Is there any merit to the non-TV fakery truthers?

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

Unread postby Piper on Sun May 09, 2010 5:37 am

fbenario @ May 9 2010, 02:20 AM wrote: But doesn't the Operations Northwoods document also propose 'mock funerals of fake victims', in addition to the proposed fake airplane hijackings?

I still believe that the perps don't want ANYONE ever thinking there was any media or vicsim fakery connected to 9/11, because then we would stop believing what we are spoon-fed by mainstream media - and it is much easier to control the American sheeple with media then with guns. As a result, I think it highly unlikely they would fabricate a document after 9/11 that puts the idea of vicsims in peoples' heads.


True enough. And while the document's popularity in the wake of 9/11 seems suspicious to me, it was apparently mentioned as far back as James Bamford's book "Body of Secrets" (1999) - not that that means much since preparations from 9/11 probably began even earlier.
Piper
Member
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Unread postby D.Duck on Sun May 09, 2010 8:00 am

Captain Trek 4 May 8 2010, 03:54 AM wrote:
Captain Trek. Why would an airplane full of fake people land at Hopkins?



That's not the point though. I was merely using that as an example of a claim by non-TV fakery truthers that doesn't rely on the video evidence. You see, I remember distinctly that one of you stating somewhere that, these days, if you want to talk about 9/11 conspiracies and don't start on the TV fakery immediately, then you're up to no good (or words to that effect). That got me wondering, as I said, whether or not you guys think that any of what the truthers who aren't proponents of the TV-fakery theory say has any validity, particularly when it comes to claims that don't rely on the TV footage that these people are (supposedly) misreading...

So I ask again, are any of the claims made by the Loose Change/In Plane Site/9/11 Mysteries/Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth crowd valid?


Captain Trek,



So I ask again, are any of the claims made by the Loose Change/In Plane Site/9/11 Mysteries/Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth crowd valid?




"Misleading evidence is often delivered alongside accurate information" and the reason for it , is to get you confused and at the same time download thousands of questions in your head that you want fast answers to.

That's called "MIND F#CK" and its part of the Psyop.

Now listen, cos this is how our brains work.

Since you were 7 years old you have been programmed to ask authority's when you have questions and don't understand the info given to you, in this case, your teachers and the books given to you at school, when you get older you are supposed to get the info from the Tell A Vision.

Just think what will be in the school books about 9/11, 10 years from now and what will the teachers say about it?

You have not once been asked to look for yourselves outside the system from the age 7 to 25.

So what happens to kids that decide to go to the library and look for themselves and questions what the teacher says?
Well, most of them are looked at as nutcases and troublemakers and are sent away to institutions and when they are there, it becomes a self prophecy.

So what happens when people watch "Loose Change"and the rest of the BS videos that has "Misleading evidence delivered alongside accurate information"????

Well, people go back to that 7 year old and start to look for their teachers and WHOOOPS, there they are in the form of Alex Jones, Dylan, Cory, Gage, Jooody Woood, Ace, Kangaroo and the Parrot and the rest of the gang and they were planted there from the beginning to suck people in.

What happens is that people start to believe that sh#t cos they feel comfortable trusting authority's and the military knows that.

What we here at SEPTEMBER CLUES/ REALITY SHACK want you to do is:

LOOK FOR YOURSELVES at the info given to you here, double check it and trust yourselves.

The most destructive thing you can do in your life is to follow a leader because it feels good, without looking for yourselves.

You have to use all your ability to critical thinking if you are to follow a leader and you have to use it every god damn day, that's your responsibility.

Check out the OODA loop from Ozzy and try to put in who and what in the loop and you have saved a couple of years,lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne9fnhRIcKo



You see, I remember distinctly that one of you stating somewhere that, these days, if you want to talk about 9/11 conspiracies and don't start on the TV fakery immediately, then you're up to no good (or words to that effect).



You have a good memory cos those are my words.

You just have to trust yourselves and I will explain what I mean:

If you have figured out that footage from 9/11 is FAKED and you understand what that means, you have to ask yourselves a couple of questions.

1. Why is Alex Jones and the rest of the gang not talking about the FAKE footage?

2. Do you think they are stupid and just don't see it? Or do you think they know its Fake?

3. What would happen to those guys if all people would understand the footage is FAKE?

If you can answer those 3 questions you will probably enter a new world and you can never go back to the old one.


Best
D.Duck
D.Duck
Banned
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:08 pm

Unread postby fbenario on Sun May 09, 2010 7:18 pm

Duck, that is a great primer on the importance - and consequences - of thinking for oneself.

Please help me with one thing. This thread is about possible value in research that doesn't mention media fakery. As you know, there is a relatively well-known research paper that purports to 'prove' that nanothermite, or some similar explosive, was found in large quantities in the dirt/debris/dust left on-site after the demolition of the WTC.

I understand that all the theories about the apparent 'free-fall speed' of the buildings' collapse are untrustworthy because they are based on fake videos. What I don't understand is why we should also distrust research on the dirt left after the demolitions, since such research doesn't seem to rely on fake videos at all.

Am I missing something obvious that makes this research untrustworthy?

EDIT: The reason I'm asking about this is because a friend of mine keeps insisting there is value in proving the demolition resulted from explosives (not jet fuel), in addition to the obvious need to show the world the videos were all faked. She doesn't accept my repeated response that the only proof that matters is media fakery.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby repentantandy on Sun May 09, 2010 9:53 pm

Did anyone out there (of the small group that are intimately familiar and experienced with searching the on-line 9/11 video archives) ever take up Simon's challenge to check his September Clues video sources -- in regard to a certain vicious Pumper's claim that the "mysterious noises" on the "live" network feeds (just before the alleged second-tower hit) were NOT present on the archival sources?

The presence of the noises on SOME archival copies, and their absence on OTHER copies of the same footage, could be another "smoking gun" of post-9/11 tampering with the "official" record(s).
repentantandy
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:17 pm

Unread postby ozzybinoswald on Mon May 10, 2010 2:20 am

It's getting pretty shilled up around here.
ozzybinoswald
Banned
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:52 am

Unread postby D.Duck on Mon May 10, 2010 5:46 am

fbenario 4 May 9 2010, 07:18 PM wrote:Duck, that is a great primer on the importance - and consequences - of thinking for oneself.

Please help me with one thing. This thread is about possible value in research that doesn't mention media fakery. As you know, there is a relatively well-known research paper that purports to 'prove' that nanothermite, or some similar explosive, was found in large quantities in the dirt/debris/dust left on-site after the demolition of the WTC.

I understand that all the theories about the apparent 'free-fall speed' of the buildings' collapse are untrustworthy because they are based on fake videos. What I don't understand is why we should also distrust research on the dirt left after the demolitions, since such research doesn't seem to rely on fake videos at all.

Am I missing something obvious that makes this research untrustworthy?

EDIT: The reason I'm asking about this is because a friend of mine keeps insisting there is value in proving the demolition resulted from explosives (not jet fuel), in addition to the obvious need to show the world the videos were all faked. She doesn't accept my repeated response that the only proof that matters is media fakery.


benario,

If I say I had a friend that worked on the towers after the -93 bombing and he left a bag of nano thermite in a closet, can Niels Harrit say beyond any doubt that my friend didn't?

Haha, Nist will probably come out and do a Rummy " We cant track 4 tons of nano thermite that was used by the workers after the -93 bombing"

I counted some time ago how many times in a 10 minutes interview the words " the planes hit the buildings" or just the word "plane" was said and it was 63 times.

As a background they showed "flight 175" hit the south tower 6 minutes.

Now, that's a commercial and it tells me something.


D.Duck
D.Duck
Banned
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:08 pm

Unread postby MartinL on Mon May 10, 2010 10:32 am

Regarding the mysterious "nano-thermite"....

These guys have been on mainstream TV/Newspapers in several countries and pushed their theory for quite some time now. If they had real evidence, wouldn't they use all the money they have gotten through donations via AE911Truth to file lawsuits instead of just traveling around to various news networks promoting their "findings" ?

Steven Jones is a Los Alamos government shill btw, killer of cold fusion, master of confusion.
MartinL
Banned
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:08 am

Unread postby fbenario on Tue May 11, 2010 1:54 am

What good are lawsuits, when all judges are part of the establishment, and take orders from the perps?
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Tue May 11, 2010 4:30 am

fbenario @ May 11 2010, 01:54 AM wrote: What good are lawsuits, when all judges are part of the establishment, and take orders from the perps?


Probably that's a little rash, isn't it?

Of course lawsuits could be effective should they be successful. Public pressure of any kind is a good thing.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby Realism911 on Tue May 11, 2010 11:10 am

Yes good to see you back Simon, Hi 5 mate !! :D

Seen as though no-one did reply too what I posted before Im gonna make it official.

NO!!!!!! there is absolutly no merit, to loose change whats so ever...


see it for yourself...
Everyone.... go too the link that was provided here---- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_dZ_QAYLs
And have a listen too when Jason (or whoever it is) speaks at 1.52 he is talking about flight 1989......
" So too some it up ............ 69 passengers were evacuted into the FAA headquarters"
BUT earlier he said there were only 60 passengers and when EXACTLY he DOES say 69 passengers have a look at the screen it says. === 60.
You know for a guy (Jason Bermus) that always carries on about how he thinks September Clues is bullshit.

His Video is mega confusing....

You cant origonally "say 60" then "say 69" " and at the same time show the "figure 60" on the screen.


WTF?????? That looks like a Loose f#ck up to me....
Realism911
Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 2:45 am

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Tue May 11, 2010 3:26 pm

You may be right about that being an intentional f#ck-up either so they don't have to commit to a number or because there is some instruction they are given.

But you can clearly see Alex Jones is pretty much related to all of the Loose Change and magic technology people, and then you have the David Icke, Genghis and Ace Baker level that herds the TV fakery curious into ridiculous side or parent theories.

Our job isn't to get people stuck following those perps, even if - unfortunately - that is where some people ultimately end up because they just can't stand the responsibility of thinking for themselves on the matter. Our self-assigned job is to maintain an atmosphere friendly to the free consideration of MITRE's role in the technological and bureaucratic infrastructural changes that were required to let the CIA and other organizations pull off a 'War of the Worlds' virtual simulation of reality, indefinitely, in order to perpetuate endless war and rob people of their effective decision-making process (while the United States is utterly destroyed from within by Bush-Clinton-Obama, etc.)

The present level of infiltration occurring on this forum is difficult to root out, because there seem to be posters committed to long-term buttering up and they will say more or less acceptable things for a while, posing themselves against the obviously stupid posters to make themselves appear more legitimate, even while filling our "ranks" with fluffy traitors.

This is to control the dialogue and speculation and simulate what they wish people should be discussing on this forum. We allow a certain amount of this obvious inflitration because:

A. we presently do not have a means of helping people understand who we suspect is a wolf in sheep's clothing. We only encourage all our readers to maintain a high level of mistrust with anybody in this so-called 9/11 'movement'

and

B. Some of the perps' writing is - occasionally - an almost-decent simulation of how people might actually be reacting to our research, even if some perpy language and attitudes are thrown in the mix by those doing the drafting; so we might not even recognize a perp for some time. (Though please have faith that we are recording this and taking notes on their behavior and methods.)

---

So to answer your question, even the TV-fakery research is not good enough right now. It is filled with misleaders, duffuses and dildos. Also, many of our readers, who do not sign up but who occasionally lend us e-mail or skype message time, help us get a grasp on what is really going on with this experimental forum.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby fbenario on Wed May 12, 2010 12:36 am

hoi.polloi 4 May 11 2010, 12:30 AM wrote:
fbenario 4 May 11 2010, 01:54 AM wrote: What good are lawsuits, when all judges are part of the establishment, and take orders from the perps?


Probably that's a little rash, isn't it?

Of course lawsuits could be effective should they be successful. Public pressure of any kind is a good thing.


As a lawyer I'm pretty familiar with all of the various and sundry reasons/excuses judges have at their disposal to keep lawsuits form moving forward and 'having their day in court.'

It's obviously just my opinion, but I don't think any meaningful and substantial 9/11 claim will EVER have its day in court. No judge, when threatened with termination of employment/disbarment/assassination, will ever permit any real 9/11 fact-finding to occur under oath and with subpoena power.

To paraphrase Simon discussing the need to have vicsims (as opposed to real murder victims), why would the perps ever risk some lone-wolf judge actually permitting evidence to be given on media fakery/real 9/11 truth?
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby fred on Wed May 12, 2010 4:25 am

Long story about hoi polloi? My, that sounds interesting! Tell us all the long story, Captain Trek!

Trek, you got a phone number and address? I am happy to come ask you questions and opinions. What's your name?

http://911-harley-shirt-guy.blogspot.com


----
Captain Trek 4 May 12 2010, 03:35 AM wrote: Umm... D.Duck, what's wrong with wanting to know your opinion? I'm not asking for an authoratative "yay" or "nay" regarding the non-fakery truthers, I'm just asking whether, in your opinion, anything they say is valid or not, why is that so wrong? How is being curious about your opinion regarding non-fakery truther claims that don't rely on the video footage inherently damaging to my ability to think critically?

As for you hoi.polloi, long story short, I think you're too paranoid for words......



Mr Baker taught me the importance of lists when making up questions.

You asked:

a. why why why?
b. too paranoid boo hoo
c. riddle me this answer me that
d. loose change loose change
e. waste of time
f. not authoritative yay nay


--


Hey, where is Dylan Avery? I want to ask him about the NASA poison gas 93 passengers in Cleveland. Isn't he supposed to be the next Lindsay Lohan by now? Where can we find this important celebrity? I want to get the Naudet Bros to autograph my copy of Mickey Mouse Flight Sim.

Do you work with Darren McNulty from Barrie Ontario? How do you like Mark Humphrey's role playing the 9-11 Harley Shirt Guy?
fred
Banned
 
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:43 pm

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Wed May 12, 2010 3:51 pm

As for you hoi.polloi, long story short, I think you're too paranoid for words...



And as for you, Captain Trek, I think you are too deleted to respond! You are the weakest sock puppet yet. Buh bye.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Truthers and shills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron