Ron - the rude Khalezov fan

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

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby ron105 on Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:16 pm

reel.deal

It's kind of basic.

They take all the debris out and bring in soil-dirt.
and in my opinion - the lower level debris are radioactive - they have to get rid of them.

you don't see craters (that shouldn't be there in the first place if there were no nukes) in the LIDAR
because the 1/3 of the building mass that still there - is filling the craters.

The 'TOP' was not obliterated - you see it sinking down on the tower. - naturally when it hits the ground its obliterated (but not pulverized like the lower part)
further more you see it leaning to the right when it start too fall - it should fall right - not correct its self and go straight down - its clear that its base is falling apart underneath it (pulverized material), proves nukes again.
ron105
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:39 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby reel.deal on Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:00 pm

yr right ron, it is kinda basic.

dirty-bomb suitcase-nukes that atomise/vaporise rock dont ignite ANY PAPER, or GAS TANKS, & just half melt vehicles.
really ! ...is that so ? ...let me know when you next demo yr own suitcase-nuke, & lets see, shall we ? ;)

"the 1/3 of the building mass that still there - is filling the craters."

so... countless dumpster trucks dont even get a puncture while "filling in" ground-zero with "dirt", compacting it,
re-covering the plaza with concrete, waterproof !...WHILE DIGGING OUT ALL THE "6,000" VICSIM REMAINS...
all within less than 24 hours... flat. ?!?!? :blink:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

WTC2 STRUCTURE MAINTAINS INTEGRITY... HORIZONTALLY... 'RECLINING', 'REPOSED'...ON WTC4 !

Image
FIRETRUCK "ON DIRT-FILLED CRATER"... ON TOP OF 1/3 OF 220-STOREYS JAGGED STEEL SKYSCRAPER RUINS. ;)
Image
"FIRST RESPONDERS" ABANDON "DIRT" IRRIGATION-SYSTEM & STAGE "SWAN LAKE" INSTEAD. 'NACHTWEY' - 9/14 ? ...still SMOKIN'
Image
good one, ron !
keep em coming !
B)
Last edited by reel.deal on Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby ron105 on Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:16 pm

Dear reel.deal

I meant no disrespect by saying "it is kinda basic". but i realize it sounds kind of condescending.
so i apologize for that.

They took out the debris and threw them in what is called Staten island freshkills for "processing"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Kills_Landfill

they even have a special 9/11 website
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september ... .asp?ID=86

as i stated before - the debris were radioactive too

WASHINGTON - A helicopter survey revealed 80 radioactive "hot spots" in New York City, including a Staten Island park with dangerously high levels of radium, a congressional report disclosed yesterday.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/new ... _thre.html

There too people got sick , cancer die etc.
http://www.doyouknowcancerblog.com/feat ... ow-cancer/
I get sick to my stomach every time they blame the asbestos - those fucking bustards knew they were sending them to radioactive zone

here is the truth - asbestos my ass:


I asked Dr. Levin how long it normally takes for cancer to develop in someone exposed to these toxins. "There is generally a minimum of 15 years that has to pass from the exposure to a cancer-causing agent to the time you can really diagnose that cancer. And frankly, in most cancer types, that latency period, that delay, is more often 20 and 25 years," he said

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/09/11/ka ... index.html

According to sources who worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at Ground Zero on and after 911, residents of southern Manhattan and rescue and clean-up workers involved in the recovery operations at the site of the former World Trade Center are experiencing an unusually high rate of non-Hodgkin lymphoma — a cancer that is common among individuals who have been exposed to extremely high levels of ionizing radiation, such as that from nuclear blasts and major nuclear reactor leaks

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/F ... 01628.html


You can see some great photos of the cleaning site here
http://cryptome.info/wtc-fk/wtc-fk-full.htm
look at all those 9/11 fire tracks - just abandoned there - they look undamaged
probably radioactive.

