London 2012 Olympics

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
whatsgoingon
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:56 pm

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by whatsgoingon » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:50 am

fbenario wrote:
whatsgoingon wrote:I imagine the configuration is the default way to draw a clock or picture it for marketing purposes.
"Why" they use that default position is the obvious - and only - research question on this issue; yet you didn't bother doing it. Think the answer might be out there? Merely a lack of time on your part?

It won't take you long to find the answer.
Good call. I was lazy/out of time to post, but intuitively correct. :P

But your pun is good. "lack of time"

http://www.ubr.com/clocks/frequently-as ... tions.aspx
CLOCKS and TIME: FAQ: 10:10 Hand Positions

FAQ: Why are Clock Hands Pictured at 10:10?
Question
Why do clocks and watches in advertisements and illustrations often have their hands set at 10 minutes after 10?

Aesthetics
I personally think that the 10:10 position (sometimes 10:12 or 10:08) was adopted for pictures of clocks and watches because it is symmetric and looks better. Today the symmetric positions are both aesthetic and customary. Other symmetric hand positions are also used, but not as frequently. Examples include 8:20, 8:18, and 2:50. Reviewing some Seth Thomas clock catalog illustrations, I see a gradually increasing symmetry of the hands as the catalogs progress from 1878 to 1940.

"We always put hands to 10.10 here and in other collections I'm responsible for. The answer is probably quite simply that it looks better, aesthetically and practically, as the clock has a 'smile' on its face (not just a marketing gimmick, it really does look better than a 'down turned mouth' at 8.20) and, as others have said, because it keeps the hands clear of signatures and other subsidiary dials. I note that not every firm uses that position in their marketing though. Synchronome, for example, appear to depict their dials at 3.00." - Jonathan Betts

"The opinions I've read tend toward 'framing' the maker's name on the clock face. Viz: when the logo is placed above the center, the hands are at 10:10 but when the logo is below the center, the hands are shown at 8:20 framing the maker's name. Wristwatch advertising follows this trend." - Les Lesovsky

"Thomas A. Frank wrote: '...most manufacturers trademarks are just above the center pipe, and having the hands at 10:10 causes your eye to naturally follow to the trough, thus bringing your view right to the trademark....' and often the Model name is centered under the center pipe, ruling out any hand more or less straight down (between 5 and 7). Date windows most often are at 9 or 3, and subsidiary seconds usually at 6. For aesthetic reasons you want the two hands neither nearly covering each other nor nearly in a straight line. By default the 10h10 looks pretty good." - Fortunat Mueller-Maerki

"Smile" Theory
It has been suggested that the 10:10 position is used because it resembles a smile.

"I too have heard the 'smile' theory, which makes some sense from the emotional marketing perspective. Equally likely is the fact that most manufacturer's trademarks are just above the center pipe, and having the hands at 10:10 causes your eye to naturally follow to the trough, thus bringing your view right to the trademark." - Tom Frank

Time of Abraham Lincoln's Death
U.S. President Abraham Lincoln died at 7:22 a.m. on April 15, 1865, although he was shot at 10:15 p.m. on April 14, 1865. Although this has been suggested, I doubt that the position of the hands commemorates the time of Lincoln's assassination or death.

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

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by reel.deal » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:42 pm

Maat wrote:Well, I watched some parts of the unimpressive Olympics opening and got bored, but I was really appalled that they
used British military personnel to raise the Olympic flag — I'd not seen that done before and it just looked so off ! <_<
Even worse than McCartney's "singing", which was bloody dreadful :rolleyes:
damn straight! what a steaming pile of dog dirt. Beijing - amazing, Sydney - awesome, London - bombed out. :wacko:
crappy indie band doing a 6 yr old song & a beatles cover, & i cant even bring myself to watch ol' duffer
Macca's 'turn'... even Athens showed some real class & taste with their choice of musical artist...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM7q7_5aztU

Image

:mellow:

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by Maat » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:32 am

reel.deal wrote: damn straight! what a steaming pile of dog dirt. Beijing - amazing, Sydney - awesome, London - bombed out. :wacko:
crappy indie band doing a 6 yr old song & a beatles cover, & i cant even bring myself to watch ol' duffer
Macca's 'turn'... even Athens showed some real class & taste with their choice of musical artist...
Image
reel.deal wrote:Image
Image

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by Maat » Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:24 pm

Nice job, Fredb & Whatsgoin', following through on that research hint! :D

Image
daozen wrote:
daozen wrote:I'm aware of all the media fakery going on, but I don't think it is "perfectly clear" when it comes to the who's and why's... If anything happens I will immediately think about media fakery, and the evidence for that will probably shower over this lovely forum :) However I'm not sure about the people behind it. Nothing can be proven 100% and I see facts in terms of how probable/improbable something is. I'm also aware of cultural memes, read a couple books on the matter a few years back, however I don't think this explains off all of these coincidences. I think these psyops are pre-programed within mass media, like you say, but I'm not sure about the people behind it. Why add the extra illuminati stuff, why go to so much work, when people will swallow the psyop without it...?
Maat wrote:Perhaps I didn't explain it as well as I thought, but the 'who was inspired by whom, what & why', referred to the perps' evident use of already existing cultural memes from prior art etc. for 9/11 imagery to their fullest psychological advantage that becomes perfectly clear — and not 'coincidence'. i.e. By incorporating red herrings and conspiracy bait for every known prejudice, presumption and belief, they effectively established a self-perpetuating merry-go-round of honey-pot hangouts to keep all government disbelievers marginalized and chasing phantoms for years to come. We can see the disturbing result of that strategy by so many still apparently unaware of the deeper psyop (trojan) they are perpetuating, even among those ostensibly awake to media fakery.
The point is the perps didn't have to go to "much work" at all, when they could simply borrow familiar contemporary elements to target minorities they knew would not swallow the overt psyop hoax so easily and needed to divert, control and ultimately discredit them [us] by association.
Ok, thanks for explaining. Well, the thing is this explanation is still in hypothesis/supposition territory isnt it? It makes perfect sense to me, but it's not quite like the pixelated evidence we get from those CGI planes on 9/11 video archives. It could easily be what you say it is, controlled opposition, fueling the already laid-out neural pathways of anti-government minorities but how do you know this isn't a trojan horse inside of a bigger more subtle trojan horse. How can one be absolutely sure about one side or the other when there's no evidence for either of them? or is there?
Ah, but hypotheses drawn from known, verifiable facts and deductive logic/reasoning are not the same as irrational speculations based on myths, disinformation and superstition, are they; i.e. by using the law of parsimony, aka Occam's razor, "to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions." ;)

We have consistently and conclusively proven 9/11 imagery to be deliberately faked and therefore the premeditated intent and purpose was confirmed (war, profit, power, control), the psychological effects of which obviously being the most critical to its success. Since the films were clearly made by computer 'artist'/hacks, their digital creations would necessarily be drawn from and designed to 'fit' familiar images/associations, cultural expectations and appeal to popular imagination.

This is testable, as in can be verified by visual comparison. For example, 'pyroclastic flow' dust clouds (volcanic eruptions), running crowds (disaster movie scenes), unrealistic explosions/cartoon crashes and physics-defying building 'collapses' (pyrotechnic movie FX, "Independence Day") etc.

The conspiracy memes of "prediction" and fantastic "illuminati" omniscience were incited and propogated by those who promote the 9/11 footage and images as real; so because their hypotheses are based on false premises their conclusions cannot be correct.

Which is the more logical hypothesis:

a) The perps derived and referenced pre-existing imagery in movies, conspiracy history, fiction, games etc. to create the hoax images; or that,

b) 'They' have somehow orchestrated and controlled every individual creative artist, author, movie script etc. since the 70s to specifically program and 'warn' everyone about their psyop plans for 2001 on?

Image

daozen
Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:12 pm

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by daozen » Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:44 pm

Maat wrote:
daozen wrote:
daozen wrote:I'm aware of all the media fakery going on, but I don't think it is "perfectly clear" when it comes to the who's and why's... If anything happens I will immediately think about media fakery, and the evidence for that will probably shower over this lovely forum :) However I'm not sure about the people behind it. Nothing can be proven 100% and I see facts in terms of how probable/improbable something is. I'm also aware of cultural memes, read a couple books on the matter a few years back, however I don't think this explains off all of these coincidences. I think these psyops are pre-programed within mass media, like you say, but I'm not sure about the people behind it. Why add the extra illuminati stuff, why go to so much work, when people will swallow the psyop without it...?
Maat wrote:Perhaps I didn't explain it as well as I thought, but the 'who was inspired by whom, what & why', referred to the perps' evident use of already existing cultural memes from prior art etc. for 9/11 imagery to their fullest psychological advantage that becomes perfectly clear — and not 'coincidence'. i.e. By incorporating red herrings and conspiracy bait for every known prejudice, presumption and belief, they effectively established a self-perpetuating merry-go-round of honey-pot hangouts to keep all government disbelievers marginalized and chasing phantoms for years to come. We can see the disturbing result of that strategy by so many still apparently unaware of the deeper psyop (trojan) they are perpetuating, even among those ostensibly awake to media fakery.
The point is the perps didn't have to go to "much work" at all, when they could simply borrow familiar contemporary elements to target minorities they knew would not swallow the overt psyop hoax so easily and needed to divert, control and ultimately discredit them [us] by association.
Ok, thanks for explaining. Well, the thing is this explanation is still in hypothesis/supposition territory isnt it? It makes perfect sense to me, but it's not quite like the pixelated evidence we get from those CGI planes on 9/11 video archives. It could easily be what you say it is, controlled opposition, fueling the already laid-out neural pathways of anti-government minorities but how do you know this isn't a trojan horse inside of a bigger more subtle trojan horse. How can one be absolutely sure about one side or the other when there's no evidence for either of them? or is there?
The conspiracy memes of "prediction" and fantastic "illuminati" omniscience were incited and propogated by those who promote the 9/11 footage and images as real; so because their hypotheses are based on false premises their conclusions cannot be correct.
Well, I don't go as far as to construct prediction or omniscience, I'm just trying to figure the reasons for the injection of these illuminati symbols. What hypothesis and conclusions are you refering to?
Which is the more logical hypothesis:

a) The perps derived and referenced pre-existing imagery in movies, conspiracy history, fiction, games etc. to create the hoax images; or that,

b) 'They' have somehow orchestrated and controlled every individual creative artist, author, movie script etc. since the 70s to specifically program and 'warn' everyone about their psyop plans for 2001 on?

Image
Why do you say every creative artist? and I don't assume if they would exist they are "warning", there's many reasons why they could be putting up all the symbology.

...but again, I'm not trying to promote any side, even within my own mind, and even though I want to agree with you, I'm having a hard time blocking out any possibility when there's so little evidence. I mean, if you where to ask most people what is a more logical hypothesis (and I'm sure you've runned into this one)...

a) that some planes crashed into a building so they fell down, and the news networks just captured/reported that.

or b)that cgi planes where synchronized with us made missiles, pre-planned fake news coverage, that the buildings where empty for years before the event and that the people who supposedly died in there don't even exist, where also computer created, and hundred of actors where hired to make people believe thousands died, that all of the amateur footage of the event was digitally altered and that the whole of manhattan was emtied out and probably bombed with a magnetic disabiling bomb, etc....

It's not until we go the the evidence that we can see the truth.

reading on into wiki's occams razor might help express my point:

The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one." In practice, the application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor asserts that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers point out also that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

Controversial aspects of the razor

Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may.[c]
The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory.[d] Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one. It is this fact which gives the lie to the common misinterpretation of Occam's razor that "the simplest" one is usually the correct one.
For instance, classical physics is simpler than more recent theories; nonetheless it should not be preferred over them, because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects.
Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence.[e] Furthermore, it may be used to prioritize empirical testing between two equally plausible but unequally testable hypotheses; thereby minimizing costs and wastes while increasing chances of falsification of the simpler-to-test hypothesis.
Another contentious aspect of the razor is that a theory can become more complex in terms of its structure (or syntax), while its ontology (or semantics) becomes simpler, or vice versa.[f] Quine, in a discussion on definition, referred to these two perspectives as "economy of practical expression" and "economy in grammar and vocabulary", respectively.[57] The theory of relativity is often given as an example of the proliferation of complex words to describe a simple concept.
Galileo Galilei lampooned the misuse of Occam's razor in his Dialogue. The principle is represented in the dialogue by Simplicio. The telling point that Galileo presented ironically was that if you really wanted to start from a small number of entities, you could always consider the letters of the alphabet as the fundamental entities, since you could certainly construct the whole of human knowledge out of them.

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by Maat » Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:36 pm

Sorry Daozen, I thought you understood my first post regarding the "predictive programming" dupe who posted that "illuminati" game card believing it 'predicted' something about the Olympics. :huh:

I didn't think there was a member here who hadn't heard of that viral 'theory' before; I already mentioned a couple of the conspiracy disinfo leaders that promote it: Icke and Cutting Edge Ministries.

I was trying to point out how the Key to debunking that fear-mongering meme as totally assbackwards nonsense is the fact that all 9/11 imagery is fake!

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6956
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:01 am

daozen wrote: ...but again, I'm not trying to promote any side, even within my own mind, and even though I want to agree with you, I'm having a hard time blocking out any possibility when there's so little evidence. I mean, if you where to ask most people what is a more logical hypothesis (and I'm sure you've runned into this one)...

a) that some planes crashed into a building so they fell down, and the news networks just captured/reported that.

or

b)that cgi planes where synchronized with us made missiles, pre-planned fake news coverage, that the buildings where empty for years before the event and that the people who supposedly died in there don't even exist, where also computer created, and hundred of actors where hired to make people believe thousands died, that all of the amateur footage of the event was digitally altered and that the whole of manhattan was emtied out and probably bombed with a magnetic disabiling bomb, etc....
Dear Daozen,

Let me try and re-word the two points (a) and (b) that you proposed:

THE OFFICIAL 9/11 CONCLUSIONS:
a) Four planes hijacked contemporarily on the morning of September 11 2001 by 19 muslim terrorists using boxcutters to take over the command of these 4 planes from the 4 hapless flight crews were successfully used as precision missiles by Cessna-trained pilots to strike the two WTC towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, causing the two towers to collapse as well as a section of the Pentagon itself - this without any of the 4 passenger planes being intercepted or even minimally challenged by the US military / airforce apparatus. A few thousand people who were told to remain in the twin towers for almost 1and1/2 hours - to meet their death in both towers due to the intense heat caused by the airplane's kerosene weakening their structure, causing both to crumble into a pile of dust. The entire operation was planned and financed by a lone but very wealthy enemy of the United States, hiding in an Afghan cave - and a former business partner of the resident US president himself. The approach and strike of the second plane hitting WTC2 was quite coincidentally captured by 4 US TV networks who had all mobilized their TV choppers within 5/10 minutes of the WTC1 event, just in time for these TV choppers to be ideally placed to capture a seamless sequence of 4 sequential aerial shots of "FLIGHT175" at 9:02AM - only 17 minutes after the first, totally unexpected event of "FLIGHT11" striking WTC1. The Pentagon event was, alas, not clearly captured on film by any of the cameras surrounding the Pentagon. Later in the day, a 47-story building (WTC7) struck by some of the twin towers' debris and weakened by fire also collapsed into a pile of dust.

THE CLUESFORUM CONCLUSIONS:
b) All of the above was a media tale pulled through with the clout of TV mass persuasion - using Hollywood techniques - so as to provide a phony alibi for an illegal demolition of a bunch of (obviously empty) old asbestos-laden buildings in Lower Manhattan. The unlimited budget of this psyop has allowed to recruit a few hundred individuals willing to lie for money - to back up this fanciful, war-enabling media tale.


Now, which of the above two (a) and (b) conclusions sounds more plausible - and more respectul of the Ockham's razor principle?


********************

(Hey, aren't we derailing this "London 2012 Olympics thread, folks?) :P

daozen
Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:12 pm

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by daozen » Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:38 am

simonshack wrote:
daozen wrote: ...but again, I'm not trying to promote any side, even within my own mind, and even though I want to agree with you, I'm having a hard time blocking out any possibility when there's so little evidence. I mean, if you where to ask most people what is a more logical hypothesis (and I'm sure you've runned into this one)...

a) that some planes crashed into a building so they fell down, and the news networks just captured/reported that.

or

b)that cgi planes where synchronized with us made missiles, pre-planned fake news coverage, that the buildings where empty for years before the event and that the people who supposedly died in there don't even exist, where also computer created, and hundred of actors where hired to make people believe thousands died, that all of the amateur footage of the event was digitally altered and that the whole of manhattan was emtied out and probably bombed with a magnetic disabiling bomb, etc....
Dear Daozen,

Let me try and re-word the two points (a) and (b) that you proposed:

THE OFFICIAL 9/11 CONCLUSIONS:
a) Four planes hijacked contemporarily on the morning of September 11 2001 by 19 muslim terrorists using boxcutters to take over the command of these 4 planes from the 4 hapless flight crews were successfully used as precision missiles by Cessna-trained pilots to strike the two WTC towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, causing the two towers to collapse as well as a section of the Pentagon itself - this without any of the 4 passenger planes being intercepted or even minimally challenged by the US military / airforce apparatus. A few thousand people who were told to remain in the twin towers for almost 1and1/2 hours - to meet their death in both towers due to the intense heat caused by the airplane's kerosene weakening their structure, causing both to crumble into a pile of dust. The entire operation was planned and financed by a lone but very wealthy enemy of the United States, hiding in an Afghan cave - and a former business partner of the resident US president himself. The approach and strike of the second plane hitting WTC2 was quite coincidentally captured by 4 US TV networks who had all mobilized their TV choppers within 5/10 minutes of the WTC1 event, just in time for these TV choppers to be ideally placed to capture a seamless sequence of 4 sequential aerial shots of "FLIGHT175" at 9:02AM - only 17 minutes after the first, totally unexpected event of "FLIGHT11" striking WTC1. The Pentagon event was, alas, not clearly captured on film by any of the cameras surrounding the Pentagon. Later in the day, a 47-story building (WTC7) struck by some of the twin towers' debris and weakened by fire also collapsed into a pile of dust.

THE CLUESFORUM CONCLUSIONS:
b) All of the above was a media tale pulled through with the clout of TV mass persuasion - using Hollywood techniques - so as to provide a phony alibi for an illegal demolition of a bunch of (obviously empty) old asbestos-laden buildings in Lower Manhattan. The unlimited budget of this psyop has allowed to recruit a few hundred individuals willing to lie for money - to back up this fanciful, war-enabling media tale.


Now, which of the above two (a) and (b) conclusions sounds more plausible - and more respectul of the Ockham's razor principle?


********************

(Hey, aren't we derailing this "London 2012 Olympics thread, folks?) :P
mmm, well said... I guess we can elongate or shrink both conclusions independently of simplicity, but I totally agree that the real conclusions are simpler! However, isn't what allows you to condense both of these conclusions in such a sucinct manner the loads of evidence we, well you, :P lol, dug up from the media archives? I'm just saying I'm not aware of such conclusive evidence to conclude much about the points I was discussing with Maat. Anyway, I don't wan't to derail this thread no mo're...

Can I make a thread about why the iluminati are not real, I know most of you don't wan't to entertain such ideas, but what about something along the lines of the iluminati myth or something that will be clear about the position this forum has on the issue, I'm sure many newbies would love to get clear on the matter, I guess this goes back to my suggestion of making little summaries on the major issues covered on this forum, that are not necesarily covered on the sc main page.

;) thanks!

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

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by reel.deal » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:33 am

Image
At-UFO-conference-in-Leeds-its-claimed-Olympics-will-be-Independence-Day-style-bloodbath
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fe ... dbath.html 8/8/11

http://www.vice.com/rule-britannia/the- ... ics-part-4
It's not just politicians, capitalists, sportsmen, and protestors who are obsessed with the Olympics.
Pornographers, gangsters, and alien conspiracy theorists are pretty excited about it too.



No.
:P

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by Maat » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:42 am

▲ Uhuh... neither was the Queen ^_^

Image

:P

Image

I, Gestalta
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by I, Gestalta » Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:55 pm

On a somewhat olympics-related note, I'm fairly certain that I have just broken the world record for right-click--->close tab at the mention of "The Mayan Calendar".

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by Maat » Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:44 pm

I, Gestalta wrote:On a somewhat olympics-related note, I'm fairly certain that I have just broken the world record for right-click--->close tab at the mention of "The Mayan Calendar".
:lol: I can relate to that!

Image

:D

Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by Dcopymope » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:10 am

Lots of people have been wondering why it is so difficult to find a good video showing the entire opening ceremony of the Olympics. I think the video below which goes into this bizarre ritual explains why this is the case. This is no doubt the most blatant example of them flaunting their mystery religion in our face.

Video description:
A lot of people have been asking if i could give an overview of the ritual which took place at the Olympic Opening Ceremony. This is just my interpretation of what went on using biblical references but nothing should be taken as "fact" so feel free to research for yourself and add anything I may have missed. Not everyone shares the same views so please respect others beliefs and feel free to join in the discussion
The Symbolism behind the Olympic "Ritual" Ceremony - London 2012 New Jerusalem Zion:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY63wF4K2fk

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by Maat » Sat Aug 04, 2012 8:16 am

For perspective and comparison, background details of the literary and historical references depicted in Danny Boyle's Olympic ceremony theatrics are explained in this article:

London Olympics opening ceremony explained for the non-Brits

Further info re Danny Boyle on Wiki:
Daniel "Danny" Boyle (born 20 October 1956) is an Anglo-Irish Roman Catholic film director and producer, best known for his work on films such as Slumdog Millionaire, Shallow Grave, 127 Hours, 28 Days Later, Sunshine and Trainspotting.
[...]

Boyle was appointed by Tony Blair, the Labour Party Prime Minister to be Artistic Director for the 2012 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony in London. Over the years, Olympic Opening Ceremonies have become multi-million pound theatrical shows, which have become known for their extravagance and pageantry to celebrate the start of the largest multi-sport event. The ceremony, entitled Isles of Wonder, became quiet controversial in the manner it portrayed the British. The ceremony charted aspects of British culture from Boyle's anti-British and Republican perspective, including the Industrial Revolution, the persecution of the Irish, the oppression of the third world while mixing in elements of recent British contributions to literature, music, film and technology. Despite the controversy, reception to the ceremony was generally positive, both nationally in the United Kingdom and internationally.

tp812
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:20 am

Re: London 2012 Olympics

Unread post by tp812 » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:38 am

More info:
London Olympics False Flag Terror Conditioning & Predictive Programming
Goal: Get public (especially in UK) accustomed to the idea of a Nuclear Attack at London Olympics to help with media fakery psyop??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvFN1o8thKI

1) 3/31/10
Olympic Armageddon: How top terrorists could send nuclear bomb up the Thames to target London 2012 games
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Games.html

2) 6/22/09
Telegraph Operation Black Jack - fictional slideshow depicting nuclear bombs exploding in 6 major cities, including London at location where the Olympics will be held. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/cult ... kjack.html

3) Rockerfeller Foundation report Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development: One scenario on page 34 describe an 2012 Olympic bombing that kills 13,000
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/up ... 7cc719.pdf

4) 7/14/2005 Olympic Park on ex-nuclear site
London 2012 officials have insisted there is no health risk after learning part of the planned Olympic Park is on the site of a former nuclear reactor.http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_s ... 682251.stm

5) History Channel - Describes Merlin's prediction of terror attack in London - shows nuclear bomb exploding in London
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91Gj2UFxWOY

6) Spooks Code 9 program in BBC : envisaged nuclear attack in Olympic Stadium in London in 2012

7) 2/12/2012
Mock Olympic Terror Attack at Disused Tube Station
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02 ... 92814.html

8) 8/26/09 Express.co.uk - Radioactive waste to be buried at Olympic site. THOUSANDS of tonnes of radioactive waste is to be buried in a "nuclear bunker" n/ext to the Olympic stadium under construction in London.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/116 ... ympic-site

9) Silverstein's 9-11 Partner Owns Olympics "Gateway"
http://www.henrymakow.com/silverstein_b ... ner_o.html

10) 7/29/2012
Private contractors to look after Britain's nukes http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/07/2 ... 9/trident/

11) Report: Mossad Steps Up Security for London Olympic Games after Terrorist Attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPRX8dJ1ih4
(Propaganda linking potential terrorist attack with Iran.)

12) In the film 2012: lead character finds London Underground map although totally irrelevant to plot

13) 2003
Operation Osiris drills in London to prepare for London Underground attack

14) 2005 V for Vendatta shows attack on London Underground.

More videos from:http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTruthIsFromGod4

The purpose of putting these ideas in movies, music, culture, news etc is to make the mind more accepting of the media fakery psyop don't you think?... Subliminal messaging, conditioning, predictive programming etc.. otherwise more people would question these events.

Locked