My ‘Late’ 9/11 Anniversary Gift

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…

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 4^th) 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.)

(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)

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

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’.] 

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).

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…

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.’)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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….