hoi.polloi's reference to the twin crocodiles reminded me of the 'Lacoste' logo.
When entering a web search with 'Lacoste' and '11 September 2001', it came up with this link about a certain General and his near miss at the Pentagon. A mere coincidence...again...http://www.wcmessenger.com/911-retired
In that article, LaCoste states:
“There’s a cost. And there’s people out there paying the cost every day.”
You can almost hear him slurring it: There’s LaCoste. And there’s people out there paying LaCoste every day.Bling bling money in the bank, I just do this La publicity Stunte and sympathy LaCashe is rollin' in.
It seems they don't mind putting their smug and satisfied attitude about exploiting others even in their speeches supposedly resembling tributes of honor. A supposed simulation or comedy about 'touching' moments (a la Friends
, et al) in any given creative art piece isn't meant as such. It is as though honor, respect and compassion themselves aren't taken seriously enough for them unless those things aren't mentioned at all. Gives me a very 'Mafia' vibe.
So all this symbolism of "9" and "11" and tower crashes and their words for others 'in the know' to find — I don't believe we
as respected individuals with an honored will and sacred mysterious life are the intended recipient. Instead, their audience is the cartoon of us (and each other) which they have in their own deranged minds. We
— how we may see ourselves in this complex life — are not so much the intended recipient as much as a generic "la folla"
(the crowd, the fucks, the chuckleheads in their own family which they
think define who and what makes people) are.
It isn't folly to attribute to these people who consider themselves magicians any respect greater than you would have for a con man that just removed your wallet while dazzling you with false mysticism, for that low level of respect is what they would give us; but it may be folly to assume they are capable
of the self-respect we are capable of giving them.
Money, power, drugs and thrills at the expense
of other human beings, people and life forms must be the credo of the "conspiracy" that is nothing more impressive than haughty children with a vision of "piracy". I assert again we are dealing with giant babies.Keith A. Glascoe
Worth repeating in the "Actors and Simulated Victims" threads, but for now I feel this idea flows more accurately with nonhocapito's recent musings.
Case in point of their wobbly "vision" of piracy, the recently unearthed vicsim character of "Keith A. Glascoe" (maybe
CGI-ish but to me more likely played by a real actor that was continually credited under that possibly fake name) was of a family of actors
. His children reportedly were also getting actor training
before the 9/11 disappearing act. One gets the sense there is a 'mob' feeling to these two-bit characters who wish to please the Don Corleones of Hollywood, like the producers and directors and certain actors above the basic tier of "fame slave drone".
In the privately produced little "pilot" episode of the movie Pirates of Central Park
, the actor who donated his face for it to perpetually play the future 9/11 vicsim "Keith Glascoe" (and the nose, mouth, eye and other face parts of some surrounding friends in the Vicsim) makes his appearance. He plays a cop
. Yes, a fake cop.
The same actor has already played a cop-like goon
in the movie Leon
Note the odd spacing of the titles "3 rd" and "4 th" beginning with Keith A. GLASCOE. Was this just a typo or another kind of signature that there was to be something 'funny' about the Keith A. Glascoe character?
Why not play a goony firefighter for 9/11?http://nyfd.com/9_11_wtc.html (by the way, what is that Emelio Estevez looking character on the left?)
A short analysis about this Pirates of Central Park
movie, indicative of at least a small
speculative acknowledgment that guilt or remorse is possible in playing a part of the 9/11 hoax:PIRATES of CENTRAL PARK
My thesis is that this movie is a deliberate depiction of the personal emotional interpretation (by a perp) of their own participation and foreknowledge of the 9/11 media conspiracy. It evokes a sense of playfulness and slight guilt, mostly overwhelmed by a rather cold and psychopathic attitude toward others. It cameos "Keith Glascoe" as a cop, and it was created by Rob Farber, a professional advertiser with a pseudo-professional (I'd say "faked amateur") web site. As I explained on the relevant thread at Fakeologist.com ( http://fakeologist.com/2015/04/24/where ... /#comments
One of the last appearances Glascoe made was a blurry background character in Rob Farber’s rather confessional (yet tiny low-budget) “Pirates of Central Park” pilot about kids sneaking around playing ‘pirates’ in Manhattan. It seems to be like that X-Files episode — another ‘in the know’ kind of pre-9/11 production about keeping crime a secret in New York. The 33-minute thing can be watched in full on Rob Farber’s active but bizarrely low-key (for the advertising industry) web site “RogueProducer.com”. Not so bizarre when many research angles on 9/11 hoax participants end up in these places. Slightly defunct looking sites that are actually ‘word of mouth’ businesses that scrape by on unknown connections.
Besides featuring future 9/11 vicsim "Keith Glascoe" in tiny miniature, the otherwise nonplussing and 90's-looking scrap of film screams "confession of foreknowledge of 9/11" like few other media productions. And this, mind you, is a shitty little difficult-to-view production in the corner of a malfunctioning, poorly programmed web site
supposedly for big wigs to find and use for its advertising business. Reminds me of the deliberately badly programmed CNN site for "9/11 victims", from which we compiled vicsim lists. The narrator, a child, who speaks in first person about their childhood experience of wanting to be a pirate, is presumably a metaphorical character representing the director themselves (if not a close friend). "I want to be a pirate" announces the child, and, "I was lucky enough to be invited into this profession."
A "popular" kid appears (subconsciously linking the irresponsible use of power with popularity) which he expresses some envy over. This "bad" kid's first line is, "Shh, keep it down. Secrecy is everything." He continues to repeat this mantra throughout the film, saying it at least three times before the end.
"How do you go about being a pirate these days?" asks the main character. The "bad" kid replies that pirate life is "the danger, the risk, thrill of drawing first blood ..."
"How are we going to be pirates?" asks the narrator.
The "bad" kid replies, rather nonsensically, "Venture, capital."
This implies, as we've always suspected, that should this work of fiction be an admission of some kind, the money used to fund 9/11 was largely private donors using their liquid capital as "venture capital" to get a conspiracy rolling.
Indeed, a second "bad" kid who seems subservient to the first, says, "My dad is rolling in it."
The idea they hatch is to launch pirate ships in a pond in Central Park and "take out" other ships.
How are they going to take the pond ships down? (the narrator child wonders.) "See this?" says the second "bad" kid, "It's a radio frequency controller."
They "explain" to the narrator that many in the pond have "RF" boats, and add, "Ours will have torpedoes." Note that this lazy explanation does not at all explain how the piracy works. The magical, willing suspension of disbelief masks the potential for the following information to be gleaned: the piracy uses "frequency" and theirs will be of the aggressive type. We can draw from this some small confirmation of Simon's theory that frequencies were used to disarm and disable recording equipment, and it may also be a reference to television signals.
"Once I give the signal — Boom! — the pirating begins," explains the lead "bad" boy.
"Are you sure we can do this?" asks the narrator, apparently still feeling the tug of some socialized belonging, or possibly merely wondering about the mechanics. "Money can buy you some pretty righteous stuff," is the reply.
What controls will be used is explained in a short exchange about a radio boom box. "What's this?" asks the narrator. "Just your classic diversion" explains the "bad" boy. This bit of the narrative doesn't explain so much as give confirmation of the simple mechanic of hiding weapons in plain sight. Behind the booming boom box, which disguises the antennae of the RF controller used to move and attack with their little "pirate ship", the narrator is coerced into operating the controls. It is almost a perfect metaphor for mainstream broadcasts distracting people while the real controller behind the radio (or television) operates in disguise.
Whatever symbolism you want to read in their target, you may. I personally don't find the large blue "Captain" (Dad) with little red "First mate" (his son) of any particular significance. Perhaps the cigar chomping, overweight father simply represents an "easy to hate" target, considered "loaded" (wealthy) by the kids.
"Wouldn't it be bad to sink such a nice ship?" asks the narrator, constantly representing the pathetic pleas of a disintegrating morality. But don't worry! The "bad" kid assures us, there will be "no loss of life!"
At some point in the story, the narrator is confronted by the "bad" boy in a conspiratorial meeting at a library.
Above their little conspiracy discussion, "Non-Fiction" hovers above the "bad" child's head as he literally pitches to the narrator the conspiratorial plot. They basically shake hands and agree to conspire together out of sheer excitement over the deception. The narrator at some point does ask if pirates are not hanged. The "bad" kid reassures that "the clever ones" get away with it, and adds, "The worst thing that could happen is we get detention or juvy hall." In short, some jail time paid off quickly — a slap on the wrist — is all the elite pirates have to fear as consequence for hurting others.
"We'll use our signal so nobody knows who's controlling the rogue," reassures the "bad" kid. This transitions to a shot of Manhattan, which lowers to the shot of boats. It seems an ominous skyline for a story that touches so close to the official 9/11 narrative.
The boys press buttons and their target ship automagically sinks into the pond, while Blue and Red (democrat and republican?) look on in shock and anger. The narrator feels proud of what he inexplicably perceives as a "financial" or "power" victory. "I felt great. The other crew lost their ship but nobody died!"
The next time they pirate, the fat Dad and fat Son show up with a new, bigger ship with an American flag and red-white-blue colors. They must be a "glutton for punishment" claims the out-of-control "bad" kid leading their piracy. They succeed in destroying this very patriotic ship as well.
The narrator continues, "Everyone looked into my heart to tell me how rotten I was. I wanted to tell them it wasn't my idea."
The bad kid is also aware of something, though in true remorseless form directs them this way: "So now we disarm the ship, so that when we are caught there is no evidence we did anything."
"Truly the product of a sick mind!" comments the narrator with an increasingly disturbed admiration for the psychopathic child's methods.
The third time, 'Secret Agent' style music plays as a British-esque boat with a Barbie in it, sinks their ship. The "Fat Americans" used the British to infiltrate the pond and destroy the would-be pirate boys' grand pirate ship. "Maybe we had it coming to us?" asks the narrator. "Never again would I be a pirate."
However, without true remorse, the child only seems to use sympathetic narration as a cover for his new addiction to ruining other people's lives. The use of emotionally manipulative language to hide truly nefarious desires draws forth the underlying meaning of the entire narrative: it is the confession of the narrator being remorselessly trained in psychopathic behavior as he says good bye to his morality with little more than a shitty little "TV pilot", valuing even his own empathy and compassion as nothing more than tools to exploit others. In the end, his corrupt core is completed when his Mom brings him a toy airplane as a gift for "returning" to her attentions.
He seems to be excited about the next evolution of his retreat from humanity — something involving the use of remote controlled airplanes ...
To conclude, if Keith A. Glascoe
was really a real person who disappeared on 9/11 (as researcher Max Ratt alleges), I have no doubt they knew perfectly well the deal in store for them. He probably faked his death, contributed and "okayed" his face and name for use in the Vicsim, ("greyed" out by a slight clone named "Grey") and disappeared to a tropical location to live out his days in anonymous comfort. Researchers at Fakeologist.com looked on Facebook for information and discovered that one of his partners and the acting children (the children may indeed be actors
if brazenly mixed with fiction in Glascoe's obituary by dubious propaganda slave New York Times) were traveling recently to a far off locale; I wonder if it isn't to celebrate with their spooky dad the odd little arrangement they have now to "hush up" for continued benefits from the most powerful government in the world: the imperial-type military intelligentsia (and its control, of course, of media and academia through Tavistock styled psychological studies).