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


Unread postby fbenario on Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:19 am

Observer » June 18th, 2018, 11:11 pm wrote:Thanks Fred. :)

Just as we all enjoy purposefully artfully making each next line of a song have nearly the same sound (Rhyming),
I sometimes enjoy purposefully artfully making each next line of a post have nearly the same length (Formatting).

Sometimes I entertain myself by sending texts that are visually interesting or unique in their appearance, so hats off to you!
Posts: 2227
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Our Forum Is A Stand For World Peace

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:23 pm

Everyone who uses this forum must do so with honest respect for all people.

If you are not capable of considering sensitive ideas with respect for all, do not come here. If we discover any hate group, militia, or other group of morons attempts to appropriate our words in support of their call for exclusion, violence or war, or attempts to defame us, we will call them out. You will not be allowed to participate on the forum.

We reserve the right to re-declare our intentions to end racism, end war, end racist propaganda of all kinds and from all people at any time and for any reason.

As administrators and members we must all recognize a need to be responsible with the extremely sensitive topics that we are discussing. We also ask that the public does its part in reading the information with a high level of discernment and willingness and diffusing information in culturally appropriate ways and we are open to discussion about what that looks like around the world.

If you are reading and using CluesForum, you are being entrusted with the deep responsibility to be honest and use your best critical thinking skills combined with your own drive and your compassion for all people to get to the bottom of what is being discussed about anti-human propaganda. If you are discovered to be lacking in these areas we reserve the right to correct you or ban you.

Please do not assume good intentions on the part of anyone on this forum. We do not know who joins our forum and we do not ask for proof. Do not attempt to prove who you are as that may be construed as attempting to sway the opinions of the forum. Although the admins run this forum in good faith in humanity, we know that will be abused and used against us.*

By using this forum you agree that due to the incredibly sensitive nature of the topics you cannot take anything personally.

Play fair and enjoy the wealth of multicultural critique. Let's create world peace. It involves dialogue.

*We cannot control who lies about their intentions here until they are discovered. To anyone offended by our language on the forum, please do not assume ill will on our part as administrators. Always do your own research. You can follow anyone's posting history on the forum by clicking on their name. Please know that we are aware of shills trying to run "Discredit By Association" campaigns against us in order to smear our forum and make it look bad. There will be zero tolerance whatsoever for this. We are almost alone on this planet in coming together in our international ad hoc consortium of citizen analysts and if your job is to come on here, gain sympathy, and lie (as we have already seen numerous times) you may be called out and it may not be pretty.
Posts: 5062
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Our Forum Is A Multicultural Stand Against Hate

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:29 pm

Anyhoo » July 21st, 2018, 6:50 pm wrote:To this I say: Is not hate the proper response when one discovers who is behind 9-11, which Simon Shack for some reason will never talk about? I give a big hats off to Simon for helping me see the hoax that 9-11 was,

Wow. There are so many things wrong with your post, I am surprised you are here. Zionists are different from Jews. Most people are lovely. But every society has its conservative psychos. Which are you?

Hate is not a proper response. As Simon has dedicated his research to truth and justice and peace, hate is the opposite response you should have. He is not shielding any one person. He is trying to help everyone gain control over their own lives from those in their community who have failed them. So naturally, if you have some inner hate or fear, it will increase your paranoia that everyone benefiting will result in your hated feared person benefiting too and, in your mind, "anyone that looks like or remotely benefits my enemy is my enemy". Well, that's exactly the path to world wars you fool!

Furthermore, it's really foolish to think one people alone advanced imperial evils on their own without the complete collaboration of all the nefarious power circles of the world. Psychopathy is the true enemy. Don't let it infect you.

Anyway, if you truly hate a single group of people, then you're not understanding the research at all. Everyone uses propaganda. What people do you come from that has been historically immune from weaving mythology about itself?

The goal humanity must have now is to understand and forgive the mythologies used to survive and move on to a place of truth.

But that's not going to happen if you rave about your innocence vs. that of your scapegoat. Even if it's a popular scapegoat.

but I condemn that he refuses to go further and identify the perpetrators and the reasons for the hoax, which involve a particular race of people.

So says you. So because people disagree with your particular bias and prejudice ... that means our motives must be bullshit. What if I called bullshit on you for pretending to be a racist to cause the forum to appear to be supportive of hate, violence and war?

It is not Hate to

blah blah blah. You say "I hate Jews" but "it's not really hate" in the same paragraph.

Duh. You are too stupid (Or is it self-loathing perhaps? Needing someone to blame?) to be responsible with this information. Ah, but perhaps I have "misunderstood" you because you "struggle" with language? Is that what you mean by this:

Take this any way you want.

That's very generous. So if I take it as you are asking to be asked about your community, your people, and your self and what you have personally done to discourage psychopathic behavior, I can take it that way? Great. Let us know!
Posts: 5062
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Our Forum Is A Multicultural Stand Against Hate

Unread postby nonhocapito on Sat Jul 21, 2018 9:48 pm

The second part of your post makes some sense. The first part though, I cannot make ends or tails of it. I probably have missed some big drama with someone hating the jews or praising white supremacy or something. But it sounds a lot like the thought police, very contemporary, creepy, threatening, self righteous to the appropriate degree.

"We reserve the right to re-declare our intentions to end racism, end war, end racist propaganda of all kinds and from all people at any time and for any reason."

Are races being discriminated against on this half-dead forum? To a degree that we need this call to ban "racism"?

Re-declare? When did we declare it first? What if ending racism was NOT someone's priority?

B-but political ideas are still allowed, right?

Above: a typical example of a self-defined partisan of multiculturalism.

