REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

How to register at Cluesforum / General administrative topics / and things that every member must read
Post Reply
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6954
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:06 pm

SmokingGunII wrote:
Who's going to tell him? :lol:
Not me! I just don't have this clout: <_<

Image
https://coto2.wordpress.com/tag/ae-911-truth-billboard/

pshea38
Banned
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by pshea38 » Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:13 am

simonshack wrote:
SmokingGunII wrote:
Who's going to tell him? :lol:
Not me! I just don't have this clout: <_<

Image
https://coto2.wordpress.com/tag/ae-911-truth-billboard/

This could be your big breakthrough into the mainstream, simon.
Dare i say it?.....One day.... You could be famous. ;)
Your name could be up in lights kid,
now that you are beginning to be considered. :P

CuriousGeorge
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:21 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by CuriousGeorge » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:30 am

Dear Mr. Shack and associates:

I have just finished viewing the rest of your documentary film September Clues + Foxed Out and liked the remaining parts as much as I liked Part A. I am pleased to let you know that I published your fine work on my humble website. Kudos on making such an important documentary!

If someone does actually have something they'd like to tell me, pls don't hesitate to send me a message.

Cheers,

Admin
911NewsCentral.com

Equinox
Banned
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Equinox » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:41 am

CuriousGeorge wrote:CuriousGeorge
United States
Male
911NewsCentral.com admin
Website: http://911NewsCentral.com

911NewsCentral.com has discovered your website.

We already publish information from AE911Truth, the CIT, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

We will now begin considering your information as well.

Thank you!
Well it is good that your "considering" the information being given for free from this site. I tell you straight from the start In my opinion "AE911Truth, the CIT, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth." Seem to be some what useless for 9/11. They don't offer any real proof of what happened. They have no real proof of what really happened. All truthers do is talk about boring ol building 7 and the twin towers and how they speculate there were explosives in the buildings... They need 1200 engineers to work that out??
They are a joke. And In my opinion controlled by the perps.

Curious george if you want a REAL 9/11 story... Are you Aware of the fact that it appears that NO ONE died on 9/11?? You shall not need take my word for it though... because....
THE MEMORIAL PHOTOS OF THE 9/11 VICTIMS ARE PHOTOSHOPPED!!!!

From.. "101 vicsim researchers for REAL 9/11 truth." :lol: :D :lol:
Have a look.
1-- http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims_ ... alyses.htm

2-- http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=246

3-- The Viscsim Report--- http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims.htm


But if you are still looking for the Ultimate 9/11 story...Ultimately confirming photoshopped memorial photos I recomend reading this.
THE HUG-ME CLONES...http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p2214948

Hug me! It makes me so much realer!

ImageImage

Image
Image

Image
Image

Image
Image

Image
Image

Image

Image

You MUST ask yourself this simple question: Why are so many photos of "9/11 victims" so blatantly photoshopped?
If you don't ask yourself that question, I won't apologize for saying that you are in total denial. Not a good thing to be in.


Oh well, perhaps you just discovered this research today and wonder what it is all about.
In that case, please check out this page of the September Clues website: http://septemberclues.info/vicsims_photo-analyses.htm

Busted... :)

AmongTheThugs
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:07 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by AmongTheThugs » Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:12 am

@ curious george, now that you've found september clues i suggest you completely redo your website:
delete all of it except september clues.

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

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by brianv » Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:51 am

How did you not see September Clues, that's what I wanna know!

When you were leaving your copy of The Ladybird Edition of 9/11 Truth back at the library you saw the big bad September Clues book peering at you from the shelf and you thought... "I must read that when I grow up".

Simon will berate me for this but...you don't happen to know someone who died on 9/11, do you?

Delurium
Banned
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:14 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Delurium » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:28 pm

well 3 out of 4 vids on http://911newscentral.com/ are septemberclues vids. I would say that is a pretty nice start.

I see no reason for removing the other links and info. Thinking people will react to the inconsistancy of the "facts" and theories presented by others and eventually, when you have digested the disinfo and theories of others, they can see this page. This is how I discovered this page and your work.

Forcing your thoughts on someone will always make the person reject your notion, no matter how rational or accurate the information is. This is just how we humans function in a hirarcic system. So even suggesting that someone has to remove the other info from other pages, might lead to the totally opposite reactions then what you want, people need to decide for themselves.

Now that I scrolled further down the page I see that the SC films are best rated this month, so it certainly has its effect.

Most people are either in denial, un-educated in this aspect or mis-lead. I probably have a lot of opinions that not everyone here will accept and find "stupid", but we all have different experiences and other ways to absorb knowlege.

Even though we know that Bush is a blatant lier in so many cases, we can still abuse it to our advantage. Most people will take the shear load of evidence, comparisons etc as a good sign of the credibility of this site.

First thing I do when I come over a site with new information etc I use google and search for XXXX - debunk.

I would love to be hit with one thing when I go to this forum, a big post where the so-called debunks can be presented and explained/rectified wherever that is needed.
Personally I think the debunk presented by infowars, with the shit-kid going ape-nuts on _JUST_ the plane in/out thing and the general personal attacks, we will see reactions like on the youtube page, where people give you lots of credit JUST because they attack you personally. Human mind works in mysterous ways >)

When people see this new page, they will have questions, let them ask, its a wonderful way of processing information. If you have questions around a subject, that means that on some level you have reflected upon it. Even stupid questions have much deeper backthoughts then what the sheer question would imply.

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

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:06 am

Thanks for your thoughts Delurium. Interesting and valid points.

BNSF9647
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:18 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by BNSF9647 » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:19 pm

Hello all,

My nationality is American

I do not have a professional background in research or cinematography.

I currently work 2 jobs: One in electronics my full time job, my part time job I work at Macy's in receiving.

Hobbies of mine are: Transportation (mainly Railroading), Weather study, also mechanical items such as internal combustion engines.

Its good to see people such as yourselves debunking the artificial story of 9/11.

P.S. You guys can call me Brad
I can be contacted at cnsd75i5789@yahoo.com

Muscovite
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:22 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Muscovite » Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:27 pm

Hello all - Simon et al. I've been an almost daily visitor to this forum ever since watching the stunning September Clues and discovering that there was an intelligent arena of discussion surrounding these issues. In terms of quality I've found nothing comparable to this forum anywhere, and I'm nagged by the constant fear that the plug is going to be pulled any time now on sites offering radical insight of this sort. In fact, if even 5% of the allegations on this site are grounded in reality, it's only a matter of time before that happens. We all need to start thinking about contingency plans..

That aside, and to introduce myself, what I think I know is this: 9/11 and 7/7 were inside jobs. Media coverage was choreographed. I've seen enough to convince me that govt and mainstream media lied to us, and continue to, with the utterly bogus 'war on terror' and all the deceits which that has spawned. I'm undecided on the details, though, about how they pulled off 9/11, for example. Whether there were real planes/missiles or victims, or whether it was all digitized smoke and mirrors.

So, in addition to wanting to join the community and add my voice to the chorus of the 'awake', I'd like to raise doubts which reflect my own occasional agnosticism, and I hope my issues are received in the same sincere and constructive spirit I express them.

So. I've noticed that the mildest of scepticism or apparently innocent questioning is often greeted by chief moderators/ contributors with knee-jerk rebukes and/or accusations of shilling.  I know the site wisely sidesteps the kind of endless, digressive stupidity typical of YouTube comments or rubbish-dump 'conspiracy' forums, wide open as such places are to cointelpro distraction or plain old ignorance. On the other hand there is on this forum a perceptible atmosphere of homogeneity which can make it look at best like an impregnable fortress and at worst a quasi-religious cult.  A lot of times I'm left in the dust, yet to be won over:   is this, for example, a digital composite or did there in fact exist a Jean Charles de Menezes?  No sooner have suggestions been offered, a photo presented, an observation made, than the main moderators are high-fiving and backslapping, tying it all into a macro-thesis that sometimes seems too easily arrived at, too eagerly grabbed.  Credulity like this, I suggest, is even more unforgivable at this end of the spectrum than at the other end, where the bovine Daily Mail reader sits spluttering over his cornflakes in complacent oblivion.

After all, if we want to achieve anything here, shouldn't  it be to shake people out of their stupor? Wake people up? Get the word out? Isn't this the most urgent responsibility we face?

To this end, and if you haven't banned or deleted me by now, can I make a brilliant suggestion? How about a 'Greatest Hits' thread or whole section aimed at condensing and summarizing for the relatively uninformed? The new site design is very good, and - of course - all of these topics merit research and dedication, not glib perusal. But the sheer quantity of information is dizzying, and I suspect like all of us, I've got loved ones and friends who are sleeping, who are not inclined to devote serious time to what they would see as tin-foil hat stuff. I need to hit them with the bullet points- the most cogent and convincing evidence- the most egregious  vicsims or facts. Again regarding 9/11, it's always struck me that that task has only ever got more difficult as new anomalies, improbabilities and facts emerge. One of the odd ironies here is that more information which places 'us' more 'in the know' only serves to alienate 'them' from the prospect of ever perceiving this reality. Call it cognitive dissonance, call it information overload. The effect is disengagement and polarization.

What I'm trying to say is, please simplify and accommodate! 

Thanks, by the way, for an important and necessary site, and especially to Simon for your positive spirit.

bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:04 pm

Muscovite ,

you were supposed to introduce yourself :)

regards

Muscovite
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:22 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Muscovite » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:20 pm

OK. I'm British, a teacher, living in Russia.

Happy now?:)

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6954
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:16 pm

Dear Muscovite,

Welcome and thanks for being both appreciative and critical of our efforts. I will answer first to your last suggestion ('to simplify and make a Greatest Hits compilation of the bulk of evidence collected throughout the years'). Well, I do realize that this forum would not be the best place to start for any newcomer to our research. After all, it is a place dedicated to in-depth investigations into the many ongoing media deceptions of our times (not only 9/11). We have recently re-organized this forum with a view of improving (as much as possible) the clarity of it all, dividing it into sections which hopefully make it a little easier to navigate but, as you may imagine, to simplify the truckloads of material we have built up over the years is simply no simple task.

That said, 'simplicity' is certainly one of my favorite words and I strive to keep it in mind every single day. I will, in the near future, put together a forum post condensing the best 9/11 evidence - just as you suggested - but why don't you for now consider directing newcomers to our 9/11 research to http://www.septemberclues.info ? Hoi and myself painstakingly created the website to gather in one place the clearest possible overview of our work. To simplify it further would require to discard one or the other crucial part of it - which I don't think is a good idea!

As far as your criticism regarding the attitude of our chief moderators (Hoi, Nonhocapito and yours truly), I find it rather unfair and must surmise that you refer to past episodes here involving very real, professional shills/agitators (now thankfully exposed and weeded out) which, alas, used to infiltrate our ranks with bulldoggish and off-putting tactics. If that's not the case, I'd like you to point out where and when we administrators have been 'knee-jerking, high-fiving and backslapping' - as you mentioned. As for your description of the atmosphere here being comparable to 'an impregnable fortress and at worst a quasi-religious cult' - I find that comment both disagreeable and ridiculous. The last time I checked, fortresses had big stone walls around them and religious cults were guarded by dogmatic precepts and idolatry. I'd say that we are precisely fighting the stonewalling and dogmas of the 'religious world cult' (as preached by the Official 9/11 scriptwriters - with Santa Binladen and his 19 suicidal apostles) - and I believe we are doing a pretty good job of shredding it to pieces - with the help of rational, independent and secular minds from all over the world. The age-old, stereotyped 'religious cult' accusation is reminiscent of the knee-jerking anathemas thrown out by 'the Establishment' whenever they see any given group/community joining forces - and potentially threatening to spank their fat behinds. As I don't suppose you are part of that sorry lot, I would kindly ask you to elaborate and clarify this feeling of yours with regards to the atmosphere of this forum. Have no fear - we can take due criticism - providing it is indeed due and well-founded, of course.

Thanks - and once again, welcome from Moscow! :)

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by nonhocapito » Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:34 am

Muscovite wrote:A lot of times I'm left in the dust, yet to be won over:   is this, for example, a digital composite or did there in fact exist a Jean Charles de Menezes?  No sooner have suggestions been offered, a photo presented, an observation made, than the main moderators are high-fiving and backslapping, tying it all into a macro-thesis that sometimes seems too easily arrived at, too eagerly grabbed.  Credulity like this, I suggest, is even more unforgivable at this end of the spectrum than at the other end, where the bovine Daily Mail reader sits spluttering over his cornflakes in complacent oblivion.
I searched our forum and I found something like a debate over Jean Charles de Menezes (the sim-electrician who was supposedly shot by the police after 7/7) dating back to 2009. http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=74355#p74355
I didn't find any trace of credulity or excessive high-fiving in those few posts about him, just contributors who got quickly to the easiest conclusions because accustomed by then to that particular flavor of lies.
Regardless, you say you have been reading this forum, muscovite, so I wonder how you missed the fact that the climate has changed quite a bit since then. I support Simon in asking you to be a bit more circumstantial about the problems you have with the forum. In particular, try making an example that isn't more than six months old.

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2241
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by fbenario » Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:08 am

Muscovite wrote:So. I've noticed that the mildest of scepticism or apparently innocent questioning is often greeted by chief moderators/ contributors with knee-jerk rebukes and/or accusations of shilling.
You've over-simplified what we do. EVERY new member, BEFORE he posts, is required to familiarize himself with the SeptemberClues video, the Vicsim Report, and the basic conclusions/structure of the forum.

Any and all conflicting views and positions are welcome here - as long as evidence likely to convince the neutral reader is also set forth. (For example, you yourself have not been harshly criticized or banned because your critique was thoughtful.) No one gets to make contradictory or 'outlandish' statements without supplying thoughtful evidence and analysis. Just to give a recent example, until a couple of months ago, it had never dawned on me to question whether the NASA shuttle program was real. And now SImon has presented very good evidence and analysis that the shuttles are just as fabricated and nonexistent as the moon landing.

We don't permit, under any circumstance, unsupported knee-jerk negations of the general conclusions of the forum. As you must be well aware, there are 1000s of websites that welcome any and all silliness that supports the official 9/11 narrative of planes, hijackers, Muslims, and victims. We don't, and we intend to keep it that way.

Post Reply