The notion of 'thousands of victims' was crucial to generate universal public outrage. However, having 3000 angry families breathing down their necks was never part of the perps' demented plan. Our ongoing analyses and investigations suggest that NO one died on 9/11.
Just to keep y'all updated, Matt is now angry with me again - and wants me to be flogged publicly. Or worse.
I normally would never publish any personal e-mail exchanges without permission from the sender, but since the below sentence includes, shall we say, threats of physical violence and torture (if not public lynching) against my persona - I will make an exception :
Matt Campbell wrote:"That public challenge still stands, although I might add some damages and perhaps a public flogging or old fashioned 'in the stocks' when you you are shown to be who you really are."
As a non-native English speaker, I didn't know what "in the stocks" meant. So I looked it up:
"The stocks are similar to the pillory and the pranger, as each consists of large, hinged, wooden boards; the difference, however, is that when a person is placed in the stocks, their feet are locked in place, and sometimes as well their hands or head, or these may be chained. (...) "The practice of using stocks continues to be cited as an example of torture, cruel and unusual punishment. Insulting, kicking, tickling, spitting and in some cases urinating and defecating on its victims could be applied at the free will of any of those present." (...) "Since stocks served an outdoor public form of punishment its victims were subjected to the daily and nightly weather. As a consequence it was not uncommon for people kept in stocks over several days to die from heat exhaustion or hypothermia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stocks
You might think that such crude forms of punishment were mostly carried out by barbaric tribes in some remote little island. Well, you're right!
"The stocks were used in Elizabethan England, and by the Puritans in the colonial period of American history. Their last recorded use in the United Kingdom was in 1872 at either Adpar, Newcastle Emlyn, west Wales or Newbury, Berkshire, England (11th June)."
Sending threatening emails
Main offences under harassment law
Sending a threatening or malicious message using a public electronic communications network, including sending such a message by email, can comprise an offence under the Communications Act 2003. Additionally, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 can apply to threatening messages sent by email or by other forms of communication. Both criminal penalties and civil remedies are given.
Other elements of harassment and examples of the offence being committed by email
Under s7 of the Act references to harassment include alarming a person or causing them distress. In the light of the Act, an email offence seems relatively simple to commit. Sending two threatening emails which would objectively cause the recipient alarm or distress is probably enough for the offence to be made out.
Lets hope he sends another one!
(Glad the site is up and running again, well done everyone)
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/04/1 ... -ny-tower/ The article deals with the confiscation and expropriation of a Manhattan tower of a non-profit organization that is said to be linked to the '911 attacks'. Wow! the perps have the nerve to persecute real living people for the 'deaths' of vicsims
Remember "Caroline Burbank"? (the supposed fiancée of "Geoff Campbell" - i.e. Matt Campbell's alleged 9/11-victim-brother - whose remains are slowly being returned to the Campbell family - courtesy of New York's Medical Examiner Office - in tiny pieces of human tissue, bones and teeth...):
"Caroline Burbank with her sorely missed Geoff Campbell fiancé":
To be sure, this lady indeed appears to be (or meant to be) the very same "Caroline Burbank", now aged 41 (newspapers mentioned her back in September 2001 as a 29-year-old, grieving the loss of her fiancé "Geoff Campbell"). But I'm sure Matt Campbell can confirm this for us. Matt? Will you confirm this to me via e-mail? Thanks!
Cheeky caption: "I'm sure you all feel safer now- "
But - perhaps best of all - in the LookUpAnyone people search engine, her "dead fiancé Geoff Campbell" is actually listed as a RELATIVE of hers! (As their story goes, they never even married - so why exactly a people-search engine would list them as 'RELATED' is, well, a bit of a mystery!):
As this NY Times article has it, the two of them had met only two years before 9/11 :
A Chance Meeting
Not long after arriving in America in 1999, Geoff Campbell was sitting at a Midtown bar one night. A woman started making fun of his British accent, but instead of taking offense, he simply laughed along with her. Afterward, they e-mailed back and forth, and he asked her on a date.
And she seems to be in real estate. On her Linkedin account it says she is still active US Army. However what does it mean? Isn't it possible that this guy Geoffs girlfriend was in the military? Please explain what I am missing.
Caroline Burbank | LinkedIn www.linkedin.com/in/cburbank8
View Caroline Burbank's professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's largest business network, helping professionals like Caroline Burbank discover ...
Visually similar imagesReport images
Pages that include matching images
Caroline Burbank's Page - theresn.com
AirplaneJoe wrote:And she seems to be in real estate. On her Linkedin account it says she is still active US Army. However what does it mean? Isn't it possible that this guy Geoffs girlfriend was in the military? Please explain what I am missing.
It's more possible that "Geoff" is a photographic image, and she is a backstop!
Over at fakeologist.com I have been asked about "Suria Clarke". A poster there, "xileffilex", claims he/or she has researched the 67 UK victims of 9/11 - and states that: " I have researched the UK connected victims. As far as I can tell they are all real people. Do you have any evidence that they are not? I would be interested in any counter evidence." A bit further on in our exchange, "xileffilex" then asked: "Name me someone who is not real in your opinion, Mr Shack, from the UK victms. OK, here’s one from the Cantor stable: Suria Clarke. Real or not real?"
So I went to my favorite source of 9/11 information, ( Cluesforum.info, bien sûr ! ) to see if I could find any interesting info about "Suria Clarke". Sure enough, I found some good old research by our longtime forum member "SmokingGun" - from back in March 9, 2010:
“Despite extensive attempts of tracing Suria through the UK births, marriages, deaths index (BDM), I can’t find her. Indeed, only one Suria Clarke appears and she was born in 1995.”
Hmm. So I decided it was time to take a look at Suria's alleged, surviving family members. As "SmokingGun" had pointed out back in 2010, Suria's mother, Alex Clarke, chairs (or chaired) the UK September 11 Families Support Group. More interesting still, her brother (Tom Clarke), works for Channel 4. But let's take one thing at a time. As I looked up mother Alex, I bumped into two conflicting / diametrically opposed stories published on the same date (September 8, 2011) on the WALL STREET JOURNAL - and on THE GUARDIAN :
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Sept 8 -2011
Suria, who worked in the communications department of Cantor Fitzgerald, was at work by 8 a.m. on Sept. 11 in the World Trade Center's North Tower, sending emails. She was at her desk when the first plane struck.
Her family was unable to retrieve any of her personal effects. She was 30.
"A month later, they [SURIA's MOM & DAD, Alex and John Clarke] flew to New York to sort out Suria's apartment in Brooklyn Heights. It was the hardest thing Alex has ever had to do. Suria had turned 30 a fortnight before she died and her birthday cards were still on the mantelpiece. On the kitchen table was a book called Jihad Vs McWorld and in a drawer was the spotty bag Alex made for Suria's plimsolls when she started school."
So which way is it? Either they retrieved Suria's personal effects - or they didn't. You can't have it both ways - especially considering that both articles were published 10 years after the fact! But let's leave this at that... we all know that the press occasionally makes mistakes, don't we?
Tom Clarke - Channel 4 science guy
Far more interesting is the fact that Tom Clarke (Suria's alleged brother) is the resident science-expert at Channel 4, the British TV Network. Tom's the guy they roll out whenever all kinds of scientific mysteries need to be explained to the masses: Tom Clarke - the Channel 4 science champ - has covered fascinating topics such as the "Swine Flu", the "Global Warming", "Women's 100 types of breast cancer" and last but not least - the recent puzzling-'n'-baffling "Mysterious Disappearance of the Malaysian Flight MH370":
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSyKsJ1R3ZE
Surely - it must be a random coincidence that this particular, prominent Channel 4 employee "lost a sister on 9/11"?
But the saddest part of this umpteenth bizarre "9/11 victim" case is this: we are told that mother Alex and brother Tom are - respectively - the Chair and the Press Officer of the UK September 11 Families Support Group. Yet, if you go to their main 9/11 tribute page (dedicated to the UK victims) on their site - and click on Suria's name - you'll see that neither mother or brother have bothered to type a single word about their sorely-missed Suria. Only a picture of a smiling girl appears on Suria's page: http://www.s11ukfsg.org/tributes.html
Sadder still, only 12 (out of the alleged 67 "UK tragic / heroic martyrs of 9/11") have a tribute page at all !
Well, folks - I used to think that the American "9/11 psyoperatives" were pretty sloppy and lazy - but it now seems to me that their British counterparts have been even more so. You'd think they're just sitting on their asses - hoping that no one will notice their dismal, 'happy-go-lucky' efforts at upholding the 9/11 myth - and its purported "3000 victims".
Ms. Clarke, 30, had an appetite for life, for food, for wine. On a trip to Italy with Ms. Dulckeit, the two friends fell in love with the local Tuscan wine. Ms. Clarke just had to have some to take home to Brooklyn Heights. So they bought two huge bottles of wine, almost 90 liters.
But when they got home they had to find a way to decant it. They needed 90 empty bottles. So they started drinking. "We had to drink a lot of wine," remembered Ms. Dulckeit.
How exactly did she transport two 45 liter bottles of wine by plane back to the US? She carried them on and kept them at her feet? How much would they have weighed? I have never seen such a large bottle of wine. I really think the writers are cracking up as they write this garbage.
Maybe it is a bit random but 'Suria' [which certainly isn't a common 'christian' name in UK as far as I'm aware] just happens to be the name of the shopping centre/mall [Suria KLCC] at the bottom of Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the country where MH370 originated from.