A ‘Short’ One

I’m hitting the road in a bit and will be on the road for a couple days; I wanted to be in touch but have to keep it short. My intention upon waking up this morning was to include in this post a warning to ‘Lou’ – who, for those not monitoring Comments, has been making stupendously ignorant (and stupid) statements about HTWRW – that if he submits one more comment ignoring my Walter video and/or Barbara Honegger’s 9/11/Pentagon presentation, he will be banned from future commenting. This was my intention. (No, it’s not censorship since repetitive drivel is not censorable.) As fate would have it, however, ‘Lou’ (whom I know pretty well from Montauk) managed to outdo himself (apparently while I was sleeping), to the extent that I found myself… actually LOLing… (strictly speaking, it should be L-ingOL, I suppose). So I asked myself How could I ban someone who creates such genuine mirth, if inadvertently? For those curious, here’s the knee-slapper:

Allan, Have you read the Popular Mechanics report that debunks all of the 9/11 conspiracy theories? I’ve read some of the synopses online and they seem to provide credible answers to all of your questions.

I know, I know, it’s amusing in its obvious naivety and so forth but what struck me as… LOLable is this: Popular Mechanics put out a book ‘debunking’ ‘conspiracy theories’ that was based on an article they did in their magazine, right? Lou, in his ‘research’, not only did not read the book but didn’t even read the article; what he did was read one or two reviews. Should we even try to estimate how many layers from any semblance of ‘truth’ Lou based his comment upon?

Sorry, that last sentence was not well constructed (I’m in a hurry), but I suspect most of you get the drift: If for some reason I was to try to expose… to sum up… to hammer home, a profound state of empty-headedness regarding the events of 9/11/01, I could not have done so more powerfully, more succinctly, than Lou has done, yet in a way so multi-layered, so laden with subtext… Maybe in my younger writing days I could have… Anyway… that Lou doesn’t have a clue (there’s a limerick around here somewhere) that his comments are comedic only heightens the absurdity. Lou: ramble on, and continue to ignore everyone’s suggestion that you get specific.

The Comment section. Wow. By the time you read this just my last post (‘Yesterday’s Troubles, Part Two’) will have somewhere around 90 comments. I sure didn’t expect this… and I have to keep in mind that most of the people reading these words do not follow the comments, let alone contribute to them; I have to be careful to avoid losing the attention of this majority… I haven’t done a head count but it’s obvious that most of the commenting is done by a relative handful of folks.

Please also keep in mind the implications of my personal knowledge of the fellow with ‘300 Facebook identities’ (these words were outright spoken), coupled with my (limited) knowledge of how the PTB deal with ‘the opposition’ (us), i.e., primarily by misdirection, disinformation, limited hangout (LH), and a general ‘muddying of the water.’ Noise.

I believe I’ve run off at least one ‘troll’ (government operative), the commenter who identified himself in different ways but used the same language on the same subject as someone who’s been trolling me with emails for years. Others of his ilk are undoubtedly lurking and I urge you to take care in engaging those who subtly indicate an agenda. Knowing I’m on the lookout and delight in exposing deceit, I suspect that subtle and patient infiltration will be the M.O. In a most forums, the damaging of discourse is by simple muddying of the waters: I bring up a subject that may be worthwhile, it gets changed, albeit without hostility or even disagreement. One of you makes a good point, discourse is steered elsewhere. And so forth.

Ninety comments. That’s a lot. Just in the number we have some muddying of the water. Listen. I do try to make good points in my posts; I’m not always successful and I do tend to go on too long, but I’m doing my best. In my last post I dealt with culture creation (a.k.a. ‘soft mind control’) via TV, and, less directly, how there are boiler rooms and the like teaming with disinfo agents with ‘300 Facebook identities,’ and whose agenda is deceit, partially via the invasion of forums like this one.

Yes, it’s easy to get paranoid (the irrational belief that someone is out to get you). Furthermore, conversations do naturally ‘branch’: In discussing soft mind control, 9/11 naturally comes up and someone suggests Barb Honegger’s lecture – and again I thank you for reminding me – then Lou cracks us all up (or most of us) with his nonsense and all this is to be expected, but there is a line between ‘Oh, that reminds me of something else’ and flat out misdirection. So I would ask that none of you take what I’m saying personally (other than the at least one troll who is out there), while at the same time suggesting that you try to keep on-topic in any one post. If you come across something, a link or other sort of information you think is important but is off-topic, use your judgment on whether it’s worth the diversion.

Especially keep an eye out for anyone who seems to be trying to create a ‘following.’ Also be advised that a troll ‘assigned’ to a forum (like this one) is likely to work in multiple identities. Think of the ‘conversation’ or ‘argument’ someone with 300 Identities could concoct in order to distract or disinform.

I repeat the ‘300 (Facebook) identities’ issue for good reason: the implications thereof. Recall how it went: I’m at a private compound — middle of nowhere, security gate, commercial pot plants by the row — invited there by someone I met at an Electric Universe conference. He introduces me to the 300 identities guy, an intense, taciturn young fellow in a computer alcove, playing his Mac like a Steinway, and who might as well have had ‘spook’ tattooed on his forehead. The next day I’m asked to leave, for no good reason (after barely arriving). The Steinway spook had played a riff with my sorry ass name in the melody…

I mentioned the Barbara Honegger lecture that one of you put in a comment (it was perfectly on-subject given Lou’s profound ignorance on the subject of 9/11). Those who don’t follow the comments should be advised that the presentation is a very important one; I strongly urge you view it; it’s long, I know. Set aside the time. Lou of course will not do this, or if he does, will remain silent on it. This is part of his insanity and there is nothing you can do about it. Trust me on this. Don’t burn your time/energy trying to ‘reason’ with him. You have to know when to move on.

I know Barbara Honegger fairly well from an email conversation we had in 2014-15, and was actually going to bring her up in the context of cognitive dissonance, how it can even apply to the likes of ‘us’: Barbara is sure that at least one real airliner was used at the WTC and, it appears, is not amenable to changing her mind. (She’s quite adamant about it in her presentation.) I tried before and contacted her a couple days ago, partially on the same subject (with my new information re the Spacex ‘illusions’ and how they might relate to what ‘witnesses’ think they ‘see’). Thing is, the subject itself, at least in the context of our disagreement, is irrelevant. Like arguing whether a murder was via a Colt or a Glock. Except for how it implies direct media participation in the event. Barbara does seem aware of this. (She also just told me she’s read The Most Dangerous Book in the World; so, FYI, we have another recommendation.)

The reason I had contacted Barbara back in 2014 was to alert her to the James Corbett Open Letter; the fact that Corbett is dirty. FYI, here’s a quote from one of her emails…

Addendum: I’d quoted Barbara strongly agreeing with me on the Corbett Open Letter, about 20 words that also mentioned his refusal to have her on his Corbett Report, but she objected to my quoting her directly. I wrote back that I was disappointed she felt this way, given that a direct quote is stronger than a paraphrase (and impossible to misinterpret) and that ‘plants’ are a big problem with the so-called ‘Truth Movement.’ But, respecting her wishes, I took it down and added this addendum.

In my email I suggested that having Corbett support the official fiction in a formal 9/11 Truth Conference was a way for the PTB to give us the finger: ‘See, we’re everywhere!’ kind-of-a-thing. Corbett of course knew this but was nevertheless hoping no one would notice; it could screw up his plan to become an alt media pundit. And he almost got away with it. I didn’t blow the whistle on his NLP for two years, until he insulted our intelligence in another way. I know for a fact that my Open Letter – plus the follow up – upset him. (What’s upsetting to me is that out of some 350 comments on his Youtube lecture, only one other person even noticed his repetition of the Big Lie, i.e., that American Flight 77 did the damage to the Pentagon.)

Well, shit, I meant to make this short; didn’t work. I gotta get moving. Talk to you later.

Allan

To any serious ‘IT geek’ out there who wants to help, what does this mean? Contact me via email.