A long long time ago I knew a guy in Bozeman who worked in the campus bookstore, let’s call him Roger. It was at least five years after 911, as I had a blog at the time and did not start this blog until 2006. I mentioned to him that what we saw on 911 violated Newton’s laws of motion, and therefore could not have happened as we saw on TV.
He got very pensive on me, and said that experts, real experts, within that university were pondering Newton’s third law of motion in light of the events of that day. Do you get that? “Experts” in the engineering department of Montana State University were afraid to speak up about what happened that day. They would probably lose their jobs. That’s how I interpreted Roger’s thoughtful comment.
- An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.
- The acceleration of an object depends on the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.
- Whenever one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite on the first.
These are called “laws” and not hypotheses, not theories, meaning that in our world they always work. The have not been disproven.
We see a lot of head butting on TV and in movies. As portrayed, the person giving the head butt feels nothing, while the person on the receiving end is knocked flat. But that violates the third law above. In the scene above at :50, Conor McGregor’s character butts Jake Gyllenhaal’s so hard that his face disappears into Jake’s. In real life, both would be hurting, each one equally depending on the mass of their heads, McGregor’s seeming somewhat larger.
Kids, pay attention: Don’t head butt. It will not end well.
I am bragging here, but I knew on March 11, 2020 that the “pandemic” was not real. The reason was 3/11, or use of that number 33. Equally so on 9/11/2001, I immediately knew that no planes had hit those buildings. That violated the third law.
The paragraph above consists of four sentences. One of the four is a bald-faced lie. Can you guess which one? You’re right – the third sentence. I was traumatized on that day, and had no clue that what we saw on TV could not happen in real life. But it would be years before I came to understanding – how long I do not know. I do know on this blog I was afraid to speak up about 911, just as the engineers at MSU were. I bore no loss-of-career danger, just social anxiety. That’s all gone now. It’s like swimming in cold water – the body adapts. I no longer fear being an outsider.
Piece of Mindful 
Mark, I lost an old friend over his total inability to accept any oddities in the way 9/11 happened. This would be unusual considering he used to be open minded, but then after becoming a medic in the army and physicians assistant, unfortunately he became much more circumspect in his willingness to talk freely on virtually any topic, especially after Covid. After I cornered him on a particular point about 9/11 (Building 7 collapse), and getting him to agree that the Gulf of Tonkin was faked, he said he thought “things just happen” sometimes. Like he thinks Lee Harvey Oswald used the force, like Luke Skywalker when blowing up the deathstar, to make his impossible shots from the school book depository. I wish I were joking, alas I am not…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess working in the system had done a number on your friend’s brain. I imagine they’d put him through intense brainwashing for him to have turned out that way. Did you ask his “thoughts” on the “Magic Bullet” theory, by any chance?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What those in power understand so well but the believers and even disbelievers to a degree don’t properly grasp (or even have a clue of) is the limitless elasticity of the Emperor’s New Clothes effect. The bigger the lie the better it works. Probably the words I most cite are:
“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.
Despite growing up with a father whose catch cries were, “Propaganda” and, in a tone suggesting you’d have to be a moron to think otherwise, “It was the CIA,” anytime a coup or similar happened around the world I had no clue about anything until I watched the film, JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick.
LikeLike
This explains why their lies are often so elaborate and repetitive. The many strange details and their redundancy help to confuse and subvert their readers into accepting them as gospel truths.
And the point about propaganda being not only a form of trickery but also a way of guilt-tripping people into believing its lies is highly poignant, which explains why fear goes well with this psychological manipulation tactic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oops. Didn’t mean to send comment.
I watched JFK to 9/11 in 2014 but it obviously missed important truths about those events – the death and injury being staged and it wasn’t until 2018 that I got the 9/11 staging and later, JFK’s.
Being Australian, it wouldn’t have had the same effect, however, even though I believed the terrorist story for 13 years it wasn’t with any kind of enthusiasm and I felt instinctively it was all about manipulation somehow.
Having learnt from 9/11 that only what is wanted is done for real, the rest is faked – they’re not called Trauma-based Mind Control Psychological Operations for nothing – I realised from Day One both that:
— the “novel” virus claim was a psyop when they showed us people falling flat on their faces and laid out on hospital floors and on the ground and told us that a Chinese research team had found Chinese cobras and many-banded kraits to be “reservoirs” of the virus but then have someone debunk that nonsense within the same article
— there was no virus because they didn’t want a virus they only wanted our belief in it and a real virus (as conventionally understood) wouldn’t have worked for their narrative – of course, now we know a real virus wouldn’t have worked for their narrative because there’s no such thing!
LikeLike
As for your last point, I think it can be better surmised that they didn’t need to create an actual virus to achieve their intended results because most people can be easily swindled into believing in absolute BS without trying. This was done numerous times before, so there was no reason to assume they couldn’t have pulled it off this time.
Plus, it’s cheaper and more predictable than spending millions on creating a real pathogen, which is what they supposedly did in Wuhan. Lies can be constructed for a fraction of the cost and they’re more easy to control.
LikeLike
Oh they certainly didn’t need a virus (even if such a thing existed), you’re so right there. In the case of creating a pathogen there’s no evidence they could do such a thing regardless of cost … but even if they could, they’d much rather dupe us into believing in one than do it for real, even if cost were the same. If they’re not duping us then it’s not a psyop and they want it to be a psyop. The duping part is essential.
LikeLike
If they couldn’t create a pathogen, then that means those millions spent by the NIH on “creating” one were likely spent on something else. That money probably was used as kickbacks between corrupt bureaucrats running Wuhan or was even used to kickstart vaccine development in China, with no real effort being made to create an actual pathogen.
LikeLike
Definitely. Why would they want to create pathogens that would also affect them? That makes no sense. They could perhaps devise a way to create a pathogen and a defence against it that only they had access to, however, that would mean that all the people they wanted to protect would have to take that protection and they wouldn’t want everyone they wanted to protect to be “in the know”.
It’s like nuclear bombs – they don’t really make the greatest sense even if you could manufacture them. Obviously, they got the effect of “nuclear bomb” from fire-bombing so what would have been the great advantage of using a single bomb to do the same thing? Not a great deal, right?
I love the MAD thing (Mutual Assured Destruction). There’s an “ex-“CIA agent, Andrew Bustamante, who has a supposedly candid interview with Steven Bartlett, young multi-millionaire entrepreneur, who has a thriving podcast. It’s totally vanilla but interesting in its own way and I had to laugh when he said while he was in the air force prior to CIA he says he worked deep underground on the MAD thing and held the nuclear codes around his neck. It’s a great opportunity for him to plug his post-CIA business and snow people with BS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVe2rCHtN0&t=1272s
As they say, there’s no such thing as “ex”, there’s no such thing as ex-CIA.
LikeLike
And I love how the tile of that video tells its viewers to never trust their guts. As if some CIA agent is more trustworthy than their own intuition. Ridiculous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi just wanted to share my journey how I figured out its almost certain there are no “nuclear” bombs. Because a few of my points I haven’t seen repeated elsewhere, and as a scientist/engineer who has worked on complex systems, there’s no way you could build something so complex that worked in 1945.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, if you study old nuke footage filmed at sea, you’ll notice that none of the ships near the nuclear explosions move violently. Considering the size and impact of these explosions, those nearby vessels should’ve been heavily moving in the water due to the strong vibration emitted from nuke explosions. But we don’t see that, which indicates more fakery here.
LikeLike
Sorry, the second video was supposed to be different. Here’s the intended version:
LikeLike
The biggest laugher is the Chinese A bomb test(s) from the 1960s. The special effects are as bad as all the 1970s kung fu movies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Compare 2:30 with minute 32 in video below
Fake Atomics: Low Budget 3rd World Edition (bitchute.com)
LikeLike
They sometimes don’t even bother trying to make them believable. They know the masses are too stupid to know any better, so why bother?
LikeLike
India’s nuclear explosions are even more laughable. They barely look like the nuke detonations we’ve seen elsewhere. And they claim they since haven’t bothered to do more nuclear tests 20+ years after the first ones, which is pretty strange.
LikeLike
The above video does claim that the nearby ships were anchored during this test, though. Even so, I doubt their anchors would’ve been strong enough to keep them still in the water, especially when you consider their proximity to the explosion and the fact that it detonated underwater.
LikeLike
Love the assistant hockey coach bit.
What’s also interesting is:
— even if we allowed that the two Japanese cities were nuclear-bombed, fire-bombing raids caused far greater destruction in Japan than the alleged nuclear bombs.
— the alleged nuclear bombs look exactly like normal ordnance
— the names – Fat Man and Little Boy and the pilot of the plane carrying Little Boy naming it after his mother, Enola Gay, and the other plane named Bockscar after the alleged pilot, Bocks (plane is painted with a boxcar with wings and is numbered 77)
— the ludicrous miracle-survivor stories that they churn out for every big hoax
— the ludicrous stories of alleged seller of Israeli nuclear secrets, Mordechai Vanunu, and Iranian nuclear scientist assassinations
For links to more on the above and links to books and other analyses:
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/nuclear-weapons-hoax.html
LikeLike
Dare I? My sister rejects the moon landings on the basis of too easy success, however, I judge by the evidence.
I’ve mentioned a rebuttal of Part 1 of Wagging the Moondoggie before but recently I came across an analysis of Parts 1 and 2. The analysis doesn’t just focus on what is factually wrong but how the writing is propagandistic comprising mostly: meaningless rhetoric and logical fallacies mainly:
— Begging the Question
— Poisoning the Well
if not outright lies.
The author clearly thinks Dave McGowan is very consciously lying not that he’s simply got it wrong … and I concur. Dave McGowan was/is an agent … and not just outside the moon landings … on the moon landings too. Where is one single thing said in WTMD that stands up to scrutiny?
https://waggingthemoondoggiedebunked.blogspot.com/2018/08/wagging-moondoggie-part-1-debunked.html
LikeLike
TBF, if they did or were going to fake the moon landings, better reasons to do that were to save up on extra costs that would’ve been incurred from a genuine attempt and to reduce chances of putting their astronauts in physical danger, which would’ve been much higher in a real space mission, I presume (e.g., spaceship colliding with asteroids, atmospheric changes, etc.) If you think otherwise, I’d be glad to hear that.
LikeLike
They might have had many reasons to fake the moon landings but the evidence shows:
— they went
— prominent people who said we didn’t go, including Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan, are agents whose job is to encourage those who – with perfect justification in the vast majority of cases – don’t believe what the authorities tell us to disbelieve the moon landings Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style in order to undermine them when they call out the real lies.
Of course, any chance they get they want those who disbelieve them to get it wrong too. They want to make fun of us and get a laugh out of making us get it wrong and what better than an implausible REAL event to do that with. Hypothetically, you can bet your life they would do that, wouldn’t they, they’d target the disbelievers with propaganda to make them disbelieve a real event any chance they got – the moon landings being one of those very few chances.
LikeLike
Fair enough, I suppose. Your points are well-taken by me, even though I’m not fully sold on them yet.
But it can be argued that many of the proponents for the Apollo missions being real are also agents trying to spin a narrative (e.g., the mainstream media), not just their detractors. That also goes for many of the ‘debunking’ sites available on the web.
And while they might be tempted to stage an “implausible” real event to stir skeptics and believers alike for the LOL factor, it still makes just as much sense for them to, at least partially, fake the whole thing. It would’ve been far more economical and less risky to do so, as I stated before, not to mention less complicated to do.
Regardless, it can be construed as a psyop of sorts, even if it did actually happen. It has served to distort people’s understanding of reality for decades, including disbelievers’ if your perspective is anything to go by. It has also served as a convenient, ‘benign’ distraction from the more sinister things they did, as well as serving nicely as dazzling space propaganda for years to come. I think you’ll agree with me on this point, even if you discount everything else I say here.
LikeLike
And even without the moon landings, there’s still a myriad other topics they can use to undermine their skeptics. The flat earth trend is one example of this, where they have some “conspiracists” believe in something that’s mired with logical fallacies, despite it initially appearing convincing to the believers.
LikeLike
Hi Petra, you seem very bright. I don’t mean to be condescending, but can you just list a few pieces of evidence supporting a moon landing? Because all I see are horribly cheap TV shows, some bags of rocks no one can touch, a Time-Life Glossy Magazine special they sell for $19.99 every Apollo 11 anniversary, and they worst liars or actors or spokesmen (being extrememly generous) to ever give an interview after a “great” achievement.
LikeLike
I think Miles Davis said it best when he said space is “White Man’s Bullshit”.
I also propose those numbers of NASA employees working on the “Apollo” project were grossly inflated, as their budgets may be, to add plausibility to this trash enterprise. Space is White trash’s trash. For dumb goyim. Like the nukes. If I had a nickel for every time someone said “You couldn’t fake the moon landings, too many people would have had to have been in on it (400,000 claimed)!” Which is extrememly curious, because the exact opposite claim is also made for the Manhattan project, that is 200k or 400k people kept secret the nuclear program until Hiroshima.
