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

[Petra Liverani]

I'm still waiting to hear what you did in your four years of dedicated research on the topic.

Well just to sum up, James what I did was I got much better acquainted with the propaganda strategy employed notably how the secondary propaganda stream targeted to the anticipated disbelievers of the story worked and also with "revelation of the method", which is the technique of deliberate giveaway which I will give an example of later in my post. In psyops - generally only in the bigger ones I'd say - there's a phenomenon known as "controlled opposition" - massive in 9/11 - but we won't go there will we as you don't even believe in the phenomenon of psyops in the first place - it would be a totally pointless exercise - and no I didn't do a university course to learn about "controlled opposition" or "revelation of the method" ... because very unsurprisingly none such course exists. LOL. They don't teach you how propaganda works at school or in university, James, for very, very obvious reasons.

But just to say from now on I only wish to discuss my irrefutable facts and any other claims for irrefutable facts. That is the subject of the thread. Please stick to the subject.

OK, so why don't we address one of my irrefutable points and one of your points that isn't in the least irrefutable and get down to some tintacks here.

One of my irrefutable facts
Quoted from this video: youtu.be/5DGbjd4PbTs
Chief of Surgery, NYU Downtown Hospital (140 beds as of 2004), Dr Howard Beaton said: "Some patients were very, very severely injured and three patients were actually brought in dead on arrival. … patients who had severe head injuries, … severe injuries to their chest, bleeding inside their chest, spinal cord fractures, fractures of the pelvis, bleeding internally, large soft tissue injuries with big burns, large amounts of tissue loss, muscle hanging out, limbs at all sorts of strange angles, it was really quite something to see. For someone who’s had no wartime experience, this, I suspect, is close to a battlefield as you’ll ever get. … We were then in a situation where we were told to expect a second wave … we restocked, we restaffed and then we just waited … it became Tuesday afternoon ... it became Wednesday morning, we were fully staffed and then the realisation that there were no more severely ill patients coming from the disaster site …"

Here we see the phenomenon referred to above, "revelation of the method" in that what the doctor says doesn't make sense.

• If 3,000 people died then to speak of 3 patients "actually brought in dead on arrival" as if it was quite something makes no sense. Nor does only 3 dead people make sense either, surely more dead people would have been brought in. If 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured why would there be an overwhelming ratio of injured to dead?
• They were told to expect a "second wave". Why a "second wave"? Wouldn't one expect a steady stream but the indication is that there was neither a steady stream nor a second wave. Seemingly, people were only brought into the hospital on Tuesday morning. If that makes sense to you then there's no argument I can make here.
• There are gory descriptions of injury and yet in the images we see of the injured none of this is indicated, all the images of alleged injured are perfectly consistent with people participating in a drill - shorturl.at/syEPR

And then in another video, of course, we see the highly anomalous "empty ambulances and rescue vehicles" parading past the trauma centre - youtu.be/LhGfXPGh5kI

Irrefutable fact: there is zero convincing evidence of injury or death.

One of your refuted claims
We know that two aircraft crashed into the World Trade Centre in New York

How this claim is refuted:

• The alleged video of UA175 doesn't clearly show a plane that looks like a 767 but rather more like a simple "plane object":
  • UA175 crashing into the South Tower - www.bitchute.com/video/Jv4zTStsZmtl
  • A random 767 - youtu.be/DXrzG8h1_gE?t=12
• Crash physics is not obeyed - the plane glides into the building like a knife through butter - see film The Medusa Touch youtube.com/watch?v=xuhNR6lx97E where crash physics is obeyed better:
  • deceleration is observed
  • damage to the plane and the building is observed
  • fuel ignites without delay and at entry point
  • ejected debris falls to the street
• No aircraft parts identified as described by Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) - https://www.ff911truth.org/col-george-nelson

 

[O. W. Grant]

A conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory thread



The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.

To promote conspiracy theories - just keep alive a conspiracy theory thread.

Good gig, participants (Ocean's twelve).

 

[Petra Liverani]

On the contrary, there is no evidence of foul play. There was a strong wind, the summer had been very hot and dry, the largely timber buildings were very close together, so much so that the conventional way to control fires was to demolish buildings in its path, and the mayor was dilatory in getting this done. There were of course conspiracy theories at the time, involving the French, or Catholics, both of whom were popular objects of hatred for some at the time. But that says more about psychology than anything else. No evidence has come to light of any plot.

Propaganda.

Drought and timber structures
What arguments do those who do not suspect any malfeasance use? Very often, they cite the fact that the summer had been hot and dry and, as one commentator put it, the ‘houses creaked with dry joints’. However, the combination of these two points do not immediately explain the extent of the fire since a major fire had occurred in 1633, also a time of drought (see weatherwebdotnet) but this fire destroyed no more than 122 buildings, 42 at the northern end of London Bridge and 80 on Thames Street. This figure that compares with the 300 buildings burned down in 1666 in the space of the first morning alone.

So, the conditions normally cited as causing the Great Fire (ie the hot weather and the timber frames of the buildings) cannot on their own explain the fiendish nature of the fire in 1666.

The wind
In reality, this was unlike other fires since all attempts to create firebreaks were in vain and the fire even leaped the river Fleet and the Thames down to Southwark. How could this be? Commentators past and present cite the strength of the wind blowing from the east with the British Library, for example, referencing ‘the dry weather and strong easterly wind’ as ‘creating the perfect conditions for the rapid spread of the fire’.

Likewise, the London Gazette of 8 September, offering what it claimed was a ‘true account of the fire’ (indeed the publication has been described by Jenner 2017 as offering the official account of the fire to its 13,000-15,000 readers) described how a ‘violent Easterly wind formented [the fire], and kept it burning all day, and the night following, spreading itself up to Grace-church street and downwards from Cannon Street to the Waterside as far as the Three Cranes’. The movement up to Grace-Church and Cannon street is in a northerly direction relative to Pudding Lane while that to the Waterside is to the south.

In point of fact, if you look at the way that the fire had spread in the course of the second day , you will see that it affected areas to the east and north of its starting point in Pudding Lane, whereas you would expect an easterly wind to restrict its spread to areas to the west of the starting point.

 

[Sarkus]

Referring to your 9/11 nonsense, it isn't so much a conspiracy theory as just wilful stupidity.
But to take the issue of the ratio of dead to injured as a starter:
1. Why do you expect the dead to be taken to A&E?
2. Most of the victims were buried beneath a rather a large amount of building. True, some jumped, and they wouldn't have gone to A&E.

But, hey, if you look for your tv while staring into your fridge, I guess you'll somehow convince yourself you have no TV.

Seriously, this is not a conspiracy theory but asinine stupidity, nothing more, nothing less. And it rather insults the memory of the nearly 3,000 who died.

 

[billvon]

But just to say from now on I only wish to discuss my irrefutable facts and any other claims for irrefutable facts.

Great!

Chief of Surgery, NYU Downtown Hospital (140 beds as of 2004), Dr Howard Beaton said: "Some patients were very, very severely injured and three patients were actually brought in dead on arrival. … patients who had severe head injuries, … severe injuries to their chest, bleeding inside their chest, spinal cord fractures, fractures of the pelvis, bleeding internally, large soft tissue injuries with big burns, large amounts of tissue loss, muscle hanging out, limbs at all sorts of strange angles, it was really quite something to see. For someone who’s had no wartime experience, this, I suspect, is close to a battlefield as you’ll ever get. … We were then in a situation where we were told to expect a second wave … we restocked, we restaffed and then we just waited … it became Tuesday afternoon ... it became Wednesday morning, we were fully staffed and then the realisation that there were no more severely ill patients coming from the disaster site …"

This is because most of those 3000 people were incinerated or crushed and were not brought to the hospital.

This mirrors what my wife experienced as an orthopedic surgeon at U Mass/Worcester. Twice they were told to stand by for mass casualties after an apartment building fire and a warehouse fire/collapse. And even though the apartment fire killed 3 and injured 60 they only saw one admission from the fire. There were several other hospitals in the area where ambulances took fire victims.

In this case, NYU downtown (now called New York Presbyterian lower Manhattan) was on a street that was blocked by debris from the collapse - so most victims went to other hospitals.

There was, of course, no second wave because (almost) no one survived the collapse.

All the above are self-evident and irrefutable.

The alleged video of UA175 doesn't clearly show a plane that looks like a 767 but rather more like a simple "plane object": UA175 crashing into the South Tower - www.bitchute.com/video/Jv4zTStsZmtl

That video shows a 767 crashing into one of the Twin Towers. Irrefutable.

Crash physics is not obeyed - the plane glides into the building like a knife through butter - see film The Medusa Touch youtube.com/watch?v=xuhNR6lx97E where crash physics is obeyed better

That is a video from a movie, where a miniature aircraft was swung into a miniature building, and then exploded via special effects. Hollywood special effects have nothing to do with reality. That is irrefutable.

No aircraft parts identified as described by Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) - https://www.ff911truth.org/col-george-nelson

Of course. George Nelson was not there, so of course he did not identify any aircraft parts. And most of the people there did not see aircraft parts, since they were largely melted in the fire. Here are the parts that were found:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...11_-_FEMA_-_Areas_debris_impact_(graphic).png
A few pictures of the debris found:

Note that they are all fairly far from the site of the collapse, since both aircraft hit at high speed.

Thus we have irrefutable proof that aircraft components from both aircraft WERE found.

 

[exchemist]

Propaganda.

Drought and timber structures
What arguments do those who do not suspect any malfeasance use? Very often, they cite the fact that the summer had been hot and dry and, as one commentator put it, the ‘houses creaked with dry joints’. However, the combination of these two points do not immediately explain the extent of the fire since a major fire had occurred in 1633, also a time of drought (see weatherwebdotnet) but this fire destroyed no more than 122 buildings, 42 at the northern end of London Bridge and 80 on Thames Street. This figure that compares with the 300 buildings burned down in 1666 in the space of the first morning alone.

So, the conditions normally cited as causing the Great Fire (ie the hot weather and the timber frames of the buildings) cannot on their own explain the fiendish nature of the fire in 1666.

The wind
In reality, this was unlike other fires since all attempts to create firebreaks were in vain and the fire even leaped the river Fleet and the Thames down to Southwark. How could this be? Commentators past and present cite the strength of the wind blowing from the east with the British Library, for example, referencing ‘the dry weather and strong easterly wind’ as ‘creating the perfect conditions for the rapid spread of the fire’.

Likewise, the London Gazette of 8 September, offering what it claimed was a ‘true account of the fire’ (indeed the publication has been described by Jenner 2017 as offering the official account of the fire to its 13,000-15,000 readers) described how a ‘violent Easterly wind formented [the fire], and kept it burning all day, and the night following, spreading itself up to Grace-church street and downwards from Cannon Street to the Waterside as far as the Three Cranes’. The movement up to Grace-Church and Cannon street is in a northerly direction relative to Pudding Lane while that to the Waterside is to the south.

In point of fact, if you look at the way that the fire had spread in the course of the second day , you will see that it affected areas to the east and north of its starting point in Pudding Lane, whereas you would expect an easterly wind to restrict its spread to areas to the west of the starting point.

What ballocks. But I'll leave you to it, I think.

 

[Petra Liverani]

Referring to your 9/11 nonsense, it isn't so much a conspiracy theory as just wilful stupidity.
But to take the issue of the ratio of dead to injured as a starter:
1. Why do you expect the dead to be taken to A&E?
2. Most of the victims were buried beneath a rather a large amount of building. True, some jumped, and they wouldn't have gone to A&E.

But, hey, if you look for your tv while staring into your fridge, I guess you'll somehow convince yourself you have no TV.

