No one seriously challenged the authenticity of my theory. Some have challenged its audacity. How dare I say that 9/11 was a faked event?
While these critics slowly realize the facts that lead me to this conclusion, spelled out clearly in Was 9/11 a Movie?, I have pondered whether other historical events were likewise staged.
As I suggested in Questions I Wasn't Supposed to Ask, all of the evidence that someone murdered President Kennedy comes from media sources: the death certificate, the murder weapon, the bullets, etc. This evidence works to "prove" the assassination, but may also be explained by members of a coup feeding false information to a subdued media. And the Zapruder film clearly reveals a splice that could indicate multiple "takes" of a propaganda film.
Is faking history so hard to believe? Planning a narrative is the best way to control the narrative later. Visual images on television can be used effectively to persuade the public that something happened, even though it did not. Witness the "nineteen Arab hijackers" accused of flying planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11. Their images were splashed on television screens throughout the world and most presumed their guilt EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE NO HIJACKINGS!
I have written recently of my doubts that other events really happened as reported. Events like Sandy Hook, the Oregon shootings, etc. How many fake events does it take to allow us to predict future events?
Consider the numerical order 1,4,9. If the numbers go on as 16, 25, 36... we can establish a pattern based upon square numbers. We can do the same when we establish that events have been faked.
Do we have the audacity to seek reality when our leaders define it for us?