Simon Shacks year end review

[onourwayto2012]

wish to extend my warmest New Year greetings to all the many cool folks on this forum; it started as an experiment (after the sudden closure of 911movement.org) and seems to be working out pretty good - to my pleasant surprise wink.gif I really think 2010 will be a mighty interesting and exciting year - in every sense. It's been a fantastic 2nd part of 2009 with Hoi Polloi joining me here - a huge boost of energy and inspiration. Here's my end-of-year, tentative summary of the wide 9/11 research. Hope you'll all print it out & read it - and offer suggestions for improvements ! smile.gif




Deconstructing the Grand Deception by Simon Shack - December 31, 2009


THE RATIONALE OF THE 9/11 HOAX
If you have come to terms with the fact that 9/11 was a massive money-making scheme and - of course - a pretext to wage hugely profitable wars, the basic rationale behind this Grand Deception should, hopefully, become clearer. It is essential to consider all the variables which such an audacious false-flag operation would entail and what precautions its plotters must have observed: The Grand Deception plan was undoubtedly meant to be foolproof and, ideally, free of unnecessary elements of risk and opposition. There was simply no rationale for the 9/11 plotters to commit a mass murder of some 3,000, mostly white-collar professionals (brokers, bankers, financial analysts, etc.) whose families would likely have access to first-rate, ‘uptown’ legal assistance. Surely, killing that many people would have been an utterly senseless, self-inflicted aggravation on the part of the perpetrators. Since they could reliably rely on the fully compliant ‘top-brass’ of the mainstream media, they would have used this unique, exclusive asset to its full potential. Ever since day one, the major hurdle for many people to even start considering 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ has been: “I can’t believe my own government would murder 3000 of their own people”. Once that psychological obstacle is removed, it should become apparent that the whole operation consisted essentially of a covert demolition of a redundant, asbestos-filled building complex. To kill thousands of people in the process never was an envisaged proposition as it would have encountered severe resistance among the insiders involved. The second objective was to blame this destruction on a foreign enemy; an outlandish tale involving hijacked airliners used as missiles was orchestrated, supported by digital imagery and special movie effects. How this was done is thoroughly illustrated in my September Clues video analyses.


WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN ON 9/11 ( the deceptive imagery )
No unauthorized, private imagery was captured on September 11, 2001. Most - if not all - of the imagery we have of that morning’s events is prefabricated and/or manipulated. The September Clues video research – and many similar independent studies - have amply demonstrated the mainstream media’s unfettered complicity – insofar as the live TV broadcasts are concerned. The 9/11 morning broadcasts were, by and large, digital computer-animations and all successive, so-called “amateur” video snippets (featuring crashing planes or collapsing towers) have likewise been methodically exposed as a series of poorly crafted forgeries. The defining, real-life ‘action shots’ (fake plane crashes and real tower collapses) of the day were simply not meant to be captured on film - much less aired on television: As it is, no real footage of those crucial time windows is to be found. To be sure, the existence of specific, military-grade technology able to achieve this precise aim is well documented. In all likelihood, electromagnetic weaponry (EMP/HERF) routinely employed in war zones was employed, causing the temporary jamming of all unshielded camera equipment *. With no real footage being captured, the TV networks could ‘safely’ broadcast their substitute, artificial imagery of the morning’s events.
* (see : http://www.septemberclues.info/visual_control.htm )


WHAT DID HAPPEN ON 9/11 (the tower collapses)
The ‘ground operations’ in Lower Manhattan called for a coordinated demolition of the entire WTC complex (9 buildings in all). Just what type of explosive forces caused this destruction is hotly debated among scientists galore – yet it is but a secondary and ultimately doomed endeavor - since there is no certifiably authentic rubble nor any authentic imagery to examine. We may however assume (as of the events’ timeline) that the demolition process started a full hour after the alleged “plane strikes”, leaving plenty of time to evacuate the area. The briskly displaced bystanders – as well as more distant eyewitnesses - would have had very slim chances to make out the precise dynamics of the collapses as, most plausibly, smokescreens (military obscurants) started blocking the WTC from view. The time-window of the Lower Manhattan evacuation was “filled in” with two convenient, yet blatantly phony “Distraction Dramas” : The Pentagon and Shanksville mock-events. These two diversions also helped sway the attention away from the absurd absence of helicopter rescues at the WTC. As it is, the improbable tale of 3,000 souls trapped for up to 100 minutes in the WTC top floors (with no rooftop rescues - “due to locked access doors”) may have a simple explanation: The WTC towers were empty. To be sure, all photographs and video snippets depicting people (or silhouettes thereof) falling down the side of the WTC’s have also been comprehensively exposed as digital forgeries. Only time will tell whether any people really were killed on 9/11 - and under what circumstances - but, as things stand, the bulk of available evidence suggests otherwise.


HOW MANY DIED ON 9/11?
Perhaps – and probably - none. A ‘fanciful’ contention? No. Not if measured against the thoroughly fanciful, grotesquely contrived and conflicting 9/11 ‘victim memorials’. A close scrutiny of the numerous available listings of alleged 9/11 victims provides countless indications that they are, by and large, outright fabrications. Most of them are still easily accessible on the internet by the general public – yet some have been (‘mysteriously’) shut down. Of course, if it’s true that the WTC was fully evacuated, thus follows that the many memorials listing the 9/11 victims must, in turn, be fabricated too. As elaborated below, that is precisely what they appear to be. The 9/11 victim memorials simply do not stand up to scrutiny and comparison. The sheer bulk of inconsistencies and absurdities pervasive in those unseemly listings unveils their true nature : Just another piece of the Grand Deception. Let us see why, point by point :


MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(1): The totals’ nonsense
At a first glance at the various 9/11 memorials, we see that each and every one reports a different casualty toll. Here’s a selection of total figures, all ostensibly meant to represent official and definitive listings of all victims of 9/11 for WTC, Pentagon and “4 flights”- (minus the “19 hijackers”) :

SEPT11th memorial: “3.181”
http://www.sept11thmemorial.com/all_names.asp
CNN memorial: “2.985”
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memor...name/index.html
FOX News: “2812”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62779,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62151,00.html (full list)
La Repubblica ( Sept11,’09 ): “2.752”
http://www.repubblica.it/2009/09/sezioni/e...embre-2009.html
America Forever memorial: “2.467”
http://www.freewebs.com/god_bless_america/page10.htm

As absurd as this may seem, it is a fact that more than 8 years after 9/11, there is still no consensus whatsoever on the total death toll. Indeed, the first and last of the above-listed memorials show a discrepancy of a full 714 names! These are entirely verifiable figures – in full public view. Of course, even a discrepancy of only 2 or 3 victims should be considered unacceptable at this time. Let’s hope that the National 9/11 Memorial, currently under construction in Manhattan will finally reveal to the world the exact number of the 9/11 victims... Whatever that figure will be (and which names will be retained or discarded), the fact remains that for all of 8 years virtually all memorials have displayed wildly conflicting casualty tolls.

Most will remember that, in the days, weeks if not months following 9/11, the news media kept reporting what, admittedly, were speculative casualty figures ( the “20,000 victims” soon became “10,000”). Yet the first, official casualty toll was still a hefty “6,729” (New York Times). Then, a full 12 days after the event, Major Giuliani went on record with an “estimated 6,333 victims ”, a figure which was touted for some time before gradually - and inexplicably - dwindling to less than half that figure. How, one must ask, could it possibly take weeks to obtain reasonably accurate figures of the WTC tenants’ missing employees? Now, this was no tsunami sweeping unfathomably populated coastlines of Indonesia, Thailand or Sri Lanka; these were two confined building-collapses in civilized Manhattan! Undeniably, in the shocked post-disaster climate, the inflated death tolls effectively boosted the drama and the public outrage over the “murderous Binladen attacks”. However, as weeks went by, Mayor Giuliani’s “6,333” estimate started raising a few eyebrows. In time, the news media came up with a ‘shocking news story’ : As the tale went, a horde of greedy, despicable fraudsters were usurping the 9/11 compensation funds claiming the loss of “non-existing, totally made-up relatives”…
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/nyregion...&pagewanted=all

A long string of such scams were reported - & denounced with righteous outrage – for weeks on end. Ultimately, even though a whopping total of 400 such “callous con men schemes” were reported, it did little to account for – or even remotely explain – Giuliani’s previous “6,333”estimate (of September23, 2001). The Grand Deception was already creaking and - unbeknown to most – initiating its own, inevitable collapse.
Now, some people will argue that these wild inaccuracies were brought about by “the havoc and confusion” surrounding the 9/11 events. Fine. Let us not argue about it - and agree for now on at least one incontrovertible fact: Between the first official NYT death toll figure (6729) and the figure found on, for instance, the “America Forever” memorial (2467), we have a discrepancy/margin of error of 4262 ‘units’. These are plain and simple arithmetics. Lastly, let it be said that the vast majority of "9/11 victims" are NOT listed in the SSDI (Social Security Death Index). The few that ARE to be found listed on the SSDI are usually names that have been cited in the press, i.e. more 'prominent' and 'public' victims...


MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(2): The ghost names nonsense
So, how do these conflicting death tolls translate as one takes a close look at the various memorials? Does that mean we may find random, ‘ghost’ victims listed on some memorials, complete with tributes and obituaries, who are simply missing on others? Yes. Is there a significant amount of such nonsensical examples, such as to rule out ‘innocent sloppiness’ on the part of the various memorial curators? Yes. Let’s take a look, for instance, at the “Wall of Americans” memorial. At the very top of letter “A”, we find two people named “AALYIGH”.

[onourwayto2012]

I wish to extend my warmest New Year greetings to all the many cool folks on this forum; it started as an experiment (after the sudden closure of 911movement.org) and seems to be working out pretty good - to my pleasant surprise wink.gif I really think 2010 will be a mighty interesting and exciting year - in every sense. It's been a fantastic 2nd part of 2009 with Hoi Polloi joining me here - a huge boost of energy and inspiration. Here's my end-of-year, tentative summary of the wide 9/11 research. Hope you'll all print it out & read it - and offer suggestions for improvements ! smile.gif




Deconstructing the Grand Deception by Simon Shack - December 31, 2009


THE RATIONALE OF THE 9/11 HOAX
If you have come to terms with the fact that 9/11 was a massive money-making scheme and - of course - a pretext to wage hugely profitable wars, the basic rationale behind this Grand Deception should, hopefully, become clearer. It is essential to consider all the variables which such an audacious false-flag operation would entail and what precautions its plotters must have observed: The Grand Deception plan was undoubtedly meant to be foolproof and, ideally, free of unnecessary elements of risk and opposition. There was simply no rationale for the 9/11 plotters to commit a mass murder of some 3,000, mostly white-collar professionals (brokers, bankers, financial analysts, etc.) whose families would likely have access to first-rate, ‘uptown’ legal assistance. Surely, killing that many people would have been an utterly senseless, self-inflicted aggravation on the part of the perpetrators. Since they could reliably rely on the fully compliant ‘top-brass’ of the mainstream media, they would have used this unique, exclusive asset to its full potential. Ever since day one, the major hurdle for many people to even start considering 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ has been: “I can’t believe my own government would murder 3000 of their own people”. Once that psychological obstacle is removed, it should become apparent that the whole operation consisted essentially of a covert demolition of a redundant, asbestos-filled building complex. To kill thousands of people in the process never was an envisaged proposition as it would have encountered severe resistance among the insiders involved. The second objective was to blame this destruction on a foreign enemy; an outlandish tale involving hijacked airliners used as missiles was orchestrated, supported by digital imagery and special movie effects. How this was done is thoroughly illustrated in my September Clues video analyses.


WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN ON 9/11 ( the deceptive imagery )
No unauthorized, private imagery was captured on September 11, 2001. Most - if not all - of the imagery we have of that morning’s events is prefabricated and/or manipulated. The September Clues video research – and many similar independent studies - have amply demonstrated the mainstream media’s unfettered complicity – insofar as the live TV broadcasts are concerned. The 9/11 morning broadcasts were, by and large, digital computer-animations and all successive, so-called “amateur” video snippets (featuring crashing planes or collapsing towers) have likewise been methodically exposed as a series of poorly crafted forgeries. The defining, real-life ‘action shots’ (fake plane crashes and real tower collapses) of the day were simply not meant to be captured on film - much less aired on television: As it is, no real footage of those crucial time windows is to be found. To be sure, the existence of specific, military-grade technology able to achieve this precise aim is well documented. In all likelihood, electromagnetic weaponry (EMP/HERF) routinely employed in war zones was employed, causing the temporary jamming of all unshielded camera equipment *. With no real footage being captured, the TV networks could ‘safely’ broadcast their substitute, artificial imagery of the morning’s events.
* (see : http://www.septemberclues.info/visual_control.htm )


WHAT DID HAPPEN ON 9/11 (the tower collapses)
The ‘ground operations’ in Lower Manhattan called for a coordinated demolition of the entire WTC complex (9 buildings in all). Just what type of explosive forces caused this destruction is hotly debated among scientists galore – yet it is but a secondary and ultimately doomed endeavor - since there is no certifiably authentic rubble nor any authentic imagery to examine. We may however assume (as of the events’ timeline) that the demolition process started a full hour after the alleged “plane strikes”, leaving plenty of time to evacuate the area. The briskly displaced bystanders – as well as more distant eyewitnesses - would have had very slim chances to make out the precise dynamics of the collapses as, most plausibly, smokescreens (military obscurants) started blocking the WTC from view. The time-window of the Lower Manhattan evacuation was “filled in” with two convenient, yet blatantly phony “Distraction Dramas” : The Pentagon and Shanksville mock-events. These two diversions also helped sway the attention away from the absurd absence of helicopter rescues at the WTC. As it is, the improbable tale of 3,000 souls trapped for up to 100 minutes in the WTC top floors (with no rooftop rescues - “due to locked access doors”) may have a simple explanation: The WTC towers were empty. To be sure, all photographs and video snippets depicting people (or silhouettes thereof) falling down the side of the WTC’s have also been comprehensively exposed as digital forgeries. Only time will tell whether any people really were killed on 9/11 - and under what circumstances - but, as things stand, the bulk of available evidence suggests otherwise.


HOW MANY DIED ON 9/11?
Perhaps – and probably - none. A ‘fanciful’ contention? No. Not if measured against the thoroughly fanciful, grotesquely contrived and conflicting 9/11 ‘victim memorials’. A close scrutiny of the numerous available listings of alleged 9/11 victims provides countless indications that they are, by and large, outright fabrications. Most of them are still easily accessible on the internet by the general public – yet some have been (‘mysteriously’) shut down. Of course, if it’s true that the WTC was fully evacuated, thus follows that the many memorials listing the 9/11 victims must, in turn, be fabricated too. As elaborated below, that is precisely what they appear to be. The 9/11 victim memorials simply do not stand up to scrutiny and comparison. The sheer bulk of inconsistencies and absurdities pervasive in those unseemly listings unveils their true nature : Just another piece of the Grand Deception. Let us see why, point by point :


MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(1): The totals’ nonsense
At a first glance at the various 9/11 memorials, we see that each and every one reports a different casualty toll. Here’s a selection of total figures, all ostensibly meant to represent official and definitive listings of all victims of 9/11 for WTC, Pentagon and “4 flights”- (minus the “19 hijackers”) :

SEPT11th memorial: “3.181”
http://www.sept11thmemorial.com/all_names.asp
CNN memorial: “2.985”
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memor...name/index.html
FOX News: “2812”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62779,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62151,00.html (full list)
La Repubblica ( Sept11,’09 ): “2.752”
http://www.repubblica.it/2009/09/sezioni/e...embre-2009.html
America Forever memorial: “2.467”
http://www.freewebs.com/god_bless_america/page10.htm

As absurd as this may seem, it is a fact that more than 8 years after 9/11, there is still no consensus whatsoever on the total death toll. Indeed, the first and last of the above-listed memorials show a discrepancy of a full 714 names! These are entirely verifiable figures – in full public view. Of course, even a discrepancy of only 2 or 3 victims should be considered unacceptable at this time. Let’s hope that the National 9/11 Memorial, currently under construction in Manhattan will finally reveal to the world the exact number of the 9/11 victims... Whatever that figure will be (and which names will be retained or discarded), the fact remains that for all of 8 years virtually all memorials have displayed wildly conflicting casualty tolls.

Most will remember that, in the days, weeks if not months following 9/11, the news media kept reporting what, admittedly, were speculative casualty figures ( the “20,000 victims” soon became “10,000”). Yet the first, official casualty toll was still a hefty “6,729” (New York Times). Then, a full 12 days after the event, Major Giuliani went on record with an “estimated 6,333 victims ”, a figure which was touted for some time before gradually - and inexplicably - dwindling to less than half that figure. How, one must ask, could it possibly take weeks to obtain reasonably accurate figures of the WTC tenants’ missing employees? Now, this was no tsunami sweeping unfathomably populated coastlines of Indonesia, Thailand or Sri Lanka; these were two confined building-collapses in civilized Manhattan! Undeniably, in the shocked post-disaster climate, the inflated death tolls effectively boosted the drama and the public outrage over the “murderous Binladen attacks”. However, as weeks went by, Mayor Giuliani’s “6,333” estimate started raising a few eyebrows. In time, the news media came up with a ‘shocking news story’ : As the tale went, a horde of greedy, despicable fraudsters were usurping the 9/11 compensation funds claiming the loss of “non-existing, totally made-up relatives”…
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/nyregion...&pagewanted=all

A long string of such scams were reported - & denounced with righteous outrage – for weeks on end. Ultimately, even though a whopping total of 400 such “callous con men schemes” were reported, it did little to account for – or even remotely explain – Giuliani’s previous “6,333”estimate (of September23, 2001). The Grand Deception was already creaking and - unbeknown to most – initiating its own, inevitable collapse.
Now, some people will argue that these wild inaccuracies were brought about by “the havoc and confusion” surrounding the 9/11 events. Fine. Let us not argue about it - and agree for now on at least one incontrovertible fact: Between the first official NYT death toll figure (6729) and the figure found on, for instance, the “America Forever” memorial (2467), we have a discrepancy/margin of error of 4262 ‘units’. These are plain and simple arithmetics. Lastly, let it be said that the vast majority of "9/11 victims" are NOT listed in the SSDI (Social Security Death Index). The few that ARE to be found listed on the SSDI are usually names that have been cited in the press, i.e. more 'prominent' and 'public' victims...


MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(2): The ghost names nonsense
So, how do these conflicting death tolls translate as one takes a close look at the various memorials? Does that mean we may find random, ‘ghost’ victims listed on some memorials, complete with tributes and obituaries, who are simply missing on others? Yes. Is there a significant amount of such nonsensical examples, such as to rule out ‘innocent sloppiness’ on the part of the various memorial curators? Yes. Let’s take a look, for instance, at the “Wall of Americans” memorial. At the very top of letter “A”, we find two people named “AALYIGH”.

user posted image

Inexplicably, the two “AALYIGH”s (as indeed many other names) are found only in some memorials and are absent from others (such as CNN’s). Now, imagine for a minute that your surname is “Aalyigh”. Would you not try contacting (in over 8 years) the ‘offending’ 9/11 memorials and have them correct their listings? Who are the “Aalyigh’s”? Or perhaps we should ask : why are the “Aalyigh’s” to be found only in selected memorials? Is there indeed anyone called “Aalyigh” on this planet apart from Diana Aalyigh (Die-In-A-Lie?) and Justin Aalyigh (Just- In-A-Lie?). One may be tempted to surmise that some brave whistleblower was trying to tell us some truth about 9/11: “it’s all AALYIGH”.
Interestingly, the Wall of Americans memorial has now been shut down. This is the message we may find on the blank internet page which ‘explains’ its sudden closure:

user posted image

Then, staying with letter “A”, there is the case of Mrs. “Cici AADA”, another of the many ‘ghost names’ to be found bouncing around the various 9/11 memorials. Now, if you google “AADA” you will bump right into the “American Academy of Dramatic Arts”. http://www.aada.org/home/home.html
A coincidence, perhaps. However, since a great deal of characters rotating within the 9/11 saga (Mark Humphrey, Gary Welz, et al) have been exposed as professional actors, one may reasonably wonder whether this also could be the work of a heroic whistleblower. The fact remains that “Cici (See-See?) AADA” and both the “AALYIGH’s” are only to be found on a few 9/11 memorials – and are simply missing on others (most notably the CNN memorial).
There are plenty more examples of ‘ghost names’ appearing only in selected 9/11 memorials. To list them all in this article (with comprehensive cross-comparisons between all the lists) is not realistic and would surely be a tedious read. So let’s just compare three alphabetical groups (Q, X, Y, Z) which contain moderate amounts of names (so that the reader may easily check out these facts personally).Below is a list of 9/11 memorials; for each one we have the number of people listed under the surname initials “Q”, “X”, “Y” & “Z”:

CNN memorial : http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/...name/index.html
Q:8 X:0 Y:20 Z:24
VOICES OF SEPTEMBER11 : http://voicesofsept11.org/dev/memorial_fam...tocitems=1,6,13
Q:8 X:0 Y:20 Z:25
IN MEMORIAM ONLINE : http://inmemoriamonline.net/List_WTC-Q.html
Q:7 X:0 Y:15 Z:19
SEPTEMBER 11TH MEMORIAL : http://www.sept11thmemorial.com/all_names.asp
Q:16 X:0 Y:25 Z:26
FOX memorial : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62151,00.html
Q:9 X:0 Y:21 Z:24
CYPRESS TIMES http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/New...9_11_2001/24432
Q:9 X:0 Y:13 Z:23
PRAYERS FOR PEACE http://www.prayersforpeace.org/wall.shtml
Q:11 X:4 Y:24 Z:26

MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(3): The prosaic nonsense
A common aspect of the various 9/11 memorials are the consistently sappy and contrived tributes supposedly posted by families, co-workers and friends. We are talking about thousands of brief writings which, of course, require some steady patience to sift through. However, and for what it’s worth, I can personally testify that it’s hard to find any 9/11 tribute graced with any ring of authenticity. The prevalent impression is that they are written by the same person – or at best – by a gang of bored, unimaginative novelists. Naturally, some will retort that this is a ‘subjective’, personal interpretation; I can only encourage everyone to spend some time reading those tributes for themselves. Taken together, those tributes read like an endlessly reshuffled concoction of mawkish and tear-jerking rhetoric. I’m confident that anyone armed with a critical mind – and a healthy sense of humor - will actually enjoy sifting through these tributes as an eye-opening, entertaining and slightly surreal experience. Best of all, this ‘enjoyment’ comes with an odd sense of relief and appeasment as one gradually comes to realize that:
1. The 9/11 memorials are all in conflict with each other.
2. The 9/11 memorials are anything but credible tributes to real victims of a real terror attack.
3. Perhaps, in the light of these facts, few - or nobody - died in the “9/11 attacks”.

