Nagging logic question
0 2016-09-27 by Inlerah
Can someone explain to me why every "false flag" conspiracy seems less like the government was trying to make "an attack" and like they had to shoehorn it to that specific attack? 9/11 truthers for instance: if they couldn't get actual planes for the attacks (missile theory/hologram theory) or planes crashing into the buildings wouldn't actually bring them down (controlled demo, missile, memetic references to jet fuel) then why would they choose to do a scenario that involved planes flying into buildings? Would it not be much easier to figure out a "plausible" method of terrorism that they could actually do then go through all these roundabout fabrications that, apparently, anyone with the power of 2000's Internet and photoshop could figure out?
25 comments
4 SadMemberBerries 2016-09-27
How else could they have symbolically brought down Jachin and Boaz and still made it look like terrorist outsiders?
It's this blatantly false official story that leads to the "touching the monolith" reading of the event. It was supposed to cause an awakening, but it didn't. Not for everyone. They even brought down building 7 - and announced it 20 minutes early - and your average fluoride-addled moron still can't figure it out.
-1 Inlerah 2016-09-27
If you're planning this whole thing why even take down WTC7? It's not like it really factors into the events all that much in the grand scheme of things. I know feeling smarter than everyone else is fun, but your excuse for what would be lazy story writing shouldn't be the same as Tommy Wiseau's.
0 SadMemberBerries 2016-09-27
It's a calling card. They seem to numerically encode the number 7 into most false flag attacks. The entire World Trade Center complex was wiped out that day, yet all the (controlled) opposition harp on about is "building 7". This is on purpose.
It's more likely that they need our permission to abuse us than they are bad storytellers. Like how Dracula needs to be invited in to do his dirty work, these wolves howl to signal their intentions and the sheep are still like 'oh, must be the wind'.
1 Inlerah 2016-09-27
"They need our permission to abuse us"
Do you know what's different between the government and a vampire? Vampires are fake so, because of their made up quality, they get to have bullshit rules like "they can only come into your house if you give them permission".
The government, on the other hand, Is pretty real. Because of this realness they are under no obligation to give you clues that they did something. I don't know if you know this but having to do certain things as a "calling card" kinda destroys any stealth or covertness that you need when planning to illegally start a war.
And I'm sure you have a marvelously entertaining answer, but who exactly is enforcing this "ask permission/you have to work in 7" criteria?
0 SadMemberBerries 2016-09-27
The (chosen) people to whom the government take an oath of allegiance ritualistically suck the blood of baby dicks. Vampires, in one sense, are real. Another definition is "a person who ruthlessly preys on others". Again, quite real.
And while you mock the idea of a government "seeking permission" (ahem, "democracy"?), they evidently do. They always announce escalations and intentions of hostilities, and most recently in the case of the Syrian sarin false flag, the people said "no".
The Emperor has no clothes.
1 Inlerah 2016-09-27
Yep...it's obviously a religious cult that made them use planes and collapse WTC7. Why didn't I see it before.
You mistaking correlation for causation doesn't mean any bad thing to happen is an "announcement" or "seeking permission".
2 Arstas 2016-09-27
You assume that the people that come up with these "False Flag" scenarios are smart.
1 TistDaniel 2016-09-27
Know what happens when people underestimate the intelligence of their enemies?
2 Inlerah 2016-09-27
We're not estimating the intelligence of the government, we're talking about you...
1 cucklordsupreme 2016-09-27
The simplest answer to your question would be that the creation of various smoke and mirrors are taken to serve as a red herring, to draw attention away and cover up the actual method and illegal activity.
Or, perhaps, shield the public from the utilization of undisclosed weaponry.
That being said, I applaud you for both thinking critically and never having wondered "If I were to commit the biggest crime in decades, how would I go about pinning it on a someone else and hiding the murder weapon?"
Then again, maybe you just suck at chess.
1 Inlerah 2016-09-27
I'm seeing this like if I used C4 to fake a house fire: why go through all that trouble, and not have it "look right", when I can just as easily light a match and torch the place?
-1 Putin_loves_cats 2016-09-27
The more fantastic the lie, the more likely it will be believed. Also, they were able to link a Pearl Harbor reference. Bernays, propaganda/marketing.
2 Inlerah 2016-09-27
Yep, that's what I'm thinking about when I'm planning my theory: take all the steps to make cool historical references.
-1 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-27
Excellent question. It doesn't seem to make sense, does it?
Let's rephrase it then in terms of what has happened since 9/11, and suppose that the outcome was the desired effect.
Why massively grow a subculture of skeptics (particularly towards gov and industry)? Why expose the foundations of corruption at every layer of society across every industry? Why expose the disaster of the electoral process for everyone to see in a way in which it cannot be denied? Why expose the police corruption? Why expose the false enemies (eg. ISIS)? Why get us in wars nobody wants using lies nobody believes?
2 Inlerah 2016-09-27
Because I'm sure, 15 years ago, "they" were trying to think of a way to create a more aware, intune society and they decided the best way to do this: massive terrorist attack.
...or "they" could've just worked to be less dickish and actually a "better" government, that could've also been a good move.
-1 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-27
Hermetic principles would indicate a kinda Newton's 3rd law-ish dynamic - to resonantly achieve one thing you have to "gong!" the opposite. I'm not an alchemist, they would know exactly the deal.
2 Inlerah 2016-09-27
And I'd hardly say "9/11 was a terrorist attack" is a "lie nobody believes"
-1 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-27
Strawman. I didn't say that. I didn't provide examples, specifically.
2 Inlerah 2016-09-27
"Why get us into wars nobody wants with lies nobody believes"
Given the discussion that was going on I'd hardly call assuming what you meant from context to be a "strawmen".
0 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-27
There are plenty of wars we've engaged in post 9/11 that the majority of people didn't want. I'm not sure what your criticism of this fact is.
Also your statement doesn't really make sense in terms of what I was saying. You wrote: ""9/11 was a terrorist attack" is a "lie nobody believes"". My statement was about getting into wars nobody wants for lies nobody believes. For your statement to relate to what I wrote in a meaningful way you'd have to be saying that 9/11 was the war nobody wanted. Perhaps you could clarify what you are trying to communicate.
2 Inlerah 2016-09-27
Because we were talking specifically about "what happened since 9/11": in your own words. Have we gotten into more than 1 war since: yes. But is there one specifically that a meaningful chunk of the population didn't like and think was based on less than truthful information?
I was merely working off of context: if you meant something else I'm sorry for assuming.
1 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-27
I'm not sure it really matters. The general idea I'm proposing is erosion.
2 Inlerah 2016-09-27
So the government set up a conspiracy...to make people distrust the government?
1 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-27
i'm not suggesting this specific explanation is correct, over any of the other arrangements within the realm of possibility, although if it were true it would be funny as shit.
my general model implicitly assumes there is a cause to the effects we're seeing. i don't say who. this is speculative.
-1 Sabremesh 2016-09-27
It's about control: creating a matrix of lies that is so pervasive and so complex that most people cannot recognise truth anymore.
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8c30905fda12797f56e37799e3008a32-c?convert_to_webp=true
-1 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-27
Hermetic principles would indicate a kinda Newton's 3rd law-ish dynamic - to resonantly achieve one thing you have to "gong!" the opposite. I'm not an alchemist, they would know exactly the deal.