THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:46 am

Cobra Commander wrote:
I want to present most of the fakery case to them as I can, and I keep repeating septemberclues.info and cluesforum.info, but only one person has mentioned they watched September Clues, but stopped at Nose Out. It seems to me people can't get beyond Nose Out for some reason . Can you link me to key in your face fakery evidence? Like the shade/sun on the towers, etc...

Dear CC,

If we lived in a sane world - populated with only honest folks - the below comparison should be enough to make people trash the TV imagery aired on 9/11 :

Image

Can you link me to key in your face fakery evidence? Like the shade/sun on the towers, etc...
Here you go:

Image

Image

The SIMCITY thread is a good place to start for reviewing more of our image research :
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=386

Then there's the UNDEBUNKABKLE CLUES thread:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=961

This should give anyone wishing to dismiss our longstanding research plenty to chew on. :)

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:23 pm

Cobra Commander wrote: Although he did have a good argument, I think rfaulk34 just wanted to show off his ride.
I am not sure it´s such a good argument, but you are probably right about the second part.

Image

Arguing over the physical possibility of such a cartoonish reflection is an entertaining pastime, but, reflection or no reflection, the view of an airliner sailing through the external steel columns of the Twin Tower without reducing the speed or losing a flap is plenty ridiculous.

Cobra Commander
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:45 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Cobra Commander » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:03 pm

Critical Mass wrote: To be honest though people see what they want to believe they see. Debating about 9/11 is like challenging someone about their religious beliefs... it's mostly pointless & can get insanely emotional very quickly.

No-one can analyze information when in an emotional state so you may have to repeatedly try to calm people down.

Try using comedy perhaps? How about the laughable Tony Arrigo... the very first 'plane witness'.

Other ridiculous stuff we were fed?
Oh, I really didn't want to get in a debate. I chimed in on ISIS beheading thread where they all were basically saying the US should blow Iraq and Syria off the map by showing them the so called experts admitted the Foley video was staged, and the media has been doing fakery for a long time. One person just simply couldn't debunk the beheadings being fake, and I guess it upset him. Next thing you know, this guy starts a Sandy Hook thread directed toward me even though I never mentioned Sandy Hoax at all. I linked him to here to research media fakery himself... And he creates a thread called "911 and Newton's Law", once again directed toward me.

Introducing media fakery to people who can't grasp the concept and don't want to believe they are being lied to will start a firestorm, which is what happened over there. Almost everybody there in that part of the forum demands I answer their question trying to debunk 9/11 media fakery or respond to their insults. I can't keep up with that many people, so I keep linking them here, but you can tell they haven't really looked inside a particular thread, cause they haven't brought up vicsims. I also told them I will create my own thread there where I will present the case of 9/11 media fakery correctly that researchers like yourself, Simon, Hoi, etc... have discovered, then they can ask questions. They got it backwards and are asking questions before the case is presented.

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by brianv » Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:30 pm

Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, argues that - "Since reason is the means of human knowledge, it is therefore each person's most fundamental means of survival and is necessary to the achievement of values. The use or threat of force neutralizes the practical effect of an individual's reason, whether the force originates from the state or from a criminal. According to Rand, "man's mind will not function at the point of a gun."

Enter Government. Enter TV and the Media. The threat machine. So while you're walking around with your head in cloud-cuckoo land, the clowns will always prevail.

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:04 pm

So while you're walking around with your head in cloud-cuckoo land, the clowns will always prevail.
I dunno if I could take her (or anyone named Rand) seriously until I hear them divest themselves of all the bad associations with the name, including Ron Paul's son, the RAND corporation and Ayn Rand herself. She is just a basketcase, as far as I'm concerned. And the number of people into political discourse who follow her work with more than academic zeal is disturbing, because their arguments fall as flat without some seriously creepy leaps — like eugenics.

Stated another way, the statements seem to imply that if you are in a "happy" sort of cloud cuckoo land, your brain is somewhat more functional according to her assessment. But this implies a detachment from the reality of the threats constantly shoved at us. According to the same set of ideas, being aware of daily threats (being in a "fearful" cloud cuckoo land) makes our brains dysfunctional.

In short, her philosophy is that our brains are never functioning properly? Seems kind of defeatist, and like all her philosophy, is probably not meant to be acted upon. Unless one is into her delight in cruelty, coldness, and rape fantasies, perhaps. It's kind of unclear if she was even into them or they were just meant to provoke, since she lived such a contradictory existence. One of the more subjective philosophies outside of some sophisms (if I am getting the term right) hilariously calling itself "Objectivism" notwithstanding.

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by lux » Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:08 pm

Cobra Commander wrote: Introducing media fakery to people who can't grasp the concept and don't want to believe they are being lied to will start a firestorm ...
Bingo.

My advice is to avoid talking about this subject with people who can't handle it and only talk about it with people who can.

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by brianv » Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:48 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
So while you're walking around with your head in cloud-cuckoo land, the clowns will always prevail.
I dunno if I could take her (or anyone named Rand) seriously until I hear them divest themselves of all the bad associations with the name, including Ron Paul's son, the RAND corporation and Ayn Rand herself. She is just a basketcase, as far as I'm concerned. And the number of people into political discourse who follow her work with more than academic zeal is disturbing, because their arguments fall as flat without some seriously creepy leaps — like eugenics.

Stated another way, the statements seem to imply that if you are in a "happy" sort of cloud cuckoo land, your brain is somewhat more functional according to her assessment. But this implies a detachment from the reality of the threats constantly shoved at us. According to the same set of ideas, being aware of daily threats (being in a "fearful" cloud cuckoo land) makes our brains dysfunctional.

In short, her philosophy is that our brains are never functioning properly? Seems kind of defeatist, and like all her philosophy, is probably not meant to be acted upon. Unless one is into her delight in cruelty, coldness, and rape fantasies, perhaps. It's kind of unclear if she was even into them or they were just meant to provoke, since she lived such a contradictory existence. One of the more subjective philosophies outside of some sophisms (if I am getting the term right) hilariously calling itself "Objectivism" notwithstanding.
Sorry hoi. The cloud cuckoo land statement was mine, I probably could have worded it better. But I do agree with the central premise, that "Government" especially and, well, "the Media" exist by keeping people in fear!

I don't know anything about Rand's eugenicist, rape fantasist followers. And I forgot about your abhorrence for anything "RAND". You are probably right.

"her philosophy is that our brains are never functioning properly"? Isn't that the central tenet of all philosophies in a way?

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:40 pm

brianv wrote:Sorry hoi. The cloud cuckoo land statement was mine, I probably could have worded it better. But I do agree with the central premise, that "Government" especially and, well, "the Media" exist by keeping people in fear!
Oh, I follow ya, no worries.
I don't know anything about Rand's eugenicist, rape fantasist followers. And I forgot about your abhorrence for anything "RAND". You are probably right.
She was the rape fantasist. Not sure about how her non-male followers feel. But based on their male counterparts I've spoken with, the central tenant of her utopian capitalism is a Machiavellian kind of "the ends justify the means" because a single maniacal tyrant is morally superior to a mob of them. Each follower harbors in their own ego the sense that they would be that wonderfully benevolent tyrant.

I don't think she was speaking of people's ineffective brains with sorrow. More like a shocking, base sense of triumph over the ascendancy of her own ego. It's an idealistic embrace of something that seems to be a major component of the malfunctioning psycho brains of these PsyOp directors. They probably adore Ayn Rand. They probably named RAND after her. Not to speak much of any Master Race or Metatron kind of stuff, but you can see the nigh perfectly fascist rationale.
"her philosophy is that our brains are never functioning properly"? Isn't that the central tenet of all philosophies in a way?
Well, touché. In a way, yes. I just don't like hers. And that's a snotty thing to say, but I was coerced into reading the atrocious and insipid The Fountainhead in school. It's just how I feel. I didn't feel the same way about another book we were forced to read, Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, so it wasn't the class itself that turned me off of the work. And for those who love her, it may add no insult to find that a number of other students and faculty have felt the same way as myself for the decades her book has been a subject of study.

Cobra Commander
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:45 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Cobra Commander » Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:46 pm

Thank you Simon, and thank you everybody else who provided me with links to where the info to make a quick but effective presentation of 9/11 fakery is. Since this board's format is almost the same, I'd like to use some of your quotes here as long everybody is cool with it? I will post links back to where each quote is.

Is the Verrazano gif in the Sim City thread? The Verrazano cameo is my favorite part of the 9/11 movie.

The vicsims I'm going to link directly from the Voices of September site, cause I know they will argue this forum made all these fake images if I use all links from here.

I normally would avoid this, but since I went from being voted in the Bengals Messageboard Hall of Fame (they seriously have that) to being called a troll, I might as well destroy their illusions and have them questioning themselves instead of me.
Flabbergasted wrote:
Cobra Commander wrote: Although he did have a good argument, I think rfaulk34 just wanted to show off his ride.
I am not sure it´s such a good argument, but you are probably right about the second part.

Arguing over the physical possibility of such a cartoonish reflection is an entertaining pastime, but, reflection or no reflection, the view of an airliner sailing through the external steel columns of the Twin Tower without reducing the speed or losing a flap is plenty ridiculous.
He did have a valid point, even though I did a better job of proving his point that a building behind a car can reflect its image on the windshield. He doesn't realize the image should be distorted, and the image should move as the camera moves like Simon shows. I might make a video and put it up on my YouTube channel instead of using the photo. I want to do a comparison with the right math too. By my calculation, Evan needed to be 345 ft away to just see the top floor of the WTC with a car that's windshield is at a 45 degree angle. Any further in ft and or degrees, and he sees no building. We all already know it's a fake, but rfaulk34 unknowingly helped prove its a fake even more to me.

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sat Sep 27, 2014 12:56 am

The vicsims I'm going to link directly from the Voices of September site, cause I know they will argue this forum made all these fake images if I use all links from here.
You can start with links from here to get them scratching their heads, and when they accuse you, whip out the official vicsim pictures from the official sites. It sometimes just makes people belligerent to see an accusation thrown back in their face so easily, but thinking persons with a sense of humor may see the error of those fools' arguments and start to use their heads for once.

Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Farcevalue » Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:31 am

brianv wrote:Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, argues that - "Since reason is the means of human knowledge, it is therefore each person's most fundamental means of survival and is necessary to the achievement of values. The use or threat of force neutralizes the practical effect of an individual's reason, whether the force originates from the state or from a criminal. According to Rand, "man's mind will not function at the point of a gun."

Enter Government. Enter TV and the Media. The threat machine. So while you're walking around with your head in cloud-cuckoo land, the clowns will always prevail.
Ayn's failing was her inability to recognize the state as criminal (albeit with costumes, or uniforms). I recently listened to Atlas Shrugged in audio book format (I commute a lot), having avoided it in my younger years, and knowing what I know now about the religion known as the state, can find no fault with the arguments contained therein.

I am often as mystified by politicians who cite Rand as inspiration for their corruption, as I am by her detractors. Neither give indication they have the even most cursory familiarity with her work.

Atlas Shrugged was the story of the conflict between virtue and corruption or traders versus takers. It was not so much about "supermen" (the characters were deliberate archetypes) but the inevitability of dystopia when the takers are not recognized for who they are. The prescription was withdrawal from the takers. It's no wonder those who benefit from state power (it's a long list) would be rabidly anti-Rand. As far as the politicians who cite Rand as inspiration, let's not forget that Hitler (shillery, puppetry subterfuge and revisionism notwithstanding) was a Christian.

edit: sp

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:54 am

Hmm. "Takers and traders" or "takers and leavers". Interesting parallel to Quinn's life work. I don't know if I can stomach her boring prose enough to take a crack at Atlas Shrugged in print but I'll take your word on it; and I assume it would take me a mind numbing road trip for me to listen to it on audio book. Which I will consider.

Personally, I don't think that point you describe was Ayn's only failing, even if she didn't succumb to the (for me glaring) problems of Fountainhead. Her zeal and inability to relate to people caused her to miss vast chunks of what I see as critical information about why characters may or may not be important or valuable to a drama. As a result, she flattened people into symbolic representations of cut-outs to fit her plot puzzles, hoping our attraction to them by virtue of seeming like people would help us ignore the holes that remained. Not saying writing is easy, but I also think she just didn't have the "it" I look for — the human insight. She was just an okay "plotter" in my opinion, as if people could be read as flowcharts. That method works well for comedy. But a human drama? A true writer could eventually run with it and flesh it into a story, perhaps, but her works went to print before a real writer could touch it.

Not that this is what you meant by creative flaws, but she was also apparently insufferable in person, unlike her apparent heroes, and just an incredible hypocrite for being on the dole. Aesthetic is very subjective, though. Moral compasses too. Some people enjoy her and I am not trying to rob that of anyone. It's just my personal opinion that she's an overvalued hack writer with some serious mental problems. To be fair, we all have our own, I guess.

Now, if only Daniel Quinn, Ayn Rand and Lois Lowry had collaborated on a story about "takers, traders, leavers and givers". But I guess if you get too broad, the morals become less heavy-handed and the books are no longer the intellectual weapon they are designed to be by certain authors; you could end up with War and Peace, and that's no longer a novel as much as a richly achieved portrait of a setting.

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:20 pm

Have you heard the news? Iran 'executed' a video game character and the media wants us to believe this is a real person. :rolleyes:

Meet Mohsen Amir-Aslani.

Image

Image taken from this Guardian Article.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/s ... mir-aslani

It seems they used this (equally digital) image and super-imposed it onto some prison bars. :D

Image

Some media outlets have used the standard "flip" trick, such as this one:

Image

Here is a photo of his parents, holding up his framed picture, ala your favorite 9/11 victims' family members:

Image

Nice of the parents to take the extra time to remove the background... :lol:

ImageImage

Mohsen - The Persian equivalent of the Arabic "Muhsin" which means "someone who does good."
Amir - Prince or King in Persian; Prosperous, full, civilized (Muslim/American)
Aslani - Unknown. Aslan = Lion

Mods - Please move to a more appropriate forum if necessary.

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:39 pm

Taken from a Google Plus page with the same name. Template? Distraction?

https://plus.google.com/115275594648097211065

Image

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:20 pm

Ha! Nice finds.

Sometimes, I honestly wonder if the PsyOp technicians hired photo re-touchers like Lifetouch, the way they always have photos with removed backgrounds. What other group would offer this? It's like a subliminal advertisement for the service!

I wonder if old scammer "Jo Jo" (who made the fake "burnt out car" photos that Judy Wood often leaves uncredited) is getting more business lately, say — every time they need an erased background.

Post Reply