(Author’s appeal: I welcome anyone asserting to be a family member of a 9/11 victim to come forward with documentation – such as would be admissible in a court of law - of their loved one’s existence and passing. I can be reached on my private e-mail posted here: http://www.septemberclues.info ).

[onourwayto2012]

http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shack/index.php?showtopic=21&st=570

[heartysoup]

... and ... just as expected...

the Simon Shacksters still have no clue what destroyed the WTC.

..because they've been using photoshop and final cut for the last 9 years.

great update buddy.

[3stepsahead]

so where is all teh response to this research?

did evrybody just wet their pants in exitement or did they get their handlers orders to gtfo this thread?

commonly over 1k users online 24 hrs a day and one comment so far ?

jeez forum YOU SUCK

[dave52]

To be fair 3Steps, your comment isn't exactly a response to the thread either...

I found Simon's review very interesting, I'm not convinced by the fake jumpers stuff, but I find most of his other stuff to be very sound (I am a no-planer after all).

[3stepsahead]

youre right
it is rather a respones to the lack of response on the thread.:D
i too found their stuff interesting and fitting well into the bigger picture.
interesting posts tend to get good response, so whats the delay here?

cheers

[dave52]

I think people (on this Forum at least) are a little nine-elevened out. I certainly feel as though I've hit a bit of a brick wall with it. I think this must've been what it felt like when the realisation that the JFK conspiracy wasn't going anywhere. We've all got into our camps (some of which over lap, some don't), and we're like... er... well... hmmmm.

[frase]

I think people (on this Forum at least) are a little nine-elevened out. I certainly feel as though I've hit a bit of a brick wall with it. I think this must've been what it felt like when the realisation that the JFK conspiracy wasn't going anywhere. We've all got into our camps (some of which over lap, some don't), and we're like... er... well... hmmmm.

no man....
I am spreading the word daily...Dont give in...Word is getting around....

[dave52]

no man....
I am spreading the word daily...Dont give in...Word is getting around....

Oh, don't get me wrong, I take every opportunity available to ram the message home with people.... I won't give up, I just feel there are other issues that take my time a little more now, Climate Gate, Swine Flu, Vaccinations, Blue Beam etc. And all of that is available in other areas of this site. I think the 9/11 section is a little neglected now - which is a shame.

I might be rambling a little now... sorry.

[antipodean]

... and ... just as expected...

the Simon Shacksters still have no clue what destroyed the WTC.

..because they've been using photoshop and final cut for the last 9 years.

great update buddy.


So you're criticising Simon Shack for not speculating how the WTC collapsed.

Does anyone on here know exactly how the Towers came down.

[heartysoup]

So you're criticising Simon Shack for not speculating how the WTC collapsed.

Does anyone on here know exactly how the Towers came down.

SimonShackster belief = everything is fake therefore no conclusions can be drawn about what happened to WTC.

sounds like a 'final push of disinfo'.

Is there really 'no evidence'?

shouldn't we be looking for evidence of what happened to the WTC, instead of trying tirelessly to prove that there is no evidence?

just take a look at Dr Judy Woods research. im not going to copy/paste images and arguments.

anybody with half a brain can figure out what happened to the WTC.

[antipodean]

The only evidence we have is what we were shown live on TV, & what that was replaced with.
Plus the ridiculous victims lists.
The WTC collapsed in seconds by some sort of CD, but the technology used is debatable.

[liltroofer]

@hearty soup

and anyone with 1/4 brain can see that Judy Wood includes the same photo fakery used to prove airplanes. Judy Wood is a fraud. So tell us hearty soup - what brought down the towers? "Everyone" here seems to know what you think, as if you alone could see through the mountain of BS fed to us by the CIA.

And you need to get over yourself. Your bad argument that "tv fakery can't be the answer because it doesn't explain everything" is religious zealotry in a pure form.

TV fakery explains how the lie was achieved. If we knew what actually happened, their lie would have failed entirely. Which it did not. Most people still think airplanes hit the towers and that 3000 people died. But that story has so many holes in it now, this so-called "alternative source" David Icke forum is starting to look like a playground circa 2005. Why does Icke talk about Reptilians more than TV fakery?

TV fakery is the (almost) perfect propaganda weapon because you cannot believe you are not seeing reality on the boob toob.

[onourwayto2012]

I used to be a Woodster, now I'm a Shackster.

[heartysoup]

i guess you guys haven't listened to the 100s of hours of radio interviews Dr Judy Wood & Andrew Johnson have done.

couple clicks here and there, a few cheeseburgers later, you're a Shackster!
great research. (after all.... SimonShack has compiled everything for you... so you dont have to do any thinking) hmm......

you want people to run around yelling 'no victims', 'no planes'; so that we all look like total lunatics.

Wood never says anything about planes; in fact, she occasionally makes subtle 'roadrunner' references that hint at cartoon-like plane imprints.
but.. you would only know this if you put a little effort into your research.

being intellectual light-weights, its probably easier for you to believe "everything is fake"... lol... its so simple.... like a K-Mart boardgame for pre-teens.

"everything is fake" is an idea created so that we will never, ever, figure out how the WTC was destroyed.

SimonShack and HoiPollio (from the 911movement) personally replied to my comments saying that they thought Dr Judy Woods was fake, shes a nutter, etc etc...
Typical debunker comments. Not once did they legitimately try to discuss her research. NOT ONCE.

'troofer' is also a word made up by debunkers et al.
liltroofer = tv fakery fundamentalist... oh... and 'no victims' supporter.

umm.. yes... there were fake images on tv.... umm... yes its possible that some victims were faked...

but what you're saying liltroofer, is that there is 'no evidence' (except ALLLLLLLL the evidence for TV Fakery LOL)... (what an interesting coincidence)... and that ALLLLL the victims are fake.... well... if this doesnt sound like disinfo catered to Neanderthals then I dont know what is.

typical disinfo. TYPICAL.

SimonShack is just like Steven Jones... makes you think he has the answers but actually covering up the most important aspects.

... and another day/week/month/year/decade goes by and nobody knows what happened to the buildings. LOL.

the disinfo is really clear to see... shouldnt take a genius to realize that SimonShacks 'research' is really driving the nails into the coffin of 9/11 truth.

so by all means please.... unite Shacksters... show us how utterly fat and addicted to cheeseburgers you are... photoshop a picture of Judy Wood and tell me shes not real. ROFL. (this actually happened)

remember Shacksters... the Hutchison Effect is complicated... directed-energy weapons are really complicated...

if you cant understand it...... just go to your nearest 9/11 Pop Star (in this case Simon), and believe everything they say; it'll be way easier on your brain, and you'll still have plenty of time for cheeseburgers.

just dont expect to ever find out what caused all the destruction.

dont EVER complain about gas prices.
dont EVER complain about the global energy budget.
you CHOOSE to live in ignorance.

spend all your time learning whats fake, Shackster.
while the rest of us learn whats REAL.

[antipodean]

So can you be a shackster without discounting exotic weaponry bringing down the Towers.

Only the fakery angle is a lot easier to prove than some sort of beam weapon, activated by a hurricane that maybe didn't exist to the extent that we are being told it did.

[heartysoup]

So can you be a shackster without discounting exotic weaponry bringing down the Towers.

well; you wouldn't really be a 'shackster'. you would be a 'tv-fakery-guy'. shacksters think there is no evidence.
....remember.... SimonShack and HoiPollio (from 911movement.org) had an entire section on their website dedicated to 'the Judy Wood Sim' lol, to make people think she is also NOT REAL.

you can be whatever you want man.

you're clearly a fan of September Clues...
good for you. go for it.

Climate Change might be real but that doesnt mean Al Gore is saying the truth.

if the tv fakery is so easy to prove; whats going on with it legally? anything?
why is Dr Judy 'beam-weapon' Woods' Qui Tam case against NIST contractors in the lead right now in terms of legal action?

nobody is going to spoon-feed you the truth. if they do... its because they dont want you to use your own brain.

[antipodean]

if the tv fakery is so easy to prove; whats going on with it legally? anything?
why is Dr Judy 'beam-weapon' Woods' Qui Tam case against NIST contractors in the lead right now in terms of legal action?


I thought Morgan Reynolds or someone else had filed some sort of law suit regarding the TV fakery of UA175 hitting WTC2.

I can't recall Woods being referred to as a sim. I think she was accused of pushing disinformation.

Most of the collapse videos do look fake, & of very poor quality to the extent of it being difficult to use them as a research tool.

[andrewjohnson]

activated by a hurricane that maybe didn't exist to the extent that we are being told it did.

Thanks again for showing up the strategy - to muddle and deliberately mis quote the research posted already. This is precisely as I documented in my articles such as this:

http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=12917

And of course we have anonymous posters here who won't use their real names - so nothing can be attributed to anyone. How's that for fakery??? ;) Seemingly a lot of people afraid of reality (i.e. their real name).

I think Sept Clues is great, but then as HS has pointed out Simon Shack says "everything is fake" and ignores the level of corroboration for some of the evidence. I set up some webspace to post the video files for it too. Then, in common with most other researchers and posters, Shack et al cannot offer any viable explanation as to why the towers are no longer there - and how steel columns disappeared in about 10 secs (doesn't really matter how it appeared on TV as anyone can now go to NYC and see the towers are, indeed, no longer there...)

And maybe video fakery on its own can't explain all the "plane issues". If you listen to Jeff HIll's collection of phone calls, and read 1st responder accounts, it becomes increasingly difficult to conclude some people didn't see something that looked like a plane (or planes) at the WTC. Few have tried to explain that anomaly - preferring instead to keep in the fossil fuel paradigm and not consider important evidence which exposes another con.

So in summary, some people want to

Trash research
Misquote research
Ignore evidence
Ignore court submissions
Ignore the energy question
Ridicule people who present evidence that there is indeed an "energy cover up"
Ignore history (e.g. of Steven E Jones et al)
Offer NO viable explanation or alternative to what has been put in and around the court case.

So we have myriad of anonymous posters trying to complicate and misquote simple things and get people to think the towers are probably - somehow - still there, because they can't or won't explain why they aren't.

Keep it real. The future looks great.

[antipodean]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[heartysoup]

Thanks again for showing up the strategy - to muddle and deliberately mis quote the research posted already. This is precisely as I documented in my articles such as this:

http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=12917

And of course we have anonymous posters here who won't use their real names - so nothing can be attributed to anyone. How's that for fakery??? ;) Seemingly a lot of people afraid of reality (i.e. their real name).

I think Sept Clues is great, but then as HS has pointed out Simon Shack says "everything is fake" and ignores the level of corroboration for some of the evidence. I set up some webspace to post the video files for it too. Then, in common with most other researchers and posters, Shack et al cannot offer any viable explanation as to why the towers are no longer there - and how steel columns disappeared in about 10 secs (doesn't really matter how it appeared on TV as anyone can now go to NYC and see the towers are, indeed, no longer there...)

