I assume you all realize that my motive in bringing up (or reacting to) issues such as the RV women/Lou’s mindlessness, Joe’s inability to ‘remember’ his thievery, Walter’s flip flop, Barbra Honegger’s lecture (anomalies below), and so forth, are meant to go beyond, or beneath, the surface subject matter.
It doesn’t take much digging to find what’s under there: Deceit.
Deceit appears to be the default position for human beings in their doings with their fellows, and with themselves. A hard life’s experience — I am older than most of you and have put myself in many more compromising and hair-raising situations than any of you – has convinced me that you can count on this as a ‘law of nature’. (But as Rupert Sheldrake has pointed out, ‘laws of nature,’ as in, say, the speed of light, are more like ‘habits’, i.e., they can and do vary.)
If we open up our line of inquiry to the ‘alt media’ – where many of us get our sense of world affairs, of HTWRW – and if we look back at my contacts with dozens of them we find that each and every one displayed unambiguous indications of deceit. I cannot think of a single exception here…
They were way, way ahead of us…
As we’ve seen, human deceit can ‘go’ in two directions: Outwardly directed, as with the commenter calling himself ‘Hank’/’Robert Hansteen’/’Henry Hansteen’, and the inward sort, as with (I firmly belief) Walter and so many others. But can we be sure which sort we’re dealing with? Is it important? For now a simple Yes! Will have to do. (The Why being a whole other subject).
Which, as promised (pardon my delay but I’ve been on the road), brings us to Barbara Honegger, whose presentation I suggested in preparation for this post (and as a source of information).
In the course of two days (September 3rd and 4th) I had a multi-email exchange with Barbara, rekindling our conversations in 2014-15. Barbara made it clear she doesn’t want to be quoted (from emails), which for me is always a red flag that some sort of deceit lurks. I mean, in a conversation with a ‘fellow researcher,’ if a ‘conversation’ sticks to matters of fact and logic, and if getting at a ‘truth’ is the motive (as opposed to deceit in quoting, usually done via misleading context), why would anyone object to the passing on of literal words?
Referring to ‘big name truther’ Dr. Joseph Farrell in this post a while back I wrote….
…You’re a public figure, DOCTOR, in this alt media mess we have, aren’t you? Not only do I think it’s OKAY to quote a couple one-sentence emails that display your (apparent) ignorance of how the world really works, I consider it my DUTY.
You think this is about YOU, you egomaniacal dolt? I’m writing a series of essays regarding the fact that NO ONE from the SSP [Secret Space Program] conference has responded to my questions. NOT JUST YOU. Are you a limited hangout, Doctor? Or a useful idiot? Which one? It’s one or the other. Ditto the dozen others who refuse to deal with my questions. That’s the issue my essays deal with. Or haven’t you figured that out yet? IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU.
I got pretty cranky, didn’t I? Well, please echo the above sentiments regarding my exchange with Barbara Honegger. Here’s how it went, and there is no deceit in what I’ve left out; I’ve edited for attention span reasons only. Explanations/observations are in bold.
On September 3rd, I wrote:
Barbara,
Here’s my blog post for tomorrow, in which I discuss your presentation:
http://blog.banditobooks.com/a-short-one/
It won’t really be read by anyone until tomorrow. If you have any suggestions i’m all ears.
Re the South Tower and plane vs no plane (which I briefly mention), I have a list of reasons why I doubt a real plane of any kind was used but I’ll start with this: If a real plane hit the building, how did the gash as we see it get there? No real plane could have done the damage we see, not by the laws of physics. A real plane would have mainly splattered (given the thick steel load bearing columns on the facade, etc.) and fallen to the street. Why would the perps let that wreckage be right there on the street, to be examined, etc.)
These load-bearing columns are thicker than tank armor. Aluminum does not slice through…
(My next question will be re the planted jet engine. Stuff about the impossibility of the ‘plane’s speed will follow but it goes on and on.)
allan
I would also ask who the people were that told you the story about almost being killed by falling plane wreckage [this is in her Pentagon presentation]. Is it possible that they were lying or exaggerating?
Notice in her reply, Honegger does not deal with my facts/observations/logic at all. Or, as she would say, AT ALL.
Hi, Allan —
Three needed changes to the blog post for tomorrow:
1) Need to delete the sentence in parentheses I’ve bolded
in the below as ‘Smoke Curtain’ is not about the WTC at all,
only the Pentagon:
Quoting my post: ‘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 lecture.)’
[She then corrects my misspelling of her last name.]
Thanks, and can’t do any more now as I’m literally
producing the main worldwide 9/11 Truth Movement
Event again this year, in NYC, which will be on Monday
Sept. 10th beginning at 6:30 p.m. Eastern and will be
livestreamed at www.noliesradio.org — goes to 8:00 … (end email)
See the ends where wing tips ‘sliced’ heavy gage steel columns? Now look at the bird damage.
I answer right away:
Barbara,
so sorry about the spelling mistakes…
I’ll consider changing the wording re no planes and the WTC but I don’t see how it’s inaccurate or misleading as is. Let me give it a closer look and will get right back. You are quite adamant in the lecture, aren’t you? It seemed you almost got angry. [This is important and why I asked you guys to view the bit at the very end of her lecture, when she answers the guy with an accent. Go to 2:59:00 for the important exchange.]
allan
Barbara immediately replies with this:
What do You mean ‘adamant’ re at least the second WTC plane?
NOTHING on the WTC is in Smoke Curtain !! You HAVE to delete
that false sentence in parentheses …
Already we can see that something is not right with Barbara Honegger. First, as you should know by now, she
What a BIRD does to a plane wing.
does say what she blatantly denies saying, and, second, why the desperation? Third, if you wanted someone to do something, would you ‘yell’ at them, give them an order, especially when you are denying a transparent truth?
To which I wrote:
Wait a minute. I HAVE TO delete it? Because it’s inaccurate? Are you saying you don’t say: ‘I want to go on record in saying.... etc. ‘at least one plane hit the WTC.’ It’s right at the end, in the q and a. You actually say you want to go on the record. Here is the url [there are several mirrors of the lecture]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk
An apology is in order.
allan
Although she calms down, stops yelling, no apology is forthcoming. In fact, she continues to deny a fact that is right in our faces (her words in the video).
Allan, the sentence in the parentheses is false
because it says that I say that IN ‘Smoke Curtain’,
which I don’t because ‘Smoke Curtain’ isn’t about
the WTC … AT ALL … [she does yell after all]
Does anyone else from recent posts come to mind (the denial of inarguable facts)? Still, in my reply I ‘humored’ her:
Barbara,
Since your statement about ‘going on the record’ that a real plane hit the WTC was in the Q&A, I changed the wording to ‘She was quite adamant about this in her presentation.’ So ‘lecture’ is now ‘presentation’. A very, very, very fine distinction but I trust it eases your mind.
It would be very helpful to me – and you could make up for yelling at me and telling me WHAT TO WRITE IN MY BLOG!!!! — if you’d go ‘on the record’ (again) about how the South Tower was hit by a real plane, but please add an explanation of how the gash in the building was accomplished, and why the perps would let any airplane they used strew wreckage all over the streets (since little of any fly-able aircraft could have penetrated the facade), wreckage that would include many serial numbered parts of the aircraft. This would be ’embarrassing’ given the evidence that the aircraft labeled Fl 175 was no where near the WTC that day [as you imply in the Q&A]. As I’ve mentioned, this is the beginning of the list of ‘no real plane’ reasons… [my emphasis is because this point is inarguable and should put to rest the matter of ‘no planes’.]
Look again at some bird damage: Think a plane could cut through hardened steel?
Listen carefully to Barbara’s response to the questioner (at the end of her lecture): When he says a plane could not cut through the towers like a knife through butter, she interrupts, saying ‘Well, it didn’t.’ She then misdirects, saying she interviewed someone… blah blah.
Well, Barbara, if ‘it didn’t,’ then what caused the gash in the building? And just as importantly: Where is the damage caused by the plane you claim did hit the tower?
The ‘gash problem’ is a separate issue from the provably faked video and is never brought up by govt shills out to misdirect (like ‘Hank’ and his other identities). Since we know that an aluminum plane cannot cut through load-bearing steel columns, then the gash was created by cutting charges. This leaves the question of accounting for the damage done by ‘a real plane.’ Where is this damage? Nowhere, because there was no real plane. (Hey, ‘Hank’: got an answer to this?)
In the above exchange, Honegger also says that a faked video tells us nothing about what hit (or did not hit) the WTC that day. Sorry, but it does tell us something. It tells us they are hiding something about the ‘plane impact.’ Raising your voice and waving your arms doesn’t change that.
Substantively, this was the end of our exchange. Repeated emails asking for an explanation of the gash in the South Tower went unanswered.
But what does it mean that we can dump Barbara Honegger in with the others I’ve dealt with on this blog? Who is she deceiving, us or herself? Is she an agent of the state or a… since I dislike ‘useful idiot,’ let’s use ‘unwitting participant’ (UP).
Near the end of his film, ‘An American Psy Opera,’ Ace Baker explains the reasons for not using real planes.
I’m pretty sure it’s the latter, although, as I say in a previous blog, Honegger is up to her eyeballs in a psy op. One indication that she’s only lying to herself is her Pentagon presentation. The PTB in general try to steer ‘truthers’ away from the subject, given that ‘no plane’ (jetliner) is so utterly obvious, and that the deceptions there had to have been perpetrated by occupants of the building, while the WTC (and Pennsylvania) can be ‘denied,’ even after the exposure of all the facts. (Hey, Osama could have done it!)
As I’ve done my best to explain, the whole ‘no planers as nutcases’ meme is directed (or misdirected) at the real issue, i.e., direct media collusion in the op, especially including the planning. They’ve done well and continue to hammer away, with puppets like ‘Hank/Henry/Robert Hansteen’, who for years have peppered me with shit like this, from ‘Hank’ (in a comment):
And even though you push blatant, bat-shit crazy, no-plane disinformation that makes truthers look like deluded nut jobs and does a lot of harm to the 9-11 truth movement… The evidence proves beyond any and all doubt that one plane hit each tower, and *every* credible, qualified, and respected 9-11 researcher is in agreement on that proven fact. Then he goes on about how maybe the Pentagon really was hit by a plane and that Truthers should assume this, and so forth…
Ace Baker’s film proving ‘no planes’ must be answered in detail, not cherry-picked. Barbara, you’re up.
Need I even mention it?: If it’s ‘bat-shit’ crazy, how do you explain the gash (and the whole undamaged plane entering the building before ‘blowing up’)? Although I cannot vouch for any of the folks in this video by ‘Ace Baker,’ it does as good a job as any I’ve seen at explaining what should be obvious to a ten year old.
[Cherry-picking the above video will not do. If Ace is correct about one thing, the ‘no planes’ game is over.]
In repeating the ‘no planes is bat-shit crazy’ crapola all over the Net for the past two decades, the lies/misdirection manage to seep into real peoples’ psyches, when in reality the one place the perps are truly vulnerable is in those fabricated videos. Honegger’s questioner (right at the end) truly nailed it. What you see in the various South Tower videos is utterly and obviously impossible (as ably shown in the above video).
That the ‘Truth Movement,’ from the very beginning, not only avoided the issue but made it a anathema – banned from most truther sites – is a dead giveaway that the Movement was built from the ground up by the perps themselves.
[I’ll not repeat again the reasons why we know the ‘9/11 opposition’ was planned far ahead, way before the event itself…]
Honegger’s angry reaction to a ‘no planer’ also tells me she is only ‘in on it’ as a unwitting participant (UP); she doesn’t know that the ‘no plane’ conflict is part of the psy op. The Upper Level Truthers – and I’ll not try to name names (except for one) since I haven’t examined everyone – from the start made it a ‘strategy’ to avoid ‘looking crazy’ to the average person (by telling them not to believe TV special effects, a suggestion which seems entirely reasonable), apparently ignoring the irony of ‘Truthers’ dodging the obvious, in-our-faces ‘truth’ that airplanes can’t defy the laws of physics to begin with.
So Barbara — like so many others dealt with recently in this blog – after nearly two decades of mind control (by her ‘truther’ associates) is easily able to doublethink her way around the ‘gash’ problem (in itself a Q.E.D. for fabricated imagery), and all the rest of it. (Aside from the Ace Baker video, see my Walter video and much of Simon Shack’s ‘September Clues’, although from my experience Simon himself is a deep plant, one giveaway being his claim that no one died that day and that all footage was fabricated. In this way he discredits himself while ‘revealing the method.’)
Look closely then ask a high school physics teacher about aluminum cutting steel.
But hey, we’re dealing with fanatics/psychopaths, so motive-mining can be iffy. But in terms of ‘plants’ in ‘the movement,’ I’ll give you an interesting example. If you go to the ‘Lawyer’s Committee for 911 Inquiry’ website recommended by Honegger, you’ll find ‘Truther Dad’ Bob McIlvaine on the front of the imbedded video; Bob is an advisor to the project, as is Barbara Honegger.
Do a YT search for ‘Bob McIlvaine’ and you’ll find virtually endless videos going back to the earliest days of The Truther Movement. He’ll be going on and on about his son, Bobby, who was killed that day, and so forth, and copiously weeping in every one.
On the lawyer’s site, they will link you to an interview conducted by Richard Hoagland; Barbara is in it, McIlvaine too, plus the bevy of lawyers who, they say, are tying to bring evidence of explosives at the WTC in front of a grand jury. This is the event Barbara says she is producing. Fine? No, not really.
Actor Bob McIlvaine: He’s everywhere in Truther shit, including Honegger’s ‘lawyer’ site.
In 2009 I did extensive research on the ‘victims of 9/11,’ especially from the WTC. I’ll not go into detail here, but what I found was that the vast majority of WTC ‘victims’ are not ‘real people.’ I don’t know how many died that day, but I can tell you that by using the various ‘9/11 Memorials’ as a starting point, I had difficult time at first finding any victims who actually existed as real human beings. Using the Social Security Death Index (SSDI), for example, I at first found no 9/11 ‘victims’ listed, out of about a hundred tries.
Addendum: Since 2009, everything regarding the issue of 9/11 simulated victims (vicsims) has changed. Websites and exposés have been scrubbed, and the SSDI has likewise been altered to make searches difficult. There was a YT video that showed how the vast majority of the 9/11 memorial photos were paste ups, and many of the names-of-deceased were ‘clever’ in-jokes. That video is gone, or at least I can’t find it. I hate to recommend Simon Shack’s website, Cluesforum.info – I believe it to be a ‘deep’ psy op – but it will give you an idea of the depth of the ‘victim deceits.’
For us, here and now, my point is that ‘Truther Dad’ Bob McIlvaine is an actor, has been from day one. Since this is a detail, I’ll give you the short version of how I know this. I drove out to suburban Pennsylvania in 2009 to interview Bob for my film Water Time; spent four hours with him, much of it with Bob on-camera. He did his weeping routine (as he does in every video you will find). It was very moving.
Just one example: Why the reversal, why the phony backdrop and why not a better photo?
At the end, as I was wrapping up, I asked Bob if I could use photos of Bobby in my film; the only one I ever saw was online and of poor quality (as are almost all the ‘victim’ photos in the memorial sites).
Bob did not have any photos of his dead son. At the time I shrugged it off; maybe I was embarrassed for Bob. His home was obviously long-lived in, with plenty of art, knick-knacks, and so forth. He had no excuse for not having a photo of his son in his home.
It took a while but I finally looked into it and could find no evidence that Robert G. McIlvaine, Jr. ever existed. I started with his alma mater, Princeton. An alumni website search came up empty. I called the registrar, thinking there might have been a mistake in the alumni computer records. No such student ever attended Princeton. I even tried his supposed roommate, ‘Andre Parris,’ who is quoted in various memorials. No such student.
I’ll not list all the ways I tried to find ‘Bobby’ — as I say, this is a detail in this post – but you can listen to McIlvaine being interviewed by Richard Hoagland (an obvious State/NASA disinfo agent, but that too is a story for another day). This link is via the Lawyer’s website Barbara gave me.
Just one more (most are like this): Why the need for photoshop? The family couldn’t supply a better photo for the memorial?
Go to about 24 minutes in to hear him – after nearly two decades of constant media-weeping – repeat his routine. Do you believe a real person, after all these years, would still weep on cue at the mention of his ‘son’? The man is an actor. That he has been at it this long tells us the lengths the PTB will go to, to make fools of us all.
McIlvaine’s presence on the committee also begs the question of Who else is a plant? (The lawyer site also links to an interview conducted by — who else? — James Corbett, still another State plant (as Honegger herself agreed in a previous post). Does it ever end?
McIlvaine’s presence also begs this question: Since McIlvaine has worked closely with virtually all the ‘big names’ in the Truther Movement and since I’m not the smartest person on the planet, i.e., it should be ‘common knowledge’ that the man is an actor, what does this tell us about The Truth Movement itself?
Addendum: If you’re wondering why the PTB would plant actors like McIlvaine, let alone the likes of Simon Shack – who have theoretically ‘spread the word’ about ‘9/11 as inside job’ — the answer lies in the occult ‘morality’ of the perps. They must tell us what they’ve done: When, as surely is the case so far, we do nothing about their heinous crimes, they are ‘exonerated’ from guilt, the added bonus being that we look as weak as they believe we are.
As far as Barbara Honegger et al.’s efforts go, wanna bet that no grand jury ever hears the evidence of explosives in the WTC? I’ll give you odds! Something will somehow fuck up… another proof of how helpless we are…
Okay, this is getting long-winded. Sorry it was a day late as your 9/11 Anniversary Gift, and sorry for the bad news about the Truth Movement, but even a little bit of actual truth is better than a phony movement designed to make us look foolish.
Allan
Oh, speaking of phonies, I almost forgot about our commenter, ‘X’. I wanted to speak to him by phone (to verify who he is) but he wouldn’t do it. Why? Because his wife was nearby and she ‘doesn’t approve’ of his research.
He didn’t want to show me his other forums because the comments would not jibe with those here.
In our email exchange X was apparently unaware of the irony of being the possessor of ‘profound’ and ‘deep’ knowledge about HTWRW while being unable to ‘wake up’ his own wife.
He also refused to link me to other forums/blogs that he contributes to, while giving no actual reason for not doing so. This was my big question, for reasons you can figure out. X failed miserably.
I’ll not ban him from comments. Not yet. It might be amusing to hear what he has to say… when he has the time and when wifey isn’t around….
How’s the game rg?. Ive heard it’s not that goodMost impoprtant point is choosing words
Why the obviously faked photos of birds bashing aeroplanes – I have birds fly into my house windows (glass!) & they don’t break! Organics versus metal!?! C’mon… next it’ll be aluminium through steel.
Lol
Now no comments allowed?
Par for this course I imagine.
Never mind. Now I see it’s up. At first it said
duplicate message, which it was not.Anyway Alan, aside from the slander no hard feelings. I invited you to my home while you were in NM to show my appreciation for your book work and have some good
conversation.You way over estimate my position in this world. Just a realist/nihilist now with a pass to the freak show and I intend to have it fully punched by the time I leave.
Far as I am concerned you can still visit and I can explain why your points on 9-11 are well, pointless .
9-11 was a global inside job with all intelligence agencies of the world aware of what was done.Evidently they all can use its by product for their
own use keeping their flock in control.
How many planes, missiles and bombs are irrelevant and always will be. I hope you find a way out of the abyss.
Best
Lol
So I see You got my brother all worked up again.
I could care less if you took our response to your heroic genius discovery of how the world works down or not. It reads very clearly that your mind is obsessed
with the most irrelevant details of 9-11. Keep trying to make us in awe of your genius and we will keep laughing at the attempts. Your work will be irrelevant forever as you are doing nothing to solve the problem of prosecuting the perpetrators . You are wasting your time and ours at this point.I will continue to look for humor in reading your pointless blog on the irrelevant details of 9-11 and then move on to the real world
issues. Feel free to block my comment or me as it will
be as relevant as your blog.I have no dog in this fight.
Just an observer of the human condition.
Best
Wow. Just wow. The story of the man who still cries a decade after his son’s death, but does not have a single photo of this son in his own home. It sounds silly, but that’s an amazing ah-ha moment. True bullshit.
My favorite a-ha moment was also in 2009 while interviewing FBI Agent Mark Rossini (google him) who knew ‘9/11 hero’, supposedly deceased FBI superguy John O’Neill and he slipped by saying, Yeah, John is a great guy!’ Is. Present tense. He immediately started hemming and hawing and trying to distract me. A-ha!
I have a long essay on this and other stuff (it’s a bit dated):
http://www.banditobooks.com/essay/content/3.php
I read that essay with your warning it will take three hours. It was worth it. The ‘reveal’ you got from Rossini was amazing. Essay is also interesting because of how much you learned since you wrote it while remaining a great essay today.
911 = The great day to spot “Alt. media’s”: Omissions, Deflections, LH, Psy-ops and various degrees of NLP-skills used, etc…
Most important what is NOT mentioned… (= The Obvious Truths Omitted!)
911 follows the protocol (as in NLP – a change of the subconscious state) to create a massive Trauma (in “nice” NLP done in a more benign way).
This traumatized state is a VERY suggestive state (think hypnotic) now open “subjects” to alteration/manipulation to the “handlers” that created it.
Cognitive Dissonance (= “doublethink”) to “understand” what the F— just happened adds gaslighting/confusion.
Those (= most) are now open to accept the handlers “solutions” & explanations.
Mind control and NLP 101.
Sorry to be the messenger of this Ugly Truth/aspect… based on my ongoing NLP Masters training.
“Alt. Media” – revealing themselves on 911 are unfortunately to many!
I.e. DavidIcke.com – had two posts on 911:
1. A one hour Youtube clip by NLP Master James Corbett: https://www.corbettreport.com/911wargames/ – Worthwhile to watch with a fist of salt (LH)
2. https://www.davidicke.com/article/493900/science-casting-doubt-9-11-official-story . Watch the meme carefully and draw your own conclusions (From: text/symbols & picture)…
Plus as an example of NLP 101 in the second paragraph (= most obvious): “As the 9/11 terrorist attack reaches its 17th anniversary, two wars continue to be waged in its wake.”
(“terrorist attack”; “wars”) – yep sure. Make up your own mind after reading…
Good catch SUB re David Icke. It’s only a matter of time before all the alt media phonies give there ‘tell’ each anniversary.
I also saw Corbett’s recent promo push’n the planes. I gotta say, it’s a ‘slick’ video – very ‘professionally’ done. Gee, I wonder how he finds all the time to…
A not very systematic but quite persistent, look at 9/11 over a decade and a half has led me here. Happily. I have friends who I try to show this material to, try to no avail. As said above, there’s little point in trying to move entrenched opinions. Two questions always come up if and when I mention no planes to these friends, one of whom is my wife:
1. But people in the street saw the planes fly into the buildings.
2. All the passengers (of the four planes) died and they were real people listed on flight manifests.
I have to admit, I have no good answers back to them. Can anyone point me to sources to help in this?
Dave, at the same time I uncovered McIlvaine’s ruse (2009-10) and found so few real victims at WTC, I looked into the matter of ‘victims’ on the ‘planes.’ I could explain what I found in my research but from your comment it appears you have done little if any research yourself. Why not give it a try?
Let me phrase it this way:
1. As of 2009, the 20 or so people that actually had gone ‘on the record’ about seeing planes were either media or govt employees. Or are you speaking of ‘witnesses’ like ‘The Harley Guy’? In other words, show me the interviews/statements of record you refer to.
2. Based upon what makes you think that the passengers of any flights were killed that day? In fact, are you aware of the evidence that none of the flights were genuine? Have you looked into what Pilots for 9/11 Truth have uncovered in terms of FAA records? Are you saying you’re basing your view of 9/11 on a piece of paper with names on it that CNN flashed on your screen? Is that it?
Are you aware of the research I and others have done regarding the possible use of hologram technology? If not, why not? I mean if you’re going to leave a comment like yours.
Finally, have you ever ‘seen’ any of David Copperfield’s illusions, like the Statue of Liberty disappearing? Do you think maybe DARPA (say) could do it even better?
One of the issues I struggle with on this and other “conspiracy” material – and I suspect I’m not alone – is maintaining a consistent indignant rage. I tend to, over time, fall back to a default position re all this wherein a voice in my head, call it reasonableness (not reason) whispers to me, “but it can’t be true.” Then I find material that resubstantiates the truth and I get indignant all over again.
I attribute this back and forth pattern to social training, i.e. living in this modern world. I am surrounded by lies all day long and to some extent can fall prey to believing them. Therefore I am in a constant process of unlearning life-long patterns of thinking. It’s a life-long process, perhaps similar to the addict who knows he shouldn’t use but sometimes does. Or opening the door, seeing the horror behind it, quickly closing the door but all the time thinking about what you saw and planning your next look.
Yes Allan I have seen much of the material you list, and I will continue to do so. What excites me about your site/blog and the contributors here is the very new angle – to me anyway – that disinformation agents have been a part of 9/11 truth since before the event itself. I’ve followed many of them and now I feel I’ve been burned. Your great contribution in this is to help me identify these people and keep on a path toward truth. Thanks for that. I am really enjoying your work and these comments.
You might be pleased to know that I watched Watertime last week and saw my own frustrations vis-a-vis all this stuff reflected perfectly. I am in the middle of the Most Dangerous Book and it opens whole worlds of insight. I’m also about 90% off Corbett and discerning all sorts of material out there with new eyes and ears. So thanks.
Robin Adair left me tons of stuff to look into. I am going to be busy.
DC
People have equal rights, but not equal minds.
Diversity is a strength of h sapiens.
Some mistake equality to mean that people have the capability to equal any other in any respect, and if they aren’t equal in some respect today, they can be helped to become equal tomorrow – it’s just a matter of willingness and practice, and thus amenable to persuasion and encouragement.
Just as you cannot persuade a moron to become a genius, so you cannot persuade someone with an insufficient level of acuity to obtain a sufficient level of acuity.
And even if acuity is sufficient, apostasy is voluntary and not amenable to persuasion.
However, if you present someone with enough deceptions, with enough ineptitude and ever less subtle inconsistencies, eventually they will begin to twig that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. However, everyone has their own twig-point, and for some people it is astoundingly extreme.
Appreciate people as they are, and don’t disrespect them by trying to make them into what they cannot be.
And if they cannot respect you, who finds the official story unconvincing, it’s up to you as to whether you assert your viewpoint, or disparage it, e.g. as a trivial foible of little import.
All glory to X!
But….. but , but.. you’ve written down a bunch of WORDS and you haven’t actually SAID anything.
What’s your POINT, ‘X’?
Are you insinuating that Allan , and those who follow his LOGIC, are ‘morons’ who can’t appreciate your genius?
Major fail… errr flail.
See the following:
http://www.septemberclues.info
https://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds
Witness reports that don’t jibe with the Government and Media narrative:
http://www.septemberclues.info/faq_4.shtml
Full report:
http://www.septemberclues.info/Report%20on%20NYC%20First%20Responder%209-11%20Accounts.pdf
Regarding planes and manifests:
http://www.septemberclues.info/faq_3.shtml
Go to links below.
Seems both number 1 and 2 disputes have been blown out of the water leaving you with the disingenuous 9/11 Committee Report.
Just for some clarity, here is a real New York building that did get it by an airplane. Amazing the difference to 911 isn’t it. Why didn’t the Empire State building come crashing down.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/empire-state-building-plane-crash
https://mashable.com/2017/09/23/empire-state-building-plane-crash/#W8aor5LSwiqT
Sooo many good comments! (just had the time to fast-scroll all…)
I watched 911 live from the other side of the pond that day.
Three things stood out as huge red flags immediately and the day after: (my scrolling didn’t reveal this among the commments, or maybe I missed out – if so I’m sorry):
1. The BBC-reporter claiming WTC 7 just “crashed” – while I saw it standing behind her another 20 minutes… =( MY “wake-up”)
2. In Asia some MSM-outlets reported on the WTC “crashes” ½ hr before(!) it happened…
3. As ex-military trained in all kinds of existing & improvised explosives – Pentagon & “the hole-in-the-ground” in Pennsylvania (= Flight 93) are definetely not from any airplanes…
Great. Someone who was awake! and present that day, that place. Bet everyone thanks you.
Me, too.
Too bad my mind is slow; can’t connect the dots at first, seldom later.
Just chatted with a couple of old ladies here in Asia (one with a birthday Sept. 11!) After 17 years!, they’re doubting, discussing. Better late than never, I guess. And – one said she had a friend of a friend – a technologically ‘elite’ savvy engineer type, also Asian, in NY that morning, eyes also open – and he said he ‘saw’ the first plane hit. He high-tailed it back to Asia as a result, quitting a plum job. True? That’s what I heard, take it or leave it. Me? I believe my own eyes that I saw a graphite pencil sketch of a plane, not a plane. And what else – that bleary-eyed morning-middle-of-the-night? Getting woken up to freaky news – without any story-line! The media was playing the same convoluted collage of video clips as an endless barrage for the next 24 hours! I’ve only seen the same total absence of plot in a Pokemon movie my grandkids dragged me to. (My head was spinning, they loved it. Mind control!).
Asked a ‘Merican soon after how he felt (California guy). Answer: ” Oh, that’s an east-coast thing… “
I’d called out sick that day, so was home goofing off; husband also home that morning; no tv, just a vcr player. Our first clue was a college friend of our kids, who called to ask if he could come out to our place, ~1 hour west of DC. Sure, we said; what’s up? He was calling from his commute that took him past the smoking Pentagon; he’d been running late and had skipped his morning tv news but he *then* had turned on the radio news. We were clueless.
Next day I headed for the break-room tv — only to find that, out of respect for the dead (so they said), they were *not* doing the usual ghoulish broadcast-every-horrific-minute. A lot of talk, yes; interviews and whatnot. Iirc, it was a week or so before I discovered youtube and saw any video of the events at all.
I now think they’d cottoned on to the visual discrepancies, like the free-fall collapses, and were in damage-control mode.
Yes here is the untouched videos of “planes” hitting the South Tower:
https://youtu.be/DoE8Uz2ia3M
Note that the ones filtered through the Mainstream Media look like “a good sized plane” according to the state shill anchor on the news who talks about terrorists and boxcutters etc, while the others show a smaller “plane” (more likely a missile) or nothing at all.
Also eye witness accounts vary on what they saw unless they were infected by some Tatoo “reporter” telling them “It’s a Plane! It’s a Plane! It’s a…”
https://youtu.be/0YarBxlIzUk
http://www.septemberclues.info/faq_4.shtml
Notice the difference in the above footage when the later 9/11 “Memorial” Videos are made and planes either magically appear or the smaller plane more likely missile grows up to be a big plane.
Even so, notice that even in these obviously edited videos the fact that 1) there is no sun reflecting off the “plane” 2) There are no marking on it that show it to be a United Airlines Flight and 3) None of these alleged “planes” create a vortex when passing near or through the smoke of the North Tower.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21219/how-does-this-vortex-form-inside-a-jet-engine
BTW Rockets or Missiles don’t create such vortexes because they are not powered by turbine engines.
Hello to all the folks that wrote a comment I enjoyed reading what you had to say, even the remakes that I wanted to question but realized I would be wasting my time. I’m 77 years old and have learned after many years that you can’t change anyone’s belief system, that’s why I never talked about politics, religion, etc. I found out I could learn more about a person’s character by listening rather than judging their stupidity. So if we don’t agree with someone what will we (you) gain by arguing with them. Why take what they say personally or let your ego get in the way. It has been 17 years nothing has changed but that doesn’t mean we still can keep fighting the good fight for the real TRUTH. And to Allan, I love your blog. Your faithful fan.
Dee Cota
Very True Dee Cota 🙂
I can’t agree more. Even constant notching of close relatives or friends doesn’t do the job. It may seem they wake up at times, but the next day they fell back to sleep, repeating all the MSM mantras.
I believe one is either born with the will to search for and to accept the truth, or not.
Here are a few questions that no-planers can’t seem to answer.
Did the perps crash some other 757s somewhere else, grab some wreckage, and plant it at the same time the planes hit? Wouldn’t that be kinda risky? Seems like someone would notice them planting it. And some of that 757 wreckage was very large and heavy. Why go through all that work, risk, and expense to convince people that the planes were real, when all we have to do is watch the videos, look at the photos, or read the testimonies of hundreds of eyewitnesses. Please share your opinion on the wreckage. How did it get there, and what was the purpose of planting it? Provide evidence for all beliefs.
Since all credible, respected, dedicated, and qualified, 9-11 researchers, groups, and organizations reject the “no planes hit towers” idiocy as absurd disinformation, since it discredits and obstructs the 9-11 truth movement, and since this sort of idiocy gives the government, the media, and “fence sitters” exactly what they need to laugh off truthers as deluded nut jobs, why would anyone other than a government shill or a nut job promote this garbage? If a no-planer can only answer one of my questions, answer this one.
It looks to me like no-planers have two choices here.
1. All the photos of plane debris are faked, and all the people who saw and heard planes, or were injured by plane debris are either delusional, lying, or crisis actors.
2. The plane wreckage is real, but it’s from a 767 that crashed somewhere else, and was planted within seconds of the plane strikes without anyone noticing.
http://debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.com/2016/06/aircraft-parts-and-debris-found-near.html
All right, asshole, here’s the way it’s going to go, because my patience with you wasting time and space is wearing thin:
1. Name one serial-numbered part that was found at any of the crash sites that matches the supposed flight. Just one. There should be thousands, since virtually all plane parts are so numbered.
2. Explain why the NTSB did not – out of four ‘crashes’ — reassemble the planes to find out why they crashed. Up until 9/11 this was done for ALL commercial crashes, by law. (‘By law’ or ‘by mandate’ means it doesn’t matter how ‘obvious’ the cause might have appeared; it’s done automatically.) If ‘there wasn’t anything left of any of the planes’ is your answer, name another case like this, where no ATTEMPT was made.
3. In your bogus website there is a photo of a jet engine lying on the street. What specific aircraft was it matched to, by make/model of the engine, plus the serial number? (The answer is ‘a 747’, unless you have an official citation.)
If you dodge any of these, or go off on a misdirection tangent (like mentioning ‘witnesses’), you are out of here — and will have to use another identity to spread your crapola.
Allan, You’ve given Hankster the Prankster more than enough opportunity to answer questions we’ve asked. If he can’t answer them – or avoids you by coming up with more monkey fluff – pull the plug on him.
This seems to be the MO of so called “debunkers” and that is they can not debunk a damn thing but instead deflect off into straw man arguments just like this one guy to give me one example other than the WTC of fire ever at any time in the history or in the present bringing down a tall steel building.
He said that none of those had a plane hit it. I pointed out that 7 was never hit by a plane at which point he slipped into some alternate universe holding the 9/11 Report closely to his bosom shouting “I believe, I believe…”. You get the picture?
It’s almost like dealing with a religious cult.
1990’s Media Consolidation put MSM ownership into the hands of six war-profiteering billionaires. Consolidated ownership facilitated mainstream media complicity in the 9ll events.
AW has pointed out that media complicity is one area that gets little attention among truthers or anyone else.
I believe it to be a critically important piece of the puzzle.
This is why they are trying to shut down alternative media sources on Google, Facebook and Twitter. It’s a desperate effort at damage control,