Cigarette Sign

All other news and developments related to 9/11
timothymurphy
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:51 pm
Contact:

Cigarette Sign

Unread post by timothymurphy »

My suggestion that the volcano thing will chronically affect our lives did not mean to be portentous.
I just meant maybe the TV news will add an "Ash forecast". Maybe we'll have to pay an "Ash Tax" to fly - apocalytic stuff like that...

Plus alot of crazy imagery and reminders of volcanos and ash in the media.

Talking of reminders of ash / smoke, I never noticed before that the No Smoking sign (which is mandatory practically everywhere now) contains a nice twin towers image at the tip of the cigarette - the ash!!


Image
ash=twin towers? :huh:

Hope this doesn't seem too much of a digression, but 9-11 has been a big theme in the volcano reporting, and all smoke / ash imagery is grist to the mill for promoting the volcano/ash event.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Once again, I think you are a little overboard on pinning literally every symbol within your viewing range to an imaginary Grand Conspiracy.

It also belittles the truth of singularly coordinated fakery events. Are you sure you want to continue pursuing this line of reasoning? I won't speak for everyone, but I am not sure the September Clues forum does.
timothymurphy
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:51 pm
Contact:

Unread post by timothymurphy »

hoi.polloi @ Apr 20 2010, 09:49 PM wrote: Once again, I think you are a little overboard on pinning literally every symbol within your viewing range to an imaginary Grand Conspiracy.

It also belittles the truth of singularly coordinated fakery events. Are you sure you want to continue pursuing this line of reasoning? I won't speak for everyone, but I am not sure the September Clues forum does.
I don't understand how things as big as either 9/11 or the volcano thing can be "singularly co-ordinated" without a "grand conspiracy".
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

timothymurphy 4 Apr 20 2010, 09:01 PM wrote:
hoi.polloi 4 Apr 20 2010, 09:49 PM wrote: Once again, I think you are a little overboard on pinning literally every symbol within your viewing range to an imaginary Grand Conspiracy.

It also belittles the truth of singularly coordinated fakery events. Are you sure you want to continue pursuing this line of reasoning? I won't speak for everyone, but I am not sure the September Clues forum does.
I don't understand how things as big as either 9/11 or the volcano thing can be "singularly co-ordinated" without a "grand conspiracy".
Yes, but you are talking about an even bigger one than any anyone has discussed outside of a David Icke forum! :D

How and why would the cigarette sign change? Did it actually change in the 90's or around the time of the 9/11 plan's formal push-through? And who would 'control' or regulate this? Convince us that the requisite connections, which we have shown evident in all other 9/11 research, also ties into the sign makers' artistic direction in some way. Who made this decision to tie it into 9/11? Who made these signs? Go the extra mile for your extra special research, timmy! ;)
timothymurphy
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:51 pm
Contact:

Unread post by timothymurphy »

hoi.polloi @ Apr 20 2010, 10:10 PM wrote: Yes, but you are talking about an even bigger one than any anyone has discussed outside of a David Icke forum! :D

How and why would the cigarette sign change? Did it actually change in the 90's or around the time of the 9/11 plan's formal push-through? And who would 'control' or regulate this? Convince us that the requisite connections, which we have shown evident in all other 9/11 research, also ties into the sign makers' artistic direction in some way. Who made this decision to tie it into 9/11? Who made these signs? Go the extra mile for your extra special research, timmy! ;)
lol. touch?.

you're right that reality shack deserves better than an intuition-based cod-david icke throwaway "connection".

There are some interesting aspects to the cigarette sign development as it did not always have the twin tower ash tip.

Seeing as you've been gracious enough to give this a thread rather than delete it, I'll post back giving this idea a bit more substance.

If this idea still looks really weak after my next post, let's delete it.
But I think there is something in this...
idschmyd
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:33 pm
Contact:

Unread post by idschmyd »

That sign is rudely reminiscent of the Twin Towers smouldering!

(So it was brought up on Yickes! forum. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4602))

How and why would the cigarette sign change?

Is it not approximately true to say that the Empirical organisers and protectors of ‘9/11’ (and everything that means) are also responsible for the global smoking prohibition? I say yes. Is the ISO not this group’s ministry of compliance? Well, perhaps the sign was changed to fit in with the new law, and it has this group's logo on it!

Seems UK gov passed a new design in line with the EU law introduced to England July 1 2007.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6700117.stm
The government has decided on a new design for no-smoking signs? The design tweaks may not be noticeable to most - the smoke rises slightly higher than before and the cigarette angle is different - but they break ISO guidelines. They have been passed by the ISO and EU, but they cannot be classed as being the international standard.

Image
Image from BBCt’s article showing 45deg downward angle of fag. The angle makes it less obviously a ref to that other act of madness by the Empire builders. Does this mean that the more obvious (because horizontal) ref above is the internationally ISO rated one? Maybe, but I’ve no idea when that was designed or by whom.

But it’s a bloody conspiracy, I tell you! The law and its f#cking signage. With due respect, Dr. Hoi, for your excellent admin skills in assuring the quality, legitimacy and success of this forum, I say go go TM!
idschmyd
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:33 pm
Contact:

Unread post by idschmyd »

...apparently there's a word 'imperial' :huh:
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

A panel of representatives from across the world decides - and regularly reviews - the international guidelines for no-smoking signs, including size, shape, colour and overall design. It takes its job very seriously, especially prohibition signs like the smoking one.

"These signs started out as a symbol for danger, but their meaning has extended over the years to cover warnings and bans," says Barry Gray, chair of the ISO's international technical committee 145, which is in charge of the signs.

"Canasta!"

Mister Barry Gray, it just so happens, has a little official history:

Barry was formerly the Signing and Design Manager for Network Rail. Currently Treasurer of the SDS, he is also a Hon. Fellow of the University of Brighton.

Network Rail owns and operates the rail system in the UK ... a rather inspirational organization as far as surface-area for countless reminders of 9/11 along every surface of the system. (Any UK train riders able to confirm? Are the signs in the trains? In the station lobbies?)

Once more, we have a suspect from London. Woopie!

The Sign Design Society
5 Longton Grove,
Sydenham,
London
SE26 6QQ,
United Kingdom

Thanks for the (September) clues, guys. Looks like there may be something to this after all!

As long as we are speculating about grand conspiracy/typical empire behavior -- is that not the Rothschild Zionist shield integrated into the University of Brighton logo? http://www.brighton.ac.uk/

Image

And Gray being both a sign designer and fellow of the school wouldn't at all make him aware of the design of the school's logo, would it? :)
timothymurphy
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:51 pm
Contact:

Unread post by timothymurphy »

hoi.polloi 4 Apr 21 2010, 09:56 AM wrote:
(Any UK train riders able to confirm? Are the signs in the trains? In the station lobbies?)

Designer Barry Gray says in the BBC article idyschmd posted:

Evidence suggests that people switch off when there is information overload. What if someone tunes out after seeing three signs that are irrelevant...

Today I took a kind of straw poll for No Smoking signs in my town and was astonished at how ubiquitous they have become without me noticing them at all. (I had “tuned them out”)

Almost every shop and restaurant displays the “twin towers” cigarette design on the door:
Image

(This is the standard one which businesses are encouraged to download from the Department of Health’s smoke-free England website - http://www.smokefreeengland.co.uk/resou ... gnage.html

The saturation is such that not only every single shop, cafe, taxi and church has these signs, also pedestrian underpasses:
Image

And the inside of phone-boxes:
Image

Since July 2007 it has been the law to display these signs at the entrance to public places.
I estimate that 7/10 premises in my town display the “twin-towers” design. There are a few variations with more realistic-looking cigarettes such as in the phone box.

Re: the station

Although Barry Gray is now retired from Railtrack, I was still interested to check the no smoking signs at the station.
The entrance had three types:
Image
Image
Image

So much for standardisation Barry! :P

(Only one of the 3 types had the twin towers-type symbol.)


But my town was generally saturated with this horizontal “twin towers” design.

(this one outside southern electric)
Image

If I were a conspiracy theorist I might suggest that our senses are deliberately flooded by no smoking signs, so that they can become a channel for messages that we will not register consciously.

e.g. reminders about terrorism.

So could this lead to concrete evidence for those behind terror hoaxes?
I anticipate so.


Background to the smoking ban (UK perspective):
1941- first modern smoking ban, in Nazi Germany.
article about this from the British Medical Journal: http://www.bmj.com/archive/7070nd2.htm

1998- “Smoking Kills” published .
Government White Paper and the “first ever public health strategy” in UK
http://www.archive.official-documents.c ... 7/4177.htm
This is the strategy that culminated in the 2007 smoking ban.


2010 (February) ? “Smokefree Future” published
A comprehensive tobacco control strategy for England published by HM Government
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/gro ... 111789.pdf

Astoundingly they are not satisfied with what has already been enacted:


“it is too soon to claim victory”

“we cannot afford to rest on our laurels”

“Our vision is of a ‘smokefree future”

-Details are coming on the precise history of the No Smoking pictogram-

This post does not go further to identifying any perps, (Hoi having already looked at Barry Gray).

But as idyshmyd suggested I think there must be quite an overlap between the terror people and the No Smoking people. Both domains have enormous potential for control.

I am wary of posting subjective David Ickeish stuff But undoubtedly these politicians and campaigners are using forms of meta-communication.
While they talk about tobacco, they are perhaps admitting to other things?

But this Reality Shack and not Mental Shack, so I’ll save analysis of that for when more concrete stuff turns up to back it up.


A decade after the publication of Smoking Kills, the ambition of the tobacco control community is undimmed.
Success has bred determination not complacency. For all the achievements of the last ten years, the scale
of the harm inflicted by tobacco on society, especially on children and young people, demands a long-term
commitment to action.
The tobacco control community looks forward to working with government to shape a new era in tobacco
control such that, in another ten years time, the achievements of Smoking Kills will be viewed as the
foundations of a radical and ambitious approach to tackling the harm of tobacco, still the leading cause of
preventable premature death in England

2008 “Beyond Smoking Kills” ? http://www.ash.org.uk/beyondsmokingkills published by ASH
timothymurphy
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:51 pm
Contact:

Unread post by timothymurphy »

E mail from Michael Wolff, chairman of Sign Design Society:


Re: no smoking signs?
From: Michael Wolff ([email protected])
Sent: April 22, 2010 11:40:24 PM
To:
Cc: Michelle Henderson-Veira ([email protected])

Hi Tim.

.........

A symbol for 'no smoking' is established in British Standards within BS8501 (Public Information Symbols) - available from BSi. The Standard lays down the principles for the design of all symbols and identifies key characteristics to be followed. In most respects the UK standard follows the equivalent International Standard. I don't know what your business is, but this should really be your guide on any symbols used in the public environment. Other standards cover safety symbols and a raft of other related matters.



As you will know from the links you show below, when the UK legislation on no-smoking came into effect, in addition to the Legal Instrument, the Government issued guidance to public bodies on the notices to be displayed at entrances to all enclosed public buildings. This included a format which showed a symbol which in certain specific characteristics did not follow the Standard. I don't know how they derived their version of the symbol and I guess you'd have to ask the Department of Health. I suspect that the niceties of design were not on their radar and they incorrectly quoted this as the 'international symbol'. However, some organisations have adapted this with the correct design, and the Govt has not raised any objection to that. But as a result you will see a variety out there.

You should also ask the DoH about the background to the derivation of the policy on signage, but the Society was not consulted in any deliberations. We did however make representation once the detail of the legislation was made known, not so much on the design of the symbol (although we pointed out the fact that one Goverment Department was not following another in this regard), but on the principle of the massive sign proliferation which the law brought about, a position we would still maintain.


Many other 'no smoking' signs, not necessarily mandated under the legislation are in use throughout the UK and in Scotland the ban on smoking was introduced a year before the rest of the UK with somewhat different provisions. But to repeat, BS8501 should be king everywhere.


Hopefully this will have been of some use to you.


Regards

Mike

Image

So, the Sign Design Society was not consulted about the above sign from the department of health.
And the Department of Health incorrectly claims that it is the "international" standard.
[I think the Getty image in idshmyd's post above is the real international standard, with 45 degree cigarette etc]

http://www.smokefreeengland.co.uk/resou ... gnage.html
The international no-smoking symbol in both signs must be at least 70mm in diameter. This symbol consists solely of a graphic representation of a single burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it.

So it is the UK Department of Health which has made design decisions such as:

1/ a horizontal twin towers-type ash tip
2/ ominous 3D smoke over-lapping the red bar.


As Michael Wolff's e mail stated, the SDS was not consulted and they were not impressed by the design. They complained about the pointlessness of saturating our environment with these signs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nosmo King
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:49 am
Contact:

Unread post by Nosmo King »

Interesting post. Probably entirely unrelated, but it brings to mind tales of some rather unsavoury characters who started their own brand of skuldudgery from a dwelling known as the house "at the sign of the red shield".
timothymurphy
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:51 pm
Contact:

Unread post by timothymurphy »

A couple of FOIs told me that the No Smoking sign provided by the Department of Health and distributed all over the country ? the twin towers one ? was designed at the Central Office of Information ? COI.

Image

I had never heard of this place, but they have made all the public information films since WW2 on everything from the dangers of flying kites, to AIDS.

Image
COI poster from 1980s


I had expected their website to be obsessed with health and responsibility etc. ? good values to encourage in citizens. But no, they are obsessed with behaviour change”.
http://coi.gov.uk/

They are not interested in the content of their messages but in the dynamics of causing change.



This December 2009 report about Behaviour change frequently cites the tobacco control campaign:
Communications and Behaviour Change
http://coi.gov.uk/documents/commongood/ ... change.pdf


This screen shot from the report shows our famous twin towers cigarette being used to cause an emotional stir-upand therefore behaviour change.
Image


Could it be they are harnessing the 9/11 imagery for the emotional stir-up that will help people quit smoking? That would be nice of them.

No! Seeing as COI does not care about health, only behaviour change, I think the smoking message is being used as cover to create emotional stir-ups that inculcate fear of terrorism.


Whatever would give them the idea that anti-smoking messages could be used as dishonest reminders of 9/11, I wonder?

Image
American anti-tobacco campaign

Image
Chinese anti-tobacco campaign

Image
Tip of the cigarette in Department of Health official "No Smoking" sign.


P.S. more FOIs are flying around to get more specific info on what individual or commitee designed the sign...
timothymurphy
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:51 pm
Contact:

Unread post by timothymurphy »

P.S.
Just for comparison this is the official "No Smoking" sign from the British Standards Institution - the design totally eschewed by COI:

Image

It doesn't really evoke the WTC at all because of the angle and the unsmokey smoke.


[many public libraries have internet subscriptions for the current catalogue, which is where the above picture is screen-shot from].
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Well done.

I am not so sure it is such a great achievement to threaten mass populations with death using their adverts to encourage smokers to quit. Maybe at least it isn't criminal. The whole thing is even worse if it's just an excuse to make us involuntarily recall Propaganda Day! And it certainly is criminal to do so.

Behavior modification is a typical goal of the Skull & Bones types groups, isn't it?
godzilla
Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:43 pm
Contact:

Unread post by godzilla »

No smoking "gun". As in, you want the satisfaction of it, but don't bother, there is no smoking (gun) to find anywhere. Go to your private corner and enjoy your smoke, just not anywhere in public. That's the rule, it cannot be debated.

Image
"It's not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true." - Henry Kissinger
Post Reply