REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

[lux]

15-love: blargg

[antipodean]

Also, can anyone summarize for me what the consensus on Keith Glascoe was? I think he was a real person. I grew up watching The Professional and he played 'Benny' a henchman in that movie.

I also find that a bit of an odd statement. Assuming 'grew up' is a reference to one's growing years whilst at school.
I can't think of one movie that I could mention in the same context, when I was at school.

Anyhow Blargg there are quite a few 9/11 victims/sims, that are difficult to work out.
Berry Berensen is a good example, I've watched the movie 'Cat People' quite a few times, but it doesn't mean I think AA11 crashed into WTC1.
Unfortunately you wont find all the answers here, so do some research on Keith Glascoe and tell us what you find.

[Maat]

Blargg,

Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the point of this exercise and the purpose of this forum entirely.

Firstly, regarding your ad hominem pseudo analysis, this has nothing to do with any "tribal instinct" nor would a veteran researcher like brianv need anyone to "jump to his rescue", ever! On the contrary, I was offering you an opportunity to redeem yourself and prove you were not as illiterate, obtuse and naive as your initial posts would suggest.

Defensive whining, sophistry and mangled grammar with misused and/or invented words scores an F, mate. At least this non sequitur was ironic:

I feel that highlighting my choice of descriptor for the frequency I watched a movie is nitpicking and also that the wordage I did use is fine.

Take the following sentences as an example,

"I've played baseball since I was a kid."
"I grew up playing baseball."

I think to interpret these sentences as meaning that I constantly or continually played baseball is being pedantic. I don't know any other way to describe it.

People who play a sport like baseball usually do so regularly (constantly), often weekly. That's your analogy for watching a particular movie "since [you were] a kid"?

If you had read the information on this site and forum thoroughly, you might have noticed that it is not like any other "message boards" you may have "observed" anywhere else; it is not a Q & A site or 'chatline'. We require precise, coherent syntax due to the complexity and sensitivity of the subjects analyzed here — especially from those whose first language is (supposedly) English — we have an international membership. So yes, of course "pedantry" is necessary to test new members' bona fides, since poor comprehension, spelling and language skills are very familiar behavior patterns exhibited by agents, shills and trolls to disrupt and confuse.

Therefore, maintaining the integrity of the forum is always our first priority and concern.

If you have useful information to contribute, you are welcome to do so, but gratuitous attitudes and expecting answers to questions without doing your own research homework first is not what this forum is for.

[hoi.polloi]

Blargg,

If you'd like to present more cogent, relevant research (such as the possible use of a movie personality as a vicsim) please do so. But if you're not "getting" why it's important to present more and you've nothing further to add, go away.

[brianv]

If I was trying to convince somebody, for instance, that I knew someone or some thing , which statement would be more convincing?

1) I knew so-and-so when I was a kid - (Past tense doesn't carry much weight, you may not know them now!!)

2) I've known so-and-so since I was a kid. (Present continuous tense, implies you know them now!!)

Since since carries greater weight it appears to me that you are trying to convince us of something - ie Keith Glascoe was a "real" man because it is alleged that somebody of that name was in some crummy film and therefore died in the towers? N'est pas?

Your command of English seems to let you down on this point!

[blargg]

Also, can anyone summarize for me what the consensus on Keith Glascoe was? I think he was a real person. I grew up watching The Professional and he played 'Benny' a henchman in that movie.

I also find that a bit of an odd statement. Assuming 'grew up' is a reference to one's growing years whilst at school.
I can't think of one movie that I could mention in the same context, when I was at school.

I must admit, the fact that I'm still involved in an in-depth discussion of such a mundane fragment of a statement is bewildering to me. Nonetheless, I will elucidate further. The movie in question was a bit of nostalgia for me, like a good book or a favorite meal. I generally watched it whenever it would come on TV if I had the time. Words are imperfect signs that merely point towards ideas and concepts, they are never the idea or concept in and of itself, so it's understandable that my meaning of 'grew up', used in this sense, is slightly different from the meaning it may hold to others.

Anyhow Blargg there are quite a few 9/11 victims/sims, that are difficult to work out.
Berry Berensen is a good example, I've watched the movie 'Cat People' quite a few times, but it doesn't mean I think AA11 crashed into WTC1.
Unfortunately you wont find all the answers here, so do some research on Keith Glascoe and tell us what you find.

Yes I definitely agree. Whether there were 0 deaths or 3000 doesn't undermine the no plane theory to me. I feel like there's enough evidence shown in the main SeptemberClues video that needs to be looked at by any honest member of the government, if there are any left. Glascoe was just someone that I had seen in movies pre-9/11 and so wanted to query the community here to see if they had any ideas as to what his story may have been.

[MrSinclair]

Greetings to all.
I am American.

