Husband insists moon landings were faked and 9/11 was a false flag secret operation the Americans did to themselves

[AmberTigerEyes]

I am désolé
My husband, he tell me he really believe there has never been a moon landing and that the 9/11 attacks were faked too.
I was in New York on 9/11
He knows this
He keeps saying things that have been disproven as conspiracy theory myths.
I wonder if I should be calling for a mental crisis unit.

The idea that anyone with an ounce of intelligence would attempt an assassination by car accident is so ludicrous that it really doesn't merit contemplating beyond that.

You do hear about breaks being sabotaged, so there are such things as staged accidents, but the breaks were working properly in this case. The accident only happened because a drunk driver was racing with the paparazzi.

I've only had a very brief back and forward to you, so not sure how you'd make out I'm so determined to believe it was murder or that incontrovertible evidence wouldn't convince me.

So you're allowed to believe that Epstein was murdered but if it's something that you don't believe then it's 'sad'. Ok 👍

I think there’s a clear motive with Epstein, to stop him revealing names of other powerful men in his network. I also don’t really see why he would commit suicide, when chances were he would only get a slap on the wrist anyway. (Obviously I still might be wrong and he did kill himself.)

In the case of Diana and Dodi, there was no evidence that there was any sabotage, whereas it’s definitely the case that Henri Paul was goading the paparazzi and racing them. That’s definitely the likeliest cause of the accident.

Also, why would MI6 choose such a bizarre way of killing her, when there was every likelihood that she would survive the accident? There would have been other more foolproof ways of getting rid of her. In the UK and not in France as well, they could in no way have been sure that no one could talk.

What really stretches incredulity is that if Diana really had been assassinated it would require considerable cooperation from the Parisian authorities. Since when has any Parisian helped the British? It's hard enough to get them to take your order in a restaurant.

Exactly my point. And why do it there anyway?

Brakes.

It's the sort of thing that happens in movies, but not in real life because you'd notice a brake pedal with no resistance immediately, you can simply coast to a halt by letting the revs drop, depressing the clutch, and engaging the parking brake. If there is no hydraulic pressure in the lines the brake light will usually indicate this as soon as you turn the key in the ignition.

It just isn't a remotely feasible way to go about killing someone. If you are in the business of assassination, then you don't half-arse it by choosing methods that are wholly reliant on happenstance, and which the intended target could quite conceivably survive even if and when everything goes off without a hitch.

If you want shot of Diana, far easier to wait until she's on one of her Med excursions, chuck her in the water and hold her under. Easy to pass off as a drowning, especially if there is alcohol in her system, and if you have the hull of a yacht between you and the shoreline there is practically no chance of any witnesses.

Trying to kill someone by way of a car "accident" is so monumentally stupid that people who seriously espouse it as a theory really need to be leaving their brains for scientific study.

How stupid of me, spelling the word ‘brakes’ wrong, embarrassing! 😘

Point taken. Maybe I have only heard of such things in films. I agree with you that there’s no way it was anything other than a tragic accident. And this tragic accident created problems for the Royal Family rather than solving them anyway.

The French people might not like the British, or is it just English? (I noticed this myself when I was on holiday in Paris when people kept mistaking us for being English, but as soon as told them they were Irish they couldn't have been nicer).

But the two nations were building strong diplomatic ties at the time weren't they? I don't know much about your history to verify but a quick google and the google AI said:

French-UK diplomatic ties in the 1990s were characterized by a mix of deep strategic cooperation and significant friction, evolving from tense relations over German reunification and the Bosnian War into a closer partnership towards the end of the decade, culminating in the 1998 Saint-Malo defense agreement. Throughout the decade, the relationship was marked by personal and political rivalries, particularly regarding European integration, with the UK acting as a "lone voice" on issues like the single currency.

Key Aspects of the Relationship in the 1990s

• Initial Distrust (1990-1994): Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, France and the UK were initially aligned in their apprehension towards German reunification, with Margaret Thatcher and François Mitterrand expressing mutual concerns in early 1990. However, this didn't translate into broad agreement on the future of Europe. The UK, under Major, was reluctant about deeper EU integration, while France pushed for the Maastricht Treaty.
• The Bosnian Conflict (1992-1995): Distrust was high during the Balkan conflict. Secret papers revealed British officials accused France of "grandstanding" and making secret deals with Bosnian Serbs. Both nations, however, contributed significantly to the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and often cooperated on the ground, despite political disagreements over intervention strategy.
• Channel Tunnel Opening (1994): A major landmark of cooperation was the joint opening of the Channel Tunnel by Queen Elizabeth II and President Mitterrand on May 6, 1994.
• Chirac-Major & Blair-Chirac Relations (1995-1999): The election of Jacques Chirac in 1995 initially brought warmer relations, with the UK defending France's nuclear testing program, a move that alienated them from other Commonwealth nations. When Tony Blair took office in 1997, his pro-European stance initially signaled a "new dawn," though tensions remained over the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy).
• Saint-Malo Declaration (1998): The defining diplomatic moment of the late 90s was the Saint-Malo summit. Blair and Chirac signed a declaration committing to a European security and defense policy, creating a military force capable of autonomous action. This marked a significant shift toward bilateral military cooperation following the failure of European intervention in Kosovo.

Key Areas of Cooperation and Tension

• Defense: High levels of cooperation, with 21 separate joint projects in 1993, and a Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy set up to coordinate deterrence.
• European Union: Significant disagreements regarding the single currency (Euro) and the pace of political integration.
• Personal Rapport: While Chirac and Major developed a polite relationship, Blair’s 1998 speech in French to the National Assembly was seen as a skilled attempt to bypass the diplomatic chill and appeal directly to French leaders.

Despite the "schadenfreude" or competitive nature of the relationship, both nations remained committed to working together as the only two European nuclear-armed, permanent UN Security Council members.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX
A drowning would have made people even more suspicious.

Maybe the sorts of people who genuinely think a car accident is evidence of a murder conspiracy, but not normal people.

I dont think the moon landings were real but I absolutely know 9/11 was - I watched it live on TV.

I am not a conspiracy theorist in any way shape or form but I genuinely dont believe the moon landings happened - it was a ploy to try & beat the Russsians. And a lot of people agree with that.

I think the issue is that if you don't believe the moon landings were real no-one is impacted by this, but by saying 9/11 didnt happen in the way it did means that you are tarnishing the memories of those who died & also those relatives who have been left without loved ones.

Not normal people 🙄 ok

I don't think there's many who think that 9/11 didn't happen, just that it was an inside job, or that at the very least the U.S knew it was going to happen and allowed it.

I don't think it tarnishes the memories of those who died and the relatives to suggest that it might have been an inside job or that the U.S let it happen. At least some of the family members of those who died also believe this.

And you don’t think the Russians were capable of checking whether a rocket reached the moon?

Claiming that the Apollo programme was fake tarnishes the memories of Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee who died in the Apollo 1 fire.

Oh dear 🤦🏻‍♀️

Why is it a problem that he thinks this way? Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I too believe 9/11 was pre planned and an inside job.

I also believe Covid was man made and pre planned.

Does that make me stupid or does it make others who don’t question these things and believe everything the media and government tell us stupid?

Of course 9/11 was real… we all watched it on TV , but it doesn’t mean that it happened the way they portrayed it to happen.

@Whatthefork1 It makes you gullible because simple critical thinking would tell you there was no advantage to governments in either of those, and in the case of covid no reason for every government worldwide to collude.

Simple critical thinking would tell you there was no advantage to the government in 9/11?

Yes. A false flag of some kind to justify war? Fine. I could get behind that as a possibility. But destroying a massive set of buildings in central NYC and killing thousands, bringing large parts of the city to a standstill for weeks? Not worth it.

What is it about the recent US invasion of Venezuela and the bombing of Iran makes you think that the US would need to murder thousands of their civilians to justify attacking Iraq for a second time?

You've shown there that you lack the ability to do some basic critical thinking yourself or just that you don't really understand the concept of it and threw it out as a buzz term.

First thing to ask is did they benefit? Google it, yes they did.
Then look at all the ways they did benefit.

Did the cost outweigh the benefits? You think it wasn't worth it but was it it worth it to them? I would say yes, I don't think they really care about the collateral damage. I think they also wouldn't care about their reputation/the 'embarrassment' of being attacked, most of the world was instead sympathetic.

Your opinion that it wasn't worth it is just an opinion. Likewise my opinion that it was worth it to them is just an opinion.

However, what you stated to reach your opinion, that there was no advantage to the government is completely and wholly untrue and is instead just based on your conclusion, so you really can't be accusing anyone of not using 'simple critical thinking'.

As the post above yours indicates, they didn’t need any false flag, less still something as massive as this. It would be overkill. Just think.
Not sure what you mean about not understanding the concept. Pretty rude.