I have explained in detail about pulverization and paper already before
(bottom part)
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p2350838

For some reason since 3 days ago i cannot see photos uploaded via Image-shack (i had to reload my own photos via http://www.freeimagehosting.net in order to see them)
this is what i get from your post :

Image

So i cant really comment on your photos.
Last edited by ron105 on Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ron105
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:39 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby reel.deal on Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:43 pm

dear ron, no offence taken.
its kinda ironic you cant see any images, when its images that are the primary concern.
its like this...

"they even have a special 9/11 website... "
"as i stated before - the debris were radioactive too... "
"WASHINGTON - A helicopter survey revealed... "

does the word "bullshit" mean anything to you ?
its all just words ron, & you're taking someone elses WORD for everything.
I cant PROVE... whether ANYONE... is bullshitting, or not. I dont know. for certain.
what i CAN PROVE is bullshit (fakery)... in THE 9/11 IMAGERY.
words bullshit - hard to disprove. pictures bullshit - easy to prove.
see ? it really is that simple... (no codescension either, serious!)
:)

maybe try viewing not logged in, or something, i dunno!
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby warriorhun on Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:48 pm

Dear ron100s,

The "Elephant Herd Destoyed WTC on 9/11"-theory is my very funny metaphor. :)
But you can not prove or disprove if elephant herds were rampaging or not in the WTC-complex on 9/11, by viewing faked CGI images and videos. But using common sense, or basic logic, Occam's razor or other shaving equipment, you may speculate out that there were no elephant herds in the WTC on 9/11, and that's good enough until the perpetrators confess it before they step on the gallows for hanging.

If a man lies to you once and you catch him with it, you call him a liar, and you'll suspect him telling only lies all the time, unless he proves he speaks the truth in certain cases, and you will still remain suspicious in all the other cases.

Let me repeat this as a metaphor and elaborate on it and on how disinformation works:
1. If a man lies to you once and you catch him with it (=the Media showed faked CGI airplanes hitting faked CGI WTC on 9/11, and got caught red-handed), you call him a liar (=fucking liar Media), and you'll suspect him telling only lies all the time (=suspect all 9/11 WTC images and videos are faked), unless he proves he speaks the truth in certain cases (=we challenge everyone to show us one legit video of the 9/11 events which can be proven legit under close scrutiny), and you will still remain suspicious in all the other cases (=not a single video was legit which we scrutinized so far, all were faked).

2. Disinfo is the other side of the same coin. You gain credibility with stating obvious truths (= eg. Wikileaks on American war crimes, Khalezov on Anthrax-letters), so people will have no reason to think you are lying. So you lie a big one (=Wikileaks on every fucking thing, Khalezov on mini-nukes) , and keep on lying and people will accept what you say until they catch you slipping (= Wikileaks' Julian Assange "hiding" in London, Khalezov using faked CGI video as evidence). From then on, back to point number 1.

Now, your friend Khalezov. The following image is from one of his video interviews (he sits on the right):

Image

Video is available in this article: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/08 ... v-on-9-11/

The green halo around his head must be God's blessing for always telling the truth and only the truth.
Even Khalezov's own images are faked/altered on the internet site where he is publicizing articles: yep, this is the sure way to gain credibility with the "dickheads" of septemberclues forum! :lol:
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:26 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:25 am

Spiney just quoted your post in full and then didn't add anything to it. I deleted that post.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby ron105 on Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:46 am

Dear warriorhun.

I show you evidence, corroborating evidence.

But you prefer to stick to a certain idea you wish to entertain which looks very weak compared to what i have showed you .

The evidence i provided does not go against SC - My "Camp" is not your enemy.


Your photo of Khalezov and missile from Video - is a great indication you have gone astray (which I"m sure you believe is not possible)

It is so clear that it's just a cheap studio - and the projection of the back screen is crappy.
And yet you manage to turn it into the zapruder film - this is so evidently Ridiculous and out of touch from reality.

And you are doing the same with "all is fake" inquiry too - you see something and you pre-impose the cause of it by imagination. and baseless arguments.

You also speak of a certain logic to "1 time lie caught - watch out baby"
Why not apply the same logic to this too BTW ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhsy2klQzvo

I think , that on this thread - I have spread out things pretty clearly.
I"m glad that I"m confronting you all here - and not some shill who will destroy your credibility and of SC credibility in public in a big way.
I am not your enemy, I"m not out here to get you,
Think of it as peer-review effort coming from a friend (and an admirer of your SC work).

At least prepare stronger arguments then you have presented to "all fake" presentation.
But better yet - find your error and remedy it.. quickly.

Thanks
Ron
ron105
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:39 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby fbenario on Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:25 am

Dandy wrote:I have some empathy with your concerns about stating that 'all is fake' as it is a rigidly binary position and inhibits free and flowing thought; I am far more comfortable with 'much is fake'...

Quoting myself from a Feb. 10 post.
"Event" is the established, approved version distributed by government through its controlled mainstream paid media.
The 9/11 event was 'planes flew into buildings killing people'.
Once Simon, et.al., gave the first example of an image/video with fabricated pixels of a plane inserted into a fabricated background, it was clear the 'event' did not occur, meaning no planes flew into buildings.
Once Hoi published the Vicsim Report it was clear the 'event' did not occur, meaning no people were killed.
Thus, the 9/11 event reported by government/media did not occur.

(The occurrence of some other action, such as the destruction of the WTC, doesn't mean that the reported event actually happened.)

To paraphrase Simon from long ago, and Warriorhun recently, real events don't require fakery. Real-time images/video are sufficient to show what happened, and no fakery is required to communicate/sell the story. Fakery occurs when reality is missing, when stories are fabricated.

As I said, even a single faked image/video means an event did not occur.

Let's repeat that.
real events don't require fakery. Real-time images/video are sufficient to show what happened, and no fakery is required to communicate/sell the story. Fakery occurs when reality is missing, when stories are fabricated.

As I said, even a single faked image/video means an event did not occur.

The video shown on TV on 9/11 is fake. Analyzing any of it to determine what happened is a silly waste of time. Why would you assume that the frames Ron100s is analyzing are 'real', while all the others are fake? You both need to get a grip, and stop misleading yourselves.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2221
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby warriorhun on Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:02 am

Dear ron100s,

Ron, ron, ron. Septemberclues is not my "camp", the reason I am here because so far this is the only "conspiracy-theory" which actually means something and logical. My "camp" is the Hungarian nation, and I am not sure about your camp.
Can George W. Bush executed because everybody thinks it was an inside job? No. Can Harari be shot because Khalezov says he was bragging about 9/11? No, he will have two witnesses he said no such thing. Can the Freemasons hanged on the lamp-posts based on mini-nukes theory when all the WTC's "nuclear" remains were shipped off to China and the photos are fake? No.
But the planes were CGI, right? No need to go further. Round up all the peoples who were that day in the studios, their bosses and technical personnel, etc. Waterboard them. Self-incriminating confessions are worthless, not matter what the Cheka said, so we do not ask for the story, no sir. Even on the battlefield you do not ask the captured soldier for the General Staff's plans, just: how many more of you, with what weapons, going where? Besides, they will not know: military operations have need-to-know basis, separation of duties, one person leadership, etc.... So, all we ask them, is write down one name, and tell them we come back if they lie. Collect the name list, and repeat the process untill we reach Bush or Netanyahu or Adolf Hitler for all I care. And then, we offer them the choice: summary execution with a shot in the head-we know they are guilty, or start singing and spill the beans. A few of them will refuse, but the others will see their fate and confess. Bingo, 9/11 solved. Then, of course, hang them all, so they will know what is a lie.

About evidence: Media videos, Media images and photos as evidence when all such evidence are suspect is worthless, unless you can prove it is legit, which you can not. Official US evidence and documents, because of the insider job is worthless, they can make up all they want, including the Geiger-Mueller results at Ground Zero.
Evidence of Media manipulation: solid so far. You wanted something to ask about the Fairbanks video but got deleted? Let me ask you one on the Fairbanks video, and I hope will not be deleted.
Start watching the video as the airplane enters the building. Tell me, do you know what colour was the WTC? Was it white? If not, was it a chameleon changing colours in light and shadow? If not, well, wtf?

About "all is fake": maybe sometimes the Media uses legit images, uses more altered images, even more totally fake images: add this together and tell me: will the result be a picture of reality?
And this is not some "Simon says" game as in Die Hard. Septemberclues convinced me because it tied in with my perception.
Rockets from the Kursk, Freemasons, mini-nukes? You could shave it with Occam's Razor for a year, you would rather need Occam's Chainsaw, and still the same thing remains: israeli involvement in 9/11 and israeli involvement in pushing the most outrageous conspiracy theory lies. That's not good news for you I guess.
Let me repeat how disinfo works with explanation for your personal benefit:
Disinfo: you gain credibility with stating obvious truths (= "no-planes" media fakery, septemberclues is right), so people will have no reason to think you are lying. So you lie a big one (=Khalezov on mini-nukes) , and keep on lying (=saying Septemberclues is a lie unless accepts the mini-nukes-theory)and people will accept what you say until they catch you slipping (= you too used faked CGI video images as evidence). Remember point 1? Where do you guys learn the trade, LAP I guess? My advice is , less goa parties and less extasy, more attention in class. Israeli Goa Trance Music is my favourite, though: I prefer Astral Projetion and MFG, and extasy is illegal so I have no opinion on it. So I am not biased, your people is involved in good things sometimes. Especially Avi Nissim and Lior Perlmutter ;)

So, a shill could discredit us publicly? Publicly, you mean...in the fucking Media??? :lol:
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:26 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby ron105 on Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:51 pm

warriorhun

I am truly sorry but your "all is fake" evidence will be laughed at at court and dismissed one at a time .
It doesn't even touch the heels of SC research and evidence.
You are either intentionally or innocently fudging/ignoring the data.

I"ll give you 4 clear examples without digging to much myself :

1.
SC Addendum:
The totally unethical behavior (i don't want to say out right fraud) in SC addendum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhsy2klQzvo

2.
WTC7 collapse comparison:
Lets call the left image A and the right image B.
It is clear you cannot compare the two, it is a deceiving comparison as if both are photographed on the same height - A starts turning only when B is out of sight (behind the building).
You can see these " 2 stages" in one shot here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10

Image



3.
The Rick Siegel footage :
You only need to see the full shot to see it is only an illusion - the wind IS blowing the dust backwards on top, even though the dust is advancing at the bottom , here is the scene the shot was cropped from .it is very clear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-XC3zYZ0BU
And why the Hell would Siegel be part of a cover up? his presentation is very damaging to the official story

Image

4.WTC7 smoke shot:
You immediately say it is fake because it looks cut, but another video reveals this phenomena is possible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYOmXLlPSqY
Actually maybe it possible to blame them for smoke machine out of WTC7 - but never the less it is real.

Image

I made the same mistake too in my research about pulverizing WTC4 - and even published it in an article
i later had to erase the so called evidence
I was sure that the dust rising from the bottom right corner of the tower was the dust of WTC4 pulverizing
(watch closely few first seconds)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYHPGdIzueA
Later i found a shot from the same location but from further away - which revealed my error:
It was only smoke blowing from a burnt car under the cams shot :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMgirApS3_Q

Do you understand now when I say - that your assertion that "all is fake" is very weak ?
You not only don't have any witnesses to corroborate you idea (In SC you did)
But your footage has easily other explanations (the truth).

So the only solid evidence you have in order to bring to court is SC evidence.

on the other hand there is this: (And i quote)

The most important thing is to bring the proper case to the court. What I could offer as an eye-witness and also partly as a person who have a certain experience with the law system in general:

1) you can use my claims as an eye-witness testimony. I am indeed a former officer of the Special Control Service of the former USSR and I indeed could prove it. In this capacity I could testify that the fact of the WTC nuclear demolition scheme was known to me before 9/11.

2) I could introduce to you more people who will testify before the court by claiming the same thing. Either in regard to the WTC or in regard to the nuclear demolition scheme of the UN building.

3) You can use a variety of pre-9/11 dictionaries compared with post-9/11 dictionaries to prove a fact that there has been a manipulation attempt with 'ground zero' definitions. You can prove also that during first few days 'ground zero' was used in low-case letters and in this capacity it was by no means a Proper Noun, but rather a standard Civil Defense designation.

4) You can bring independent medical experts who will testify before the court that leukemia in adults could only occur because of two main reasons: being subjected to ionizing radiation, or being subjected for extended periods of time to inhaling benzene vapors. Since at 'ground zero' there were no 'benzene vapors' that one could inhale for years, there would be logical to presume that ground zero responders suffer their leukemia on account of ionizing radiation.

5) Independent medical analysis of the victim’s tissues could be brought before the court to confirm the above.

6) Demolition experts could be brought to the court and explain to the court that the way the WTC-1 and -2 collapsed (and especially the WTC-7) had nothing to do with the "planes"

7) Specialists in underground nuclear explosions could be brought before the court and testify to the usual effects of pulverization caused by the pressure of evaporated gases

8) Physicists could be brought to the court to explain that the pulverization of structural steel is impossible unless the steel was subjected to a tremendous pressure that could only be developed by an underground nuclear explosion.

9) eye-witnesses who would testify about the molten metal, and most importantly – about molten rock, as well as about underground cavities;

10) firefighting experts who will testify about the “longest-lasting underground fires” – especially those under the WTC-7;

11) If you want also to touch the no-planes argument (which I think is necessary to complete the case, but some people might thing that touching this subject might devaluate the rest of the claims) you could additionally call the following experts:

- military experts who will explain that armor-piercing shells are traditionally made from solid tungsten or from solid depleted uranium and never from hollow aluminum and confirm that aluminum can not penetrate steel by definition;

- experts in physics who will confirm the same thing as above;

- experts in aviation who will testify that the passenger planes could not fly at their full cruise speeds at the altitude shown;

- pilots who fly commercial aircraft who will confirm the above and also explain that piloting planes in the shown conditions while targeting the Towers is impossible;

- pilots who will explain that the penetration of the Pentagon is impossible and could not have been performed by the plane neither from the point of penetrating capability, nor from the point of the flight trajectory;

- experts in mobile communications who will testify to the court that using cellular phones while aboard the planes is impossible as alleged in the case;

- experts in cinematography who will prove before the court that all videos showing the “planes” are false.

If you make the case properly and do not miss any important detail and none of the expert betrays the cause in the last moment, you will certainly win the case, or, at least, you will put the US Justice in such a shit, that it would never be able to wash its face forever.

http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2011/02 ... clear.html

Further more Regarding Harari - its not only Khalezov verbal testimony
he has Thai court case numbers and photos (the US government did actually go after him, but strangely let him slip away with a bogus identity
http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2011/02/ ... ed-in.html
ron105
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:39 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby simonshack on Sat Feb 26, 2011 2:19 pm

ron105 wrote:1.SC Addendum:
The totally unethical behavior (i don't want to say out right fraud) in SC addendum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhsy2klQzvo


Ron,

So now you accuse me of 'totally unethical behavior"?
That makes me (according to the many epiteths you have slipped into your posts so far) an "idiot hypocritical dick guilty of totally unethical behavior".

Nice.

I've had enough of this crap, "ronisrael". Get lost now - once and for (the benefit of) all.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6677
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Ron - the rude Khalezov fan

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:00 am

I don't think we should entertain these people for as long as we do.

As soon as someone on here is accused of "totally unethical behavior" because we are failing to expose unethical behavior fast enough or well enough, I think we can pretty much conclude they aren't going to be of much use to this research.

I just feel a little bad about banning them outright before they get a chance to make total fools of themselves, I guess. Is that unethical of me? :rolleyes:
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Previous

Return to Truthers and shills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest