THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Critical Mass on March 5th, 2015, 12:32 pm

An interesting tidbit...

Harold Carpenter Hodge
Image

Involved apparently in Human experiments with Uranium...
Hodge's reputation was damaged by the publication of Eileen Welsome's book The Plutonium Files, for which she won a Pulitzer Prize. It documented chilling human experiments in which the subjects did not know they were being tested to find the safety limits of uranium and plutonium. He attended a meeting where the experiments were planned in 1945, and an AEC memo thanks Hodge for his planning and suggestions in the experiment. The US government settled with the victims' families, paying $400,000 per family. Seven victims were injected with material smuggled into a hospital secretly through a tunnel. One unmarried, white 24-year old woman was injected with 584 micrograms of uranium; another 61-year old man was injected with 70 micrograms per kilogram of uranium.[3]:93 Hodge also arranged for Dr. Sweet to inject 11 terminally-ill patients with uranium for their brain tumors; however, these subjects may have known they were being tested.


Promoting Fluoridation of water...
The info below is from an attachment (1946) sent with a formerly secret memo in 1947, clearly showing that the interests involved in downplaying fluoride toxicity and promoting water fluoridation with waste products knew very well about the effects of fluorides upon thyroid hormones, as well as the vast amount of research done on this subject in Germany. This information is from the Atomic Energy Commission, department of Pharmacology & Toxicology - headed by Harold Carpenter Hodge.

Please note that at the same time Hodge was also president of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR -> Journal of Dental Research), promoting fluoride "benefits".


An Atomic bomb witness...

As the BAKER DAY bomb exploded, a column of water was driven skyward in a twinkling, and then the spreading pressure wave with its attendant fog obscured the scene. When the fog evaporated, the water column, one-half mile across, was still ascending. The column of water extended more than two miles in the air, and the top was nearly three miles across-twenty million tons of water.


The same address also shows he was a promoter of world 'peace'...
(6) There is no solution to this problem except the international control of atomic energy and, ultimately, the elimination of war.


He's become a subject of those 'Conspiracy theorists'...
After the war Harold Hodge became the leading figure promoting water fluoridation in the United States and around the world. The fluoridation of public water supplies was the crowning glory of Hodge’s career. However, revelations that Hodge continued to conceal information about fluoride’s central nervous system effects on atomic workers calls into question his character
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: 9/11 MEMORIAL SCAMS, VICSIMS, Etc

Postby Observer on March 8th, 2015, 6:09 pm

Following up on Simon's King Kong vicsim evidence above, led me to the following 2 videos, which seem quite effective in getting mainstream folks open to the reality of vicsims, please forgive me for posting these if you have already seen them:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db_AdG_NSsw


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntpFRJecgkY

PS - I do not know anything about, and thus do not vouch for at all, whoever that "Paulstal Service" creator character is, nor whoever that "Bob Czz" uploader character is.

I only am saying here are 3 effective vicsim evidence points we should always remember to include in our presentations:
#1 the video evidence showing the 4-meter-tall "King Kong" vicsim "live footage"
#2 the video evidence showing the 2-meter-arms "waving arms" vicsims "live footage"
#3 the video evidence showing the faces+names+titles of the CGI animator characters who officially supplied the "live footage"

(We also need to always include the official source links for folks to confirm that these images were indeed officially broadcast)
(BTW - since the Internet Archive version is so compressed, what is the HIGHEST-QUALITY official-source-link for this evidence?)

Plus of course, in addition to links to summary videos, properly footnoted with the highest quality "official source" links available for confirmation, we should always remember to lead our presentation with INSTANT 3-SECOND PROOF - e.g. Whichever top 3 images you personally feel provides instantaneous beyond-a-doubt proof that the "live footage" officially broadcast were impossibly flawed CGI animation forgeries, for example:

Image

Image

Image
Observer
Member
 
Posts: 87
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 1:47 am

Re: 9/11 MEMORIAL SCAMS, VICSIMS, Etc

Postby hoi.polloi on March 8th, 2015, 7:13 pm

The first video you posted is sort of interesting, but it's not really addressing that Jeff Hill is a creepy perp. The second one is vague as hell. It's good that it lets the terrible imagery speak for itself, but we should try to frame what's wrong. I'm sort of concerned that they are the most convincing arguments to your people. Hard to argue with results, I guess?

But please don't dilute our research with "supportive posts" like this that do little more than promote terribly argued or sloppy videos, mixed with your "+1" to them. Thanks for the support, but what does it add to the debate? Your comment maybe belongs in the chat box.

As an example of something far more interesting than your larger theme of "support", how do you calculate "2-meter arms"? Can you post some imagery analysis on that notion?

Your number three point is disappointing because it means you haven't yet done the research on these people and found that some of them may not even be real identities. So using the "CGI expertise" of sims is not quite right. Please use the best available questions and research when helping people understand what precisely is wrong with all the aspects of the official story. We really do not want to make people lazy about doing their own research. It shouldn't end with "Architects and Engineers for TV Fakery" set to dance tunes.

If you need help or would like some suggestions about how to understand the depth of the fakery, I highly suggest re-reading www.septemberclues.info for the basics, and the Vicsim Report for sharpening your ability to look for clues that a personality isn't who or what they appear to purport to be.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby Observer on March 8th, 2015, 10:24 pm

C'mon Hoi, I thought I was clear bro, check again, I'm not vouching for the authenticity of any character at all, note that I even wrote:

I only am saying here are 3 effective vicsim evidence points we should always remember to include in our presentations:
#1 the video evidence showing the 4-meter-tall "King Kong" vicsim "live footage"
#2 the video evidence showing the 2-meter-arms "waving arms" vicsims "live footage"
#3 the video evidence showing the faces+names+titles of the CGI animator characters who officially supplied the "live footage"


I think September Clues 2 will someday be created by you and Simon and Brian, and just as we always should be reminding each other of what the best points to show are, I happen to think #1, #2, and #3 listed above are quite effective POINTS which you guys should show.

I definitely wasn't trying to send people off to start trusting any "Jeff Hill" character or any "Architects" character. C'mon.
If it seemed like I was trying to initiate trust of ANY character/personality, then I WOULD deserve a verbal spanking, sure.

What I was trying to say was that those 3 POINTS above (especially the job titles of the characters who officially supplied the "live footage") should become key Simon-produced summary-images and Simon-produced summary videos.

I think we should be always thinking about WHICH ARE the best summary-images, and WHICH ARE the best summary-video-moments.
Which images SHOULD we show to people now as jpgs, and which video-moments SHOULD we show to people in the future in video form.

To state it even more clearly, of all the newest clues which Simon and you guys have discovered post-SeptemberClues-release, which seconds from the CNN/ABC/NBC/etc. broadcasts SHOULD Simon include in the NEXT version of September Clues, a second version which proves the fake plane images AND the fake building images AND the fake victim images to an even HIGHER degree, to help an even HIGHER percent of people to realize what we want them to realize:

"Wow, I'm not on the fence anymore, those victims coming out of those windows are CGI animations, and those CGI animations WERE broadcast on the major TV news programs, so I no longer will ever blindly put faith in any major TV news programs, or any alternative source either, from now on I am going to use LOGIC to critically find the inconsistencies in EVERY digital image I am presented, for the rest of my life. Thank you for having changed my life for the better with this evidence that I couldn't deny, I will share this undeniable evidence with others, so that they too can realize what I have realized just now. Thanks again."

I'm not at all vouching for the existence of ANY personality/character depicted either in the media or here on the internet.
Anyone who I haven't met face-to-face is possibly (and probably) a fake depiction. And even a face-to-face proves nothing.

Which is why we must only present people with the MOST UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of the 101-minute broadcast forged-images.
Trust no official claims, trust no alternative claims, trust only this: every image which contains a physically impossible depiction is forged.

One should never turn one's logic-processor off, by assuming one can trust any (any) character's claims. (!)
One should always keep one's logic-processor on, by finding and sharing evidence of image-inconsistencies.

Thank you Hoi, for always vigilantly reminding us to fuck the "how" and the "who" and the "why", just concentrate on the WHAT.

So, on that note, here is the evidence of WTF 2-meter-arms, proven by being longer than the flawed depictions of the 2.2 meter windows:

Image

Image

Image

Image

PS - if Simon, or anyone else, is going to produce a summary-image or summary-video showing the arms evidence above, we still need to have the official source link to the archive of the broadcast, a link even better than the Internet Archive link, a link which provides the level of higher-quality (specifically the lines delineating the white 3.52 meter siding) as shown clearly in this summary-image produced by Simon below.

Hey Simon, can you help me figure out what "official like Internet Archive, yet much higher-quality" link should we give folks, as a footnote, so they can independently confirm this high-quality evidence of giant CGI vicsims, coming out of CGI windows, of CGI towers:

Image

Hopefully we can find a footnote link of this same "footage" with similar-quality yet more-officially-trusted-source than this Youtube channel?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83E5w_ZexGQ

I want to show this "King-Kong / Arm-Waving" scene to everyone, with proper footnote HQ official links, because this proves undeniably CGI vicsims. :)
Observer
Member
 
Posts: 87
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 1:47 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby simonshack on March 9th, 2015, 1:05 am

*
Dear Observer,

I have moved the above three posts (including Hoi's) to the Chatbox - as I think your ideas are well worth talking about.

Yes, I share your wish of putting all the best, newer evidence put forward by our Cluesforum efforts subsequently to my September Clues research documentary. Your examples are good - and I can assure you that I have a number of other "Ockham Razor's" in my mind - which I would love to put together in a future, "Definitive September Clues sequel" (not least the evidence of the "WTC-collapse-videoclip-cloning / assembly chain series"). I think that it is essential for people to realize that ALL of the extant WTC collapse imagery is 100% fake / computer-generated.

As for your question: "Where can we find high quality footage of the TV archives of the 9/11 event?" Well, please know that, back in late 2006 / early 2007 or so (as I was in full gear researching for my first, 2007 September Clues movie) the official TV 9/11 archives allowed people to download high-quality MPEG2 video files from their website. They then suddenly disabled this option - before I even managed to / or thought of downloading them all. I can only guess / speculate that this was done because of myself (and a handful few other people) starting to question the veracity of the 9/11 TV broadcasts. Fortunately, I had already downloaded a few of them (covering the most important, early time windows of the 'event') - and I later also downloaded some more high-res MPEG2 files uploaded on servers by other folks. To be sure, these files are clearly exact (higher-quality) copies / versions of what is still up on the official 9/11 TV archives. In fact, in 2008 I decided to remake my entire 2007 September Clues movie replacing all of my lesser-quality videoclips of the 9/11 TV archives with the better MPEG2 versions that I had found. It was bloody hard work, I tell you - but of course, it was a most important thing to do.

Then, as you may know, in 2010 we had the ridiculous story of NIST releasing a large amount of "never-seen-before, HIGH QUALITY images / videos of 9/11" - due to a FOIA act thrown at them ... by none other than ABC TV! :rolleyes:

The latter have also been extensively analyzed on this forum and, as I have often said in various posts over the years, these "Johnny-come-lately HIGH QUALITY 2010 images" have actually helped us expose even more strongly that the entire 9/11 image pool broadcast on TV was nothing but a CGI construct. NOTE: The practice of releasing higher-quality imagery many years after any given psyop is not new: they did the same with the "Apollo Mooooon Landing" farce - when, about twenty years later (around the 1990's), they released NEVER-SEEN-BEFORE-HIGH-QUALITY-IMAGES" of the alleged lunar landing.

In any case, and with hindsight, I think that today ANYONE (no need to be a photo / video expert) can now easily see how nonsensical (and hilariously fake) these 9/11 TV BROADCASTS were. Here we have, for instance (courtesy of the official 9/11 TV archives site) a series of thumbnail images illustrating what was shown on TV that morning (between 9:12am and 9:54am):
NBC_thumbnails_911_01.PNG

https://archive.org/movies/thumbnails.p ... 10912-0954

These absurd orange/ yellow/ purple color schemes (purportedly captured with TOP-range cameras from TV helicopters) cannot be 'explained away' by any serious person. Period. What was shown on TV on 9/11 was, basically, a 'Disney cartoon'.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6524
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby brianv on March 9th, 2015, 1:40 am

simonshack wrote:*
These absurd orange/ yellow/ purple color schemes (purportedly captured with TOP-range cameras from TV helicopters) cannot be 'explained away' by any serious person. Period. What was shown on TV on 9/11 was, basically, a 'Disney cartoon'.


Far far too much credit Simon. These images are from the mind of a lunatic. Mary Poppins will never look bad.

My best guess is, that we were shown a "Dream Sequence" - again from the mind of a lunatic.

A dream sequence is a technique used in storytelling, particularly in television and film


Audio or visual elements, such as distinctive music or coloration


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_sequence
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Observer on March 9th, 2015, 5:02 am

Yes, show the twin horses! And more like that too! :) Maybe start with a summary of the Reuters Beirut smoke copying which was admitted, and then bam: twin horses.

About the 2-meter-arms point, I now remember and re-found the fact that it was originally YOU who posted this video, which was described as having "long arms" and "appropriate soundtrack", and which the thread shows got pulled within 2 months of you posting it Simon, which is what originally inspired me to go looking for it. Here's where you posted it:

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 2#p2381012

And I'm glad I just re-found that thread now, because now I see you also posted on that thread, just a few posts above your "long arms with soundtrack" post, the second "official" place that has the giant clip in the same quality which you have:

"KING KONG MAN" was also featured in the official TV 'documentary' "102 Minutes That Changed America":
- as aired on the History Channel - Simon, http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p2376235


http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_te_1?rh= ... =movies-tv :)

OK, here comes an imaginary conversation between me and my friend, who is currently sitting on the fence:

Me: "Look at this giant on ABC News, this Dude is depicted as being much taller than the 2.2-meter-windows, even taller than the 3.52-meter-delineations of white facade. This is a physically impossible depiction of a 4-meter-human, when you happen to realize those windows are 2.2-meters, and when you admit to yourself that the depiction shows the man to be almost DOUBLE the length of the windows."

Him: "No way, this footage can't be authentic. This video, which is trying to convince me the footage is faked, MUST be itself faked, because you're right, wikipedia admits each window was 2.2-meters, and this guy IS depicted as being twice as tall as the windows, so this SUMMARY video must be itself somehow analyzing a later amateur alteration. These images can NOT be the images shown on that day by ABC News at 1pm. Impossible.

Me: "OK, here's the Internet Archive link. Boom."

Him: "But, but, uhm, jeez. OK, but that doesn't show the details, it's too compressed."

Me: "OK, here's the NIST FOIA version link, of this specific youtube channel, this is enough quality to see the dimensions. Bam."

Him: "But, but, hmmm, well this channel's footage matches Simon's summary, but this channel still isn't 'official' enough, I need mainstream 'official' to confirm this mind-blowing evidence."

Me: "OK, I'm going to tell you where to see the ultimate 'official' source, with the same high quality Simon is showing you, are you ready?"

Him: "Yeah. Let's see it."

Me: "Prepare yourself to enter a world of having to judge each image you see from now on critically using your own brain and your own logic, no more official or alternative gurus to tell you which images are real and which images aren't, from now on YOU are going to have to invest extra energy into THINKING FOR YOURSELF about each frame, and deciding for yourself if the image collection contains even ONE physically impossible depiction. If even one case of forgery exists in the collection, like this 4-meter-man, this means that you no longer will be able to honestly deny the fact that ABC broadcast forged images. Forged images which fooled you into not preventing the murders of those millions of innocent humans who were killed in the middle east over the past 13+ years. Do you promise yourself no more moving the goalposts anymore?"

Him: "Yeah yeah, let's do this."

Me: "Do you admit for all time, that if you see this 4-meter-man depiction in an official DVD, for example the authoritative official DVD produced and sold by The History Channel, in which they show you the same ABC 1pm broadcast in the same high-quality as Simon showed you here in his SeptemberClues 2 video, if you yourself come to the conclusion that ABC broadcast a physically impossible depiction of a 4-meter-man, do you promise yourself to NEVER again buy the forged images which they have repeatedly sold you in the past?"

Him: "Yeah, c'mon, bring it on."

Me: "Do you promise yourself that from now on, regardless of how 'trustable' some source may seem, you'll judge with a highly critical eye every frame whenever you are presented with a new visual story? Do you promise yourself that if the giant forgeries pointed out in Simon's summary video DO indeed appear in the History Channel DVD, you will dedicate the rest of your hopefully long and healthy and happy life to finding and sharing with humanity such evidence of physically impossible depictions?"

Him: "HaHa, yeah bro, I promise, so fire up the DVD."

Me: "Hoho, you gotta' buy that yourself now brother. I'm not paying the History Channel a penny. I already have admitted reality fully to myself and to others. You're the one who still is demanding the ultimate proof. Good. I can't spoon-feed you anymore. I can't push or carry you anymore. Look, if I hand you a DVD, you might still suspect it's 'not official'. So go to Amazon tonight and order directly from the History Channel your official DVD of confirmation. But I'll tell you what, after you buy that DVD yourself, after you confirm this weekend that these forged images really WERE broadcast, you should have the right amount of gratitude send Simon a small token of thanks on Sunday night. And then, from Monday morning, start thinking for yourself and sharing your new discoveries with the good humans you meet in your daily face-to-face interactions, help them see that the images broadcast on 9-11 were proven forged images. The future of our children, and their children, actually depends on how well you and I help this evidence be seen and acknowledged by as many humans as possible. See you next week brother."

(Plot twist: in the end, he probably won't bother buying that official confirmation video, nor sending Simon any token of gratitude, my friend will probably instead choose to go back to sleep, because "the truth hurts too much - I would prefer to NOT have to think, I would prefer to simply choose various sources to be my 'trusted-sources', whether mainstream or alternative, or a combination of the two, and then simply allow my 'trusted sources' to spoon-feed me whatever images they claim as 'real'. I trust the images shown at my 'trusted sources', and so I will continue to assume that theories can logically made, and actions can logically be taken, based on those images, which I'm just gonna' assume are probably real. This whole idea of actually watching videos carefully and looking for physically impossible depictions is just too hard. The implications give me a headache. I'm just gonna' go back to my comfortable, half-way, on-the-fence, delusion that the 9-11 broadcast images were authentic, and that some sort of weird camera perspective effect caused the man to loom so tall out the window. Maybe some hacker hacked into the History Channel's DVD production center. Yeah, that's the answer. Maybe this evidence I saw was all just a dream. All just a dream. Back to sleep. ZZZzzzzzzzzz" ;-)
Observer
Member
 
Posts: 87
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 1:47 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Observer on March 9th, 2015, 7:57 am

Hoi, I hope it's OK if I say, you were totally right when you said what you said. I seriously respect you for being strong about reality.

"So using the "CGI expertise" of sims is not quite right."


Yes, as you so wisely pointed out Hoi, with a well deserved demand for clarification - it is important to express clearly the full extent of one's convictions, to not give the wrong impression to readers of this forum, so I'll clarify completely: there is NO proof of ANY of the "footage-supplier" characters being non-CGI, just as there is NO proof of ANY "footage-supplier calling" character being non-CGI, just as there is NO proof of ANY "9-11 victim" characters being non-CGI, during this 101/102 minute forgery movie being played (although there is a chance that perhaps the person who hit the actual final play button may have suffered a light finger-cramp.)

Yes, obviously, the whole thing from start to finish was a fictional movie to distract the folks outside Manhattan and around the world from the actual plain huge smoke ball completely enveloping and obscuring the real actual standard bottom-down fully-pre-evacuated demolition, thus absolutely no real shots exist: there literally canNOT be any occasional "real" shots fused in to the broadcast movie, none at all, not even composites with partial "live layers" as originally thought by some back in 2007, heh-heh, my how we have grown over the years (while Brian, of course, was born absolutely fully-grown, while the rest of us were still learning to crawl up, we were convinced that an actual helicopter was involved in the nose out mistake, while Brian always said clearly "100% fake.") I'm grateful that you guys discovered and pointed out all of the evidence which helped me to realize, embarrassingly late, but finally completely, the full 100% extent of the CGI animation.

The reality shack soon learned not even one fraction of frame of real shots could possibly be mixed in, because a real boring looking situation of a bunch of smoke, a nice plausible thick thick fog, a London fog really, into which onlookers can't see anything at all... isn't very photogenic AND it would NOT match the volcano top-down CGI at all, so EACH AND EVERY single frame in the 101/102 minutes are all 100% forged in a computer virtual world just like GTA5. I hope I'm satisfying Brian's vigilant watch too by making this every-frame-forged point clear.

So yes Hoi, it is silly for anyone to assume that the perps needed to use any real actors for the "footage-suppliers & footage-supplier-caller" characters. Since the footage was all definitely CGI, the these backstop characters are logically probably all CGI as well.

So, the point I really should have made clear earlier, is this: isn't it ironic, and a sick joke, or perhaps a whistle-blow-attempt, or a desire for a small riot which would create pretext for nationwide martial law, I really don't know WHY the perps chose to have this drama include the easily findable easter egg joke of the "footage-taker" supposedly-real-but probably-CGI characters having ... drumroll please... blatantly CGI stories! :lol:

Doesn't it seem like they are really shooting themselves in the foot with this little jab at the masses' current level of naivete, because those CGI stories, when presented immediately after the best-of Simon summaries, combines nicely I think, to make a mainstream person like my Dad take the first step, which is to acknowledge that modern CGI motion graphic animators in general DO have the ability to create digital depictions. That the technology exists. That CGI creations exist. And that even the supposed "footage-taker" characters being depicted as living lucky news-recorders on 9-11, these characters are concurrently ALSO depicted as suspiciously having background stories of being in the profession of getting paid to create convincing fake digital virtual worlds.

Isn't that part of this fictional movie a strangely extreme limited-hangout that is leaning all the way into the side of openly saying, "Hey you stupid 99.9% we're being quite open about it, with all of these giant mistakes AND the CGI titles, we're punching you in the face and telling you about it, so what's your reaction when you figure this out, what are you gonna' do about it?"

So, even though most of those characters ARE themselves sims, as you guys have proven, a subject which should prominently feature in your guys' next masterpiece, I guess my third point was that you should shine light on both the strange fact the stories attached to the character images presented as supposedly living "footage suppliers" have blatantly CGI-related title claims, AND then get in there and totally destroy the assumption that those images are photos, yep, show ALL of your post-Setember-Clues-1 discoveries about them, and more importantly about the "all victims definitely CGI" and "most folks you even assumed were paid actors, also CGI creations" discoveries. Welcome to GTA20. No big deal. Stop thinking digital avatars are real.

* = Which now that I write this I remind myself: the nose out wasn't a mistake, all of the frames are fake so all of the "mistakes" are actually rotten easter eggs, hoping we'll divisively argue about this egg or that egg, when really we need to unite in the common message of "Every frame of the 101 / 102 minute movie was faked, every frame, that's all we're sure of, thus there is no evidence of, and plenty of evidence proving the impossibility of, any real human beings at all being harmed during the production of this CGI motion graphic movie, nor during the playback process. The demolition experts did their normal job, safely, as normal. We claim nothing more, but remember: we claim nothing less. We are united in the admittance this completely CGI movie killed no-one on 9-11. But humanity foolishly believed this movie for 13+ years, and that allowed millions of humans in the middle east to be killed, and has emboldened the CGI broadcasting perps to repeat this war-starting and tyranny-increasing mass-maniplation through forged-image-broadcasting technique repeatedly, as visually proven here at CluesForum again and again. From the first camera to the present: perps have been officially broadcasting bullshit images."

Humanity had been until now not noticing the forgery evidence. But now, hopefully, people are starting to wake up. Hopefully.

First, seeing visual evidence that modern CGI creations CAN fool you. (!)
Then, seeing visual evidence that you WERE fooled already in the past. (!)
Then, seeing visual evidence of planes/buildings/smoke CGI creations.
Then, seeing visual evidence of ironically blatant CGI-creator stories.
Then, seeing visual evidence of the CGI-creators being CGI creations.
Then, seeing visual evidence of all of the Vicsims being CGI creations.
Then, seeing visual evidence of various other post 9-11 CGI creations.
Then, maybe, just maybe, wars based on forged images will decrease.
To put it in a positive way, hopefully logic, courage and peace will increase. :) Haha, I guess now I'm suddenly feeling positive. :P
Observer
Member
 
Posts: 87
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 1:47 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby hoi.polloi on March 9th, 2015, 8:28 pm

Observer, thanks.

I was hoping not just for graphics but for graphics with diagrams. For example, a simple "compare A to B" like Simon does. If you don't want to do it, it's fine. But I think we do need to explain and prove what we're talking about. Blurry images don't clearly explain much to people glancing.

Doesn't it seem like they are really shooting themselves in the foot with this little jab at the masses' current level of naivete, because those CGI stories, when presented immediately after the best-of Simon summaries, combines nicely I think, to make a mainstream person like my Dad take the first step, which is to acknowledge that modern CGI motion graphic animators in general DO have the ability to create digital depictions. That the technology exists. That CGI creations exist.


