reichstag fireman wrote:
Yes, you've outed me, I was a disinfo agent all along. I'm surprised that no one else noticed based on my posting history here.
I asked for an explanation about the fake "suicide videos". Rather than provide us with one, you hiss and writhe instead.
Why, only having just joined the forum, are you so aggressive?
reichstag fireman wrote:Now maybe if the question is posed again, someone with more credibility might tackle it..
Why are you so intent on questioning my credibility, as if it's self-evident that I have no credibility here? I have had some good posting exchanges with Nonhocapito in particular, who I view as a kind of collaborator in research. Where else is my credibility in question, aside from this particular disagreement?
reichstag fireman wrote:We know that the victim lists for 9/11 and 7/7 were completely faked. There's every reason to suspect that the 'terrorists" were never real either.
It makes sense that the so-called perpetrators, like the victims, were the product of simulation. They were the vicsims, these are the perpsims.
Going back to the Costa Concordia incident, I too posed the question of whether the captain of the Concordia was a human or a digital creation. In the end I agreed that he was an actor and I feel the same applies to Khan in this case.
reichstag fireman wrote:To that end, fake "suicide videos" were produced. These videos bolster the fabricated fairytale of suicide bombers.
There are two ways in which those videos could be produced.
1) real actors play the terrorists, later to be "killed" in the fake attacks
2) computer generated imagery of the terrorists
I am proposing method 3) real actors feature in the videos and carry on living. I don't know where they carry on living as I am not involved behind the scenes.
reichstag fireman wrote:Using method (1) is dangerous. The real actors must never be seen again. How is that arranged? They would need to be disappeared, permanently.
Or 3) the actors either a) are resettled, or b) were from, e.g. Pakistan and the Yorkshire accent has been dubbed onto the video.
reichstag fireman wrote:Method (2) is much safer and cleaner.
I agree but we obviously disagree that the video I linked to is CGI. If it is not CGI then why do we need to jump to the conclusion that the actors were killed? Who knows how these operations work.
reichstag fireman wrote:"pdgalles" claims that the CGI method of creating terrorists is absurd, but can't explain why.
I didn't use the word absurd, I just disagreed with your interpretation. My explanation is that to my eyes the video I linked to is not CGI.
On a side note, why is my username in quotes here and previously in bold/italic? The use of quotes suggests the attempt to create a court case environment, which on a public forum is slightly out of place.
reichstag fireman wrote:"pdgalles" says that method (1) - the use of real actors playing the terrorists - is the only possibility.
"pdgalles" claims that the "suicide video" and the "farewell video" of 7/7 perpsim "Mohammad Siddique Khan" was made using genuine actors, rather than CGI.
Perhaps other posters with more credibility and competence could review the available footage of Khan the perpsim, and offer comment.
Again, why have I been judged to be lacking credibility and competence? I don't need anyone else to reply with messages of support, all I need is to be shown by yourself where I have a history of incompetence.
In summary, my view is that the video is not CGI and I don't agree that the actor needs to be killed. He may have been killed, he may not have been, I can't say. If the video is CGI, as you suggest, then I can't see it. In this way, I guess I am incompetent.
To Mercurial: no, that wasn't helpful. Thanks for trying.