agents-and-casualty-role-players/
Anything told to us about 9/11 should be treated as a possible lie without clear evidence so just because they tell us something about DNA doesn't mean it's true nor does the claim of being a loved one of someone who died on 9/11, they could be a crisis actor.
Here is a suggestion that there never was a Matt Campbell and the photos of the alleged Matt are really of a younger Geoff. https://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389884&sid=20b4bf4bbafbe010be89b35f33820264#p2389884
This is a report on a number of alleged victims who seem to be fake one way or another. https://fakeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/9-11-9-the-Vicsim-Report.pdf
It is helpful to understand that the evidence shows there is no such thing as a "false flag", that is, an event where Group A blames Group/Individual B for Crime C where Group A is really responsible. That kind of event never happens - at least not any one I've looked at - and the term "false flag" applies to the secondary propaganda stream targeted to the 10% disbeliever profile so we're all duped, believers and disbelievers alike.
What we see with all events deemed "false flags" is that Group A colludes with Group/Individual B to STAGE the alleged Crime C. Obviously, in the case of 9/11, the buildings came down, that actually happened ... but the evidence shows that nothing else did, it's all smoke'n'mirrors. Essentially, 9/11 was a fully-evacuated demolition job as per standard protocols where the death and injury and the plane crashes were faked. I've written a post, Are false flags a thing? - https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/are-false-flags-a-thing
AGM-65 is what hit the Pentagon.
Not sure any aircraft were used.
That's a pretty small payload