GETTING THE WORD OUT!

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

ONE-TIME SEPTEMBER CLUES RADIO PROGRAM

I am planning on doing a single 45-minute segment, divided into 3 segments of 15 minutes each, on a radio station. In this small amount of time, I have a chance to say whatever I want to say. Yet, I am having a hard time coming up with the structure for this show.

Can you help me figure out how to manage the "tone" of the show, whether or not to allow call-ins, what exactly I can say better than the "Architects and Engineers" people like Gage (and his parade, coming to a town all too near me)?

I was thinking of starting something like:

"Hello, I have been given a small amount of time to break the silence on the controversial issues of the seedy media, its role as government propaganda and psychological operations."

Every minute counts, and I don't want to repeat myself. Please help me come up with some good topics to focus on.

- Vicsims (and what aspects of them?)
- Actors
- Digital CGI manipulation
- Rewriting history
- NASA
- 9/11's inbred cousin events like 7/7, Mumbai, Madrid, etc.

I cannot get to everything, but I can say a lot. I need some kind of summary, I guess, of everything relevant we want to say to hundreds of thousands of people. Simon, nonhocapito, fbenario, etc. would you help me write some monologue or dialogue-topics-on-the-facts, please?

Should I focus only on 9/11? Should I try to paint a broader picture?

I feel like it's better to stick to the things we know. The things we discovered. Should we mention the trouble we've encountered along the way and call out perps like Judy Wood, Nico Haupt, Michael Moore, Alex Jones, Jeff Hill, etc.?

Should the entire program be a long list of descriptions of all the unsavory characters who refuse to discuss TV-fakery facts and their connections to people with big money? That alone would be an interesting program. Just narcing on a bunch of lying jerks and the parts of them that are fictitious.

Maybe I can just focus on the evidence of fakery. On the other hand, how can I explain in words what is best revealed in the poor quality of the fake photography? Help me figure this out ...

Should it just be a shot of painful truth - one likely fact after the other?

i.e.;
Here are some facts you may not know. Look them up for yourself if you doubt anything I have to say.
1. 9/11 didn't happen. It was a completely fabricated event.
2. The victims are fake.
3. The terrorists are fake.
4. The heroes are fake.
5. The entire charade is a lie.
6. The Patriot Act is an unnecessarily Draconian piece of prefabricated legislation created for enactment immediately after the fake event of 9/11 was implemented.
7. The entire war on terror is fake.
8. The space program is also a lie.
9. We have never been to the moon. We don't have the capability now and we didn't then.
10. This is the truth. The rest of the media is more-or-less a lie or a series of bumbling fools that purchased the lie.
11. The CIA, the FBI, the NSA and others all have corporate moneyed interests controlling the message of the populace, which in turn controls the outcome of the media.
12. The families of the victims are fake. They are actors and they are liars.
13. The high-profile celebrity victims have probably disappeared to unknown lands. In any case, they are all deeply connected to the media that claims to have accidentally discovered their supposed deaths.
... and just keep going on and on? The reason I think this strategy could be interesting is because it is more-or-less the opposite of what the media does. The media carefully nudges people into false beliefs through constant vacillation. This is the opposite of that, in that it merely presents our beliefs like some kind of religious tenants and doesn't bother at all with complaints against it.

Then again, a lot of people might just be turned off by such an attitude. I know I would be skeptical of such things unless reference were given from "point A" (the lie) to "point B" (freedom from and skepticism of the lie).

Hmm. So much to consider ... where to begin? And how?
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by Heiwa »

hoi.polloi wrote:ONE-TIME SEPTEMBER CLUES RADIO PROGRAM

I am planning on doing a single 45-minute segment, divided into 3 segments of 15 minutes each, on a radio station. In this small amount of time, I have a chance to say whatever I want to say. Yet, I am having a hard time coming up with the structure for this show.

Can you help me figure out how to manage the "tone" of the show, ...

Hmm. So much to consider ... where to begin? And how?

A journalist friend of mine said to Keep it Simple, Stupid, KISS, :rolleyes: and that it is good to concentrate only on three topics in any (3x15=45 minutes) presentation, e.g. in this case:
3. The terrorists (were and) are fake.
7. The entire war on terror is fake (or real but a show to kill innocent people and keep US people busy, i.e.)
11. The CIA, the FBI, the NSA and others (US Depts. of Commerce and War) all have corporate moneyed interests controlling the message of the populace, which in turn controls the outcome of the media.
Good luck with your presentation!
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by simonshack »

Dear Hoi,

For a 45-minute radio show, I'd leave NASA out of it - it would be too much to take in for the average listener.

The September Clues 9/11 research is, of course, pretty tough to summarize in 45 minutes. Now, I'm only brainstorming here - but do keep in mind that any radio show needs to reiterate basic concepts (that Cluesforum members are familiar with) which are still far from being obvious to/ let alone widely accepted by - the general public. However, it seems that the notion that the TV networks are complicit with the Nutwork (aka TPTB) is gaining ground all over the world. This is why I'd stress the fact that it should be of no surprise to anyone that they ALL aired a totally prefabricated "Hollywood production" on 9/11. Also, the bogus "War on Terror" is another thing which the public is now prepared to see for the hoax that it is (what with the widely derided "Binladen killing" news saga - and such). So, for a 45-min 9/11 radio show, I'd keep in mind the following five points:


1: 9/11 was the main 'trigger' to launch the bogus War on Terror, an essential lie the Nutwork needed to make up in order to 'justify' their rogue invasions and lootings of foreign countries (I trust MOST people will agree with this notion)

2: The Nutwork made up a plan: They would air on their (complicit) TV networks a visual tale (put together with computer graphics technology) showing airliners crashing into the WTC twin towers - causing them to collapse in a cloud of dust. They would then blame this mayhem on a foreign enemy. Two other "hijacked airliner" stories (Pentagon and Shanksville) would provide convenient diversions - for the TV networks to justify their "LIVE" broadcasts switching away from the Manhattan events. TV viewers around the world would buy the entire story - hook, line and sinker - since it was all aired on TV.

3: In reality, the WTC would be demolished in conventional fashion, in bright daylight - but the entire WTC complex would be engulfed in military smoke obscurants. The Lower Manhattan area would be fully controlled / cordoned off / comprehensively evacuated, no one would understand what was happening, and no one would die. In fact, the earlier 1993 WTC bombing was just a pretext to 'evict' all of the WTC's historical tenants - and replace them with a bunch of complicit firms/virtual tenants (mostly Wall Street joints) which would all uphold the illusion that the towers were still full of office workers.

4: Demolishing the towers (behind a smokescreen) would be the easiest part of the operation. The major effort would be to impede any private imagery of that morning to emerge into the public domain. However, the military-managed control/evacuation of Lower Manhattan would have kept photo/videographers to a bare minimum, and electromagnetic jamming devices would have impeded any digital cameras to operate. Any damning imagery (in stark conflict with the TV imagery) captured by some John Doe would have easily been dealt with, as the Nutwork controls the media, the police authorities, and even the internet. Where could John Doe possibly publish/diffuse his damning images to the wider public?

5. For this psyop "terror attack" scenario to effectively generate the desired, massive public outrage, it was of course ESSENTIAL to sell the notion that "3000" people perished in the process. Once again, computer graphic technology would be put 'to good use' - to craft dramatic, shock-and-awe images of people "jumping to their death" - and to create a digital database of bogus victims. To complete the illusion, a bunch of, say, 50 (full-time) actors would also be recruited to play the role of "mourning family members" - and these are the ones we've seen to this day, often weeping on TV and expressing their anger at the US government for not answering all of their questions.

And as the saying goes, "the show must go on" ! <_<
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Thanks, Heiwa. Thanks, Simon. That helps a great deal! I think I have developed a strategy to make this an interesting show.

I will start with some small articles about technology we discuss, such as HERF.

For the first five minutes, I will read snippets from Dawn of the E-Bomb, particularly the information about how even high-end military technology is not shielded against a rudimentary HPM weapon. I will also read the testimony of Quentin, Maeve, Aliendear and SassyMami.

I will then suggest that this weapon was used on 9/11 to block all potential professional/amateur imagery. The helicopters in the sky were recording nothing. They were there to create the appearance of a news recording.

For the five minutes after that, I will talk about military obscurants. We know about white phosphorous, and we know there are non-deadly versions of those in household products. We also know smoke was reported all around the base of the towers, which would obscure street views and make distant views from New Jersey and Brooklyn look like war zones. Especially if the towers had been equipped with a means of constant smoke production.

I will then discuss JDAM and similar missiles, which resemble the profile of a Boeing airplane, but which can be equipped with just about anything, from explosives, to EMP technology to napalm.

For the third five minute section (or so), I will discuss the ability for all TV networks to receive an emergency signal that overrides any and all other signals. I will mention the military simulation software and its ability to mimic realistic lighting better than most Hollywood movies.

By the end of the first fifteen minutes, I will reveal that all of these technologies were tested and observed operational on or before 2000.

For the middle fifteen minutes, I will discuss the historic practice of inventing people whole cloth and using these invented persons for spy and intelligence purposes. The mob in Italy became more sophisticated as attempts to penetrate and expose their networks became more aggressive. Our government recognizes the power of these tactics and would not hesitate to implement this technology if they believed it would make us safer. Once implemented, this technology could be abused and - given a large enough budget - could be supported on the loose testimony of anyone close to a lying family member. After all, if someone appears to trust their father, son, brother, cousin or best friend - who may actually be keeping deep military secrets - what justification do we have to doubt their trust and naivete?

I will then make it plain that the Wall of Tears strategy, coupled with real family rumor and drama, and humanity's hubris and obsession with being "current news" creates an almost unstoppable, impenetrable stubbornness against those who want more details than the duped family member has, or are willing to get.

This is how mere actors in the media, supported by major politicians - and occasionally reinforced at a funeral or a spectacle - could be all it takes to entrench a media story as "real" in the minds of the public. Add to that the much more plentiful and much more ceaseless number of media tie-ins, documentary specials, news videos, minor news article updates on the fake people (with everything from that fake person's lost puppy to their invented, novelistic personal habits that make their front business successful). And what you have is a positive barrage of fake information that invades and becomes the only thing that anyone ever talks about.

The newspapers now spend a great deal of their time doing this, time they used to spend journaling minor stories of little importance. Now, they have the appearance of minor stories, but contain reminders that the fake people are real, that their partially fake/partially real families are 100% real and human. What you end up with is - essentially - an insidious replacement of honest journalism with a complete fabrication serving the same purpose it always had, which is to create buzz and conversation and newspaper sales, but with the added function of enlisting every reader, viewer and site user as an unwitting propagandist for the great lies of our time.

The final fifteen minutes will be spent discussing the fake "evidence" that we've amassed. How does this sound so far?
MsQ
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:40 am

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by MsQ »

Good luck Hoi - I have always loved your posts here, so I imagine the radio show will be fab!

I think it would help to start by taking a few minutes to explain image analysis and digital forensics, just so people can hear that this isn't "just another conspiracy". Maybe mention a brief history of photo (and possibly media,) manipulation before going into any of the other details.

IMO, don't take calls, since you don't know who may ring up and you only have 45 mins. I personally hate it when I'm listening to an interesting radio show, and then a clueless long winded caller suddenly gets air time for instance...

I don't think 45 minutes is anywhere near long enough to squeeze in other events. Too many subjects for people new to this can be too much for people to take in or cause them to be overly skeptical. A summary and comparison of other events could be mentioned towards the end. Maybe it wouldn't be just one time and ask you back to do another show?
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by fbenario »

Sorry guys, but I don't actually agree with much of what Heiwa, Simon, or even Hoi himself (in his 7:59 PM post), propose on structure or content.