People have talked about this a lot. Why did they do it?

I don't think it's for us to decide. We don't need to assign a "motive" to the reason.

You could say it's deliberate if you want. That, to me, seems a bit paranoid. A more likely explanation, in my mind, is that these people are human and make mistakes. The problem of always needing to "lead the opposition" in order to control it and calm it is the primary, main and first reason of any limited hang out. There is almost always also some unsavory character or taint or flavor to the initial forms of the hang out as well, which (as human nature goes) is often sufficient reason for people to not pay attention to something. Then, when decent characters look beyond those deliberately obnoxious traits and begin looking at the evidence meant to be unsavory and find that it's actually a decent point, the deception operators usually have to push the limited hang out even further into the realm of true unknowns and set up the new unsavory fence.

A fence that gives a little jolt but doesn't kill is the fence that keeps the sheep controlled.

Our forums (Reality Shack and CluesForum) have been an exercise in ramming the fences down and keeping them down, snipping the wires, expanding the field of consciousness where it naturally wants to go, constantly forcing them to make their 'limited hang out' act take a more and more extreme form of agreeing with us. Forcing them to keep rebuilding a larger and larger paddock.

Not because they want to "reveal" what's going on as much as we do but because they cannot appear less interested. This is how you end up with the latest cadre of YouTube-ators and Flat Earthists and anonymous socks claiming we are a military front. Nothing inherently wrong with using YouTube, questioning physics models or using a light level of anonymity, but it is the attitude of paranoia and disinterest in real truth, real questions and real science that — for me — is always the dead give away of their game.

No, I don't think it's deliberate. They simply don't have another way of fighting the sheer human interest in the truth. They have to pose as it. And they have to pose as the most accurate and demanding form of it.

Unfortunately, people in general have different tolerance thresholds for other people. Simon and I and everyone else here have habits and ways that turn people off on a superficial level, causing them to 'throw the baby out with the bath water' and refuse to examine evidence. We are not in a powerful fashion industry and our jobs are not to make the truth more appealing. We only mean to make it as obvious and plain as it actually is, without the distractions of those falsely posing as the genuine article.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Selene on March 10th, 2015, 2:37 am

Hi Observer, hoi.polloi,

nothing to add to the real hardcore science now, just a personal thought (as we're in the chatbox anyway ;) ).

My view on those clear (the 4 meter man is so freakingly obvious) errors is that these perpetrators are psychopaths. Psychopaths are a certain kind of people with specific characteristics. One of them is, in my unfortunate yet liberating experience, the key for these "mistakes" that can be so easily debunked, and that is complete and utter arrogance.

The arrogance of power is a famous quote and a characteristic that is very abundant within psychopaths. And "rightly" (not in a moral sense, more based on effect) so; people will swallow it. They will not question, not think straight, not investigate. At all. The acceptance of the arrogance of power is so widespread, it's a disease.

Also one of the reasons people ridicule and mock everyone who thinks differently (exposing the fakery and hold that view despite all the attacks people without arguments or scientific fact-based thinking will throw at us). It's actually a comforting (yet bad) realisation; most people are not used to dealing with psychopaths. It simply does not happen in their everyday lives (good!). Or it does and they fail to recognize that it happens (bad!).

Psychopaths concentrate in powers because that's what they live for and feed on. No Reptilian shite or anything like that, but yes, those people are different. No moral, no shame, no sense of regret, a mere hunger for power, compulsive lying, enjoying manipulating others, etc. For a closer chat about it, please send me a private message.

It is a very pervasive way of thinking for most of "us" (I mean the normal regular people) that those people "only exist in movies".

That's far from the truth as all of you know better than me being a junior in the rabbit hole of fakery, just starting to lift the curtains of smoke and deceit, but having personal experiences with psychopath behaviour, one recognizes their methods and ways of manipulation.

In short: I don't think there are so many "deliberate" actions in the obvious errors, rather I see those "deliberate" errors as confirmation bias from moral people (like you, Observer). We hope they put in those errors to expose the fakery, because we are moral and fail to recognize those perverts as simply completely immoral and dangerous. That failure is nothing morally bad, on the contrary, it shows we do have this hope and (still) regard other people (even when perpetrating the sickest of scams) as (somehow) moral.

By the way, I do recognize the hesitations and doubts in looking for "the why" very well, and need to move those feelings to the back of my thoughts. When it's already so hard to see and understand the "what", the "why" becomes even more difficult to get a hinge on. We simply lack the bird-eye view on the (exact) motives. I recognized this error in my own thinking with the comment I posted here on Cluesforum on the Taipei crash; I immediately went into this "why the heck would they do that?-mode" which dilutes the clear view on the far more important what. Fortunately I had a good personal discussion with Simon about it and understand my own flaws in this much better; learning every day.

Selene

Power confuses itself with virtue and tends also to take itself for omnipotence
James William Fulbright (The Arrogance of Power, 1966)
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Observer on March 10th, 2015, 9:04 am

The entire movie was fake.

"The entire movie was fake" actual means: just like the virtual "city" simulation software we all have seen in its most famous current toy-form (GTA V), the "still-camera shots" & "moving-video shots" are merely depicted as "taken" from various "locations" within that virtual "city", with various animated "happenings" depicted as "occurring" within this virtual "city" simulation.

Although it was never your intent Simon, I somehow got spun off for years into thinking, and telling people, incorrectly, that the movie makers "messed-up in a major way, when their live-shot-helicopter moved at the critical moment, a little too far left of center, and THAT physical mistake is what caused the image-depicting-a-plane to accidentally move past the line it was masked to be stopped at. The producers overseeing this real-time-combination of images-being-layered-over-real-live-footage noticed the nose-out mistake and quickly pressed the fade-to-black-button, but it was too late, their alignment mistake was not blacked-out in time. Thank you Universe, for the physical-wind, which pushed the physical-helicopter, which caused the live footage of the physical-building to be recorded a little too far LEFT of center. Thus, the perpetrators were caught combining fake-plane-images with REAL building footage." (For clarity, my old thoughts in quotes there are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, because: the entire movie was fake. No live footage is included in the movie. No layers of live footage is included in the movie. Not even one pixel of live footage is included in the movie.)

This mistaken assumption in quotes above,which I carried around mentally and distributed to others for years, that the fake-plane-image "was combined, in real-time, with live footage" is what led me to the logically-connected false assumptions that "the perps killed real people who were in that tower, as shown in the real footage" (WRONG, there is no real footage) and "since the real footage shows steel turning to dust, then a technology must have been used that day which turns steel to dust." (WRONG, there is no real footage.)

And thus, I wasted years talking about how "DEW is the new, ultimate, pinpoint-destruction-technology, more-precise-and-cleaner-than-nukes, and the perps used it on 9-11 to send a message to all world leaders: we have this new weaponry technology called DEW, it vibrates steel to molecular-disassociation, meaning it turns steel to dust, we have the balls to use it, even against our own citizens. We now own the biggest stick. Do whatever we demand from now on." (WRONG, there is no DEW, and there are no nukes.)

So, the "nose-out" evidence unfortunately spun me off for years into falsely assuming that some of the movie contained live footage. Thank goodness I happened to come back to see the current level of understanding here at CluesForum, which instantly killed-for-good all three of my old false assumptions: the false assumption of the existence of real 9-11 footage, the false assumption of the existence of real 911 victims, and the false assumption of the existence of a real 9-11 weapon.

The entire movie was fake.

All of us here admit the movie was fake.

But we still currently have differing opinions about the CGI "mistakes" in the movie.

Having a detailed simulation of New York in your software, then suddenly getting the human-to-window proportion absurdly wrong. Dangerously wrong. So undeniably wrong that it could start a riot, if pointed out to 100,000 city residents at once. That was accidental?

Having a detailed simulation of New York in your software, software which is intelligent enough to put the North sides of the towers in the shade most of the time, but then, when setting the virtual "camera" in a different virtual "location" for a different virtual "cameraman", the artist choosing all of these virtual "locations" suddenly decides to take the extra steps of going in and changing the "sun-light-source virtual location setting" which resulted in us being able to clearly point to a huge conflict: "footage" of north-face correctly-depicted as-shaded, conflicting with "footage" of north-face-incorrectly-depicted as-brightly-lit. That was accidental?

I'm starting to think that the perps put all of these "mistakes" in on purpose.

GTAV software doesn't suddenly FORGET where the essential-for-shadows "sun-light-source virtual location setting" is.

Shadow "mistakes" take actual energy to create, going in making clicks/commands which basically say, "Put the sun in the wrong location now."

But I don't want to cause an argument about whether the "mistakes" were actually mistakes, or whether they were put in on purpose.

Let's now walk beyond that divisive question, into the ultimate discussion which the perpetrators don't want us to discuss:

How SHALL we revolt?

Shall we revolt the way they seem to be baiting us to do: showing people they have been deceived, then someone giving a powerful speech which rallies a million people or even 100 million people to march together and physically crush, through the power of numbers, right through the white house guard system, taking control of the symbolic white house, physically ousting all of the officials hiding within, and then alerting through a live internet broadcast to the rest of the humans around the world that millions of humans were killed during the past 13+ years all because a fictional digital movie was broadcast and here, dear world citizens, here is the proof! Now all humans, now, immediately, do just as we have successfully done here. Yes, when our million person group smashed through the guards, a few of us were killed, but the power of millions allowed the rest of us to successfully accomplish this revolution, and now the previous guards (soldiers, mercenaries, whatever) can plainly see that see that even though they hold better weapons than us, the fact that there are millions (actually billions) of us and only thousands of them, made most of those guards instantly decide to put down their weapons and join us, the 7 billion strong team of humans physically taking, no longer verbally asking, physically taking back control.

That sounds beautiful, in my mind fantasy of power of the people, but is this exactly what the perps are hoping we will do?

Because this could create pretext for nationwide (or worldwide) martial law, all American residents (or even all world residents) becoming locked-down in a prison slavery factory.

So what IS a better way to revolt? How should an actual revolution (perhaps the first actual revolution EVER) be done?

Seriously, I'm all ears, I hope you guys have some good ideas.

Imagine if SeptemberClues2 goes viral enough to actually wake up the majority of humans to the 9-11 fakery.

Imagine billions of people rationally-enraged enough by this evidence, to walk together in million-person teams.

Where SHOULD a million-person revolutionary team go, and what SHOULD a million-person revolutionary team do?


I don't have the answers to those questions yet, and perhaps there are better questions to ask, so please share YOUR questions and answers below.


I'm simply saying, if millions of humans suddenly DO wake up to the 9-11 fakery (fakery which led to the deaths of millions of humans in subsequent wars), what SHOULD these millions of living awakened humans do next?
Observer
Member
 
Posts: 87
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 1:47 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Observer on March 10th, 2015, 9:14 am

Perhaps we can create a way to allow ALL human residents, including the world's most power-holding-perps, to have a worldwide simultaneous DMT trip? ;)
Observer
Member
 
Posts: 87
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 1:47 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby hoi.polloi on March 10th, 2015, 5:50 pm

"messed-up in a major way, when their live-shot-helicopter moved at the critical moment, a little too far left of center, and THAT physical mistake is what caused the image-depicting-a-plane to accidentally move past the line it was masked to be stopped at. The producers overseeing this real-time-combination of images-being-layered-over-real-live-footage noticed the nose-out mistake and quickly pressed the fade-to-black-button, but it was too late, their alignment mistake was not blacked-out in time. Thank you Universe, for the physical-wind, which pushed the physical-helicopter, which caused the live footage of the physical-building to be recorded a little too far LEFT of center. Thus, the perpetrators were caught combining fake-plane-images with REAL building footage."


Are you so certain this is incorrect, given the helicopter and building were simulated?

We don't actually know what caused the mistakes, so it's errant to assume they are deliberate.

We can see that what they were apparently trying to do (before you guessed it is all completely deliberate) is combine some level of loose simulation physics with some kind of video editing software.

I mean, if you had a virtual helicopter program failing to align with something else, and there was a miscommunication within the fakery team, there are so many ways that could cascade into big problems, such as the infamous "nose out" issue. And if, as FOX's later cover up of the "nose out" shot using stitched-together pieces of other channels indicates, they were perhaps a bit embarrassed by this obvious mistake. Are you suggesting they covered up the "nose out" shot to give Simon false credence? I think you give the perps way too much credit.

The fact of "fuck ups" remains, continually, and it is not an unimportant point that you suggest it is deliberate.

I have often deliberated on this with others convinced of foul play (to put it lightly) in the so-called media "coverage" and pondered what exactly we are all prompted to do versus what we feel like doing.

Most people feel like doing nothing. So again, are you so certain a revolution is what they desire? You are still trying to assume motives for the fakery besides what has been accomplished by the fakery: war, security, taxes, nigh draconian laws, enslavement.

If the dismantling of those injustices, one way or another, is what we are prompted to do by the fakery — and those actions taken on by the greater part of an influential group of "average people" happens to align with what we are "supposed" to do according to some insane authority — all we can really conclude is that insane authority doesn't really want to serve as an authority any longer. And good riddance. Let's get rid of them, then.

I am not so sure a program to drug the populace even more than the present powers do would do as much as actually removing the clowns from power.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Observer on March 10th, 2015, 10:36 pm

On one hand, it would be incorrect to assume "The current-power-holders are omnipotent and omniscient, they are super smart, they never make stupid mistakes, any mistakes they make in their psyops are on purpose." I see you often wisely warning readers against making that false assumption.

On the other hand, since this particular psyop was a merely a TOTALLY PRE-PREPARED 101-minute digital MOVIE (a movie to distract from the totally normal everyday controlled demolition) things in this digital motion graphics virtual world (like size-proportion-depiction, sun-location-depiction, etc.) are MUCH easier for the control-freaks to control.

That's why they love this digital fakery medium, because it allows for much more control, compared to the old style of non-digital operations. The old style of live, uncontrollable, physical operations, are comparatively too risky. It is much safer to simply prepare a digital image animation in advance, watch it many (many, many) times, refine it until it is ready, and then simply hit the play button (that's one button press.)

About the whole "they were creating this movie live, and that's why they made the nose-out error", I thought Brian had brought everyone up to speed already. C'mon brother, 100% fake = 100% absolutely pre-prepared in advance = 100% repeatedly watched in advance to make sure this movie is what they paid for, and after all of those repeated viewings and refinements, THIS movie is what they chose to broadcast.

Let's not back-slide into thinking like we did back in 2007: that "LIVE editors" "were combining layers in real-time" "then suddenly noticed a live-created-mistake during broadcast" "then desperately tried to live-hide-it by pressing the fade-to-black button" "and later during this movie they even had to suddenly throw up banners to cover this shocking mistake."

Saying the nose-out was accidental would imply "The current-power-holders are SO stupid that they DIDN'T WATCH their own 101-minute digital movie a few times before broadcasting it (what?!) and thus they were somehow SURPRISED during the broadcast by that particular moment of their pre-prepared movie."

Yes, I AM saying that the nose-out problem, which back in 2007 we thought they "suddenly" noticed during broadcast, MUST have been noticed during the pre-broadcast viewings, in which the patrons paying for this digital movie of course watched the whole thing, gave demands, watched again in slow motion, refined further, again and again, over months and years, just like any decent movie creators.

viewtopic.php?p=2382508#p2382508 - Thank you Brian.

Now brother Hoi, I respect you as being quite revolutionary, close to the level of myself, so allow me to clarify this misunderstanding:

Yes, the motives for the fakery ARE exactly what has been accomplished by the fakery: war, security, taxes, nigh draconian laws, enslavement. Yes, they do NOT want a successful revolution.

What I am saying is: they DO seem to want a weak little UNSUCCESSFUL revolution to be ATTEMPTED, which they will paint in their mainstream media propaganda outlets (and even their alternative media propaganda outlets) as "acts of terrorism" or "acts of war", so that they can RESPOND (problem-reaction-solution style) (with the media-influenced-sheep then stupidly DEMANDING for some authority like NATO to come "put a stop to" this weak little UNSUCCESSFUL revolution attempt in America) and thus, a weak little UNSUCCESSFUL revolution attempt would allow the world's-worst-humans to then easily achieve their ultimate goal of implementing their pre-written worldwide-martial-law plan, which means they finally would be able to ratchet up to an even-worse-than-today level of: war, security, taxes, nigh draconian laws, enslavement.

So, revolutionary brother, let's choose to NOT fall into their trap of arguing about the details of whether the movie was created partially in advance or completely in advance, whether the physical impossibilities were left in the movie by mistake or on purpose, whether they don't want people to notice the fakery or they do want people to notice the fakery, whether they don't want a weak little unsuccessful revolution to be attempted or they do want a weak little unsuccessful revolution to be attempted so they can respond with their final fantasy of total worldwide lockdown of humanity.

Let's choose to unite, and gain strength in uniting, by talking about the most important point we agree on: we need a strong SUCCESSFUL revolution.

We, being the 7 billion humans who currently are forced to fight each other daily over how to fairly share the meager 0.01% of the worlds resources, since a few humans somehow stole 99.99% from us.

They, being the few humans who somehow stole 99.99% of the world's resource from us, and who thus deserve death sentences, life imprisonment, or at the very least shunning and exile.

My joke about creating a worldwide simultaneous DMT trip is getting at this: WE (the 7 billion rent-paying-slaves eager for a successful revolution) don't know where THEY (the current-world-owning few humans who hope we attempt an UNSUCCESSFUL revolution) actually lay their heads to rest at night, so how can we actually storm-their-gates?

The current-world-owning humans are FAR wealthier than their lowly henchmen who appear on the Forbes list of "wealthiest" humans. So even if you or I can someday inspire, through videos, songs, and speeches, a few million humans (or even 7 billion humans) to suddenly take action, what action shall we encourage his group to take?

How do we FIND these few current-world-owning humans who somehow stole 99.99% from us? Do we grab the top 100 from the Forbes list and torture them into telling us who the secret patrons whom the Forbes Top 100 henchmen actually work for are? And then do we grab those secret patrons and repeat the process on them?

Probably there will come a point, after this process of torturing billionaires to reveal their trillionaire bosses, and then torturing those newly revealed trillionaires to reveal their quadrillionaire bosses, eventually we'll reach the layer where the quadrillionaires will honestly answer, "I don't KNOW who is above me, goldbars get placed into my vaults seemingly by magic, together with the daily orders. I don't know WHO the quintillionaires paying me actually are, nor who the sextillionaires paying them actually are. So you can go ahead and kill me now, but know this: the people who have been paying me never reveal themselves, so after you kill me they are just going to find new trillionaires to bribe. Don't you get it? No matter how wealthy I appear to you, the anonymous people above me own 99.99% of the earth, whatever resources you buy, they sold you that. How are you going to grab the earth back from them if you can't even find them?"

Which is why, one joking idea is to simply (haha, "simply", haha) take 350,000 kilos of pure DMT (no big deal, right) and dose the entire world at once (um, entirely simultaneously, somehow, top secret method, heh-heh.) Water, air, everywhere. Dose em' all, let the Universe sort out the consciousness improvement of humanity, all at once, everyone, thus hopefully reaching even those bad guys who we can't seem to identify or locate.

(And if you think DMT is some normal "dumbing down drug" that DOESN'T cause consciousness improvement, then you haven't ever consciously done DMT yet, although you have unconsciously done it over around 10,000 times already, DMT is the endogenously-produced-molecule which you unconsciously enjoy trips of every single night, we call those trips dreams. Having a DMT trip while awake is a life-changing-experience for the better for every human, because for 7 minutes it allows your own conscience to become heard internally extremely clearly, that's why DMT is the world's most powerful endogenously-produced-entheogen, I hope EVERY human gets the chance to try it consciously someday. Especially those who MOST need consciousness improvement.)

But seriously, we all agree we want to inspire a strong successful revolution.

The most revolutionary collection of humans currently alive read and post here.

So, let's brainstorm about how the world's FIRST SUCCESSFUL REVOLUTION shall be done.

How SHALL we (the 7 billion slaves) grab back the Earth (all of its resources) from them (the current-world-owners)?

Again, let's now walk beyond divisive questions, into the ultimate discussion which the perpetrators don't want us to discuss:

How SHALL we revolt?
Observer
Member
 
Posts: 87
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 1:47 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby hoi.polloi on March 11th, 2015, 2:05 am

We can set aside the question of how for a moment and attempt to get our facts straight. Let us. There is no urgency to revolt outside of the plan of any community (who understands the fakery) to make its own decisions on how.

I still assert that drugging the population is an immoral act, I refuse to even be associated with such a plot, and frankly I would be tempted to call the police on you if I knew you were up to this and you were a member of my community — for being as corrupted in your thinking as the mass media people who think it's "okay" to drug the world populace with fantastically awful TV bullshit calling itself news. You claim your drug is better. Whatever. You just don't do shit to people without their consent.

Let's get back to this point.

About the whole "they were creating this movie live, and that's why they made the nose-out error", I thought Brian had brought everyone up to speed already. C'mon brother, 100% fake = 100% absolutely pre-prepared in advance = 100% repeatedly watched in advance to make sure this movie is what they paid for, and after all of those repeated viewings and refinements, THIS movie is what they chose to broadcast.

Let's not back-slide into thinking like we did back in 2007: that "LIVE editors" "were combining layers in real-time" "then suddenly noticed a live-created-mistake during broadcast" "then desperately tried to live-hide-it by pressing the fade-to-black button" "and later during this movie they even had to suddenly throw up banners to cover this shocking mistake."

Saying the nose-out was accidental would imply "The current-power-holders are SO stupid that they DIDN'T WATCH their own 101-minute digital movie a few times before broadcasting it (what?!) and thus they were somehow SURPRISED during the broadcast by that particular moment of their pre-prepared movie."


You have no idea how stupid or arrogant they really are. You have no idea how the movie was created. End of story, mate. You may want to bless and sanctify the perps with "great intelligence" even though these are the same kinds of people whom you wouldn't trust with any sort of position of power. But you claim it's ridiculous to assume they can make a goofy mistake, which is what they have done over and over. (Don't get into semantics with me now and tell me nobody makes a "mistake" because everything is fated, if you please, if that's what you were implying!)

Pre-prepared in advance has nothing to do with quality assurance. You are basically implying that if I see the glowing cigarette butt of a fake, electronic cigarette in the back of the magician's pocket, he meant for me to see that rather than simply being lazy about balancing a much more complex and large operation of deception upon the larger audience. You are implying that the continuity errors, plot holes, and general clumsiness of a lie, which escapes the lie's intended audience, must be there for a reason other than the old Lincolnism that you can't fool all the people all the time.

You are in the 'incredulous' stage of your awakening. We have encountered this oodles of times. You can now count yourself among those hundreds insisting, "but if it were manufactured they would have done a better job!"

Nope.

You give them far too much credit. This point is something you should understand. No matter how many times a movie is screened for an audience, they have to choose an audience to screen it for. They have to choose major points to screen it for with that select audience. And that is even assuming it is precisely done as you claim to know. What was screened in advance, if anything? To whom, if anyone? Can we know? Can it all have been the same? Is it likely it was all the same for a single audience with its own autonomy?

As Simon has repeated over and over, we simply do not know how it was done. We do not know what they meant to do (aside from pass the Patriot Act and invade more countries and pacify the populace with "anti-terrorism" security measures — most of which they have accomplished, but not without public resistance). Therefore, we cannot know which mistakes of theirs are easier or more difficult to make in the final broadcast. We do not know what combination of software and hardware they were using, which was kept secretive, which had fewer screeners or permitted fewer Q&A staff. All we can be certain of is that New York City and the Pentagon were simulated as such rather than the real thing being shown that day, it was done in a clandestine manner and there has not yet been any clear whistle-blower, which means they selected their fellow perps more successfully for being on point rather than for being of any particular scientific intelligence.

You are misinterpreting the realization of the secretive plot of 9/11 and calling it obsolete when it is you who are promoting your own specific concept of how it was achieved because you are describing how you yourself would have accomplished the task better.

Maybe Simon is right and all of us could have actually produced something more "realistic". But would it have been us willing to do it? Able to keep a secret buried in our social lives? I doubt it.

If so, and I'm right about your assumptions (as you seem to be taking a pleasure in having), then you can't even wrap your mind around the concept of a mixed media, military program (meaning a combination of software and human management) of some kind to ultimately produce the final broadcast that went out. You seem to think that "like a Hollywood movie" literally means it is as if it were made in Hollywood and released by totally conventional means.

No. They used some kind of buggy software for sure. They used digital means of finalizing the videos. The plan alone was made long in advance and known to a select group, few in number. But the execution is a mystery. And this program of operation was ultimately completed with some Hollywood "razzle dazzle" and posturing and possibly some similar software in the plot. That is what is meant by Hollywood-style movie. In truth, we should dispense with the term "Hollywood" and admit 9/11, along with its tendril stories, is an ongoing military Psychological Operation.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests