A ‘Dangerous’ Review, Part Two

The concept of causation is of such importance that I wanted to start the meat of my analyses of Dangerous and Who Built the Moon? (plus how they relate to the idea of a ‘Higher Power’), with a formal examination of ‘Chance & Necessity’, including what these words really mean and how – when we rule them out, causally – they bring us to ‘intelligent design’, another scare quote-worthy term, based on all its baggage from the evolution/creation brouhaha.

But, being beleaguered by the sort of writer’s block that is more a fear of getting it wrong than an inability to write, I’m going to move on and hope that by concentrating on more simplistic/mundane observations I’ll shake lose what I want to say about this ‘deeper,’ more abstract notion. We’ll see.

I believe I’ve shown you as best I can (however briefly) that Dangerous is a book very consciously crafted to misdirect us while exposing the profound level of occult obsession underlying the events of September 11, 2001. The book’s wry, blackly comic tone is that of a high school year book put out by beer-sodden student athletes after winning the state championships; notwithstanding the occasional half-hearted scolding of the perps (mostly via adjectives like ‘wicked’), a winning team’s braggadocio fairly leaps off the pages, which also include copious and very carefully chosen imagery to further drive home a smug self-satisfaction, along with an implied ‘insult to injury’ affront.

The title of Chapter One is a good example of how Bain uses easily identifiable cultural allusions to make the horrors he describes have a smugly arrogant yet accessible resonance.

Chapter One: Author! Author!

In case you don’t get Bain’s drift, google the term and you’ll find that…

Author! Author! is a 1982 American comedy-drama film directed by Arthur Hiller, written by Israel Horovitz, and starring Al Pacino, Dyan Cannon and Tuesday Weld. The film, which is loosely autobiographical, concerns a Broadway playwright who strives to solve his family and relationship troubles while trying to get a new play into production. (Wikipedia)

So, a comedy-drama is what we’re describing, according to ‘our’ author, Kenny Bain. And indeed, he starts the chapter thusly:

Act One, Scene One:

American Airlines Flight 11 And The North Tower, September 11, 2001. 8:43 a.m. The Boeing 767 descended rapidly through the cloudless sky, its intended target looming larger and larger in the cockpit window. 1500 feet. 1400. 1300. JFK International Airport was 10 miles away—to the southwest. In any case, the plane was moving fartoo fast to be coming in for a landing. 1200 feet. 1100.

Although the ‘comedy’ aspects are patiently waiting in the wings, we open with drama. However, as we all presumably know (anyone reading this blog), none of the above breathlessly crafted ‘stage direction’ (a movie script term) actually occurred on 9/11. It’s right from the ‘official story’ as we were subjected to in the 9/11 Commission Report. As I previously mentioned, by mixing astounding (and true) observations – thereby gaining our trust — with passages like the above, Bain, like countless propagandists before (and since) him, hammers home lie after lie, until the reader’s subconscious surrenders to the bullshit. Classic limited hangout (LH)/disinformation/misdirection.

For more examples of cultural allusions I’ll stick with Dangerous chapter titles (otherwise, this essay would be endless): Aside from Author! Author!, we have ‘Atta Boy’ (describing ‘hijacker’ Mohammed Atta), The Usual Suspects (another movie title), Get Your Goat (slang), The Greatest Show on Earth (a circus), No Guts, No Glory (slang), Bizzaro-World (a Superman allusion), A Loud Squawk (an aviation term as bird call pun), Déjà Voodoo (a pun), That Old Black Magic (song title), Are You Sirius? (a pun, ‘Serius’ being the name of a dead dog and an important star), Annie Get You Gun (a Broadway musical), Showdown at the A-Z Corral (an ‘historical’ pun), Pike’s Peek (a misspelling-pun, plus reference to a different ‘Pike’), Two Heads Are Better Than One (a gory pun), Born Under a Bad Sign (a song title)…

…I’ve still got a bunch of pages to riffle through, but enough is enough, and I’ve only included those titles ‘cleverly’ laden with the sort of multiple meanings/cultural allusions that are the root of NLP (linguistic mind control) and occult machinations.

But clever multi-level punning is mind control 101, beginner’s stuff. To truly grasp the profound level of deceit-in-the-midst-of-truth Dangerous represents, we need only to turn the page with Author! Author! at the top (p 13); we then find ourselves looking at what surely must be a representation of some real truth, i.e., a photograph! In fact, it’s a photograph we’ve all seen before, the one known world-wide as ‘The Falling Man.’ Take a look. Horrible as it is (or would be if…), at least this is… true. I mean… it’s… reality… Right?

Some news: There is nothing true about this photograph — and Bain, being the diligent researcher that he is, should know this. But does he bust this image for the fraud that it is? In a whole page of text on it… no, he does not, as he does not bust the ‘plane’ images for the frauds they are. (More about this in a bit.) I’ll quote him briefly (p 147) — but in this case you cannot read the whole description at the pdf I found. For some reason, that page is deleted (it’s a tinted sidebar so maybe there is ‘an innocent’ reason for the omission).

…in this mass ritual we’ve encountered various Tarot Cards that were ‘brought to life’ – or otherwise incorporated – into the script. The Tower, The Devil, The Star, etc. Well, add one more to the list because The Falling Man is the twelfth card in the Tarot, The Hanged Man, depicted in three dimensions for all the world to see and fortuitously (my emphasis) captured on film for posterity.

Although the ‘meaning’ of the card surely is important – ‘(t)he hanged man understands that his position is a sacrifice that he needed to make in order to progress forward’ is one interpretation – my point is implied by the added emphasis above: There is nothing ‘fortuitous’ about the photo.

For me, as a decent photographer (with too many magazine credits to list here), a cursory look at the photo raised a question, the first I always ask myself in photo-analyses: From what locale did the photographer snap the shutter? Looking at the image, the angle clearly shows that the photog must have been in another building on a floor close to the height of the falling man. (We can rule out a helicopter.) Look and see if you agree. No doubt, right? The picture was shot from the same height-off-ground as the subject.

Luckily, the photo being so famous (it made Time’s ‘The 100 Most Influential Images of All Time’ list), the credited photographer, Richard Drew, is featured in several videos about the photo. Like this one by the Brit newspaper, The Telegraph.

As Drew clearly and unequivocally states, he took the photo from on the ground on West Street. But hold on. This is not possible (see map), since Drew was no more than 3-400 feet from the tower. If he was where he claims he was, he’d be shooting up, almost straight up. So right from the get-go we have a problem.

Back in about 2008-09, when I really looked into 9/11, i.e., when I first realized that ‘truther heroes’ like David Ray Griffin were ‘missing’ some obvious shit, the above anomaly was my reason for examining the photo more closely. (Also, there was something about it that didn’t feel right.) Then, boom! A-ha! and I knew the photo was a full-blown fabrication: The corner of the WTC is beveled from top to bottom, meaning that at no point do two sides join as we see in the photo (I’ve deeply verified this).

But it gets worse.

Addendum: Since we already know that the photo is a fabrication, how could it get worse? This is actually a good question.

I plugged the best Net reproduction of the image into Photoshop and blew it up. Click to enlarge the image to the right and notice the fuzzy border that surrounds ‘the falling man’; it’s especially noticeable below his black pant leg and around the curve of his face/head. It’s a pretty good job of laying an image over a background – much better than they did it back in the Apollo days – but the fakery technique is obvious.

This is what I mean when I say that nothing about the photo is ‘true’: that’s not the WTC in the background and the ‘man’ is an image from somewhere else. Plus, as I say, the side-angle of the subject would be impossible to get from where the photog claims to have been.

As I listened to Richard Drew’s various interviews (the photo made him famous), I tried to pick up cues as to when and how he’d gotten involved in The Falling Man hoax. I was already suspicious of him for having taken another well-known historical photo – the one of Robert Kennedy lying on the floor of the Ambassador Hotel right after he’d been shot.

I got a couple hints in this interview: A big one came as Drew tells us that when The Falling Man first appeared publicly, in The (good old) New York Times on September 12^th, the morning edition — the day after 9/11, he did not get photo credit.  

Given the occult importance (to the perps) of the image, I suspect that the photo was ‘created’ before the day of 9/11 and was inserted into the Times by one of their operatives. In one of the many little fuckups with which an op of this complexity is going to be rife, they’d forgotten about the credit problem and had to scramble to find someone they trusted, failing to make the deadline for the Times morning edition. (This all but unheard of credit-omission was ‘fixed’ in future uses of the image. To quote Drew directly: ‘Someone very close to me straightened that out with the New York Times.’ ‘Someone very close’ indeed. Like maybe his handler?)

Another little hint was Drew’s mention of his AP (Associated Photography) editor, ‘Mike,’ whom he had never mentioned in any previous descriptions of his first look at the photos that day. Significantly, as Drew lets slip, Mike ‘passed away yesterday.’ (So he couldn’t contradict Drew’s story.)

Given the no-photo-credit omission, and given that the photo was likely created by a higher level technician than Drew, I assume Drew was unaware of the ‘existence’ of the photo until the next day (9/12), when he saw it in the paper, plus was ‘paid a visit’ by… someone. Someone who explained what they needed: A pro shooter who wouldn’t mind a little instant fame. (The lack of photo credit on 9/12 was vital in my coming to this conclusion. Photo credits are a big deal, rarely if ever omitted in newspaper stories.)

And I’ll tell you what: Watch the Telegraph video linked above and notice how — while in voice over Drew describes his trek to West Street — they do a blurry, confusing pan down a building that is not the WTC but sort of looks like it: The videographers are doing their best to misdirect us from the obvious fact that The Falling Man photo was not taken from the ground at West Street (or anywhere else). Point being that the British Newspaper The Telegraph (the producers of the video) know damn well the photo is a fake – a great example of how the MSM all stick together in their fraudulent reporting of history.

Addendum: The incredible hubbub the photo caused – over whether it should even be seen or not – was the perfect way to ensure it was seen, and by as many people world-wide as possible. The ‘moral dilemma’ that everyone was shouting about was precisely what the perps were going for, in terms of their occult agenda. And it just never stops. The Esquire story — about ‘the identity’ of The Falling Man (can you also hear the phrase as ‘The Fall of Man’?) – is from 2016; Drew’s interview with B&H was from 2017; the Telegraph story was from 2011. You may be thinking, ‘What’s the point?’; in fact, you may wonder this about all the bizarre occult blathering and imagery, but what you wonder about is irrelevant. The difference is that you do not live in the same occult/moral universe as the perps of 9/11. Don’t ever forget that.

Okay, what can we learn from the story of the fraudulent ‘The Falling Man’ photo?

Wait. Hold on. I gotta ask you a couple related questions first. I’ve asked you this before and I’m asking again: Am I the smartest guy on the planet? (I can hear the giggles from my campsite in outback Arizona.) Another question: Have you heard from any other ‘truth types’ that ‘The Falling Man’ is fraudulent? No? Just me, right? And now that you look at it, it’s pretty obvious that the photo is a fake, right? I mean to anyone with any photo-knowledge, plus some critical thinking…

Remind you of something else about 9/11? Remember I told you that I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m wrong about the motive for everyone avoiding the ‘no planes’ issue, as obvious and important as it is? I was thinking it was to keep media fakery out of the discussion, right?

Nah. Media fakery is no more important to the perps than the absurd notion that they might actually stand trial for their horrendous crime. Here’s why they don’t want you to know about ‘The Falling Man’ or the no planes truth: If this fakery came to light, it would do mischief to the occult agenda behind the events of 9/11/01.

I was going to put off this observation until you were properly informed of the… absurd occultist lengths… the… the almost preternatural attention to the minutest of devilish details, that are screaming at us from every 9/11 angle we examine… See, you need to know this stuff to properly suss motive.

‘The Falling Man’? It wasn’t the image itself that was/is so vital; more importantly, it’s the lengths they go to in order to imprint its meaning into your subconscious. And, as noted, they are still doing it! Google ‘The Falling Man’ and see how many hits you get. Never mind, I’ll do it for you: 360,000,000. More than a third of a billion. And ‘The Falling Man’ is just one little tiny minor occult detail in the meta-evil picture. I mean aside from the big stuff – as with, say, the history and occult meanings of the numbers 9 1 1…

Let me ask you this: Do you think it was a coincidence that ‘9 1 1’ is what you dial in an emergency and is how we refer to the events of that day? (Yes, I’m sort of worming my way back to the subject of Chance & Necessity…) From Google:

In November 1967 (my emphasis), the FCC met with the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) to find a means of establishing a universal emergency number that could be implemented quickly. In 1968, AT&T announced that it would establish the digits 9-1-1 (nine-one-one) as the emergency code throughout the United States. (Google ‘911 + emergency’)

Now ask yourself why no other country in the world, aside from Saudi Arabia(!) (plus our little squire, Canada), uses this numerical combination for emergencies. It makes no sense: Especially with the old rotary phones (from 1967), the ‘9’ is as far from the ‘1’ as you can get. And back when an emergency number was created, the ‘9’ took the longest time to dial. ‘911’ makes no sense. (‘112’ is the most common. Easy to remember and quick to dial, the ‘1’ being so close to the ‘2,’ and no lost time as the 9 has to rotate all the way around the dial.)

To an occultist fanatic, ‘9 1 1’ is as profound a combination of numbers as you can find, on one level meaning, literally, ‘Evil Magick.’ Look it up.

Can you imagine the machinations here? The long range attention to detail? Neither can I. But can’t is different from won’t. If we won’t believe in the detail machinations, then we’re fools.

Are you starting to get the idea of what Bain and his overlords are trying to tell you? Really, folks, ‘you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!’ — as Bain himself would put it. In fact, here’s how he does put it:

 “Coincidence can be summoned. It’s a matter of attention and timing.” All too true, and we haven’t even gotten to the [flight] numbers, symbols and other occult elements yet, where we’ll find [still] more…  mockery. [my emphasis, ‘Dangerous, p. 55]

As we’ll see, a major element of the occult symbolism of 9/11 lies in the flight numbers, every one of which has big time occultist significance. Think about it: If enough of us understood that there were no actual planes, the occult significance of the flight numbers would go… poof!

…need I further blurt my point on the real reason ‘no planes’ is anathema to the PTB (and thus to their big name ‘truther’ cohorts, plus the persistent sock puppet flunky commenters on this blog)?

Allan

An example of the far reach of Drew’s photograph (via ‘dirty bastards’ and Useful Idiots) is Don DeLillo’s 2007 novel, Falling Man. This is from Wiki:

Throughout the book, Lianne sees a performance artist dubbed “Falling Man” in various parts of the city. Wearing business attire, he suspends himself upside-down with rope and a harness in the pose of the man in the famous photograph of the same name by Richard Drew.

By the way, an unimportant little ‘synchronicity’: AP (Associated Photography) photog Richard Drew is a good friend/associate of my Montauk buddy Walter.