I recently discovered this site through a comment to DGB on youtube. Since then I have spent some time reading here particularly following the Norway and Tuscon events.

I have no skill or expertise with digital imagery. What I can offer if anything comes from over 40 years of conspiracy related study and inquiry. When I found out as a boy that my hero (at the time) JFK had not died as claimed I was hooked on looking deeper and beyond the official story.

As it applies to 911 I have spent many hours studying the subject. During all those years I never paid any attention to the idea that No Planes Hit. I didn't really even understand the premise as offered here. Now that I have watched much of the September Clues videos I find much of tremendous interest here. I feel like I have finally begun to find answers that make sense to me.

By profession I am a saxophonist, player, teacher and dealer.

I once worked at Bohemian Grove for a few days, My experience there was a little different than that of Alex Jones.

Overall I am very impressed with the intelligence and good humor here and hope I can contribute a few things.

[Pendragon13]

Greetings all!

My name is Malcolm and I reside in Canada. I don't really know how much info you guys want for an intro but here goes:

I work as a musician and just turned 19. I have nothing to hide hence the giving of my name and age :p as you all can imagine I was pretty young when 9/11 occurred and when I was 16 began to get involved with the so called 9/11 truth movement. I was a firm planes hit the building kinda guy and remember hearing about those damn no planers. Now after actually researching the evidence and watching September clues with an open mind I am a firm believer. After just finishing watching September clues I jotted down 6 questions I had and I ask them in the most respectful way just trying to wrap my head fully around what happened. Hopefully you guys can help answer them. Thanks in advance!

1) Are the four live shots actual shots of what hit the WTC and then edite to include a CGI plane to hide the missile impact? What about the naudet video of the first hit? Is that a genuine video because in September clues it is used as proof for the explosives used to shape the gashes, or is that a forgery as well? 

2) If the answer to the above question is yes then does that mean all other videos besides those are fakes? If the answer to the above question is no does that mean ALL videos are faked? From what I gathered the shots later shown on tv such as the international shot were blue-screened or made in a studio so my question is were any of those shots actually just shots of lower NYC but edited with CGI or a fake bluescreen same question goes for the amateur videos.

3) Any still pictures of the plane hitting is obviously faked but what about the images that just show the tower exploding (as shown in September clues )? From what I gathered in the movie those shots seem to be genuine if so why wouldn't the perps alter them to include a plane or so forth. Furthermore how can we be assured of the authenticity of these photographs. 

4) If the collapse images were faked are there any witnesses who witnessed the collapses as shown on tv that day? 

5) Are all the witnesses who phoned in actors or no? I mean besides the obvious media connected ones. And if they are not witnesses and are legit then why wouldn't the perps hire actors to play their part and why would they let them talk about maybe hearing a missile or not really seeing a plane? Or how about the media anchorman who said they didn't see a plane they just saw an explosion or the one who said it sounded like a missile? What purpose do they serve. 

6) What purpose did it serve to show LAX being evacuated with none of the supposed families of the vicsims showing up? Isn't that a little incriminating? 

[simonshack]

Furthermore how can we be assured of the authenticity of these photographs. 

Dear Pendragon13,

The point is:

We can not be assured of the authenticity of ANY photos -or videos- of 9/11. Our longstanding work has shown that NO 9/11 images are credible. The moment that you wake up to this basic concept will help you understand all the rest.

[Pendragon13]

Thanks for the quick reply simon. First and foremost i want to thank you for the insightful research you have done and for releasing what i consider the best 9/11 film out there. As for my question that does clear alot up so thank you although i am a bit confused on some things im sure some research on this forum will clear any questions up.

[Equinox]

Hello, and welcome to forum.

After sometime researching this 9/11 fakery phenomenon. I look at it like this. All the 9/11 footage is suspect, so I just go through and find the flaws that prove it, what the point of even believing if some is real, or portions of the footage is real, or anything… even if some “real aspects” are used in any of the footage.
The big picture and true quest is just spotting the flaws which proves they are fake.

That quest is magnifies blows everything else to do with 9/11. None of the footage can be trusted n we don’t have to prove its real to anyone, for this forum isn’t the one on trial here. It’s the 9/11 perps.

if you still get a bit confused feel free to ask me questions, http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802

Hope you enjoy your visit here as much as I do.

[Pendragon13]

Thanks a lot for the replies guys,

I've decided to take some initiative and try to expose the most maddening part of the 9/11 tv fakery drama we were all led to believe: The VicSims ( More specifically their families.)

I have started contacting anyone I can by either e-mail or facebook that has ever posted a comment that lays the claim that they personally knew one of the VicSims.

So stay tuned for the screen shots! So far it's been two days of silence from 5 people I messaged regarding our most beloved flight 93 passenger: Honor Elizabeth Wainio. I'll post any response I get as soon as I get it.

Wish me luck!

[hoi.polloi]

It won't help to just post their replies, because then you just become a sounding board for their assignment - which is to sound like a real person who knew a victim of 9/11. Does that make sense?

We need a more useful strategy somehow.

To answer your questions:

1) Are the four live shots actual shots of what hit the WTC and then edite to include a CGI plane to hide the missile impact? What about the naudet video of the first hit? Is that a genuine video because in September clues it is used as proof for the explosives used to shape the gashes, or is that a forgery as well?

We don't know. Augmented reality and prefabricated videos (in different ways) are possibilities with technology from many years ago, so perhaps the military-Hollywood black ops had a special program in 2001. Some media "speculated" that it would become a problem.

2) If the answer to the above question is yes then does that mean all other videos besides those are fakes? If the answer to the above question is no does that mean ALL videos are faked? From what I gathered the shots later shown on tv such as the international shot were blue-screened or made in a studio so my question is were any of those shots actually just shots of lower NYC but edited with CGI or a fake bluescreen same question goes for the amateur videos.

We don't know. We know the videos appear to be faked by various methods. They most likely repeated a method that worked occasionally. Simon pretty conclusively proved they recycled voice actors and shot angles. It's probably a combination of 3D, 2D compositing, 2-and-a-half-D like early fake-3D video games, bluescreen and whatever other special effects they had at the time. Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope wasn't made with a single effect. They pulled out every trick in the book.

3) Any still pictures of the plane hitting is obviously faked but what about the images that just show the tower exploding (as shown in September clues )? From what I gathered in the movie those shots seem to be genuine if so why wouldn't the perps alter them to include a plane or so forth. Furthermore how can we be assured of the authenticity of these photographs.

The explosion had to be matched to the fake video. We now propose all imagery is fabricated/doctored/falsified to match somewhat. The delay period after the initial wave of propaganda gives ample time for the perps to do this. Just look at the slow rate of propaganda books and images coming out now. This implies that they used some serious heavy-duty control methods that aren't as obvious as people running around confiscating cameras. Most likely HERF or EMP weapons since these have existed for some time.

4) If the collapse images were faked are there any witnesses who witnessed the collapses as shown on tv that day?

Tricky question. There are many who were witnesses to a TV program. We haven't found many witnesses to interview about actually witnessing a real collapse or destruction.

5) Are all the witnesses who phoned in actors or no? I mean besides the obvious media connected ones. And if they are not witnesses and are legit then why wouldn't the perps hire actors to play their part and why would they let them talk about maybe hearing a missile or not really seeing a plane? Or how about the media anchorman who said they didn't see a plane they just saw an explosion or the one who said it sounded like a missile? What purpose do they serve.

Some people speculate that witnesses in the black ops change their morality on the situation or save up some 'whistle-blowing' action. Others could just slip. Would they actually risk real witnesses who have a conflicting story and recording that on TV? I doubt it somewhat. I sometimes tend to think that the 'slips' were planned to rob credibility from people on the streets and glue it firmly to the lying media channels.

6) What purpose did it serve to show LAX being evacuated with none of the supposed families of the vicsims showing up? Isn't that a little incriminating?

They don't seem to mind how incriminating or unbelievable their story gets, do they? People still buy it.

[Pendragon13]

What strategy do you think is the best? We should ambush all these vicsim families and expose them for what they are? I dont mean physically ambush them just in case that could be construed as a threat xD

oh and i just wanted to tell you how great your reasearch is. Ive been reading this forum non stop now for a few days and it never fails that your posts always make me understand a little more each day. This whole forum is chock full of great researchers so just wanted to let you guys know what a great site you guys have.

[hoi.polloi]

I think collecting information they have already presented is best.

Since they don't know which sims to put the most money on, and they are drawn to the sims as you give them individualized attention, better to collect all of them at once - in one fell swoop - rather than giving them a place to focus their funds. Does that make sense? This is why suddenly grabbing the entire CNN memorial in 2009 worked so effectively in exposing the sims. They cannot simulate the actual families of 3,000 vicsims because it would require an exponentially increasing number of puppeteers.

Therefore, you categorize them all at once whenever possible. If you give a sim individualized attention on their terms - such as through the CIA Facebook - it merely grows like a weed. You have to catch them where they are not expecting to be receiving attention.

At this point that will be pretty difficult because we are alerting them all the time to our activities just by operating this forum.

You could just post septemberclues links like propaganda on every vicsim site you see; that could be amusing. But again, we aren't concerned about harassing the perps. We want to empower real people to defend themselves. Better to wake up people and surround the simulation with real people rather than feeding the simulation with your attention. Dig?

If you wanted to find any old vicsim sites and expose how terrible and ill-thought-out they were, that would be useful. We've done enough of that ourselves, but may as well scrape the barrel since they're taking memorials down and stuff.