Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Snow job 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9623
Reply with quote
Post Re: Snow job
What is it like to wake up to the reality of the unbelievable deception that underlies the selling of 9/11?

This video has a lot of similarities to my own awakening concerning 9/11. It is relatively new (September 2014) and makes for a good introduction to the tangled web of lies that we were sold in this massive psy-op event. I was quite familiar with nearly everything presented, so it felt like a trip down Memory Lane for me. However, I did learn something new. At 53:15, there is a great video sequence of the demolition wave moving down the side of the building just ahead of the collapsing structure. I had never noticed that before, and it's a jaw dropper.



_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu Nov 20, 2014 4:56 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9623
Reply with quote
Post Re: Snow job
Anthony Lawson, the maker of the following 9/11 video, died recently. His work stands as a testament to his humanity, for he made this video for us.



_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:06 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Snow job
In 2014, Lawson cannot really be excused for focusing on the weakest of the available 9/11/2001 evidence in his video. His onset age at the time of the video is grounds for some clemency ... but that's about it.

In 2015, Chico has no excuse whatsoever to redirect awareness of 9/11/2001 truths to weak misleading videos such as Anthony Lawson's.

There is much stronger evidence available for genuine truthseekers in 2015.

We don't need to hear faint explosion sounds on a recording to know that Building Seven was brought down by controlled demolition. The visual signature alone is proof of controlled demolition. We don't need to conjecture about mismatched airplane engine parts in the debris at the Pentagon. National Security Alert (by Radke et al) conclusively establishes the true nature of that node in the attacks. We don't need to investigate the verity of the planes that struck the Twin Towers, the kinematics of collapse alone secures that fact that some kind of controlled demolition was involved, which then exposes the planes as weapons of legerdemain. Etc. Etc.

In 2015, you'd think Chico would direct visitors to this forum to strong evidence pointing to the actual perpetrators of the 9/11/2001 attacks (e.g. National Security Alert; Twin Towers collapse times; visual signature of the collapse of WTC7; nanothermite in WTC dust samples; etc.) ... not to weak evidence that keeps much of the confusion largely intact (e.g. mismatched airplane engines; a camera in position to capture one of the planes on its fateful approach of the Twin Towers; the faint popping sounds wrt WTC7 that is supposed to prove standard controlled demolition when the visual signature is already there for all to witness, including Danny Jowenko, a controlled demolition expert and real hero of our times who spoke the truth plainly and without reservation and who was likely murdered for it).

The first minute and a half of the following video leaves little room for any doubt that standard controlled demolition of WTC7 had taken place:



As it is, we are witnessing Chico - the confusionist - redirect to weak evidence because such evidence keeps the masses unnecessarily guessing about the 9/11/2001 attacks.

Indeed, when attention is deliberately redirected away from stronger evidence to weaker evidence, that's proof of a naked assault against the truths. And we know Chico is being deliberate with his presentation of weaker evidence (e.g. Anthony Lawson's tepid 2014 conjectural video which really has no incriminating evidence in it) ... because I've already apprised Chico of the aforementioned stronger evidence several times on this and other forums.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:50 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9623
Reply with quote
Post Re: Snow job
UncleZook wrote:
In 2015, you'd think Chico would direct visitors to this forum to strong evidence pointing to the actual perpetrators of the 9/11/2001 attacks...

I'm sorry, stufus, but I don't know of any "strong evidence pointing to the actual perpetrators of the 9/11/2001 attacks". If you know who the actual perpetrators are, and who hired them, and who was involved in the initial conspiracy, and have strong evidence for all of this, we'd love to hear it.

UncleZook wrote:
As it is, we are witnessing Chico - the confusionist - redirect to weak evidence because such evidence keeps the masses unnecessarily guessing about the 9/11/2001 attacks.

Gatekeepers, like UncleZook, are selective about what evidence they want the public to consider. Truth-seekers, like Chicodoodoo, place all evidence available in front of the public to let them decide for themselves. See the difference, Mr. Goof?

UncleZook wrote:
Indeed, when attention is deliberately redirected away from stronger evidence to weaker evidence, that's proof of a naked assault against the truths.

Oh no, not this stupid argument again! That's strike three, so you're out, Mr. Kook!

"Help! I'm arguing with an idiot, and he's trying to drag me down to his level and beat me with experience!"

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Mar 13, 2015 6:35 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Snow job
First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they attack you. Then you win.
(Paraphrase of famous quote attributed to multiple celebrities).

The sum of Chico's rebuttal is highlighted in color. He is clearly in attack mode, good folks.


UncleZook wrote:
In 2015, you'd think Chico would direct visitors to this forum to strong evidence pointing to the actual perpetrators of the 9/11/2001 attacks...

I'm sorry, stufus, but I don't know of any "strong evidence pointing to the actual perpetrators of the 9/11/2001 attacks". If you know who the actual perpetrators are, and who hired them, and who was involved in the initial conspiracy, and have strong evidence for all of this, we'd love to hear it.


The first pointer to the perpetrators of 9/11/2001 attacks is the cabal of international banksters that have generated all the major wars of the past two hundred years as a means of wealth and power acquisition - starting with the Rothschilds at the top. No major geopolitical event occurs in this world without their money or design. You'll find ample evidence of this fact by researching all the major geopolitical events in the past two centuries. If you don't already know about the prominnecy of the bankster design of things, then you need to sit on a high chair, wear a bib, bang a plastic spoon, make a wreck of the pomme sauce eating scene ... and let the adults tend to the reckoning.

That said, general identification of the cabal is the first task; specific identification of the individual members (in this cabal) then becomes the next task. As with other times and with other arguments, one of the most unflattering things revealed about you, Chico, is your talent for ass-backwards priority. Here, you demand exact identification of all the perps when only some perps can be exactly identified.

OTOH, the cabal can be exactly identified by the available hard evidence, namely, the international bankster cartel. But you've shown little interest in pinning the crimes of 9/11/2001 on this specific international bankster cartel ... or in the fact that Mossad/Israel were at the center of the 9/11/2001 false flag design and operation (here, it helps to recognize that Israel was created by fiat Rothschild money).

Instead of pursuing the hard truths of 9/11/2001, you've been caught scattering popcorn all over the place (using the abundant kernels of sociopathy and uncertainty) ... so that there is no trail back to this culprit cartel.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
As it is, we are witnessing Chico - the confusionist - redirect to weak evidence because such evidence keeps the masses unnecessarily guessing about the 9/11/2001 attacks.

Gatekeepers, like UncleZook, are selective about what evidence they want the public to consider. Truth-seekers, like Chicodoodoo, place all evidence available in front of the public to let them decide for themselves. See the difference, Mr. Goof?


Genuine truthseekers are noted for selective endorsement of the evidence. It is called winnowing. To call chaff, chaff ... and wheat, wheat ... is the primary task of any truthseeker. Of course, being a committed shill of the corrupted bankster system, it is quite understandable why you would derogate critical thinkers like myself by implying that we pick and choose our evidence. But what you fail to mention is that we pick and choose wheat; equally, we don't waste time analyzing chaff in a hundred different ways. We quickly recognize chaff for what it is and toss it away. That said, the chaff continues to carry intrigue for the riff raff, e.g. the prevaricators, the obfuscators, and the confusionists. Your ilk.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Indeed, when attention is deliberately redirected away from stronger evidence to weaker evidence, that's proof of a naked assault against the truths.

Oh no, not this stupid argument again! That's strike three, so you're out, Mr. Kook!
"Help! I'm arguing with an idiot, and he's trying to drag me down to his level and beat me with experience!"


A simple gedanken exercise to illustrate the bankruptcy of your logic and the fatness of your bankster shilling. We'll use WTC7 as the case study.

Observation A: the purported visual signature of WTC7 collapse.
Observation B: the purported audio signature of WTC7 collapse.

Observation A is readily accessible to controlled demolition experts, critical thinkers, common observers, and can be further corroborated with the archives which stockpile the visual signatures of other massive buildings brought down by strandard controlled demolition. There is zero ambiguity once these signatures are compared, especially wrt the near free fall times, and the near vertical collapse of those buildings subjected to standard controlled demolition (e.g. lack of angular momentum).

By contrast, Observation B is inconclusive. There is no way to discern what may have caused the purported pop pop sounds heard on the audio ... let alone tie those sounds to something as conclusive as the visual signature of standard controlled demolition. There is plenty of ambiguity.

At this point the question must be seriously asked, what are the motives of those that want to investigate the 9/11/2001 crimes only to the extent that said investigation does not remove all ambiguity ... versus the motives of those that want to investigate until all ambiguity is resolved?

Free answer: the truthseekers want clarity. The gatekeepers want ambiguity. Because the goals of truthseeking and the goals of gatekeeping are mutually opposing goals.

Anthony Lawson - and Chico - are out there pursuing the audio signature of the WTC7 collapse because that preserves ambiguity. By 2014, Anthony Lawson - and Chico - have had ample opportunity to look at the visual signature of the WTC7 collapse, i.e. they've had plenty of time to arrive at a determination of zero ambiguity.

So the next question immediately begs, if zero ambiguity is available, why pursue nonzero ambiguity?

Enter the realm of the gatekeeper.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:23 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9623
Reply with quote
Post Re: Snow job
I'm sorry, Zook, but no matter how you dress it up, your argument is still ridiculous. Ridiculous arguments invite ridicule, and when they are repeated over and over again (three strikes), the ridicule is well merited, even when it is as understated as mine is (nicely highlighted by you in red).

UncleZook wrote:
That said, general identification of the cabal is the first task; specific identification of the individual members (in this cabal) then becomes the next task. As with other times and with other arguments, one of the most unflattering things revealed about you, Chico, is your talent for ass-backwards priority. Here, you demand exact identification of all the perps when only some perps can be exactly identified.

Then identify some of the perps, Mr. Hypocrite! When Francis Connolly actually did this, with evidence, what did you do? You dismissed him as a gatekeeper, like you always do to anyone who gets close to specific identification. George H. W. Bush is too "senile" to prosecute, you claimed. That it might get Cheney, Bush Jr, and the rest of the Neocon crew, and maybe even their bosses, indicted was not a good idea as far as you were concerned. No, you're the gatekeeper, you're here to protect the guilty and keep them unidentified under the guise of the indistinct "international bankster cartel" label. And then you paint me as the gatekeeper, falsely accusing me of your demonstrated malfeasance!

Do you think no one can see your classic sociopathic behavior?


UncleZook wrote:
Genuine truthseekers are noted for selective endorsement of the evidence. It is called winnowing. To call chaff, chaff ... and wheat, wheat ... is the primary task of any truthseeker. Of course, being a committed shill of the corrupted bankster system, it is quite understandable why you would derogate critical thinkers like myself by implying that we pick and choose our evidence. But what you fail to mention is that we pick and choose wheat; equally, we don't waste time analyzing chaff in a hundred different ways. We quickly recognize chaff for what it is and toss it away. That said, the chaff continues to carry intrigue for the riff raff, e.g. the prevaricators, the obfuscators, and the confusionists. Your ilk.

Spin. Twist and shout. Hypocrisy. Accusing me of your own malfeasance. Let's watch you do exactly what you just falsely accused me of, shall we? Here's the accusation -- "it is quite understandable why you would derogate critical thinkers like myself by implying that we pick and choose our evidence." And here you are, accusing me of picking and choosing evidence, when I have done no such thing, and you are actually doing it! Observe:

UncleZook wrote:
Anthony Lawson - and Chico - are out there pursuing the audio signature of the WTC7 collapse because that preserves ambiguity.

So Anthony and Chico are picking the audio evidence to the exclusion of the visual evidence, not to mention all other available evidence? Are you insane? Or are you just an imbecile? Or are you a gatekeeper in disguise -- yes, that fits the facts better than sociopath O.J. Simpson's glove.

You are so busted, Zook. We might need to post this example as another Exhibit on your "Hall of Shame" thread.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:06 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9623
Reply with quote
Post Re: Snow job
Oops. A little justice slips through the cracks, revealing part of the con.

Quote:
BBC Foreknowledge of 9/11 Collapse of WTC Building Seven: British Man Won Law Suit against BBC for 9/11 Cover Up

The fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 twenty-three minutes before it actually fell indicates that the UK was aware of the attacks on 9/11 before they actually happened. The direct implication is that they were working with the “terrorists”... -- source

Duh!

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:14 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9623
Reply with quote
Post Re: Snow job
I sent the 9/11 link above to a friend that I email regularly. It's the first email sent to this friend that has been returned without being delivered. The reason given (from the remote host) was "Message blocked due to spam content in the message." The message content consisted of the link and two sentences of my commentary. Needless to say, my comments were not spam.

I've reported on this kind of censorship before, and this current incident is just a variation of the ways they subtly censor us on the Internet. Freedom of speech is being steadily and quietly eroded. Big Brother doesn't just listen, he also takes action.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:39 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9623
Reply with quote
Post Re: Snow job
Fourteen Incredible Facts About 9/11

Quote:
1. An outline of what was to become the 9/11 Commission Report was produced before the investigation began. The outline was kept secret from the Commission’s staff and appears to have determined the outcome of the investigation.

The purpose of the 9/11 Commission was not to uncover the truth, but to control the narrative so that the truth would not be revealed. In other words, it was a cover-up.

Quote:
2. The 9/11 Commission claimed sixty-three (63) times in its Report that it could find “no evidence” related to important aspects of the crimes.

The 9/11 Commission did not want to find any real evidence, which is a natural consequence of any cover-up.

Quote:
5. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught stealing documents from the National Archives that had been requested by the 9/11 Commission. The Commission had previously been denied access to the documents but the White House reluctantly agreed to turn them over just as Berger was trying to steal them.

More evidence that the 9/11 Commission "investigation", like the events of 9/11, was also an inside job.

Quote:
8. A third skyscraper collapsed late in the afternoon on 9/11. This was WTC 7, a 47-story building that the government’s final report says fell into its own footprint due to office fires. The building’s tenants included U.S. intelligence agencies and a company led in part by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Meetings were scheduled there to discuss terrorism and explosives on the morning of 9/11.

Yep, the 9/11 Commission basically ignored Building 7, essentially refusing to investigate damning evidence pointing to the premeditated nature of an inside job. It takes a lot of time and planning to prepare a building for controlled demolition.

Quote:
14. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified the FBI of suspected 9/11 insider trading transactions. That evidence was ignored and the suspects were not even questioned by the FBI or the 9/11 Commission.

Ignoring evidence allows the 9/11 Commission to say that it can find no evidence, as noted in point 2 above.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:21 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9623
Reply with quote
Post Re: Snow job
It's worth watching again the amazingly close and convoluted connections between the suspected players of the 9/11 false-flag psy-op.

There is a complex Matrix underlying the deliberately constructed horror of 9/11.




9/11 False Flag Conspiracy - Finally Solved (Names, Connections, Motives)

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:47 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.