Seriously, this is not a conspiracy theory but asinine stupidity, nothing more, nothing less. And it rather insults the memory of the nearly 3,000 who died.

If injuries were so severe we would expect some deaths from injuries a little worse but not necessarily buried - why would "severely injured, not buried" and "buried dead" be the only possibilities? But you aren't responding to all the anomalies and there is no clear evidence of people buried so all you've done is cherry-picked what seems to you a weak anomaly by offering an explanation for which there is zero clear evidence and left the other glaring anomalies alone such as empty ambulances and rescue vehicles parading past a trauma centre.

My irrefutable fact remains: There is no clear evidence of death or injury.

Gee is it so obvious that mind control propaganda works like an absolute dream. You simply cannot argue with people under mind control propaganda.

Just to add: they could have done a better job of faking death and injury but no need - in fact, they go the other way because the counterintuitive fact is that propaganda works better the less it corresponds to reality ... and gee is that a handy phenomenon for those in power. Oh my goodness does that work so very well for them.

 

[billvon]

My irrefutable fact remains: There is no clear evidence of death or injury..

Irrefutable evidence above.

 

[billvon]

Or better yet, why don't you tell this woman that there were no injuries on 9/11. I dare you.

 

[James R]

Petra:

Oh. You're still here. I thought you said you'd leave if I didn't try to defend the generally accepted narrative about the accounts of 9/11.

Well just to sum up, James what I did was I got much better acquainted with the propaganda strategy employed notably how the secondary propaganda stream targeted to the anticipated disbelievers of the story worked and also with "revelation of the method", which is the technique of deliberate giveaway which I will give an example of later in my post.

That took you four years of dedicated study, did it?

Did you get around to investigating any of the evidence in your four years of studying the events?

In psyops - generally only in the bigger ones I'd say - there's a phenomenon known as "controlled opposition" - massive in 9/11 - but we won't go there will we as you don't even believe in the phenomenon of psyops in the first place ...

You and I haven't discussed "psyops", so you don't know what I believe or don't believe about them, yet.

Understood that we will not be discussing "controlled opposition", whatever that is.

- it would be a totally pointless exercise - and no I didn't do a university course to learn about "controlled opposition" or "revelation of the method" ... because very unsurprisingly none such course exists. LOL. They don't teach you how propaganda works at school or in university, James, for very, very obvious reasons.

Whether they teach you about how propaganda works really depends on what course you do at university.

It sounds to me like "psyops" and "controlled opposition" and "revelation of the method" are all ad hoc excuses used by conspiracy theories to explain away inconvenient data, or to explain the absence of evidence of any actual conspiracy.

Like I said, conspiracy theories have lots of self-protection mechanisms built in. It's a shame you didn't study how conspiracy theories work and why you shouldn't just fall for them. There are lots of university courses that could have taught you actual critical thinking.

But just to say from now on I only wish to discuss my irrefutable facts and any other claims for irrefutable facts.

Well, maybe you'll get to some of those at some stage. As far as I can see, so far you've only brought bizarre claims and interpretations of side-issue facts (if they even are facts). Virtually all of your alleged "facts", so far, have been controversial, or at least debateable, rather than irrefutable.

One of my irrefutable facts
....
Here we see the phenomenon referred to above, "revelation of the method" in that what the doctor says doesn't make sense.

• If 3,000 people died then to speak of 3 patients "actually brought in dead on arrival" as if it was quite something makes no sense. Nor does only 3 dead people make sense either, surely more dead people would have been brought in. If 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured why would there be an overwhelming ratio of injured to dead?
• They were told to expect a "second wave". Why a "second wave"? Wouldn't one expect a steady stream but the indication is that there was neither a steady stream nor a second wave. Seemingly, people were only brought into the hospital on Tuesday morning. If that makes sense to you then there's no argument I can make here.
• There are gory descriptions of injury and yet in the images we see of the injured none of this is indicated, all the images of alleged injured are perfectly consistent with people participating in a drill - shorturl.at/syEPR

It looks like, in your 4 year investigation, you didn't bother to check: where this particular hospital was; in which section of the hospital this doctor was working; the timeline of events on 9/11; the number of people who were instantly killed in the building collapses, as opposed to seriously injured by alive; when the dead were recoved from the building wreckage. Nor did you consider simple and obvious alternative explanations for, for example, why few people in hospitals would have had time to take selfies with the badly injured people they needed to treat.

For somebody who said at the start that she always tries to come up with reasons why her preferred hypothesis might be wrong, you seem to have done an appalling bad job of it.

Irrefutable fact: there is zero convincing evidence of injury or death.

What happened to the missing 3000+ people, then?

One of your refuted claims
We know that two aircraft crashed into the World Trade Centre in New York

How this claim is refuted:

• The alleged video of UA175 doesn't clearly show a plane that looks like a 767 but rather more like a simple "plane object"

Yes it does.

Crash physics is not obeyed

Yes it is.

Tell me what you did to investigate the physics of the collisions of planes with buildings - and particularly with a building designed as the WTC towers were. How much of your 4 years of investigation did you spend learning physics?

No aircraft parts identified as described by Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret)

How do account for the images of aircraft parts, posted above? Planted? Psyop? "Revelation of the method"? I'm sure you can explain them away with a ready excuse.

Why should I care what Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force failed to identify?

 

[Petra Liverani]

What ballocks. But I'll leave you to it, I think.

I guess the level of your "refutation" says it all, doesn't it? Professor Gloria Moss who's consulted the weather records, etc vs exchemist, who's just grabbed the first bit of propaganda he can find.
https://off-guardian.org/2019/09/01/the-great-fire-of-london-cui-bono/

Yes, leave it to me exchemist I know who I'll choose.

 

[Petra Liverani]

I cannot respond to the deluge of responses but just to make clear what doesn't refute an irrefutable fact:

1. Purported evidence of itself - purported evidence of itself doesn't refute a fact because the purported evidence might be fake and therefore could fit both "real" and "fake" hypotheses. An image of a purportedly dead or injured person isn't irrefutable evidence unless we can see clear favouring of it being of a real scene over fakery.

2. An alternative explanation - one can grab an "alternative explanation" from the propaganda literature, from thin air or from whichever of one's orifices one chooses to grab it but unless the "alternative explanation", eg, "incinerated" has clear evidence of it is not just "purported evidence" or is part of the "story" it doesn't refute an irrefutable fact.

3. Why I know my fact is irrefutable - from studying numerous psyops I know that they are meticulous in their execution. They NEVER fake anything so well that anyone who believes their story can brandish it in defence of it. They are METICULOUS. They have a rule and boy do they stick to it ... but then why wouldn't they? It works like a charm. They could fake more convincing dead bodies - why, they could even use REAL dead bodies from the morgue where the deaths had another cause ... but they don't cheat like that. We have to give to them, they never cheat ... but then they don't have to. If enough people caught on, they'd have to change their MO but it's always only a small percentage who do.

Another point: I can't seem to find the comment now but I'm sure I spied a comment challenging me to tell someone to their face that injuries were faked. If anyone cares to supply me with contact details for anyone involved in 9/11 and your own I will email you both with my claims. In response to a similar challenge elsewhere, I did, in fact, email Italian MP, Paolo Bolognesi, President of the Relatives of the Victims of the 1980 Bologna Station bombing, and said to him that the evidence suggested the event was in reality an evacuated bombing in the form of a drill [similar to 9/11] asking for a response to that claim. No response. I've challenged a few people on these events - not necessarily about fake deaths but about elements of fakery of one kind or another and in a couple of cases I've got responses that clearly validated my claims - I don't mean that the responses admitted anything, of course, but it was easy to infer from the tone of the response and in any case it makes no difference what the response was, the evidence spoke for itself.

What those under mind control propaganda must swallow:

• That the US suffered catastrophic failure of its multi-trillion dollar intelligence and military infrastructure four times in one morning at the hands of 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters including the penetration by a passenger airliner of Defence HQ piloted by a crybaby Top Gun.
• That a sane and reasonable response to a question about impairment of the military's ability to respond to the alleged attacks was that it it "did not impair ... response ... it enhanced our ability."
• That on a day where allegedly 3,000 people died and 6,000 people were injured ambulances and rescue vehicles parade past trauma centres empty.
• And on and on and on and on and on.

Before the ripe old age of 53 I must admit I swallowed all these lies but the swallowing was never with any great enthusiasm - I knew manipulation was involved and if someone had sat me down and explained it all, rather than wildly batting to defend the lies of those in power screwing us over so mercilessly and laughing their heads off while they're about it, I would've considered what was told me sagely and realised that the evidence supported everything that was being told to me.

I'm glad I don't swallow all their lies now although it does tend to alienate me from friends and family.

 

[exchemist]

I guess the level of your "refutation" says it all, doesn't it? Professor Gloria Moss who's consulted the weather records, etc vs exchemist, who's just grabbed the first bit of propaganda he can find.
https://off-guardian.org/2019/09/01/the-great-fire-of-london-cui-bono/

Yes, leave it to me exchemist I know who I'll choose.

You chose the path of ballocks long ago. That's why I'm not wasting more time on you.

 

[James R]

How many conspiracy theories do you believe, in total, Petra? I'm interested to know.

Have you spent 4 years on the JFK assassination? Was Oswald a lone gunman, or did the Illuminati kill JFK?

How many years did you spend studying the Great Fire of London?

Did NASA land astronauts on the moon, or was that a conspiracy too?

 

[Sarkus]

Please can we cesspool this thread. It is honestly grossly insulting to anyone who either witnessed it, lost someone to it, or knew someone involved, from victims in the tower to the remarkable job of the responders.

Conspiracy theories are in and of themselves not too much of an issue, and most around 9/11 involve who orchestrated it, whether buildings were deliberately demolished from the ground, and other matters around the event, not whether it actually happened or not, not whether nearly 3,000 people died, and many more injured and scarred, physically and mentally, for life.

Further, it is clear the OP is delusional. One only needed to watch the incident on the news, or all over the internet, from multiple sources, to know that it happened, that planes crashed into the building, that a large number of people died. To deny it, as the OP is doing, is genuinely delusional, and we at Sciforums should not be facilitating such behaviour, even before considering its abhorrent positioning.

I would hope this thread, in just 4 pages, has sufficiently educated as to the delusional nature of the OP, that it need not be kept open any longer.

 

[James R]

Petra:

I cannot respond to the deluge of responses ...

Indeed. Your house of straw is showing a considerable lack of structural integrity, after even minimal probing.

but just to make clear what doesn't refute an irrefutable fact:

1. Purported evidence of itself - purported evidence of itself doesn't refute a fact because the purported evidence might be fake and therefore could fit both "real" and "fake" hypotheses. An image of a purportedly dead or injured person isn't irrefutable evidence unless we can see clear favouring of it being of a real scene over fakery.

In principle, I suppose it's theoretically possible to fake just about any piece of evidence. Is this your get-out-of-jail-free card, that you want to play to explain away all inconvenient evidence? This is what conspiracy theories typically do. You're just following the standard playbook.

But there's another problem. How do you ever hope to show that your conspiracy explanation for 9/11 (whatever it is) is correct? How can you be sure that any evidence for the conspiracy that you might gather isn't faked? By your own words, you can't.

What you've just done is to throw away the idea that any evidence can be "irrefutable", because you've just given us a reason to distrust everything - including everything you have to say about supposed conspiracies.

Hoisted on your own petard.

There's no point in your attempting to present any "evidence" you feel supports your theory, from here on. Neither you nor I can be confident that your evidence isn't faked (according to you).

2. An alternative explanation - one can grab an "alternative explanation" from the propaganda literature, from thin air or from whichever of one's orifices one chooses to grab it but unless the "alternative explanation", eg, "incinerated" has clear evidence of it is not just "purported evidence" or is part of the "story" it doesn't refute an irrefutable fact.

"Clear evidence" refutes irrefutable facts, now? Not so irrefutable after all, then.

3. Why I know my fact is irrefutable - from studying numerous psyops I know that they are meticulous in their execution. They NEVER fake anything so well that anyone who believes their story can brandish it in defence of it. They are METICULOUS. They have a rule and boy do they stick to it ... but then why wouldn't they? It works like a charm. They could fake more convincing dead bodies - why, they could even use REAL dead bodies from the morgue where the deaths had another cause ... but they don't cheat like that. We have to give to them, they never cheat ... but then they don't have to. If enough people caught on, they'd have to change their MO but it's always only a small percentage who do.

Intriguing.

Who is this "they" you keep referring to?

Also, if "they" are so good at faking everything and so on and so forth, how is it that you know all the things you just wrote about "them" and their methods? Are you an especially gifted investigator who always uncovers the truth about things - even super-secret conspiracies? It's like having a superpower. Wow!

Another point: I can't seem to find the comment now but I'm sure I spied a comment challenging me to tell someone to their face that injuries were faked. If anyone cares to supply me with contact details for anyone involved in 9/11 and your own I will email you both with my claims.

In your fantasy land, I'm confident that all of this seems like an academic exercise to you, where you get to play around with what's true and invent complex "alternative facts" to suit yourself. But real people died in 9/11. Real people with real families.

It is despicable that you would presume to intrude on the grief of other people's families with your made-up stories and your completely disconnected understanding of the relevant events. Have you no sense of decency?

In response to a similar challenge elsewhere, I did, in fact, email Italian MP, Paolo Bolognesi, President of the Relatives of the Victims of the 1980 Bologna Station bombing, and said to him that the evidence suggested the event was in reality an evacuated bombing in the form of a drill [similar to 9/11] asking for a response to that claim. No response.

What did you expect? Unsolicited communications about unevidence conspiracies get automatically filed in under "nutcase". Italian MPs have real jobs to do. Also: have you no shame at all - trying to communicate to relatives of victims to tell them that their dead or injured relatives aren't even real people? What's wrong with you?

I've challenged a few people on these events - not necessarily about fake deaths but about elements of fakery of one kind or another and in a couple of cases I've got responses that clearly validated my claims - I don't mean that the responses admitted anything, of course, but it was easy to infer from the tone of the response and in any case it makes no difference what the response was, the evidence spoke for itself.

Ah yes. Another self-defense mechanism of the conspiracy theory. When evidence is lacking, read whatever you like into the "tone", to make it fit the theory.

All that nonsense from you about your "method", at the start of this thread, was just a gentle lead-in, before you started to hit us with your full reality disconnect, wasn't it? You clearly have no idea what it means to think critically.

What those under mind control propaganda must swallow:

• That the US suffered catastrophic failure of its multi-trillion dollar intelligence and military infrastructure four times in one morning at the hands of 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters including the penetration by a passenger airliner of Defence HQ piloted by a crybaby Top Gun.

Have you read the official reports that explain what the military did on that morning, etc.?

There's a lesson here, which I'm 99% sure you'll ignore: never put down to conspiracy what can be explained by simple incompetence or human error.

• That on a day where allegedly 3,000 people died and 6,000 people were injured ambulances and rescue vehicles parade past trauma centres empty.

Dead people who are buried under rubble don't usually arrive in the emergency departments of hospitals. Come on. Think for yourself, for a change. You're brainwashed.

Before the ripe old age of 53 I must admit I swallowed all these lies but the swallowing was never with any great enthusiasm - I knew manipulation was involved and if someone had sat me down and explained it all, rather than wildly batting to defend the lies of those in power screwing us over so mercilessly and laughing their heads off while they're about it, I would've considered what was told me sagely and realised that the evidence supported everything that was being told to me.

And guess what? That's what happened to you! Some internet conspiracy theories explained it all to you, and it now all makes perfect sense to you. You didn't even have to do anything much, except listen to the people who were telling you all this stuff. Easy Enlightenment. Who'd have thought getting to the Truth would only require one to stop believing in what experts and officials say about things?

I'm glad I don't swallow all their lies now although it does tend to alienate me from friends and family.

Has it occurred to you that if your family and friends think you're wrong, that - just maybe - they could be right and you could be wrong? Or does your affinity with other conspiracy theorists give you the armor necessary to defend yourself against all reason?

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

I posted the above post before I saw yours. On this, I'm inclined to agree with you.

Petra's apparent inability to connect the events of 9/11 with real people and real hurt makes her posts offensive in the extreme.

If she was just fixated on 9/11, I might suspect that she had some personal connection to those events, such that her delusions might be her way of trying to cope. But after hearing about the Great Fire of London conspiracy, I think that Petra sees all this stuff as like a game of imagination, in which real people can't get hurt.

Either way, there seems little point in engaging with the details of her delusions, and there are good reasons not to let her continue to behave shamefully towards relatives and survivors.

I'm willing to allow Petra one more post, to try to redeem herself, and to respond to the most recent comments - possibly against my better judgment, but we'll see how it goes.

 

[exchemist]

Sarkus:

I posted the above post before I saw yours. On this, I'm inclined to agree with you.

Petra's apparent inability to connect the events of 9/11 with real people and real hurt makes her posts offensive in the extreme.

If she was just fixated on 9/11, I might suspect that she had some personal connection to those events, such that her delusions might be her way of trying to cope. But after hearing about the Great Fire of London conspiracy, I think that Petra sees all this stuff as like a game of imagination, in which real people can't get hurt.

Either way, there seems little point in engaging with the details of her delusions, and there are good reasons not to let her continue to behave shamefully towards relatives and survivors.

I'm willing to allow Petra one more post, to try to redeem herself, and to respond to the most recent comments - possibly against my better judgment, but we'll see how it goes.

I'm wondering if this is verging on the medical, to be honest. The bit about alienation from family and friends does not sound good at all.

But I also agree with Sarkus about the bad taste. "Petra" probably thinks the Sandy Hook bloodbath didn't occur either. Textbook case of the mad conspiracist mindset. There was an interesting article about that in Psychology Today. But I think I'll start a new thread for it rather than posting here, since this thread seems to be about to go down the plughole.

 

[James R]

I'm wondering if this is verging on the medical, to be honest. The bit about alienation from family and friends does not sound good at all.

Alienation from family and friends tends to happen with all forms of radicalisation. People give up trying to talk sense into the radicalised person. It can be very difficult to "deprogramme" somebody who has gone down the path of becoming radicalised, especially because the radicalisation itself makes them almost immune to reason.

But I also agree with Sarkus about the bad taste. "Petra" probably thinks the Sandy Hook bloodbath didn't occur either.

Maybe. Some of her comments hint at a similar mindset to some of the people who stalked parents of Sandy Hook victims. It's a worry. It's one thing to fantasise on a discussion forum, but to literally reach out and try to contact the relatives of victims is a whole other level of psycopathy.

Textbook case of the mad conspiracist mindset. There was an interesting article about that in Psychology Today. But I think I'll start a new thread for it rather than posting here, since this thread seems to be about to go down the plughole.

Good idea. I'm interested in hearing about the article.

 

[exchemist]

Alienation from family and friends tends to happen with all forms of radicalisation. People give up trying to talk sense into the radicalised person. It can be very difficult to "deprogramme" somebody who has gone down the path of becoming radicalised, especially because the radicalisation itself makes them almost immune to reason.

Maybe. Some of her comments hint at a similar mindset to some of the people who stalked parents of Sandy Hook victims. It's a worry. It's one thing to fantasise on a discussion forum, but to literally reach out and try to contact the relatives of victims is a whole other level of psycopathy.

Good idea. I'm interested in hearing about the article.

I've just posted it.