"just 3-4% know what is a "false flage operation"."

metamars

Graduate Poster
M
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
1,207
Daniel Ganser, author of NATO's Secret Armies, has interviews linked to here, where he spends some time discussing 911.


Although I don't know where Ganser gets this figure from, it seems wholly credible, and if that's the case, it just goes to show you how much work needs to be done to reverse the 'brain washing' - i.e., internalized belief systems and frames that have been deliberately inflicted on the masses - to achieve an honest government. (Honest governments don't murder their own citizens, nor allow them to be murdered, nor do they kill hundreds of thousands of foreigners in the name of "freedom and democracy", when that is hardly the real goal.)

This is one reason why 911 truth activism has not made much of a dent. Because of the masses' internalized belief systems, they have trouble recognizing 911 as an example of a false flag incident. How could they, since they don't know about other false flag incidents, or even the phrase "false flag", itself? This is precisely why I have encouraged 911 Truth activists to not just focus on 911, but to take up the issue about re-educating Americans regarding their true history, including that of false flags. Although I'm not sure, I think Operation Gladio and the secret armies created in Europe may well be the best documented false flags, ever, for the simple reason that some of them were tried in court.
 
metamars said:
This is one reason why 911 truth activism has not made much of a dent.
Click to expand...

No, the reason they have not made a dent is because they are bunch of fruitcakes who don't have an iota of evidence of a false flag attack.
 
metamars said:
Because of the masses' internalized belief systems, they have trouble recognizing 911 as an example of a false flag incident. How could they, since they don't know about other false flag incidents, or even the phrase "false flag", itself?
Click to expand...

How do you account for the (possibly) smaller, but by no means negligible, proportion of "the masses" who are fully aware of the phrase "false flag", can point to examples of false flag operations, and still don't recognise 911 as a false flag incident? Basing your belief system on the ignorance of the masses can only work if your beliefs are shared by the majority of that demographic that possesses the knowledge you claim the masses lack, and there is nothing to suggest that this is the case for the 911 attacks. For example, you would be hard pressed to find any posters on this sub-forum who "don't know... even the phrase 'false flag'", yet for some reason we don't all agree with you the moment we recognise the concept.

Dave
 
metamars said:
Daniel Ganser, author of NATO's Secret Armies, has interviews linked to here, where he spends some time discussing 911.


Although I don't know where Ganser gets this figure from, it seems wholly credible, and if that's the case, it just goes to show you how much work needs to be done to reverse the 'brain washing' - i.e., internalized belief systems and frames that have been deliberately inflicted on the masses - to achieve an honest government. (Honest governments don't murder their own citizens, nor allow them to be murdered, nor do they kill hundreds of thousands of foreigners in the name of "freedom and democracy", when that is hardly the real goal.)

This is one reason why 911 truth activism has not made much of a dent. Because of the masses' internalized belief systems, they have trouble recognizing 911 as an example of a false flag incident. How could they, since they don't know about other false flag incidents, or even the phrase "false flag", itself? This is precisely why I have encouraged 911 Truth activists to not just focus on 911, but to take up the issue about re-educating Americans regarding their true history, including that of false flags. Although I'm not sure, I think Operation Gladio and the secret armies created in Europe may well be the best documented false flags, ever, for the simple reason that some of them were tried in court.
Click to expand...

one reason, but a minor one. If you want to look at why the truth "movement" hasn't made progress, look at this...

1. Lack of evidence.
2. Outrageous and nearly illiterate spokespeople/leaders.
3. Bulk of membership poor young men with a tonne of anger, and a lack of motivation.
4. Nutty Professors.

And so much more.

It is a complete and utter cop out to even suggest that "lack of knowing what a false flag is" is in anyway a significant reason why the TM failed.

TAM:)
 
Yes, that's it! Of course! That's the reason everyone thinks this is stupid. Not because it is stupid, but because they don't understand the terminology! Why, if we educate everyone to what a false flag is, they'll immediately quit being logical, and just accept stupidity without any critical thought whatsoever!

Brilliant!
 
As the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the shelf life on the "most people are unaware" line of argument has about expired.
 
Dave Rogers said:
How do you account for the (possibly) smaller, but by no means negligible, proportion of "the masses" who are fully aware of the phrase "false flag", can point to examples of false flag operations, and still don't recognise 911 as a false flag incident?
Click to expand...

Honest disagreement? I wasn't implying either that everyone who believes that the US government has engaged in other false flags would have also done so on 911, nor that everybody who has not will, after being educated about them, agree that 911 was an example of such. So, please don't pretend that's the case. Try and understand my meaning, rather take things in some sort of literal way that's hardly necessary to make my point. (Though it appears to be necessary to you, in order to miss the point.)

Basing your belief system on the ignorance of the masses
Click to expand...

Huh? Where do you get this idea from? I have not based my belief system on the ignorance of the masses, though I derive my beliefs about the masses from personal observations of their ignorance. One such observation has been reinforced by Ganser, with his 3-4% figure, though I have pointed out myself that I don't know where he gets this figure from. (Implying that I'm a little skeptical.)

can only work if your beliefs are shared by the majority of that demographic that possesses the knowledge you claim the masses lack, and there is nothing to suggest that this is the case for the 911 attacks. For example, you would be hard pressed to find any posters on this sub-forum who "don't know... even the phrase 'false flag'", yet for some reason we don't all agree with you the moment we recognize the concept.

Dave
Click to expand...

It's a huge mistake to take the posters on this forum as typical of anything other than posters on similar forums. Likewise, it would be a huge mistake to take Nico Haupt, or even David Ray Griffin, as typical of 911 truth believers. I'd like to see serious research done on both truthers and debunkers, including the subsets that frequent forums or write books.

The subsets that write books are very small, so I don't think one can infer much, statistically. The subsets that frequent forums are much larger....
 
metamars said:
Daniel Ganser, author of NATO's Secret Armies, has interviews linked to here, where he spends some time discussing 911.

...

This is one reason why 911 truth activism has not made much of a dent. Because of the masses' internalized belief systems, they have trouble recognizing 911 as an example of a false flag incident. ...
Click to expand...

The reason the "Truth Movement" has made no progress in NYC is beucase the silly claims contradict what lots of people saw or know someone who did. In my part of NYC, everyone knows families of victims.
 
T.A.M. said:
one reason, but a minor one. If you want to look at why the truth "movement" hasn't made progress, look at this...

1. Lack of evidence.
2. Outrageous and nearly illiterate spokespeople/leaders.
3. Bulk of membership poor young men with a tonne of anger, and a lack of motivation.
4. Nutty Professors.

And so much more.
Click to expand...

Characteristically, you have made no mention of the "high strangeness" aspects of the attack, which speaks to the psychological predisposition of individuals both inside and outside the government to treat, seriously and critically, 911 leads that could easily point to US government involvement. Also characteristically, you have made no mention of sociological aspects of people in government and the media whose careers depend on them keeping the powerful in their positions of privilege.

To do so would make your debunker talking points less effective. Obviously.

It is a complete and utter cop out to even suggest that "lack of knowing what a false flag is" is in anyway a significant reason why the TM failed.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Not at all, however rather than bicker about hypotheticals, it would be far, far better to do controlled experiments. Such as:

Have a sample of 1000 college students at college A read a book about something having nothing to do with 911 or politics. E.g., a love story (novel). Have another sample of 1000 college students at college B read Ganser's book.

Then, on the same day and time, let both groups of college students read a 20 page paper of the "best" 911 truth claims and arguments, followed by a 20 page rebuttal of same. Just to show you what a swell guy I am, I would insist on the 20 page rebuttal being written after the 20 page 911 truth paper was frozen, with a few weeks being given to study it's contents and prepare the rebuttal.

Following that, a poll is taken of both college student groups, regarding their degree of belief (say on a scale of 0 - 100) that the following occurred on 911

1) whatever the US government said happened
2) LIHOP
3) MIHOP


Tell me, Mr. TAM, do you agree with me that such an experiment would be far superior to bickering about beliefs that you or I hold about what is inside other people heads? This is, after all, a forum to discuss "critical thinking", and with my science education, I can't help but believe that "critical thinking" discussions are best based on experimental data that can illuminate such discussions, where appropriate and possible.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what a false flage operation is either.

Kidding aside, the fact that false "flag" operations occur doesn't prove this one is.
 
Pardalis said:
I don't know what a false flage operation is either.

Kidding aside, the fact that false "flag" operations occur doesn't prove this one is.
Click to expand...

It's perfectly in line with the "highrisers never collapsed from fire before, so the WTC should not have collapsed!"

"False flag operations happened before, so 9/11 was a false flag!"
 
Well of course, Metamars. All we have to do is inform the unwashed masses what a false flag IS, and they'll be joining the truth movement in droves, huh? Why didn't your movement think of that earlier. Brilliant!

On second thought, I think you'd be better off trying to get a respected scientific organization from somewhere or some folks who are bona fide, respected experts in the relevant sciences--any of whom may or may not know what a false flag operation is--to support the truth movement rather than starting threads like this on relatively obscure internet forums.

But that's just me.
 
I for one support metamars' experiment idea and look forward to him posting the results once he has conducted it.
 
johnny karate said:
I for one support metamars' experiment idea and look forward to him posting the results once he has conducted it.
Click to expand...

And I for one look forward to have the sort of bank account that would make that possible. :) Maybe if I could sing as good as Al Jolson.
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
Characteristically, you have made no mention of the "high strangeness" aspects of the attack, which speaks to the psychological predisposition of individuals both inside and outside the government to treat, seriously and critically, 911 leads that could easily point to US government involvement. Also characteristically, you have made no mention of sociological aspects of people in government and the media whose careers depend on them keeping the powerful in their positions of privilege.

To do so would make your debunker talking points less effective. Obviously.



Not at all, however rather than bicker about hypotheticals, it would be far, far better to do controlled experiments. Such as:

Have a sample of 1000 college students at college A read a book about something having nothing to do with 911 or politics. E.g., a love story (novel). Have another sample of 1000 college students at college B read Ganser's book.

Then, on the same day and time, let both groups of college students read a 20 page paper of the "best" 911 truth claims and arguments, followed by a 20 page rebuttal of same. Just to show you what a swell guy I am, I would insist on the 20 page rebuttal being written after the 20 page 911 truth paper was frozen, with a few weeks being given to study it's contents and prepare the rebuttal.

Following that, a poll is taken of both college student groups, regarding their degree of belief (say on a scale of 0 - 100) that the following occurred on 911

1) whatever the US government said happened
2) LIHOP
3) MIHOP


Tell me, Mr. TAM, do you agree with me that such an experiment would be far superior to bickering about beliefs that you or I hold about what is inside other people heads? This is, after all, a forum to discuss "critical thinking", and with my science education, I can't help but believe that "critical thinking" discussions are best based on experimental data that can illuminate such discussions, where appropriate and possible.
Click to expand...

Poor choice of options for the students to answer. Not very scientific considering you have just boasted about it.
 
funk de fino said:
Poor choice of options for the students to answer. Not very scientific considering you have just boasted about it.
Click to expand...

What do you suggest?

( BTW, I wasn't trying to make a definitive list. E.g., I think a LIHOP/MIHOP scenario is most likely. )
 
metamars said:
What do you suggest?

( BTW, I wasn't trying to make a definitive list. E.g., I think a LIHOP/MIHOP scenario is most likely. )
Click to expand...

Choice 1 is poorly worded

I would add another stating some sort of "allowed it to happen due to incompetance/arrogance"
 
The OP, if relevant, if Mr. Ganser isn't just pulling statistics out of his back 40, suggests that should the 96-97% of the population learn what a "false flag operation" was, then they would switch sides.

So why hasn't this happened? There are only a few possibilities:

  1. The general public hasn't heard of "false flag operations." Well, what's stopping you from telling them?
  2. The general public doesn't know, even though it has heard, because it is composed of morons who can't understand what a "false flag operation" is.
  3. The general public does know and is lying to Mr. Ganser, presumably because they're in on the plot.

I can't see any other explanation, besides of course the obvious one -- Mr. Ganser is full of nonsense, and the general public sees crazy conspiracy theories for what they are, hence why the Truth Movement's early inflated claims that 84% of people supported them are now clearly understood to be lies.

So, what happened? Taking the three cases above:

  1. The Truth Movement is either the most pathetic organization in history, unable to alert the public despite years of griping... or they're deliberately not telling the public... Hmm, how sinister...
  2. The Truth Movement is really composed of super-intellects that should dominate the Human Race. Bow down to them already. That's the ticket.
  3. The Truth Movement is outnumbered by hundreds to one. Everyone is in on the plot except you. No amount of ammunition and surplus string will save you from assimilation. :hypnotize

I say the OP is just nonsense. So you made up a term that few people are familiar with, because they don't pay any attention to conspiracy idiots. That does not prove the conspiracy is real. What it does prove, however, is your own irrelevance.
 
Last edited:
I think he meant a "False Flange" operation. That's where we put a dummy flange on the intake pipe, so we can use the real one to pump the mind control fluoridation into the water supply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom