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.
For a young--ish, cute-ish teacher, shes got absolutely zero friends and no pictures of herself. Clearly, she was too busy in University to really get a handle on Facebook.
The timeline goes back just to 2011 and every post is about 2 sentences long, all about her students/employment. Nothing else. Almost all comments are directed at her students and they don't sound like they are from an educator, they include typos, etc. Here's a few examples:
"i wanted to remind everyone to wear there smiles"
"i wish i could just stay at the school and make it my home im always there may as well do so"
And, even up to the day prior to the big blowout...
"its almost christmas time and the kids and i have been working extra hard on all there suprise gifts for mom and dad singing christmas music and playing the piano these kids are what keeps me going"
Are we to believe that her toddler students could use facebook and read her posts, clearly directed at them?
Strangely, during her interviews, there is an implied Christian belief, but adds "Weeds" and "South Park" as her favourite TV shows on Facebook. Is that what you'd want your students to think of you?
Note timeline oddities: She doesn't post a single thing between Sept. 7, 2011 and Feb.8, 2012, then just kind of picks up with another banal post as though she weren't in a coma or something for five months.
This is a bit racy for your one FB pic considering it's all addressed to your grade school students... I suppose if everyone of your online pictures are stills taken from the Diane Sawyer interview, what can you do??? http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=kai ... FORM=IGRE#
It is odd that she doesnt have one, single friend... not even a student. Who was she directing these banal comments to, if she had no one on her friend list???
Thank you, Simon. I confess, you beat me to it, as always, with impressive eloquence and logic. I'm sure I did read your post, and after some time to process it, assimilated your take on the motivation behind the ostentatious 'sloppiness' of the Sandy Hoax into forming my own thoughts on the matter...
Anyway, after re-reading what we each wrote, and upon further reflection, I wonder if the attention this fiasco is attracting to fakery is truly intended to obfuscate the exposure of video and victim fakery on 9/11. I question this simply because so few people seem to care about 9/11 anymore. Americans, in general, do not have much of a long term memory. Even most 'truthers', remain ignorant or afraid of the fakery/vicsim angle, and seem to have given up trying to promote the 'truth' that the US government murdered 3000 innocents on 9/11.
I think it more likely that the 'open fakery' approach we are beginning to see here is, as you said, 'preemptive'- but perhaps not in relation to the further exposure of the 9/11 hoax. Why should we think that the perps fear exposure? No matter how slam-dunk a case we put together for total fakery on 9/11, it isn't likely to get airtime on the major networks. The TV-addicted masses are already firmly under their spell, and the perps have total control of the only medium powerful enough to change perception on a meaningful scale.
Therefore, could the motive behind the excessive intentional inconsistencies and obvious elements of fakery we see in Newtown (and which seem to have started with the GIFfords and Aurora mad-shooter events) be:
1) intended to condition the TV-addicted masses to accept progressively more idiotic and implausible events,
2) priming the masses for an upcoming event of mind-numbing proportion?
[Of course, I suspect that you have already figured this out, and will provide the link ]
I couldn't reveal any issues with this photo, above or below necklace or hairline. Both sets of eyes also have the same reflection of cameraman. This isn't to say its not faked, but I can't find obvious screw-ups.
You wouldn't! There is a thick black line around her face which extends down to the necklace!
anonjedi2 wrote:SAY CHEESE! (Also note the plastic cup in the woman's right hand. Refreshments are always provided for homeland security drill type events.
Hey that's "Alicia". There are a few pictures with her, shown from day one. Probably because of the trademark blue and white striped shirt (always featured among "witnesses" photos since 9/11), and maybe also for the fairytale sounding name.
The girl's face in the second photo looks manipulated to show shock and horror. Without that image the scene becomes more of a "everything is OK honey, no one got hurt. Don't be sad, let's get ice cream" situation
lux wrote:just when you thought you couldn't barf any more ... somebody wrote a song about Gene Rosen:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrQHIBYzYCU
"Your gold fish pond is nice, but you deserve an ocean" ???
No wonder he's disabled comments for that shite.
I'm not being ironic when I say I really enjoyed that song. I was literally laughing out loud, it easily beats anything Ricky Gervais has done.
But then I searched youtube with the phrase, "Sandy Hook song" and got 6,400 hits! I thought most of these would be false positives, but alas, they're not. These other songs make the Gene Rosen song (your heart's a hundred ten feet tall / but your house won't work, it's way too small ) look Shakespearean by comparison.
But all humour aside, and without having the time or stomach to watch too many of these god-awful videos, I'd like to point out a few things:
1. The lyrical content of the majority of these songs speak of the grief, loss, and the inability to come to terms with what "happened", often as imagined through the eyes of a parent.
2. Most appear to be amateur.
3. The inappropriate target audience.
The significance of the first point is obvious to all here. There was no real visible grief for the songwriters to justify their use of such imagery.
Just one example:
A lot of the songs, of course, include words and phrases like Raining tears, cry, crying, broken heart, etc etc. None of them mention the much more noticeable smiles, laughs, and chuckles at my baby's funeral.
The significance, to me, of the second point may be a little less obvious. These songs are filling in gaps in the official story provided by the media. Most, maybe even all, fill in the gap of missing emotional content within the official narrative, and ALL of them, of course, reinforce the belief that it actually happened. Now, using media, in this case youtube, to manipulate public perception is nothing new to readers of this forum, we know it happens and has been happening for a long, long time. But in most cases (I assume) it is "Them", the media, the government, the black jesuit extra-terrestrial pixie popes who are doing the manipulating, but here, on these amateur songs for Sandy Hook, it is "Us", it is "We" who are brainwashing ourselves, and we are using the perfect tool to do it: Music! The opium of the masses, the great by-passer of reason and critical thinking. It's almost like reverse self-censorship or something. Is this not worse than being manipulated by others?
The third point, the inappropriate target audience, is exemplified by the sickest and scariest song of them all, "Heaven", by a girl called Baby Kaely. In the song she claims to be "6 or 7", and that appears to be the age of her target audience. It is the best quality video I've seen, and may be professionally made. Watch it here [and, again, CAUTION!]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsSn_-NRwBQ
Here's a taste of the first verse:
December, 14th / Just another day / I was in class / And then I heard them say / There's been a tragedy / So put down your books / It's time to pray for all the kids / Who go to Sandy Hook / And that sad man / He must have been hurt / hurt enough to make / Everybody feel worse
As she's singing, photos (yes, the same old photos!) of the young vicsims appear on the white-board behind her, their names written underneath. Later she sings the names as their images appear, the reality or existence of these "people" being reinforced FOUR ways simultaneously: Photographically, in written form, Aurally, and musically.
People rightfully complain about the increasing sexualization of children, or of the ease with which children are exposed to images, texts and ideas of a sexual nature in modern society, but might it not be equally harmful, or at best POINTLESS, to expose children to grisly images and ideas about death and mass murder? Did Baby Kaely's teacher really stop the class and make the children pray? She, or whichever adult wrote the song, may have been exercising artistic license when they made that claim, but I do believe that it really could have happened.
And why? Why the fuck should any 6 or 7 year old be made to "care" about a person he's never met in a town he's never been to? I can remember being 6 years old and I can't think of a single potential positive benefit of being taught about, or made to care about this kind of shit, real or imagined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to correct links
Last edited by arc300 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
For a young--ish, cute-ish teacher, shes got absolutely zero friends and no pictures of herself. Clearly, she was too busy in University to really get a handle on Facebook.
The timeline goes back just to 2011 and every post is about 2 sentences long, all about her students/employment. Nothing else. Almost all comments are directed at her students and they don't sound like they are from an educator, they include typos, etc. Here's a few examples:
"i wanted to remind everyone to wear there smiles"
"i wish i could just stay at the school and make it my home im always there may as well do so"
And, even up to the day prior to the big blowout...
"its almost christmas time and the kids and i have been working extra hard on all there suprise gifts for mom and dad singing christmas music and playing the piano these kids are what keeps me going"
Are we to believe that her toddler students could use facebook and read her posts, clearly directed at them?
Strangely, during her interviews, there is an implied Christian belief, but adds "Weeds" and "South Park" as her favourite TV shows on Facebook. Is that what you'd want your students to think of you?
Note timeline oddities: She doesn't post a single thing between Sept. 7, 2011 and Feb.8, 2012, then just kind of picks up with another banal post as though she weren't in a coma or something for five months.
This is a bit racy for your one FB pic considering it's all addressed to your grade school students... I suppose if everyone of your online pictures are stills taken from the Diane Sawyer interview, what can you do??? http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=kai ... FORM=IGRE#
It is odd that she doesnt have one, single friend... not even a student. Who was she directing these banal comments to, if she had no one on her friend list???
We're so used to seeing craptastic photos of sims, that some occasionally slip right by (this could be intentional)... in any case, I offer, for your perusal, the one and only pic I could find on the entire Nyet of Anne Marie Murphy, teachers aide. She died protecting another sim who died either before or after her 'protection'. So, we really don't know if she blocked a bullet with the child, or took one first. The jury is still out on the order with which the events transpired. No matter, she's still a hero!?
In any case, the perps were gracious enough to wait until Dec. 15 to set up her memorial page (thank heavens!) yet, despite the hundreds of comments, not one appears from family or friends, just well wishers.
You'd think the family would have weighed in with their sincere thanks and appreciation for the immediate and thorough outpouring of public grief, but no... zip, nada. It does beg the question: who would set up the page, and still be such an ingrate as to not thank all the suckers who bothered to post to it? Ah, Facebook... is there no end to your inanity?
PS: Please, don't confuse this Anne Marie Murphy with Anne(-)Marie Murphy, convicted of attempting to smuggle explosives aboard an Israeli passenger jet;
it's purely coincidence... honestly. Unlike Newtown, that was NOT a faked event. http://www.shabak.gov.il/English/Histor ... yCase.aspx
One of the news articles about Rosen mentioned that he is a psychologist. I think this is revealing. It figures that a psych would be recruited for this type of work -- pushing the public's emotional buttons (which is what psychology is all about). I wonder if perhaps many of the actors in this psycho-drama aren't as well?
Okay, I have a possible explanation for Kaitlin Roig's bizarre facebook page.
a) You can hide your friends list so that other people can't see who your friends are unless they are friends with you. This doesn't include mutual friends however, so if we have any forum members who live in Connecticut, perhaps visit her page and there could be a few degrees of separation there? It would be impossible to tell otherwise. See this: https://www.facebook.com/help/115450405225661/
This privacy setting would explain why she has no friends and seems to be talking to herself. It would make sense for her to set that privacy setting after the incident (real or fake).
b) However, I am unable to find a privacy setting on Facebook that allows one to hide comments and likes from other users on your timeline. As far as I know, comments and likes are tied to the Timeline setting itself. So, one could hide their timeline posts or keep them visible. If one chooses to keep them visible, the likes and comments will be visible as well.
Therefore, it is still plausible that she has zero friends (even considering point a above). She has a total of zero comments and zero likes on her timeline (unless I missed some). So that is strange, it's still as though she's talking to herself and nobody bothers to post anything on her page or respond to any of her posts with a like or a comment. That would make sense if she isn't who she says she is.
Finally, none of this really matters because the real issue in my opinion is her horrid spelling/grammar/punctuation and typos. She lacks any real personality and writes like a 5th grader or someone who doesn't speak English very well. It's all very curious indeed.
This photo greatness is courtesy of Katie Couric and her crackerjack staff over at ABC. Have you ever seen even a scan of a class photo that looks this fuzzy? There's black and white school shots from 1830 that look better than this. But look closer... Many outfits are the same in both versions. There are plunging necklines in others that would lead to easy photo manipulation. There's accessorizing across photos and more... The photo editor has clearly applied a kind of blur effect similar to a soap opera dream sequence. Observe the teacher's bosom, top right corner
Thanks Katie, you plastic robo-bitch.
EDIT!:! I just found these same images waaay back, like page 19 or something. That's one prescient poster!
I pretty much grabbed every photo I could find in the first week of this psy-op. Unfortunately I don't have as good an eye for analysis. Perhaps a cluesforum gallery might be useful for collating things? Get people to post comments on individual photos and add the best analyses to the sticky summary which is going to needed for this exercise in PR.
The rendering glitch cited above could be ascribed to an improper "Deinterlace" setting on the rendering codec or the playback device, not necessarily evidence of tampering in itself. To my eye that pattern looks common to the entire image. More telling is the enormity of the earring. Although, I imagine 3D modeling could produce similar types of anomalies, I don't know I would hang my hat on that one to demonstrate fakery. But it's still fakery.
This is a bit racy for your one FB pic considering it's all addressed to your grade school students... I suppose if everyone of your online pictures are stills taken from the Diane Sawyer interview, what can you do???
]
) look Shakespearean by comparison.
