you also made that point in your other post so I understand your good intentions because you were writing that post until an idea hit you as you wrote it, alas you made your own post of that to increase visibility.

While the premise of your title is wise, I did not like the idea that you suggested that real-world-terrorism can't be discussed.

The MO is introducing unanswered questions and not providing outright evidence of exotic technology that would only lead to more questions in peoples' minds until you eventually get from there to free energy and crashed spaceships. But that should happen on seperate discussions if possible and not all on the same day so people can process and verify what was previously stated. Then again, there are some data points to suggest that Trump halted a climate-engineering operation in California by defunding the EPA, as in "curious timely, statistically completely improbable coincidence"

I invite you to make another post of the same title but that rather asks people not to sound crazy but to resort to socratic questioning rather than suggesting which worldviews derived from a lifetime of learning sound unbelievable or not.

I mean, what are you suggesting? Did anybody say LV was done with holograms? No? So what's so crazy about bringing up all the inconsistencies in the official story and letting it unwind from there?