So, when we witness the full force of the media, of academia, of political cabals and all social media acting as our thought-police while shoving multiculturalism down everyone's throat (and you seem to be on board with that) couldn't, wouldn't there be an urgent political reason to go against multiculturalism, among other things? Not in the sense of "there should be only one culture" (duh) but in the sense of protecting cultures from their visibly planned and accelerated dilution and annihilation, since everyone who is an adult and doesn't wear (((blinders))) has clearly seen by now that not everything is great about multiculturalism, and that everyone stands to lose a lot from it? Isn't it natural and understandable if people push against wide trends such as these, in order to instinctively balance things out? It's called "reaction" and it's a part of how things work...

B-but then, as I argue this, I can now be labeled a "racist" on the cluesforum? As not in line with this new disingenuous goal of promoting multiculturalism? Or is this just a fancy way to say that you don't like it, or find it offensive if someone disparages the jews [insert category you are sensitive about] on here?

Is Simon on board with this? Is this something you both agreed was a priority, of all things that this forum lacks, to point out right now?

What if instead we said something like this: this is a forum for adults. If you are offended by something, tough. Grow a pair and learn to live with it. Move the discussion ahead. Move the research forward. That's what matters.

The rest (bullying, ganging up on someone, being dishonest or deceitful etc), that's regular forum etiquette stuff, something that can and is regularly policed and doesn't require any extra virtuous meaning attached to it, which is just the twitter way to control the conversation. In fact, I can think of a million situations in which the most anti-racist and pro-multicultural person can be a nuisance to a forum, while a highly politically incorrect person may become the crucial contributor to a discussion.

Admin notice (Simon): dear Nonho, it was Hoi's initiative - the two of us had a discussion about it today and, thankfully, cleared it all up. :)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Our Forum Is A Multicultural Stand Against Hate

Unread postby Skinnylegsandall on Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:46 pm

That was perfectly stated Nonhocapito.
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Our Forum Is A Multicultural Stand Against Hate

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sun Jul 22, 2018 12:31 am

That's a good thought about multiculturalism and how it's misused against others. I agree with you. Perhaps that's the wrong word or theme.

It was definitely a personal matter that happened off the forum, in real life (that we don't need to get into) that made me scratch my head and wonder how our forum could be mistaken for something against world peace. I mean, what the bloody heck do people think we are calling out propaganda for? Well, it also made me think: am I bad for the TYCHOS? Is my attempt to help Simon's work actually hindering it?

Maybe you were right all along: we just need to get the TYCHOS off of this web site and in its own space. :mellow:

The age (in America) of hyper-political correctness is kind of annoying. But some aspect I like about it is that it asks people to be respectful of one another and to de-escalate conflict (when it's not going too far and asking people to censor information and just accept evils and accept invasion).

I wanted to post something about ourselves that may be truthful and exciting to people finding us for the first time through the TYCHOS. I wanted them to say to themselves, "Woah, not only is their model for the solar system better than expected, but their goals of peace and love are so impressive!"

Thanks for the brain check, nonhocapito. I guess it's just time to remain cool and confident, instead. People who understand what we are will need no reminder.

Speaking of maturity ... in real life, even adults hope that truth wins in the end.

Posts: 5062
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Fake stories = Pillars of modern society

Unread postby sykkelmannen on Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:30 pm

Hey there folks,
stumbled across the hoax writeup here on CF by Fakeologist ( ... edit#gid=4)

and these lines have been resonating with me the past week:
The perps like telling stories. It gives them Power to create... gods (Yahweh, Zeus, Baal etc.), heroes (Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus) a people (Hebrews, Christians, etc.) and historical events. And once the people stop believing in their fake stories, society gets destroyed and they start all over again.

I am not sure if he means fire and brimstone. I'd put it more mildly: society changes and hierarchy crumbles. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for the common man. It is very bad news however for the dupers that have been robbing him blind.

This really seems to be the glue that holds the hierarchy and society itself together. Ever since the first primitive society emerged, bullshit emerged with it. And when people stop believing in bullshit, who'll go to work? Or as Bill Hicks said: How are we gonna keep building nuclear* weapons? (*yeah I know)

I've been curious about your lifestyles, CF frequenters. I very much doubt there's a single person here who hate their job. Which is the point when one ceases to support society as defined above and starts to undermine it instead?
The question I've been pondering is: are we capable of developing technologically progressive anarchy? Or does it always mean back to caves eventually? I like the comfort, but the caves make a lot of sense... :D

Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:16 am

Re: Fake stories = Pillars of modern society

Unread postby antipodean on Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:59 am

I believe the above stories are told/ handed down through generations. They could be loosely based on actual facts or transposed to serve an agenda of control.
Over at Fakeologist someone is doubting the existence of the the Greek Empire and the mythology that comes with it. I don't think it really matters, the stories all seem to have some sort of fable behind them. If I refer to someone's Achilles Heel, it is regarded as their weak point.
In the same way that Solomon = Wisdom, Moses = leadership etc.

Is Society better off without these possibly fake stories (fables) because they can't be proven to be true ? I don't think so.
It would almost be Orwellian, if it was forbidden to refer to these stories and characters when explaining something in a conversation.

A subject such as Greek Mythology can become quite complex and intellectual, considering all the vast amount of history and inter relating historical aspects and characters there is to learn and know about it all. Which in turn can lead to a form of elitism speaking in tongues.

One of my favorite movies is Rumble Fish. In this scene below (from the 2 minute mark) the young hood feels belittled because he doesn't know who Cassandra was. ... -mythology
When I first watched the movie I never knew who she was. The movie became even more enjoyable in future viewings when I did know.

full link:

Here's an example of an ancient story or fable becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. ... 5#p2397665
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Re: Fake stories = Pillars of modern society

Unread postby aa5 on Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:33 am

I think probably the show will go on regardless of what people believe.. but the names and faces of who holds the power may change. For example in the Catholic Western areas the church used to hold major power, but then in many of those places a sort of secular socialism took over(that sounded a lot like a an atheistic version of the church with the government as God). Today the Church seems to have little political power, although they do still have some financial and other power, such as over people who are still attending church.