Structure

First, it has to stay positive and non-defamatory - which means no mention of Judy Wood, Nico Haupt, or any of their ilk. (I understand that nonreal personas can't sue for defamation, but let's leave that point aside for now.) Don't mention any other individuals at all.

Second, Hoi's script must be written beforehand and vetted by a couple of us - I would suggest by Simon, Nonho, Maat and me. No offhand comments or parentheticals thrown in off-the-cuff by Hoi during the taping or airing (if live).

Third, a written transcript of Hoi's presentation, with footnotes and links to Cluesforum, should be posted online contemporaneously with the initial broadcast.

Content

I think the first 15 minutes should be something along the following lines.

1 - Read the entire page The Power Of Imagery, the initial Main Article on septemberclues.org.

2 - Read the first two paragraphs from each of the next three articles listed - Deconstructing 9/11, Who Did 9/11?, Imagery Analyses (choosing one of the four main imagery groups to emphasize).

3 - End with The Memorial Scams page, with an in-depth discussion of the vicsim image-fakery techniques, focusing on Wainio.


That's as far as I've gotten now. We can collectively decide what subjects to emphasize in the two remaining 15-minute periods.
MsQ
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:40 am

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by MsQ »

hoi.polloi wrote: How does this sound so far?
It sounds quite complicated, (especially the military part/s.) I think it needs to be simpler. Though it may depend on what type of audience you're likely to have.
Don't get me wrong - I'm interested in everything you wrote in the post (and will be looking up the stuff I don't know about quite soon!) I'm just thinking in terms of people tuning into a radio show and trying to take it all in.
Do you know what time of day the show is going to air? I'm no expert, but I think the time of day can make a difference to what kind of content and tone you can use in a show, because depending on what the listener is doing can make a difference to what type of show they can or want to listen to. Ie, if people are driving to or from work, if they're likely to be at work, or if they're likely to be at home and so on
fbenario wrote:First, it has to stay positive and non-defamatory - which means no mention of Judy Wood, Nico Haupt, or any of their ilk. (I understand that nonreal personas can't sue for defamation, but let's leave that point aside for now.) Don't mention any other individuals at all.
Agreed.
whatsgoingon
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:56 pm

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by whatsgoingon »

a
Last edited by whatsgoingon on Fri May 24, 2013 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Haha! Well, let's be clear that nobody here is a media "expert" - just the opposite, which is why we are having such a hard time getting the word out. :lol:

But your points are all well taken. Fbenario, you may be right. Perhaps it's your sense of the American audience. It will probably be a Sunday morning when many church-goers are having their eggs and coffee or are at church already. It's a bohemian hour. Good audience, I think.

Plus, Simon has been writing and re-writing that stuff for some time, to bring the communication to a perfection of clarity, of sorts. So we should take advantage of his writings and just read it fairly verbatim.

And anyway, I didn't do all the research so it makes much more sense that I would say, "Hello, I am announcing to the world that September Clues has solved the 9/11 mystery. Here is what my friend Simon found, and which I confirmed through my own independent research into his findings." Or something, perhaps not in that alarmist vein.

I agree - no call-ins, unless Simon were to be able to call in for the last 15 minutes to the station and we could shoot the breeze. (But no swearing Simon! The American censors are very particular on that point.) Just kidding, that would probably not be the best idea. But it is fun to think about. Simon and Hoi - LIVE ON AIR! :D

It's like Simon is played as the "researcher" and I am played as the "journalist" - though of course the roles are much more blurry, there is no need to clarify much more than that. Does that make more sense, fbenario?

Also, I noticed that your suggestions:
1 - Read the entire page The Power Of Imagery, the initial Main Article on septemberclues.org.

2 - Read the first two paragraphs from each of the next three articles listed - Deconstructing 9/11, Who Did 9/11?, Imagery Analyses (choosing one of the four main imagery groups to emphasize).

3 - End with The Memorial Scams page, with an in-depth discussion of the vicsim image-fakery techniques, focusing on Wainio.
... are sometimes extremely image-heavy. I don't want to overload our servers by having a thousand people checking our pages at once, ruining the radio show and a good opportunity to make oral points. It has to be basically non-image based. This is the problem. It is also a strength.

For instance, the first paragraphs of The Power of Imagery work without imagery:
Television is - and has always been - a Weapon of Mass Distraction.
The power of TV-imagery was the driving force behind the 9/11 deception.

Whenever a major news event is reported by the mainstream media, it will invariably be illustrated with photographs or videos in order to convey to the public some visual impressions of the event. Undeniably, the imagery connected with any given news story enhances our emotional relation to it. The way we relate to news imagery has an almost hypnotic effect on our psyche: we have come to consider the visuals of any given news story as proof of that news story’s authenticity. This is truly a ‘weak spot’ of our brains’ readiness for critical-thinking. Thus follows, unfortunately, that to challenge the authenticity of a catastrophic event shown on Live TV is way beyond what most people are willing to contemplate. However, the time has come for everyone to call television by its most appropriate, military-sounding name: "Weapon of Mass Distraction".

The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that ‘weak spot’ of ours. We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time – understandably so, as the sheer horror of the proposed imagery generated a wall of outrage and fear – thick enough to discourage any critical review of it. In hindsight, we can only wonder why so few questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks.
... skipping the image reference ... as reworking as a description might be confusing and odd.
The 9/11 TV imagery (of the crucial morning events) was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie. It featured for the most part what were meant to be “chopper shots” of the smoking towers - and very little else. The sum total of “Action Shots” (“Planecrash” and “Tower collapses”) amounted to little over 30secs of the entire morning's TV broadcasts ! Needless to say, much as the rest of the animation movie, none of these “Action Shots” depicted any sort of reality. Now, it may be difficult for many to understand why the 9/11 plotters needed to fake even the tower collapses; yet this was undoubtedly the most crucial aspect of the entire operation - and needs to be fully understood in its plain logic: The unprecedented WTC demolition job was far too risky an affair to be shown on LIVE TV - (or to let any amateur cameraman capture it on film). The 9/11 conspirators had no intention whatsoever to offer such a "pyrotechnical" spectacle to world scrutiny - just imagine how unspeakably foolish this would have been. Thus, in all probability, the oldest trick in the manuals of covert military ops was used: smokescreens. More recent technology deactivated temporarily all cameras within sight of the area. In reality, the towers were most likely enveloped in thick smoke (military obscurants) as they collapsed - and no real footage exists of that brief event. Thankfully - for all normal people of this world - the 9/11 planners hired a poorly skilled animation crew : in their efforts to simulate reality, their crass 'artistry' and countless mistakes provide ample and repeatable proof of the trickery - forever engraved in the TV archives.
... then the bottom of the page ...
WHY FAKE THE NEWS BROADCASTS ? The 9/11 TV broadcasts were designed to ‘sell’ a fictitious terror attack to the world– by replacing the real-life events of the day (the WTC demolitions) with fake imagery. The official story was quite surreal - as were the TV images of the day and the preposterous tale of 19 kids roundly outfoxing the US Air Defense. It is essential to judge with one's own eyes the broadcasts actually aired by ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC and CNN.

WHAT ABOUT THE "AMATEUR" VIDEOS ? All the other videos (endlessly replayed on TV) were released only later. They have all been extensively analyzed by scores of video analysts; each and every video snippet of "amateur imagery" has been methodically dissected and compared - and empirically proved to be nothing else than computer-generated fabrications.

HOW WERE PRIVATE VIDEOS IMPEDED ? In order for the 9/11 TV-deception to succeed, full visual control of the Manhattan area had to be in place. The existence of EMP/HERF technology is undisputable: only the hypothesis of it being used on 9/11 remains unverifiable. It is, however, a reasonable postulation supported by a series of electronic blackouts which occurred in NYC that morning. In any event, the logic of using EMP/HERF holds water and effectively explains the ruse with disarming simplicity: NO private photography of the real-life events was allowed: thus, the imagery aired by the TV networks feared no comparison and was passed off as reality.
This will actually take some time to read, since "radio announcement voice" is slower and pronounces things clearly. It will take time to read this. Perhaps, I can then follow with:
WHO?
No single study of the 9/11 lie can have the pretense to pinpoint each and every accomplice of such a gigantic scam. Nevertheless, the evidence presented in this research establishes beyond any reasonable doubt the pro-active complicity of the news industry - to an extent previously considered unthinkable. The realization that the news media would play along with that [...] gang of megalomaniacs improperly called "the world elite" takes many people by surprise. Some will object: “Wait a minute, wasn’t journalism's original duty precisely that of checking each and every move of politicians and governing bodies?” In principle, yes. Yet, today, anyone still believing this old fairy tale must be - with no offense intended - daydreaming persons of the very naïve kind. Whatever idealism may have existed in journalism’s heydays has slumped into blind subservience to the rogue warmongers of this world.
and
WHY?
Why 9/11? Remarkably, there are still people wondering what motivations could possibly be behind the largest embezzlement scheme in world history. So, here are a few points to get the ‘why’ question out of the way: Do we all remember that 9/11 started two still ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who profits from them? The invaders or the invaded? Who profits from the reconstruction contracts? Who cashed-in on the special WTC buildings' terrorist-insurance? Who capitalized on the massive viewer-ratings of the spectacular and longlasting TV coverage of the event? Who speculated and scored on mysterious put options placed prior to 9/11? Who remembers the post 9/11 billion-dollar federal bailouts which saved many airlines from bankruptcy? And how many recall Donald Rumsfeld's announcement - on Sept.10 2001 - that $2.3 trillion worth of Pentagon transactions were unaccounted for? The list goes on and on. By now, it should be clear to anyone that 9/11 was a big bonanza for everyone involved - just a grand, sick, money-making machine.

Fortunately, a little solace may be found in the latest findings of this research : it is gradually emerging (see the Vicsim Report) that the list of 9/11 victims (approx. 2,928) is a mostly forged database of fictitious identities and forged/morphed photographs. The 9/11 perpetrators are of course close chums with the bankers who hired space in the WTC towers - a 'genocide' of their own employees never was an envisaged proposition. Another comforting aspect of this research is that the relentlessly-publicized "War on Terror" is a hoax. All we have to do is clean up our own act - for our own good. No world-threatening 'foreign terror-cells' exist - the existing ones have no potential whatsoever to threaten our "Western way of life". The privileged Western individuals we have allowed to govern our lives are dangerous - but they are very few and highly vulnerable. Their plan to make the "War on Terror" a constant torment of our lives has now failed.
...and...
HOW MANY WERE INVOLVED?
How many? Presumably just as many as were needed. Since the TV images would have effectively deceived most unwitting, low-ranking operatives of the scheme, the numbers of those fully ‘in the know’ would not need to be staggering. Having said this, the vast resources available to this multi-billion dollar operation would have attracted – and allowed for - a substantial number of participants (briefed on a strict need-to-know basis). Any risks of leaks and whistleblowing would be securely controlled with cold cash and personal threats. Historically, such methods have been routinely employed by far smaller crime rings: In Sicily, for instance, thousands of people in any given Mafia-infested town know exactly where and who the Mafia-bosses are – yet all mouths are kept nicely shut. This is plain, common knowledge.
... this is already a mouthful and I can't seem to read it any faster than 8 to 10 minutes with it still making much sense. Including intro and segue info, this could be the first 15 minute segment. I will of course revise this, and please forgive me if MY posts - for this topic alone - take up a great deal of space, as I feel this wording that could potentially go on air is important.
AngellDust
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:19 pm

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by AngellDust »

Hoi,

I would say that the less complex the presentation the better off it will be. A few appeals to logic and emotion through anecdotes with pointers back to cluesforum is more easily digested than a technical discussion of how-they-did-it. Adding more technical observers doesn't help the cause. You need to attract the social connectors, who will disseminate bits of this information frequently and widely. With the ubiquity of google search on mobile phones, the details will follow.

Americans, foolishly, filter geo-political issues through the lens of their favored political party. You have to allow them to hate the Bush Administration for this as much as the media that collaborated. Once they figure out the news media's role, they'll lose faith in those political parties. I think this is especially true at this time of year when all Americans have to go back to is election hype as the candidates raise money for media buy.

Americans favor media outlets that echo their beliefs. We are tricked to believe that our news sources are accurate, because they reinforce our world view, which simultaneously reflects our socio-economic status and our reading level. This creates an almost instant credibility. Hence, the Economist reader feels a worldly sense of superiority to the Fox News watcher, who is filled with indignation for porous borders. Yet both news sources are advocating war and Wall Street bailouts. In this way, we're all kept occupied by TPTB latest meme while satiating our egotistical gluttony.

I'm sure you'll do a wonderful job eloquently enumerating the contents of these pages. Just remember that the readers here have had months or years of self-motivated time to research and disseminate this information, while the casual listener has no motivation to change their world-view that you're going to challenge.
AmongTheThugs
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:07 am

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by AmongTheThugs »

I recently wrote a song called, "There's something in your brain". Think Ramones. The chorus goes: "there's something in your brain that's keeping you from using common sense. (x4)
It could be your education, or maybe it's your arrogance
But there's something in your brain that's keeping you from using common sense!"

After I record it I'll post it up.

Hoi, the key here is to trick people into thinking for themselves. It's not going to be easy. I would focus some on the tv archives. The truth is undeniably in there.
I would also do a scripted interview with Simon. (or a scripted interview with both you and Simon. Or even with a few of the heavies on here)

I've found that people don't want to know the truth. No one here seems to want it. They don't even wanna talk about it. It fucking blows my mind!
SmokingGunII
Member
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
Contact:

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by SmokingGunII »

As we all know on here, the best way to prove the 9/11 fraud is through imagery, something that can't be communicated through radio!

I tend to agree with FredB. Much of Simon & Hoi's suggestions are conjecture, however accurate they might be (smoke screens, missiles, HERF etc). I would stick to what we know for a fact.

The media's involvement - from the fake LIVE shots, scripted actors and eye witnesses - all of whom were connected to the media. Not just the eye witnesses on the phone but the amateur videographers, all of whom had a perfect vantage point despite anyone that has visited NY knowing how difficult it can be to see the towers from a distance.

And of course, finish the show with the Vicsims. The implausibilty of the names, tributes, photographs etc. Finish the show by asking why we only ever see a couple of dozen family & friends at 9/11 anniversaries when there should and would be thousands present.

In fact, even the above is probably impossible to fit into a 45 minute show! :(

Concentrate on the fakery. That's what differentiates this site from all the others that have gone before and good luck!!
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by simonshack »

*

Ooops... I just realized - belatedly...

Yesterday (June 5) was the fifth anniversary of my first online release of September Clues. :)

Image
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by lux »

Happy birthday, Simon! :)
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: GETTING THE WORD OUT!

Unread post by Maat »

Happy Birthday, September Clues! :D

And, what a great radio opportunity, Hoi!

I agree with Heiwa on keeping it simple (KISS), FredB on no mention of any controlled op names (i.e. no negative distractions) & SmokingGunII about sticking to what we know and can demonstrate re video fakery (TV archives to verify), vicsims etc. I think referring listeners to septemberclues.org for more on the subjects covered will achieve a lot more too.

I was surprised by your mentioning "missiles", which I not only thought was a long abandoned "truther" hangout (e.g. Brianv's & Simon's post here) but frankly never made any logical sense to me for a media hoaxed, CGI movie event to disguise the demolition of buildings in what was obviously a totally contained & controlled physical area in Manhattan.

I've suspected for some time that that red herring was deliberate bait for 'conspiracists' to promote so that the entire 'false flag' theory would be more easily dismissed as nonsense by real military people with direct knowledge of military protocols & ordnance. Remembering it was an essentially civilian (NYPA, FBI, NSA etc.) op, so I could see no way that any literal 'military' input would have been considered a viable option, regardless.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing your draft transcript :)
Post Reply