THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:13 pm

Critical Mass wrote: I disagree of course...Cluesforum is priceless.
Those bizarre "traffic-stat-machines" can't seem to agree much with each other, CM ...

Here's one :
http://cluesforum.info.cutestat.com/

Here's another one:
http://urlm.co.uk/www.cluesforum.info#web

And here's another one:
http://cluesforum.info.globalseo.info/

I must say I kinda like that last one (GlobalSEO). They say we are worth $11.340 more than the Let's Troll Forums! :P And they've been around for almost twice the time that Cluesforum has existed... (8years and 4months versus 4years and 3months).

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:47 am

Dear Cluesforum Members,

I am having a useful discussion with an open-minded friend regarding the events of 9/11. He is of the mindset that there were real planes that took off on 9/11 and then were diverted and landed at Stewart Airport. They were then replaced with "drones" ...

I don't think it needs to be that complicated. To me, it makes much more sense that the planes never existed in the first place. We had a brief argument about Occam's Razor. My razor cuts sharply in that I feel introducing real airplanes complicates everything. His razor cuts in the direction that leads him to believe that there would have to be ticket agents, baggage handlers and airline staff, etc at the airport which would make the whole thing more complicated because you would have all these people saying "Hey, I was at the airport that day, those flights didn't take place!" He also thinks the hijackers are real, and were patsies. :rolleyes:

Normally I wouldn't bother, but this guy has an open mind. What would you say to someone in this situation? Can anyone on here point me to any relevant cluesforum posts or threads that have information which might lend to a solid explanation rebuttal of this logic? I seem to remember reading several things that made me understand the scenario of "why the airport staff was non-existent or didn't blow the whistle" (so to speak).

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by lux » Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:34 am

anonjedi2 wrote:His razor cuts in the direction that leads him to believe that there would have to be ticket agents, baggage handlers and airline staff, etc at the airport which would make the whole thing more complicated because you would have all these people saying "Hey, I was at the airport that day, those flights didn't take place!"
But, who would all these people be saying those things to? The media? If he believes that then there is your problem. He thinks we have a real news media that reports things that happen to the public.

BTW, Occam's Razor isn't about “fewest complications.” It's about fewest assumptions.

Per the wiki:
The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
When your friend says, "... you would have all these people saying 'Hey, I was at the airport that day, those flights didn't take place!'" he is making lots of assumptions about how the world and the media work and about how the public finds out about things (or doesn't).

'No planes' assumes practically nothing. There were simply no planes and the ones on TV were faked. It was all a made up story with video fakery, actors, etc. The End. :)
Last edited by lux on Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:25 am

Thanks for the reply lux. To play devil's advocate, couldn't someone film a youtube video and post it online or even on their own website saying:

"Hey, I was an employee of United Airlines and there were no airplanes that took off from the airport on 9/11. Please share my message with the world."

Would there be absolutely no way one could get the message out?

I'm more of the assumption that they just took over a terminal or two for the purposes of a drill and nobody knew the difference.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by lux » Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:40 am

anonjedi2 wrote:Thanks for the reply lux. To play devil's advocate, couldn't someone film a youtube video and post it online or even on their own website saying:

"Hey, I was an employee of United Airlines and there were no airplanes that took off from the airport on 9/11. Please share my message with the world."
Some years ago I saw a video on YouTube in which a man said he was at the WTC that day and happened to be looking up at the towers when it all started and he said he saw no planes. That video is long gone from YouTube. I must have been lucky to see it because I've not seen nor heard of anyone else who saw it. I suspect that if any other real witness tried something similar (as in your example) it would be removed pronto.
Would there be absolutely no way one could get the message out?
For a real witness? I suppose they could post something here or on perhaps a handful of other sites but relatively few would see it.
I'm more of the assumption that they just took over a terminal or two for the purposes of a drill and nobody knew the difference.
I have no argument with that. It seems possible.

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:21 am

@anonjedi

Just go through BTS statistics , 2 planes whose tail numbers were used in this psyop are recorded to have taken off . I posted about this some years ago. Cleveland airport and Stewart base popped up in my research as the possible landing spots for above mentioned planes ( they had to touch down somewhere )

Cleveland was allegedly evacuated on September 11 2001 around 10:00 am and the official 9/11 "report" lies about the 2 "hijacked" aircrafts nearly bumping into one another over Stewart airbase.

I wrote a book about 9/11 in 2011, I have lots of stuff on my hard disc , I can dig it out if needed.

This sloppy, ridiculous and amateurish psyop doesn't excite me at all anymore :)

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:33 pm

bostonterrierowner wrote:@anonjedi

Just go through BTS statistics , 2 planes whose tail numbers were used in this psyop are recorded to have taken off . I posted about this some years ago. Cleveland airport and Stewart base popped up in my research as the possible landing spots for above mentioned planes ( they had to touch down somewhere )

Cleveland was allegedly evacuated on September 11 2001 around 10:00 am and the official 9/11 "report" lies about the 2 "hijacked" aircrafts nearly bumping into one another over Stewart airbase.

I wrote a book about 9/11 in 2011, I have lots of stuff on my hard disc , I can dig it out if needed.

This sloppy, ridiculous and amateurish psyop doesn't excite me at all anymore :)
BTO,

I know that flights 11 and 77 had no tail numbers assigned to them, but supposedly 93 and 175 did.

Are you of the opinion that those two flights had real airplanes assigned to them and they took off from their destinations? Doesn't this cause more problems?

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:15 pm

anonjedi2 wrote:
bostonterrierowner wrote:@anonjedi

Just go through BTS statistics , 2 planes whose tail numbers were used in this psyop are recorded to have taken off . I posted about this some years ago. Cleveland airport and Stewart base popped up in my research as the possible landing spots for above mentioned planes ( they had to touch down somewhere )

Cleveland was allegedly evacuated on September 11 2001 around 10:00 am and the official 9/11 "report" lies about the 2 "hijacked" aircrafts nearly bumping into one another over Stewart airbase.

I wrote a book about 9/11 in 2011, I have lots of stuff on my hard disc , I can dig it out if needed.

This sloppy, ridiculous and amateurish psyop doesn't excite me at all anymore :)

BTO,

I know that flights 11 and 77 had no tail numbers assigned to them, but supposedly 93 and 175 did.

Are you of the opinion that those two flights had real airplanes assigned to them and they took off from their destinations? Doesn't this cause more problems?
I think they did , I am even sure if BTS says so. It's a reliable source if it wasn't they would have put all 4 planes in it but for some reason ( fucking with official statistics is illegal, bullshiting is not ) they hadn't.
To be precise , 11 and 77 were real/active flight numbers , present in the official statistics but the same statistics show that they didn't take off that day. They did on 10th , 9th etc. but not on 11th.

So, 83 and 175 departed as scheduled, empty with just pilots in them and flew somewhere, most probably to be retired out of service. One would have to look closer into Cleveland airport and Stewart base for clues if these 2 facilities are or were used for such a procedure , meaning destroying/retiring/reselling old passanger planes .

More problems ? Maybe this is why Cleveland airport was evacuated due to "terror" threat....

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:35 pm

Maat wrote:In PsyOp World, maybe "dead" sims can move too.
People sometimes do move after being shot in the head.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1009188935762835
In this video from Brazil we see three very clumsy/untrained policemen trying to arrest a man (apparently a street salesman). People on the street are encircling them and demanding they release the man. The police are scared shitless (in Brazil there is one "bobby" for every two hundred armed robbers) so one of them draws his gun and steps back to provide cover for his peers. At one point (2:27) a tall, loud-mouthed guy on the policeman´s left tries to wrestle the pepper spray out of his hand and gets shot in the head. Despite being able to run off, the man did not survive this little feat of bravery/stupidity.

I know, you are going to say he is wearing blue stripes and no blood is visible. :P

Anyway, on another note, people´s informal behavior in this video is a far cry from the icy, yellow-taped, studio-lit scenarios one sees in many first-world media reports of "police action".

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:16 am

Flabbergasted wrote: At one point (2:27) a tall, loud-mouthed guy on the policeman´s left tries to wrestle the pepper spray out of his hand and gets shot in the head. Despite being able to run off, the man did not survive this little feat of bravery/stupidity.
Are you saying that the man in blue-white-striped shirt was actually KILLED ? For real? Shot in the head? No blood?

And what's with that "bravery/stupidity" comment, dear Flabbergasted? Do you think a guy trying to wrestle a pepper spray from a policeman is stupid - and deserves to be shot in the head? :blink:

Geez.

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:15 am

simonshack wrote:Are you saying that the man in blue-white-striped shirt was actually KILLED ? For real? Shot in the head? No blood?

And what's with that "bravery/stupidity" comment, dear Flabbergasted? Do you think a guy trying to wrestle a pepper spray from a policeman is stupid - and deserves to be shot in the head?
Since we all depend on the news media for information (with extremely rare exceptions), I have no way of determining whether the man was actually shot/killed. I don´t think the video allows to draw conclusions in either direction, but I may have missed some important clue.

The line separating bravery from stupidity is tenuous. The events preceding the part seen in the video vary depending on the source (not surprising, given the implications), but based on my everyday experience in Brazil (in very similar environments) I would say the man was not approached without a good reason. It would be very naïve to presume he is "an innocent victim of police brutality".

One might argue in hindsight that the conflict could have been handled very differently. Whatever the reason, it makes little sense to put up a savage fight against three armed policemen when you can easily talk your way out of a street scuffle. Troublemakers and thieves who get arrested (very rare, actually) are usually released the same day. Sometimes they are back on the street before the policemen finish filing reports at the station.

Now, a complete stranger trying to disarm a nervous policeman who is waving a gun in the air during a police action, after repeatedly ordering onlookers to keep their distance, that´s more foolhardy than brave. But, Simon, I did not say or imply he "deserved" to be shot.

MrSinclair
Member
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:29 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by MrSinclair » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:22 pm

The recent Boston hospital shooting has all the earmarks of a fake/drill. This news footage shows the reputed victim playing with a band at 1:18 in. He and maybe others appear to be sims. Any trained eyes care to comment on that?
Also notice at :08 how the women speaking shakes her head "no" in denial of her own comments.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M09c2g9SW3o

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:36 am

Hard to say for sure, but for me the jerking expressions are as bad as anything forced on us in a fictional melodrama, as if to "send" the expressions flying from their faces into our homes — like the fact they are broadcasting to millions isn't enough. Seems to me they have been directed. Are we meant to believe this is a reality TV show, where they force people to add such expressions?

In any case, it's not evidence for a disaster, in my opinion.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:02 am

*
Oh my goodness... "INFECTIOUS" indeed. I mean, how many times do we hear the word "INFECTIOUS" in that short video?

And how many times have we read (or heard) the word "INFECTIOUS" in the ridiculously contrived 9/11 'victim' tributes?

It sure looks like the Nutwork absolutely LOVES the "infectious" word. Alright, so the word "infectious" may mean:

" Spreading or tending to spread from one to another: an infectious laugh."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infectious

But other meanings of "infectious" are:
1. Capable of causing infection: an infectious microorganism.
2. Capable of being transmitted by infection: an infectious disease.
3. Capable of transmitting a disease; contagious: Is the patient still infectious?

Are the deranged Nutwork psychopaths 'subliminally' hinting/ admitting that they are a fucking virus infesting this planet?

Seneca
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Seneca » Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:35 pm

This hoax from the Netherlands is really hilarious! I am not going to spend much time on it.

A man carrying a pistol came into the studio of a Dutch news station on Thursday and demanded to go on the air.

Staff members of NOS were evacuated immediately after he arrived while police surrounded the building.

The news channel then broadcasted the message,

In connection with circumstances, no broadcast is available at this time.

The man had a list of demands, according to the BBC, the specifics of which are yet to be revealed, although he did request 10 minutes of airtime.

The BBC translated him as saying,

The things that are going to be said [pause] – those are very large world affairs. We were hired by the security service.

A reporter who spoke to the gunman said he claimed to be part of a “hacker’s collective.” and he also allegedly handed staff a threatening letter detailing the consequences should he be denied access, which included cyber and bomb attacks. (The letter is written in Dutch.)

The gunman entered the studio at 8 pm local time, RT reports, and ordered a security guard to take him to the set that broadcasts the evening news.

He was instead taken to a different studio where the daytime shows are filmed.

Police entered the studio about 10 minutes later and got him to drop his weapon without trouble.

No shots were fired and no one was hurt.

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/gunman ... ve/921362/


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usTzdQVlVc

You don't have to understand what he is saying to see this is fake, his body language tells enough. Watch how he holds the gun behind his back. How he drops it as soon as the police storms in.

Post Reply