The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby brianv on September 22nd, 2014, 7:01 pm

"The 9/11 movie could have been managed from start to finish over a network administered offsite or behind closed doors away from the prying eyes of anyone not in the requisite loop. No hijacking required."

Spot on!!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby antipodean on September 23rd, 2014, 7:03 am

brianv wrote:"The 9/11 movie could have been managed from start to finish over a network administered offsite or behind closed doors away from the prying eyes of anyone not in the requisite loop. No hijacking required."

Spot on!!


Which brings me back to these posts.

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1147&p=2361996&hilit=SCL#p2361996

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=916&p=2353563&hilit=SCL#p2353563
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 575
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby repentantandy on September 23rd, 2014, 8:19 am

simonshack wrote:Pardon me, but are you actually saying that big-time television studios were still, in 2001, using tapes & reels - which needed to be rewound for replays? ...
Just asking. :)


Why the nitpicking, Simon?

I said a dedicated replay unit (aka server stream) OR a video deck.

(It WAS over a dozen years ago, you know, and not all digital beta and digital one-inch gear had been mothballed immediately after the century turned...) ;)

But you're still avoiding my major point that big-time network TV in 2001, in part because of the "featherbedding" contracts of the powerful technicians' unions, and also because of quality-control issues (when many hundreds of thousands of dollars are riding on every commercial break playing flawlessly) still employed LOTS of live bodies on duty to monitor the playback, switching, routing and transmission gear -- just for the running of pre-recorded programming, and when it came to that Tuesday morning's live talk shows and breaking news coverage, many more techs had to be on duty as well.

It's pretty hard to believe that this "small army" of (pale) blue-collar, broadcast technicians were ALL fanatical members of "The Tribe" who soon realised (after the fake 102-minute "news coverage" suddenly replaced the regularly scheduled programming on their employer's networks) that the imminent war-on-Muslims it would provoke was ESSENTIAL to securing the hegemony of Israel in the Mideast!

So, were these guys (at least the Goyim members of the network crews) then bribed to keep their mouths shut, threatened with death, or just intensely convinced that it was their patriotic duty to support the big lie for the rest of their lives?

Maybe a combination of all three, thus putting them in the same boat as NYC's "miraculously surviving" first responders. (Remember how the 9/11 "deaths" of fire fighters turned out to be thinly and widely dispersed among many firehouses/engine companies -- a counterintuitive discovery indeed, since there should have been concentrated losses instead, but only among those groups supposedly directly impacted by being first on the scene and trapped when the Towers fell.)

And maybe, now more than a dozen years later, those TV technicians' life expectancies have turned out to be rather shorter than average.

At least the ones with loose lips. :huh:
repentantandy
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: April 1st, 2010, 6:17 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby Farcevalue on September 24th, 2014, 12:50 am

My experience with union workers has been that they pay particular attention to their checks, with a propensity to diminish the ratio of time to remuneration as much as possible. If by chance some member of this supposed blue collar army had shown up to throw a monkey wrench into the works by insisting on filling his labor call, an extended break on the clock would have taken care of that. After the first "plane", every station could have "borrowed" the feed from every other station and sent their locals home.
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 375
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby brianv on September 24th, 2014, 1:45 am

Farcevalue wrote:My experience with union workers has been that they pay particular attention to their checks, with a propensity to diminish the ratio of time to remuneration as much as possible. If by chance some member of this supposed blue collar army had shown up to throw a monkey wrench into the works by insisting on filling his labor call, an extended break on the clock would have taken care of that. After the first "plane", every station could have "borrowed" the feed from every other station and sent their locals home.


Aren't "labor unions" synonymous with "criminal underworld", in the fiction known as the USA? And keep on ignoring the Elephant in the Room, namely the "US Military", why don't you Andy?
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby lux on September 24th, 2014, 3:07 am

I hear they eat babies too. :rolleyes:
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby antipodean on September 24th, 2014, 8:42 am

Farcevalue wrote:My experience with union workers has been that they pay particular attention to their checks, with a propensity to diminish the ratio of time to remuneration as much as possible. If by chance some member of this supposed blue collar army had shown up to throw a monkey wrench into the works by insisting on filling his labor call, an extended break on the clock would have taken care of that. After the first "plane", every station could have "borrowed" the feed from every other station and sent their locals home.


Which reminds me of how corrupt some unions are, some in it up to their eye balls when it comes to 9/11.
viewtopic.php?p=2113542#p2113542
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 575
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby Farcevalue on September 24th, 2014, 11:41 am

lux wrote:I hear they eat babies too. :rolleyes:


I didn't intend to sound Pinkerton and should have been more sensitive to those associated with the IA. I have been on both sides of that fence and can appreciate and be frustrated by them simultaneously. I can also be simultaneously impressed and dismayed by the capabilities of those that populate its ranks, the gamut of which runs from spectacular to abysmally incompetent. (I am sure present company would tend toward the former ;))

That being said, I still never heard a complaint about idling on the clock. I certainly never had one.
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 375
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby lux on September 24th, 2014, 3:36 pm

I've encountered the types of union members you speak of -- plenty of them – and I agree they are despicable. It's just that there are also ordinary, honest people who happen to belong to unions and condemning the whole lot strikes me as illogical. Like blaming bank tellers for world wars or denouncing “the jooz.” Many people join unions because they must to work at all or their only other choice is to live in poverty.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby Farcevalue on September 25th, 2014, 1:14 am

This has drifted a ways OT already, but just to clarify, the point was not to cast aspersions on an affiliation, but simply to point out that in general, most people would have no problem taking a day's pay for having a day off. I just can't picture this being an issue once the op was under way. Also, if the propensity to diminish the ratio of time to remuneration is considered to be negative, I need to seriously reevaluate my strategy for living a healthier, happier life.
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 375
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby repentantandy on September 25th, 2014, 5:44 pm

The viciously union-bashing, OT drift of this thread surely refutes the idea that 9/11 video-fakery sceptics are all looney lefties, doesn't it?

Unions do have a point, folks, when they argue that their movement's historic accomplishments include such taken-for-granted (in the USA) things as:

The 40-hour work week.

Time-and-a-half for overtime.

Workmen's compensation.

The minimum wage.

Paid holidays/vacations.

Sick leave.

Employer-subsidised health insurance

Child labour laws.

Workplace safety laws.

Employer-subsidised pensions.

And as these benefits are now rapidly disappearing, so is union membership and political influence.

No doubt some unions have been quite corrupt, but that came mostly from emulating the bosses' own historic practises, IMHO. :lol:
repentantandy
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: April 1st, 2010, 6:17 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby simonshack on September 26th, 2014, 2:45 am

repentantandy wrote:If you go back and re-read my TRD posting, you will see that I was only speculating that there might have been some low-level "tech grunts" in the vast, multi-network labyrinth who WEREN'T either prepped on the forthcoming scam or coerced into post-event silence -- but who might, someday, have their consciousness raised by discovering your work and thus dare to ask questions (or supply insider perspectives) anew.


Andy, I fail to see where exactly you want to go with this. I suppose we can both agree that no such heroic media whistle-blowers have surfaced to this day, yes? So what exactly are you suggesting ? That we try and contact some low-level TV "tech-grunts" employed by the TV NETWORKS and ask them if they noticed something fishy that morning - and if they're willing to speak out about it?

Please correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't your argument come down to the age-old objection that "too many people must have been in on such a vast conspiracy (thus someone would sooner or later speak out)- and therefore the official story must be true?" But wait, you are not actually saying that the official story must be true. You are, as far as I can gather, only thinking (hoping? wishing?) that some courageous, lower-level TV technicians who, having smelled something fishy that morning, would put at stake their livelihood /career / family so as to clear their conscience? And this is not even taking into account this person's legitimate worries of "having an accident" of some sort - i.e. getting 'silently' whacked, mob-style ? I myself don't fear for my life (being a lone cat unconnected to the outside world) - but I'm sure anyone employed by the media mobsters themselves would.

Any suggestions as to how to encourage such lower-level media folks to speak out? I would certainly welcome them.

But, quite frankly - I'd rather interview folks like Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Bryant Gumble, Diane Sawyer, Dan Rather, Jim Ryan, Dick Oliver, etc... - or even just ask Aaron Brown and Paula Zahn how September 11 2001 just happened to be their first day on the job with CNN. <_<
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6362
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby repentantandy on September 28th, 2014, 6:40 am

"But, quite frankly - I'd rather interview folks like Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Bryant Gumble, Diane Sawyer, Dan Rather, Jim Ryan, Dick Oliver, etc... - or even just ask Aaron Brown and Paula Zahn how September 11 2001 just happened to be their first day on the job with CNN."

The chances of your interviewing such elite, multimillionaire celebs as these are mighty slim, Simon, and we both know it.

But the possibility of some ex-network techies (low-level enough to be neither bribed nor threatened but savvy enough to have had some serious 9/11 doubts) catching wind of the September Clues line of inquiry and contributing (positively) to the investigation here someday is still open, IMHO.

And when your book finally comes out (with or without a concise updating of your signature documentary, but much better WITH) -- the probability of your getting to interview at least a few of these "knowledgeable grunts" is bound to increase.

But please don't "bite their heads off" with your too-characteristic sarcasm and hair-trigger accusations of shillery, if and when they do show up. Your strongest admirers on this forum will only pile on instantly and scare the grunts away.

I strongly suggest you interrogate them off-forum, be prepared to thoroughly check out their "bona fides" and weigh whatever insights they might offer... with an open mind.

Yes, some Sunstinian pretenders could, of course, try to steer you off the rails, but...

You MIGHT learn enough NEW "inside stuff" to write a second book and assemble an even more powerful documentary.


Andy the Optimist ;)
repentantandy
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: April 1st, 2010, 6:17 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby brianv on September 28th, 2014, 5:02 pm

"The chances of your interviewing such elite, multimillionaire celebs as these are mighty slim, Simon, and we both know it."

It's only sniveling shit's who give these people status with such titles. They are just TV clowns like all the other clowns.
Last edited by brianv on September 28th, 2014, 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: I know yes!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: The SC shills' DISCREDITING TACTICS

Postby simonshack on September 28th, 2014, 11:43 pm

repentantandy wrote:
simonshack wrote:"But, quite frankly - I'd rather interview folks like Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Bryant Gumble, Diane Sawyer, Dan Rather, Jim Ryan, Dick Oliver, etc... - or even just ask Aaron Brown and Paula Zahn how September 11 2001 just happened to be their first day on the job with CNN."

The chances of your interviewing such elite, multimillionaire celebs as these are mighty slim, Simon, and we both know it.


Andy,

I wasn't suggesting interviewing these folks myself. 'Multimillionaire celebs", you say? Well, not all of them are.

FOX's Dick Oliver, for instance, doesn't even have a Wiki page - and info about the man is remarkably hard to come by. Nonetheless, don't you think veteran investigator Jim Fetzer could get hold of Dick for an interview on his show?

Jim Ryan retired in 2005 - and surely, for an ol' fox like Fetzer, shouldn't be hard to find.

Aaron Brown is now- according to Wiki- "currently an instructor at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University - where, since the spring of 2007, he has taught a course called "Turning Points in Television News History". So, you'd think Aaron should be delighted to teach Professor Fetzer a thing or two about television history. No ?

^_^
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6362
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Previous

Return to Truthers and shills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests