fred wrote:Duck's point seemed to be that since Hollywood is a drug-infested snakepit of untrustworthy losers there's no way you could have People like Kelsey Grammer in on the act. They can't be trusted with secrets because they're always checking into rehab for cocaine and booze etc. Therefore, he concludes, the perps needed a few actual high-profile victims to make the operation seem legitimate. In summary, we're faced with mostly vicsims but with a handful of unlucky murder victims thrown in to round out the pack.
I had one of those surreal moments reading these words, fred. You expressed in a straightforward, understandable way what D.Duck was never capable to express for the whole duration of this polemic (I will also incidentally add that this polemic is not why or how he 'suicided' his forum persona: it was over the 'miracle on the Hudson' story. On Angell, he kept saying that he 'knew' something, and that nobody on this forum was worthy to have it shared with).
I'll also add that
Ozzy is certainly still following (if not participating to, under some other name) this forum. I think he is very well informed on the progresses of the various discourses. He timely added two insulting comments to the youtube page of my video (that I had to delete as I don't need someone calling me or Simon a motherfucker or a minion), and both comments contained the 'mistaravim' epithet, which (if I am not mistaken) is a unity of information or meme recently included in certain threads on this forum, thanks to the contribution of Warriorhun... But I digress.
Before I tell you why I disagree on the alleged D.Duck's interpretation, let me sum up all the possible theories around the David Angell saga. They're all worthy of respect albeit not all reasonable. I think these 4 points can be used as a decent base to move this discussion along.
What was David Angell?
1.
Real. Killed. Used to persuade media people, not worthy of trust, that the story was real, the risks real. Maybe he was disposed of because of his opposition to the scam, or he picked the short straw, whatever one wants to believe.
2.
Real. Faked death. The media people cover his story and tracks, to sell 9/11 and allow him to enjoy retirement or continue his antics on other scams.
3.
Fake. Invented years ago as pen name of some writer/producer, and later pledged to the 9/11 scam.
4.
Fake. Just another vicsim invented together with the rest of the scam. His false biography and records were created retroactively with a bit of digital invention.
At this stage I tend to believe more the possibility number 3, for the reason I exposed earlier on this thread, but I am open to other truths, naturally, since I am not stupid. Yet possibility number 1, that you attribute to D.Duck,
is simply the most unreasonable of the four.
It does not account for the foreknowledge 'hints' dropped in the shows, for example. If David Angell was real, and credited on those shows because he was real, he must have obviously been informed of the scam! And yet he was not informed that he was going to be a victim of it? Very unlikely. His dear creation, the
Frasier show, mentions 'flight 11', the plane he will 'die' onto, and all the while he is not informed of what is going on? Did they stopped talking when he entered the room? Pretty hard to believe.
The almost nil shared memories of him, the lack of authentic celebration and respect around him and vicsims like him, the deafening silence that hoard him with the other invented 9/11 victims is a clear sign of the non-reality of it. Especially in times when the scam is on the brink of being exposed to larger groups of people, how did they resist the temptation to use material, credible material, of this 'real' victim to silence everyone? Where are the tons of pictures, videoclips, notices... where the unpublished work of this great creative and american hero?
Where is "David Angell" street in L.A.? Can we really pretend the reality of someone who never once deflected from the reduced, hollow, digital nature of 'vicsim'? It is pure, unsupported speculation that rightfully, I believe, has been interpreted has an effort to get in the way of the research.
One last note. The celebrities who are in and out of rehab and thus not trustworthy (I guess this is said thinking of Kelsey Grammer), are not a good argument.
Nobody is more dependable than someone who is an addict. You have him by the balls whenever you want it.
What is the worry, for him to release an interview to spill the beans? When you control all the media? Isn't
more control the reason why so many celebrities are pushed into drugs? Weren't' the musical stars of the sixties and seventies a bunch of drug addicts, and yet how many of them were assigned to carry on for years psy-op scams revolving around their lives and the messages behind their songs?
More on this in my next 'installment'...
)
Remember the episode I'm talking about? The statue stealing out of work actor that cleaned Jerry's house...