And maybe video fakery on its own can't explain all the "plane issues". If you listen to Jeff HIll's collection of phone calls, and read 1st responder accounts, it becomes increasingly difficult to conclude some people didn't see something that looked like a plane (or planes) at the WTC. Few have tried to explain that anomaly - preferring instead to keep in the fossil fuel paradigm and not consider important evidence which exposes another con.

So in summary, some people want to

Trash research
Misquote research
Ignore evidence
Ignore court submissions
Ignore the energy question
Ridicule people who present evidence that there is indeed an "energy cover up"
Ignore history (e.g. of Steven E Jones et al)
Offer NO viable explanation or alternative to what has been put in and around the court case.

So we have myriad of anonymous posters trying to complicate and misquote simple things and get people to think the towers are probably - somehow - still there, because they can't or won't explain why they aren't.

Keep it real. The future looks great.

While I basically agree with everything you're saying about 9/11 I can't really understand why you want people to use their real names.

Your name is Andrew Johnson, and there are probably 10 million other Andrew Johnsons out there. Also I assume you have a family and a job.

Some of us have not-so-common names, and are simply students, who will have to go out into the world and find serious job one day.

Needless to say, if we use our real names, we're going to be easily found, and probably harassed, using the same directed energy weapons that we constantly discuss on this forum.

I care about what happened on 9/11, and what is happening to this planet in general. But not enough to open myself up to constant harassment / screw up my future.

So far you're the only one using your real name. You also have radio interviews, articles, and websites; so maybe it makes more sense for you to use your real name.

I happen to live in a country which puts people on lists for doing nothing.

Forgive me if I don't use my real name on the David Icke forum. I promise when I start a website, do a couple hundred hours of radio interviews, and host conferences, I will start using my real name. :)

Not trying to get preemptively harassed right now. A bit too young for that. If I develop cancer at the age of 30 then I'll be at the forefront of 9/11 activism... right now things are pretty good.

I think anonymous posting is better actually. People focus on the content of the post rather than who the person is. Makes people more aware of how to find disinfo within the content of a posting.

At the end of the day whatever... I learned a lot from your collection of articles in 'Finding the Truth'. Thought it was good. It might even be time for a v2.0; with less infighting drama, more evidence of DEW, and maybe even a subsection on SimonShacks role as the gravedigger of 9/11 truth with his "No evidence / everything is fake" paradigm.

[heartysoup]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_M-mUnvpcU

does this thread have a garbage bin?

[antipodean]

While I basically agree with everything you're saying about 9/11 I can't really understand why you want people to use their real names.

Your name is Andrew Johnson, and there are probably 10 million other Andrew Johnsons out there. Also I assume you have a family and a job.

Some of us have not-so-common names, and are simply students, who will have to go out into the world and find serious job one day.

Needless to say, if we use our real names, we're going to be easily found, and probably harassed, using the same directed energy weapons that we constantly discuss on this forum.

I care about what happened on 9/11, and what is happening to this planet in general. But not enough to open myself up to constant harassment / screw up my future.

So far you're the only one using your real name. You also have radio interviews, articles, and websites; so maybe it makes more sense for you to use your real name.

I happen to live in a country which puts people on lists for doing nothing.

Forgive me if I don't use my real name on the David Icke forum. I promise when I start a website, do a couple hundred hours of radio interviews, and host conferences, I will start using my real name.

Not trying to get preemptively harassed right now. A bit too young for that. If I develop cancer at the age of 30 then I'll be at the forefront of 9/11 activism... right now things are pretty good.

I think anonymous posting is better actually. People focus on the content of the post rather than who the person is. Makes people more aware of how to find disinfo within the content of a posting

I agree with most of the above, I just don't like being told by someone how to prioritise 9/11 research.
It's all very well having a nice degree under your belt (from some perp run university) which can guarantee yourself a nice income, but some of us lesser mortals are trying hard to find/ hold down a job that pays a pittance. Are subject to google name searches, & hence don't have the luxury of promoting a profile.

[heartysoup]

I agree with most of the above, I just don't like being told by someone how to prioritise 9/11 research.
It's all very well having a nice degree under your belt (from some perp run university) which can guarantee yourself a nice income, but some of us lesser mortals are trying hard to find/ hold down a job that pays a pittance. Are subject to google name searches, & hence don't have the luxury of promoting a profile.

and if we used our real names we wouldn't be able to have as many girlfriends. :p
(edit: I wonder what Nico Haupts experience with this is.)

chicks aren't in to directed energy weapons.
except for Dr Judy Wood, Rosalee Grable, and Rosie O'Donnell. :D

antipodean; just use the forum search tool one day when you have some free time and look at the threads by mr_pixie, andrewjohnson, etc. there is a wealth of knowledge.

hopefully im not being a fascist about 9/11 research. i really dislike fascists.
:)

[heartysoup]

When John Hutchison finally shags Paris Hilton, I will start using my real name. :D

How about that?

[vasudha]

It's not just the fact that it's a huge mental burden to know that at any moment your boss could google your name and you could be fired.

It's also that, though he is a good and hard worker, Nico is eccentric and has a trigger - hair anger, under certain conditions which he cannot sometimes control.

Nico is all for making fun of people who do not show their face and who research under a pseudonym, - however he has had to suffer for having his name out there.

So I guess he doesn't like anyone else being able to "get away" with not having to suffer?

Not sure why Johnson and by proxy, Judy Wood, attack Fetzer? I've read part of Johnson's book and find him sympathetic. However, it's too much about the real or imagined slights against Judy Wood.


Fetzer has made a argument that Wood is leading a scientific cult, since she broaches no criticism and anyone who questions her is attacked viciously by her devoted admirers.

In my opinion Wood does not have a proper scientific temperament since she lets personality issues and issues of "whose got more esteem" get in the way of discussing the issues.

Anyway, it's interesting to me that the only place where a "no-planer" can "hang-out" on line, without getting banned, that I know of, is either here or on the synchromysticism forum. (http://synchromysticismforum.com/index.php)

As far as Shack's "Reality Shack"?" Yeah, you've got to genuflect there too, or else get banned. (http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/11/simon-shack-has-agenda.html)


PS Johnson brands researchers as cowards for not using their legal names on-line. However, why does Wood shrink from publicly stating a no-plane position? Does she think there were planes or is she afraid to say anything?

There is a stigma on Icke because of the "lizard people" meme - but what the heck. Let the nasty people and nasty arguments stay away from here. All the better.

I am firmly in the camp of Heartysoup here who's written that the "follower" mentality - let others do the thinking for me, is a major tendency.

And the "whose side are you on" personality fights are worthless distractions.

I also agree that the truth is nuanced. The killers in this game created a layered puzzle. The first simple answer you come to - the one that stares at you immediately, right in the eyes - is likely not to be the right one.

It takes a lot of work and time to sort his out. Simple answers is what got us the "19 vicious killer religious zealots from the desert" theory.

Some people have definitely died over 9/11.

So I also agree with the Heartysoup here who says the Shack theory, that no one died, since the people who carried this out could not be persuaded to do it otherwise [?!], is too simplistic.

And they didn't really torture those people either - to get the fake confessions?! It's like a movie. No one really dies or suffers?

People beg for simple answers since it takes less time and energy. However, it's junk. And won't stand the test of time or inquiry.

The very fact Shack will not allow questioners or dissenters on his board - to test his theory - shows there is a weakness in it.

If someone really has the truth they don't have to make others tip-toe around and genuflect. The truth has its own reality, its own vitality. The truth is robust. It doesn't need bodyguards.

That goes for Judy Wood too. She's hiding behind a few very tough and nasty bodyguards.

[andrewjohnson]

At the end of the day whatever... I learned a lot from your collection of articles in 'Finding the Truth'. Thought it was good. It might even be time for a v2.0; with less infighting drama, more evidence of DEW, and maybe even a subsection on SimonShacks role as the gravedigger of 9/11 truth with his "No evidence / everything is fake" paradigm.

Ah well - why not kill 2 birds with one stone? You can write some articles about this and put your real name to them can't you? Why to I have to do all the work?

I wrote to over 70 UK military bases/addresses. I do have a family yes. I hope I am on every list there is and I hope my communications are being monitored VERY closely. Perhaps that way, these people might actually learn something about how they've been duped into a false paradigm based on a zero sum game...

So far, no one has tried to interfere with anything I've done. I am not doing anything illegal and I mean no one any harm. It works for me.

Yeah, I can appreciate the wish for anonymity, sure - but for almost everyone on here to be anonymous? It "don't seem right" to me...

And after all this time? Wow.

[d_duck]

andrewjohnson,

Why all the obsession with peoples identities?

Are you lonely?

Do you want to drop by for a cup of coffee?

If people don't want to post with their real names they probably have good reasons for it, so just leave it at that.

Now, why don't you talk to the jooody woooody girl and tell her to clean up her website.

There are tons of photo shopped pictures on her website and many of them come from the well known photo shopper George "JO JO " Marengo.

I have told you this many times in the past and you just pretend as the pictures are real.

WHY IS THAT????



D.Duck

[heartysoup]

Now, why don't you talk to the jooody woooody girl and tell her to clean up her website.

There are tons of photo shopped pictures on her website and many of them come from the well known photo shopper George "JO JO " Marengo.


Well, which pictures do you think are fake?

You must be a fundamentalist Shackster who believes everything is fake and that we will never know what happened. Is this a correct assumption?

Why don't you post the pictures you think are fake so we can see who you're trying to cover-up for.

I dont think any of her pictures are fake.... but even if there was a picture that was fake it doesnt negate any of her research as she doesn't limit herself to a couple of stupid photographs.

Is the magnetometer data fake? Or the international space-station shots of Hurricane Erin? Is the Canadian Meteorological Data for Erin fake?
Is Steven Jones history in developing Cold Fusion technology and directed energy weapons fake?

I dont understand your obsession with fake pictures. Clearly you are a shackster. I've never seen you once argue about anything real, lol; only fake things.

Like I said very early on in this thread, you Shacksters think everything is fake, and have thus fallen into a pit of disinformation.

Is her Supreme Court case fake? Maybe the buildings are still there? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Am I fake? Are you fake? Maybe Shacksters will unite and emerge as the most paranoid sect of 9/11 truth ever.

And... so behind the times... its incredible.. you "everything is fake" people are just relying on people to not be familiar with the work of JW, Hutchison, Andrew Johnson etc.

Have you read John Hutchisons affidavit? Of course not. That ALONE is enough to implicate the military industrial complex. But no, you have to focus on pictures... like this is some kind of childrens book.

We didn't even need September Clues to show us there were probably no planes. But, this being Disinfo City, SimonShack made SeptClues and stole the show from physics-based explanations and started claiming everything is fake based on video artifacts. LOL. goddamn idiots. Now people think everything is fake.

Strange to me that... with all these false leaders around... people put their trust in some random person who makes a couple videos.
Strange that; when physics can explain no-planes; people would rather put all their trust in SimonShack. mind-boggling.

But yea duck; enough about your bandwagons obsession with fake pictures.
Why dont you post what pictures you think are fake, and you can explain why they are fake. Try to be conclusive and PROVE that its fake. ok?
Dont give me some bullshit debunker response or I'm going to spank the living shit out of it and your word is going to be dead from that point onwards.

So; there are probably a thousand pictures on her website... go for it.

Remember, if you can't prove something is fake; then you might as well just shut the hell up, right?