Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 29-12-2013, 09:48 PM   #41
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 286 (208 Posts)
Default

Abirato Radio episode 82 - 12 / 28 / 2013

Guests: One Born Free, Simon Shack, Dusty Ash, Banazir, Farcevalue and Rollo,

http://fakeologist.com/wp-content/up...2/ep82-OBF.mp3

One Born Free on Jim Fetzer's patently fraudulent claims of using "scientific method":

http://onebornfrees911researchreview...rst-blush.html






“It is not necessary to bury the truth. It is sufficient merely
to delay it until nobody cares.” ~ Napoléon Bonaparte

Last edited by synergetic67; 29-12-2013 at 10:24 PM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2014, 12:34 AM   #42
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 286 (208 Posts)
Default

1978 MOVIE MOCKS 911 CRASH PHYSICS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=xuhNR6lx97E





Making of airplane crash scene for the movie 'The Medusa Touch', 1978
















http://concen.org/forum/thread-35324.html

"Those who will not reason are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." ~ Lord Byron

Last edited by synergetic67; 01-01-2014 at 12:34 AM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2014, 04:50 PM   #43
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 286 (208 Posts)
Default

Abirato Radio 01 / 19 / 2014 -- ep85 - Guests: Simon Shack and One Born Free (OBF). Tim, Shack and OBF respond to Jim Fetzer's blatant Veterans Today hit-piece on Simon Shack and the Clues Forum research:

http://fakeologist.com/wp-content/up...ck-and-OBF.mp3

Jim Fetzer's Veterans Today Hit Piece on Simon Shack and September Clues Forum:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01...s-distractors/


The Clues Forum Response:

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...89014#p2389014



Quote:

HOW EXACTLY WERE THE TOWERS DEMOLISHED?
Trusty ol' fashioned dynamite charges, perchance?

by simonshack on November 26th, 2013, 12:08 am

We have now demonstrated on this forum (in every imaginable manner) that ALL the 9/11 imagery depicting the crucial events of the day were fake - and that includes the tower collapse imagery. In all logic, since the primary objective of the 9/11 psyop was to bring down the entire WTC complex - 9 buildings in all (and blame it on a bunch of muslim suicide-terrorists hijacking airplanes), the planners of this media-supported hoax would NOT have run the foolish risk to show the ACTUAL collapses on live TV, for the whole world to see. Common sense dictates that, since the perps could rely on the news networks airing fake imagery, they would have used this asset to its full potential.

Yet, there are still some 9/11 researchers (whether trolls or honest truth-seekers) proposing that the twin towers MUST have been brought down with some Super-Special explosives, such as "nano-thermite", "mini-nukes" or "directed energy weapons". On this forum, we are now familiar with the main proponents of such exotic and largely untested demolition methods: Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, Dimitri Khalezov - and a few other clowns. All of them are, in my mind, obviously protecting the media networks' role on 9/11 : they've all reached their conclusions by staring at the available tower collapse imagery shown on TV (and by alleged "amateur cameramen")- which we have now proven to be totally fraudulent. All of them.

The problem for most people is, of course, to get to terms with the fact that what we saw on TV was NOT the actual collapses of the towers. It stands to reason that the 9/11 psyop planners perps would have used the oldest, simplest and most foolproof trick to hide the proceedings: to engulf the WTC complex area in military-grade smoke obscurants BEFORE the start of the demolitions. Yet this most logical of all schemes seems to be, oddly enough, a tough thing for people to wrap their minds around. Instead, we have had twelve years (on all sorts of "9/11 truth" forums) of incessant bickering about the EXACT TYPE of explosives used to bring down those tall, steel-framed towers. Endless circular debates about this ultimately irrelevant issue has monopolized the attention, the time, the efforts and the intellectual resources of scores of well-meaning truth seekers - and we now know that the largest and best-funded "truther" organization, namely 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth', was set up to achieve just that: to bamboozle everyone with a million 'scientific' theories.

I mean, come on: those "A&E for 9/11 truth" people do not even question the inane, official NIST data which has Tower 2 and Tower 1 collapsing in "9 and 11 seconds", respectively... Can anyone with a working brain buy this in-your-face insult of everyone's intelligence? Tower 2 and Tower 1 collapsing in 9 and 11 seconds? Really? Well, PLEASE KNOW that this is what the official NIST report states - no kidding, folks - look it up for yourself! Yes, NIST tells us that the two towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds !

So all I wish to say is: enough is enough. Let us stop giving the benefit of doubt to the above-mentioned clowns, blatantly recruited to waste everyone's time. Let's get REAL now, folks. And to those still wondering EXACTLY HOW the towers were brought down, I will simply ask: have you ever heard of dynamite? You know, that handy explosive invented by my fellow countryman Alfred Nobel? (Yeah, that 'genius' arms manufacturer after which the Nobel Peace Prize was named...) Do you know that ALL building demolitions in the world have used dynamite - for many decades now - and that it is the most universally tested and reliable method employed to demolish buildings with? Why on Earth would the 9/11 perps use any other, untested method to bring down the WTC?

To those still on the fence about conventional, ultra-reliable demolition methods being employed on 9/11, here's my question: what's your problem? Do you think that dynamite couldn't make the WTC towers collapse? That this demolition technology wasn't up to the job, in 2001? Were the towers too tall for that? Well, think again: here's what the Loizeaux Controlled Demolition company achieved - back in 1977:



Hey, the Biltmore Hotel even looks like it collapses top down - (dynamite charges were evidently put in the upper floors). So much for those naysayers retorting that "Duh! If they'd animated the 9/11 collapse images, they would have made more realistic-looking collapse videos"...

SELECTED ARTICLES ABOUT THE BILTMORE HOTEL DEMOLITION:

"When it fell, the 245-ft-high structure became the tallest steel-frame building to be demolished with explosives. But none presented the problems that the Biltmore did. "It’ s the heaviest steel we’ve ever worked on," says Mark Loizeaux, of Controlled Demolition, Inc. "Because of the thickness of the steel, a single charge wouldn't penetrate completely through," he says. “We had to attack a single 3-in.-thick stem plate from both sides."
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/biltmore-hotel


"The Biltmore was thirty-three stories high and was heralded as the state's tallest building. On October 16, 1977 the Hotel Biltmore was demolished by a team of demolition specialists. Hundreds of low-yield explosives were planted throughout the building so that it would collapse and fall inward into an acceptable area only slightly larger than the hotel's foundation. The purpose was both to break the materials into smaller pieces that would be easily transported away, and to contain the blast and debris within the area, in order to minimize damage to surrounding structures. The razing was recorded by hundreds of camera buffs.'"
http://www.okhistory.org/research/hm...&action=Search

"The Biltmore was certainly the largest building to fall during the Urban Renewal era. The explosion that took down the 26-story, 600-room hotel in 1977 was televised across the country, so certainly it made an impression."
http://newsok.com/looking-back-at-th...rticle/3470180

"The building is enormous. It is concrete. It is full of steel. It reaches many stories into the turquoise sky. All around it is a teeming city. There is traffic in the streets. Huge and delicate office suites of glass and steel are right next door. And nearly a million people live nearby. Yet the building is decaying. It is abandoned and crumbling. Police have had to remove squatters several times. It is a danger to the city, and must be removed. But how to do so without creating even more of a threat? There is a sound of sirens, then a deep, almost subliminal explosion. And slowly, almost gracefully, the building seems to melt into itself. The glass suites are unharmed. The traffic hurries on. The million people barely notice."
http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/...struction.aspx


So this 33-story Hotel was neatly demolished in 1977 - with conventional dynamite explosives. Does anyone still contend that the 110-story WTC towers were IMPOSSIBLE to demolish with the very same yet much perfected methods in 2001 - twenty-four years later? I sincerely hope we can finally get over this endless and tiresome debate.


http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...7a5b8#p2388338

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h-oHFx4GMQ

Last edited by synergetic67; 22-01-2014 at 04:56 PM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2014, 06:50 PM   #44
07august
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 45 (36 Posts)
Default

Using clueless Jim Fetzer as a source is very funny.
07august is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-01-2014, 07:35 PM   #45
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 286 (208 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 07august View Post
Using clueless Jim Fetzer as a source is very funny.

What do you mean? Nobody's using Fetzer as a "source," they're ridiculing his "Cluelessness" or to be more exact his ridiculous shillery.

Shack has always said that Fetzer is a shill and an inner-level media-fakery gatekeeper since the days he wheeled Ace Baker out just 2 weeks after "September Clues" was released in 2007. And now this hatchet job, for the benefit of the 9-11-truth dabblers, of course, those who do not have the time to research these things thoroughly, so that they will dismiss the Clues-Forum research as insane and not worth-their-time without a second look, has shown him up for the umpteenth time for what he is: a shill, whose job is to DELAY THE FINAL LAYER AS LONG AS POSSIBLE, the possibility of large numbers of people blaming the media as 100% complicit in 9-11 and all other PsyOps since then and before, and therefore DISTRUSTING ALL IMAGES coming from this LITERAL SEWER of enemy propaganda FOREVER, absent the strictest authentication and determination of chain of custody.


Quote:

This series of photos that Japanese London-based photographer Chino Otsuka created is so nostalgic and heartwarming, it left me breathless. In “Imagine Finding Me,” Chino does something unique that I frankly have never seen before: she digitally inserts herself into old photos, so that she is standing next to her younger self. The concept is simple and her digital manipulation of the photos is done so well it makes it seem she is a time traveler (HMM). These pictures are filled with a sense of longing for simpler times that may hit you at your core.

http://www.viralnova.com/time-traveling-photographer/



Chino 1977 and 2009 France
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftety...GAm34UQtqufmXw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls0CR...XLtP2oZY2NWDTA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD_IgCKpNrY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNShpKrcuOw

"My guess is that well over eighty per cent of the human race goes through life without ever having a single original thought. That is to say, they never think anything that has not been thought before, and by thousands. A society made up of individuals who were all capable of original thought would probably be unendurable. The pressure of ideas would simply drive it frantic. The normal human society is very little troubled by them. Whenever a new one appears the average man displays signs of dismay and resentment. The only way he can take in such a new idea is by translating it crudely into terms of more familiar ideas. That translation is one of the chief functions of politicians, not to mention journalists. They devote themselves largely to debasing the ideas launched by their betters. This debasement is intellectually reprehensible, but probably necessary to carry on the business of the world." ~ Henry Louis Mencken

Last edited by synergetic67; 22-01-2014 at 07:42 PM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2014, 10:54 AM   #46
greenfellow
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 561
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

If the buildings on 9/11 did not collapse at 10:05 & 10:28 but instead were demolished later on then how would they disguise the noise of this 'controlled demolition' ?

edit

building 7 came down at 17:20 so would that have been the time to do it?

Last edited by greenfellow; 23-01-2014 at 10:57 AM. Reason: added another point
greenfellow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2014, 06:08 PM   #47
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 286 (208 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenfellow View Post
If the buildings on 9/11 did not collapse at 10:05 & 10:28 but instead were demolished later on then how would they disguise the noise of this 'controlled demolition' ?

edit

building 7 came down at 17:20 so would that have been the time to do it?
That's what they say, that WTC 7 came down later, but we know that you can't believe ANYTHING, not a single word coming out of this organ of enemy-propaganda which is your mass-media. Not a single word or image can be trusted without independent verification and authentication. For a huge false-flag PsyOp like 9-11, almost all the images and video are pre-manufactured and most of the witnesses are hired actors, as you saw again with "Sandy Hook" and "The Boston Marathon Bombings."

What you saw on TV and later on the internet in "amateur" footage, had nothing to do with what actually took place at all. It was a HOLLYWOOD SHOCK & AWE SPECIAL EFFECTS MOVIE of what they WANTED YOU and billions of others TO BELIEVE TOOK PLACE, cut up into many pieces and released in stages. That entire area of lower Manhattan was most likely quarantined off by military and knowing what we know now about the VicSims, there was almost certainly no one inside any of the buildings when the demolitions happened. Did bombs go off in the upper floors to simulate a plane having hit there? We don't know from the video evidence because ALL of it is fraudulent and we cannot trust any "on the scene" witnesses since SO MANY have proven to be frauds and actors, starting with the infamous "Harley Guy":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14

They had other fake witnesses like William Rodriguez set up and a bunch of fake firemen (see the images of the morphed firefighter VicSims posted earlier in the thread) to MAKE YOU BELIEVE that there were thousands trapped inside the buildings desperate to get out, fake phone calls without a single cough, the whole gamut. Then, of course, they also had the FAKE JUMPERS. Here are the 2 "KING KONG MAN" posts by Simon Shack which prove 100% conclusively that the videos of the "Jumpers" were fakes:

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...74833#p2374833

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224648

The building collapse videos are also fake including the building 7 "standard demoltion" video seen a zilliion times on alternative media. This was a red herring deliberately exposed as a "mistake" by the perps in order to control the opposition they knew was coming in the alternative media. Silverstein and that BBC reporter announcing it ahead of time "took one for the team," knowing full-well that they have full control of the legal system as well and will never be prosecuted for it. Silverstein not only was not prosecuted or even interrogated but collected ALL of his insurance money. They set up this entire charade to give the alternative media "hope," to get us chasing our tails for ten years, believing that the video images were real and THAT BY EXAMINING THESE CARTOONS, we could somehow discover "what really happened" that day. Most importantly, they always and at all times need to reinforce the notion that the media wasn't in on it 100%, that they do not deal in fake imagery but only some fake words and statements. TRUST IN THE MEDIA and especially in IMAGE TRANSMISSIONS from media is absolutely essential for the execution of future trauma-induced fear-based PsyOps. Without this FAKE-IMAGERY-BASED trauma-induced fear-conditioning of billions, they will actually have to go out and massacre real people everywhere to get people to be scared and that will be might end up creating far too many problems for them than they care to deal with. It is so much easier for them to fool everyone into thinking a goddamn movie is a "real event."

Simon Shack's WTC 7 Study

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg


So, most likely ALL 9 BUILDINGS, including WTC 7 were brought down AT THE SAME TIME, but they wrote into the script that WTC 7 was brought down "later." Nobody in New York, not even the few thousand that were positioned at angles where they could have had views of the buildings (although the impression was given in that there were "millions" of "on the scene" witnesses), saw exactly how the buildings collapsed because they were enveloped in military-grade smoke-screen. However, BILLIONS saw the FAKED SPECIAL EFFECTS VIDEOS OF THE COLLAPSES on TV, PRE-MANUFACTURED BUT AIRED AS IF LIVE, and believed that the media was ON THE SCENE REPORTING. The buildings were rigged years in advance and THERE WERE NO MISTAKES, the "mistakes" were all deliberate, to get the dissenters like us arguing amongst ourselves for decades about "how" the buildings were brought down based on a bunch of pre-manufactured movies, ENTIRE ORGANIZATIONS like the absurd "Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth" basing their studies on a bunch of FAKE HOLLYWOOD IMAGES. Would "Architects & Engineers & other Buffoons for 9-11 Troof" take the images from the building demolitions in movies like "Independence Day" and "The Towering Inferno" and analyzed them as if they were "real events" ? No! So why were they analyzing these media cartoons as if they were real without authentication and chain of custody? Because they were either morons or PLANTS whose job was to get their followers to BELIEVE and TRUST the imagery coming from the sewer-hole of their media while they are doubting the words and statements.

Later on, of course, Shack found out that almost all of the "amateur" video footage credited to different people, actually came from ONE GUY, Steven Rosenbaum and ONE COMPANY, Camera Planet.

Read the first 2 pages of this thread for more info on Rosenbaum.

Also on the first page, you'll find the "September Clues Tour Guide" which has every link you need to research the 9-11 video fakery further and why the conclusion Simon Shack and crew have come to, which, in my opinion, is the correct one, is that NONE of the images and videos can be trusted. The only thing we know for sure is that all 9 buildings were demolished and most of the media was complicit in the PsyOp false-flag that was 9-11, not somewhat complicit and "somewhat honest," but nearly 100% complicit and part of the operation from the very beginning.

Last edited by synergetic67; 23-01-2014 at 06:31 PM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2014, 06:42 PM   #48
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 286 (208 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
Well it is funny that you link a huge post by someone who is reduced to insults to get his highly speculative points across. It`s as if it`s been written by Cass Sunstein.
Who? Shack? He's not reduced to "insults," he's just laughing at the pathetic tactics of Fetzer. You should read Fetzer's ridiculous post on Veterans Today linked above and see how many insults and low-blows Fetzer and gang throw Shack's way. In the next post Hoi Polloi takes apart the entirety of the Fetzer's hatchet job paragraph by paragraph.

They're not speculating, they have the proof. All you people have are faked imagery and the absurd belief that the laws of physics are somehow applicable to the events taking place inside a bunch of cartoons and Hollywood special effect movies.

"Sandy Hook," "Boston Marathon," "Norway Shootings," "Faked Moon Landings," "holohoax," all more-or-less the same Modus Operandi: Media Fakery.

I know it's scary, but it's time you put your ego aside and admit you were duped beyond your wildest dreams and IT IS THE VERY FACT that billions of people are not willing to face the possibility that they can be duped on such a massive scale that keeps each and every "Big Lie" impregnable and protected.


You know that whole "Hitler promoted The Big Lie" slander you've heard so many times over the years ?

This is what Hitler actually wrote:

“But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice. All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true in itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.” ~ Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf

He wasn't promoting the 'Big Lie,' he was condemning it by describing how his enemies, the Jews, used it and how the gullible and naive Germans reacted to it.

The "Big Lie" technique is psychologically at the root of all Media Fakery Psy-Ops, so be glad that Uncle Adolf identified it for everyone once-&-for-all.

It is precisely because he identified it and exposed it that they had to run another disinformation campaign to keep people from reading what he actually wrote.

Last edited by synergetic67; 23-01-2014 at 10:29 PM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2014, 06:52 PM   #49
greenfellow
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 561
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

I would be interested to know what you speculate could happen in the future with present technology synergetic67 ?

edit

perhaps an on going war like in George Orwells 1984. Perhaps war footage has already been staged or 'hollywooded'

Last edited by greenfellow; 23-01-2014 at 06:57 PM.
greenfellow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-01-2014, 10:42 PM   #50
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 286 (208 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenfellow View Post
I would be interested to know what you speculate could happen in the future with present technology synergetic67 ?

edit

perhaps an on going war like in George Orwells 1984. Perhaps war footage has already been staged or 'hollywooded'

People have to learn two things:

1) That they are manipulated mainly through FEAR

2) That IMAGES cannot be trusted to be representations of real events PRIOR to authentication, especially if these images have been transmitted to you by the biggest liars and fraudsters in the history of the world: the mass-media

The big fear is that one day we will no longer be able to tell the difference between reality and a 3-D virtual reality digitally created, between an android, a robot or a human being, a "Blade Runner" kind of world. But by that time humans will have to have evolved enough discernment to become specialists in identifying "replicants," or they will be in sad shape. What I want to see is at least 10% of the world's population having as much discernment of reality and fakery and conspiracy knowledge as a Simon Shack or a Henrik Palmgren or a Sofia Smallstorm. Once we have an army that huge, we will be able to lead the rest in revolutionary ways that we cannot predict in the present. And we, hopefully as consistent practitioners of the win-win dialectic as opposed to the win-lose of the parasites, will be able to develop elaborate defenses and martial arts against parasitism that we do not have the resources to develop today. The double-edged sword of the internet is the only tool right now where, for a few hundred dollars, an average peon can gain access to vast amounts of knowledge but also vast amounts of misinformation and disinformation and get spied on day-&-night in the bargain, but it shouldn't be the only one. Our fates should not be beyond our control or else we'll be no different than the "replicants" in Philip K. Dick's story and Ridley Scott's film.


"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. [pause] Time to die."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_saUN4j7Gw

Tears In Rain is the final monologue of the Replicant Roy Batty in the movie Blade Runner. It is much quoted[1] and has been described as "perhaps the most moving death soliloquy in cinematic history".[2] The final form of the speech was improvised by Rutger Hauer, the actor who delivers it

Tannhauser Gate

Tannhauser Gate, Tannhäuser Gate and Tanhauser Gate are variant spellings of this unexplained placename which is used only once in this monologue. The name probably derives from Richard Wagner's operatic adaption of the legend of the medieval German knight and poet Tannhäuser.[14] Joanne Taylor, in an article discussing film noir and its epistemology, remarks on the relation between Wagner's opera and Batty's reference, and suggests that Batty aligns himself with Wagner's Tannhauser, a character who has fallen from grace with men and with God. Both, she claims, are characters whose fate is is beyond their own control.




















" Happy the man who can endure the highest and the lowest fortune. He, who has endured such vicissitudes with equanimity, has deprived misfortune of its power. " ~ Seneca




"Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups...So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing." ~ Philip K. Dick

“You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity. At some time, every creature which lives must do so. It is the ultimate shadow, the defeat of creation; this is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life. Everywhere in the universe.” ~ Philip K. Dick

"This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this resistance." ~ Philip K. Dick

Last edited by synergetic67; 23-01-2014 at 10:46 PM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2014, 07:23 PM   #51
sarge sharpei
Senior Member
 
sarge sharpei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: temple of 10,000 Buddhas
Posts: 973
Likes: 4 (3 Posts)
Post

Not defending all of clues, but they scarcely are "protecting the media" anyone with a brain knows US media is pure bullcrap. Their forum is well written for dullard Amuricans who still watch andy cooper and believe his cia shilling crap.

I am curious why there are some Boeing shills on this forum though

at least this isn't an ed chiarini thread.
__________________
The epitaph that I would write for history would say: I conceal nothing. It is not enough not to lie. One should strive not to lie in a negative sense by remaining silent. -Leo Tolstoy, novelist and philosopher (1828-1910)

If we ask, "Cui Bono"?, many questions are answered
sarge sharpei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 02:07 AM   #52
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 286 (208 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by synergetic67 View Post
Abirato Radio 01 / 19 / 2014 -- ep85 - Guests: Simon Shack and One Born Free (OBF). Tim, Shack and OBF respond to Jim Fetzer's blatant Veterans Today hit-piece on Simon Shack and the Clues Forum research:

http://fakeologist.com/wp-content/up...ck-and-OBF.mp3

Jim Fetzer's Veterans Today Hit Piece on Simon Shack and September Clues Forum:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01...s-distractors/


The Clues Forum Response:

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...89014#p2389014

Hoi polloi's point-by-point analysis of Fetzer's hit-piece on Shack and Clues Forum is friggin' brilliant, and it fully deserves to be reposted and read many times.

Too bad his ego got the best of him and he had to go ruin it by claiming Equinox was a 'sim' again. Since, according to Simon on Abirato's last show and Maxy on his own site, he is down in Australia right now riding his bike around, maybe he should find the time to meet Equinox in person, instead of banning him and talking smack? I'm sure Equinox would go out of his way to meet the infamous Monsieur Konrardy, just to see if Maxy boy chickens out like he did when both Brian S. Staveley and Justin Cooke challenged him or any other Clues Forum member to meet them in person, anywhere on the East Coast of the USA within 2 hours driving distance of Boston.

Of course, hoi/Maxy's absurd response to all this is ready-made and it's that no one but himself can do this in-person confirmation, since he doesn't trust anyone else on the forum he has not met in person to not be a 'sim' either. In this way, this ego-tripping twerp can accuse anybody he doesn't personally like of being a 'sim,' ban them from the forum and then simply never prove his accusations by refusing to meet them in person or to accept anybody else's evidence of a meeting.

The fact that Shack does not agree with him does not seem to bother Maxy at all,

At the 3 hour 24 minute mark of this audio

http://fakeologist.com/wp-content/up...2/ep82-OBF.mp3

Shack is put on the spot by a caller and forced to comment on the 'Brian S. Staveley is a Sim' affair:

"The thing about Brian Staveley was that hoi polloi, my closest collaborator didn't think Brian Staveley was . . . . uh . . . . when Brian Staveley came to Clues Forum, he wrote long, long posts, not very articulate and . . . uh . . . seemingly acting like a 'crazy guy.' So, that's why hoi polloi thought that Brian Staveley was just a guy who hooked up to our research and didn't really . . . . uhhhhhhh . . . . but what I've seen so far from Brian Staveley, HE'S O.K., he's promoting the fake imagery, so . . . I don't know."