LikeLike
I love the collective pride thing of American’s, the “we went to the moon!” thump your chest type patriotism. There’s a reason madness is called lunacy.
LikeLike
And one more thing. My dear old uncle, PhD from MIT, Air Force colonel, claims he worked on IR satellite sensors for nuclear blasts, then making parts for the space shuttle. I love him dearly, but I will not let that shield me from the reality he is almost certainly misinformed, and living very confortably in part on a goverment pension. So anyone who claims something is true because their relative worked on the project is a coward.
LikeLike
Does anyone remember Mad Magazine would write their own satirical version of a movie? I’m going to write on Oppenheimer entitled “Wisenheimer”.
Below is from Merriam Webster’s online dictionary:
Did you know?
Wisenheimer and More “Wise” Words
We wouldn’t joke around about the origin of this witty word. In the early 20th century, someone had the smart idea to combine the adjective wise (one sense of which means “insolent, smart-alecky, or fresh”) with –enheimer, playing on the pattern of family names such as Oppenheimer and Guggenheimer. Of course, wisenheimer isn’t the only “wise-” word for someone who jokes around. There’s also wiseacre wisecracker and wise gy. All of these jokesters are fond of making wisecracks.
LikeLike
A very sinister side effect of the nuclear race is how they used as an excuse to bankrupt treasuries and literally let people starve. Read this quote, that most people think is perfectly OK:
“Pakistan’s nuclear program goes back to the 1950s, during the early days of its rivalry with India. President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto famously said in 1965, “If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own.”
LikeLike
Worse yet is the mass complacency that enables this, be it manufactured or genuine. You’d think the masses would be very angry if they literally can’t even eat and all their time and resources are instead invested in scams like nukes or wars, yet we don’t see that. Instead, they even go so far as to defend the very people causing their misery. That’s how strong the brainwashing is.
LikeLike
I tend to think all the powers are in it together and that’s just talk that perpetuates the myth. Do you really think Bhutto didn’t know it was all a fraud … but in any case what is so friggin great about a nuclear bomb? Just that you need one to do the same damage you need a fleet of bombers to do?
LikeLike
Bhutto definitely knew this was all a fraud. Otherwise, why would they even have him around if he wasn’t privy to the scam and a willing participant?
And as for the “existence” of nukes themselves, they clearly are there to solely act as huge money pits where public and private funds can be laundered into such phony projects for the benefit of nuclear contractors and shareholders.
To continue my second point, in the U.S. alone, nuclear spending totals $756 billion, which is second to federal military expenditures ($1 trillion+). Profit is the only motive behind such outrageous spending, which is clearly geared to benefit nuclear contractors like Aecom and SAIC.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/emacdonald/the-skys-the-limit-on-nuclear-weapons-spending-but-what-does-it-really-get-us/
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/meet-the-private-corporations-building-our-nuclear-arsenal/#:~:text=When%20it%20comes%20to%20nuclear%20weapons%20testing%20and,guidance%20firms%20include%20Alliant%20Techsystems%20and%20Rockwell%20Collins.
LikeLike
Oh they certainly didn’t need a virus (even if such a thing existed), you’re so right there. In the case of creating a pathogen there’s no evidence they could do such a thing regardless of cost … but even if they could, they’d much rather dupe us into believing in one than do it for real, even if cost were the same. If they’re not duping us then it’s not a psyop and they want it to be a psyop. The duping part is essential.
LikeLike
Fair enough. Your points are well-taken by me, even though I’m not fully sold on them yet.
But it can be argued that many of the proponents for the Apollo missions being real are also agents trying to spin a narrative (e.g., the mainstream media), not just their detractors. That also goes for many of the ‘debunking’ sites available on the web.
And while they might be tempted to stage an “implausible” real event to stir skeptics and believers alike for the LOL factor, it still makes just as much sense for them to, at least partially, fake the whole thing. It would’ve been far more economical and less risky to do so, as I stated before, not to mention less convoluted.
Regardless, it can be construed as a psyop of sorts, even if it did actually happen. It has served to distort people’s understanding of reality for decades, including disbelievers’ if your perspective is anything to go by. It has also served as a convenient, ‘benign’ distraction from the more sinister things they did, as well as serving nicely as dazzling space propaganda for years to come. I think you’ll agree with me on this point, even if you discount everything else I say here.
LikeLike