foghorn
Valued Senior Member
You got that from just the OP?
At least I checked her out before my first post on this thread.
I did my best to warn folks, but some wanted to go on with it:
9/11: are there a few irrefutable facts that prove what kind of event it was?
- Thread starter Petra Liverani
- Start date
- Status
At least I checked her out before my first post on this thread.
I did my best to warn folks, but some wanted to go on with it:
Opening Poster... i.e. the one who started this thread, not the Opening Post itself. My bad if I've used "OP" wrongly, but since a post can't be delusional while a person can be, I thought it obvious I meant the poster rather than the post.
And no, I didn't get it from the opening post, but from what else followed.
I did. I don't judge people by what they post elsewhere, unless they bring it here themselves via links etc. And I stand by that approach.
I think she is delusional about the Moon landing
What will she make of next landing coming to one and all next year? Scheduled for November 2024
O. W. Grant
Registered Senior Member
conspiracy (n.)
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=conspiracy
===
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=conspiracy
===
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
My first post on this thread contained one of Petra’s tweets. So, are you saying if any of Trumps tweets or ‘postings’ elsewhere on the web, come up for discussion on this forum, you will not be giving your view / opintion of Thrump’s tweet / posting?
Petra Liverani
Registered Member
Rather than me put forward what I think is evidence that distinguishes Sandy Hook as a drill, can I ask people to put forward what they believe distinguishes Sandy Hook as a real event from a drill?
I make the point that it must be evidence that distinguishes it as a real event. People have put forward images they claim are clear evidence of death and injury for 9/11 but in a drill we see images that suggest injury and death so images that represent injury and death do not of themselves distinguish an event as being real from fake. For Sandy Hook please put forward something that isn't consistent with a drill and would only happen in a real event. If you cannot find anything but you think the event was real anyway please put why you think it was real and not a drill.
Also, I make the point I have absolutely zero respect for the taboos around death. Taboos are something that those in power exploit to silence us so as someone who wants to expose how they rule us I cannot afford to respect taboos. But in any case I quite honestly don't really understand the taboos around death. These days no one says someone "dies" any more they say they "pass away" even if their death was by suicide or some other way that in no way seems to suggest "passing away". I find it ridiculous. However, I don't contact people to tell them their children or loved didn't die as normal practice. I wouldn't normally waste my time but if someone is going to challenge me to do it, I will.
I make the point that it must be evidence that distinguishes it as a real event. People have put forward images they claim are clear evidence of death and injury for 9/11 but in a drill we see images that suggest injury and death so images that represent injury and death do not of themselves distinguish an event as being real from fake. For Sandy Hook please put forward something that isn't consistent with a drill and would only happen in a real event. If you cannot find anything but you think the event was real anyway please put why you think it was real and not a drill.
Also, I make the point I have absolutely zero respect for the taboos around death. Taboos are something that those in power exploit to silence us so as someone who wants to expose how they rule us I cannot afford to respect taboos. But in any case I quite honestly don't really understand the taboos around death. These days no one says someone "dies" any more they say they "pass away" even if their death was by suicide or some other way that in no way seems to suggest "passing away". I find it ridiculous. However, I don't contact people to tell them their children or loved didn't die as normal practice. I wouldn't normally waste my time but if someone is going to challenge me to do it, I will.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Last edited:
For me, it is knowing one of the families at that school. (Fortunately their child survived.)
At a higher level, there have been court cases for defamation against people who claimed it was a drill. They lost. That means they could not provide any evidence at all that it was a drill. In fact, during the lawsuit, it was revealed that the conspiracy theorist KNEW his claims were false, but presented them in an attempt to make money from a gullible public.
That's why conspiracy theorists like yourself tend to fail. Eventually you run into someone who has direct experience with the issue. And even in the days of people basically living in their phones, most people will still believe their eyes and ears over the latest social media conspiracy theory.
[QUOTE="Petra Liverani, post: 3713096, member: 291530"However, I don't contact people to tell them their children or loved didn't die as normal practice. I wouldn't normally waste my time but if someone is going to challenge me to do it, I will.[/QUOTE]
I encourage you to do so. You may not like the pain they inflict upon you, nor the lawsuit that might result (and that you will lose.) While such experiences will be short-term negative experience for you, they may have the longer term benefit of freeing your mind from its current cage.
I encourage you to do so. You may not like the pain they inflict upon you, nor the lawsuit that might result (and that you will lose.) While such experiences will be short-term negative experience for you, they may have the longer term benefit of freeing your mind from its current cage.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You are asking to set aside one of the basic premises of debate: that the onus is on the claimant (that's you) to make their case.
If your exception were granted it immediately opens up a Pandora's box of problems. Any wild theory can be posited - and each time the conspiracist can require others to make their case first. For example:
I posit that the whole thing (drill or actual shooting) was an event that took place in the Matrix. I need not put forth any evidence that it might have occurred in the Matrix - certainly not until you gather and present your evidence that it occurred in the real world.
Now I posit that it was actually an hallucination that you had and are continuing to have, including people you think you are interacting with. You are in fact in a coma. I don't have to put forth any evidence that you are in a coma, certainly not before you gather and present your evidence that you are not.
Do you see the problem? We now have multiple perfectly valid theories - and they can continue multiply without limit, each one demanding they be disproven before any evidence is put forth that supports them.
No. The only sane approach is that the onus lies with any competing theory to make its own case first.
And if that's not enough, consider you are asking the rest of the world to do work to support your argument. That's lazy and disingenuous. It's your theory, you do the work.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yeah, it's the same old trope: "Prove me wrong!"
The cry of the crank, down the ages.
It depends on the nature of the thread, to be honest. And Trump is very much a public figure, whereas I had never heard of this particular poster before. As such I'm not going to prejudge based on a post that someone else drags in from elsewhere. As it is, they've now fully confirmed their delusional nature and rather distasteful line of thinking, but that doesn't mean I'll be changing my approach.My first post on this thread contained one of Petra’s tweets. So, are you saying if any of Trumps tweets or ‘postings’ elsewhere on the web, come up for discussion on this forum, you will not be giving your view / opintion of Thrump’s tweet / posting?
What a stupid request. The idea of a drill is to make it as realistic as possible. When I was a Medic in the RAAF we held frequent drills for crashed aircraft
Only two came close to being real
We had recently obtained the F111. The squad was to take a few across to NZ to let their airforce look at them
One blew both rear tyres on take off. Pilot was instructed to fly out to a clear area of sea and jettison both long range fuel tanks
Back on base we prepared our sick bay for one possible patient and I was assigned to standby the runway with ambulance
Firecrew also stood by runway and just before landing a layer of foam placed on runway
Pilot made great landing in the foam on the rims of the wheels
Second was a flame out and we prepared our sick bay and had ambulance just on standby since we had no idea where crash site would be
The pilot called in they would try to make base. Shortly after another call "Won't make base but see a dirt strip. Going for that"
Put the F111 down on a very short dirt strip normally used light aircraft only
So we had two real emergencies which turned into excellent training drills
9/11 was no training drill
In police reports you get " Died single gunshot wound. No suspect being looked for"
The reason some phrases are used is to tone down others thoughts about it being a way of solving problems
:/
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Who's forcing you to read my posts?
Petra Liverani
Registered Member
Yes, and that's why we know so easily that Sandy Hook was a psyop drill and not a "genuine" drill as it were - they massively underdid it on the realism front with that one. Quite hilarious.
Foghorn has put forward as evidence the Alex Jones trial. Putting forward the trial as evidence is a bit like the argument, "If we'd gone to the moon, we would have gone again." (The one event I recognise as real is the astonishing achievement of the moon landings.) Whatever happens (or doesn't happen) after an event cannot act as evidence against the clear evidence of what happened at the time of the event. The evidence shows astronauts landed on the moon - end of, nobody has to go again to prove it. The evidence also shows that Sandy Hook was a drill - end of. The only explanation I can give for Alex Jones is that he has either been blackmailed or is a "controlled opposition" agent - whatever, the trial is a show trial and cannot disprove the evidence of a drill.
Thousands of people don't swallow Sandy Hook. I mean, really, you think we're all so crazy that we would deny the deaths of 20 innocent little children if the evidence wasn't abundantly clear? From reading comments on the internet I see people who don't strike me as particularly conspiracy-minded but are just parents of young children themselves who see in the way the alleged parents act that they are not behaving - any single one of them (please don't use the lame line that "people show grief in different ways") - like parents of children who've just died. If you insist on using the lame line "people show grief in different ways" that still leaves you with the situation that you don't have any evidence FAVOURING real event over drill. Sure, people can show grief in different ways but obviously not showing grief in any convincing manner means you have nothing to brandish in favour of real event.
Psyop drills are slightly different from normal drills as obviously with psyop drills they put them forward as being real events, aka "live exercises" but even "live exercise" doesn't quite cover it when it's a psyop drill. Psyop drills have very distinctive characteristics namely that they always give them away with very clear clues such that there is no way that anyone who is propagandised into believing them can actually brandish a piece of evidence that clearly distinguishes the events as real events from drills. So when you claim that 9/11 was no training drill this is just an empty claim as there is simply no evidence inconsistent with a drill that has been presented. Obviously, it wasn't "just" a drill as a simple drill would never involve destroying an entire area of important high rise steel frame buildings. Nevertheless we see typical signs of a drill - images of the alleged dead and injured are perfectly consistent with a drill while the images of the injured are completely inconsistent with the description we hear from the chief surgeon at NYU Downtown Hospital, for example. Empty ambulances and rescue vehicles parading past a trauma centre set up to deal with the injured obviously is totally consistent with a psyop drill and completely inconsistent with our expectations of a real event.
Moreover, as the basic narrative falls over at every step along the way - catastrophic failure of the world's mightiest military and intelligence infrastructure four times in one morning including penetration of Defence HQ by a passenger airliner piloted by an alleged crybaby Top Gun, zero squawking by any of the eight pilots, imagery of planes melting into buildings and on and on and on giving away the fact that obviously rogue elements within the US government and their many, many collaborators were responsible for 9/11 we wouldn't expect them to be killing and injuring people for real in such a situation. They need professionals to demolish the buildings and professionals aren't going to agree to fully evacuate some buildings (4, 5, 6 and 7) but only partially evacuate others (1, 2 and 3) and besides it's a psyop! They didn't WANT to kill and injure people, they only wanted us to believe it in order to instill terror and fear in us in order to better control us. They've been doing it for millennia and why people argue against the clear evidence over and over, how they can be so utterly indoctrinated I do find difficult to understand.
I await with interest any evidence for 9/11 or Sandy Hook that clearly distinguishes real event from drill.
Last edited:
Petra Liverani
Registered Member
My apologies, I misunderstood your point. It seems you're saying that as a drill is done as realistically as possible if Sandy Hook were a drill as opposed to a real event we wouldn't be able to tell the difference, therefore it is incumbent on me to show it was a drill not incumbent on those claiming it was real to prove it was real. Hmmm, that makes for a very weird world I must say, I'd hate to think they could pull off drills so realistically that they're indistinguishable from real events. As I say though they make it obvious, however, if we're going with the cannot-tell-drill-from-real hypothesis how do you argue for real then? If there's no clear evidence one way or the other aren't we obliged to sit back and say, "Can't tell if real or drill as they're indistinguishable"?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No.
It is true that a drill is as real as possible so it provides the best simulation as possible.
But it is critical that everybody involved knows it's a drill. So there's no question about that.
It would be criminally irresponsible to stage a drill involving supposedly injured innocent people and not tell everyone involved. Imagine if some first responder decided there was, say, too much blood loss and amputated a limb to save the patient. There are a million ways someone - anyone - could think they are doing the right thing but end up actually injuring (or worse) someone.
Thus, if Sandy Hook were somehow a drill, every one - Ev.Ree.One. would have known it.
Petra Liverani
Registered Member
Billvon, knowing people doesn't mean anything, OK? I know someone who knew an insurance agent who allegedly died in one of the towers. I know a little girl who was in the same class as a little boy who allegedly died in another staged event (the Barcelona van rampage). I also know people connected to other events. People knowing people involved in these events doesn't make them real and some of the people seemingly involved may well be completely unwitting. I'm sure loads of agency staff involved in 9/11 thought it was all real. Propaganda works right at the scene. It has amazingly magical qualities. The families you know may well have thought it was real, I don't know how involved they were - perhaps you'd care to divulge. Your earlier claim about connection to AA11 was pretty lame I must say.
When you don't recognise the phenomenon of "psyop" then presumably you won't also accept the phenomenon of "show trial". If they're fabricating psyops why would the fabrication be limited to the actual event? - they carry on the psyop lie for years and years and years - centuries in fact - with all manner of nonsense. As I said, what happens (or doesn't happen) later cannot NULLIFY the evidence. It makes absolutely no difference what happens after an event for which the evidence is clear - the moon landings were clearly real (not going again means nothing), Sandy Hook was a drill (trial later means nothing).
Petra Liverani
Registered Member
Presumably, I don't know how they do it. We can only speculate.
What I'd like is some clear evidence that distinguishes Sandy Hook and 9/11 as real events over drill. Please do not keep arguing about this that and the other without the clear evidence. Where is the evidence?
- Status