Actually Staveley wasn't banned for being 'inarticulate as a writer,' he was called a 'sim' by hoi/Max and banned because he was supposedly proven to be a 'simulated identity,' like the 9-11 VicSims and the fake Sandy Hook dead kids, etc. That's why, after he was banned and couldn't defend himself and after anybody else who defended him was banned, Staveley made a new video of himself to try and prove he wasn't a 'sim':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3BNFD0j8Y


If he had been banned only for being a bad writer, no one would have cared. The very significance of Staveley's and Equinox's bannings on grounds of being 'sims' is that, hoi/Maxy is supposed to be the Clues Forum expert on VicSims, so much so that Shack let him write the VicSims Report mostly by himself under supervision in Italy, and gave him full credit for it later. Doesn't Shack understand that hoi/Max discredits the entirety of the Clues Forum VicSims research by pulling stunts like the Staveley and Equinox affairs? Apparently not. Apparently, sticking up for his communitarian buddy's out-of-control ego is more important than the integrity of 8 years of hard work and research, as if articulateness in written English and a super-sharp logical mind and subtle wit, all of which Maxy boy possesses in spades, can ever be a substitute for an obvious contradiction and non-sequitur, transparent dishonesty and finally and worst of all, a refusal to ever admit to being wrong.

http://www.maxeem.com/community/inde...=view&number=2

What is communitarianism and what is its connection to Local Agenda 21?

http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com/2010...elf-about.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPW5rC-chDU

Quote:

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

by hoi.polloi on January 19th, 2014, 4:14 pm

Ugh, I was just drifting to sleep, then I had to see this. It's persuasively written in parts, but it's reaching so hard for its flimsy conclusion and spending so much time writing about you that it's like they don't actually believe in their own conclusions and they are just trying to bat you away. I have to agree, Simon, they are drawing an awful lot of attention to you, perhaps in hopes of people's skepticism of everything turning into skepticism of you? Rather than the evidence?

But it's such a distraction, because anybody can look at the officially modified "original" footage, the fake "amateur" videos, the bizarre and surreal "victim" memorials and research it for themselves.

The fact that they also keep trumpeting mainstream popular senses of science rather than examining actual scientific claims shows that they are quite lazy. Even lazier than us, and all we have done is bring up a few interesting problems and unsettled questions about mainstream science without digging very deeply at all. They don't seem comfortable with that. I wonder why.

Are they unaware that once an experiment is done, it doesn't make the experiment's individual conclusions into scientific gospel? Are they unaware of bias, bad data, or plain outright lies? They seem confused by simple things. I guess they probably believe NASA went to the moon and the transparent astronauts are solid (opaque?) proof. Failing to see obvious holes there, wouldn't you say?

Because if we are to agree with what Fetzer says, we have a prima facie motive for believing everything the news presents as fact! Never mind proven bad journalism, those must be rare exceptions! Why should the government lie to its own people?

Apparently, they are unaware of how rapidly science changes or how important it is to question the gaps or logical fallacies in scientific models, and in cultural understandings of them. In fact, that's very much a part of how science operates. Any high school or college science teacher will agree that science must continually be renewed. But we can't fight people's desire for solid maps of the unknown. Oh, man.

So, without further ado, let us delve into the language of:

Fetzer's World


Quote:

Of all the positions that have been taken about 9/11, which range from the “official” collapse theory to the use of nanothermite to conventional explosives to DEWs, nukes mini or large, from a purely philosophical point of view, perhaps the most extreme is that adopted by Simon Shack (SS) and his followers, including onebornfree (obf), who claim that all the footage of the destruction sequence in New York City is fake and unreliable.

"Extreme" here is meant to imply scary, unbelievable, and unsound (maybe even terroristic!?) Heaven forbid we are called extremists in an age where holding an opinion in general is considered "extreme" by the media.

Quote:

This is striking because that footage has virtually universally been regarded as some of the most important evidence about what actually happened there on 9/11.
Interesting wordsmithery. The passive "virtually universally been regarded" here is meant to mean "everyone thinks so and you should too!" though it's not made clear who is doing the regarding. I guess it is that recursive everyone regarding itself as an authority? But the second part is almost a non-statement. The footage is considered some of the most important? Why stop at "some of the most important"? Their non-commitment here is funny. They start with a powerful wind up - "everyone thinks" - and end up in the can-kicking "sort of important" territory.

So everyone thinks the footage is somewhat important evidence of what happened. It sounds like everyone is actually a bit unsure of how to value the evidence.

Don't worry about researching it for yourself or confirming all the numerous problems. Why don't you just sit back and let Fetzer and friends explain which is the most important evidence and which isn't! (Don't ask for scientific quotes, citations, proofs or expect any image forensics. Naww. Just relax and soak it up.) Ready?

Quote:

Since the Twin Towers are shown blowing apart in every direction from the top down
Twin Towers is in capitals here. Love it. Just so we know we are talking about THE Twin Towers. Not a simulation of them.

Operative word: shown.

Twin Towers are shown. How vague. So if I draw a picture of the World Trade Center Tower 1, am I showing you Tower 1? How about if I do it in photo-realistic detail? Have I shown you the tower? How about if there is a simulation of Tower 1 in a movie, such as Armageddon? Are the Twin Towers "shown" then?


Quote:

while being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust

So we start with something vague like Twin Towers being "shown" and go into specific numbers of what has been simulated in the footage. "Very fine dust" doesn't behave like it was "shown" on 9/11, yet we are being told that "in every direction", "millions of cubic yards" of "very fine dust" is "shown".

It is not distinguished in the article whether this has been "depicted" or "reported". It is, to Fetzer's group, prima facie self evident that seeing is believing. Not only that the news should be taken at face value, but that Fetzer's (and the virtually universal) assumptions from the news must also be taken at face value.

Quote:

it serves as the foundation for one line of argument that demonstrated the “official” account cannot possibly be true
Once again, strange wording here. "The Foundation" for ... one line of argument.

They couldn't just say, "We want to make an argument that the official story is untrue, and we need the video evidence to show it" but even if they did, they wouldn't be disagreeing, one bit, with Simon's findings that the official story must be untrue because of the contradictions in the videos.

But wait, they go on to say,

Quote:

since the Twin Towers are not undergoing any kind of collapse.
Which seems to be a completely bizarre and nonsensical point to finish on. They say it is because the Twin Towers are not being shown to undergo a collapse (even though one very acceptable definition of a physical "collapse" would include the depiction of towers turning into "millions of cubic yards of fine dust" much like a sand castle or, say, a simulated video game structure) that the official story cannot be true.

So they are saying we don't know what destroyed the towers, but the truly unlikely depiction shown in the video, which can be described as a kind of collapse, does not fit their definition of what a collapse should be, and therefore the official story of a collapse is impossible.

And they are saying people who doubt the videos want to rob them of this terrible point? That the government's story of collapse disagrees with their definition of collapse? Au contraire. They can have it. It's not scientific at all.

Let's review so far.

They've started saying Simon is an extremist. They've then said everyone thinks the video is somewhat important evidence. They've then given the example of a video "showing" (though the evidence for what kind of "showing" is going on, be it real or virtual or anything else is not given) a form of collapse which they imply is not a collapse (stamping foot) and should not be called a collapse (waving fists).

So while failing to legitimize the video, their main argument so far is that Simon is an extremist for disagreeing with their terminology about what a "collapse" is. Huh?

But wait, there's more. So much more.

Quote:

If all of the videos had been faked, one might have expected they would show the towers collapsing, not blowing apart in every direction.
The next argument they want to make is that a passive "one" might have expected fake videos to make more sense and fit with their pre-defined parameters. In other words, someone looking at these videos might assume that it's a really stupid way to show a building coming down.

No argument there.

Still, while not actually legitimizing the video, they seem to imply that this "one" doing the "expecting" of a particular form of destruction is a prima facie investigation into what took place. In other words, investigation to Fetzer means making a prima facie assumption about what a fake video must look like, then dismissing any video which does not match the passive one's imagined fake video.

So because the video does not depict a more convincing collapse, it must be convincing! Duh ...
And this is not the most bizarre of their positions.

Do go on about our position that you haven't yet described.



Quote:

Here is a sample of the kinds of visual studies that support the conversion of the towers into dust:
Wait, I thought we were going to hear about Simon's bizarre position that fake videos can depict unreal situations. This is more of your position, Fetzer. Yawn.

Quote:
Simon Shack and onebornfree, alas
Alas, indeed. Alas for your use of "alas" before you've even made a point. It's like you're whining about something that hasn't happened yet. Playing victim so soon?

Quote:

have never offered the least indication of what they think we should have seen
This is getting hilarious. So, not just because we haven't imagined a fake video that should have been, but because we haven't imagined what would actually take place behind the imaginary fake video, we are not offering enough "indication" to Fetzer about how to feel about us. Man, this guy really craves imaginary worlds.

Fetzer, you should have seen a couple of anthropomorphized towers being eaten alive by a giant composite of Alex Jones eating two club sandwiches in 5 minutes, which have been erased by editing software and replaced with the Twin Towers. And behind that, what was really going on was Judy Wood and Alex Jones were actually eating two hamburgers. Israeli hamburgers.

Quote:

had we had access to authentic video footage.
Which is ... where, again?

Quote:

But there are many other kinds of evidence which goes far beyond the visual evidence:
Quote:

(1) They were standing, then they were gone.
Right. Check. We mention this a lot.

Quote:

(2) It happened in a very brief period of time.
Extremely vague. What does "it" mean? The entire day of 9/11? The 2 hours of news broadcasts? The actual collapses? If what's meant here is the time between the towers standing and the towers gone, "brief" could be terribly wrong. If it was a conventional demolition that takes some minutes to perform, then any amount of time beyond that and undocumented or unaired would be lengthy. Not brief. And if it were anything else, how can we say it was brief because we don't know what it was?

Quote:

(3) Millions of cubic yards of dust emerged.
Again, the millions of cubic yards. Almost like hypnotism. We know that dust was probably present in New York. We know that some kind of smoke or dust like substance appeared around the towers. It is not clear whether this happened entirely during collapse or before or after. Fetzer's prima facie presumption is that the news shows what happened. Dumb.

Quote:

(4) They were destroyed below ground level.
Again, an obvious point. Or vague. Their underground structure was damaged as any visit to "Ground Zero" could tell an observer. If Fetzer is claiming they were destroyed exclusively from below ground level, he would need proof. Presently, he is using his assumption that the news showed what happened, and using that to support his belief. A total error.

Quote:

(5) We have the so-called “toasted cars”
First of all, what cars are we talking about? The ones photoshopped by the scam artist George Marengo, whom shill Judy Wood does not credit on her site for the same images? If not those, then which images? Where did they come from? Did Fetzer lose a vehicle on 9/11? Or is he just losing a virtual vehicle for his propaganda in the sadly misplaced trust his audience has placed in him, and which is now fading because of his terrible reasoning and anti-science antics?

Quote:

(6) And massive parts blown great distances
Massive parts means what? The airplane pieces dumped in unlikely places? Chunks of the tower revealed in what photos, by whom? And what could he mean by "blown"? Does he know how the massive parts he implies that he's traced were moved? What does he mean by "great" - like, totally excellent distances? Why can't he be specific about the distances, with pictures with proper citation that have been vetted for being counterfeit-proof?

Quote:

(7) There were videos and there were photos.
Correction. There are videos. There are photos. Where did they come from, who made them, and are their techniques honest or examples of modern propaganda fabrication, as it has been shown to be the case over and over?

Quote:

(8) There were many witnesses observing.
Again, an official conspiracy theory argument from Fetzer, with no specifics, citations or specific non-media-employee witnesses to choose from or investigate. It's almost as if he doesn't want to investigate the so-called witnesses.

Quote:

(9) We have cancer rates among responders.
We have reports of such.

Quote:

(10) We have USGS dust samples.
This is the same USGS which is part of the United States government, right? We are talking about the same government, yes? Perhaps Fetzer would only mistrust an Israeli Geological Survey?

Quote:

(11) We have seismic readings.
Citation. Proofs. Bring the evidence to the people, with full cited tracing of its origin for them to see. Don't just refer to it as reviewed and confirmed, nothing to see here, move along now.

Quote:

(12) We have acoustical recordings.
Citation. Proofs. Why "acoustical"? What audio are we talking about, and from what feed? Was it possibly from the news? The "amateur videos"? The Howard Stern show? Be specific and bring the evidence to the table for the people to examine.

Quote:

The evidence derived from these sources can be used to sort out various alternative possibilities:
Source unnamed. So indeed, the possibilities are truly endless, eh "Jim"?

Quote:

(h1) natural causes (earthquake, tornado,…)
Fine, it's possible.

Quote:

(h2) collapse due to plane crashes and fires.
No, seriously? How many planes are we talking about here? Like more than one per building, striking the bases of the towers? Doing something that might actually cause some serious damage rather than any cartoon parody of reality shown as "news" on 9/11?

Quote:

(h3) classic controlled demolitions (a pair).
Yes, possible.

