September Clues Radio Special

Updates & comments about the movie that exposed the 9/11 scam
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:35 am

A local radio station is permitting me to have a show about 9/11, so I've been busy writing a few different takes.

I've already tried vetting some of this material with you before but I thought I would specifically ask for advice for this script of mine. I have two different takes. The first take, I wrote very pundit-y, and angry, though I planned on reading it rather calm so as not to be frightening ... before I realized that the aggressive-defensive attitude made me want to puke. This is what it said:
Hello, everyone and welcome to ____show____. This is a special show about an undeservedly ignored, bold little theory about 9/11 that will go against everything you've heard previously. It's called "September Clues" and it was made by Simon Shack. You can read his research at:

His site alleges in a patient, cogent fashion that not only is 9/11 a conspiracy but the 9/11 conspiracies are part of it, as well, and the entire media hurricane around it is a deliberately confusing mess meant to distract us from the reality that not a lot actually happened on 9/11 besides a city block being safely demolished by conventional explosives, with no deaths resulting.

Is this good news too paranoid for you? Well let's clear two things up first.

One. Paranoia means the false belief that someone does not have your best interests in mind and they mean to harm you. But how can something that cannot think for itself be blamed for harming anyone? The television-radio-newspaper-magazine-publishing-Internet fiasco that is our media system promotes a self-perpetuating religion of consumerism that simulates the wartime economy to keep itself, and the war profiteers that encourage it, in operation in perpetuity. It does not think, it does not feel. It is a tool, a tool presently owned by under a dozen corporations: General Electric, Vivendi Universal, AOL Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation, Viacom and AT&T - all of which do government and military contract work daily. This government-media culture has done more harm to America since the 1930's than any Great Depression could hope to accomplish. Thanks to the science of public relations, the behemoth has individually targeted every possible human being in this Nation susceptible to the mighty dollar and promised a fantasy of health, of wealth, of a harmonious home and a harmonious future. People have bought it, even as signs all around them told of inequity, impossible levels of debt, poverty and problems that couldn't be fixed by shopping at Wal-Mart.

If you think I'm paranoid for holding this opinion, turn the dial right now.

If you don't think I'm paranoid, and maybe somewhere deep down you even agree with me, if just a little, hold on to your seats, because I'm about to tell you just how deep this sickness has infected our government. And just how fake the whole spectacular terrorism hoax really is.

If you are still with me, the second thing I want to clear up is the definition of "conspiracy theory" that is thrown about an awful lot these days, particularly by the sick media that can only be accused of the most disgusting example of real conspiracy this side of the Soviet Union. "Conspiracy" is latin for "breathe together", which is why it is such an insidious misrepresentation of anyone questioning an organization. Besides ignoring the truth that humans love having secrets, and it's only the too many that enjoy telling them that don't work for an organization like the CIA, DIA, DOD, NSA, FBI or other acronym where your life depends on keeping secrets - it's also unfair to accuse thinking persons of being "fringe conspiracy theorists" because it quickly robs you of your own perceptive faculties and surrenders them to the organization that may be a threat to your psychology. Of course we can't all go around disbelieving and hating everyone and everything. We must make our own conclusions about who and who not to trust. So, I encourage everyone to do research for themselves and never blindly believe anyone.

That is why I am promoting on this program: I believe 'September Clues' is the only scientific approach to 9/11. It is the only forum which asks you not to trust, not to sign a petition, not to wave any banner but consistently asks you to do your own private research. Therefore it doesn't come close to any widely publicized conspiracy theory.

Secondly, the media's own touted theory - that evil brown cavemen successfully defeated the most technologically armed nation on the planet in an intelligence war - is itself a conspiracy theory. It's science fiction, but it is a conspiracy theory. I don't think you could even call what researchers propose is the truth a 'conspiracy' because it simply involves too many people going about their daily lives.

It is fact that people do very varied and interesting things because of beliefs. Is Christianity a conspiracy? Is Buddhism a conspiracy? No, they are Religions, and the collective uncoordinated behavior of billions of followers of Religion is exactly what the 9/11 hoax is, as well. It is the belief in corporatism, consumerism and might makes right. I think we can all count a few people we know who believe in fighting for these things. If you know someone in the military, you may know someone willing to kill and be killed for those things. Corporatism is as much a religion, and Washington D.C. as much a Holy place to its followers as Catholicism is a religion, and the Vatican a Holy place to its followers. 9/11 was a hoax, but a hoax with the conviction of this religion in the Godhead of the dollar, that was necessary to pull off something of this scale and scope. It is a ritual performed by the super-rich and super-powerful that own the corporate attitudes and aspects of America - which as many writers can tell you today is a shocking percentage of our government. This should be just as plausible to you as the idea that the religious motivation for 9/11 was Islamic in nature.

Yet no amount of religious motivation should break the laws of physics in such an offensive way as the fake stories of 9/11 tried to do. Boeing passenger airplanes do not travel at 500 miles per hour at under 1,000 feet above sea level, random cell phone calls to loved ones do not operate from 14,000 feet in the sky, in the year 2001 - or even 2004. Entire airplanes do not go missing without trace when they crash into mineshafts in Pennsylvania, steel structure buildings are not penetrated by lightweight aluminum aircraft, then explode like a missile from within the building, and no structure on Earth is going to crush its larger heavier portion with its smaller lighter top portion - and at freefall speed - as the World Trade Center was depicted doing in glorious angle after angle after angle, after so-called structural failure. All of this was a pre-rendered, computer-animated fairy story. A simulation made with the help of government contractors like IBM, Rockwell Collins and Sony Pictures.

So before you label me or next try to label anyone else a "conspiracy theorist", ask yourself: do you call the Army a "conspiracy" to commit murder against other countries? Do you call the city of Manhattan a "conspiracy" to live a New York lifestyle? Do you call Canadians a vast "conspiracy" to talk with a Canadian accent? No, you do not. Yet, some of you are too quick to call analyzers of the culture of an army, the culture of a city or the culture of a nation as 'conspiracy theorists' ... almost as if you are afraid of finding out just how these things work. Almost as if the media has fully convinced you that humans are too disorganized, too honest to one another, too pure, and too free to be trapped in anything at all. Yet, here you are living in Minneapolis with hundreds of thousands of others, and all of you are being watched by an intelligence aparatus of the government and being monitored daily by your Internet and phone habits. Humans are completely unpredictable? Maybe only when they know they are being observed, and by whom. Otherwise, we are pretty predictable.

So, this is what I am about to do. I am about to give you the best advice - and the point of this entire radio show - first. So if you don't want to listen anymore, you can still get my message. Here it is: Do not pay for or purchase any more media ever. Unlees you can say for certain that you have 100% faith in it. Use your newspaper and magazines for firestarter when you're camping, throw OUT your television completely, disconnect the Internet when not in use, and switch off the radio. It's Sunday morning. Live a real life while you still have life to live.

If you insist on hearing my story, which I guess I personally recommend you do, I will be back after the break.

12 minutes


We don't have much time to make boring radio, so let's get right to it. This is the latest news about 9/11. It has been discovered and revealed thoroughly that 9/11 is a complete hoax. A scam. A fake. A falsehood. A charade. A conjuring trick. An act. A yarn. A tall tale. A gruesome lie. 9/11 is the mother of lies, the devil in disguise, a pretext for endless war on fake villains -- to rescue or avenge fake victims. Yes, fake victims. Do you believe it can be done by Hollywood, that den of beauty, charm, seedy villains and eager sell-outs? Well it can, it has, and fake stories are being marched out on a daily basis to support their one great lie that America was surprise-attacked ... in the 21st century! Fake victims is the key, and over a decade of these vicsims (or simulated victims) are being dissected daily, right now on a website called Get in on the action and take a look yourself. 9/11 was (and is) entirely faked. Obama's reading of the list of dead was also a farce simply meant to give weight to the lie.

9/11 is a three-headed boondoggle to slip sweet poison in the ears and minds of the schizophrenic American populace, and who better to do so than sims resembling the Hollywood dramatics we've all come to hypnotically absorb since we were children? Sobbing mothers, outraged fathers, traumatized siblings, noble professors and imperfect but well-meaning churchmen. Thousands of simulated persons of every occupation were pulled out of the woodwork and given fictional identities, fictional graphics and novelistic backstories before the simulation began - and many were quietly deleted after it began. A lot of them appear in the newspaper today, with updates and stories -- all fiction. All of this fiction is presented daily now to serve three demographics. If you don't know what a demographic is, it's something heavily researched in the mid 20th century and since then, which determines different groups within a culture and how to mentally target them for united action.

These are the three main targets of the 9/11 commercial beast, and how they were psychologically manipulated:

First, for the government employee leaning too left for the fascists' liking. The 1,000 page Patriot Act was apparently prepared just a month after 9/11 and no efficiency of our government was ever seen before or since this record-breaking speed of bureaucracy. America, since its import of Nazi scientists after World War II, and since the Manhattan Project, has been becoming politically like North Korea; and something like the Patriot Act was meant to accelerate us in that direction as quickly as possible. Like the rest of 9/11, it must have been prepared well in advance of the so-called surprise attack. We are told there are enemies from all sides, that they will stop at nothing to eliminate us and that we must eliminate them first; we are told by our President that questioning this could lead to accusations of hindering the government's efforts against terrorism, and that could lead to accusations of assisting terrorists, and that could lead to arrest without trial, and that could lead to being stripped of all our rights and that could lead to torture or death at the hands of our so-called free country. Perhaps they should have just renamed us the Democratic People's Republic of America on 9/11 and been done with it. But I guess that would have been too hasty. They wanted to keep up appearances of a slow, inexorable march to righteous vengeance wars against a growing enemy. Those advocating an equal pace in the other direction - toward peace, toward self-examination and toward investigation of the events, well ... Paul Wellstone rest in peace. Anthrax for the rest, as a little reminder of what a rogue crazy person might find himself doing should you disobey this war effort. So the first target was leftist thinkers within our government.

Second, the rabidly so-called patriotic American eager for an enemy to fight - the inherently racist and bigoted population of America, of which there is embarrassingly a lot of: 9/11 gave an excuse for, then worked to encourage, the embrace of a technological, fascist, prison-heavy security culture - which we see in ever-increasing and premiseless security measures, prison bloating and general oppression of the people. This American might purport to be a Christian, and might want to eagerly prove he is one by calling for the death of "towel-heads" and "sand niggers" and other racial slurs used to describe their perceived enemy, because they are too embarrassed to examine the cold heart of America itself as the cause. They might also be characterized by shouts of "God Bless You" to their local firefighter or police officer in the errant belief that such people were killed trying to rescue the rainbow coalition of America from the bad, brown towel-headed niggers. They might especially scream "Thank you for your service" to an African-American police officer for being "one of the good ones." These jingoistic people, often I suspect not so genuine as they are like crowd-control at a political event, have served to paint all rememberance and promotion of the 9/11 story as somehow patriotic, when it is - in fact - the opposite of such.

Third, for those that mistrust the government and want to do something about it, a series of false leads was given - complete with false leaders like so-called documentarians Michael Moore and Jesse Ventura, so-called 9/11 investigation Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, so-called populists Alex Jones or George Noory of 'Coast to Coast AM' - and countless minor other pop celebrities, clowns and manipulated fools parading themselves and profiteering from their purported role as truth-seekers. Even the fake family members of fake victims on 9/11 get in on the act - yes, you heard me FAKE VICTIMS - SIMULATED FAMILIES demand investigation! They are not 'programmed' so to speak, to question themselves. Only you can do that.

Remember the point of attacking the leftists in our government, inflating the bigotry of the blind worshippers of American goodness, and keeping the skeptical minds busy on pet-theories like "nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center" is all the same point: fake terrorist events, fake terrorists, fake victims, fake heroes, fake families and fake theories delivered through daily television and the occasional dramatic motion picture release. This was a rabid success because anyone who watches TV, from Fox News to the Daily Show, can tell you one or another "talking head" they admire for no other reason than their sense of humor. So if John Stewart interviews a so-called Manhattan firefighter who lost simulated friends on 9/11 or Anderson Cooper interviews a so-called 9/11 family member seeking compensation from the U.S. government, or Wolf Blitzer is interrupted by a stammering nutcase talking about the Rockefellers, or George Noory interviews "space beams" theorist Judy Wood - it's all the same media. It's all the same actors. It's all the same glory-show and all of them are claiming to be defending the legacy of ... the fake victims.

The fake victims and their numerous CIA actor families, documentaries and constant barrage of media serve all three demographics with aplomb. It makes politicians bite their tongues, it makes pro-America flag-wavers very worried about questioning the events and it makes anti-government stooges blame the United States for deaths and actions that never occurred, while feeling more timid about the possibility of a real threat. There is no threat. There is no domestic terrorism that needs fighting with a heavy security aparatus like that of the United States. It is invented by the companies that profit from the sale of weapons to defeat it. It is a prescription for a disease that doesn't exist, and we are swallowing it daily.

The fake diagnosis is a computer-generated wall of tears - a matrix of sims - a perpetual source of sob-script revenue and, if I may add, a great pillar for our sell-out politicians like Keith Ellison to show their worth to the corporate religion. I recently asked Keith Ellison about the fake victims and why we cannot show that the Moslems were blamed for 9/11? An older white man, apparently his bodyguard appeared next to me, and told me to move on, as Ellison said something about wishing me luck with the investigation. A short while later, in true Big Brother newspeak fashion, he toured America with Talat Hamdani, mother of a heroic victim of the 9/11 attacks, saying not all Moslems are bad people. And yet, showing his loyalty to the false media gods by using a CIA actor/actress, as all the 9/11 family members are, to make his point, while the so-called alternative media made points about the fake Hamdani being a missing person or uninvestigated terrorist -- it stinks of Ellison strangely posturing himself firmly within the simulation rather than questioning it. All our real allies have been cowed into hiding. None of our politicians seems to work for us any longer, except barely to keep their job.

Let's talk about why 9/11 was accomplished, written and filmed like a Hollywood movie and then aired on TV on the major news networks in a coordinated fashion. 9/11 was headed by our own military, the television is its propaganda arm, and 9/11 was the main ‘trigger’ to launch the bogus War on Terror.

And every terrorist and reminder of terrorism in America since has been fabricated by the government. Yes, I am telling you every single highly publicized Hudson plane crash accident, shoe bomber scare, Dark Knight theater shooting or Senator exploding lie is simply to remind you that 9/11 was real and that we need to exist in an enhanced security culture. Of course we cannot know with certainty the facts behind the animated picture, the puppet show, but still it's true that every one of these micro-terror events has been carefully stage managed like a Hollywood production, complete with again - fake victims, fake terrorists, fake special effects and so forth. If you want to believe in a real event behind the fakery, like the puppet has a soul, be my guest, but you must accept that's a religious leap of faith in your part. Many people make this leap of faith rather than be faced with the incredible history of lies. The liars run a tradition - a craft, if you will - that has been going on for generations. They use each other's large lies to anchor themselves in the public consciousness so that if you question one thing, you MUST question everything you've been putting off questioning for the last ten years or more, so that it becomes more daunting to actually ask yourself "what's going on here?" Than it is to simply absorb the media you know is fabricated and tainted with surreality.

9/11 is the big one though and if you reveal it for what it is, the last 10 years of government stories of terrorism and threats from abroad all come crashing down as the house of cards it is. To quote Simon Shack, the documentarian of 'September Clues' and author of the bumper music you are hearing on my show, "9/11 was the essential lie our government's media network needed to make up in order to ‘justify’ their rogue invasions and lootings of foreign countries."

He has maintained a very quiet space on the web that you will not hear mentioned on the Alex Jones Show, the Anderson Cooper Show, The Stephen Colbert Report or anything else proclaiming itself liberal propaganda.

There, he and a small team of folks including myself, have slowly collected data and forensics from all over the Internet, from countries far and wide, to compile - as best we could - the greatest post-disaster analysis of the media we can muster. We have not fallen into the trap of every other conspiracy site by analyzing fake footage for evidence planted there like so many shiny treats sprinkled on a poison cupcake. Using digital and video forensics, we have discovered that 9/11 is a poisonous and toxic lie, that there is a problem with every single photograph of a so-called victim, every single video of so-called 9/11 airplanes (and indeed no flight manifests of any sort for any of the four so-called 9/11 hijacked planes), every single piece of tangential journalistic writing about 9/11 and to this day there isn't a single source of the official story that doesn't come directly or indirectly away from computer-generated falsehoods presented on 9/11 as real. In other words, it is all meant to build up the falsehood of an attack with great loss of innocent and heroic life.

In short, all of it - every microsecond - every pixel - of any graphic you'll ever see alleged to be evidence of the official story or a conspiracy theory thereof about the day of 9/11 is the result of a digital photoshop factory using various means of Hollywood video compositing, face morphing software and computer generated imagery. And to this day, we haven't found a single authentic piece of evidence to indicate we (or anyone except the directors of the imagery) know what actually happened behind that fake picture.

More after the break

About 15 minutes or so

Hello, we are talking about, a site that presents scientific photo-forensic evidence proving that every terrorist event in the last decade, especially 9/11, has been the result of a Hollywood-style media hoax to keep us frightened and fighting in foreign wars. Once again, that's You can also find it online by googling September Clues or its creator Simon Shack.

Simon posits the following about why all the visual evidence of 9/11 is fake, and is traced back to a small group of sources:

1. The truth is that not many people did witness the seconds it took for an airplane story to be told in New York. Despite real explosions, real smoke and real disaster striking the buildings, it was all coordinated somehow so that nobody would be hurt and no real victims families would start a stink against the warmongering fairy tale that we'd been attacked from outside America. Despite the ubiquity of cameras today, in 2001 much fewer people had digital cameras, much less used them. There is also evidence that some kind of electronics problems were occurring that day: from the failure of communications equipment, to the use of cell phones (also not as ubiquitous as they are today), to the use of video cameras. As one user who was in New York on the day reported to us, they tried to turn the camera on and the light would turn on indicating normal function but there was no picture, and then it turned off automatically. Their battery was fully charged and a crowd control person told them to keep moving away from the danger. When they tested their camera at home later, it worked normally. As for the airplane witnesses, most of them were in some way an employee of NBC, Fox, CBS, ABC or CNN, as the archives of that day clearly show. Furthermore, non-media witnesses documented claimed to have seen all but a large Boeing 747. Many said they saw nothing, some said they saw a small, quiet Leer jet, and some even claimed to have seen a missile. But to say that the majority of witnesses saw the exact plane animated poorly and inconsistently on television by the media is a lie. So that is an answer to the allegation that "millions of witnesses" apparently saw the events. Furthermore, as in the case of most PSYOPs (or psychological operations) by a military force, spies and agents disguised as casual observers must have been planted and began shouting "I saw an airplane crash into the World Trade Center" to everyone in sight. And to lend authenticity, some would speak calmly, some would "reveal" their story later in a bar, and so on, so that nobody could question that the 8 million people in New York City all confirmed that it really was as the media showed on TV. Many people I've asked have claimed multiple times to have seen the airplane themselves until they admitted it was one shown on television.

2: Our military's propaganda media network, likely operating from US-STRATCOM in Omaha, Nebraska - and where President Bush was flown to immediately after the attacks (ostensibly after leaving the "Hungry Goat" classroom) made up a plan beforehand: They would air on their (complicit) TV networks a visual tale (put together with computer graphics) showing airliners crashing into the WTC twin towers – causing them to collapse at record-breaking speed in a Playstation wargame-like 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, and 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, and whose companies would benefit from insider trading and the rash of consumerism that would follow the disaster after the initial plummet and micro-depression - a cost they were more than willing to pay for the benefits.

4: Demolishing the towers (behind a smokescreen) would be the easiest part of the operation. Distant views from Jersey or Brooklyn could easily be confusing, with regular distant plane traffic intersecting the towers. Add an extra projectile to the equation if you want, but my sense is that people are discombobulated enough to think the television is real without any real need for a physical aid. Imagine how many people who have never been to New York swear up and down that they "sensed" the television was showing the truth on 9/11 and that they were really witnessing a LIVE disaster with people calling cell phones from the towers and dying in droves. The most 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 - perhaps even the batteries within SLR cameras. Any damning imagery (in stark conflict with the TV imagery) captured by some John Doe would have easily been dealt with, as there was a vast "image gathering" effort innocently posed by the media by all networks, the police authorities, and even the Internet. Shortly after any real imagery was found, it would quickly be surrounded and modified to fit the official story. I doubt there was much of any real imagery to begin with, but if there were, where could a John Doe that mistrusted the media possibly publish/diffuse his damning images to the wider public - let alone use it against a typhoon of fake imagery?

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 simulated questions.

This is the simulation in action. We are living in it. This is what the movie The Matrix was somewhat metaphorically talking about. Only the reality is far more prosaic and sinister. It's just the racist military doing what it always does. Lie -- Widescale. Kill -- For profit. Demean and devalue and demonize other cultures. Invade other countries for their resources that belong to them. Give to the rich that support their war coffers. Trickle down to the rest of us poor sots, both meager benefits and the waste and garbage from their efforts - all while treating us and each other as a widescale mass human experiment in tolerating their baloney.

Why do we allow them to tax us into submission? Why do we allow them to mock and parody those who oppose these practices? Why do we eat their pig meal they call agribusiness food? Why do we hungrily pay for their television?

The origins of our country may not be truthfully recorded in history books but the message of the history is clear: we are a body of very diverse people unified by a land mass, who seek to pay no taxes to any person or government we don't actually believe in. How close are we now to essentially being under the thumb of a government like the oppressive monarchy we supposedly left in the City of London? -- Worse! How close are we now to being under the thumb of a technocratic mockery of democracy far more dangerous and destructive to humankind than any oppressive monarchy we left behind? What, in our cold unsympathetic treatment of those who had cultures and living systems before we destroyed them - on this continent and the African continent - have we wrought upon the world?

A nation of people whose minds are ruled by a machine such as television is a nation of slaves. If we are going to be paying a fee to a so-called higher-up for simply existing on the planet, if we are going to be taxed by humans just for being born one of them, we must demand that these fees and taxes go to address our problems -- not to create more of those problems.

Otherwise, we know what to do. Stop paying for our own self-destruction. And if we loathe ourselves too highly to stop that, stop paying for the destruction of the world the next generations will inhabit. Put the card away. Don't upgrade. Remove your money from the big banks and put it in a credit union. Or a safe. Never pay for either a television or any service to that television. Never pay for a newspaper. Please help keep the Internet open and free and a tool of international collaboration by standing up for your beliefs. The propaganda has gone too far.

If you'd like to see how some have conducted their research into this modern high-tech propaganda, please visit:

From there you can watch a brief introduction to researching 9/11 fakery yourself in the form of his documentary "September Clues", and you can read many articles and essays and forum topics written by researchers from around the world. Our forum is highly vetted and is aggressive toward the military shills that try to post there by banning them quickly.

Remember: the possibility that nobody died in the 9/11 scenario is good news -- not bad news. But once you realize that, the real change must begin.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming. Thank you for listening. I wish you all a very happy and good day.

Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:44 am

Please see VERSION 2 here, where I take a back seat to the research and present a more "National Public Radio" flavor, which is kind of more like the audience that would be tuned in anyway:
Proofs and Evidence of 9/11


The official story of 9/11 is plagued with problems. This show will discuss some of them in order to better facilitate *your* research into this event. The reason it's important for you to research public events is because your tax dollars and government efforts are going to initiatives that you might disagree with if you knew the facts, and were better informed.

Let's look at the scientific evidence for four theories about 9/11. I will tell you what I have discovered for myself, and you can do the rest yourself. I will do my best not to sound like a typical political radio pundit or alternative media spook. My goal with this program is to have my small audience this morning think about the world - and particularly the news - differently. If I occasionally slip into sensationalism, please chalk it up to the entertainment factor of radio but always do your own research and do not let anyone think for you or tell you what to do with your passion.

Each theory is best summed up as a 'narrative', as I am about to reveal - spoilers! - that there isn't actually a great deal of evidence for any 9/11 theory at all. And scientifically speaking, it's better if we refer to each theory as a story we tell ourselves about what happened. Three of them are conspiracy theories.

The first conspiracy theory - or narrative - is that 20 criminally insane, Muslim fanatics took orders from a wealthy, criminally insane supergenius hiding various places across the world, evading or catching lucky breaks with the security and intelligence system of the heaviest armed and globally active nation on the planet and that government ignored it. Those 20 insane brown people (sloppily and lazily and counter to their apparent religious fanatacism), with anonymous help from their secret conspiracy, implemented some of the most sophisticated, lucky and technically perfect terrorist attacks ever seen on a city block of New York and the Pentagon, and were overwhelmed by brave do-gooder American citizen heroes on their last attempt to steer a massive airliner into an unknown target, and this plane almost entirely disappeared into a Pennsylvania field - where examiners were not allowed to go because an FBI investigation by this time had finally understood the threat. It was learned that the insane hiding supergenius was the CIA's rogue asset Osama bin Laden, and a military war was declared against Afghanistan and Iraq to deal with him, although he was eventually (10 years later) found in a hotel in Pakistan, watching porn, and was dispatched with a missile. Later, on an unrelated adventure, those brave SEALS who killed Bin Ladin died and their remains were never seen.

The second conspiracy theory - or narrative - has a slightly different take. It is that the USA was not entirely ignorant and stupid about Osama bin Ladin, that a criminal faction of our intelligence system was part of a powerful but equally secret conspiracy to let him attack, and thus the USA would have an excuse to go to war with a foreign criminal element. This narrative points out that the hole in the Pennsylvania field was already existent prior to the supposed crash of Flight 93, that the hole in the Pentagon does not resemble the hole a giant airplane can even make when it crashes, and looks much more like an explosion from a missile or bomb, and that the airplanes in New York that crashed must have been associated with the charade of the other two planes. This narrative also points out the presence of evidence at Ground Zero of either: a. military grade gelatin or nanotech thermite explosives within the towers, b. nuclear weapon residue or c. a powerful technology that has not been identified but goes by the cryptic name Directed Energy Weapons.

The third conspiracy theory - or narrative - has quite a different world view. Instead of the USA having some intelligence against a criminal conspiracy from abroad, it suggests that a global group of rich men is the more intelligent, more roguish and more deceptive of the two posited conspiracies, and the global conspiracy actually leads the USA and Islamic conspiracies by puppet strings. Therefore, the global conspiracy planned and implemented the entire charade from within the USA government, and it received the full backing and approval by then President George Bush Jr., not to mention the real people in charge of his position - such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the moneyed interests of Washington D.C., the Federal Reserve bank, the Bilderberger group and the religious fanatics of a cult of Bible study called the Masons and Yale club Skull and Bones, of which 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry was also a member. In this narrative, the criminal cabal is so large and perfectly established prior to 9/11 that pulling off 9/11 was accomplished like little more than a top-down order in a military chain, and all the conspirators across the world took their respective orders, on a need-to-know basis, played their parts, fooled the people meant to be fooled - meaning the naive population of the USA and the world - and so allowed the fascist and draconian Patriot Act legislation to be passed within a month of the hoaxed attacks. The attacks, while publicly billed as a disaster, were also privately a religious festival for the puppetmasters and a celebration of their immutable power. Osama bin Ladin, in this story, is little more than a patsy and a puppet and was used to heighten the sense of drama and villainy about this entirely orchestrated play. He may not have even been very real, let alone killed.

The fourth narrative ... is not a conspiracy theory. It does not allege that insane Muslims do or do not want to lead a secret war to destroy America. It does not allege that all the world leaders are puppets of a single secret group who conspire to do ... whatever evil they do. It does not claim various agencies within and outside of the USA are warring with one another for supremacy and that 9/11 is somehow a public ritual. In fact, it doesn't really allege much of anything. The fourth narrative is a scientific narrative, and it examines the evidence for these three big conspiracy theories, and here is what they found: none of them is scientifically upholdable or factually provable.

More after the break


So, we are discussing the conspiracy theories of 9/11 and the scientific evidence for them. On a site called, the evidence is harshly scrutinized on a strict and even sardonic level of scientific skepticism. Digital forensics and audio analysis are applied to the video, article and photo evidence from each theory, and as it turns out, very little stands up as admissible evidence in a court.

Point 1 - The government's conspiracy theory - 20 insane Muslims ... Stop. The 20 insane Muslims, and all the imagery of them, appear to be fabricated in Photoshop. Yes. The alleged terrorists, the video clips and photographs of them, after being scrutinized by digital examiners, turn out to be fabricated. Furthermore, the names of the terrorists, according to some researchers, are actually a combination of borrowed names from unrelated persons and a completely digital fabrication. The stories of government workers encountering these terrorists and the media's use of these images as so-called evidence must be reassessed.

What does this mean? Does it mean the government and the media are in a conspiracy to sell you a phony story? Not necessarily. There is a great deal of evidence left to examine. So let's continue.

Point 2 - Again, the government's conspiracy theory is that airplanes struck the towers. But what planes were they and where did they come from? Unfortunately, there is little evidence that these planes ever existed. None of them were issued a crucial FAA document called a 'flight load manifest' which documents the weight of fuel, passengers and crew, and has a list of all the final boarded passengers and crew. In fact, Freedom of Information Act requests for this information from everyone from American Airlines to FAA to NARA (The National Archives where all 9/11 data is kept) has met with responses that no such documents can be found or ever existed. In other words, the airplanes may as well have never flown. The rest of their information is moot, as it is easily fabricated within these organizations. But without a flight manifest and final list of passengers, it's as if any planes that did exist on 9/11 were flying empty.

So what about the airplane explosions in New York? Weren't they seen? Actually, the most visible aspect of 9/11 was the smoke and a bit of fire, when the smoke wasn't obscuring it. In fact, the media would have you believe that millions of New Yorkers saw with their own eyes two giant airliners as they plunged into the sides of the World Trade Center towers. But does the evidence hold up? The answer may be surprising, but it is no.

First of all, the eyewitness accounts. The eyewitness accounts from that day are not and never were reported in the media. But the stories vary as wildly as the stories of gamblers in a casino. Some want us to believe that jets smaller than 767s collided with the World Trade Center, one after the other. Significantly *more* want us to believe that they saw small airplanes like Cessnas or Leerjets, and not any Boeings alleged by the media. That's right. More witnesses recorded by reports, but not by the major news stations, said they saw a small plane, and many were not sure it collided with a tower or whether it merely appeared to. Even more surprising - get this: the majority of witnesses, that is more witnesses than the media employee witnesses who claim to have seen anything from a missile to a small plane to a large passenger jet and the greater body who claimed to have seen a small plane like a Cessna or a Leerjet, and who were near the tower at the time, when asked if they saw something, claim not to have seen anything.

Nothing. Not a projectile and not a missile, and not a plane. Of them, some claim the tower just exploded before their eyes. But the strangest part, by far, of the entire body of all witnesses with cameras, is that none of them recorded the sound of a jetliner. The tremendous sound of a 767 flying below 1,000 feet and echoing its engine roar amongst the buildings of Manhattan -- did not get recorded. The employees of the news stations CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox and ABC all claim to have heard a loud noise, but their mics did not actually pick up any sound. Nor did any other witnesses claim this.

None, that is, until the amateur videos started getting released.

Point 3 - the official record available on the amateur recordings of that day started out spotty. For about four years after 9/11, all you could see were the official news media recordings and the occasional airing of the documentary movie 9|11 by Paramount Pictures and financed by communications corporation Nextel. This documentary is where the only known footage of the first plane is purported to have been accidentally captured by two documentary filmmakers Jules and Gideon Naudet, and ... drum roll ... it turns out these crucial shots of so-called airplane strikes were composed using a Hollywood method known as digital compositing.

That's right. The movie 9|11 is not really a documentary as it is a digitally composed movie like a documentary. In today's lingo that is often called a mockumentary. You may have seen some by Christopher Guest like 'Best in Show' or 'A Mighty Wind'. But this was played straight - it wanted to be seen as real. Even stranger, forensics shows that the lighting of the street is inconsistent with reality and that it better resembles the Sony graphics of Playstation computer generated imagery. This means the images that they combined to make a false image of what happened, through forensic examination, have been determined to be themselves false and computer generated. What does this mean? It means that the documentary 9|11 is not actually live accidentally captured footage but is more like one of those reconstructions you might see on the History Channel using a variety of means to bring you the viewer closer to the action - to make it more real than it actually is. This also means their story of capturing the footage must either be a lie, or a public hoax that fooled us. Since the Naudets have proven difficult to reach for comment, we cannot know what their intentions were behind computer animating their 9/11 airplanes and computer-animating their tower collapses. But the media is certainly responsible for airing it all, and they should retract their endorsement of it as evidence of what happened on 9/11.

Point 4 - the much later released amateur films, all of them appearing on the Internet from untraceable sources or semi-empty channels and accounts on Facebook or YouTube, have similar anomalies, but with heightened reality and sharpness. In fact, some of them are so sharp it begs the question: why didn't the media have better equipment on 9/11 than these supposedly amateur videographers? What forensics shows about the hundreds of allegedly amateur video recordings is the following:

1. They could all arise from the same digital source and have been rebranded as appearing from multiple people - and there is evidence demonstrating they are all connected to a one Steven Rosenbaum of Camera Planet

2. They show many signs of highly professional editing, well-rehearsed acting with scripts that sound impromptu to lend authenticity to the time they were supposed to have been taken


3. Many show rare glitches and anomalies that are consistent with video game rendering and simulation rendering software, such as military simulation programs.

Even stranger still, the majority of the early so-called amateur films, all have professional video editing profiles online. This could be either because they are video editing professionals, in which case the term 'amateur footage' becomes a bit meaningless, or because they are meant to appear like video editing professionals, in which case: why?

There are far too many of these pictures to explain in detail how they are fake, but if you take the picture of the whole, what you end up with is an interesting phenomenon. The vast majority of eye witnesses who were physically there and do not have a connection to any news media corporation claimed anything but a 767 jet - often seeing a small plane or nothing at all, before a tower exploded or a fire began. Yet, all of the eye witnesses who claim to have shot something and have released an allegedly amateur video of a perfect shot from Brooklyn, New Jersey or staring directly at the plane itself from Manhattan and moving flawlessly with it like a trained video professional - claim that it is exactly what the media (and later the government) claimed: two enormous, wide-bodied 767 passenger airplanes with people inside.

So if the real witnesses had truth on their side, why didn't any of the witnesses who saw nothing actually capture any footage like the hundreds of media witnesses who work for various media companies and claim their highly processed and edited videos show raw proof of the media's airplane theory? Why indeed!

Perhaps the better question is: why is there an overabundance of digital computer-faked attempts to prove the media's airplane theory at all? This brings us to:

Point 5 - The law of probability is against the possibility of many video proofs existing at all. Here's why: first of all, Manhattan is not easy to film from ground level. Towering skyscrapers surround you from one end to the other. Secondly, New York is generally a busy and chaotic place. Smoke and fire are not regularly filmed by anyone when they occur and if indeed nothing major was heard, many would not assume it to be a deadly terror attack. Thirdly, think back to the year 2001 and you will know that the average person did not have a smart phone, an iPad, or even a cell phone. In fact, digital cameras, digital video cameras and other cheap and easy means of capturing excellent quality footage simply did not exist with the ubiquity of today's population. Fourthly, the one source where the footage should have been excellent was the media stations. And yet their footage is strange, multi-colored, blurry, missing backgrounds and filled with countless other suspicious errors. Whereas amateur footage, released many years after, have the quality of modern technology as if they were actually created recently rather than in 2001.

Finally, and not to drive the point home too far, digital malfunctions were rife in the area that day. Vaccum cleaners allegedly stopped, walkie talkies and communications were in and out of order, radio was troubled and something else was wrong that day. A report on, the site where the evidence of 9/11 is examined in detail, states the following:

[segment of malfunctioning camera]

The username has been changed to protect the innocent. But the point is clear: some kind of interference technology may have made it physically impossible to capture any real footage with any camera using batteries. Digital, analog or whatever. So how did so many hundreds of perfectly timed shots of *rumored* airplanes appear years after the fact?

Point 6 - Were bodies seen falling from the towers? Didn't a lot of footage from that day capture suicides and voluntary extreme action? Again, one must return to the evidence. Since the video of the falling bodies appear to - once again - be video composites of computer generated imagery, sometimes appearing to be bluescreen technology of people pretending to fall, and poorly composited onto a backdrop, you have to take a step back from the television and go back to the eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses who claim to have been close enough to see through the smoke and observe falling bodies are ... not found. We have not found them. That is to say, it appears that most of the eyewitnesses of falling bodies were reporting their recollection of television footage from that day - sometimes even watching the television mere blocks from the actual events because the picture on the television was ostensibly clearer than the wall of smoke that most people saw from the street.

All this makes a lot of the researchers' heads spin. Some jokingly ask, did the towers even exist? Of course they did. But when all you really know about something is a lot less than what you thought you knew, it causes something called cognitive dissonance. That is, the mind cannot let go of the carefully woven intricate pattern that it had built up as a fascimile for real experience, and the mind does not want to exit the simulation, no matter how unreal the simulation is, because replacing it with something as simple as: "There were some important towers on a city block. The city block was destroyed." is too simple for the mind to bear. We crave a replacement story, an intricate explanation for all the things we thought were real. There must have been airplanes! Well, unfortunately science says there probably were none, but the human story is larger and more powerful than scientific fact. 9/11 has taken on a religious importance for some people. And they will hug the idea of hijacked airplanes before examining the actual evidence for their belief.

So where do we go from here? Can we replace the government's story with one of the other conspiracy theories in existence? Could we examine the scientific possibility of a small conspiracy within the USA government to allow the attacks to happen? The problem is that there don't seem to be real attacks to speak of. The towers appear to have been demolished behind a smokescreen and a vast amount of fake images and illustrative articles.

What about the other conspiracy theory - that there is a vast network of international collaborators who conducted the entire operation and are doing do so for unknown personal reasons? Unfortunately, science does not work like Religion. Science can only tell you what is likely or unlikely to have happened. And the science of 9/11 says: there is no admissible evidence for the official government conspiracy theory. Therefore, there simply isn't evidence for any conspiracy on 9/11. The government story is the largest story and the only story for which the fake evidence exists.

There just isn't evidence of how the buildings got from fully there to completely destroyed in a matter of hours.

If you'd like to see how the official purported evidence was proven to be falsified evidence, please go to

More after the break


Hello, today we are talking about the lack of scientific evidence for any story on 9/11. Any story? Didn't the towers previously exist there? Yes, and that is about all we know. Thanks to the diligent efforts of a grassroots investigation effort at, all the 9/11 evidence is proven to be faulty and often self-contradictory.

Surely, you say, the memorial in the towers' place is to someone or something happening!

The answer is that it could be a MacGuffin - a false memorial erected with false names of invented persons in order to lend weight to the official *media* story. But what proof do we have that the names of the 3,000 alleged victims are false?

Well, as it turns out, there is a great deal of scientific evidence that the victims of 9/11 are actually simulated victims - or vicsims - created in a computer environment and distributed in sob-stories through various public channels. That is to say: since the terrorists and the airplanes have already been shown to be barely existant on paper and their associated imagery falsified, so too could the victims of 9/11 and thus -- nobody died on 9/11. Period.

Huh? Back up! Woah! Can it be so? Nobody died in such a public disaster?

Science says, yes, it's entirely possible to demolish large buildings with not a single death, provided adequate city planning in advance. Since New York and the Port Authority could have planned to demolish the unprofitable and asbestos-filled World Trade Center buildings (which in fact saw nothing but a financial decline for the decades since their construction), let's look at some of the evidence for the "no deaths" theory of 9/11.


Point 1 - High-profile disappearances. Although some of the victim names sound very important, such as a well-known hockey player, a writer for NBC or a rising star artist, all of these people could have contributed their names to a disappearance act in order to fake their deaths for a reward. Two of the high profile victims were apparently long-time well-paid employees of the media, including David Angell, writer for enormous money-making hits like Cheers and Frasier, and the other was Barbara Olson, wife of CNN's own Ted Olson with connections to the intelligence industry. The hockey player is also connected to the media presenting the fake airplane story as real, because media company investors also are often sports team investors, and have a great deal of money to wield their particular influence on a sports season or a television season. And that is just the obvious point, given that we use the same media for all our knowledge of any celebrity whereabouts and news. If everyone stopped reporting on Johnny Depp, would anyone really know where he was except a few locals living by him? And could those locals also be bought? The mafia does it regularly. And people love to know secrets.

Point 2 - Small-profile victims. The rest of the greater body of victims are plagued with digital forensics warning flags, such as duplicate names, face rendering glitches, and most notably morphological similarities with the faces alphabetically adjacent to themselves. In other words, the faces of the victims, no matter where they are gathered *from*, when compiled in alphabetical order in a single location, take on the appearance of a morphing animation with photoshop touches. Indeed, such a high number of the victims' pictures (if they even have a picture, and some of them do not) resemble the style of a single group of hands, it is conceivable that the CNN memorial online is *the* original source of the pictures themselves. The METADATA, or data stored inside imagery that is only seen when the digital code for the picture is examined, reveal backstory information pasted into the graphic that implies the imagery was created at the very same time as the backstories for the victims, implying that the stories we hear about and see on television are just as fake as the images themselves. The METADATA also occasionally carries instructions for modification such as, "somebody please remove this line" or "change this" or the name stored inside the picture actually belongs to the alphabetically adjacent picture next to it, implying they were created in a hurry beside one another in an assembly line process.

Point 3 - The tribute sites. There are multiple tribute sites created as a formula on the memorial websites meant to display every single victim of 9/11 in one place, and they do not seem to bespeak of real mourning friends and family, if of anyone at all. Often, these websites fail the digital forensics examinations miserably -- occasionally appearing to be outright jokes on those who look at the images and tear up for supposedly real victims. The images are composited, the tributes are trite and repeat themselves across a varied number of victims, or vicsims, and in one bizarre case, a dead victim adds a tribute comment to his own profile as if speaking from beyond the grave. This implies the writers of the tribute comments across the Internet spectrum of tribute sites are not authentic even though they are supposedly vetted by CNN, and other important sites.

Point 4 - The Social Security Death Index. When people die in America, they leave behind a number in a database called the Social Security number. Only 400 of the 3,000 supposedly dead on 9/11 appear in this index. Many of the alleged victims are found by people-search web sites showing their present age if they had not been killed on 9/11. But those sites have also been demonstrated to be wildly unreliable and it could be that the programs are artificially aging aggregate data of completely invented persons.

Point 5 - The actors with digital makeup. Many people appear on television now claiming to be related to the victims, but are they telling the truth? Again, live digital forensic evidence shows that these people are being digitally altered as they appear before us, so that a true identity behind the motions and expressions of the 9/11-related person is obscured - and replaced with features that resemble the fabricated photographs of false persons. Some researchers have even tried to attend events where one of these people has appeared live, and they are always in a carefully controlled environment with extremely high security. Yet, when the video is released of the event, the television depicts the audience as wide, varied, active and benignly normal. It's almost as if some of these events are pre-created in a digital studio.

All the evidence of all 9/11 stories point to an artificial digital, computer-graphics-based construction method for 9/11 that is ongoing to this day. Since the media and the Internet are presently the only ways of distributing this information, those are the methods by which we have received the alleged evidence for the official 9/11 story. And yet, unfortunately, this same media is where we are looking to expect some kind of rebuttal, debate or admission of guilt if it existed. But why would a successful hoax ever be stopped if it were as successful as the War of the Worlds hoax was, by Orson Welles in 1939? One needn't even devise some kind of conspiratorial motivation. The fact is if it were successful, its perpetrators might just continue it because it is so successful. So if we cannot expect an admission of the hoax from the media, how then can we continue to trust them?

Well, let's look at what we have so far from them: entertainment, news, information and - what we've been talking about all morning - stories. The media provides you with stories. And what's more, they work very hard to make sure all the stories coincide with one another and paint a consistent narrative so that you can feel safe and secure in them.

So what can we conclude from the lack of evidence for airplanes, the lack of evidence for hijackers, the lack of evidence for the victims and rescuers, and the lack of media self-examination on this wildly out-of-control fantasy called 9/11 filled with so much bogus imagery and bogus stories? Well, you bought it. And you get what you pay for.

And so, to conclude, may I humbly suggest you go without news for a week. Find your stories anywhere else but the magazine, Internet, radio, television and newspaper. Go without. Ask a neighbor about news they didn't read or hear from an outside source. Ask your family for news about them. And ask them to try the same. And after you've gotten some real stories, see how you feel about the news.

I'm wishing you a very uneventful sunday morning. Enjoy your day.
I like this approach better because it doesn't allege anything, and it gives the listener an excuse to actually take a breath of fresh air and not jump into any replacement theory. It encourages people to do their own research.

Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by icarusinbound » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:27 am

I'd tend to agree that the second 'NPR'-style version reads better than the very shock-jock first one. It's a lot of information to successfully convey to a potentially totally-unprepared audience. The sequenced bullet points of the second draft help support that intention more effectively.

A few minor typos jump out at me (and please, this is just as constructive input, it wouldn't affect the phonetic sense of a to-mike radioshow)...."Lear", and "Learjet", rather than 'Leer'; "sod", not 'sot': also, in terms of what we'll call factual accuracy, you make reference to Osama being taken-out by a missile (or am I misreading?), I thought the Official Story was an Entebbe-style ground raid by the SEALs, ostensibly validated by that remote-viewing session where Hillary and Obama are photographed as witnesses to the state execution?

I always feel that the constructive shock value in summarising the Official Narrative, so as to let it stand in all it's implausible glory, is such an effective action in being able to wake-up many passive consumers of the 9/11 drip-fed anthem. You've covered that angle here too, I reckon, but the strength in using that specific perspective cannot be underestimated (ie the collected recitation of individually-accepted 'truths' acting like a catalytic conjunction, the combination codes on the locked safe are so near to clicking into a fingersnap of wakefulness).

May I ask if this will be a syndicated radio show, or a local as just a town/campus, and will it be streamed? Apologies, you may not wish to say. But, seriously, well-done, it's on the button.

But excellent primer pieces, both.

Posts: 7017
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:46 pm

Great stuff, Hoi - I also like both versions, with a slight preference for the first one actually - which I find more incisive. However, it's hard to choose between the two. For now, I'll just scribble down a few annotations/thoughts which, as it is, concern your 2nd version:

- This sentence: "But without a flight manifest and final list of passengers, it's as if any planes that did exist on 9/11 were flying empty." Well, I think that could sound unnecessarily confusing/misleading (as in "Loose-changy") to the radio listeners. After all, Gerard Holmgren found that "Flight11" and "Flight77" were not scheduled to fly at all.

- "Leer" jet is actually a funny typo : in German, 'leer' means empty! :D

- When talking about the electronic dysfunctions in NY that day, I would not omit mentioning the principal and most widely confirmed one (by plentiful, different sources): the total cellphone blackout. Of course, it was officially 'explained' with the silly assertion that, basically, "too many people were calling at the same time, causing a cellphone network overload"...

- Isn't it spelled "vacuum" cleaner? But hey, where did you hear that one, Hoi? A vacuum cleaner blackout? :P

- At your "Point 4" concerning the SSDI, I would cite this sentence by Ersun Warncke: "Out of 2,970 9/11 victims listed, only 446 appear in the Social Security death index. Of those only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file." Also, in place of mentioning the people-search engines which show people at the age they would be now (which turned out to be a slightly pointless digging of mine), why not mention that congresswoman Maloney (whether her action was a limited hangout or not) who demanded official clarification regarding the "3000 missing"?

Is all for now. In any case, whichever version you choose to broadcast will be fine as far as I'm concerned. :)

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

Re: September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by brianv » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:37 pm

Your listener demographic might best decide what way to go!

I personally prefer (1), it will get peoples attention, and it's an excellently written piece despite it's "shock-jock" treatment. It certainly is not a rant! I found myself losing interest halfway through (2). For the slipper wearer's, who will have the radio on just for the sake of it, but not necessarily listening and digesting the info!

Best of luck, whichever you decide!

Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:45 pm

Thank you icarusinbound and Simon!

Yes, there are numerous typos. Normally I would take greater care, but these pieces were both "off the cuff" writing without proofing. I should have remembered the correct spelling of Lear Jet from my Microsoft Flight Simulator days. Nevertheless, this is just for me to read and is by no means to be taken as a transcript. Lots of changes, for sure.

Your suggestions are marvelous. Yes, icarusinbound, I want to be delicate about the official conspiracy theory lest I be accused of not getting the facts straight, as invented as they may be. Let's just go right to the heart of the most biased, corrupted, pathetic, propaganda-laden source we can get and take it from Wikipedia:
A second SEAL entered the room and two SEALs shot bin Laden in the chest with a H&K 416 using Navy M855 5.56 mm rounds
There we have it. Navy M855. Another missile scratched.


I heard about a vacuum cleaner malfunction in a joke about the malfunctions that day. I don't think I'll include it in the final script. Sorry about that. And again, please discard my spelling. I didn't proofread this beyond moving words around - just jotted it down.

The Ersun Warncke script sounds good - I'll definitely use that. And the cell phone black out. Also, I see what you mean about the danger of plane-huggin' in my own broadcast, I'll rephrase that; and definitely good call on the Gerard Holmgren info - I'll work that in.

Thanks for all you do Simon, I knew your brilliant database-like mind would catch some special stuff.

To answer your question icarusinbound, it is just a little college radio and won't be a huge deal. But I want to be technically good with whatever we got.

Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:58 pm

Thank you for the compliments, brianv! I will take that into consideration.

I think you're right. The second piece feels more like it would slip by someone and be digested (or ignored) subconsciously, for how prosaic and "Ira Glass" it is. Forgive me if that does not translate but he's a National Public Radio character known for his nasally, hypnotically stilted voice making extremely boring - almost insipid - information sound revelatory and full of deep meaning that isn't always quite there. I wrote it with the sense that I could mock and imitate such a voice and thereby catch the attention of the many addicted to his style while putting my own spin on it. I think the homage/parody would actually not go unnoticed with some folks. Minneapolis thinks itself a pretty sharp crowd, if stubbornly beholden to the official media stories for more "excuse" sounding reasons than "staying informed".

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

Re: September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by brianv » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:07 pm

Jeez dont worry about typos, it's going to be spoken on the radio! Maybe for later transcripts ^_^

Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:23 am

Re: September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by Mercurial » Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:06 pm

I'm just going through version two now. I must say I also like version one with perhaps a little modification here and there.

Going to update with some suggestions later. Brian's right of course, this is going to be a verbal presentation so the odd leer for Lear is not a worry at his stage. Clarity of message is though.

re: "sod" for "sot"

I really like the word "sot" it's old English (and French) for fool:
1. a habitual or chronic drunkard
2. a person stupefied by or as if by drink

As in drunk on lies!!

I haven't gone through number 1 for changes as I was thinking you're leaning towards the second one.

When is the broadcast? Do you want me to wait for an updated version before fine tooth-combing either of these?

It may be a small audience you'll reach on the day but you can upload it for a wider audience later, right?

edit: omitted word

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

Re: September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by AmongTheThugs » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:27 pm

Hoi, are you prerecording this or doing it live?

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

Re: September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by Equinox » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:39 pm

Awsome Hoi, Nice work! B)

Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:54 am

Yes, that is the "sot" I actually meant, even if "poor" is typically coupled with "sod."

Give me your suggestions now, as I only plan on rewriting once from your suggestions and then I need to start preparing music and so forth. It will be in early December, deep within holiday shopping time in America.

Ideally, it would be live, so a script beforehand would be very useful. Actually a script would be useful either way because I don't think I'll deviate much from a final script. I've practiced reading in my alloted time and I can't add much more material without speaking like the guy from Micro Machines commercials.

full link:

Posts: 2247
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by fbenario » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:58 am

Hoi, both versions are top-notch, and I would also vote for version one - much more attention-grabbing, and -keeping!.

Only one suggestion: After your mention of STRATCOM in Omaha, please say "where we are told Bush was flown after Hungry Goats that morning."

I don't believe we have any substantial evidence he flew anywhere that day > why would TPTB bother? Easier just to stick 'im in a bunker somewhere and tell him to play with 'imself, while watching the new Hollywood movie starring him.

Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: September Clues Radio Special

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Nov 09, 2012 12:42 pm

There are many sources for this information now, but I believe the original was a Z Magazine article I'd read in 2008 (or so) called The Most Dangerous Place on Earth. It was all about US-STRATCOM, which is a real place and which really boasts being the 9/11 operational center. So I plan on leaving that tidbit in the show.

On the other hand, it's always best to add "we are told" to any sort of story like it, so thanks for the suggestion! And it's true enough we don't know where he went -- just interesting this is the only story to seemingly explain any location for Coward In Chief on that day.

Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:42 pm


Unread post by waterwitch » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:57 pm

Dear Hoi-Polloi,

I think you have tons of good information in your piece, and if you are asking for feedback, here is mine from the point of view of your audience - a busy college student, intelligent but with a short attention span.

1. I prefer the STRUCTURE of 2 because you signpost it by saying " Let's look at four theories about 9/11." That gives me a sense of orientation about what's coming next and means I won't get lost.

2. Maybe it would help me to peg the theories better if you gave them catchy, funny names, like For example: "Theory One. - let's call it Hijackers from Hell."; " Theory 2 - let's call it Big, bad Government."

3. I'd like you to use even more rhetorical questions to give me a chance to think about the questions you raise as you did with the planes ( Weren't they seen?)
For example: Why do the street scenes that day resemble Playstation imagery?
Why don't the amateur films which were released later have traceable sources?

4. I'd like you to use shorter and less complicated sentences with as few sub-clauses as possible. Remember, I'm listening to the information and not reading an article.

5. I think the information comes over with the force of a machine gun. After a while it gets to be too much to process. Maybe just concentrate on three aspects - the fake imagery, the fake victims and the fake media? Perhaps you can hammer away at these three points and hang the relevant information gently onto these "pegs"?

I hope this helps and If you want more feedback, please ask. Professionally, I help prepare non-native English speakers with oral presentations

PS One more thing - the tone. I don't want to be preached to. You don't have to sound too upbeat but sometimes less moral indignance and outrage is more. Ideally, at the end of the talk, I will be feeling enraged myself, but realistically, I first have to feel puzzlement and motivation to dig deeper myself.

Post Reply