Yet, the society didn't fall apart, interestingly people just transferred their beliefs to new priests... eg.. 'the government', and 'the scientists'. Edit to add.. the former priest could also take off his robes, and don a lab coat, or a business suit, and not a lot has changed.
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Fake stories = Pillars of modern society

Unread postby Mansur on Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:22 pm

sykkelmannen » September 22nd, 2018, 9:30 pm wrote:( ... edit#gid=4)

... I very much doubt there's a single person here who hate their job. Which is the point when one ceases to support society as defined above and starts to undermine it instead?
The question I've been pondering is: are we capable of developing technologically progressive anarchy? Or does it always mean back to caves eventually? I like the comfort, but the caves make a lot of sense...

[The link does not work to me.]

Apart from that the „caveman” is no more than a theory (or rather an allegory, or a story if you like), the alternative offered above is a very morbid one. (It is not easy to imagine that such a fantastic logical jump can genuinely occur in a living brain.) (There’s even self-contradiction or inconsequence in it because the title says “modern society” while it was evidently meant to suggest “society at all times”.)

Would leaving the technological gadgets (and the sciences appertaining to it) mean to “go back” to the cave or even “on the tree”? And: we already live in a “technologically progressive anarchy”, why to want developing another?
… society changes and hierarchy crumbles. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for the common man. It is very bad news however for the dupers that have been robbing him blind.

Quite the contrary: the constant and never-ending changes (“progress”) in the structure of society and no hierarchy at all to support it are conditions which favor the “dupers” most. (“Change” may be the keyword: if you cease poisoning the waters they will be clear almost instantly, -- i.e. the technical playthings may find their legitimate applications.)

To project modern (media) world centuries and even millennia back in history is more than sickening. It is propaganda (e.g. the “jesus-did-never-existed” idiocy strongly pushed recently again this time). It seems “they” don’t need anymore to falsify history; a few catchwords widely spread are enough…

Newspeak, O good old days!

Nevertheless, the somewhat touchy and compromising question is I think valid, something like: what gives one the authority to criticize society -- living in the very midst of it, in more sense than one?

antipodean » September 23rd, 2018, 8:59 am wrote:Here's an example of an ancient story or fable becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. ... 5#p2397665

And do we believe in “self-fulfilling prophecies”? -- If there is anything like prophecy, if the word has a meaning at all worthy of its kind, it refers or should refer to something above life, above our ordinary life in space and time, i.e. to the “present”…

I think, Simon (in that post) should have taken at least a third version or option.

In 1946 -- we are already in the (middle) age of hoaxes, and everything he says should have indicated him not to believe anything in the story, -- especially in a story of one of the top Nazi propagandists. What he has thought by “'Nazi hanging show'“ seems not to be really a show.
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm


Unread postby TripleSpeak on Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:32 pm

I hope it is OK to post old news - but I only recently found out about the enormous Tianjin explosions. If you discount nukes (which one should) then the biggest explosions I've ever seen recorded are these. Have you seen any that are bigger?

Is there more evidence out there that isn't obvious? Seems there is a pretty tight lid on it in China... But based on how much ammonium nitrate was housed there, the size of the explosion does not seem to match up with other recorded explosions of known size. This is an example:

At the very least we know the Chinese government is lying about the death toll.

It is interesting to note that for the last few years, the media has been telling us that our cell phones have the ability to measure gamma radiation: ... cell-phone ... 9b464d68aa

Several websites have claimed these "washed out" or "white" or "scintillating" pixels are evidence of the filmed explosions are outputting some gamma radiation. ... was-nuked/
Many apply the same claims to bombs dropped on Yemen and Syria:


EDIT: One accompanying question for this thread I would like to be: what are the largest bombs that exist today? The one in that video from Yemen seems fairly massive, for example.
Last edited by TripleSpeak on Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:34 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread postby TripleSpeak on Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:45 pm

Einstein seems to be a genius with a very high *verbal* IQ... And not necessarily a very high spacial IQ. I also had the feeling studying his work that I was being fooled or that deliberately tricky language was being used. In the same way you can take a passage from a Chomsky speech that is lauded as genius, write it down, study it for a day - and never extract any greater meaning that the impression that was already self-evidently impressed upon its audience! My username is TripleSpeak because I think people have underestimated the power of doublespeak.

It would be nice to look for early evidence leaked by scientists involved in rocketry & satellite engineering who did not yet within establishment control. I think it could help connect the dots in the same way as looking back at early measurements of the "CMB," which actually matched the predictions of "overturned" cosmologies closed than the Big Bang.
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:34 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby TripleSpeak on Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:47 pm

SacredCowSlayer » September 28th, 2018, 3:34 pm wrote:
Flabbergasted » September 27th, 2018, 11:03 pm wrote:
TripleSpeak » September 27th, 2018, 5:02 pm wrote:... I have lived in over two dozen countries around the world ... I've worked in several areas of biology and computer science / engineering...

Hi TripleSpeak,
If it´s not outside the bounds of privacy, I would like to know:
- In what capacity did you reside in those 24+ countries?
- What sort of work have you done as a biologist and computer scientist/engineer?

Observer » September 28th, 2018, 1:26 am wrote:
TripleSpeak wrote:...after having seen through many big pieces of propaganda, I've become attracted to your forum.

If you have truly become attracted to this forum, you would have actually read the threads.
If you had read the threads, you would realize there is no more Earth-shape debate needed.
If you had read the threads, you would realize all rockets fly into the ocean, not into space.

And if you are desperately grasping at the fantasy of rockets in space, please don't post yet.
And if you "have seen through many big pieces of propaganda", then please boldly list a few.

In another thread you seem to be admitting the fact that Nuclear Bombs do not exist, great.
But perhaps that is just to gain enough trust, to waste our time with space satellite debates.

How about first (& this should be a forum rule) before typing on various subjects, admit 9/11.
Admit the "official evidence of 3,000 9/11 victims" is forged images thus nobody died on 9/11.

If you cannot admit in your next post that nobody died on 9/11, then you should not post here.
And even if you admit that point - if you can't realize space evidence is forged, you're retarded.

So please admit nobody died on 9/11, nobody has played on the moon, nobody has orbited Earth.

If you are a shill - tell your boss the infiltration doesn't work without admitting those 3 facts first.
And if you're an honest person still holding too many official beliefs, please read CluesForum more.

People find this site and excitedly post... but people need to read CluesForum more before posting.

Dear TripleSpeak,

Since it is you who brought up the points that Flabbergasted is inquiring about, I do think they warrant a response. I hope you can see how it would place our members at a disadvantage if claims of vaguely referenced experience and expertise are made, but simultaneously cannot be challenged or examined because of privacy concerns.

Moreover, I would appreciate it if you would tell us why you chose to use the moniker “TripleSpeak.”

Finally, my suggestion would be to spend more time reading through a given topic before diving straight in. I recognize the temptation to see a topic and simply chime in with the first thought that crosses your mind.

Please keep in mind that there are often dozens of pages that have been carefully developed by our members over a long period of time, and it is a disservice to everyone (including yourself) to neglect reading through the topic before posting.

This forum does not by any stretch pretend to require perfection of any sort. For there would be no posting here if that was the case. But we do expect our members to be considerate of its decorum, and the methodical manner in which the topics are approached and discussed.

I do appreciate you taking a moment to place your handshake introduction here per my request.

And Dear Observer,

I understand that your patience appears to be at an end. That happens for each of us from time to time, and I’m no exception. But, we have had more than one or two members who started out enthusiastically posting (albeit with varying degrees of clumsiness), and subsequently took a break to actually read the material and get better aquatinted with the forum before continuing to post. Some of the most valuable members here would be gone if they hadn’t been given a fair chance in their early days.

So I would encourage you to ask questions of new members (including TripleSpeak), but please tone down the unnecessarily harsh and accusatory language. Your passion is clear enough.

But like I told TripleSpeak, the decorum here matters. Accordingly, I don’t see any legitimate basis for calling another member “retarded,” even though qualified with the word “if.” I know you can do better than that.

Rest assured I’m not trying to be the “language police,” but I do care about how the forum comes across to readers who are fortunate enough to stumble across it. I hope I don’t have to follow this up with an explanation for why such a slur is inappropriate.

Too much quality work has been done and accumulated over the years to allow it to become overshadowed by the appearance of shouting down, cringe-worthy name calling, or (perhaps) premature accusations of “shill.”

Let’s allow TripleSpeak to respond to the relatively simple questions posed by Flabbergasted and yours truly. I hope you can appreciate the delicate (and indeed difficult) balance that we try to maintain on this forum.


SCS :)

I should have replied here first before the other threads that I posted in... I hope that I will still be allowed to ask questions in this forum. The reason is because I have lots of questions that I see not being discussed that I would like to use your clear brain power to help with... For example, that Tianjin post I just made - it seems way too prolific of an explosion for the tiny amount of media coverage it got. So like many of you, I feel that the more lies I know about, the better I can defend myself in this vast world of delusions.

"TripleSpeak" came to be recently when realizing I had underestimated "doublespeak." I realized this by watching Chomsky and realizing how good he is at speaking. I had studied Chomsky grammars when I got my degree, but never examined his politics until recently. When going through his well-received speeches - some of them even using the term double-speak - I realized an even higher skill of confusion and manipulation that I do not think has been given any serious analysis in the mainstream. I view Chomsky as an example of an extremely intelligent enemy - and I figured that naming ourselves after the offenses of the enemies of this world would be germane on this refuge of a forum.

I am happy to reply to all of the questions raised - and don't let me off of the hook if I miss any. I will take the following to be questions and reply below:

"If you had read the threads, you would realize there is no more Earth-shape debate needed."
I saw significant flat earth support in threads on this forum - maybe I missed some official posts deeming them incorrect. I view the huge rise in flat earth support as a psyop. Am I mistaken in viewing the Tycho model as globular? I had figured that approximating the shape of the earth was as easy as: 1) knowing the approximate speed of airplane 2) riding in some 3) calculating the time it takes from NYC -> London & then, for example, from Cape Town -> Rio (if the latter ride is nearly the same as the prior, then globularity must be true), right?

"If you had read the threads, you would realize all rockets fly into the ocean, not into space."

Yes, I believe that for *most* launch scams this would be true. However, the recent SpaceX "reusable-able" rockets seem to be 100% CGI.

"And if you "have seen through many big pieces of propaganda", then please boldly list a few."

I would prefer to keep the biological ones out of my introductory post since this forum doesn't seem very focus on those - and I don't want to weaken them. Most mainstream health knowledge is nearly opposite of the truth - and things like vaccines are always damaging to the body. Basically every terminal illness is reversible or curable.

"In another thread you seem to be admitting the fact that Nuclear Bombs do not exist, great. But perhaps that is just to gain enough trust, to waste our time with space satellite debates."

I do not believe that partial adherence to the consensus in this forum is enough to trick people that have figured out any of these things from scratch. My interest in this forum is partially to be to able to relate with others that can do so - because I had to do so before much of this information was readily available. I certainly see where you're coming from - a place like this must be difficult to administrate in today's environment. I'm happy to help make a multiple choice test - with several versions - on the first principles one must understand to get to the bottom of these things. It could be used as a sign-up barrier. For example a question would be, "When dropped, objects on earth travel through: a) path of least resistance b) path of most resistance c) there are some exceptions when fires are present." I guess that one is too easy... Just an idea :)

I don't see why the "nobody died on 9/11" needs to be so absolute. Do you really believe your enemies are so nice? Certainly there were a few people killed... If not only to shut them up, or take part in some of the plan that was not automatic. Guarding the bases of the tower so no one could be underneath? On the day of 9/11 I told people that the planes that flew into the towers were remote controlled due to how they were flying and because I knew the technology existed to do so. However, the evidence on this forum has made me reconsider that point as video trickery. Does this view need to be absolute or can I continue to hold the view that I don't know anyone who died, but there could (and should) be some or potentially many. The main issue of 9/11 is that the perpetrators need to be exposed & dealt with, right? Or is it that 9/11 wasn't so bad because no one died? I view 9/11 as worse than the mainstream because I don't believe any vengeance was achieved - it was merely a stepping stone for stealing even more money from Americans (and resources and power from the rest of the world). If there was absolutely zero danger of dying on 9/11 near the towers, then I don't see why so many were risking telling their allies not to go to work/NYC (Condoleezza Rice, many Israelis, etc). There is always a risk of death when doing a controlled demolition in a new way (from top to bottom) in the middle of a populated city. Furthermore, do you believe that asbestos can cause cancer if it were breathed into the lungs? Besides getting the huge insurance payouts, another reason for the plan was that they were breaking regulations by not spending millions to renovate the twin towers to take out the asbestos:

"nobody has played on the moon, nobody has orbited Earth."

Yes, these two are obviously fabricated.

"And please clearly admit upfront in your intro post that you have never met any terror victims."
Nope; I have not met terror victims.

"Any "terror-victim / orbit-human" claims must be made in your intro, not months or years later."
I do not know of any terror victim or human (and non-human) space travel.

Did I miss anything? I do appreciate all of your rigor and I shall try to live up to it!

simonshack » September 28th, 2018, 7:14 pm wrote:Problem is, too few people have balls like that in this world. Righteous and virtuous angry people are just told to shut up - and that they are "too emotional"...

I agree - this is a huge problem in society right now... It's one of those lies that is present on a daily basis. "Toxic masculinity, micro-aggressions" and other weaponized & fabricated language - pretty soon we'll have "micro hate facts"!
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:34 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby TripleSpeak on Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:16 pm

simonshack » September 28th, 2018, 10:32 pm wrote:
TripleSpeak » September 28th, 2018, 8:03 pm wrote:
I'm not sure what the question is - which smoke are you referring to? The smoldering of the fires on the upper 1/3rd of the twin towers?

This smoke, dear TripleSpeak : ... 8#p2391828

TripleSpeak wrote:I saw significant flat earth support in threads on this forum - maybe I missed some official posts deeming them incorrect.

You must have been reading another forum. No support for flat earth theories is tolerated here : ... flat+earth

Sounds reasonable - and smoke would drive people away from the base of the buildings. However, these videos do not look fake to me:

You're saying this video and ones like it are fake? Why would they make those poofs of smoke shooting out of the building like in all of the demolition videos that they then had to explain away in later "pancake theories" as being caused by pressure (despite the velocity proving explosions)? I don't think this is how they pull off false flags. Once the attack occurs, then everyone's awareness shoots up - the slight of hand is all in the setup, but they cannot control people recording videos from every angle and uploading them to bittorrent, for example. Anyway, I don't mean to bring up a foregone conclusion, but I don't think the buildings collapsing videos are CGI covered up by fake smoke. There may be fake smoke generators to cover up some explosions and other things - but the videos of the collapse look exactly like controlled demolitions (if you wanted to start the demolition from the damage area near the top). If the twin tower collapses are CGI, then they would have at least slowed down the collapse a little to make sure "conspiracy theorists" don't immediately recognize their free fall "rate of collapse." Explosions in demolitions must move through the building at equal or greater to free fall speed or they risk leaving some of the building standing.

The videos censored from MSM of witnesses and firefighters saying they experienced and saw explosions before the planes hit & during the collapse seem genuine. Furthermore, the firefighter testimony and engineers who signed 9/11 re-investigation petitions seem to think thermite was used to help cut up the building's huge steel supports - which makes sense when you have a building of this size to cut up into little pieces. The videos showing molten metal coming out of the building near the damage zone on the upper half does not seem like the best hoax CGI ever, but rather video evidence that has been censored from MSM because it does not fit with the "jet fuel" narrative. Also note that building #6 was basically demolished around the same time as the twin towers, so your image labeled "fake smoke" could be related to those shorter buildings being demolished than being entirely fake. The image labeled "do real building demolitions produce this much smoke" seems a bit off - I agree that they don't, but the demolition of the twin towers was not like the demolition of building #7 (which had a typical amount of smoke for a controlled demolition). I don't doubt smoke machines being used, but it is clear to me that they blew up the twin towers starting at the damage zone to match their narrative. They did not avoid blowing up the buildings from the top to the bottom in order to protect innocent victims who might be killed from a messy demolition strategy - these people are criminals...

I hope that stating my opinions on this topic is not viewed as being divisive since I was asked about them. I have a feeling this forum is going to encourage me to increase my photo/video forensic skills, which is good :)
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:34 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread postby Observer on Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:45 am

OK TripleSpeak, reading your subsequent posts, perhaps (PERHAPS) you are a real seeker who simply needs to read more of the discoveries here.

Also, it seems you still have not answered Flabbergasted's questions.

You SEEM to be understanding and admitting that nobody has been to the moon, and that nobody has orbited Earth. But, actually, your answer still left room for back-pedaling:

"Yes, these two are obviously fabricated."

OK, so you admit the official "footage" of the moon-walks and space-walks are obviously fabricated, wonderful, but, since you didn't actually state "nobody has been to the moon" and since you didn't actually state "nobody has orbited Earth" I worry that this is still a long-con limited hangout multi-year project being initiated with this new character.

