Well, as I have detailed the Manson psyop to the best of my ability here and in my video already...there isn't much point in repeating what you probably didn't read the first time.
Unless, of course, you just like saying things but find answering basic questions about it annoying. Or, worse, deep down you don't want to convince people because as long as they remain unconvinced you can look down on them for being naive and gullible, or whatever. That certainly seems to fit the high energy opening of "look at all this evidence sheeple!" followed by the low energy petering out when someone goes "uhhh, what about this?"
Yes the families are in on it, freemasonic secrets are held closely around the world, yes people do keep massive secrets.
I think even you must know this is a terrible response, which is why you didn't offer it at all the first time and I had to ask you a second time.
I bring up the biggest proven conspiracies
If you believe the explanations why bldg 7 can freefall, after being announced first, when hit by nothing....well I have to point out that siding with the overwhelming majority of authority loving obedient academics isn't thinking for yourself.
First, thinking for yourself means weighing evidence on its merits. If you're thinking about how to avoid being on the side of a certain group (like these "authority loving obedient academics"), then you're by definition not thinking for yourself. You're still letting other people determine your views, just inversely.
Second, by issuing a blanket discrediting of an entire group (and not even a field! Literally just the group "people who formally study things"!), you've made your claim unfalsifiable. You have demanded technical explanations for a technical phenomenon, then dropped in "oh, and by the way, everyone with the technical expertise to answer is suspect and can be ignored."
Third, I've never even heard of the stereotype of academics as being "authority loving." You appear to have invented that out of thin air, in order to have a reason to dismiss them. In fact, in this case the stereotype seems backward, because it's not my experience that academics were big fans of the Bush administration, and didn't much like the idea that Islamic extremists had knocked the buildings down, either. So insofar as you want to invoke lazy stereotypes to ignore all technical expertise (how convenient), those stereotypes would undercut your position, not enhance it.
Seriously what other explanation is there for neil armstrong telling us that the stars in space were not visible from the moon or on the way to the moon? You don't find that interesting?
You can Google the boring technical/photographic explanation if you wan't (and if you haven't already, think about why that is, maybe), but weird stuff like this is an argument against the conspiracy, not for it.
This is the problem every conspiracy theorist has. They try to have it both ways: dude it is just sooooooo obvious that this was faked, LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. IT'S SO CLEAR. But when you ask them about one problem or another, suddenly it's OH, BUT THEY'RE SMART AND THOROUGH AND COVERED IT ALL UP. Every conspiracy has to pretend that the conspirators are either the dumbest or smartest people in the world, back and forth, depending on the needs of the argument at that moment.