simonshack wrote:The first question I'd have for Nobalai would be: what do you mean by "this one was claimed" ? Was it claimed by your dad - or by anyone else? If it was your dad who told you about her, why not just say so?
Of course I'll clarify. So I've been talking to my dad quite a bit about 9/11 lately. His position is that he admits there are some strange occurrences that happened that day (WTC7 and pentagon) but fails to dig deeper and admit that there is a large rabbit hole in our midst. For instance, he's holding onto the idea that superficial damage to the exterior and fire was able to cause a global collapse of WTC7 with 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration. To restate from the other thread (which might be better placed in this one,) I understand it might be more difficult for him since he's under the impression one of his childhood friends ("Larry Sumaya," whom he lost contact since!) died in the towers (I've yet to follow up on contacting his family as this forum logically asked of me)
So I've mentioned to my father that I can personally prove abhorrent video and image evidence that is clearly faked, especially some of the plane footage. I showed him and broke down some examples found here, alongside other one's I personally broke down. His response is that there must have been so many witnesses (*cough* shills) that saw the plane hit the towers, and that "a few rotten eggs don't spoil the bunch." Regardless, he began talking to a coworker of his (Let's call her Jane, which isn't her real name.) Jane was a 9/11 first responder (not NYPD or FDNY, just a government worker who happened to be in manhattan at the time) and volunteer(mentioned in the other thread) and was apparently close enough to see the massive dust clouds as either the first or building collapsed. Jane is also the one who claims that she knew a "JUDY LAROQUE" from school. Jane sent my dad an image in an SMS message who then forwarded it to me, which is at least some evidence (hard to verify authenticity from this single picture) that she has a picture of Judith Camilla Laroque.
I'll ask where this picture came from. I initially thought it was from a yearbook, but when I sent it to my computer and saw it larger, it seems to be a memorial (?) I'm going to ask my dad to ask "Jane" if this is a yearbook or a memorial. If the image was taken post 2001, well damn, it's not as good evidence as I first thought.EDIT:
It's a picture from a memorial post 9/11 *sigh*To a moderator: I looked up BBcode tags and the two resize options I found weren't working. Please feel free to resize appropriately.
The first thing I noticed when watching the video was the exact picture from the photo above. More weird is that the face (100% similar especially when comparing the bangs, and direction of hair in all locations)
appears identical to the picture Simon posted above, with a seemingly difference back drop, in addition to it being cropped? Why is the backdrop light blue in one and then black in the one in this post? Is this indicative of a fake? Is there no other pictures? How did she look in 2001? Did she exist in 2001? If so, was she really on that plane from Boston? All I have, admittedly, is my dad's coworker's testimony that she went to school with Judith.
One theory might be that this Carie Lemack character might be playing the role of Judith's daughter (when she really is just an actor.) I don't know.
Continuing analyzing that video, I noticed many, many smiles.
Some quotes/sections of interest:
"Terrorism really is a global issue."
She goes into detail where the pieces of her mom were supposedly found. One piece (foot) at ground zero. Another piece on top of
) Deutsch Bank "a couple blocks away"
, and continues:
"Moms body shattered when her plane hit the building. And that the debris that you see when you watch the videos of 9/11 and you think it looks like glass and pieces of the building ... thats actually pieces of my mom and so many others bodies. That the ... the impact shattered them and they just kept on going. They still find body parts at ground zero"
7 years later they were still finding body parts? Why is she rambling about this to the board of nuclear and biological terrorism threats? It's rather interesting how she plugs the 9/11 (collision) videos. Now, I surely didn't see any "glass and pieces" or body parts fly "blocks away" on the 25 clips I saw of the 'collision.' I wanna see the videos she was looking at! Anyway, It really sounds like she's either looking for pity/empathy(?) in order to manipulate the boards decision, or it's a pure agenda filled script to manipulate the board's decision. I'm not too great at detecting acting (only obvious clues) so I'm really not sure. There are certain sections where it seems scripted but it's only a gut feeling.
Overall, I must admit the interview of Carie Lemack is a real turn off, mostly since the policies she's advocating and the world view she has is completely antithesis to my own. There's also a gut feeling I have of coercive political activism through grisly stories (perhaps fraudulent,) general acting and off-the-point banter.
I hope you all understand I was presented with these two identities by my father, and I'm doing what I think is honest work to verify their authenticity, not to de-rail any theory presented on this site. That being said, I'm not immediately going to dismiss either of these claimed identities and their deaths on 9/11 until I personally dig further. Most importantly
I'm planning a phone call interview with a relative of Larry Sumaya, and I would love to get the CluesForum members suggestions on exactly what to ask, and (more difficult) what evidence they might present to prove his existence and death in the towers. One part of me figures I need to be pretty strategic with the questioning since I don't want to anger the interviewee, just get out as much valuable information as possible. Another part of me thinks that by angering them (saying that people think your account is false and have actually brought up some interesting issues with death certificates and memorials etc, ) it might get them to personally come to CluesForum, make an account and start a deluge of evidence which we could evaluate, but this sounds risky.