Quote:

(h4) non-conventional mode of destruction;
Sure.

Quote:

(h4a) lasers, masers or plasmoids;
Fine.

Quote:

(h4b) directed energy weaponry;
Okay.

Quote:

(h4c) nukes (large/small/micro/mini/)
Very well; first, we must go over the evidence that any of the above three are possible and real weapons. Since nuclear weapons in particular are shrouded in mystery and have a strong history of being promoted almost exclusively through propaganda and computer-assisted and phony imagery, you'd have to first prove nuclear weapons are viable before you claim that's what occurred to produce any particular evidence you claim to have. And Fetzer, you still haven't put up evidence.

Playing by your rules, you forgot to add these other methods of destruction with no evidence:

(h4d) aliens
(h4e) Vishnu
(h4f) collective delusion causing reality to melt

(h5) giant monsters
(h5a) Godzilla
(h5b) that crap Godzilla from the 90's remake
(h5c) Stay Puft Marshmallow Man
(h5d) an enormous Ace Baker

I like my imaginative world better than yours. Now let's get back to actual evidence, shall we?

Quote:

So far the evidence most strongly supports (h4c), which we have explained repeatedly in a series of articles beginning with “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”.
Right. Sigh. Getting the picture. Are you the media because you have a radio show? Does that mean we have a prima facie necessity to take you for face value?

Where is this evidence that you haven't really even mentioned until now, in this sentence, with the term "the evidence"? What "the evidence"? The non-evidence you've begun the article with so far? Can you be specific?

Quote:

Clare Kuehn has offered a list of oddities that would almost certainly not have been present had all of the videos been faked or under control:
Yes, let us now take a little side journey from FetzerWorld to ClareWorld! What's going on there?

1. The 60-storey spire "turning to dust" which is a video "Clare" finds odd, according to "Clare", is odd! Hmm. It is associated with hours of very dubious news broadcasts and amateur videos released after 9/11, but "Clare" claims that her version of a fake video would not have that bit in it. Therefore, it's not fake. This is very much a Fetzer-esque argument. And if Fetzer is a paid shill or media apologist (which seems more and more to be the case) then it would make tons of sense to include "conspiracy" tidbits in fake video. Shiny balls, shadows, discrepancies, on and on. The weirder, the more the Fetzer crowd is serving to prove that such bits do cause distraction and endless speculation and prevent people from concluding the videos are fabrications, if Fetzer has anything to say about it. And if they are evidence of something, then what could it be? Since we hear this kind of question asked all the time, we are sure it will eventually be answered ... if "Clare" has anything to say about it!

2. Co-ordinated beeps, according to how "Clare" would fake 9/11, would not be necessary. Therefore, what? The coordinated beeps are ... not there? I don't understand this point.

3. "The ball" was not necessarily "caught on film" so much as — to use a FetzerWorld term — shown on videos. "Clare" says if she faked 9/11, she wouldn't have included that simply captivating and amazing ball. Let's talk more about the ball shall we? And how much it's fascinating?

4. According to "Clare", the nose-out problem simply wouldn't have happened if she faked 9/11. Wow. Problem solved. Guess they should have hired Clare to pull off fake collisions. Maybe they will, next time.

5. "Clare" says that Chopper 5 would be reported on the air if she faked 9/11. What this really means, and Chopper 5's significance to her, such that it would require a certain report she finds lacking in the official broadcasts, we can only guess.

6. Crowd scenes only have glitches on the crowds, which means the backgrounds must be real! This is just a lapse in reasoning, I am sure, since so much of what "Clare" demands of her fake 9/11 has made a great deal of sense so far. We will forgive her this idiotic notion.

7. If the smoke were generated using any 3D technology, there would be no need to mask the smoke off. Since the smoke is so clearly cut off in unrealistic ways in the fake footage, I guess we are to conclude their software only had 2 dimensions. Pity, because 3D technology has come a long way since the 1970's.

8. Lastly, some of the problems Simon points out could actually be indications of computer generated towers. How this is an argument against Simon's research takes a special kind of imagination. One that we don't have time for any longer as we float like an optimistic fairy back to FetzerWorld ...

Quote:
obf and SS have really not given us any good reasons to doubt that the voluminous record of destruction videos and photos are fake.
"Voluminous" here means really big. Like Fetzer's imagination.

"Not given us any good reasons" here means you are actually physically inside Fetzer's imagination and you don't have a will of your own, nor is it necessary for you to conduct your own research since you are, by virtue of being an extension of Fetzer's imagination, prima facie obligated to go along with his version of events.

To show blatant signs of various anomalies and problems with the videos and photos just isn't a good reason to doubt them. It's reason, from Fetzer's perspective, to use them as evidence of whatever you want to believe in, despite lack of evidence! Just so long as you are imagining what he is and circling the pixels you find the most interesting.

Quote:

There are too many from too many directions of enormous variation in quality, including of high definition, to take their claims seriously.
Back up. There are too many variations in video quality — including high definition — to doubt them all? Fetzer, you didn't say there was BluRay HD footage before. Shit, it must be real. I take it all back. It's just like, if someone has an HD camera, everybody's gotta have it. Same with counterfeiters. If one gets to simulate HD, everyone wants to simulate HD. The government isn't going to stop them with flimsy excuses like "HD wasn't that common in 2001" or "Not many people even had cell phone cameras" or "Actually, guys, not that many people were able to put themselves in a good position to film the towers" or yeah, you get the idea.

Nah. It's HD for everyone. Gotta get with the program, gov. Your employees are clammering for Hi Frickin Def.

Quote:

At one point I looked at the wavy clouds of smoke with their repetition and changes in the background and color and tint variations, all of which appear to be post-production in messing with those photos and films–not necessarily for disinformational purposes, but because of multiple cases of copying and other sources of minor distortions.
Is he telling us he actually looked at the evidence? Bravo! Oh.

Oh, dear. Because of these copies and so forth, errors can and will be made. You know, changing formats can cause a building's top to wave, divergent impossibly reconcilable angles of collapse, different lights and shadows and just all sorts of things.

Quote:

They made valuable contributions exposing fakery in the airplane footage, but overgeneralized to conclude that all of the video footage had to be fake.

This is fallacious. It isn't overgeneralizing to say that all the videos we have looked at appear to have at least one quality of being doctored, counterfeited, falsified, layered, composited, 3D-rendered or animated. It is a choice of terminology to say that such videos that cannot be trusted have been "faked" or "are fake".

Quote:

So instead of contributing to SOLVING THE PROBLEM of what actually happened in New York City on 9/11, THEY DECLARE THE PROBLEM TO BE UNSOLVABLE.
It may be solvable or it may not. It is a contribution to human kind to present the awareness that it may be insoluble, and it does solve a different sort of larger problem in the process — which is that not enough people are aware of how much our history has been crafted and molded, possibly whole cloth. And if history can be written as it happens from completely fake events, then it makes a very valuable philosophical argument to re-examine what we actually perceive as evidence of the truth.

It does not serve human kind to, if we are compelled to do this, stop doing it. To only allow your view point. To actively deny the possibility, to demand that people simply accept expertise or authority despite evidence against it — even yours, Doctor Fetzer.

Quote:

That is completely unscientific, where ofb’s complete lack of understanding of scientific method is no where more manifest than in his disregard for the rest of the evidence, which we enumerated as (1) through (12) above. Indeed, it is a basic principle of scientific reasoning that it be based upon all the evidence available. Failing to do so entails the commission of the fallacy of special pleading, which is common with politicians, editorial writers and used-car salesmen. That is where he stands.
If the evidence is not, in fact, evidence, then it is scientific to throw away trash evidence. In which case, obf is justified in his assumption. If the evidence is evidence, then it is scientific to use it.

But obf has made a case for it not being evidence.

And if the argument is whether or not there is adequate evidence, let the debate march on! But not to sweepingly dismiss either camp. Nor cast totally wild aspersions, such as ...

Quote:

That SS and obf even deny the existence of nuclear weapons tells me we are not dealing simply with persons of diminished capacity for serious research but demonstrable fakes and frauds.
Totally wrong. Simon Shack and obf demand evidence of nuclear weapons and hold to the position that there is not presently enough evidence to support their existence. This is fine. It is reasonable to say unicorns do not and have never existed, even if it is not a scientific certainty.

Quote:

And while Clare will continue to treat them with kindness, it has become all too clear that they are shilling for Israel by doing their best to conceal that the towers were nukes and they must have been Israeli.
Woah, what?!?!

Completely left field argument there. So while Clare plays "Clare's 9/11" in Fetzer's FetzerWorld, this is seen as being kind to Simon for actually doing the slightest amount of confirming forensic findings of fraud in the 9/11 footage. And meanwhile, Fetzer harbors doubts about Simon and says he and obf are shilling for Israel and deliberately concealing the so far unproven, uncited and seemingly imagined in this article from Fetzer's World "nukes" because evidence for said "nukes" is wanting.

And that's just in this article they are wanting. The article that is supposedly trying to prove they are real and that they are Israeli.

There may very well have been "Israeli nukes" responsible, but why is Simon or obf suspected of covering them up? Are we going to find evidence of them in the videos? If so, why hasn't this evidence been shown? And particularly why not in the article?

If there are other reasons, such as political or inside information reasons, to believe prima facie (sorry, but I just love that argument by Fetzer, it's hilarious!) that Israel planted nukes and nuked the towers with them, then we could at least have those. But instead we are offered this.

Quote:

The US nuclear arsenal is under very tight but not perfect control, while Israeli nukes are not.
Israel is not under tight control, or not under imperfect control? What a strange phrase. It's like saying that guy over there has a knife which is retractable and comes in a carrying case, whereas this guy's knife isn't. It's just about the most round-about way you could claim, "The US and Israel both have nuclear weapons."

I hope the next sentence explains what Simon is covering up. Here is what he/they wrote:

Quote:

Israel has not even admitted that it has a vast stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons–though it is common knowledge in the Middle East and among experts.


This is written like a very rapidly put together late book report from elementary school. Israel hasn't even admitted what is common knowledge. If it's common knowledge, what need is there to admit it? If the Middle East is convinced, along with experts, that anything is the case, does this mean, prima facie, we must believe it as well?

Come to think of it, are we expected to believe that Fetzer and company know anything about what they are talking about when they speak for huge quantities of people, likely just as duped and deluded as the United States population is?

Quote:

SS and obf are using the pretense of science to attack those who are exposing the truth about 9/11, as Don Fox and Ian Greenhalgh explain in the study that follows.
I am sorry, but there hasn't actually been an argument so far made in this entire article. Except, perhaps, the admission by "Clare" that Simon may have a point about completely CGI buildings, that Fetzer believes whole-heartedly there is evidence of something that is virtually universally known and common knowledge already (ahem) hiding behind and/or through the fake footage or a point about nuclear weapons being real and Israel being the lead boogeyman behind them.

Alright. I can't continue this for now. I am tired. Sorry for the casual style of this retort but it doesn't really deserve much more concentration than the authors themselves neglected to put in it. Let's look at the rest next time.

For now, let's all meditate on the possibility of Israeli Nukes and MOSSAD hijacking the news being the answer to what really happened on 9/11. Perhaps if we play in FetzerWorld long enough, we can get to actually finding evidence of this. (By the way, readers may want to catch up on the Nuke Lies and Holocaust questions during this time.)

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...89014#p2389014


Last edited by synergetic67; 26-01-2014 at 03:25 AM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 02:13 AM   #53
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 286 (208 Posts)
Default

continued from previous post:

Quote:

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

by sunshine05 on January 19th, 2014, 7:16 pm

What a terrible article. Fetzer is all over the place - personal attacks, referencing posts on this forum, discussing the views of other researchers. Why? If your work is solid, if it is credible, it will be respected. There is no need to attack other researchers.

ALL of the footage from that day is fake. Same for Sandy Hook and the same for the Boston "bombing". The same things keep reoccurring in all of these "events". Multiple identical shots of the same image credited to multiple fauxtographers. What more proof does one need that the whole thing is fake? They have a pattern in all of these events - fake video, fake photos from said video and fake victims. There is nothing "scientific" to analyze from a Hollywood movie set. We are being scammed with every single one of these events. Few can see what is happening.

Fetzer concedes that the plane imagery is fake ... but wants to believe the rest of it is real?! That makes much less sense than believing that everything we were shown is fake. Common sense. There is a large group of partial fakery researchers and I just don't buy it. They're going to show fake plane footage and then "Oh! Cut to live now." In Boston, they're going to show fake footage of a guy missing his legs being rushed down the street in a wheel chair BUT "over there on the sidewalk, people were actually injured from the "bomb." Seriously?!

Clues forum research about 9/11 is the only thing that makes sense. I believe there are many convincing examples to demonstrate that. It is fine to speculate about what actually happened to the buildings but that is all it is - speculation. We really have no way to know because there is no trusted footage or photos. They want us to argue about what really happened to keep the attention away from the truth - that everything we were shown from that day is fake.
Quote:

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

by hoi.polloi on January 20th, 2014, 12:51 am

Exactly, sunshine. The 9/11 footage is fake. But nobody should take our word for it. Just look at how poorly Fetzer argues for the faulty evidence being real footage. Sorry about the last post, when I was using cartoonish argumentation to reply to this smear piece, but I was tired and it seemed to deserve it. Let's look at the next section, by Don Fox and Ian Greenhalgh (names one presumes are real because they use capital letters, I guess?)

Quote:
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” – Vladimir Lenin
Okay, I guess I shouldn't be sorry. They are "hinting" rather overtly that Simon is not only protecting Israel, but he is also a communist and deliberate disinformation.

Quote:
Simon Shack, hoi.polloi, Ab Irato, El Buggo and Onebornfree are the latest disinfo crew

Calling us the latest disinfo is not only pejorative. It is misleading about each of our individual motivations by lumping us together as a single crew. If I didn't know better, I'd suspect this was an attempt to paint us as equals who all trust each other well enough to work as a disinfo crew toward any particular goal. Instead, each of us has come independently to examining the footage and dismissing it due to its fraudulent nature. The footage cannot be admitted as evidence of what happened unless even a fraction of it corroborates what happened outside of a government controlled area. Psychological Operations are meant to mislead, and particularly discredit those who form large enough questions that it leads people to ask: can we look at this scenario in a new way? A way that hasn't been presented to us in a product-based, media-sponsored, suspiciously "informed" way?

Simon Shack and myself are different from Ab Irato. I disagree with some of Ab's web site practices. OneBornFree is someone else entirely and someone who has eschewed membership in most places because of his contentment to comment without "association". I have never met Ab, OneBornFree or El Buggo. I do not know if they are real people. I can only confirm that Simon Shack is real. I of course vouch for myself. However, we do not ask people to trust our reality. We only ask that people research for themselves, something Fetzer and crew apparently do not want. And even then, none of that detracts from the fact that no matter who is looking at the fake evidence, the evidence is still fake. And therefore our personalities should not matter. One simply can look up the CNN Victim Memorial site, and browse it themselves to discern the falseness of the names and pictures. One can simply examine the footage and see that it does not resemble real photography.

But according to Fetzer, we collectively comprise a unified "disinfo" group to ...
Quote:

attempt to conceal the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 by any and all means necessary.
So because we believe the fake footage conceals the real destruction method, we are using "any and all means necessary" to help that concealment? No. Very wrong. It is because we see and know the footage is demonstrably falsified and doctored that we are calling for grassroots investigations into something that no government (or other) body has expressed interest in researching the forensics of. In fact, it seems as though there is a huge cover up and Jim Fetzer wants us to just ignore this fact and decide that — without adequate evidence — he and his researchers have determined for everyone else what has happened.

Also, concealing nuclear demolition could only be "our" nefarious goal if we indeed believed in nuclear weapons. Since we do not, and since we actively expose and examine the supposed evidence for nuclear weapons and find it laughable and implausible, it is only Fetzer and crew who seem to be cagey on withholding this damning evidence they keep claiming to have. It's more like they don't just want to believe in their nuke theory. They want to want to believe.

Quote:

Preceding them have been such luminaries of the “Truth Movement” as Steve Jones, Richard Gage, Christopher Bollyn, Mark Bilk, Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, Thomas Potter, Emmanuel Goldstein, S. Tiller and Pete Santilli, among others.
So lumping us in with all the people we have explicitly expressed doubt in and disagreement with and crediting us with goals we don't have makes sense in what way, Fetzer? That makes as much sense as saying "Jim Fetzer is just part of the latest Yankee451 crew trying to say that napalm depth charges were dropped from UFOs to destroy the towers."
Quote:

A lot of effort has gone into constructing various ruses to fool the public.
Ha! At least that much must be admitted by them. But thus continues their trend of attempting to use our own arguments against us. We have always stated that it seems as if there is a concerted effort to undermine the research. Fetzer wants to turn it into a game of finger pointing. Forgive me for "playing along" with these posts, but it's just too ridiculous and so much of the article is packed with misleading argumentation, false leads and even the classic slander and lies. Some of it is outright ridiculous. Apparently we are also communists? Leading the truth movement by being vilified by it?

Quote:
The Official Conspiracy Theory posits that 19 Islamic hijackers wielding box cutters were responsible for all of the destruction. The woefulness of that theory became readily apparent soon after 9/11 and it gave rise to a number of alternative theories.

Okay, they are giving us the history lesson of the false "truth movement". Something we could write volumes on. Pass.
Quote:

While Dr. Wood claims not to have a theory, it states plainly on the cover of her book Where Did the Towers Go?, “Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11″.

Pretty similar to Fetzer's argument so far, actually. Fetzer claims to have evidence but presents none and clearly implicates Simon Shack over and over of being disinfo trying to prevent Fetzer from presenting evidence he himself simply fails to present.

This theory could fail and flounder just like the "Judy Wood" cartoon character as well, but Fetzer is hoping not to.

Quote:
Dr. Wood’s non-theory runs out of steam once you realize that the WTC buildings exploded, high temperatures persisted at the WTC site for six months after 9/11, and that evidence for fission and fusion abound at Ground Zero.
"Once you realize" things that haven't been presented as pieces of evidence in the article, you have completely joined with Fetzer's imagination.

Quote:

However, the indefensibility of the Judy Wood Cult’s non-theory pales in comparison to the utterly ludicrous rantings of the September Clues forum.
We have utterly ludicrous rantings because we continue to persist in the need for real evidence. Interesting.

Quote:
Simon Shack and others have constructed an utterly bizarre 9/11 mythology which would have you believe that the Twin Towers were completely vacant after the 1993 bombing, that nobody died on 9/11 and that the entire event was a Hollywood-style production, where the actual destruction of the WTC buildings was obscured by military smoke-machines.
This so-called "mythology" is just a speculation by Simon Shack and doesn't represent the views expressed by most people on the forum. To smear an entire way of thinking by attacking Simon's best guess at what happened smacks of a desire to undermine the credibility of Simon's guess without actually looking at the evidence for such a supposedly "bizarre" theory.

By alleging that Simon is a bizarre, weird, woo-woo, fringe, terroristic, Israeli-supporting communist, leading a concerted crew of disinfo artists is, to me, an even more bizarre theory. Especially since the argument Simon has made is not actually examined! It is just slandered without logical argument, and cut down before it is even presented with any integrity.
Quote:


Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery


by fbenario on January 20th, 2014, 1:21 am

Hoi, thanks for the time you took eviscerating Fatzo's meaningless spew. He's got constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth.

Your two posts provide a great model of how to respond to gibberish about us and our efforts.

Last edited by synergetic67; 26-01-2014 at 02:21 AM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 02:43 AM   #54
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 286 (208 Posts)
Default



+




vs.






synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 03:08 AM   #55
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 286 (208 Posts)
Default

continued:

Quote:

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

by hoi.polloi on January 20th, 2014, 5:00 am

Thanks, fbenario. I hope that people will forgive my own verbal syndrome. It's embarrassment for Fetzer and his clown friends apparently trying to serve Fetzer's goals and only making complete asses of themselves. Let's continue.

Quote:

Nobody died? The real destruction of the WTC buildings was somehow hidden from view? So what gives? Either September Clues knows something that the rest of us do not or they are completely out to lunch.

"Completely out to lunch" here means "crazy". Insane.

Apparently, logic is lost on Fetzer's hit team. Not believing in something that many people do believe in does not imply knowledge, nor does it imply insanity. It simply means something is not believed in. It means more evidence is called for.

When a judge asks the court to dismiss planted and false evidence in order to re-balance the trial in favor of true evidence, the most important point isn't that the judge knows or doesn't know something, it is that (s)he suspects the evidence is invalid. And that suspicion is enough to remove it from the trial altogether. Such should be the case with the 9/11 evidence that proves to be so tampered with, altered, edited, composited and in most cases apparently constructed out of thin air and plausibly so that it is unworthy of being called "video" anymore without the accompanying adjective "Animated" — as in meticulously crafted with the help of a technological means of individually or mass-editing frames in a sequence to depict something other than reality.

Fetzer fails to see that multiple methods of editing does not imply an original truth. Just as individual letters in a word do not become less abstract when examined individually, so the 9/11 evidence does not become less abstract when examined closely. In fact, there appears to be very strange crypto software used to morph faces, distort images and hide digital construction methods for the footage — which is often more rightly called at this point animated videos simulating news broadcasts.

But we must either be crazy, Israeli or communist (or a combination thereof) because:

Quote:

there is an entire thread devoted to proving that satellites are fake.
Nowhere on this forum is there a thread dedicated to proving satellites are fake. Instead, the forum seeks to examine the postulation that satellites may be fake, due to the simplicity with which it has been shown people are fooled by lies about them. We only aim to ask the question: how ridiculous or serious do lies about satellites have to be before people begin to ask scientific questions which challenge those lies about satellites? There is no need to seek to disprove satellites. There is a public interest, however, in asking questions and seeking answers about them which satisfy a rigorous scientific challenge to the lightweight pseudo-factoids used to promote their existence in the media.

Quote:

They appear to be denying the existence of satellites as satellites can be used to prove the Earth is round.
More wordsmithery. The use of the word "as" here is meant to imply without stating that there is a hidden reason that (in FetzerWorld) we are adamantly denying any profound evidence of satellites — evidence that doesn't actually exist so far. And that hidden agenda is to seek to prove the Earth is not round.

Once more, this is a complete distortion of the purpose of the forum. Our purpose is to continually ask hard, modern, scientific questions about unsettled debates the mainstream media and academia would like brushed under the rug. To seek the cause and reason for such motivations to so clearly be biasing the media and academia. And to boldly go where ... actually, many people have been before. Sometimes oppressed or killed for going there. Tycho Brahe is one of those people whose death is still controversial to this day, and who the media and bad science-apologists/propagandists like Disney-NASA would have us stop questioning. Not to mention, they'd have us worshiping Kepler, who used Tycho's information without actually continuing the scientific observations that are the lifeblood of Enlightenment ideals.

Fetzer and team spend some time in the article — quite bizarrely — trying to defend a Flat Earth forum poster. Which is hilarious because it means they consider that the debate about the shape of the Earth actually belongs on such a forum, where the premise is that the Earth is flat from the outset, and where clearly photoshopped images of the Earth as a sphere are hailed as photographic proof of such. Particularly this neon gobstopper blue ... Earth-ish thing.



A "photograph from space"?

I cannot understand why Fetzer would go to the Flat Earth forum to argue against Flat Earth theory with the poor argumentation of posters there, but it seems they want us to ally with Flat Earthers? Or perhaps to get in the mood of their bad style of argumentation? Hoping to kill two birds with one stone?

Rather than asking questions about facts of science, physics, life and existence, Fetzer would prefer to allege, hint and besmirch anyone who is asking these questions. Note, not people coming up with wildly out to lunch, communistic, Israeli-backing theories that Fetzer imagines we are doing.

But simply asking any questions about science Fetzer doesn't want to ask puts us in the camp of wild raving lunatics.

In fact, is Fetzer's whole bad tirade against us an attempt to lump certain bad thinking with CluesForum and hope we will ally ourselves with poor thinkers? That will not happen because CluesForum does its best to ban illogical or poorly written argumentation. Fetzer and his team, for example, needless to say would not be allowed to post here with the present way they are writing this smear article against CluesForum and anything even touching Simon Shack. I'm surprised they didn't spend part of a section saying Simon's music is terrible and hiring a music theorist to explain why. It's really that callous and unrelated to science.

If you don't believe me, read the icky thing: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01...s-distractors/

Speaking of not having the motivation or not knowing how to ask questions, the following sections of the FetzerWorld document cites official media documentation of events as unquestionable evidence! He says, according to the media,

Quote:
60 truckloads of debris

were found where perhaps two bodies might be located. Can't question this because the media said it. According to the media,

Quote:

Just eleven days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress created the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.
which also cannot be questioned, nor its motivations asked about, because Congress did it.

Is there anything published that Fetzer will not believe? There is also a case of strangely euphoric accusations of a single Jew behind a conspiracy to cover up facts about a case.

With a resume like that, it would appear that Kenneth Feinberg is the man the Zionists turn to whenever they need to cover something up and distribute hush money in the form of compensation.


Fetzer acknowledges there are hush campaigns, but does not admit they could be more or less effective. Because even though people may have been paid off to hide facts about multiple PsyOps, Fetzer is on the case and ready to present ... well, hugely notable mainstream articles widely published and distributed about the official side of the events of 9/11. So obviously that hush money went to waste.


There is no argument to make against the Jewish players involved. In fact, Fetzer and team have probably identified a number of high profile suspicious people that should see their day(s) in court.

But once presenting the reader with the only decent reasoning about a Zionist-Jewish motivation in the whole lot (which, let's face it, everybody pretty much cites from time to time, including users on our forum) Fetzer continues to roll immediately into an attack on Simon Shack. Attempting to use the momentum of his suspicion against actually suspicious characters to lump Simon (or anyone "associated") within, is just a crude, intellectually manipulative and wrong way of dealing with the facts. It would make sense if Simon actually were a communist or a Jew or an intellectually dishonest person like Fetzer.

But Simon is none of those things! And only by taking Simon's name and rolling it around in the dirt can Fetzer and his hit team hope something but anything negative will stick. But Simon, once again, comes out squeaky clean because he is clean. He has continually offered his own most suspicious connections freely to the public in order to be examined. He did this because he is innocent and he doesn't want people to associate him with things he publicly distances himself from.

Fetzer misses the point of why Simon did this, grabs at anything Simon offered and tries to tackle his character using Simon's own admissions. Which doesn't make sense, except if Fetzer and team are deliberately trying to add false labels to Simon's own self-deprecating labels and force Simon to try to take them on. This will never work, because Simon is an honest fellow. And he will not "admit" to being things he is not. He is not Jewish. He is not the UN. He is not communist. (Communitarian, maybe? Neighborly, perhaps?) He is not insane. And from what I know about him, he is definitely not associated with anyone or influenced by anyone except himself. I know. I have been in arguments with Simon and he is steadfast in his own opinions, as I am in mine. It would be laughable to try to find someone who could manipulate him into taking a bribe or pay him to fake opinions. It just is not him. He just refuses to hold opinions that are not his own. I doubt it could ever happen unless he were seriously drugged or coerced beyond measure. He is a laid back and honest person. In my personal experience, and I could be wrong. But I like to believe I am the same way.

Oh boy, dare we address the last part of this smear campaign? Maybe Simon had better do it. But I will give it a try. It's truly embarrassing and disgusting what Fetzer has allowed himself to be associated with, in this attempt to character-assassinate a good man.



Quote:

Re: Jim Fetzer on media fakery

by hoi.polloi on January 20th, 2014, 11:52 am

Everyone should meet everyone else. That is my philosophy about this movement, and broadly the Internet now that I've seen sims like Equinox, OzzyBinOswald and others come and go from the 'truth movement'.

Personalities don't matter, really, when you are talking about science. Even if the guy is a fucking asshole whom you'd never want to meet, they can present facts to the public or they can present rumor, hearsay and cast aspersions.

Simon has mostly only ever done the former. And he has only hesitantly resorted to namecalling when he finds out someone has genuinely betrayed his trust or shown utter disrespect to him. It just so happens not only does Simon stick to the facts as he sees them, not only does he attempt to back them up and constantly make room for people to update his idea with new information, under the controlled forum format here, he also happens to not be an asshole. He is one of the nicer people I've met.

So while I think nobody should take my word for it, and I think everyone should confirm for themselves what is or is not a person's persona versus that person's "act" in life, as it seems most people without a mental malfunction tend to un-sub-or-semi-consciously put on an act for some self-protection and to interact with the world in a polite rather than rude way ... I would hope that people will not take Fetzer's word. The primary reason is Fetzer has never met Simon Shack. Whereas I have, and I have talked on the phone with him for something like 6 years now.

So here is how the FetzerWorld team examines Simon carefully, clearly looking for something to grasp and wrangle without ever having met him.

Quote:
Who precisely is Simon Shack?
Simon Shack, precisely, is Simon Shack!

Quote:
As it turns out, Simon Shack is actually a Pseudonym. Simon Shack’s real name is Simon Hytten, which he disclosed on his forum in March 2011.
As it "turns out", Simon Shack told everybody that his real name is Simon Hytten. And this was not some secretive "disclosure" (though the ridiculous word here makes it sound like it took a secret agent spy to unearth his hidden secret identity) but a way to clear the air about his identity. He did this, to my understanding, after finding out that a number of people approaching him about his work would not use their real names or seemed overly cagey. So he decided to be the opposite of that and just tell everyone what he was doing with his name. In fact, the Fetzer piece acknowledges this and merely goes on to repeat one iteration of that story:

Quote:

Simon gave this explanation for his adoption of the Shack pseudonym:
Quote:
“My surname Shack was coined back in 1993 or so by a black, Colorado-born jazz musician named Fontaine Burnette. Try and contact him and ask him about it (I haven’t heard from him in many years). He asked me what Hytten meant – so I told him it means a little house/or hut. So he just quipped… “Like a shack?” – and I said yeah, a bit like a shack. That’s all there is to it. I liked it. So then, as I registered at the STIM (the Swedish Musician’s Union) I was told that my artist name would be accepted – even at legal/bureaucratic levels. So that’s how I signed in at STIM. Ever since, I have used this surname – and all music reviews/articles written about me/my band (The Social Service) as a musician, have had me as Simon Shack. It simply stuck on me – and most people now know me by that name. I certainly had no motive to change my surname back in 1993 – in order to hide from something! At the time, I had no clue whatsoever of how this crazy world is rolling![”]
... and?

Fetzer has nothing to say about this because there is nothing to say about this except that it is Simon's story about how he decided to use this name. Fetzer probably has his own story about why he chooses to be known for a PhD, but that too is just a different kind of name change. Nobody accuses Fetzer of being a fraud for that, even though he clearly has not earned the doctorate with any sort of logical thinking.

Fetzer then goes on to tell a story about Simon's father, which Simon would not deny, because — again — it happens to be pretty close to his version of events. The only thing Fetzer could apparently find to smear not just Simon but Simon's father (whom Simon respects very much, and Fetzer knows this about Simon and seems to be trying to "get" to him with an emotional attack piece here) was apparently a disagreement his employers had with him. Fetzer's emotionally manipulative attack says,

Quote:
The Swedish group also announced it was fully washing [its] hands of Hytten and sharply criticized the newspapers who had given the false impression that Hytten had become Dolci’s legitimate successor in Sicily. Sadly, Hytten’s nefarious work had its desired effect, as noted on Dolci’s Wikipedia page:
Now, how could the Fetzer team claim to know not only Simon but Simon's father? While you let that strangeness set in, how could they claim the work Simon's father had done was "nefarious!" and that Simon's father desired to cause a "sad" outcome?

It sounds as if they are trying to insult, depress and demoralize Simon in the worst way, by painting his father as some kind of nefarious villain who secretly worked to undo his own life work. So not only are they getting Simon's father's information incorrect, they are apparently deliberately setting up the scenario that the aspect for which Simon is quite proud of his father is in Opposite World and Simon's father actually loved and protected the Mafia he otherwise apparently tried to rid the world of.

Fetzer quotes mainstream wikipedia, by the way, for his jab:

Quote:

“The smears certainly succeeded in pushing Dolci out of the limelight in Italy – for the last 20 years of his life he disappeared from public view.”

So it appears that Eyvind Hytten was controlled opposition sent in to disrupt and destroy Dolci’s anti-mafia organization, [and] sadly he succeeded.

How can a drama that Fetzer and team constructed from Simon's stories and mainstream news articles possibly be acceptable to people as the official story of what happened? When Simon himself provides this story from his own perspective, actually in Italy and knowing his own father better than Fetzer ever possibly could, why does Fetzer cast it in the following way?

Quote:
Simon Hytten tried to shift the blame onto American writer Jerre Mangione, author of the book ‘The World around Danilo Dolci’
But the story would never be known had Simon not willingly chosen to share his real name with the world, share stories about his father from his own perspective, and basically try to give answers to some of why Simon does what he does and believes what he believes about his father. So "shifting the blame" is precisely what Fetzer is doing from some place in America (one presumes America, though I guess we ought to wonder) and he is apparently not about to go to Italy, research what actually happened and find out whether what he wants to say about Simon and his father is true. Fetzer will not do this because he and his team apparently abhor the scientific methodology, honest journalism and the fact that people are calling him out on it.

So instead of addressing those questions in the least, he simply attacks the character of his perceived opponent!

In fact, even though Simon explicitly and deliberately shares his own strange tales about the Bin Laden family and his peculiar family connection, while Fetzer offers no such reciprocation to prove he is completely above suspicion himself, Fetzer decides — once more — to attempt to stick dirt to Simon and his family through aspersions about which he could have no additional knowledge, except that which was alluded to by Simon himself!

Quote:

During his career, [Simon's brother] Mario was sponsored by the “Bin Ladin Group.” Apparently, Mario befriended Yeslam Bin Ladin, an entrepreneur and half-brother of Osama Bin Laden. Yeslam is a fully Westernized man, possesses a degree in Economics, speaks four languages fluently, owns several successful businesses and became a naturalized Swiss citizen in 2001.

Yeslam became interested in helping Mario in early 1986. As he was quite influential in Arab elite, the brother of Osama managed to recruit a number of sponsors of the Middle East to support Mario in Formula 3000. The main sponsor was Yeslam’s family company, the Bin Ladin Group and this can be seen from photos of Mario’s F3000 car where the Bin Ladin Group is advertised on the rear wing.

This is all something Simon knows too well and finds suspicious himself. So why would Fetzer try to spin the tale as something unearthed by Fetzer as some kind of investigation? Is this how Fetzer conducts all his research? Taking anecdotes, gluing to them speculation and particular dramas of his own imagining, and presenting it to the public as the real story?

That's not the job of a scientist, but the habits of a politician or a tabloid rent-a-journalist. This is unfortunately very familiar, however, because it is also what he has done with 9/11. Let's compare what he has done to try to hurt Simon's feelings and/or demoralize research to what he considers "research" into 9/11.

1. Fetzer cherry-picks mainstream news articles, and reads them with a prima facie acceptance of their veracity
2. Fetzer verifies his own acceptance of what he sees or imagines with little more than other articles and anecdotes and comments from apparently random fans — and he considers this the most valid and relevant "research" without actually seeking to validate any of the claims of the news articles
3. Fetzer then speculates deeply about what he believes is really going on. Unlike Simon who will say, "I choose to believe [blah blah]", Fetzer says, "It is a fact that [blah blah] and what's more, if you question me you are disinformation."

Now, Fetzer has adopted a new strategy because people are not accepting his methodology as being either scientific nor morally honest. That is:

4. Vilify and paint unproven dramas about anyone who he considers to be "disinformation" (i.e.; questioning Fetzer on any of his beliefs)

So how does the Fetzer team of love conclude this disgusting and completely unscientific attack on Simon (with no actual refutation of Simon's work or those of anyone who has built up to or onto Simon's work?) Here is how:

Quote:
Regardless of the truth of the actual relationship,

which, let's face it, doesn't really matter to you that much, does it, Fetzer? You may as well start all of your inquiries with something like the phrase, "regardless of the truth ..." because that is your attitude about the truth.

Quote:

it is clear that Simon Shack aka Simon Hytten, was, for at least a few years in the 1980s, one person removed from the Bin Ladin family.
Though the fact that famous political families like the bin Ladins, Bushes, Clintons, Arafats, Obamas, etc. etc. et al literally draw ambitious people to them (because that is how people like Mario — who are rather unlike Simon — suck up to the wealthy and privileged) goes unnoticed by Fetzer. Fetzer also chooses to ignore the meaning of anything Simon has said about his own story (which even by Fetzer's "science" of pasting anecdotes to mainstream news to back up his speculative imaginings and calling it research) is not very gracious of Fetzer to Simon for providing him the basis of the Fetzer team's allegations in the first place.

Now, I agree that going ahead and admitting to something does not make one innocent, that one could easily take any particular personal story and paint one's self in the best possible light.

But it isn't science. It's merely storytelling, and it's neither here nor there in the facts. It is emotional manipulation whether it's coming from Simon or Fetzer. Yet, Fetzer's segment against Simon concludes dramatically, as if he has uncovered something:
Quote:

Apparently, there is little love lost today between Simon and his two elder brothers, as Simon wrote in an internet post:

“[A] few lines about my estranged brothers, Nicolai and Mario. They have inexplicably grown into two abject human beings – and I have almost no words to qualify their current behavior.”

Simon describes Nicolai and Mario as ‘two despicable creatures’ and states that “my disdain for them is immense.”
Simon does say this. It is the same kind of emotional drama that Simon tells of himself. How does that fit with Fetzer's allegations and hints that Simon is either deliberately misleading people, is a communist, is Jewish, is a Zionist, is in bed with the Mafia or any number of the other perfect villainies that could possibly be imagined about anyone and which Fetzer tries to stick to Simon? Simon does not get along with his power-seeking, money-grubbing brothers. He must be lying, conclude Fetzer and team.

But has Simon "lied" about ... pretty much anything? Has he been exposed as a liar? Even as a campaigner against truth?

Or has Fetzer merely flushed out the things that show Simon's personal struggle and highlighted them in order to specifically demoralize someone he considers an enemy just for demanding Fetzer produce some sort of evidence — any sort of evidence for his own wildly speculative theory of "Israeli nukes"?

Quote:

“September Clues” has constructed its own bizarre mythology surrounding the events of 9/11. The Clues Forum guys would have you believe that the Twin Towers were vacant after the 1993 bombing, nobody died on 9/11 and all of the footage was produced ahead of time and shown to the television audience while the actual destruction of the World Trade Center buildings was hidden from the view of New Yorkers by military smoke machines.
Remember, in Fetzer World, calling a postulation bizarre without actually examining any of the tenants is meant to be a kind of proof that the tenants, or their evidence, are not worth looking at.


The "Fetzer Attack" as Simon accurately dubbed this article, is winding up to make its points. Remember the 1-2-3 of the Fetzer methodology. First, take news articles at face value. Second, add to those articles' value and inflate the meaning of the details by calling any and all emotional responses to the details "research"; and third, construct an elaborate hypothesis — with no proof — based on these anecdotal fantasies.

Fetzer team's article finishes:

Quote:
If I were Larry Silverstein or another of the 9/11 perps
Oh, but you haven't proven you aren't.

Quote:
I would certainly want the 9/11 research community to believe these absurd notions.
You would want people to believe that you are responsible for a hoax that fooled millions, wound up with America in three illegal wars if not more, and that you should face trial for war crimes? Okay, that seems like a strange request as a 9/11 perp, but you're the one doing the imagining.

Quote:
They also weave in ludicrous statements such as nuclear weapons don’t exist
"Ludicrous" to Fetzer's group, again, because it is a question Fetzer refuses to address but not because of any of the signs of forgery and manipulation of the scientific community.

Quote:
, that rockets cannot travel into outer space
Another one he refuses to examine.

Quote:

and that satellites don’t exist.
That makes at least three questions Fetzer will apparently never find the time to properly research. This is not because he refuses to look at these things but because he has no knowledge or demonstrated awareness of virtually any scientific methods.

Fetzer, your emotional response to the imagined world you fabricate from mainstream news articles is not useful science. And never will be.

Quote:

The only good reason to doubt the existence of satellites might be that you believe the Earth is flat.
A hilarious statement, considering the Fetzer team chose to address questions about satellites by visiting a Flat Earth forum and saying this was the epitome of science research into the subject. He accuses everyone he disagrees with as presenting "straw man" arguments — that is, false effigies representing questions or statements his opponents never made — but he is the best exemplar of such an insane style of conducting arguments.

Quote:

The “September Clues” 9/11 myth does not withstand even modest scrutiny.
Modest scrutiny is exactly what was lacking at all, so the point cannot be true. If September Clues does not withstand modest scrutiny, why wasn't any point of September Clues actually scrutinized — at all — in the entire article? Because it is a hit piece against Simon. Not science, and not a good argument against September Clues' fairly unassailable points at this stage.

Fetzer has a grudge. And he has chosen to attack like a beaten and weak foe who has inflicted all of his own damage through shooting himself in the foot a number of times. He has taken aim at Simon and fired at his entire family with a smear campaign that has nothing to do with addressing any points of the September Clues documentary. Not even the ones that others have attacked!

Quote:

Human remains have been found all over the WTC complex and continue to be unearthed to this very day.
Refer to Fetzer methodology Number 1.

Quote:

Numerous people died there.
Okay, despite lack of proof or anything, I guess we must just take Fetzer's word. Because he believes in some of the phony victim stories plastered all over the TV, newspapers, magazines and Internet. And that means if we don't believe it, he will hunt down information about you and try to character-assassinate you! What a fucking pathetic way to try to argue with science.

Quote:

Billions of dollars have been paid out by Zionists to keep the families quiet.
Correction: Zionists are telling you this is what has been going on through the largely Zionist-dominated news and "alternative" news. And you are taking their word for it, Doctor Fetzer.

Quote:

The survivors of Stairwell B of the North Tower attest to the fact that the Towers were not empty on 9/11.
Mmhm, and you've met and interviewed these so-called "survivors", have you?

Quote:

Simon Shack, Onebornfree, El Buggo and Ab Irato have spent countless hours posting comments on “The Real Deal” archive forum and attacking the authors of this article.
Perhaps they can be considered "fighting back" and/or "defending themselves" against a smear campaign now? Good show. You really took the high road there, idiots.

Quote:

They protest the most vehemently when Israeli nuclear bombs are mentioned as having caused the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings.
My guess is that they are trying to wake you up to the fact that you are insisting: firstly, on a weapon technology that may not exist; secondly, on the premise that you saw its "proof" in the pixels of fabricated news; and thirdly, you are persisting in identifying Israel as the culprit which is an apologist position for the technocracy technology, the United States government, the disinformation campaigns working against September Clues (which is the definition of disinformation, by the way — actually fighting to squash existing information — a word you misuse so much it defies your apparent doctorate degree. Might yours be an example of such a disinfo campaign?) and the worldwide network of conspirators that must be involved, including but not limited to Israel, London, DC and the elite "ruling" families of the world.

Quote:

“September Clues” has all of the earmarks of being a 9/11 gatekeeping operation.

Eh, um. No. Demanding evidence is not gatekeeping. It is gate opening.

Quote:

Buying into their bizarre 9/11 mythology may be appealing if you believe the Earth is flat.
A final non sequitur to complete the essay. Buying into getting off your butt and doing some fucking research into the fraud by actually examining evidence and performing crucial forensics on the evidence may not be appealing to you if you prefer to live in FetzerWorld.

But I live on Earth, whatever the shape of it ultimately proves to be.

Prima facie (/ˈpraɪmə ˈfeɪʃɨ.iː/, /ˈfeɪʃə/, or /ˈfeɪʃiː/;[1] from Latin: prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression meaning on its first encounter, first blush, or at first sight. The literal translation would be "at first face" or "at first appearance", from the feminine form of primus ("first") and facies ("face"), both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. The term is used similarly in academic philosophy. Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling.



Last edited by synergetic67; 26-01-2014 at 05:44 PM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 03:20 PM   #56
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 286 (208 Posts)
Default



Honor Elizabeth Wainio, 9/11 vicsim. (Yes, believe it or not, this simulated person's actual first name is supposed to be 'Honor,' )

Vicsim, for those that do not understand the word, is a simulated victim, created for psy-ops / fake events. The pictures of these vicsims are usually Photoshop disasters.

As you can see, her head has been clumsily attached to another person’s body.

The above picture was sent to Simon Shack at
Clues Forum and was meant to be proof that Elizabeth had existed and died on 9/11. The image is on the Facebook page of Esther Heymann, who claims to be the mother of this virtual victim.

Esther Heymann is the phonetic namesake of Esther Hyman, the alleged sister of 7/7 London bombings vicsim Miriam Hyman.

“Elizabeth Wainio” - (aka “Honor Elizabeth Wainio” depending on which website you bump into) - has a ludicrous amount of internet memorials in her honor. Just search her full name and look it up for yourself. More often than not, these memorials ask for donations and organize fund-raising events. The problem is: Liz never existed. She is listed as a casualty of the farcical “FLIGHT 93” - the very existence of which has by now been demolished in every imaginable way. “Liz” is also one of those credited with placing a cell-phone call (with her ‘step-mother’) minutes before her “heroic death”. There cannot be many folks left on this planet still believing this very silly tale. I have chosen Liz to expound an instance of a simulated identity; however, please look up the many 9/11 victim memorials and realize that the same simulation techniques apply to virtually ALL of the purported 9/11 victims - firefighters included. At this stage, all the available research data points to this sweeping, inevitable conclusion : (almost) no one was killed on 9/11.

The above is quoted from the September Clues vicsim analysis








http://www.salem-news.com/articles/s...ections-ew.php

http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims.htm

http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsi...m%20Report.pdf

The Rationale of the 9-11 Hoax -


http://www.septemberclues.info/deconstructing.shtml

http://mediahoaxes.tumblr.com/

http://mediahoaxes.tumblr.com/post/7...sim-vicsim-for


Last edited by synergetic67; 26-01-2014 at 07:47 PM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 03:54 PM   #57
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
synergetic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 286 (208 Posts)
Default

Brilliant piece, as usual, by Simon and a great intro from Stewart Ogilby – both removed from "Veterans Today" after only a few hours.


Veterans Today





Simon Shack’s September Clues
Published on January 21st, 2014
Written by: Stewart Ogilby


Note: I am pleased to publish Mr. Simon Shack’s statement below my own column. Persons interested in reviewing 9/11 research done by himself and his associates need to access the link he placed at the end of his statement.

Americans have traveled a long way from a home that was established for them by a handful of brilliant men less than two hundred and fifty years ago. These men struggled together despite major disagreements in order to secure a form of government never before seen among men except paradoxically in the soon to be decimated Iroquois confederacy. Among these brilliant men was Thomas Jefferson, arguably the brightest as well as the most contradictory and enigmatic. Today we cling to his writings and yearn for freedoms and rights for mankind that he found in his prodigious reading and that he expressed in letters and early Virginia political writings. Those ideas became encoded in the new government’s founding documents.

Located on the continent’s eastern edge, Jefferson’s compatriots were men of property. Emerging Western social philosophies provided ample rationalization to set up a nominally classless system whereby the unexplored new continent would be exploited in such a manner as to yield them and their progeny substantially increased wealth. The majority of newcomers for more than a century would be slaves, sometimes euphemistically itemized as indentured servants, black slaves from Africa, impoverished immigrants, females and other workers. Non-emancipated and non-propertied non-homesteaders would be vote-less in the new Republic. The founders and certain others would own property that others would work. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose, and the only thing that has changed today is the breed of our owners.

Man’s nature evolved to meet needs of a progressively rational, civilized and urbanized animal. Encoded attributes advantageous to individual struggles for survival constitute our inherited nature. Survival demands self interest in conjunction with participation in actions undertaken by one’s kin, tribe, clan, or islanders. The will to power and greed are both hard-wired to some degree. However, when those characteristics dominate after individual needs are met effectively we may rightfully define resulting behavior as sociopathic. Such persons own tags of money and power.

As a businessman Jefferson was an abysmal failure. A case can be made for Jefferson not sharing the strong personal vested interests of his compatriots. Monticello was auctioned off following his death but his true legacy is incalculable. Thomas Jefferson’s ghost looms above our Republic’s present guardians. They abhor the sentiments of Jefferson and his mentor, George Mason, that found their way into our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Above all, they detest our First Amendment’s provision that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …”.

Existing power targets individuals who become significant enough to threaten its positions. That has been that way since Socrates and since the Inquisition. Today we can name examples: Kennedy, King, Wellstone, Zundel, and many others. Look carefully at those who are derided by propagandists who own, manage and control America’s press, TV channels, and Hollywood and who conspire to censor the Internet. They insist that certain persons whom they label “idiots” be ignored. Pay close attention to those persons who are officially trivialized, castigated, and eventually muzzled and you will find those most feared by the powers of the world in which we live.
This brings us directly to a man who calls himself Simon Shack. Others debate instrumental questions about 9/11, the watershed event of our age. Shack raises a huge fundamental issue in his analysis of 9/11. His methodical analysis of 9/11 obliges us to face squarely the possibility of sweeping corporate complicity. If Simon Shack is right, his analysis proves that we live today in a world of corporately crafted fantasy, a pathological world of hoaxes and fears and wars and lies controlled by persons owning tags of money and power.

The extent of greed and mendacity in such a world, supported by corporations, the hub of modern economic society, lies at the very heart of Shack’s revelations. Should that key issue be documented and exposed accurately, the structure of such a world would need to be denounced and overturned. If one enters into Google just 3 keywords: 911 MEDIA HOAX, it does appear that the 911 cat is out of the bag.

All mankind thrives better in a world of truth, compassion, peace, cooperation, and love. Simon Shack’s work, which I considered to be preposterous at first glance, requires serious consideration. In the best tradition of free journalism and open debate, let the man speak for himself.


Imagine – in the “Age of Imagery” by Simon Shack

21 January, 2014


Imagine the news media without the ‘magic’ of imagery. Imagine a world without videos or pictures – only radio and printed press. Just imagine. It’s a bit hard to do (John Lennon may disagree) yet that’s what the public had to rely upon not so long ago, before the advent of photography and TV.
Without imagery, we’d have to put our blind trust in faceless voices & scribes to keep us informed of what’s going on around this world. We’d only have those news media folks’ word for it – assuring us that their words were trustworthy and true. If a volcano erupted somewhere around the globe, a thousand words couldn’t even begin to describe what the fiery spectacle looked like in reality. With no imagery to back the story up – we’d have to IMAGINE it all for ourselves. Imagine that.

Without any visuals of daily news events reaching our eyes, inquiring minds would inevitably start wondering whether any given event described by these voices & scribes were being truthfully relayed – or if the event even took place at all. Hey, didn’t Orson Welles fool his audience back in 1938 with his simulated CBS radio ‘news’ broadcast of a dramatic alien invasion? The shocking ‘news broadcast’ terrified many Americans and a public outcry ensued – yet this cheap corporate media hoax was hailed as a ‘work of art’ by many pundits.

Fortunately, all this is now a thing of the past… Today, we can count on what is considered the most acute of our five senses – eyesight – to empirically verify that any sort of news event occurred as reported, can we not? We could rightly say that we live in the “Age of Imagery” – what with the tons of pictures, movies and videos that jostle for our attention on a daily basis. To be sure, any modern news story is unfailingly accompanied with visuals of the same – virtually making you feel as if “you were there”. Virtually, that is. Virtually. And that is the whole point of the matter.
An image may be worth a thousand words – but it may also prop up a thousand lies.

An image can only be considered, at best, as a virtual copy of reality. It cannot be used to prove the real-world occurrence of what it purports to depict. Any moviegoer knows that. Only a madman would contend that the ‘Empire State building’ (in fact, a digital depiction thereof) seen exploding and collapsing top-down in the 1996 movie “Independence Day” PROVES that it was actually destroyed in reality… On 9/11, we were shown two skyscrapers collapsing on TV in almost identical fashion (top-down). As it is, none of the extant and wildly contradictory images depicting these two physically inexplicable collapses proves that the event occurred as shown. Au contraire: its inconsistent, artificial and non-physical aspects strongly support the thesis that what was shown on TV on 9/11 was nothing but a “Hollywood-style” production – from start to finish.

As it is, this thesis has been thoroughly tested and corroborated by our longstanding research at http://septemberclues.info/ and http://cluesforum.info/ : what we saw on TV on 9/11 was a pre-fabricated ‘action movie’. Only minutes after “Flight 11” allegedly hit the first tower at 8:46AM, the TV audience was treated to sweeping, “aerial TV-chopper birds-eye views” of Manhattan – and so the 102-minute blockbuster was underway…Bring the popcorn, sonny ! If you – dear reader – have not viewed my 90min September Clues research documentary, perhaps you may wish to do so now. The thing is, what TV aired on 9/11 cannot be described – or much less depicted – with words.

Apart from demonstrating the wholesale (pre-)fabrication of the 9/11 TV imagery (and the subsequently released “amateur footage”), we have also performed extensive investigations into what is, undoubtedly, the most ‘sensitive’ issue of the entire 9/11 scam : the purported victims of the day – which have turned out to be every bit as fictitious as the 9/11 TV imagery itself. To this day, no solid evidence has emerged as to how many died on 9/11 – if any. The lack of real victims does not diminish in any way the criminal nature of this – and other similar – government-backed psyops. It only helps explain why so many people would go along with them – no questions asked – for personal profit. Had you realized that this world is riddled with greedy rats?

Our collective efforts spanning over more than half a decade have allowed us to establish, with a fair degree of certainty, that the major Anglo-American TV networks (and the international ‘media cartel’ as a whole) – acting as the lackeys and on behalf of the “powers that be” – were fully complicit in staging this epochal news hoax which, they say, “has changed the world forever”…

Over the years, unsurprisingly we may say, relentless efforts have been deployed by our opponents to dismiss, ridicule or simply downplay the significance of our findings. Our 9/11 research has been ostracized, banned and censored from most 9/11 “truther” forums and websites. A steady flow of outlandish media-absolving theories have been churned out, manifestly designed to try and restore some credibility to the phony 9/11 imagery – such as: “the planes were holograms” (thus, the TV imagery was real…), “the towers were pulverized by exotic weapons” (thus, the TV images showing absurd collapse-physics were real…) and so on and so forth.

Let us rejoice, ladies and gents. After all, 9/11 has provided us with a precious revelation. We – as in “the humanity as a whole” – owe to this sorry scam our newfound and all-important awareness: the use of FAKE IMAGERY – aired and published all over their global media networks – has been singled out as the prime weapon of mass distraction used by the ‘powers that be’ (or “The Nutwork ”, as I like to call it). It has been – for several decades now – the main pillar of their rule-by-deception strategy – and Its hypnotic effect on the masses has proven to be very efficient indeed. Its ‘practical applications’ are manifold and certainly not confined to the staging of phony terrorist attacks. But let us not digress – this is all for another day.

May reason prevail

Simon Shack

THE SEPTEMBER CLUES TOUR GUIDE: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=477/a&gt


http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...89049#p2389049



Quote:

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Post by simonshack on January 22nd, 2014, 11:34 pm
*
Just to document the fact that the Ogilby/ Shack piece ONCE EXISTED on the Veterans Today website:




http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...89049#p2389049

I will keep you all posted regarding the reasons why the VT moderators deleted this article.

Imagine – in the “Age of Imagery” by Simon Shack

21 January, 2014

Imagine the news media without the ‘magic’ of imagery. Imagine a world without videos or pictures – only radio and printed press. Just imagine. It’s a bit hard to do (John Lennon may disagree) yet that’s what the public had to rely upon not so long ago, before the advent of photography and TV.
Without imagery, we’d have to put our blind trust in faceless voices & scribes to keep us informed of what’s going on around this world. We’d only have those news media folks’ word for it – assuring us that their words were trustworthy and true. If a volcano erupted somewhere around the globe, a thousand words couldn’t even begin to describe what the fiery spectacle looked like in reality. With no imagery to back the story up – we’d have to IMAGINE it all for ourselves. Imagine that.

Without any visuals of daily news events reaching our eyes, inquiring minds would inevitably start wondering whether any given event described by these voices & scribes were being truthfully relayed – or if the event even took place at all. Hey, didn’t Orson Welles fool his audience back in 1938 with his simulated CBS radio ‘news’ broadcast of a dramatic alien invasion? The shocking ‘news broadcast’ terrified many Americans and a public outcry ensued – yet this cheap corporate media hoax was hailed as a ‘work of art’ by many pundits.

Fortunately, all this is now a thing of the past… Today, we can count on what is considered the most acute of our five senses – eyesight – to empirically verify that any sort of news event occurred as reported, can we not? We could rightly say that we live in the “Age of Imagery” – what with the tons of pictures, movies and videos that jostle for our attention on a daily basis. To be sure, any modern news story is unfailingly accompanied with visuals of the same – virtually making you feel as if “you were there”. Virtually, that is. Virtually. And that is the whole point of the matter.
An image may be worth a thousand words – but it may also prop up a thousand lies.

An image can only be considered, at best, as a virtual copy of reality. It cannot be used to prove the real-world occurrence of what it purports to depict. Any moviegoer knows that. Only a madman would contend that the ‘Empire State building’ (in fact, a digital depiction thereof) seen exploding and collapsing top-down in the 1996 movie “Independence Day” PROVES that it was actually destroyed in reality… On 9/11, we were shown two skyscrapers collapsing on TV in almost identical fashion (top-down). As it is, none of the extant and wildly contradictory images depicting these two physically inexplicable collapses proves that the event occurred as shown. Au contraire: its inconsistent, artificial and non-physical aspects strongly support the thesis that what was shown on TV on 9/11 was nothing but a “Hollywood-style” production – from start to finish.

As it is, this thesis has been thoroughly tested and corroborated by our longstanding research at http://septemberclues.info/ and http://cluesforum.info/ : what we saw on TV on 9/11 was a pre-fabricated ‘action movie’. Only minutes after “Flight 11” allegedly hit the first tower at 8:46AM, the TV audience was treated to sweeping, “aerial TV-chopper birds-eye views” of Manhattan – and so the 102-minute blockbuster was underway…Bring the popcorn, sonny ! If you – dear reader – have not viewed my 90min September Clues research documentary, perhaps you may wish to do so now. The thing is, what TV aired on 9/11 cannot be described – or much less depicted – with words.

Apart from demonstrating the wholesale (pre-)fabrication of the 9/11 TV imagery (and the subsequently released “amateur footage”), we have also performed extensive investigations into what is, undoubtedly, the most ‘sensitive’ issue of the entire 9/11 scam : the purported victims of the day – which have turned out to be every bit as fictitious as the 9/11 TV imagery itself. To this day, no solid evidence has emerged as to how many died on 9/11 – if any. The lack of real victims does not diminish in any way the criminal nature of this – and other similar – government-backed psyops. It only helps explain why so many people would go along with them – no questions asked – for personal profit. Had you realized that this world is riddled with greedy rats?

Our collective efforts spanning over more than half a decade have allowed us to establish, with a fair degree of certainty, that the major Anglo-American TV networks (and the international ‘media cartel’ as a whole) – acting as the lackeys and on behalf of the “powers that be” – were fully complicit in staging this epochal news hoax which, they say, “has changed the world forever”…

Over the years, unsurprisingly we may say, relentless efforts have been deployed by our opponents to dismiss, ridicule or simply downplay the significance of our findings. Our 9/11 research has been ostracized, banned and censored from most 9/11 “truther” forums and websites. A steady flow of outlandish media-absolving theories have been churned out, manifestly designed to try and restore some credibility to the phony 9/11 imagery – such as: “the planes were holograms” (thus, the TV imagery was real…), “the towers were pulverized by exotic weapons” (thus, the TV images showing absurd collapse-physics were real…) and so on and so forth.

Let us rejoice, ladies and gents. After all, 9/11 has provided us with a precious revelation. We – as in “the humanity as a whole” – owe to this sorry scam our newfound and all-important awareness: the use of FAKE IMAGERY – aired and published all over their global media networks – has been singled out as the prime weapon of mass distraction used by the ‘powers that be’ (or “The Nutwork ”, as I like to call it). It has been – for several decades now – the main pillar of their rule-by-deception strategy – and Its hypnotic effect on the masses has proven to be very efficient indeed. Its ‘practical applications’ are manifold and certainly not confined to the staging of phony terrorist attacks. But let us not digress – this is all for another day.

May reason prevail

Simon Shack

THE SEPTEMBER CLUES TOUR GUIDE: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=477/a&gt

Last edited by synergetic67; 26-01-2014 at 07:48 PM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2014, 07:04 PM   #58
oneeyeopen
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 704
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

On that day, those in the know said we can do anything and get away scot-free.
oneeyeopen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2014, 05:58 PM   #59
zorada
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oneeyeopen View Post
On that day, those in the know said we can do anything and get away scot-free.
Believe me they knew this before they did it or they would not have tried.
zorada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2014, 06:38 PM   #60
oneeyeopen
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 704
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zorada View Post
Believe me they knew this before they did it or they would not have tried.
In terms of broadcasting CGI footage on news networks the world over, which lead people to believe that America was under attack from terrorist I don't know if it has ever been done to that extent.

Actually, it hasn't been done on that scale before. Not with the lies perpetrated by the media, and then the political aftermath that ensued.

I can think of the Kennedy assassination, but the footage was shown almost a decade later, and it was not intended to cause a cultural shock as 9/11 did.

See, 9/11 had everyone tuned in prior to the second CGI footage of the plane crash, and that was every bit intentional.
oneeyeopen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:31 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.