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

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax
Rasta84
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:54 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Rasta84 » Wed May 12, 2010 9:48 pm

hoi.polloi @ May 11 2010, 05:30 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.
No he's right, they'll never get anywhere. It's there only to protect the ruling class, there's no justice in the courts. Public pressure is more effective w/o such illusions.

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu May 13, 2010 5:11 pm

Rasta84 4 May 12 2010, 09:48 PM wrote:
hoi.polloi 4 May 11 2010, 05:30 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.
No he's right, they'll never get anywhere. It's there only to protect the ruling class, there's no justice in the courts. Public pressure is more effective w/o such illusions.
I don't think any of us knows because we have never come to that point. The 'future' is just as much an illusion as events that take place in it. That's a sh#t argument for doing nothing. WE decide what that future will look like. WE are alive and living in this world. WE are the people.

And with all due respect, fbenario, you are not the only lawyer on Earth. In my world, my lawyer friends exist in consensus reality and their belief in this research and its prosecution-ready qualities stand out as important legal discussions very soon.

Will Bush ever see trial? No.
Will local criminal gangs see trial? Possibly.
Will some small fish that those gangs see as dispensable - and who they can safely disavow to maintain their existence - see trial? Without a doubt.

Conspiracy is never on trial. But if we win conspirators, they know our pressure and we protect our communities from their exploitation, if just for a while. Don't be cynical to your own detriment, fbenario and Rasta. It doesn't become this research. And it doesn't do your family or community any justice to be dismissive without even trying.

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Unread post by fbenario » Fri May 14, 2010 12:52 am

All points well taken, Hoi.

EDIT: I deleted the rest of my post, which upon re-reading seemed a tad defensive and hair-splitting, neither of which is ever really helpful.

repentantandy
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:17 pm
Contact:

Unread post by repentantandy » Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:47 pm

Since this thread began with a question as to the possible value of non-TV fakery "truthers"... it might be instructional to fakery newbies to note that the entity known as Shure/Jeff Hill is playing the very same perp-game (calling actors and prompting them to go through their "eyewitness" scripts) all over again.

But this time he's trying (via his shopworn record-a-call routine) to prove the authenticity of the plane-at-the-Pentagon legend instead of the planes-at-the-WTC myth.

Can't wait until "Jeff" starts calling some Cantor Fitgerald vicsims, but perhaps his handlers don't have all the "socks in a row" just yet! :P

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:07 am

Very sad, drunken swansong by aspiring September Clues "debunker" Yougene Debs:

http://www.livevideo.com/video/YougeneD ... blues.aspx
http://www.septemberclues.info

Brutal Metal
Member
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:58 am
Contact:

Unread post by Brutal Metal » Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:27 am

Wow what a retard and that song? I'd rather listen to fingernails on a chalkboard!!
So where's all his supporters comments praising his Ground Breaking findings??
haha it's a Ghost Town over there

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

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

Unread post by fbenario » Sat Jan 01, 2011 8:28 pm

Some interesting analysis of the 'limited hangout' concept on plane-hugger-site 911blogger.
Morrissey believes our government’s propaganda arm (whatever they call it now) is fully aware that a well-managed conspiracy cover-up can have a very intimidating effect, which can be very effective in keeping the public docile and obedient.

Specifically he argues there is major value (from the government point of view) in disclosing a limited amount of information concerning government culpability in atrocities such as the JFK assassination and 911. He bases his view on something he calls “Transparency Theory” – thus his title The Transparent Conspiracy. He says the CIA has long recognized that “telling part of the truth is the best way to lie.” They even have a term for it: “white propaganda.” Morrissey argues that for the government to brazenly commit criminal acts can be quite effective in demoralizing and alienating the tuned-in segment of the population that fully comprehends the corrupt nature of our government institutions.

This MO seems designed to make it obvious that the named perp could not have been solely responsible for committing the crime. OTOH, the cover up seems intended to withhold evidence leading to other perps. One obvious question--are the benefits (i.e. intimidation, demoralization, confusion) of a transparent MO worth all the trouble involved in an extensive government/media cover up?
...
I especially like comparing 9/11 to the JFK Assassination since a vast majority of Americans (80%) already view this as a conspiracy. And because there are some striking parallels:

1. The Zapruder Film and Building 7 footage changing public opinion.
2. The magic bullet found in the stretcher and the magic passport found on the street.
3. Eyewitnesses to gunshots on the Grassy Knoll and WTC explosion eyewitnesses.
4. Stand-down of security at Dealy Plaza and stand-down of air defenses on 9/11.
5. CIA connection to Lee Harvey Oswald and CIA connection to Osama Bin Laden.
6. Rifle experts cannot replicate Oswald's shots from sniper's nest and pilots cannot replicate Hanjour's flight path in simulator.
7. Lost or destroyed evidence from JFK assassination and lost or destroyed evidence from 9/11 crime scene.
8. Shifting stories for the kind of rifle found implicating Oswald and shifting stories for where Atta's bag was found implicating the alleged hijackers.
9. The Warren Commission Cover-up and the 9/11 Commission Cover-up.
10. Vietnam war policy change immediately followed JFK assassination and Afghanistan & Iraq war policy allowed by the 9/11 pretext.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-28/l ... 11-context

antipodean
Member
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
Contact:

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

Unread post by antipodean » Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:05 am

Can't quite work out the point you are trying to make in the above post. Many of the clique "non-TV fakery truthers" who post on 911 Blogger were discussed in this thread and it's following posts. http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shac ... &p=2142091.

That JFK comparison is just about the CD collapse of WTC 1,2 &7, even advertising for a donation to investigate the collapses (based on faked footage),any other discussion on Blogger outside of those topics leads to a banning.

I've a nasty feeling that this year the PTB will come up with a plausible reason for the collapses, such as the buildings were already pre-wired for demolition and they were accidentally brought down to early.

Then these "non-TV fakery truthers" will say it's time to move on, the perps would have covered themselves with the conditions of the phoney compensation fund.
Not needing to re-hire the grieving 9/11 actors demanding justice, via manslaughter charges.
Only having to deal with the demands of the sick first responders.

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

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

Unread post by fbenario » Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:29 am

antipodean wrote:Can't quite work out the point you are trying to make in the above post.
It's the first reference I've seen to 'white propaganda', and I thought it worth sharing. I included the JFK/9/11 comparison for the sake of any new reader here who hadn't yet thought they might be cut from the same cloth.

antipodean
Member
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
Contact:

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

Unread post by antipodean » Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:14 am

(Think I'm going to have difficulty articulating this post.)

I've just come across this recent interview on the Kevin Barrett show
http://noliesradio.org/archives/27221 (listen to part2)
of a plane hugger, who had their post rejected at 9/11 blogger.

What she basically says is that special software that is available, could have been used by a demolition company, to simulate the collapse of the towers, this software being a tool used by demolition companies to show clients how their collapse will look like.
And this simulation could be what was shown on TV on 9/11 .

They go onto say that programming software was used to work out what kind of plane to use to penetrate the towers (a plane with a pod etc), so this could be the footage of UA175.

But wait theres still more, also the Naudet footage was simulated, along with the dust clouds chasing civillians down Manhattan streets.

Yet still these 2 people refuse to accept no plane theory. Why can't they just fukin well watch September Clues.

reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

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

Unread post by reel.deal » Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:17 am

.
Last edited by reel.deal on Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

regex
Banned
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:30 pm

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

Unread post by regex » Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:49 am

antipodean wrote:
What she basically says is that special software that is available, could have been used by a demolition company, to simulate the collapse of the towers, this software being a tool used by demolition companies to show clients how their collapse will look like.
And this simulation could be what was shown on TV on 9/11 .
What makes you think that this software represents a graphical view of the towers? Most caluclation softtwares don't necessarily need a GUI after all.

antipodean
Member
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
Contact:

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

Unread post by antipodean » Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:11 am

regex, my post was about what Evelien Gilbert thinks happened. Knowing her as running a plane huggers forum, I would be loathe to automatically agree with her about anything.

But what is interesting are the over emotional plane huggers that have invested so much time in debunking no planes at the Towers, they're to embarrassed to admit they were wrong.

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

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

Unread post by brianv » Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:10 pm

Purdue had no hesitation to use a GUI to show what a hollow plastic airplane hitting the worlds biggest steel building would look like - in all it's ridiculousness!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

Chris Hoffmann - Faculty
Sami Kilic - Former Member
Scott Meador
Voicu Popescu - Faculty
Paul Rosen - Graduate Student
Mete Sozen

regex
Banned
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:30 pm

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

Unread post by regex » Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:12 pm

@antipodean: Sorry, I got you wrong then.
brianv wrote:Purdue had no hesitation to use a GUI to show what a hollow plastic airplane hitting the worlds biggest steel building would look like - in all it's ridiculousness!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8
Well yea this simulation is pathetic indeed. I love their simulation of the jetfuel, which can in my opinion never be calculated since you wouldn't know the exact time when the fuel was set on fire. This simulation was probably just made to give the average people a "scientific proof" that everything happened that day, as media and government said.

Don't understand why they even made a computer simulation. They could have tested it in reallife in a good way. They might have not created a whole airplane and so on, but they just need some steel frames and shoot aluminium with the speed of the planes onto it. Would be interesting to see what actually happens then. But wait, they can't do that since they would debunk themself then :P

Post Reply