Since you only admitted the FOOTAGE was fabricated, there is still the chance that months or years in the future, after kinder-than-me folks here have become emotionally invested in assuming you are an intelligent honest non-shill, you still have the ability to eventually reveal and push your still-hidden stance of, "Well, I admitted the moon-landing and ISS humans-in-space FOOTAGE was fabricated, but... surprise, I am now going to start gradually pushing the belief that NASA released fabricated footage but has done those things, so now let's have a time wasting debate about how maybe NASA actually DID send people to the moon, and DOES send people to the moon, and maybe NASA has actually HAS put people into orbit, and DOES have people in orbit right now. C'mon guys, I've been a member here for 5 years now, I've visited your home, I know you, you know me, I honestly wanna' use the CluesForum forum to debate about the possibility that: even though the official FOOTAGE is fabricated, maybe space travel is actually being done man!"

In the same way, it is not enough to merely say "they fabricated SOME parts of the footage of 9/11 (for example, just the planes were added in)", and it is even not enough to say "they fabricated ALL of the footage of 9/11 (the planes, the buildings, the victims, the whole movie from start to finish, even the wreckage aftermath images)." Meaning, of course it is essential to admit ALL the 9/11 "footage" was fabricated, total CGI, start to finish, but then one needs to go the extra final step of clearly stating: "Yes, they fabricated all of the footage of 9/11, AND, none of the official 3,000 victims were killed on 9/11."

The fabricated victim footage (like the fabricated "King Kong" victims depicted as being as tall as the 3.5 meter twin tower floor heights) means one has to admit none of the official 3,000 victims were killed on 9/11.

One cannot waffle on that point, one cannot remain on the fence, one cannot quietly refuse to take a stance on that issue, one cannot be coyly vague about THE MOST VITAL POINT proven by CluesForum: that none of the official 3,000 victims were killed on 9/11.

Never mind space satellites for a moment, the main point which infiltrators try to bring up here at CluesForum (after posting hundreds or thousands of "right on" comments over the years to build trust) is the eventual, "You know, I haven't spoken up on this issue before, but I'm not convinced that none of the official 3,000 victims were killed on 9/11. This is a little embarrassing, but as it happens, my family-member / ex-coworker / online-friend was killed on 9/11. Let's debate the possibility of one victim being real, or a few victims being real, for many posts back and forth, until I eventually get banned."

Even after being banned, they still get a bonus from their boss, for having seeded doubts in the minds of a few readers and for having wasted the time and energy of the members who they pulled into the debate. The war-initiators have trillions to continuously hire thousands of typists whose goal is simply to drain the energy and time of potential actual revolutionaries who, with enough free-time and energy, might actually defeat the war-initiators, the war-initiators who (safely, indirectly, anonymously, of course) are paying and giving orders to the limitless number of shill "terror victims are real (so give more money to the government for defense)" and "space travel is real (so give more money to the government for exploration)" typists and AI typing programs.

Every time such "terror victim / space travel" typists receive a reply from actual honest CluesForum members, they have achieved their goal of draining us, whether we reply to them once negatively and then justly ban them on day one, or whether we reply to them positively a thousand times and foolishly become "online friends" and then eventually justly ban them on day 1000 after they start pushing the "maybe, maybe, maybe some terror victims are real, maybe, maybe, maybe some space accomplishments are real" aspects of the official story too hard.

Look, nobody is killed in the production of any of the terror-movies, especially not in 9/11 hoax and not in any of the subsequent hoaxes, because these wealthy war-initiators do NOT take the unneeded risk of killing actual victims in America or Europe during the production of their war-initiating CGI terrorism movies.

AFTER their CGI terrorism movies have rationalized the desired war-initiation, THEN of course their military pawns actually do kill millions of faraway defense-less lawyer-less poorest humans (for oil-grabs, gold-grabs, land-grabs, power-grabs, tax-grabs, fiat-printing-grabs, human-right-cancelling, fear-increasing, thus health-decreasing, thus happiness-decreasing, thus consumerism-increasing, profit-increasing-projects, etc.) but those faraway murders pose no risk for the terror-movie-creating war-initiators, since current society refuses to imprison or punish in any way the top war-initiators or the middleman order-givers or the lowly trigger-pullers.

Back to you, TripleSpeak:

If you still are thinking that "the video footage of 9/11 was authentic", and that "the impossible top-down destruction thus actually happened", and that "MAYBE MANY of those 3,000 official victims were actually in the towers on that day" you have NOT watched Simon's movies, you have not read Simon's Tour Guide, and you have not read the relevant threads here at CluesForum.

It's rude for sudden posters to expect their opinions to be read, without first reading the vicsim evidence already posted here.
It's absurd for CluesForum to waste time on supposed thinkers who won't even state in their intro: nobody was killed on 9/11.

To begin to understand that nobody was killed on 9/11, you need to read Simon's intro link.

Then, take the time to ponder the other 1000 threads here.

At the very least, you should watch Simon's 19 videos which are currently hosted on this page.

Currently you have merely stepped up from the "remote control planes theory" stage to the "just the plane images were added in" stage. You have a long way to catch up, but if you are real and honest and intelligent, as you are purporting to be, you can catch up! :)

Currently, you are still wrongly thinking and/or implying that "the 9/11 footage of the buildings' destruction and the victims hanging out the windows was all REAL, they couldn't fake footage the buildings' destruction footage, they couldn't prevent the existence of actual footage from New Yorkers with cameras, they couldn't have employed military city-obscuration smoke machines to prevent the actual bottom-up normal victimless controlled demolition from being seen or recorded, the brave firefighters in the footage are really pulling victims out of the wreckage and not military actors on a movie set, not greenscreen, not CGI, that's crazy, with the exception of the planes the 9/11 footage is authentic, and we should make various conclusions based on this authentic media/amateur footage of what happened on 9/11."

"...I don't see why the 'nobody died on 9/11' needs to be so absolute..."
"...when doing a controlled demolition in a new way (from top to bottom)..."

So currently, you're striking out on the vital 9/11 issue by directly implying that "the top-to-bottom footage is authentic", and thus indirectly implying that the victims depicted in that "authentic footage" are actual humans about to be killed by "the top-to-bottom destruction we see in the footage, done by DEW weaponry, maybe DEW weaponry attached to the ISS, since satellites are the lynchpin to the ISS existence, man!"

And about the less vital issue of "space success" (and your belief that the ISS is orbiting 400km above us, with a possible 9/11 top-to-bottom DEW weapon attached no less, all launched into space and constructed in space using rockets and space shuttles, haha) your current claims about your current supposed beliefs are illogically conflicting:

You CLAIM to be understanding and admitting that all rocket launches (if actual ones have even been done) go right into the ocean, not space, and even better, you seem to be understanding and admitting that some (or many, or all) of the rocket launches are 100% CGI.

Great, then since you supposedly KNOW we can't launch rockets beyond (or even close to) the Karman line, then why oh why are you still desperately internally holding on to, and pushing here at CluesForum, the old disproven belief that "since my location-telling radio-receiver works, they really must have somehow rocket-launched thousands of satellites into orbit" belief?

If rocket launches to space are impossible, how are satellites in space possible?

Look, maybe you are a shill, maybe you are an honest person who simply still hasn't figured out: ALL the terror "footage" is fake AND none of the terror "victims" are real, ALL the space "footage" is fake AND none of the space "manned orbits / unmanned orbiting items" are real.

In the spirit of admitting I am also a flawed non-perfect human, I'll share with you my intro post here, in which I admit I too, like you, was once trapped in the "DEW beam from space dustified the Twin Towers top-to-bottom as seen in the authentic building destruction footage" totally mistaken stage of waking up:

Observer » February 7th, 2015, 9:50 pm wrote:Hello Simon, and everyone here, I hope we all are feeling happy, healthy, and in good humor today!

Long time silent reader, I've finally decided to sign up... I am very grateful to have found this intelligent group of free-thinking logical, seekers of truth, who have the mental-ability to see the lies (in images/claims/situations) PLUS the heart-courage to share openly with humanity all of these discoveries. Thanks for opening my eyes to the visual proof of image fakery behind the terrorism hoaxes, the space hoaxes, the nuclear hoaxes, etc.

Hey Simon, I called you once, from my home in Japan, after I first saw September Clues. As I recall, you seemed pleasantly surprised to get my call from such a seemingly-exotic country (I've lived here for about 20 years now, I have a wife and 4 loving kids, I speak Japanese quite fluently, I will probably stay here for my remaining 1000 years - haha, just thinking positively) and I remember you asked me, "How did you get this number?" and I told you how, as well as how to hide it better for the future, to which you explained you feel no need to hide, you are not scared of being known, you simply were asking because you are curious about everything. I really respect those qualities, courage and curiosity.

Anyway, let's see here, about 9-11, here's my thinking as it improved over the years - and yes, I am embarrassed it took me so long to come around to the total fakery understanding. I should have realized INSTANTANEOUSLY that wings, with their heavy engines attached, would have been broken right off as soon as they touched the wall, and those wings would have fell to the ground immediately, regardless of everything else, so I should have KNOWN that the images were faked right from the start. But I didn't. So here, I'll describe how I finally got to the level of understanding which the members of this small community here at September Clues have been saying all along, which is that all of the images were faked. Here is the long winding path I took:

First I knew from the start that explosives were used to demolish those 3 steel buildings, that's simple logic, because fire doesn't demolish the steel frame skeleton of buildings, and neither does the relatively minor vibrations from even a big plane crash (as shown by the B-52 Bomber hitting the Empire State Building in 1945, plus again, even without that history tidbit, this first point is simple logic.) [Edit: Actually those 9 steel buildings, not just 3.]

Then, I realized that no 757 even hit the pentagon (I was woken up in this area by first seeing Meyssan's J'accuse image collection, which included the earliest images, when the wall was still standing totally intact, merely blackened, not yet having fallen down, still showing the tiny hole where the 757 could NOT have entered, and clean grass, and yes, those images like all images can no longer be trusted, I'm simply saying that those images are what helped my mind open to the no-plane reality.)

Then, there was a time when the "Pod images"(faked) and the "Missile being fired from the pod at the moment of entry images"(faked) had fooled me (because I was still at that point stupidly assuming that the images were real.) Those images fooled me into wrongly assuming that Jayhan was right about some hardened military plane with a missile having been used to help break through WTC2. (Wrong.)

Then, Baker's video helped me realize a little video trickery was used, and then Simon's amazing September Clues video helped me realize a LOT of video trickery was used. Thanks to Simon's September Clues, I finally let go of the false assumption of any passenger planes hitting anything on that day. Even before seeing those videos, I had already realized on my own that "Since they obviously faked the Pentagon hit, using no 757 at all there, it would be illogical to use real planes elsewhere, it would simply be extra risk without any extra reward, because any real planes (whether hijacked by humans or by remote control, whether carrying humans or not, whether officially-claimed regular planes or some special military planes) would ALL be too risky (due to leaving clues in the crash, or missing the targets altogether and exposing the whole project.) It was September Clues that finally made me realize for sure that we were presented with fake plane images for sure. And yet, I was somehow stupidly still holding on to the buildings. At this stage I knew that the planes were faked images, but I was still assuming that all of the OTHER images (of the buildings turning to dust, and of the people in the streets covered in that dust) were real. (Wrong.) Next, since I was still assuming the building images were real, I'll go ahead and admit, even though now I'm really gonna' look stupid, I was then pulled into the "Judy Wood" directed-energy-weapon web for a few years. There I was, explaining to people what I thought was the situation:

"The plane images were added in real time, the building destruction was then initiated by conventional bombs same as in regular building demolitions, you can see some squibs here, and a little bit of thermite was added in just to keep us arguing about the details, see these sparks over there, but the most shocking thing is, while the towers were being destroyed mainly by conventional methods, a more thorough destruction of all the evidence came from unconventional means as well, namely directed energy weaponry, which is like a combination of laser and microwave, because just look at this footage, the beams of steel are turning to dust, watch these beams here, they all turn to dust in the next few frames, look at this spire itself turning to dust as it falls, and in the end look at the lack of steel sitting on the ground, the lack of steel elevator doors, desks, chairs, etc, and check this out, this Judy Wood lady is suing a bunch of directed energy weaponry company executives who were actually brought in by NIST to give their expert opinion about how this whole 'collapse' was initiated by fire, why would these DEW guys be brought in if DEW wasn't used, and notice how the NIST literally limited the scope of their own investigation to only 'the events leading up to the INITIATION of the collapse' and thus totally steering clear of making any statements about what caused most of the steel to turn to dust AFTER the beams started to fall. This was a message, from the people who did this (CIA, Mossad, etc) to the Presidents around the world, saying 'Warning, we've finally perfected this DEW thing we started back in the Reagan era, this is much better than nukes because we can pinpoint destroy specific buildings, totally turning them to dust, without any pesky radiation blowing back to our side of the earth, and we can even overlay this DEW destruction with faked-terrorist-attack claims which the world believes due to our total media control, so Russia and China and all you Arab oil sellers, you had better let the dollar continue to have the monopoly on all oil sales, or we will simply use this DEW to turn your home to dust while claiming terrorists flew a plane into it. We have this new big stick, and we have the balls to use it. We even used it against our own citizens, so we'll surely use it on you if you don't do what we say."

After a few years of that, I read about the hollow towers idea, which made me realize, "Hmmm, that would explain the lack of steel in a way that doesn't make me look crazy with all this DEW talk. This hollow tower makes sense, the buildings were basically empty shells, the world's largest atriums, right from the start, with only the lobby and the tourist spots up top having floors, and only occasionally having additional floors added in for tenants now and then, but most definitely all tenants and floors being removed before the big demolition. But then I remembered that the same guy pushing the hollow towers thing is the same guy who fooled me with the pod image he "bought on the street at ground zero." And then I learned that his rich lady-friend who was with him on that trip, got caught leaving messages on tribute pages claiming to know victims who we now know never existed - and then she faked her own death but loved her skinny dogs too much to get rid of them - and so, he supposedly then lives together with her and her skinny dogs and her new fake name.) (I say supposedly, because I now realize it is foolish to assume that ANY of these characters are real living humans, from "victims" to "witnesses" to "image suppliers" to "truthers", thanks again to Hoi for having created that PDF which really opened my eyes to the surprisingly prevalent reality of mass simulated characters.) [Edit: actually, the hollow towers idea (both aspects: the no-actual-employees for months or years in advance, which helped make the victimless demolition easier, and the mainly-atrium not-many-actual-floors from the very start or for months or years in advance, which helped reduce the damage to non-WTC buildings by creating a relatively smaller pile of steel from the towers) turns out to be a quite logical (but not essential) probability, BUT: the "PJ" shill allowed/pushed it merely to keep propping up the grand "video footage, of the building destruction, and of the final wreckage, was authentic footage, so we should keep basing our conclusions on the media and 'amateur' footage" lie.]

Then, I decided to come back to Simon's site, after many years of being away. And thank goodness I came back here to see how far you guys have gotten. Thanks to Simon, and everyone here, I finally realized that all the building images, with all their "evidence" of the steel turning to dust, were all totally faked images. So, even though the perpetrators created all those building images, and even though they brought in some DEW guys to give Judy somebody to sue, the fact is that since the building images were faked, there is no evidence of DEW having been used at all. The image fakers simply added faked evidence of DEW into their computer animation forgery, just like they added so many other red-herrings in there. I now see the point of all that "evidence of DEW" was simply to make folks talking about that seem crazy. Who knows, maybe the CIA perps actually DID try to also fool various leaders into believing the DEW thing, to blackmail them and perhaps to even sell them some fake DEW technology plans?

Anyway, the main point is that at this point I realize that no conclusions about what happened can be made from the images, since they were all forged. We can't say "they definitely used X technique to destroy the buildings, we know the details for sure." What we CAN say instead is that, "this image A, and that image B, could definitely NOT both be real, because they conflict with logic AND they conflict with each other. Both of these images can't both be true, so at LEAST one of them is faked, and if even one of these official photos is faked, that is evidence of the source of these images (government and media) being involved in this hoax.

And that's exactly what you guys are doing, pointing out evidence of the image forgeries. We don't need to argue about the details of what they did do, because we know for sure what they didn't do. They didn't show us real images. We here all agree on that. And thanks to Hoi, I finally realized for absolute sure that the victims were all totally faked as well. So the bad guys didn't have to land any real planes at any military base to kill the passengers, nor to any ocean to kill the passengers, because there never were any actual passengers, and there weren't any people in the buildings either. The fact that the names of the so-called-victims don't appear in the SSDI is the ultimate proof that the whole thing was a hoax. The fact that the hoax didn't kill anyone on 9-11 is the good news. The fact that the hoax led to the death of millions of humans in Afghanistan and Iraq is the bad news. Thank goodness some humans alive today invest energy each day to work towards preventing this from happening in the future, by exposing as many of these hoaxes as possible.

Love & Gratitude


Look, how about clicking the links I have given you in this post and pondering the evidence which CluesForum has altruistically given you, before posting anymore half-baked "maybe maybe" theories which have already been disproven here.

Again, the most important link is Simon's intro link.

And you need to actually watch Simon's 19 videos which are currently hosted on this page. (But don't get distracted or pulled into that site, simply watch Simon's 19 videos which happen to be hosted over there then come back here.)

I look forward to you proving you are NOT a long-con character, when after carefully considering all the information above by Simon Shack, you can finally honestly state whole-heartedly: ALL the terror "footage" is fake AND none of the terror "victims" are real, ALL the space "footage" is fake AND none of the space "manned orbits / unmanned orbiting items" are real.
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests