LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Discussing the most relevant "sequels" or "reminders" of 9/11. The so-called "War On Terror" is a global scam finalized to manipulate this world's population with crass fear-mongering tactics designed to scare you shitless.

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby reichstag fireman on Thu May 17, 2012 11:53 pm

simonshack wrote:*

For your eyes only... <_<


Bwhahaha! So the living vicsims were photoshops, and the bus was never in Tavistock Square, either?

I had this idea that like Lady Diana's smashed-up BMW, the "bombed" bus was prepared and only then trailered in under tarpaulin to the scene.

Obviously not, or at least not in the case of the bus!

Great detective work, Simon!
Last edited by reichstag fireman on Fri May 18, 2012 12:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby fbenario on Thu May 17, 2012 11:59 pm

reichstag fireman wrote:
pdgalles 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.


Reichstag, so far your analyses show a good understanding of our work, and you draw legitimate conclusions. Without taking sides, I don't think pdgalles is a shill/troll/bad actor on this forum.

Anyway, I would tend to agree with Reichstag on this dispute about 7/7 terrorists being fake - other than the real ones at Tavistock and the Brit Foreign Office!
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby antipodean on Fri May 18, 2012 12:35 am

fbenario wrote:
reichstag fireman wrote:
pdgalles 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.


Reichstag, so far your analyses show a good understanding of our work, and you draw legitimate conclusions. Without taking sides, I don't think pdgalles is a shill/troll/bad actor on this forum.

Anyway, I would tend to agree with Reichstag on this dispute about 7/7 terrorists being fake - other than the real ones at Tavistock and the Brit Foreign Office!


Just want to emphasise that the Tavistock institute is located, a couple of miles away from Tavistock Square.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby Mercurial on Fri May 18, 2012 1:17 am

Opps - this post is about 2 hours behind the beat - oh well...

Would it be helpful to make a distinction between disinfo and misinfo? – let's face it, none of us has(/have) all the answers ;)

Here's a post by Andy Tyme from LRF I thought was very insightful and pertinent here:

ANDY'S METAPHYSICAL TAKE:
A while back Phil told me to use "IMHO" in my posts more often, so OK, this is very much IMHO:
Most of the entities accused of being shills and agents for the 9/11 perps, both here and at CluesForum are nothing of the kind. A variety of semi-transparent sockpuppets (to populate "self-cheering sections") and semi-cleverly rechristened identities (after previous bannings) abound, yes, and several ill-dispositioned trolls, too. But genuine shills and agents (such as the execrable Jeff Hill, Genghis, Broken Sticks or Anthony Lawson, from the old 911Movement days) are probably very few in number. Instead, the colorful variety of strongly opinionated and frequently accusatory forum-posters who mix serious, insightful, fearless research with outbursts of paranoia are essentially just hot-headed, psychologically flawed (as we all are) individuals passionately dedicated to discovering and promoting 9/11 truth but also wildly suspicious of any posters who disagree, both in major areas of contention and even in minor points of theory or detail.
As a longtime student of comparative religion, I am repeatedly reminded (by the goings-on at both of our 9/11 fraud-exposure forums) of the periodic outbreaks of "witch-hunting" conducted by strongly committed, like-minded individuals in insular communities who see themselves as continually beseiged by the contrary-believing and hostile, outside world. And this is not to say that the "devil" doesn't exist, but rather that he sometimes has "a very easy time of it" when "true believers" take it upon themselves to snarkily goad and/or viciously attack each other and thus destroy (or at least seriously weaken) their previously righteous, "sin-fighting" community.
'Tis a pity, but thus it continues in this world, due to the imperfections of our human (aka "sinful") nature. Perhaps we do have some of the "devilish" Dr. Sunstein's genuine "cognitive infiltration" agents toiling in our midst, planting verbal landmines and rhetorically poisoning the air, but it appears they have far more unwitting accomplices.
IMHO.
Mercurial
Member
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:23 am

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby pdgalles on Fri May 18, 2012 11:40 am

reichstag fireman wrote:
pdgalles 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.
pdgalles
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby pdgalles on Fri May 18, 2012 11:56 am

fbenario wrote:
reichstag fireman wrote:
pdgalles 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.


Reichstag, so far your analyses show a good understanding of our work, and you draw legitimate conclusions. Without taking sides, I don't think pdgalles is a shill/troll/bad actor on this forum.


Well, unfortunately, I think Reichstag Fireman is: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2370349#p2370349
pdgalles
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:08 pm

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby pov603 on Fri May 18, 2012 1:00 pm

simonshack wrote:*


Image

Source of above image from this ridiculous article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/77 ... ims-179609


...


Is this another one of the 'perps' little inside jokes, as, 'Coke Adds Life'?
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby brianv on Fri May 18, 2012 1:11 pm

pov603 wrote:
simonshack wrote:*


Image

Source of above image from this ridiculous article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/77 ... ims-179609


...


Is this another one of the 'perps' little inside jokes, as, 'Coke Adds Life'?


Don't you see the "explosion"? Crafty bastards!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby reichstag fireman on Fri May 18, 2012 1:15 pm

Okay, so we have your shaky theory, "pdgalles"... that the "suicide videos" show real actors, albeit in dreadful quality and overdubbed with local accents. You have it that after their "suicide attacks", the actors are resettled in a far off land like Pakistan.

The "resettlement operation" is then the obvious subject of interest. If we plump for your actor theory, why bother with British actors at all? It's an unnecessary risk and inconvenient. Instead, why not use Pakistani actors ("ten a penny") who can remain in their homeland, post-"suicide"?

Or better still, use computer-generated imagery and no actors at all! ;)
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby reichstag fireman on Sat May 19, 2012 12:39 pm

It's worth highlighting the different video qualities of CGI videos presented so far.

The lower the video quality, the easier the work of the video fraudster.

  • CGI of "Obama" (in "Baghra") is broadcast quality (1280x720,mp4,24bpp,30fps,1.74Mb/s avg.vid.bitrate)*
  • CGI of "Breivik" (in "courtroom") is broadcast quality (1280x720,mp4,24bpp,25fps,1.88Mb/s avg.vid.bitrate)*
  • CGI of "Graham Berkeley" (9.11 vicsim) is low quality (640x480,mp4,24bpp,15fps,661kb/s avg.vid.bitrate)*
  • CGI of "Md Siddique Khan" (7.7 perpsim) is ultra low quality (320x240,h.264,16bpp,15fps,117kb/s fxd.vid.bitrate)*
* video properties after YouTube or Vimeo processing
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby Maat on Sat May 19, 2012 1:11 pm

reichstag fireman wrote:Okay, so we have your shaky theory, "pdgalles"... that the "suicide videos" show real actors, albeit in dreadful quality and overdubbed with local accents. You have it that after their "suicide attacks", the actors are resettled in a far off land like Pakistan.

The "resettlement operation" is then the obvious subject of interest. If we plump for your actor theory, why bother with British actors at all? It's an unnecessary risk and inconvenient. Instead, why not use Pakistani actors ("ten a penny") who can remain in their homeland, post-"suicide"?

Or better still, use computer-generated imagery and no actors at all! ;)

reichstag fireman,

I'm not sure why, as a new and therefore probationary member, you would wish to create polemics and personally insult others for ideas on any subject that can only be speculative without specific evidence. How exactly they faked the video of any "terrorist bomber", whether played by a person or how much CGI compositing may have been used is apparently variable and therefore reasonably debatable.

However, may I suggest a shift in conception here by replacing the word "actor" with 'agent'. Since we can be pretty certain that these are all creations of Intelligence Agencies, wouldn't the creators use their own operatives in whatever roles they needed in some form (to be disguised/dubbed/composited in various ways)? Do British Intelligence agencies only recruit Anglo-Europeans, isn't Pakistan a cooperative ally, etc.?

Another idea to consider, prompted by an interesting article on the psychology of images posted by brianv in the Chatbox: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p2370353
Re "While photographs may not lie, liars may photograph."
Just because we are told a video was made as a "suicidal" farewell doesn't mean that was even its original faked scenario either. The same goes for cunningly cropped photos in order to convey the opposite of what actually occurred or to put a totally different spin on a provocative scene.

Food for thought, anyway :)
Maat
Member
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby reichstag fireman on Sat May 19, 2012 2:01 pm

Thanks. I take onboard all that you say, maat :) This isn't my forum, and I appreciate your hospitality and tolerance, so I promise to pipe down.

To add something constructive.. the exceptionally low quality of the "farewell video" of the 7/7 perpsims provides a perfect smokescreen for CGI fakery. The video quality seems to have been deliberately wrecked through repeated transcoding. That shouldn't be necessary if actors were used.

Further, the online copies of the 7/7 "farewell video" available today are considerably worse in quality than the footage broadcast at the time. Perhaps that original footage revealed too much? A multitude of sins are disguised by dropping the video bitrate.

Since the 7/7 "farewell video" was released in 2005, some seven years ago, the sophistication of video processing software and hardware must have moved on leaps-and-bounds. With those advancements, the operators of the CGI equipment have become ever more audacious. Today, they can afford to risk computer-generating broadcast quality video.

Maat wrote:Another idea to consider, prompted by an interesting article on the psychology of images posted by brianv in the Chatbox: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p2370353
Re "While photographs may not lie, liars may photograph."

Just because we are told a video was made as a "suicidal" farewell doesn't mean that was even its original faked scenario either. The same goes for cunningly cropped photos in order to convey the opposite of what actually occurred or to put a totally different spin on a provocative scene.


The video linked below, broadcast by Sky News in May 2011, is purportedly of an interview with the parents of "Graham Berkeley", a British 911 vicsim.

Yet in the interview, neither "parent" mentions their lost son, the vicsim. Not by name, nor even indirectly.

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p2370398

In the same vein, there's a spoof overdub of a TV interview given to the BBC by Prince William and Kate Middleton on the announcement of their engagement. I won't link to it because it's very crude. It's also an obvious fake, but I still find it funny. It serves to show how easily the responses in a interview can be taken completely out of context, even by an amateur.
Last edited by reichstag fireman on Tue May 22, 2012 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby nonhocapito on Sun May 20, 2012 5:38 am

reichstag fireman wrote:Okay, so we have your shaky theory, "pdgalles"...


I also invite you not to put nicknames of other members between quotes, as if to suggest one name is fraudulent or masking something. Nor to misspell them. We have seen things like these being used countless times to undermine members of the forum or create artificial tension and problems.
It doesn't matter how much apparently rich material you pour into the forum barely hours or days after joining. It is often things like these that show the real attitude and value of a prospect member.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby Equinox on Sun May 20, 2012 6:28 am

reichstag fireman wrote:
pdgalles 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.


Now maybe if the question is posed again, someone with more credibility might tackle it..

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.

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

Using method (1) is dangerous. The real actors must never be seen again. How is that arranged? They would need to be disappeared, permanently.

Method (2) is much safer and cleaner.

"pdgalles" claims that the CGI method of creating terrorists is absurd, but can't explain why.
"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.




I actually believe the “bombers” were normal Muslims asked to take part as playing the role as terrorists in the Mock terror Drills. Taking part at that exact same time involving the exact same setting involving underground bombs on the London tube. …



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvkhe3rqtc

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-ter ... arsal.html

And the suicide videos were part of those drills.. They were asked to make the videos as part of the mock exercise.
Makes sense to me….
B)



The CCTV footage is an obvious photoshop.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgfoM2ZnJ8s

Image
Image
Image Image



Side note--

Watch @ 9.59 onwards… in the above video there is a dude in Montreal who really serves it up.

Image
He says…
[b]
“Im only here tonight to express my concern as citizen and as some- who takes the metro everyday. To inform all of you that there are many of us in the city, That know the truth what happened on September 11,…. what happened in London on 7/7. And you had better make sure that nothing happens to our city. Because if an attack DOES happen in the metro. And you try and blame it on Alquida or Iran… Or whoever they are going to try n blame it on.. We will not believe you… And that is the only reason why I came here tonight…. Thank-you for your time”
Equinox
Banned
 
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am

Re: LONDON 7/7 FAKE TERROR

Postby reichstag fireman on Tue May 22, 2012 12:22 pm

Equinox wrote:I actually believe the “bombers” were normal Muslims asked to take part as playing the role as terrorists in the Mock terror Drills...And the suicide videos were part of those drills.. They were asked to make the videos as part of the mock exercise. Makes sense to me….


The reality of the "bombers" revolves on the credibility of the footage in their "suicide videos". If that footage is shown to be fake, there's even less reason to believe the "bombers" existed anywhere outside a CGI lab.

The footage in those "suicide videos" is a major weak point, as many recognise ;)

And the raison d'être for this forum is to analyse and evaluate footage of staged events for evidence of video trickery......

What convinces you that the "suicide videos" show footage of real-life actors?

The CCTV footage is an obvious photoshop.


If the still is photoshopped, which seems likely, it's more evidence that the "bombers" never did exist.

If the "bombers" were actors, as some believe, why not just walk them on their 'fatal' journeys to obtain real footage?

That would have provided irrefutable images of them at every point on their supposed journey of 7/7/2005.

Using actors would have given us footage from within the Tube cars since every Tube car has at least two CCTV cameras. If actors were used, why do we not have footage from the Tube network?

Or maybe that footage from the Tube is still in production, in a clandestine CGI lab somewhere :lol:
Last edited by reichstag fireman on Tue May 22, 2012 2:28 pm, edited 22 times in total.
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

PreviousNext

Return to London, Madrid, Oslo and other faked terror events: the psyops are everywhere

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests