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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-02-2014, 11:10 PM   #81
pure_sweetness
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 48
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I'd first want to know why they want us to believe it was a "doomsday plane". If so then it may well have been used as command and control, as well as a decoy for the local witnesses. I believe the witness evidence indicates there was a lot of aircraft in the sky at the time, to confuse folks into thinking they saw a jet and must have missed the impact as shown on T.V., or especially to confuse people who thought they saw or heard a missile.

yeah esp when it was reported by the BBC before it happened, creepy aye?
pure_sweetness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 03:27 AM   #82
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pure_sweetness View Post
yeah esp when it was reported by the BBC before it happened, creepy aye?
To me it's not so much creepy as evidence that the media really are part and parcel to the whole operation.
yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 08:15 AM   #83
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 345 (266 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pure_sweetness View Post
yeah esp when it was reported by the BBC before it happened, creepy aye?
Not just the BBC, Fox 5 also reported the collapse before the 'official time' (given to you by enemy-propaganda media) that it supposedly happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_4CroCsLOw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOVnvFl5jZo

Supposedly they even made a 'mistake' of actually showing WTC7 standing behind the BBC reporter. What nonsense. It was a script, but it was not a script that both these networks somehow screwed up or their handler screwed up. It was a script that had BOTH these mistakes written in!

They are deliberate mistakes, put in to cover for any inevitable real mistakes that always happen in PsyOps this big. This way, the perps control the narrative of the opposition into friendlier and more wasteful channels and have more control over WHICH mistakes are more likely to be investigated, WHAT is being looked at by the dissenters. For example, while WTC 7 is being looked at by all the suckers and the BBC reporter and Silverstein, the complete fraud of the video imagery itself, the real smoking gun and one which, if discovered will severely handicap most of their future PsyOps, is not even being discussed or being discussed by the tiniest handful of a minority, within the ranks of which they have also infiltrated guys like Fetzer and Ace Baker. Of course, we know that the videos of the WTC 7 collapse are yet more previously manufactured fakes:


Simon Shack's WTC 7 Study :

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


put in deliberately to get the dissenters and conspiracy theorists to argue about for as long as possible, give them some hope, the false belief in their own freedom, however small, that makes them that much more hopelessly enslaved. The Snowden PsyOp's function is a similar thing, to give people the impression that they're not as controlled as they are, that some parts of the media are still looking out for them by airing "whistleblowers" like Assange and Snowden.

The assumption is that people went out and 'confirmed' that the building was still standing and then confirmed again later that it was 'actually' demolished at 5:20pm EST. They did no such thing. The videos of these so-called confirmations by fake actor firefighters and whatnot being interviewed by traitor-actor news anchors and Silverstein's 'pull-it' 'mistake' were also scripted and shot ahead of time. The network of mazes most of us have been living in for the past decade and chasing our tails in was socially engineered through these deliberate mistakes or "Easter Eggs," as the shill Judy Wood called it. She talked about other "Easter Eggs" while being one herself. Same thing is done by Fetzer. He talks about disinformation being "making everything believable and nothing knowable," while he is engaged in exactly that: "making everything believable and nothing knowable."

Since the WTC 7 'standard demo' collapse video was also faked, we don't know for sure WHEN it came down, only that it did come down. Why would they fake completely impossible and ridiculous looking "shock-&-awe" top-down collapses of WTC's 1 & 2 and a 'standard demo' of WTC 7 and not show the demolitions of the other 6 buildings that disappeared that day (9 in all) at all? To screw with peoples heads, to create confusion, uncertainty and fear (nukes? beam weapons?), to create the false-paradigm of distrust in enemy-propaganda words but total trust in enemy-propaganda imagery, or a no-image-fakery foundation of sand for the conspiracy theorists and further on down a no-non-plane-image-fakery foundation, just as faulty for the sharper bunch, basically protecting and gatekeeping the very high (up to 100%) LEVEL of the media's complicity in the PsyOp for as long as possible. To make everything believable and nothing knowable for as long as possible.


"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftety6G453Q

Last edited by synergetic67; 06-02-2014 at 09:05 AM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:40 PM   #84
profiler
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 92
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Aside from the deliberate innuendos like nose-out and fade-to-black there were many more clues inserted into film strips and pictures. The wrong window sizes were another clue, even the contours of the towers don't match. The oversized people hanging from the windows are another fabrication to finally drive home the character of the hoax to anyone who may still be in doubt of what there happened. This was the only way the perps could reveal themselves, and reveal themselves they have to, for the alternative to it would be unpredictable. The physics of 911 is self-evidently ridiculous to anyone upon some inspection. The perps knew they could not get away with it long term. The photos of the victims were as well deliberately fabricated to lead researchers to the conclusion that no one was deliberately killed when the complex was demolished under obscure circumstances. It was a very well planned hoax despite shoddy editing of the photo shopped material the perps scrambled, it seems in a rush. They had nothing to worry about. The CGIED inaccuracy of the footage goes hand in hand with the witness first hand reports coming from none else than media people almost exclusively.
The towers themselves were experimental projects and didn’t pass the muster. Too dangerous for the height, financial flop, in the part of the city where land is at a prize. And full of asbestos apparently. They had to go down. How they were demolished and in what order no one knows aside from the culprits themselves. Most likely no one will find out since the buildings were tightly enveloped in a thick cloud of obscurity of some sort when they were being pulled down. It would be futile today to synchronize, most likely faked, videos of the collapse with what the witnesses saw. Some videos appear to be real, some are fakes and they don't describe events that could have happened. The case in point here is the visual of the contours of the upper part of a tower tilting and falling down. This is not something that could have happened in the real world. We will be safe to say that the video is a fake for the massive dust generated by the collapsing block was generated before the block fell onto the lower part of the tower. Hence, either the dust is faked or the collapsing top of the tower is, or else the whole thing is a story. At this point no one should care if the remaining videos of the collapse are real. Those that only show a cloud of dust moving down show nothing else. Real or not, nothing to find there. Obscurants screened the demolition and one cannot be sure whether the demolition was synched with the movie shown on TV.
profiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 12:14 AM   #85
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 345 (266 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by profiler View Post
Aside from the deliberate innuendos like nose-out and fade-to-black there were many more clues inserted into film strips and pictures. The wrong window sizes were another clue, even the contours of the towers don't match. The oversized people hanging from the windows are another fabrication to finally drive home the character of the hoax to anyone who may still be in doubt of what there happened. This was the only way the perps could reveal themselves, and reveal themselves they have to, for the alternative to it would be unpredictable. The physics of 911 is self-evidently ridiculous to anyone upon some inspection. The perps knew they could not get away with it long term. The photos of the victims were as well deliberately fabricated to lead researchers to the conclusion that no one was deliberately killed when the complex was demolished under obscure circumstances. It was a very well planned hoax despite shoddy editing of the photo shopped material the perps scrambled, it seems in a rush. They had nothing to worry about. The CGIED inaccuracy of the footage goes hand in hand with the witness first hand reports coming from none else than media people almost exclusively.

The towers themselves were experimental projects and didn’t pass the muster. Too dangerous for the height, financial flop, in the part of the city where land is at a prize. And full of asbestos apparently. They had to go down. How they were demolished and in what order no one knows aside from the culprits themselves. Most likely no one will find out since the buildings were tightly enveloped in a thick cloud of obscurity of some sort when they were being pulled down. It would be futile today to synchronize, most likely faked, videos of the collapse with what the witnesses saw. Some videos appear to be real, some are fakes and they don't describe events that could have happened. The case in point here is the visual of the contours of the upper part of a tower tilting and falling down. This is not something that could have happened in the real world. We will be safe to say that the video is a fake for the massive dust generated by the collapsing block was generated before the block fell onto the lower part of the tower. Hence, either the dust is faked or the collapsing top of the tower is, or else the whole thing is a story. At this point no one should care if the remaining videos of the collapse are real. Those that only show a cloud of dust moving down show nothing else. Real or not, nothing to find there. Obscurants screened the demolition and one cannot be sure whether the demolition was synched with the movie shown on TV.
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. You understand the many factors contributing as to why this position, the one I've expressed in my words and you've expressed in yours and the one first expressed in comprehensive form by Simon Shack in his, years ago, is the closest to the truth.


"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." -- Arthur Conan Doyle


What most 911 truthers don't realize is that it was first and foremost a PSYCHOLOGICAL operation and therefore considerations of 'realism' are very much secondary to considerations of how well the psychological conditioning takes effect. Look how long the ridiculous Moon Landing footage has been able to fool billions of people! Once the psychological triggers are properly pulled and installed deep in the subconscious, most people will FIGHT FOR THEIR OWN SELF-DELUSIONS as if their lives depended on it, even a good portion of more-or-less sincere dissenters engaged in seeking 9-11 truth. If fear of a greater fear than they already experience does not keep them there good and deluded, their fragile egos and fear of further imbalance and confusion will. Of course, you also have infiltration by direct agents to deal with.

The “smoking gun” is not inside the premanufactured enemy-propaganda “whodunnit” movie, the “smoking gun” is the movie itself and the red herrings or “rabbit trails” inside the movie are there to keep as large a percentage of alternative-media-readers as possible from finding this out. Although almost every 9-11 No-Planer that finally discovers the Media-Fakery modus operandi of 9-11 has seen “Loose Change” and probably many other similar disinfo flicks like it, FAR MORE people have seen it AND NOT MOVED BEYOND ITS GATEKEEPING, gotten stuck at that gate with big-mouth liars like Alex Jones and Jason Bermass warning them about the “No Planer Disinfo,” than those who moved on past it. This is the intention of disinformation and gatekeeping: to keep as large a percentage of truth-seekers as possible away from the core truth and in the side-alleys of truth. Disinfo agents and useful idiots functioning in the same capacity are set up all the way to the very edge of the truth.

Beyond that, even people who are more or less honest with regard to their exposure of one major lie all the way to the very bitter end, might still be in a conditioned state with regard to some other big lie that their egos and outlooks-on-life have acquired too much a personal stake in to motivate a jump of its cognitive dissonance hurdle. There are many things that even veteran and proven truth-seekers know but don’t want to know that they know.

Keeping this image in mind:



It’s easy to see that gatekeeping works kind of like this: the big lie in the castle itself has to be protected as much as possible. You have a bunch of walls around it with gates and the Official Fairy Tale outside the walls altogether.

Each wall that you have to get through to get closer to the big lie (the truth for you is discovering this big lie) has a gate somewhere but you need to locate it and also have the key to get through. Not everyone starts outside the walls. Some people, due to intelligence or circumstance or former experience are inside some of the walls already. The perps know this and have agents and propaganda both in place to keep the smart-asses at each stage occupied.

By putting their own gatekeepers in at each stage, they make sure the leaders of the truth movement stay in line (within the pre-set dialectic or propaganda memes spread). As long as the few leaders are kept in line or think they discovered the memes they were actually subtly fed on their own and get to stroke their egos in the process, the numerically much larger followers (still a small percentage of the general population) get herded behind them.

In order to keep the smarter leaders from guessing what’s going on and maintain conspiracy ‘street cred,’ they will regularly do limited hangouts of certain truths, float newer and somewhat bolder memes, in order to keep more important truths hidden. The degree of the hangout is dependent on the level of sophistication they are trying to dupe and a hang-out done far inside the castle walls will not even be understood by those still stuck in the outer walls. They won’t have any idea what’s being hidden by the new illumination.

Each big lie also has a special key that will tend to open all the gates at once and literally put you right outside the main castle door and litmus tests that will clear most of the gatekeepers out of your way. There are also super keys that will open many doors at once in multiple big lies simultaneously.

One of the “super keys” is recognizing the technique of manufacturing false realities through media fakery, the other is discovering the reality of Jew-owned media and a Zionist-Occupied-Government funded by International-Jew-banking usury and legalized counterfeiting hidden behind and giving orders to the Build-a-Burgers, the Vatican, the Jesuits and all the rest. These two super keys together will open more doors in more big lies simultaneously than any other. Only ONE of the keys by itself will cut your results in half. Those who promote only one of these keys and not the other are engaged in a form of witting or unwitting shilling and obfuscation or cutting the results of their followers in half.

Quote:
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

False in one particular, false in everything


http://everything2.com/title/falsus+...sus+in+omnibus
The problem is and has always been that there are no proper courts of law left to prosecute the perpetrators of 9-11 based on this very simple principle of law because they were all bought and paid for by the perps themselves ahead of time.

Knowing that the courts and judges are bought and paid for, they were free to let their imaginations run wild with many absurdities without fear of being prosecuted even if they were exposed, in fact, anticipating, laughing at and laying false-trails for the “exposers” to chase, and that is exactly what has happened: endless side paths opened up so the river is redirected into arid land and never gets to the sea. They have repeated this many times since 9-11 with other PsyOps to rub in the serfs’ faces their total domination of almost every aspect of their lives. This externalization of power is further reinforced by many fear-mongerers in the “alternative” media. It has to be rejected and thrown back in their face, IN TOTO. No matter how much power has been concentrated at the top, they only have this power because it is GIVEN TO THEM by hundreds of millions, sometimes many billions of media-conditioned dupes unaware of their own REAL power. The psychology of how this is done is explained by Lenon Honor in this audio:

http://fakeologist.com/wp-content/up...enon-Honor.mp3


A brilliant response by a guy named Chris Amundson to El Buggo on Fetzer's blog further illustrates how the Psychological Operation is multi-level designed not to be 'realistic' but to work both on the mainstream/mass and the more tenacious dissenter/truther psychologies simultaneously and lead them astray.

Quote:

El Buggo January 29, 2014 at 1:31 PM

The truth may very well be hidden behind a veil of (non existing) tears. But is typically to hard even for mainstream holocaust deniers when I bring up this "no one died and no one got hurt 911".

But we know this is not a new trick. Here is the Kuwaiti ambassadors daughter again - an excellent demonstration of no tears: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7qNBmwX1tM:

Chris, you can say what you want, but it is not possible to believe in this victims part of this Sandy Hook Hoax after watching the totally not credible interviews with the reported victims parents from Des 16. 17, 18 2012. No tears of course.

No credible parents=no credible victims.


chris amundson January 29, 2014 at 1:42 PM

And that's the beauty of this trap. These buggers placed this one right where brave/sane folk fear to tread.

It's diabolic and damn well planned.

The apparent sloppiness of it gives just the right bait for people with our interests to just fall all over it. And then have them fall all over us and marginalize us even further.

Gun seizures and mental health policies be damned. I think it entirely possible this sucker was set to give a 'black eye' to the tenacious researchers who wont let go of them and their plans.

Whether or not people died, most Americans never even think about it a year later. Duck Dynasty/Super Bowl, yes. Sandy Hook, no.

So who was the target audience?

I submit it was us. We really have the proverbial tiger by the tail with this one.

Didn't anyone else notice both of those guys tried to ambush Dr Fetzer? Sounded like both Piper and Johnson were trying to get him sued.

Very instructive as to how the opposition is thinking

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2014...l#comment-form


Collection of Shack quotes from the comments sections of Fetzer's Real Deal Show blog:


Quote:

Onebornfree October 28, 2013 at 2:43 PM

PM aid :"For the witnesses that reported anything other than seeing a jetliner.....such as the people that thought it was missile, or the people that thought it was a 'small plane'....is this not an example of exactly what you say we don't have? "

Jim is committing at least two " crimes" with regards to alleged eyewitness testimony:

1] He cherry picks testimony to back up what he believes to be true about the supposed events of 9/11 as depicted in the [faked] videos/photos the authenticity of which he [of course] also refuses point blank to even question [even as a supposed scientist].

2] He's in complete denial of his cherry picking of alleged eyewitness testimony.

And that still completely ignores the MAJOR no-no of never having done ANY deep background checks for ANY of the alleged eyewitnesses he does believe![e.g. Scott Forbes]

All in all, Jim Fetzer's 9/11 "research" has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific investigative methodology- it is in fact, plain, simple, 100% total B.S. :-)

Regards, onebornfree

Reply

Andy Tyme October 29, 2013 at 11:12 PM

OBF, or anyone else still reading this unusually long comment thread: What is there (other than his suspicious "eyewitness" testimony of a plane heading right at the tower) in the background/connections/verifiable-existence of "Scott Forbes" that gives reason to question his accuracy or honesty? If Dr. Fetzer had actually followed OBF's advice to dig into Forbe's "bona fides," just what perp-like, incriminating info would have turned up -- if there is any?

Mr. Forbes certainly talked a good game when he appeared on The Real Deal, but there was that troubling central detail of his calmly describing a seeming (to us, anyway) IMPOSSIBILITY. In other words, who has "the goods" on Forbes? And what are they?
Reply

norwegian November 1, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Dear Andy,

You could start by asking Scott Forbes where we can find the Official 9/11 memorial for his alleged 87 dead colleagues at FIDUCIARY TRUST. I've been looking for it - with no luck. Perhaps Uncle Fetzer can help us find it? Surely, a company who lost 87 employees on 9/11 MUST have an Official 9/11 Memorial page?

Reply

OnebornfreeNovember 1, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Andy Tyme said: "What is there (other than his suspicious "eyewitness" testimony of a plane heading right at the tower) in the background/connections/verifiable-existence of "Scott Forbes" that gives reason to question his accuracy or honesty? If Dr. Fetzer had actually followed OBF's advice to dig into Forbe's "bona fides," just what perp-like, incriminating info would have turned up -- if there is any? "

It's really irrelevant to my point [what "incriminating info" may or may not turn up if Forbes were thoroughly checked out- although believe me, its out there, as poster "Norwegian" {Simon perchance?** implies ], Andy.

The fact of the matter is that Jim is supposed to be a person using a scientific methodology to uncover truth.

However there is _nothing_ within standard scientific methodology that allows for the repeated employment of alleged " eyewitness testimony", to solidify a hypothesis.

If a scientist does choose to use alleged eyewitness testimony, don't you think it is perfectly reasonable for them to first insist on doing a thorough background check, _before_ blithely_ assuming that that alleged eyewitness must be telling the truth, merely because they sound believable?

Forbes is not the only person Jim conveniently chooses to believe based on zero background check. He mentions in the show Bill Biggarts photos as being believable, and yet, as with Forbes, he has done ZERO investigation into the Biggart story and his alleged associates and his background /history.

The bottom line is that , with regards to 911, Jim Fetzer is, for whatever reason, consistently, and entirely, avoiding the employment of the scientific methodology, both via his complete avoidance of deep video and photo analysis, and his complete avoidance of deep background checks for alleged eyewitnesses.

Regards, onebornfree

Reply

Onebornfree November 2, 2013 at 11:31 AM

"The bottom line is that , with regards to 911, Jim Fetzer is, for whatever reason, consistently, and entirely, avoiding the employment of the scientific methodology, both via his complete avoidance of deep video and photo analysis, and his complete avoidance of deep background checks for alleged eyewitnesses."

Which, to my own mind, raises serious questions as to the validity of any/all of his non- 911 research to date.

Regards, onebornfree


Reply

norwegian November 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Yes, onebornfree - this is me, Simon Shack. Now, regarding FIDUCIARY TRUST: it would indeed appear that they do NOT have any memorial page/ or website with tributes to their alleged 87 lost employees. Shocking, is it not? All I've been able to find is this old / outdated "Memorial Fund" page: http://www.guidestar.org/organizatio...rial-fund.aspx - which declares (for the fiscal year 2003) a total revenue of only $93,134 ...against expenses of $1,511,525 ! I'm no accountant or much less a taxman - but it smells to me like a potential IRS-defrauding scam right there.

Lastly, and since I'm here now (was only able to log in to this blogspot with my old 'norwegian' account ) - and hopefully Professor Fetzer will read this - may I kindly ask why I still cannot post over at the 9/11 Scholars Forum? I registered there about two weeks ago, but when I log in it keeps saying : "Your membership is pending approval". Have I now become 'persona non grata', Jim? Thanks for letting me know.

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013...l#comment-form

Quote:

norwegian December 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Dear A.C.

I just left a comment on your most interesting video :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty6YsS1oUpM

It really is fascinating to see how effective this old ploy (of using fabricated imagery to fool the masses) can be - even to the eyes of a professional photographer.

As I see it, it works a bit this way, psychologically speaking : since even a 12-year-old can tell how grossly fabricated the 9/11 imagery is, an adult / experienced professional (photo / video imagery expert of any kind) will look at it and think: "Duh! IF I HAD been recruited to do that crap I would have done a far better job! I cannot believe that anyone in my trade /line of work would have done such a mess of it." This thought, true and valid as it would seem, is further supported by the very professional integrity and self-respect that such a person observes for him/herself. These considerations - formulated from the perspective of a professional standpoint - will ultimately override any rational and objective analysis of what experts are asked to pronounce themselves upon.

In this case, the (pre)fabrication of the 9/11 TV imagery - a scam of such monumental scope / planning and resources which, "if it were true, would surely have employed the very best professionals in the field."

See, the 'Big Lie' professionals in the business of deceiving this entire world's population on a daily basis probably know better - when it comes to fooling BOTH the experts and the average Joe Public. The BIG LIE has to seem too bloody stupid in the eyes of the experts - and too bloody smart in the eyes of Joe Public. There is no quest either for the lowest or the highest common denominator in these psy-op schemes - or much less to target any specific IQ group (if you may pardon this unsavory way to put it). The aim is to strike the human consciousness somewhere "in the middle" - so as to befuddle EVERYONE - and of course - to make EVERYBODY endlessly quarrel with each other.

So far, the "Nutwork", as I like to call it (i.e. the gang of pricks 'running' this world ) has succeeded quite nicely to deceive us all - but they are not getting away with it for much longer, in my honest opinion. Why, you may ask? Well - if all they can throw at us are 14-year-olds such as this boring "Don Fox" clown - you know that they've just run out of steam. )

regards

Simon Shack

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013...l#comment-form
I made a separate thread on Allan Weisbecker's cognitively dissonant encounter with the world famous photographer Walter Iooss Jr. here:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263878


Jimi Hendrix NYC 1968, photograph by Walter Iooss Jr.


Paulina Porizkova 1984 :: Walter Iooss Jr. for Sports Illustrated


Dallas 1982 - photo by Walter Iooss Jr.


Napali Coast, Kauai 2009, Walter Iooss Jr.

Quote:

norwegian December 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Oh wait, I just realized that babe "Don Fox" is probably going to wake up and whine again - incessantly accusing me of being an ADL scumbag. Well I am not, Foxy boy. See, I am not connected /affiliated to/ paid for by anyone nor anything whatsoever in this whole wide world - and have never even been a member of so much as a tennis club. I am very much my own man - and pretty much a hermit - if that can make you laugh. However, I do have a little 'donate' button on my forum, so if you wish to chip in - you are most welcome.

As for your jew obsession - please know that on the very TOP of my list of people to interrogate about the fake 9/11 imagery is this fellow here, by the name of Steven Rosenbaum. Please read this article of mine - and learn all about him:

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2346207#p2346207

Did you know that we're asked to believe that Steven Rosenbaum allegedly collected "500 hours" of 9/11 footage from private citizens in New York? And that he then planned to sell this purported video archive for $1 million?

"THE 500 HOURS OF 9/11"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/ny...2&oref=slogin&

Did you know that Rosenbaum shut down (around 2004) his CAMERA PLANET studios (with 80 employees) which featured state-of-the-art AVID equipment - the sort of which Hollywood uses for its special fx action movies - and that he now has somehow become the 'Master Curator" at the National Museum and Memorial at Ground Zero (taking care of the dear "3000" dead?)

Well, NOW you know, Foxy boy. Welcome to the real world

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013...l#comment-form

Quote:

norwegian December 12, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Don Fox wrote:

"The content on your site looks like lawyers wrote it (,,.)."

That is most flattering, Foxy boy - thank you. I used to think my writing style was a tad simplistic and 'un-scholarly'. You Cluesforum-bashers sure are a funny lot: on one hand, some will complain that it is 'too amateurish' to be credible - while others will say that it's 'too professional' to be credible. Which one is it? Perhaps you guys need a supervisor to coordinate your spam? Anyhow, Foxy boy, I'm glad you rate so highly my English (not my first language) - I appreciate that. Btw, all I've ever written over the years originates from my brain - and my brain only. If you wish to poo-poo my research, that's fine - but I'll take responsibility for it anytime.

There never was any 'big debate' about prima facie. Dr Fetzer cocked up miserably with his statement that "the TV networks have a prima facie claim of their footage to be authentic." See, he might not have made this blooper out of plain ignorance - in which case we can read this as a quite revealing 'slip of the tongue': Fetzer couldn't have put it more clearly that he is, in fact, a news-media-9/11-collusion gatekeeper - something I've been saying for a long time. His silly 'hologram' and 'mini-nuke' theories are perfect ploys to get the media networks off the hook, as they both neatly serve their desired & all-important notion that "ALL THE IMAGERY SHOWN ON TV ON 9/11 WAS LEGIT AND AUTHENTIC".

Wanna talk about gatekeeping, Foxy boy? Well, here we go: a mere couple of weeks after I'd released September Clues (June 2007), Fetzer rolled out his 'video-expert' "Ace Baker" (who screened SC at Fetzer's Madison conference and later faked his suicide - live on Fetzer's show...). See, there can be no more egregious, copy-book gatekeeper than this Ace clown. He soon set out to publish some personal imagery research - only to progressively start attacking my own - and ultimately reaching this 'conclusion' :

"Simon Shack Pushing Video Fakery Falsehoods"

http://acebaker.blogspot.it/2008/11/...eo-fakery.html

Note that Ace came to his 'conclusion' as early as November 2008. Also, and most interestingly, please note that Ace Baker ends his 'hit-piece' aimed against me with THIS sentence:

"They are trying to destroy the credibility of the 9/11 tower videos, which in fact show them being disintegrated by NUCLEAR WEAPONS."

Remarkable, huh? So Ace already "knew" the towers were 'nuked' - back in 2008! Sheesh, Foxy boy, what took you and your fellow nuke sleuths so long? Ace Baker had it all wrapped up - half a decade ago!...


ASBESTOS-GATEKEEPING, ANYONE?

So what's going on here? Is this old (and now re-packaged) nuke stuff just another gatekeeping op? Before I take a guess at the motives for it - here are some basic facts that people should know. It does seem to be true that a many New Yorkers suffer from respiratory diseases and a peculiar form of cancer - mesothelomia - both known to be specifically caused by exposure to asbestos. Now, has everyone somehow forgotten that...

...2000 TONS OF ASBESTOS were strewn over Manhattan as the WTC collapsed?

http://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/

So hold on a minute, folks - and let me just put this thought of mine out there (pure speculation, of course...) : could these 'nukes-did-it' peddlers be employed by SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES, perchance? Do I really need to elaborate as to why this may be the case - or why it would make perfect sense? But hey, maybe "Israel did it", as Don Fox says - and poor ol' Larry was kept in the dark about the whole affair !... :-D

Over and out.

Simon Shack

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013...l#comment-form

Quote:

norwegian December 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM

I just need to make this little addendum to my above post - just in case my little 'Silverstein-kept-in-the-dark' joke isn't grasped by everyone.

Were jews involved in the 9/11 crime? Of course. Were ONLY jews involved in the 9/11 crime? Of course not. Do ALL those involved in the 9/11 crime live in Israel? Of course not. Do MOST of those involved in the 9/11 crime live in the USA? Of course they do.

Consequently:

Anyone saying that "ISRAEL DID IT" are gatekeeping for the ACTUAL INDIVIDUALS behind the 9/11 crime.

"Hey guys! It's now been established that Israel did 9/11, beyond any shadow of doubt! Let's bomb Israel to smithereens !"

Not going to happen, is it?

So let's all go back to sleep - and to our daily work and routine - since the 9/11 culprits are totally out of our reach and jurisdiction... (*rolleyes*)

Let's see now : WHO says that "Israel did 9/11"?

Well, here you go:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08...he-wtc-on-911/

What clowns...

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013...l#comment-form

Quote:

norwegian December 13, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Joan Edwards wrote.

"Why weren't lights on in the Towers?."

Indeed, dear Joan...

Why weren't lights on in the Towers?

An Ockham's razor proof - if there ever was one...

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php...15ce4#p2388620

Light never lies ! :O)

warm regards

Simon Shack

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013...l#comment-form

Quote:

norwegian December 15, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Fetzer,

Egad! (to use your favorite exclamation). Are you actually saying that you don't know WHAT iconic image Frank was referring to? Gimme a break.

You are not dumbfounded. You are just playing dumb - much like you have clearly been asked to do - for the last 40-odd years or so - ever since your JFK gatekeeping 'blablabla' agenda was handed to you.

Frank was referring to the internationally renowned "Falling Man" image - credited to phonytographer Richard Drew. It is very much as (in)famous as the Zapruder clip by now. Here it is discussed on Cluesforum:

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2363306#p2363306

That iconic 9/11 image - as Frank tried to make you understand - is an obvious fraud. Yet, it has been used in countless articles and TV shows around the world to propagandize this gory part of the official 9/11 fable - namely, those "poor people jumping to their deaths". This notion of people jumping out of the towers served TWO important purposes for the 9/11 perps:

1: To uphold the illusion that there actually WERE people trapped in the towers that morning.

2: To 'turbocharge' the public's anger towards the "evil muslim terrorists who committed this crime".

At Cluesforum, we have analyzed EVERY SINGLE existing video clip / and still image of the alleged jumpers . We have conclusively demonstrated that they are all digital fabrications - each and everyone of them.

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php...=501&start=195

Your stubborn insistence at ignoring the many people urging you, for half a decade now, to review our work and to formulate logical conclusions from our findings - is becoming legendary - and so is your affected "dumbfoundedness".

Whether you feign to misunderstand what iconic image Frank was referring to (the internationally renowned "Falling Man" image / forgery credited to phonytographer Richard Drew) or whether you really have no familiarity with such iconic, "Zapruder-like" 9/11 imagery - is a quite pathetic state of affairs - either way. Please spare us further intelligence-insulting antics on your part.

Thanks.

Simon Shack

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013...l#comment-form

Quote:

norwegian December 15, 2013 at 5:42 AM

Jeannon wrote:

"As an aside, I looked up "CGI" and "computer graphics imaging" and find that the term CGI for that does not exist."

Dear Jeannon, the acronym "CGI" stands for Computer Generated Imagery:

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictiona...erated+Imagery

I think it was you who recently lamented about my 'unprofessional and non-scholarly manner' in going about my research. So let's make a deal: I promise to keep improving my ways of presenting information - if you promise to improve your ability to look up the meaning of a simple acronym. Deal? ;-)

regards

Simon Shack

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013...l#comment-form
Quote:

Reply

norwegian December 15, 2013 at 6:42 AM

Joan Edwards,

You might enjoy listening to this outstanding radio show by my research partner Hoi Polloi - from December last year:

HOI POLLOI on KFAI radio :

http://www.septclues.com/AUDIO%20FIL...OI_dec2012.mp3

There simply is no better audio overview of our September Clues research on air.

best regards

Simon Shack

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013...l#comment-form

Quote:

norwegian December 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Dear pshea and obf,

Since we're on the subject of music (a much better idea of a topic to discuss on this asinine, troll-infested and time-wasting "Real Deal" blogspot) - let me submit a contribution of my own. It's a song of mine called "Strange":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Jhz48tORMQ

I wish to dedicate it to 'professor'/charlatan Fetzer and the numerous helper-rabbits he keeps pulling out of his magic hat, from 'good'ol' Ace Baker - and all the way to this recent Don Fox clown.

The lyrics go like this (yeh, it's yours humble truly at the vocals):

You duly make up your own lies
You duly do what you're supposed to do
You duly make up your own lies
You duly do what you're supposed to do
I'm not saying something strange
I'm saying something true

Hope you enjoy the tune, happy holidays to you two and all similarly good souls on this planet! :O)

Simon Shack

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013...l#comment-form

Quote:

norwegian January 3, 2014 at 8:28 AM

Oh dear...

Clare Kuehn wrote:

"Your hero Simon Shack stated on the Fakeologist show last Saturday that rockets cannot travel into space and that man made satellites don't exist. The only good reason to deny these things is if you think the Earth is flat. He also that denied that nuclear weapons exist. I heard you say that you don't know if they exist or not. I'm giving you a chance to separate yourself from Simon." (note: Shack mistakenly attributes this quote to Kuehn, who actually defends Shack albeit in a very half-assed fashion. Don Fox wrote this also, not Clare Kuehn)

Clare, there is quite a difference between someone saying "I KNOW this / or that for a FACT" - and someone putting forth his own personal opinion about a given subject in order to stimulate public debate. I belong to the latter category - whereas Don Fox, for instance, evidently belongs to the former.

Don Fox wrote (see his January1 post above):

"For starters I KNOW that there were underground mini-nukes to take out the foundations of the Towers."

Please note: the full-caps "I KNOW" emphasis is Don's - not mine. Of all the foolishness I've read here on this "Real Deal" blog, this one takes the cake.

See, I have never said that I KNOW that nuclear weapons don't exist - or that rocketry is a hoax - or that man-made satellites are a bluff. I have, however, raised a long string of questions about these matters (duly providing cogent arguments, illustrations and historical backgrounds) - for everyone to assess for themselves.

Yes, it is my personal opinion - matured over the years - that NASA is a most untrustworthy enterprise and -quite possibly - an alll-out fraud. I do believe that numerous people around the world now share this feeling with me - yet I'm well aware that very few would, at this moment in time, extend this mistrust as to the existence of man-made satellites (since this would mean that the space fraud is a global affair - and not limited to US and Russia). The same goes for nuclear weapons, the existence of which remains, of course, virtually unquestioned by the vast majority of this world's population. Alas, most people will still say (for some unfathomable reason) that THEY KNOW FOR A FACT that nuclear bombs exist - and that each one of them can wipe out an entire city... To be sure, I certainly do not claim to KNOW the answers to these complex questions: I only question them.

I believe it is my legitimate right - as a free citizen and free-thinking man - to submit such questions on my own forum for any open mind to discuss. I find it quite cheap and childish of you, Clare, to infer that I therefore believe the Earth is flat. Also, I will kindly ask you to quit 'putting words in my mouth' as far as my 9/11 research is concerned - and to cut your sarcasm of me being a "hero" in the eyes f those who support my views. For you to write that you are "giving a chance to OBF to separate himself from Simon" is - well - quite silly. Please spare us any further dreadfully blatant divide-and-conquer antics.

Thanks

Simon Shack

Quote:

norwegian January 3, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Joan Edwards wrote:

"I would like to see Simon Shack do some more graphic and verbal elaboration on the vicsims concept and the imagery from 911."

Joan, have you read these articles of mine published on my website? If yes, please submit any questions you have regarding the 9/11 'vicsims' - as we have been calling them for the last 5 years... As you surely know, it would appear that the more recent "mini-psyops" such as Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, etc...have provided ample support to our vicsim thesis.)

DECONSTRUCTING 9/11:

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

MEMORIAL SCAMS:

http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsi...o-analyses.htm


kind regards (and happy new year!)

Simon Shack

Quote:

norwegian January 4, 2014 at 5:22 PM

Clare,

the spire seen "dustifying" in mid-air in some of the WTC1 collapse animations is every bit as silly and unreal / physically absurd as "Flight 175" going 'poof' and totally vanishing into WTC2 in other 9/11 animations. Let me try and explain why the animators would have opted to make the spire seemingly "dustify".

See, to animate that steel spire's gradual collapse in any sort of realistic way would have required lots of complex CGI work (far more complex than the surrounding 'pyroclastic' smoke - one of the simplest special fx used in countless action movies). It is a far, far easier to simply use a blur tool to make that spire disappear (or "dustify" - as you like to call it. The problem is: you're describing a cartoon).

For this very same reason, the 9/11 animation team chose to just make "Flight175" crudely disappear (in a puff of dust) into the tower façade. To be sure, it would have been a major headache for the animators to fabricate 45 videos from different angles - if they had chosen to make the 'plane' crash more realistically - shredding into a thousand pieces upon impact. Those thousand pieces falling down on the sidewalk would have had to be reproduced precisely - from multiple angles - in each of their "Flight175" animations... A true nightmare - even for a top Hollywood / Disney animation crew.

Having said that, they still thought that they could get away with their farcical / outlandish / unphysical "top-down" WTC collapse imagery - counting on the fact that most people do not analyze imagery on a daily basis. This is, however, what we do at Cluesforum - and this is why we know that all the available tower collapse imagery is as fake as a three-dollar bill. No matter what Dr Fetzer keeps stating, the available collapse videos & photos are NOT in the least consistent with each other. Their comparative analysis presents such a large number of inconsistencies so as to mutually disqualify each other, one by one - very much like the 45 or so animations of the "Flight175 crash".

Your logic is flawed, Clare, when you argue that they wouldn't have put "damning" stuff into the collapse imagery - like those few squibs "exposed" by the Loosechange crew, for instance). Of course they would. This is why we are still here arguing about these silly animations. Just what they wished for !

Simon Shack


Quote:

norwegian January 4, 2014 at 9:41 PM

Well, monsieur Ian Greenhalgh...

I had sort of figured out already what your mission was, ever since you presented yourself as a "CGI expert". Funnily enough, huh?

In over half a decade of relentless 9/11 research efforts, and funnily enough, I have never heard of Ian Greenhalgh. He just recently appeared out of the blue here on James Fetzer's blog.

Funnily enough, "Ian Greenhalgh" seems to have a mission to discredit my work and to promote that of Richard "Hologram" Hall (another Fetzer rabbit) ! ...

Good grief. This place is a wretched clown-cove.

Quote:

norwegian January 9, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Don Fox wrote:

"The Clueless Forum actively pushes this Flat Earth crap."

No we don't, Foxy boy - and that makes you the clueless one, or more likely, a flat-out liar. Lying is ugly and wrong, Donnie you silly brat - didn't they teach you so at school? I once asked you if you were 12 years old. This now seems to have been a generous estimate. Run to granma now and get yourself a sound round of spanking.

Is this place moderated at all, Dr Fetzer? Or can any clowns such as "Don Fox" just keep spamming it endlessly with copy-pasted Wikipedia articles, assorted lies and vapid drivel? I presume that Don's role - with his uber-childish antics - is to make readers simply turn away from this place in disgust.

Simon Shack

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013...l#comment-form


Quote:

norwegian January 16, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Does everyone know that the Chief New York Medical Examiner - CHARLES HIRSCH - and his enigmatic assistant "Ellen Borakove" - are the very same individuals who:

A: Refused to release John Lennon's autopsy

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2382465#p2382465

B: Claimed that "most of the 9/11 victims were "VAPORIZED"?

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...99540#p2099540

Well, now you know.

regards

Simon Shack

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2014...l#comment-form

Quote:

norwegian January 14, 2014 at 5:08 PM

PM wrote:

"I'm sure more than half of the U.S. is under the impression that more than 10,000 people died that day."

Dear PM,

That's a most interesting statement - and you may actually be quite right. Personally, over the years I've met a few persons here in Italy who adamantly insisted that around 20.000 people died on 9/11. The reason for this is quite simple: on September 12, 2001 - at least two major Italian newspapers came out with the front page headline "20.000 DEAD IN MANHATTAN". This figure was presented as absolute fact - with no question marks whatsoever. Not "20.000 FEARED dead" - just "20.000 dead". Period.

ITALIAN NEWSPAPER HEADLINES (9/12/2001):

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php...afc1f#p2375635

As hard as I try, I cannot find a valid justification for this to have been an "innocent mistake" on the part of these major news outlets - a "mistake" for 60 million Italians to read with their Sept 12, 2001 morning coffee. Whoever issued that "20.000 dead" figure had an agenda: to generate as much public outrage and anger as possible against the "evil arabic terrorists".

As an aside, it is quite superbly ironic that some nuke huggers here accuse me of shilling for the jews - when my own historical research of the alleged making of "The Bomb" points out that it was all very much just another silly jewish joke...

THE NUKE HOAX - some historical background:

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php...75b59#p2382470

regards

Simon Shack

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2014...l#comment-form

Quote:

norwegian January 17, 2014 at 1:26 PM

You're so sweet, Mrs Clare - with your scholarly appraisals of our respective attitudes and skills - and all with such admirable patience! Brings me back to my good'ol school days - although none of my teachers ever called me 'an extremist'. As it is, my main 'problem' was being every teachers' sweetheart - and having to hide my report cards so as not to get mobbed by my classmates for my constant high marks - and those almost embarrassingly affectionate teachers' comments. Anyhow, I'm eagerly awaiting your end of term school reports - hoping my orderly conduct will help make up for my 'extremist' behavior. Say, Miss Clare, do you use numbers or letters to rate your pupils' performance?

http://www.schoolfamily.com/school-f...t-report-cards

A typical day in Madam Kuehn's classroom:

Mrs Kuehn: "Sooo, how many children were killed in Sandy Hook? Anyone?"

student Simon: "No one, madam. Zero. Zilch. Nada!"

Mrs Kuehn: "Ooh Simon... that is such an extreme, flippant statement! Anyone else cares to have a go at this question?"

student Ian: "I would say maybe between 5 or 11 - or perhaps as many as 13 or 15.5 were killed in Sandy Hook, madam - uh - that is, more or less approximately speaking, of course - and with all due caution. The rest were probably fabricated - but we cannot be quite sure about that, madam!"

Mrs Kuehn: "That's my boy! Bravo, Ian - you are showing admirable care and restraint in balancing your mental processes - so as not to jump to hasty conclusions! You'll make a great lawyer one fine day! Step up to the blackboard now - and illustrate your thesis to your classmates."


Best wishes to you, Clare my dear, teacher of care! :-)

Simon Shack

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2014...l#comment-form

Quote:

norwegian January 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM

"Don Fox" wrote:

"Sept Clues is a complete joke. There is no truth to any of it. Nobody with a brain is going to believe their "nobody died" and "off camera" demolition BS."



Very well, Don sweetheart...

So when you write "nobody with a brain is going to believe",.. are you implying that the majority of people on this (round) planet are using their brains to their full extent and capacity? And this, without any sort of impediment such as, for instance, the zillions of dollars spent in propaganda and mass brainwashing? If so, you will have to provide tangible and incontrovertible proof to back up this shaky assertion of yours. Good luck to you !

Simon Shack ;-)

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2014...l#comment-form
Quote:

norwegian January 23, 2014 at 12:19 PM

motorfot wrote:

"Seriously, are you serious about this Paul is dead nonsense? Really?"

Yes, motorfot. They are serious about it - but not because they MEAN what they say.

They are serious about it because the mission given to cointelpro clowns such as "Dallas Goldbug" and "Clare Kuehn" is to make their casual, frustrated readers ( aka - the masses) eventually burst out :

"OMG! Those conspiracy-troofers are ALL out of their minds!"

That's all. They have a job.

Fetzer's job is the same. He has perpetuated the longest and most unsuccessful investigation of all times - his JFK " research" - and has managed to confuse just about EVERYONE interested in the subject. "Mission accomplished", one might say.

Simon Shack

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2014...l#comment-form

Last edited by synergetic67; 07-02-2014 at 03:07 AM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 03:42 AM   #86
sarge sharpei
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: temple of 10,000 Buddhas
Posts: 973
Likes: 4 (3 Posts)
Post agree

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
CGI is an acronym for "Computer Generated Imagery". Simon and his clique claim all the 9/11 footage should be discarded because it was pure CGI (it wasn't). This helps protect the perpetrators because it disposes of evidence that explains how it was done and who dunnit. Until Simon started labeling everything as "CGI" (it isn't), movie makers called it "layering". Recall the Apollo missions.

Before that it was the "nuclear" tests, and before that it was the radio program "War of the Worlds". Before that there were books and newspapers used to manipulate public opinion in favor of the ruling classes. Religion may have been the opiate of the masses, but that was before the TeeVee.

Perception management such as this isn't new, not in the least.


fair enough, I enjoy your perspectives. (lurk here mostly )

HOWEVER, the msm gatekeepers, OVERALL are now discredited since 911.

Congress had record callers on C-Span calling in against war in Syria (another false flag).

This, imo is a good thing, as Lobuk posted . It is a form of awakening. Corporate media sucks.

They can try and discredit CT'ers but honestly, its getting old at this point, jmo.

IF CT' ers disagree amongst themselves. it does damage to the movement. And we all know the corporate media is against all of us, except the 1% and their whores, jmo.
__________________
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 08-02-2014, 11:25 AM   #87
sidlittle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,184
Likes: 311 (99 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by synergetic67 View Post

As if, in the following photoshopped images, the fact that BOTH versions of this woman, her as a child and her as an adult, were 'real' and have existed, as well as the background scenery, makes any of these images comprised of photographs any less fraudulent as duplications of a single event in space and time and any less inadmissible in court as 'proof' of the event they're depicting:
http://www.viralnova.com/time-traveling-photographer/
Fascinating stuff. Far greater that the Sandy Hook efforts
sidlittle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2014, 12:17 AM   #88
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 345 (266 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sidlittle View Post
Fascinating stuff. Far greater that the Sandy Hook efforts
There is nothing new about it, the technique is very old, only the methods have improved and now are available to almost everyone with a computer. The techniques of altering photos and layering images to create fake realities go back to the beginning of photography. The technique was used many times in the holohoax and many times before that for political purposes.

Some well-known faked-photos of history:

http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/zss1yj...photo_1000.png

http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/8sos53...aked-photo.jpg

http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/csz3aa...aked-photo.jpg

http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/75po71...aked-photo.jpg

http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/c4q201...aked-photo.jpg

http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/084206...aked-photo.jpg

http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/x4ryd3...aked-photo.jpg

http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/il1jn4...aked-photo.jpg

http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/iqgc99...aked-photo.jpg

http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/fiuy85...aked-photo.jpg

http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/8270z1...aked-photo.jpg

http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/v7d505...aked-photo.jpg

http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/g06t08...aked-photo.jpg

As you can see, they did not care much for 'realism' or authenticity even back then. They have zero respect for the public's intelligence or integrity. Psychological effect is what they're after and psychological conditioning is what they know will never be overcome by the vast majority of the people to even get to a rational perspective of things.

and that’s just the beginning.

Quote:

Re: WTC 7 FAKE Re-visited

Post by simonshack on October 30th, 2013, 12:25 pm


BBC's PHIL HAYTON 'forgets' being on air on 9/11 !


"I wasn't in the studio that day, I'm sure, I didn't go in".

Everyone will remember what is possibly the most internationally (in)famous 'cock-up' in BBC's history - the reporting of the WTC7 collapse by Jane Standley, 23 minutes before it actually (or allegedly) collapsed. Jane was seen standing in front of a window (or so it seemed) facing the Manhattan skyline - with WTC7 in clear view, still standing tall - as she reported it had gone down. Well, Phil Hayton - the BBC anchorman TV viewers all saw in the studio that day - is on record saying he doesn't remember ever being there!



9/11 - The Jane Standley / BBC WTC7 Incident Explained:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T0PqzkFxso


BBC's Phil Hayton interviewed by Wearechange UK:

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

Later in the interview, Phil suddenly recalls that, hey, he actually WAS at work on 9/11 !!!

At 5:23 : "Oooh yeah, now it's coming back to me ...of course... because at THAT stage I wasn't doing the morning - I was doing the evenings..."

So what to make out of this? Is the simplest "KISS" explanation perhaps that Phil is ...uh ... telling the truth - and that he just forgot about that Pre-recorded Phony 9/11 Broadcast Session he participated in - several months before September 11, 2001 ? Does anyone have a better - more plausible - explanation? Can ANYONE honestly believe that this BBC talking head could have innocently forgotten - for even just a moment - THAT HE ACTUALLY WAS LIVE ON AIR ON 9/11 - THE MOST DEFINING "NEWSDAY" OF THIS CENTURY?

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php...+wtc7#p2387938


Quote:

Re: WTC 7 FAKE Re-visited

Post by simonshack on November 3rd, 2013, 6:27 pm
*

Anyone still convinced that this is a REAL video depicting the REAL WTC7 collapse?

Please pay attention to what goes on below the "V" I've added to this animated gif - it's quite amusing :



http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php...+wtc7#p2387938


Simon Shack's WTC 7 Study :

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

First it goes to the right, then it changes its mind and goes back to the left where it came from. Does reality reverse itself and go backwards in mid-flight? That's some 'real' demolition there!

Can it get it any simpler than that? What can Jim Fetzer and Ace Baker possibly say about that to avoid being exposed as shills?

And yet there are tens of thousands of 9-11 truthers who still think that "Building 7 is the 'smoking gun' of 9-11."

Some smoking gun that they would serve to you on a platter themselves on previously faked video!

Tens of thousands of suckers made to think that their darling media DID THEIR JOB showing them the supposed 'mistake' of the Powers-That-Be bringing the WTC7 down in the afternoon, as shown in the above cartoon, and therefore, conditioned to keep on trusting images fed to them by that media, conditioned to believe that they are in any way afraid of a million Alex Jones fans going around with their WTC 7 videos trying to wake-up people to the "inside-job," when they gave them the ass-clown actor/traitor William Rodriguez and gave them the pre-manufactured video in order to control the opposition in the first place!

Didn't you see it, it was on video!

As if an image is proof of anything at all absent authentication and chain of custody, especially a bunch of images comprising a 'video' given to you by the mass-media, the mass-media of a Zionist Occupied Government, in other words, nothing more than enemy-propaganda.


“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” ― Mark Twain

“Life is pretty simple: You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something else. The trick is the doing something else.” ~ Leonardo da Vinci

“Since the child knew his parents would give in, he tried the same trick again and again.” - Jackie Chan


“It is a trick among the dishonest to offer sacrifices that are not needed, or not possible, to avoid making those that are required.” - Ivan Goncharov

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usa4W...re=c4-overview

Last edited by synergetic67; 09-02-2014 at 01:44 AM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2014, 07:03 PM   #89
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 345 (266 Posts)
Default

And while tens of thousands of troofers go around chasing their tails behind the supposed "smoking gun of WTC7," given to them on a silver platter and others go around fantasizing about "real buildings" and "fake planes" and supposed fat scholars like Fetzer talk about absurd "hologram" theories as if they were credible and Ace-Baker-memed mission-impossible-style operations done "live" during a 17 second delay and other gatekeeping hogwash and unnecessary complexity, complex through the old DISINFO formula of "making everything believable and nothing knowable" for no other reason than to give the researchers rabbit holes to get lost in, the saga of the real fakery research continues to forge ahead:


Quote:

Re: WTC 7 FAKE Re-visited

Post by simonshack on October 29th, 2013, 8:46 pm
*

WTC 7: why they needed to CGI the CD (CGI the Controlled Demoltion)

CGI: Computer Graphic Imagery / CD: Controlled Demolition

I will dedicate this post to Andy Tyme, an excellent and most articulate 'veteran' 9/11 writer who keeps battling it out at Jim Fetzer's 9/11 SCHOLAR'S FORUM. Andy seems to back most of our research here - but has recently expressed reservations as to the CGI nature of the available "WTC7 collapse clips". He reckons that the WTC7 imagery is genuine - as he wrote yesterday on this thread: http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/to...44Comment64070

Dear Andy, here are the reasons why I believe the WTC7 imagery is CGI too. There aren't that many clips of the "WTC7 collapse" - let this be said - yet ALL contain anomalies, contradictory dynamics & evident CGI features of one sort or another. Let's start from the NBC clip which was shown on LIVE TV and commented by Dan Rather. Here's a cropped/enlarged version of three frames extracted from the original TV archives. You see, those thick black linings are clear clues to digital compositing. There really isn't any scientific excuse (photographically speaking) for these fat, flickering, black linings :



And here's another obvious CGI example of the WTC7 collapse - as aired
on TV on September 11, 2001. Obvious? Well, decide for yourself:



Please go to my WTC7 STUDY video and watch the full clip - dancing smoke and all ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...rsjs_cLg#t=414

So much for the atrocious and quite absurdly poor/blurry/candy-colored images we were shown ON LIVE TV on 9/11. But please keep in mind that HARDLY ANY SHARPER IMAGERY OF THE WTC7 COLLAPSE was aired on TV that day. Now, let's watch - AND LISTEN - to the WTC7 collapse, as depicted in the Naudet brother's slick feature-movie "911" (which, of course, was released well after September 11, 2001):

WTC7 collapse, Naudet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UBHwsp1PAw

As you can HEAR, the audio is totally bogus and is certainly not genuine: WHY would anyone, in post-production, change/replace the original audio of such a unique, historical event? Just think about it: DO WE HAVE ANY ORIGINAL AUDIO of the WTC7 collapse? NO - we don't! Don't you think the audio of such an event would be JUST AS historically relevant as the visuals of it? Have you ever heard what the collapses sounded like?...But let's get on.

It turns out that we are asked to believe that another cameraman (with a tripod) was standing right alongside that NAUDET guy who supposedly filmed the WTC7 collapse (on a tripod too it seems, the "NAUDET camera" being rock steady). Now, please understand that the ODDS of two different cameramen, with both cameras mounted on tripods and framing almost the EXACT same view in their lens ... well the (astronomical) odds of such an occurence is up for YOU to compute. Good luck! To this day, all the arguments for such 'coincidences' have been incredibly lame.




NAUDET CLIP: This next clip is from the Naudet feature-movie "9/11". The left part of the building appears to 'expand' Eastwards. Note: the left side does NOT appear to tilt - it just expands and goes straight down in the first 2seconds of the collapse. Agreed? Now, whether you're a structural engineer or not, does this 'expanding effect' (of that ONE side only) appear physically realistic to you? Do we have ANY images of a bottom-up controlled demolition that looks like this? If so, let me know - I'm really curious to learn how a collapsing building would expand like a chewing-gum being stepped on.



MIRACLE ZOOM-IN clip: In this other clip (seemingly shot by someone from a private apartment), the top East corner of WTC7 clearly appears to tilt Westwards as it goes down. Please click on this link to watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wn5T...tailpage#t=102

As you can see, here the East corner of WTC7 doesn't expand and clearly tilts 'Westwards'...

http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/69qcuc...7_WestTILT.jpg

...unlike the 'expanding/vertical' Naudet collapse - with that East corner smoothly descending in a straight line. Let's compare them:

TILTING WESTWARDS____________________'EXPANDING' & GOING STRAIGHT DOWN


Here's another newly released (2010) shot of the burning WTC7 - a version of which (completely "washed-out", blurry and colorless) was initially aired on CBS soon after 9/11. NO wonder that they chose to downgrade their imagery in the early stages of their TV hoax! Their digital building renderings sucked!



AT LEFT: Here's how the (reddish-brown) WTC7 appeared in the Naudet feature-movie "911" - not kidding you, folks!



In fact, that awful, white-washed shot (credited to the Naudet brothers) is simply extracted from the same absurd 'news clip' aired by CBS which some of you may be familiar with - featuring CBS reporter VINCE, "the guy who discovers what war is like". Here it is:

Vince Dementri at WTC7, CBS-Net Dub7 08.avi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc

We then have this 'never-seen-before' clip (i.e. released many years later - like so many other 9/11 clips...) Can we really believe that such 'historical'. world-defining images were kept in a drawer for years? Zapruder, anyone? "Previously unseen WTC7 collapse video":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c611FK37Un8

Here's a frame of that clip which ends with an eerie view of a TOTALLY deserted surrounding area - and which, by the way, features yet another 'Miracle Zoom Out' just as the building starts collapsing... and just like we have seen in countless other 9/11 clips.

http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/vecusv...Rendering2.jpg

Miracle Zoom Out: (see more Miracle Zoom Outs here: http://www.septemberclues.info/miracle_zooms.htm )



************************************************** **************************************

Addendum:


THE SOLOMON BUILDING (aka WTC7) - and its symbolism

http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/fu7dt2...ley_temple.jpg

As for WHY it was decided to make the WTC7 'mysteriously collapse' many hours after the "Binladen airplane attack"(and why they concocted this obvious red herring for the 9/11 truther community to chew on), you will need to dig into the historical/mystical significance this Solomon Temple represents for some fanatic individuals of this planet. You may start your digging by simply consulting this Wickedpedia page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon's_Temple

***************

Dear Andy, this is absolutely no attack on my part on your beliefs. The thing is, my logical process - driven not only by my steady imagery research - brings me to the conclusion that NOTHING was left to chance in the planning of this 9/11 psyop. Even the late WTC7 collapse was pre-planned and digitally pre-rendered. Let me just back my beliefs with a few technical questions:

1: Why don't we see ANY of those classic demolition flashes popping all around WTC7 before it collapsed? Are we to believe that they somehow popped all of this building "from inside" - with some hitherto unknown technique? Ask any demolition expert (no, not 'Danny Jowenko' who was supposedly whacked so as to discourage real demo experts to come forward...) how this could possibly be achieved. For sure, clowns like Judy Wood and Dimitri Khalezov would have us believe that some SUPER WEAPON was used. I can only hope that people don't buy their obvious media-gatekeeping (and similar garbage such as that inane hologram theory peddled by Fetzer - aided by his Scottish poodle Richard Hall).

All of the above-mentioned clowns are most blatantly protecting the media's role on 9/11:
"CRASHING PLANES?" - Oh, what TV showed were REAL holograms filmed by REAL cameras!
"PYROCLASTIC COLLAPSES?" - Oh, what TV showed were REAL collapses (caused by SUPER-WEAPONS) filmed by REAL cameras!"

It really boggles my mind that so many sharp, longtime 9/11 researchers fall for their utterly idiotic bullcrap.

2: Has ANY building in the history of controlled demolitions EVER collapsed in the way that the above videos depict it? I don't think so. Therefore, why are we supposed to believe in that imagery - knowing that the 9/11 hoax was fundamentally based on fake imagery?

Need I remind you of my stance? I believe the WTC towers were downed with quite conventional demolition explosives - and it didn't go too well : all of 9 (yes, NINE!) buildings around them suffered severe damages - and had to be disposed with in the aftermath. Everything took place behind a visually impenetrable wall, a simple military-grade smokescreen - the most elementary subterfuge / sleight of hand known to man - and no bystander was able to make ANY visual sense out of it all. How can this perspective be so hard to consider ?

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php...+wtc7&start=15

Last edited by synergetic67; 10-02-2014 at 02:32 AM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2014, 12:29 AM   #90
lobuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Roger That
Posts: 21,944
Likes: 3,706 (2,108 Posts)
Default

Moderator Note

The thread has been tidied up and parts of it moved into the Rant Room.

Lets stay on topic now please and no further derailment/bickering here.

Thanks.

Last edited by lobuk; 11-02-2014 at 01:39 AM.
lobuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2014, 11:48 AM   #91
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,406
Likes: 1,436 (935 Posts)
Default Thanx for cleaning up buddy,this is a good thread!


Last edited by Dude111; 11-02-2014 at 11:49 AM.
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2014, 05:26 AM   #92
sarge sharpei
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: temple of 10,000 Buddhas
Posts: 973
Likes: 4 (3 Posts)
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
If the movement was started as a way to control the narrative (which it apparently was), then it is impossible to avoid disagreement. Not everyone in the movement can be right; there can be only one solution that answers all the questions, and considering how controlled opposition works you can bet that answer will be ignored, attacked and ridiculed by all sides, OSers included.

Agreed about Corporate Media but then the Internet is just another medium owned by corporations. The Internet was started by the Military after all, therefore it is important to include the Internet truth groups and forums on the list of suspects. All any of us can be sure of is ourselves but it is possible to scrutinize the words and actions of the major "truthers" to see who benefits from them.
True BUT, alternet and indymedia, at times do not sell the corporate party line.

Its jmo but people are waking up. American media, imo is at its worst point. AND people are realizing it, finally.

The bs of Dem/rethug division is another diversion to keep the general sheep from questioning "news" and at least most truth seekers (I do not call anyone questioning crap media a "troofer") realizes they are being sold pablum and trash.

If they at least turn off the tv garbage, it a big start

otherwise, its all hopeless, so why bother. we can try and change some things.

clues at least addresses media fakery, and that's a good thing, imo.

cheers .
__________________
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 13-02-2014, 09:15 AM   #93
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 345 (266 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarge sharpei View Post

True BUT, alternet and indymedia, at times do not sell the corporate party line.

Its jmo but people are waking up. American media, imo is at its worst point. AND people are realizing it, finally.

The bs of Dem/rethug division is another diversion to keep the general sheep from questioning "news" and at least most truth seekers (I do not call anyone questioning crap media a "troofer") realizes they are being sold pablum and trash.

If they at least turn off the tv garbage, it a big start

otherwise, its all hopeless, so why bother. we can try and change some things.

clues at least addresses media fakery, and that's a good thing, imo.

cheers .
Yes, sarge, the internet is part of the game, the same game that the psychological rabbit holes of building 7, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are BUT with the possibility that it could turn the tables on the people running the game. This possibility of enough truth-seekers catching on to the "game" is real but they had to give people this possibility in the bargain, in order to hook them into the SAME game, knowing that they will then control the game to enough of an extent to neutralize that possibility, never get those small rivers of truthers agreeing enough to get to the sea.

Since they know that 95% or more of people will always be FOLLOWERS no matter how much truth they have access to, they know that by flooding the internet with mountains of disinformation will always get the 95% confused about WHICH truth-seeker LEADER to follow. And the smarter people, those who could be leaders of the truth-movements they already have fighting with each other

They need the public to falsely believe that they're still somewhat free and not as angry as they should be, and falsely believe that at least SOME part of the media is looking out for them, while they're tightening the screws of their worldwide control-freak grid and recording every online move of every person with a computer on the planet (except maybe a minority of LINUX users) through gigantic spy centers like the NSA.


Quote:

by simonshack on December 14th, 2013, 2:47 pm
*

The below frame (large image) is extracted from a most dramatic clip featuring a TV reporter standing right below the towers, on the shaded west side - "just as WTC2 collapses".

link to dramatic clip : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE7fWV2qUVU

It seems that some feeble attempt was made (by the animation team) to depict a few, dim office lights (in WTC1). Those 'office lights' just don't seem very convincing to me - considering this is meant to have been recorded by a professional broadcasting camera. To be sure, this 'washed-out' quality / resolution is an absurd, pervasive feature of the available 9/11 imagery.



That TV reporter was a mighty lucky fellow...
... and a pretty fast runner too (if NIST's figure of "9 seconds" - official collapse time of WTC2 - is true) !

Does anyone know who this reporter is ? I haven't been able to find out yet.

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php...owers#p2388653
Quote:


Re: 9/11 SIMCITY

by simonshack on December 15th, 2013, 1:28 pm

A few pictures of interest (from inside the WTC) courtesy of the E-TEAM's website:






Why are they interesting? Well - because of "KING KONG MAN," of course:

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...fbb28#p2374833









The sloppy 9/11 animation team didn't even get the scale / proportions of the WTC building right !

What we were shown on TV on 9/11 was truly a SIMCITY. This has now been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...fbb28#p2374833
Quote:

Re:

by simonshack on September 26th, 2012, 10:40 pm

Moreover - and since you mention Ockham's razor - we can very simply demonstrate that the available WTC collapse shots do not even match up with each other. This is just ONE of the numerous examples to support this claim:

Both these shots are clearly meant to be shot from a similar, head-on-to-the-WTC-north-face perspective. Watch the antennas:



http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php...67c34#p2375812
Some "match," huh?

One goes to the left, one goes to the right. So which one is 'real'? And how absurd to think that they would BOTH have shot a 'real' video and a 'fake' one of the same exact collapse and got it mostly right and only the antennas wrong?

No way, no how. It was all faked. They got most of it right, because they were both faked images and the antennas were a small enough detail that they couldn't care less about one guy by the name of Shack catching them on this mistake in the entire world in 13 years.

Could it get any simpler than that?

It's called beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT for a reason!

Now, UNREASONABLE DOUBTS, well, there will always be people having UNREASONABLE DOUBTS about everything.

That's not our problem or any sane court of law's, is it?

Once again we are back to:

Simon Shack and crew do NOT claim that all the 9-11 footage is CGI, but that MEDIA FAKERY, in all its permutations and with all its myriad techniques of deception, of which CGI 3D animation is only one, is the main MODUS OPERANDI of the 9-11 False-Flag PsyOp (and many other PsyOps before and since). Because MOST or the VAST MAJORITY of the 9-11 footage and images they have examined are PROVEN to have been doctored, altered, tampered with, edited, composited, acted in and faked in one way or another, it follows that the ENTIRE batch is not only UNTRUSTWORTHY and not even worth your time to examine further into absurdity but any testimony in favor of the authenticity of such obvious fakery WOULD LONG AGO HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT OF ANY PROPER COURT OF LAW.

and the simple principle of law:

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

False in one particular, false in everything.


http://everything2.com/title/falsus+...sus+in+omnibus

Notice, it's not

verum in uno, verum in omnibus

true in one particular, true in everything

the backwards method of many, LOVED by all con-artists and liars and completely inadmissible in court.

Each separate, major category of 9-11, the non-existent planes, the demolitions, the fake jumpers and vicsims, has proven more than fake enough to be thrown out of court even absent the rest of the fakery in the other categories but ONLY ONE instance of outright, deliberate lie and fraud would have had to be proven, such as the fake planes or the fake jumpers, for the ENTIRE batch to be inadmissible in any proper court.

So where are these proper courts of law willing to prosecute these slimebags?

There aren't any and they made sure of this and knew this better than anything else BEFORE they even dreamed of running the whole operation.

Last edited by synergetic67; 13-02-2014 at 09:20 AM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2014, 04:23 PM   #94
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,406
Likes: 1,436 (935 Posts)
Default

All excellent images here guys!!!!!!


A VERY GOOD THREAD INDEED
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2014, 12:25 PM   #95
lobuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Roger That
Posts: 21,944
Likes: 3,706 (2,108 Posts)
Default

Video links fixed with clickable images added for you in your OP and 2nd post synergetic67.

Quote:
Originally Posted by synergetic67 View Post
25 Second 9-11 Truth Test for All Your Friends & Relatives !


The great thing about this is that it will only take around 25 seconds to a couple of minutes of their 'oh-so-precious' time away from watching the crap on their TV, so they will almost always do what you say even to just get rid of you.

Have them watch this 25 second clip:

Click Image to go to video

let them watch it a few times if they want and then ask them what the video is asking which is

"If this happened tomorrow, would you believe it ? "

and see what they say.

It should be good for lots of laughs because if they have the brains to recognize this 25 second clip for the complete media fakery and forgery that it so obviously is (by the video maker - complete with fake headlines and CNN logo - CNN: Breaking News - F18 hijacked by Hamas terrorists - Iran is supporting terrorism on U.S. soil, a non-event, & audio transposed from the 9-11 newscasts in the background) then you can just tell them:

Well, this is what you saw on 9-11 as well, so why do you believe that ?

After which you can show them one of the ridiculously fake 9-11 clips such as this one:



and ask them why in the world would they not believe the one they just saw & believe the others from 9-11 ?

Then try not to laugh at the look on their faces as they try every lame excuse in the book to deny their own eyes and logic.




Interview with Simon Shack of September Clues - Brian S Staveley, Justin Cooke - 04 / 08 / 2012

http://www.therealnewsonline.com/upl...494/4-8-12.mp3

Introductory Tour Guide to the September Clues research by Simon Shack - (updated on July 18 2011)

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=477
lobuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-02-2014, 11:43 PM   #96
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 345 (266 Posts)
Default

Thanks. Now it makes chronological sense. There must be 1000's of videos on the forum where the original video has not been deleted but the link is simply no longer appearing due to this bug.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-02-2014, 03:03 PM   #97
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 345 (266 Posts)
Default

Abirato Radio ep87a - 02 / 15 / 2014 - Cluesforum review
with Simon Shack


http://fakeologist.com/wp-content/up...wing-Clues.mp3

alternate link of the same:

http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/we0rf3...wing-Clues.mp3


Quote:

National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences

by simonshack on February 8th, 2014, 3:23 am
*


The National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences

Quote:
Academy of Television Arts & Sciences
5220 Lankershim Blvd.
North Hollywood, CA 91601

http://www.emmys.com/contact
Did you even know that there was such a thing? A "National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences"? Yes, they actually call it
"TV Arts & Sciences". Well, it's the entity which hands out the "EMMY " awards - you know, that infamous self-awarding scheme
that those TV-people have set up in order to celebrate themselves - much like Hollywood does with their own "stars". So WHO -
you might ask - is the President of this illustrious American TV Academy? Let me introduce you to:


NEWTON JONES BURKETT
(President of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._J._Burkett

Woah - that's funny. Burkett is now the PRESIDENT of this prestigious TV Academy? Only a few years ago (back in 2001),
Mr Burkett was just a smalltown, local ABC correspondent who rose to instant fame due to his (alleged) coverage of the
"9/11 attacks". As the story goes, Burkett heroically drove all the way down ("in a Ford Explorer") to the WTC complex with
his cameraman to cover the events (in spite of the peril and the ongoing evacuation) - and narrowly escaped death as
the first tower (WTC2) came down. You may remember the guy. Here he is - in an image which purports to portray him standing
right under the WTC complex at around 9:59am (the official time of the WTC2 collapse) :



(You've gotta love the sexy legs of firefighter at far right. Evidently, she was pretty thick-skinned... )

And - surprise surprise! - this seems to be the original 'videoclip' which features the "KING KONG MAN" (at 2:07):



If you're not familiar with the "KING KONG MAN" - please go here:

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...fbb28#p2374833

and here for the latest update on the KING KONG MAN saga:

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...89314#p2389314

I have a lot more to say about this NJ Burkett guy - but for now,
please spend 20 minutes
watching this priceless part of the prefabricated 9/11 Hollywood movie. While you watch it, ask yourself JUST HOW the
current "President of The National Academy of TV Arts & Sciences" (Mr Newton Jones Burnett) not only escaped unscathed
from the "9-second-long" WTC2 collapse - but also how he could possibly have continued interviewing people around the
WTC area (his hair and dress perfectly clean, groomed and unruffled) AFTER his narrow escape from the WTC2 collapse:

NIST FOIA: Release #25 -- 42A0108 - G25D18, Video #2 (Collapse of WTC 2 & 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nop21vuK8tU




Read about NJ BURKETT here:

...aaaand here:

I think it would be interesting to interview Mr NJ Burkett. He's only 51 years old today - and should have a crisp and vivid
recollection of his 9/11 experience. In fact, he describes his own September 11 2001 as "the worst day
of my life"
. So sad, folks - so sad...

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...e+day#p2389225



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMEro...GAm34UQtqufmXw

Last edited by synergetic67; 22-02-2014 at 04:03 PM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-02-2014, 03:14 PM   #98
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 345 (266 Posts)
Default

continued from previous post:

Quote:

Re: National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences

Post by simonshack on February 8th, 2014, 6:09 am

"Gas masks" (such as the 3 shown here) probably saved our favorite 9/11 heroes' lives.


Re: National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences

Post by simonshack on February 11th, 2014, 11:43 pm




INTERNATIONAL COURT JUDGE
- Sooo, defendant Burkett - do you have anything to say to your defense?

PJ BURKETT - Uh...your Honor...it was just...just like a movie. They told me to be part of it - and I... I was just obeying orders!

INTERNATIONAL COURT JUDGE : Well, that is not an acceptable line of defense, Mr Burkett. What you did is utterly indefensible!


INDEPENDENCE DAY:

(Utterly fanciful, cinematic and non-physical collapse)

INDEFENDENCE DAY:


(Utterly fanciful, cinematic and non-physical collapse)

Most common "9/11 eyewitness" quote: "It looked like a movie!"

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...e+day#p2389225
Of course they'll get their fake eyewitnesses to say "It looked like a movie!" to falsely corroborate the totally pre-manufactured fake movie-like special-FX show that billions saw on TV as if it had happened in real life! Not very subtle these perps are they? But they know that they don't have to be. If 9-11 has demonstrated anything conclusively it is that it doesn't take much to completely bamboozle billions of people and many tens of thousands of "truth seekers" as well into nothing more than 3rd-rate movie critics with just a few simple filmed farces and boo-hoo-hoo-on-cue actors.


N.J. Burkett keynote from the 11th Annual 9/11 Memorial Ceremony at Sussex County Community College

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO1ftFiEy9g

at 11:15 Burkett starts the pathetic psychological pre-emption game we've heard from so many 9-11 traitors:

"There are very bizarre people who have some very bizarre theories about September 11th..."

and goes on to mention every reason given by the "conspiracy theorists" for considering him the douchebag that he is, as if acknowledging what people are saying about his sorry ass and ridiculing them as "bizarre" is the same as proving his busted, pathetic guilty ass innocent in a court of law. I would like to see this liar survive one hour's worth of real cross-examination by a real lawyer in any real court of law, once the videos he appeared in come back from the lab exposed as the total fakes they are. The nauseating arrogance of this guy is more proof that they made sure all the courts and lawyers were bought and paid for before they even thought of running the 9-11 uber-fraud PsyOp.

A Newton Burkett "fan-video" from Germany ridiculing this clown and his troupe of flour-covered buffoons !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QEluK8i2zw




Once again we are back to:

Simon Shack and crew do NOT claim that all the 9-11 footage is CGI, but that MEDIA FAKERY, in all its permutations and with all its myriad techniques of deception, of which CGI 3D animation is only one, is the main MODUS OPERANDI of the 9-11 False-Flag PsyOp (and many other PsyOps before and since). Because MOST or the VAST MAJORITY of the 9-11 footage and images they have examined are PROVEN to have been doctored, altered, tampered with, edited, composited, acted in and faked in one way or another, it follows that the ENTIRE batch is not only UNTRUSTWORTHY and not even worth your time to examine further into absurdity but any testimony in favor of the authenticity of such obvious fakery WOULD LONG AGO HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT OF ANY PROPER COURT OF LAW.



"The secret of achieving success in Hollywood is to keep climbing an enormous mountain of cow flop until you can pluck one perfect rose from the top. Unfortunately, you'll find that after making that hideous ascent you have lost the sense of smell." -- Harlan Ellison

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMEro...GAm34UQtqufmXw

Last edited by synergetic67; 22-02-2014 at 05:53 PM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-02-2014, 10:26 PM   #99
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 345 (266 Posts)
Default

Further adventures of the "KING KONG MAN":

Quote:

Re: FALLING MAN

by simonshack on October 26th, 2013, 8:58 pm
*

FINAL FALL MAN FAIL

Dear readers,

In this thread, we have methodically analyzed practically every single existing image (still or video) of "the tragic WTC jumpers". All have been, without fail, exposed as fake - as in fabricated digital imagery / or CGI animations / cartoons. Call them what you will, but NONE of these images/videos can possibly be legit/authentic photographic documentations filmed in the real world on 9/11 (as they all are purported to be). We have taken great care in verifying the sources of these images - and verified that they have all been, at one stage or another, aired on (multiple) TV networks and/or published in the mainstream press all over the world.

Of course, our contention has been - for many years now - that virtually NONE of the 9/11 imagery shown on TV and the printed press is legit and truthful. The successively released shock-and-awe imagery of "people jumping to their deaths" is only one part of the Grand Pool of fabricated 'Hollywood" imagery created in order to sell the official 9/11 storyline. However, it was arguably the most shocking & horrific imagery to strike the eyes and minds of the unsuspecting public / TV viewers (the only real victims of this wretched psychological operation): the notion of these "office workers opting to jump instead of being barbecued like pork chops" left an indelible mark in people's psyches - and effectively (according to plan) raised their anger tenfold against "Binladen and his evil gang of muslim terrorists." It also, of course, helped imprint the idea that there were people inside the doomed (and empty) WTC towers.

Our efforts have been, ironically, greatly been helped by the (absurd) release of a bunch of higher-resolution imagery by NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology)... in 2010, nine years after the event(!!!). The higher-definition imagery has put to rest the recurring objections and complaints (by our critics & naysayers) who basically argued that "all the anomalies we detected in the imagery were just random artifacts due to low quality/ resolution / video compression," and so on and so forth. To be sure, only a minor part of our analyses has dealt with mere 'pixel-issues' and such like - but the greater detail provided by the 2010 NIST imagery has effectively helped us to bust the rampant and pervasive 9/11 image fakery in clearer and more compelling fashion. I do consider that our case has been incontrovertibly proven - and that only fools or corrupt individuals will disagree with this fact.

The last fall man fail

I will now submit what I'd call the 'last fall man fail' - as I believe we have analyzed and exposed pretty much every single existing image of the "WTC jumpers" - so this one may be, hopefully, the very last. It shows a man climbing out of a window, somehow hauling himself down for a bit, then losing his grip and plummeting down.

The first question one might ask: WHY doesn't he fall STRAIGHT down like Newton's apple - but sideways, in oblique fashion?



source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=titNIkNc9e8

But you know, naysayers would probably say "duh!" it's just a question of perspectives / viewing angles" - or something to that tune. So let's take a closer look at some frames of this video. If you have read this thread, you will already know that the WTC windows were 7 feet tall. The man does not appear to be closer to the camera than the windows at right - so we can use one such window height as a reference to make a fair estimate of the height of the man. So, I ask you, dear reader:



So yes, we have another "KING KONG MAN' here (see previous page of thread) and this should be more than enough to conclude - beyond any reasonable doubt - that this clip is totally and irredeemably fake. But let me just mention another anomaly which, however redundant it may as compared with the above howler, has me shaking my head in disbelief. Now, I have probably watched thousands of WTC images over the years, but I've honestly never seen that row of protruding shapes marked with red question marks ["?"]. As we can see, they are supposed to be located a few stories below the "plane gash"... If you have seen these shapes in any WTC façade images, please let me know!



King Kong died on 9/11... or perhaps Hollywood did?



Good Bye, "9/11 jumpers". You are ALL definitively and comprehensively busted !

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...89314#p2389314





Quote:

Re: "FALLING MAN" - the phony jumpers

by hoi.polloi on February 21st, 2014, 4:55 am

For those who cannot see the video, among the points raised are:

• A "jumper" who appears to have some kind of "cape" falling/soaring from the building
• A different "jumper" who appears to fall diagonally across the viewed face of the simulated "WTC"
• A different "jumper" who appears in the middle of the blue sky with no apparent connection to the simulated "WTC"
• A pair of different "jumpers" who fall at very different rates
• Simon's point about the King Kong man among other sims who appears a magnitude larger than the simulated "WTC" window

All good points about the absurdity of the imagery, and further indication that much of the "events" of the day were crudely prefabricated in a simulation "program" that focused on various unrelated phenomena such as casting simulated shadows, making simulated smoke, having simulated wind effects, simulating body dynamics and human animal behavior, simulated day lighting and so on, but not a cohesive 3-D physics engine that would accurately reflect a perfect simulation of reality.

Instead, we are left to conclude that the images seen on the subject of these "terrorist attacks" have been crudely and coldly manufactured for the purposes of telling the false narrative as broadly as possible rather than with as much perfect detail as possible.

If the jumpers had been simulated more accurately, it would still not be as effective at convincing the populace as a broad range of media crudely reinforcing the same story. The imagery was meant to convince a wide spectrum of "visual" people, but not all of them. The radio broadcasts and newspaper articles about the "jumpers" were meant to convince a wide spectrum of "audio" and "literary" people, but not all of them. They knew their technology was not up to speed but they took a bold calculated risk based on the military strategy of doing such.

It is safe to assume that the military intelligencia's grip on our corporate media would be adequate motivation to completely fake events such as "terrorist attacks", and then use monitoring of the Internet responses (including ours) to safeguard and improve upon their simulations enough to fill in the gaps. Ergo, it is safe to assume that if this were true, they would be betting on the sweep of human compassion and emotions that have been their foil for a long time, and for these to overrun and overwhelm any sort of logic or science that we are attempting to apply and reason with. And what is more compelling to the heart than the human stories of self-sacrifice or even cowardly suicide?

Most people do not take a sophisticated approach to absorbing the media they trust. They simply choose to trust it, for emotional reasons of comfort and other human needs that are exploited by the propagandists, and see the inherent "truthness" and "goodness" in the narrative presented by their trusted media. Be it radio, newspaper, magazine, highly paid comedian, pundit, politician, TV, actor or movie; all of these crafts have been in the public eye long enough to have been fully appreciated, understood and now exploited by the military intelligencia. Some could say that particularly crafty minds may have always been watching the media with that purpose rather than seeing it the way any of us "normal" people watch it for entertainment and to feel good. Those minds would be watching arts, crafts and technologies for their power to inspire in humans the persuasion, influence and control we exert on ourselves, and create media with the purpose of chaining us to our own habits, rather than watching it as a way to spread truth. Perhaps they even see it both ways, but do not ignore the former more immoral way of looking at it, as most of us choose to do with our trusted media.

It isn't that these habits of ours are particularly bad or unhealthy (though we might have some others, which are) but that we are living in a time where we are seemingly meant to make choices about who and what we will be trusting to "lead" societies into the future. Nations are no longer strictly organized by country State governments. They are organized as cross-national, loose affiliations of likeminded individuals attracted to technologically controlled and monitored media informed by local politics and catered to demographics. It doesn't matter to most people what nationalities, genders or ages are operating CBS, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, Sky, ABC, Reuters. As long as it pretends to represent the old country-based definition of national interests, so it will be trusted as such. So all the world is and will continue to be ruled by the most passionate cultures operating those powers — the power of television, the power of photography, the power of newspaper, the power of advertising, the power of radio, and so on — knitting the blood ties and family bonds which still hold all of humanity in tribal formations, and which not one single person is completely free from.

It doesn't matter, in the theory of these power-obsessed, that the jumpers aren't real, because they are dramatic stories of a timeless human exercise of motivated suicide told in context to each particular media consumer demographic. The truth of the motivated suicide is the part of the story which people are absorbing, because we know that it happens. It didn't really happen on the scale advertised on 9/11, possibly and probably nobody killed themselves by hurling themselves from the broke, empty WTC financial-failures that were the towers, but because the news media all over focused on the human interest stories of existentialism, sensationalism and tragedy that accompanies the truth of motivated suicide when it should happen in real life, the news media is viewed as having human interests at heart, rather than military interests.

A military interest, the average media consumer reasons, would not take time to focus on the suicides and would remorselessly censor them. Most people have failed to catch that the military's new way of imposing order is by appealing to the very subjects we hold most dear, and organizing society around its most compassionate and humanistic ideals. Even a cartoonish exaggeration of such for extra amusement on the cynical job of manufacturing human interest stories.

If 9/11 had actually happened and just one person had really killed themselves because of the hopelessness and bleakness of their situation in the towers, there would be a righteous call for peace and forgiveness and an equally compelling case for revenge and self-defense from the enemy. Just as the hoaxsters simulated after the fake 9/11 story.

So it is not without complete misunderstanding of their target interest groups that the hoaxers crafted a narrative; only, it doesn't have the ring of real truth to it, merely the artistic truth of melodrama and fiction. What are missing from the cynical exercises are heart, spirit and true compassion for their audience, which they falsely believe they can simulate by mimicking the facts of life that motivate humanity to improve upon itself, to recognize its connections to that which it is connected to on a less obvious material level, to seek the truth, hopes, dreams and even ideals that have made the human experience worth living for in the first place. These things are absent and infinitely unattachable to their propaganda because they are lying and because they are not using art for the humanistic reasons that we were granted artistic skills.

To me it seems the "falling man" is ultimately an unintentional metaphor about their own selves, for those psychotically detached from their fellow beings and who can only relate to them as they relate to animals they exploit and use. They cannot care about living in the world they cannot sympathize with. And their self-aggrandizing, "heroic" and Pyrrhic plummet to sheer materialism from the rather shaky summit of material wealth is little more than an exercise for them in self-recognition and errant child-like magical thinking. That in their pretended transformation from greedy psychotics to humanistic Robin Hoods of true spiritual values, they can somehow manufacture or simulate that which they most secretly resent in others: the ability to love all life, and the recognition we have of their inadequacy in relating to life's true purpose.

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...89314#p2389314


"See, the 'Big Lie' professionals in the business of deceiving this entire world's population on a daily basis probably know better - when it comes to fooling BOTH the experts and the average Joe Public. The BIG LIE has to seem too bloody stupid in the eyes of the experts - and too bloody smart in the eyes of Joe Public. There is no quest either for the lowest or the highest common denominator in these psy-op schemes - or much less to target any specific IQ group (if you may pardon this unsavory way to put it). The aim is to strike the human consciousness somewhere 'in the middle' - so as to befuddle EVERYONE - and of course - to make EVERYBODY endlessly quarrel with each other." ~ Simon Shack, December 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM




"Independence is for the very few; it is a privilege of the strong. And whoever attempts it even with the best right but without inner constraint proves that he is probably not only strong, but also daring to the point of recklessness. He enters into a labyrinth, he multiplies a thousandfold dangers which life brings with it in any case, not the least of which is that no one can see how and where he loses his way, becomes lonely, and is torn piecemeal by some minotaur of conscience. Supposing one like that comes to grief, this happens so far from the comprehension of men that they neither feel it nor sympathize. And he cannot go back any longer." ~ FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, "Beyond Good and Evil"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMEro...GAm34UQtqufmXw

Last edited by synergetic67; 25-02-2014 at 10:30 PM.
synergetic67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2014, 06:55 AM   #100
synergetic67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 345 (266 Posts)
Default

Abirato's reading of Hoi Polloi's 9/11 Falling Man essay (posted above):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbxN8PoG5zM


Abirato Radio - episode 90b - 03 / 01 / 2014 - Guest: Simon Shack

http://fakeologist.com/wp-content/up...imon-Shack.mp3

Topics discussed and important points made:

Supposed 'on-the-scene' 9-11 and Sandy Hook photojournalist Mary Altaffer

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...affer#p2389379

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...rosen#p2381343

Australian prime minister John Howard claimed 52 dead (including 7 Australians) in the London 7/7 bombings PsyOp, the very same night it happened, while they were still looking for the train-carriages on the ground and had not even started counting the alleged 'dead.' Scotland Yard did not announce the 52 figure in their story until 4 days later and said that the last carriage in which there were supposed to have been 26 dead was not even found until the third day.

The first 30 minutes are quite annoying because Ab's previous guest, the interesting and very popular Australian you-tuber Jungle Surfer, stays on to meet Simon and insists on rambling on about how his veggie lifestyle makes him tough, blah, blah, blah. Luckily he has to leave to go make more videos, climb a tree for his mangoes or whatever it is he does, and a more rational, non-rambling, non-emotional discussion can finally begin amongst the two non-veggies on the show Simon Shack and Tim "Abirato."

Shack continues the saga of phonytographers Marty and Mary (see full post below), Mary Altaffer and Marty Glembotzky

Many instances of alleged photographers who supposedly work for big agencies over the years who claimed to have photographed what is obvious faked imagery.

Jim Fetzer makes the ridiculous claim that we have 9-11 images from all directions which all 'hang together,' (Hang together, how? Within the script of the movie?) and therefore, do not need to be questioned as to their authenticity at all.

There are three main people in Fetzer's little final-layer-of-the-onion gatekeeping circus involved in creating a smokescreen' in front of Clues Forum: Don Fox, Ian Greenhalgh and Clare Kuehn. Fox and Greenhalgh go on the attack with all the ad hominems they can muster and Kuehn pretends to be the moderator, a voice of 'fairness' rather than just the other end of their attempt at controlled dialectic, saying some Clues Forum material is worthwhile, etc., but they go too far when they claim 'everything is fake,' something, of course, which Shack has never claimed.

Simon Shack and crew do NOT claim that all the 9-11 footage is CGI, but that MEDIA FAKERY, in all its permutations and with all its myriad techniques of deception, of which CGI 3D animation is only one, is the main MODUS OPERANDI of the 9-11 False-Flag PsyOp (and many other PsyOps before and since). Because MOST or the VAST MAJORITY of the 9-11 footage and images they have examined are PROVEN to have been doctored, altered, tampered with, edited, composited, acted in and faked in one way or another, it follows that the ENTIRE batch is not only UNTRUSTWORTHY and not even worth your time to examine further into absurdity but any testimony in favor of the authenticity of such obvious fakery WOULD LONG AGO HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT OF ANY PROPER COURT OF LAW.

The Fetzer gang's idea seems to be to get people to dismiss looking into the Clues research for themselves, to not use their own logic (the filter of reality) to discern things but to rely on these self-appointed bozos to pre-digest and filter things for them. Gatekeeper's prey on people's laziness and conditioned lack of trust in their own common sense. What's funny is that these three have effectively isolated themselves on Fetzer's own blog and most people contributing there are now supporting the Clues research! Of course, like all shills (direct agent or useful ego/idiot, result being the same), they simply deny, deny, deny and claim victory even as they suffer defeat after embarrassing defeat.

Ian Greenhalgh's hilariously weak attempt at 'debunking' Simon Shack's infamous KING KONG MAN posts:

Quote:

Quote:

Re: "FALLING MAN" - the phony jumpers

by simonshack on February 28th, 2014, 8:46 pm
*

This must be the funniest debunking attempt in the history of the September Clues research :

"Simon Shack's King Kong Man debunked"

http://worldaccordng.blogspot.co.uk/...in-recent.html

The author of this silliness is none other than self-declared "photo expert" Ian Greenhalgh - one of Fetzer's snarling poodles over at the "REAL DEAL" blog

Greenhalgh's own blog is - most appropriately - called "The world according to me"!

So, just to make sure ... here we go again:

http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/8u0dgd...entimeters.jpg
Quote:

Re: "FALLING MAN" - the phony jumpers

by simonshack on March 1st, 2014, 12:35 am

Quote:
Flabbergasted wrote: Does it matter how tall the man is if, as Simon has already shown, the building in the NIST production is clearly different from the WTC?
True, dear Flabbergasted - I guess you could put it this way... One could say it's a question of "logical perspectives"...

Here's how Mr Greenhalgh's, uh, 'logic perspective' goes:

Quote:

Ian Greenhalgh wrote: "Just look at the exterior column the man is next to, it is 56cm wide, for him to be 4m tall as Shack claims, he would have to be 8 times as tall as that column is wide, which plainly isn't the case."

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.it/2014/...49264327904142
Greenhalgh does not (or more likely, pretends not to) understand that the whole point has to do with the relative architectural proportions (heights & widths) of the various elements (windows / spandrels) of the WTC tower façade - as shown in the "King Kong Man" video (animation) clip. Of course, IF the width of the exterior columns (56cm) were correctly proportioned with the window heights, King Kong Man would indeed be 8 times as tall as the columns are wide.

In any event - to put it quite simply - no human being (that we know of) can be far taller than the WTC's 220cm (approx 7ft) window heights.
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...89381#p2389381
The Clues Forum research is so thorough that when shills are confronted with it all they can do is either lie about and completely misrepresent its claims, ignore it and urge others to ignore it, or straight out ban it. Fetzer and his gang are only last-in-line in a long line of 9-11 controlled-opposition gatekeepers (direct agent or useful ego/idiot, the result is the same), starting with the head shills in charge of the CNN-Alex-Jones-promoted and now thoroughly discredited and laughable "Loose Change," who put an outright ban on all No-Planers and September-Clues-promoting No-Planers in particular:











Fetzer's modus operandi is playing on the archetype of the "open-minded professor" which allows people to surrender to authority and their own laziness and say "well, he's looking into it, so I don't have to. I'll just look into what he's looked into, trust in his "expertise" at logic and save myself time and effort."

Fetzer seems to be (or pretends to be) obsessed and angry about the undebunked proofs of Shack on the tower-demoltion imagery, and his ONLY response is: "well, why would they fake it that way when it was actually done another way?" As if the ridiculously fake imagery of the planes themselves weren't 'easy-to-expose' enough, Fetzer now tries to say that despite all the proofs to the contrary (such as, for example, the obvious KING KONG man images posted above), the perps wouldn't make fake imagery of the tower collapses, simply because it 'exposes' them. He also jumps to the conclusion of automatically assuming that the real demolition imagery would have been satisfactory enough for what the perps wanted to accomplish: psychological manipulation of billions through trauma-induced fear-based conditioning and its endless repetition and reinforcement.

Shack's response as to the psychology and motive of the perps IN ADDITION to his many conclusive proofs (some of which reposted earlier on this thread) that the tower-demolition imagery is, in fact, fake, is this:

They had to bring down the towers. They had to show something, so they just decided to show it in a spectacular way, in a Hollywood fashion. They didn't have many choices. How was the animator supposed to do this? The idea was that the plane made these fires in the upper floors, so the towers had to collapse top down. They obviously knew that it was a ridiculous idea but also knew that they had the power to just show this ridiculous thing a million times on TV and it would work, people would believe it, as they have and it has definitely worked.

The entire big-picture of 9-11 does not hang together in so many ways it's ridiculous. Clues Forum has looked at almost every single existing image of the 9-11 PsyOp and there are a thousand and one inconsistencies in the imagery. The images ALL have problems with each other in different ways. The pixels, the angles of falls, the situations we're supposed to imagine took place are all absurd. For example, if as Fetzer claims there was some kind of 'nuclear demolition,' then how did Newton Burkett survive reporting the demolition right under the towers? How did his supposed photographer Marty Glembotzky survive unharmed? And how did Mary Altaffer who supposedly took almost exactly the same picture, from the same angle as Marty Gelmbotsky, survive unharmed, with only seconds left to escape the complete demolition of the towers (as depicted on faked video, of course), especially if it was a "nuclear" demolition as Fetzer and his three-ring circus claim?

Quote:

Re: National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences

by simonshack on February 28th, 2014, 12:56 am
*

"MARTY and MARY" were standing side-by side !

I just bumped again into this alleged photojournalist "Mary Altaffer" - who has THIS image posted in her own photography portfolio. Yes, Mary has this pic posted on her website - clearly indicating that she's the author of it - and owns its copyrights. Check it out for yourself. Now, dear readers, please realize that if this extraordinary image were a true photograph, it would have won the famed Poo-litzer prize a hundred times over. There simply cannot be a more spectacular close-up picture of this century's most defining news event. Yet, how many of you have seen it? Has this image been hailed as such? And are we to believe that Mary - or anyone standing so close to the WTC - escaped alive from this (alleged) "9-second" collapse?


"MARY's shot":

source: http://www.maryaltaffer.com/photos/wtc/5.jpg

Of course, the above image is NOT a still photograph snapped by "Mary" - or anyone else. It is most evidently just a frame extracted from the "Hollywood-style" CGI-animation crafted by the 9/11 IMAGE FAKERY CREW - which became the 'video' they used to narrate the phony Newton Burkett story (and his purported cameraman "Marty Glembotzky") - as illustrated and expounded in my above posts:

"MARTY's shot":


So, ladies and gents, we are asked to believe that Mary and Marty were standing side-by-side, both capturing with their (video and still) cameras these extraordinary close-up shots of the WTC2 collapse - with both surviving unscathed from what some funny people contend was a nuclear demolition event which lasted for ... well, "9 seconds"!... according to NIST, that is. (WTC1, we are told, collapsed in "11 seconds"...).

Believe it if you will, folks - believe it if you will.

I rest my case - which is, for all new readers of this forum: NO real imagery exists of the 9/11 event. The towers were demolished behind a military-grade smokescreen. NO bystanders were able to record / document any useful imagery of the tower collapses - since the WTC complex area was enveloped in smoke. ALL the extant videos/photos published by the media (such as the above shots) are computer-generated.

*********
So I tried to contact Mary Altaffer today by e-mail - since she has her e-mail addy [email protected] posted on her website. My e-mail to her bounced - and the error-message was, basically : "the maryaltaffer.com website does not exist". Go figure...

Does anyone know how to contact Marty Glembotzky?

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic...1696&p=2389379
In the last section, Shack and Abirato give the reasons why they think nuclear weapons are also most likely a hoax, one of the mega-hoaxes of the 20th century with many connections to the 9-11 hoax.

The decision to do the "Manhattan Project" was made at the Bohemian Grove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_James_Briggs

Lyman Briggs changed the NIST bureau's culture from one of open access to one of secrecy. So NIST became a secret operation with the alibi that they needed 'secrecy' during the war.

What kind of people came up with the idea for a bomb that could annihilate an entire city?

100,000 people supposedly worked for the Manhattan Project and all kept the secret.

Not enough time to properly test such a bomb, much less perfect it.

Not just the cartoonish bomb-test "mushroom cloud" images but even the Enola Gay plane images have very clear signs of tampering and fakery of the pre-digital era.

The romantic and emotional writing styles of the PsyOpers of WWII and 9-11 haven't changed all that much.

The main way that nuclear weapons tie to 9-11, of course, is the insistence of the Fetzer gang of shills that they have found strontium and barium and that nuclear bombs brought down the towers and this supposedly explains why the collapse images are the way they are (not because they are many-times-proven fake CGI cartoons, lol). Their entire reason for existing is to UPHOLD THE NUCLEAR BOMB INDUSTRY and the massive FEAR-MONGERING associated with the nuke hoax. Even more fear-mongering than that is this whole idea of MINI-NUKES or that "terrorists" can now have nukes in a briefcase.

The 9-11 PsyOp had unlimited money and unlimited time to do the most perfect demolition ever.

Overall 9 buildings were wiped off the map because of the 9-11 event, not 7 as some claim. There was also St. Nicholas Church also but Deutsche Bank was severely damaged and not fully brought down until 2008.

The clown-show of actors and previously manufactured imagery continues:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1257027

Last edited by synergetic67; 09-03-2014 at 10:10 PM.
synergetic67 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 09:12 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.