"In your dream, 9/11 was not a scam" "Dreams [Matrix Blues]"Fake-Eye "D"
Obf sez:This addendum to Simon Shack's main work [ i.e. the original "September Clues"], reveals, via close, detailed, frame by frame analysis, the complete fraudulence of all of the original, as aired, mainstream news networks "live" 9/11, broadcasts; complete with impossible scenery perspectives, impossible building dimensions, fake "view from helicopter" shots, and an impossibly mobile bridge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEM9quwi6yM
Please closely review these other excellent additions to Simon Shack's original September Clues movie available here
[obf sez: For those who still cling to the official 9/11 story and believe that it was/is impossible for their government to have planned an "inside job", the bare facts of the US government's now declassified, never implemented, 1962 Operation Northwoods scheme, complete with proposed fake plane flights, fake passengers, fake deaths/ and funerals, plus deliberate murder of US citizens, as revealed in this video, might get them to reconsider their own position vis a vis the claimed events of 9/11.]:
"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." H.L. Mencken
obf disclaimer:links to authors articles or videos are not necessarily full endorsements of all of the views/positions of any of the individuals or organizations concerned!
Comments/questions/insults/death threats etc. - email: onebornfree at yahoo dot com
Post update: [ 06/18/17]: Whoops! It appears I made a mistake with these recent two posts about the Hall/ Johnson interviews. My mistake was to assume that the 2015 video I saw on Youtube was the original. That being the case, I had then thought "well, there is hope for messrs. Hall/ Johnson, yet", as they both seemed quite fair in their analysis of "September Clues" In other words, I assumed that Hall had now changed his mind and rejected his own 2012 "holographic plane image" theory.
However , further research has revealed that the 2015 Youtube video had actually been originally posted at Hall's site in 2010, meaning that while at first he had in fact first pretty much accepted Simon Shack's various observations, later [2012] he'd decided that Mr Shack was wrong.
His later retraction can be seen/heard here. All I have to say about Hall's 2012 retraction is that it is far from satisfactory, more of an obfuscation than anything else, as he hardly even bothers to address Shack's primary observations that he [Hall] had earlier agreed with. For example, the "matrix shot" issue, which he conveniently dismisses while only referencing NBC's contradictory Fl.175 footage, when the "matrix shot " issue involves all five stations, not just one. In conclusion, whereas before I'd wrongly held out hope for Hall/Johnson, I now understand that both of them are "way beyond help". And so it goes :-) ,Obf.
In my previous post, I brought your attention to the fact that researcher Richard Hall had in 2012, with his holographic plane theory, completely contradicted his own earlier [2010] statements about the plane paths not matching- as he had earlier concluded [2010] that researcher Simon Shack had already clearly demonstrated that the plane paths of Fl. 175 did not in fact match up in the "live" 9/11 footage; as indeed I had myself pointed out back in 2012, shortly after Hall's hypothesis was first made public.
After studying the relevant footage in part 3 of 6 of Mr Hall's 2010 interview with Andrew Johnson [who appears to have been the person responsible for pointing out at that time, the incongruity of the flight paths within the original "live" broadcasts ], I decided to delve a little further into Mr. Hall's entire 6 part interview with Johnson, which originally appeared at Mr Hall's website: "9/11 TV footage and amateur video analysis"., back in June 2010.
"What Gives"?
And what do I then find, in part 2 [of 6] of the interview [video at top of this post] :
1: Hall Again Admitted That Plane Paths Do Not Match
First of all, at the very start of the video segment, Mr Hall again re-confirms the disparity of the plane paths, [as he does in more detail in part 3 of the interview], as he reviews a segment of Simon Shacks "September Clues" movie that clearly demonstrates 2 different plane paths seen on [even] just one station , NBC. [Let alone the fact that the paths do not match station to station.
Of the two contradictory NBC sequences Hall says:
" This to me is the smoking gun" [at 3.00 to 3.05] and: "that is actually from the same camera, so they've actually removed all of the background from that shot" [3:20-3:30].
See my previous post for more on the plane path issue.
2: Onwards and Upwards: the Hall/Johnson Analysis of "The Matrix Shot"
Starting at 6mins and 30 secs in the interview [posted above], and ending at the 8 mins 20 sec point, Messrs Hall and Johnson then review what Mr Shack had called "the Matrix Shot", i.e. Shack's astute observation that the exact same perspective view of the towers is seen inserted into the live feeds of all 5 MSM networks [ ABC, CBS,CNN, NBC, Fox], but, depending on the network, all 5 showed different back grounds and foregrounds, which again means that the imagery shown "live" that morning cannot have been genuine.
The "Matrix Shot": Hall/Johnson Admit Faked "Live" MSM Imagery and Network Collusion:
Hall:
"..the matrix shot"......"all 5 networks appear to have used the same shot, but they've tried to make it look different, different colors, different foregrounds on there, different backgrounds.."
......and then: ".. so this suggests that all five networks were colluding somehow..."
Johnson: " That's what it looks like."
Moving On: The Original, "Live" MSM Tower "Collapse" Imagery:
At this point, An Important Question For Hall/Johnson etc.:
So, if they both admitted, all the way back in 2010, that the original "live" broadcast 9/11 imagery they reviewed in the show was not in fact genuine, but instead consisted of poorly composited fake imagery made to look like genuine imagery to the casual observer, and, although none of the footage examined in the interview showed the two actual tower "collapses" as shown on TV that morning, why would they [and many others] still, [as of 2017], blithely assume/insist that any actual, existing, archived MSM "live broadcast imagery " of the two tower collapses themselves was in any way genuine?
Two Important Facts That Hall/Johnson May Not Be Aware Of :
Fact [1] : While all 5 networks [ABC, CBS,CNN, NBC, Fox] broadcast wholly faked imagery of a plane hitting WTC2 [as Hall/Johnson originally seemed to agree] ................
.[.......see Simon Shack's "Synched Out" analysis of the original, "live" plane hit footage..................]
......... Fact [2]:Only 1 of each of the 5 networks actually claims to have captured the "live" collapse of a WTC tower.
Specifically:
The WTC 2 "Live" Collapse Footage:
The first tower to go [WTC2] was caught "live" only on NBC:
ABC, CNN, CBS and Fox all mysteriously missed that allegedly "live" event [at least it's missing from the official on-line "live" archives for those 4 networks]
Question, dear reader : does this NBC "live" sequence really seriously look like genuine live imagery to you?
The WTC1 "Live" Collapse Footage:
The second tower to go [WTC1] , was seen "live" only on CNN:
ABC, CBS NBC and Fox all mysteriously missed that event [at least it's missing from their official on-line archives for these 4 networks].
Question, dear reader : does this CNN "live", on archive sequence, complete with miraculously timed camera "zoom-ins" [that end at the exact moment that the tower starts its collapse],and 3x camera/viewpoint live studio edits in the space of around 17 secs of a totally unexpected collapse, seriously look like genuine live imagery to you?
There Ain't No More Original, "Live" , Archived On-Line, Broadcast, WTC1 & 2 Tower Collapse Imagery!
That's right, no other original better quality, less fake-looking, "live" broadcast tower collapse imagery of the demise of WTC1 and 2 exists! [only those two short sequences on archive and displayed/linked to here, above]
Again, [in case you missed it the first time :-) ] : these two clips above are the only two extant, official, live, MSM recordings of the "collapses" [or whatever you want to call them], of WTC 1 and 2, that can be found within the official MSM on-line archive for all 5 US TV stations.
Any/everything else Hall, Johnson [or yourself, dear reader], have seen to date regarding those collapses, be it photo or video, is simply not part of the original "live" MSM broadcast record, and only first appeared hours, days, months, or even years after the events themselves.
For example, this somewhat famous photo of WTC1, [used by various 9/11 "researchers" to "prove" that the towers were destroyed top-down by this, or by that], which , according to online reverse-image search app. "TinEye", did not even appear until 2007 in an on-line newspaper in the far east [of all places], has nothing to do with the original "live" broadcast tower collapse imagery of WTC1's collapse, as shown "live" on CNN [see above] that morning:
Fig. 1. A supposedly "genuine" image of WTC1 apparently exploding, "top-down".
Important Questions For Hall, Johnson Etc.:
1] Are Messrs Hall and Johnson and associated now going to claim, with straight faces mind you, that either of those two official MSM sequences of the collapses of WTC1 and 2 shown above are somehow genuine?
2] Or, perhaps, that a photo of WTC1 collapsing/exploding that appeared mysteriously in a Far East online newspaper fully 6 years after the event [fig.1] is genuine, while the original live NBC and CNN sequences of WTC1 and 2's collapses are fake?
3] Or perhaps [shock, horror, egads ! ] , that the 2 video sequences of the tower collapses , and the photo above, plus others like it, are all fakes?
Inquiring minds want to know ! :-)
Regards onebornfree[atyahoodotcom]
Addendum:
And while we're on the subject, here are two more excerpts from the original "live" MSM broadcast feeds of the morning of 9/11 that also clearly illustrate the fact that that original "live" footage we saw that day was not in any way, shape or form, actual live imagery, but instead , poorly fabricated digital imagery produced entirely via computers, pre- 9/11, then broadcast as "live" imagery on the morning of 9/11:
1] "The Incredible Moving Verrazzano Bridge: [ bridge is impossibly big, plus it still moves while background/foreground remain stationary]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wag2XVRR5Dc [youtube 2015] [The whole 6 part interview originally appeared in 2010here ] Post update: [ 06/18/17]: Whoops! It appears I made a mistake with these recent two posts about the Hall/ Johnson interviews. My mistake was to assume that the 2015 video I saw on Youtube was the original. That being the case, I had then thought "well, there is hope for messrs. Hall/ Johnson, yet", as they both seemed quite fair in their analysis of "September Clues" In other words, I assumed that Hall had now changed his mind and rejected his own 2012 "holographic plane image" theory. However , further research has revealed that the 2015 Youtube video had actually been originally posted at Hall's site in 2010, meaning that while at first he had in fact first pretty much accepted Simon Shack's various observations, later [2012] he'd decided that Mr Shack was wrong. His later retraction can be seen/heard here.All I have to say about Hall's 2012 retraction is that it is far from satisfactory, more of an obfuscation than anything else, as he hardly even bothers to address Shack's primary observations that he [Hall] had earlier agreed with. For example, the "matrix shot" issue, which he conveniently dismisses while only referencing NBC's contradictory Fl.175 footage, when the "matrix shot " issue involves all five stations, not just one. In conclusion, whereas before I'd wrongly held out hope for Hall/Johnson, I now understand that both of them are "way beyond help". And so it goes :-) ,Obf.
Richard Hall Eats His Own Words ?
Starting at 3:58 of the above video [first published on 06/18/2010 on his own site, and then at Youtube June 9th. 2015], and using clips taken directly from Simon Shacks "September Clues" series, Mr Hall along with interviewee Andrew Johnson, revealed the different, contradictory flight paths of Flight 175 shown in the various MSM and "amateur" videos, to his viewing audience.
At around 4:40 in this interview with Mr Johnson we have him [Johnson] stating:
"....you get different trajectories for the plane....If this is the same plane, then you should be able to determine what the trajectory is from the video clip".
Hall then agrees with Johnson, and in doing so directly contradicts his very own, subsequent "holographic plane image" hypothesis first aired publicly in his own May 19th 2012 "NEW 9/11 Video and Radar Analysis"
Briefly, his whole hypothesis rested on the idea that if all of the plane trajectories in the various 9/11 videos showing Fl.175's approach and strike on WTC2 matched, then that "proved" that :
1] The videos were all genuine.
2] if the flight paths matched, that because the plane images in some of the videos defied known laws of physics , then they could not have been of a real plane, so "therefore" [he, Hall, assumed "logically"] , a single, fake, moving plane image was projected holographically by a "cloaked" [i.e. invisible to the live camera] plane flying close alongside the projected holographic image. [Yes, really :-) ]
Mr. Hall then tried to demonstrate in his video that all of the flight paths for 20 odd video clips of fl. 175 matched ["therefor" all of that footage was genuine].
{Hint: the flight paths he so carelessly analyzed never did match}.
What My Refutation of the Hall Hypothesis Tries To Demonstrate:
If you bother to go back and look at my own, long, 4 page refutation of the Hall hypothesis, you will clearly see that I demonstrate [ as Messrs Hall and Johnson originally appeared to agree], that the flight paths of Fl.175 do not match even within his own video presentation of his theory.
Hall Eats His Own Words
So now it seems that Mr Hall agreed with Mr Shack and myself back in 2010 [when this interview was first aired on Hall's site], but later [2012] "ate his own words" to come out with his own grandiose, wholly contradictory, holographic plane image idea of 2012 Is Hall's Backpedaling Important?
Why did Messrs Hall and Johnson originally publicly state [2010] that the plane paths did not match, only to later [2012] emerge with a bogus holographic plane theory which almost exclusively relied on Hall "proving" that the plane paths matched, even when it had been obvious to themselves back in 2010, that they did not in fact match?
What's Next?
So what's next? Are we ever going to witness the gloriously comical sight of Messrs Fetzer and Reynolds, the two most prominent supporters of the Hall hypothesis, publicly "eating their own words" regarding Hall's 2012 holographic plane hypothesis?. Let alone Messrs Hall and Johnson, who certainly do not seem eager to draw attention to their entirely contradictory statements on the issue.
Will Pigs Fly?
Personally, I would love to see this. However, if my own personal experience with these persons is anything to go by, the egos of at least two of these three "gentlemen" are way to big to ever acknowledge publicly that the whole holographic plane hypothesis was bunk right from the "git go", so I'm not holding my breath on this issue, that's for sure :-) .
But maybe, just maybe..... "pigs will fly", after all, it's happened before, as this photo clearly shows :-) :
Yay! Sunlight hits Manhattan buildings from 2, opposite directions. Impressive!
“Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are
manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by
religious groups, political groups…So I ask, in my writing, What is
real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities
manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated
electronic mechanisms…it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole
universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same
thing.” Philip K Dick. "The press has been
routinely creating fake news reports to start a war. This is a serious
issue for the press is conspiring against the people to create war, sell
climate change, and rig elections. This is by no means something new.
They taught me in high school history class about how the press started
the Spanish-American War by reporting that the Spanish attacked a US
ship, which never happened."................. ............"The
movie “Wag the Dog” was based on how things really operate. They used
the press as a co-conspirator to manipulate the public. This is also why
this election has resulted in the collapse in public confidence in the
mainstream press. "
So the few who understand the complete fraudulence of the "live" archived 9/11 imagery, myself included, would inevitably characterize this article as being a great example of a "limited hangout"
[Onebornfree commentary: As far as I am aware, Mr Rappoport is, to this day entirely unaware of the , to my mind, plain as day fact that the MSM broadcast imagery we were all shown "live" on Sept. 11th., 2001, was not live at all, but 100% prefabricated digital imagery made on computers, months, if not years prior to the day itself - as revealed by 9/11 researcher Simon Shack. However, given the somewhat ironic fact of Mr Rappoport's "still partly inside the Matrix" 911 perspective, I believe that Mr Rapport's article presented here is, nevertheless, worth a read. Regards, obf ].
“Aliens visiting Earth would report back to their superiors: ‘It’s quite amazing, those people worship images. They know it and they pretend not to know it.’” (Hypnotherapist Jack True) This is a backgrounder for my mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, which contains many exercises designed to liberate an individual from the standardized perception of reality—and usher in his own creative reality. Mass mind control focuses on two elements: image and feeling. By linking the two primary elements, it is possible to short-circuit thought and “cut to the chase,” when it comes to enlisting the allegiance of huge populations. Two seemingly unrelated events spurred my interest in mass mind control. On the evening of April 12, 1945, I listened to a radio report on the death of Franklin D Roosevelt. I was seven years old. I became upset. I didn’t know why. I was angry at my own reaction. Forty years later, I pulled into a gas station near my apartment in West Los Angeles. I got out of my car and took the cap off my gas tank. I looked to my right and saw Tony Curtis sitting in his car. I was shocked. A few days later, I began making notes under the heading of “image-emotion cues.” At the time, I was working as a reporter, writing articles for LA Weekly. I knew next to nothing about mind control, MKULTRA, Soviet psychiatric gulags, Chinese re-education programs, or US psychological warfare operations. But because I had been painting for 25 years, I knew something about the power of images. I remembered my first exhibition of paintings in LA, at my friend Hadidjah Lamas’ house. We had hung my work in her large living room and dining room. Hadidjah had enlisted the services of a friend who had videotaped me painting in my studio, and at the exhibition she set up a television set out on her patio and continuously played the videocassette. People came through her front door, almost automatically walked through the house to the patio, as if guided by an unseen hand, and watched the video; then they came back inside and looked at the paintings. They would stop at a painting and say: “That picture was in the video!” It excited them. My first note on “image-emotion cues” was, “Investing an image with importance. Projecting emotion into an image.” Projecting emotion into a newspaper image of the president, FDR. Projecting emotion into the screen image of Tony Curtis. Projecting emotion into a video of a painter working in his studio. When people encounter an image, when they invest it with importance, they project feeling into the image—and this all happens in a private sphere, a private space. If this didn’t happen, there would be no way to control populations through images. It wouldn’t work. It all starts with a person setting up his own personal feedback loop that travels from him to an image and back again. Coming out of World War 2, US psychological warfare operatives knew they could turn their skills to political purposes. They had just succeeded in making Americans believe that all Japanese and German people were horribly evil. They had been able to manipulate imagery successfully in that area. Why couldn’t they shape America’s view of a whole planet that lay beyond personal experience? They could and they did. But the power to do that emanated from the fact that every person invests images with feeling. That’s where it really starts. I had seen the 1957 film, Sweet Smell of Success, a number of times. I admired it. Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis gave tremendous performances. When, decades later, I saw Curtis sitting in his car at that gas station, I was “working from” the emotion I had invested in his onscreen image. It produced a sense of shock and paralysis for a few seconds. Other people might have rushed up to Curtis and asked for his autograph. With me, it was shock, cognitive dissonance. Ditto for the death of FDR. I was working off newspaper pictures I’d seen of him, and the feeling I’d invested in those presidential images. Other people, when FDR died, went out into the street and hugged their neighbors and wept openly. For me, it was upset and shock and anger. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with investing emotion in images. It can be exhilarating. It can be uplifting. As a painter, I know this in spades. Putting emotion into images can, in fact, vault you into a different perception of reality. But on the downside, it can also take you into lockstep with what media/propaganda operatives want you to experience, second-hand. We focus to such a degree on how we are being manipulated that we don’t stop to consider how we are participating in the operation. And our own role is clear and stark: we invest images with feeling. So how does one individual’s projection of feeling into an image become a uniform projection of the same feeling into one image, by millions of people? How does what one person invests privately become mass mind control? Through external instruction or cues. And also, by engendering the idea that there is only a limited palette of emotions to work with in the first place. Why do millions of people fall into line? Because they don’t realize they started the whole ball rolling themselves. All they know is: images are connected to feelings. If they knew they were the real power in the whole operation, if they knew they were investing feelings into images all day long, if they could actually slow down enough to see how they do this….then they would be far less prone to taking instruction about what feelings they “ought to” invest in second-hand images. Hypnotherapist Jack True unceremoniously put it to me this way: “If a dog could analyze how he got from eating meat to drooling at the sound of a bell that came at feeding time, he could stop drooling.” (If Chris Matthews could analyze how his own voluntary investment of feeling in the image of Barack Obama sends a tingle up his leg, he could stop tingling.) We see images of people rioting all over the Middle East. We see burning flags and crowds outside embassies. We’re supposed to invest our own anger and resentment into those images. Unless we’re suddenly told those rioters are actually “the good rebels,” in which case we’re supposed to invest our joy in the images. We see a picture of miles of flat farmland and (GMO) corn waving in the breeze. We’re supposed to invest that image with feelings of happiness and pride. Nowhere are we told we can back up a step and realize that we are the ones who begin the whole process, by projecting feelings into images. Any images. When I was 19, I was sent to a trained expert in New York to take a Rorschach (ink-blot) Test. I was displaying signs of what would now be called Oppositional Defiance Disorder. The expert said he wanted me to tell him everything I saw in each ink-blot. I took him at his word. An hour later, I was still working on the first blot. I was describing everything from bats and owls and chickens to space ships and buckets of hidden treasure in caves. Well, I was cheating a little. I wasn’t really describing what I saw. I was imagining. I was taking off from what was on the page and improvising. This was outside the bounds of the Test. The expert was seething. He was sweating, because he had many other blots to show me, and it was late in the afternoon, and he was looking at spending the entire evening with me. Finally, he held up his hand and put an end to the Test. I wasn’t playing his game. Among other sins, I wasn’t investing a limited palette of feelings in the images. Therefore, my choices of “what to see” in the blots expanded greatly. When I go to a museum, I like to watch people stand in front of abstract paintings. Many of them are stumped. They’re trying to figure out what feelings they “are supposed to” project into the painting. They’re looking for “instruction,” and there isn’t any. They’re asking for mind control, and they’re not getting it. Fanaticism of any kind begins with individuals projecting feelings into images. This is harnessed by leaders, who then choose the images and direct which feelings are permitted. The tempting prospect for the follower is: participation in a drama that goes beyond what he would ordinarily experience in life. This is bolstered by the idea that what he is doing is moral. In an election season, people on the left are urged to project messianic feelings into images of X. People on the right are cued to invest feelings of pride, hope, and “tradition” into images of Y. The real candidates aren’t actually experienced. Since Vietnam, shooting wars have been more difficult to sustain among soldiers. “In the old days,” feelings of hatred could be projected into images of enemies that included civilians, so overtly killing everybody on foreign soil was easier to accept. Now, soldiers are taught “enemy combatant” and “civilian” are two different images that require the injection of two different feelings. Here at home, police and military are taught, more and more, to invest feelings of suspicion into images of American civilians. This is an acceleration of mass mind control for law enforcement. The astonishing number of civilians who participate in government and corporate surveillance of the public, through technological means, learn to invest “dead empty feelings” into images of citizens, as if these targets are nothing more than ciphers, units. Bizarre instances of police detaining and questioning parents who allow their children to play unsupervised reveal another accelerating trend. These confrontations start with neighbors snitching on the parents. The neighbors have learned to invest feelings of panic, suspicion, and anger in images of “free children.” In all these cases, there is no real experience. It’s all second-hand. It’s all feeling-projected-into-image. In the medical arena, countless advertisements and news stories are geared to convince people to invest feelings of trust in images of doctors. The suggestion, “Ask your doctor if X is right for you,” is framed as the solution to a little problem. The problem is set this way: Drug X is wonderful; drug X has serious adverse effects; what to do? Solution: ask your doctor; trust him; he knows. As the class of victims in society has grown by leaps and bounds, including any group that can organize and promote itself as needing help or justice—going miles beyond the people who really do need assistance—citizens have been trained to invest feelings of sympathy and concern for all images of victims everywhere, real or imagined. This, too, is mass mind control. Pick an image; invest feelings in it. Facts don’t matter. Evidence doesn’t matter. You’ve heard people say, So-and-so (a celebrity) has become a caricature of himself. Well, that’s what it means. The celebrity has projected massive feelings of approval into a concocted, cartoonish image of himself. As a society, we can go on this way until we become a horrific cartoon of a cartoon (well, we’re already there), or we can step back and discover how we invest emotion into images, and then use that process to pour feelings into visions of our own choosing and invent better futures. Since the dawn of time, leaders have portrayed themselves as gods. They’ve assembled teams to promote that image, so their followers could project powerful emotion into the image and thereby cement the leaders’ control and power. The game isn’t new. Understanding the roots of it within each individual could, however, break the trance of mass mind control. During the first West Nile fake outbreak of 1999, I spoke with a student who had just dropped out of medical school. He told me he’d been looking at electron-microscope photos of the West Nile Virus, and he suddenly realized he was “supposed to” invest feelings of “great concern” in those images. Somehow, he broke free from the image-feeling link. He was rather stunned at the experience. His entire conditioning as a medical student evaporated. Parents all over the world are having the same experience vis-a-vis vaccines. They realize they’re supposed to invest fear in images of germs and disease, and they’re also supposed to invest feelings of hope and confidence in images of needles and vaccines. They see the game. They’re supposed to remain victims of mass mind control. But they’ve awakened. We’ve all been taught that what we feel is always and everywhere out of our control. These feelings are simply part of us, and we have to act on them. The alternative would be to sit on them and repress them and turn into androids, robots. This is simply not true. There are an infinite number of feelings, and as strange as it may sound, we can literally invent them. This, it is said, is inhuman. It’s a bad idea. It’s wrong. It would lead us to “deserting the human community.” Nonsense. That’s part of the propaganda of mind control. If the controllers can convince us that we’re working from a limited map of emotions and we have to stay within that territory, they can manipulate that limited set of feelings and trap us. The power of art is that it shows us there are so many more emotions than we had previously imagined. We can be much freer than we supposed. The synthetic world of mind control and the handful of feelings that are linked to images is what keeps us in thrall. The world—the world of what we can be—is so much wider and more thrilling and revealing."
********************************************** Onebornfree comment on this article, as posted at Mr Rapport's blog: nomorefakenews.com :
"Here's an interesting question for you Jon : what if the imagery we were shown live on 9/11, [as archived on line : https://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive/ ], was not in fact genuine, and that we were instead shown 100% digitally created [i.e prefabricated on computers] artificial imagery of planes approaching buildings, towers collapsing top to bottom in 9 and 11 secs. [according to the N.I.S.T.] etc. etc. ?
Then we have all been investing our emotions in fabricated imagery, and have all been operating very much inside the matrix still, haven't we? :-) .
Further Down "The Rabbit Hole"?
The 9/11 researcher who has, I believe, very convincingly demonstrated that all of the imagery we were all shown "live" on 9/11 was in fact pre-fabricated on computers, and not genuine live imagery, is Simon Shack.
Onebornfree's commentary:Despite the fact that Mr North's article showcases a video presentation regarding a Canadian publicity campaign by an organization called "Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth, and despite the fact that North appears to be entirely unaware of the research into large scale 9/11 MSM video fakery by persons such as Simon Shack, who has amply demonstrated that the entire collapse sequence for WTC7[ on which the Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth Canadian campaign is mostly focussed], is a computer generated fabrication, just like the other televised WTC1 and WTC 2 collapse sequences, the article still does a good job of outlining the problems that are inevitably to be encountered by those attempting to spread the word about "9/11 truth", however defined. For example, he observes : "When dealing with the government's version of history, always ask this question: "Who is covering up?" But don't forget this question: "Who is paying for this round of uncovering?" And this question: "Why?"". He also gets into the daunting real world economics of "getting the word out" , plus why trying to do so almost always fails. He concludes with this simple advice, which I agree with: "Show why and how the government is lying. Show that lying is part of the government's underlying -- with the accent on "lying" -- agenda. That should be good enough for anyone." Anyway, perhaps food for thought, even if you do not agree with North's, or my own opinions on this[ as I expect most readers won't] - regards onebornfree.
Of Course the Government Is Lying About 9-11.
" This month, a campaign in Canada is challenging the government's 9-11 story. I am in favor of this, both as a professionally trained historian and as a believer in a general policy of examining official government positions. Here is a short video on the campaign: √ The group wants to get the word out. I am all in favor of getting the word out on 9-11. This could be a hook for getting the word out on other issues. People who finally figure out that they have been manipulated by the spin masters in the U.S. government are probably more prepared to accept the message that there is a long-term pattern of deception here. The video focuses on Canada. This may work. There is a higher percentage of Canad ians who think the U.S. government is willing to lie, than there is of Americans who think this. Anyway, that is my guess. But the question occurs to me: "Who is putting up the money for this campaign?" Then this question occurs to me: "Why?" I am a great believer in searching for historical truth. I am also a great believer in the fact that hardly anyone is committed to such a search, and of those who are, most of them don't have much money. When dealing with the government's version of history, always ask this question: "Who is covering up?" But don't forget this question: "Who is paying for this round of uncovering?" And this question: "Why?" GETTING THE WORD OUT Fact: it does no good to get the word out unless you have a very explicit, tightly focused program to mobilize people after you get the word out. The marketing campaign must be an extension of the mobilization plan. It must reinforce this plan. It must ignore everything that is not an aspect of this plan. We have limited resources. It is very easy to waste resources. This is why a marketing campaign is necessary: to conserve resources. There must be a specific, measurable goal for the expenditures. There must be success indicators. There must be rapid reporting on the results of the expenditures. There must be a way of generating money from the campaign, so that there can be another follow-up campaign. Until all this is in place, and tested on a limited, statistically representative scale, the money will disappear into the void. Direct-response marketers understand all this. They live with it. Yet very few people understand this, and fewer still discipline themselves to follow this procedure. People get on board a project "to get the word out" for many reasons. There is no universal pattern for joining a cause. It is too expensive to devise a separate recruiting campaign for each of these motivations. The budget is too small. The markets are too diversified. The personal motivations are too different. Those who promote the official version also have multiple motivations. But they have a huge advantage: government money, government power, and the mainstream media, which fear government power and want in on government money. Most people do not have time to re-think every government position. Even with the big positions, people do not have time to re-think them in detail. They sense the personal cost of such investigations. If they ever figured out that they have been lied to deliberately, they might lose faith in the government. This is like abandoning the religion of your youth. The costs are high. The older you are, the more emotional capital is invested in this "market." To abandon faith in the official line means admitting that you had previously fallen for a grand deception. You were played the sucker. You were, in Lee Harvey Oswald's now-famous term, a "patsy." There is an old line: "You cannot change just one thing." When you abandon faith in the broad outline of the government's official explanation, you then feel as though you must offer a better one. This opens up a huge can of worms. This may take you down rabbit trails. Then this may take you down rabbit holes. You may be like Alice. You may enter Wonderland. You may never re-emerge. LOSS OF FAITH My loss of faith in the federal government's version of American history began in the fall of 1958. I wrote a high school term paper on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. I reached a conclusion: President Roosevelt not only knew that an attack was imminent in the first week of December 1941, he had for a year authorized policies that he believed would provoke such an attack. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson spoke for Roosevelt when he made this entry in his diary on November 25, 1941: "The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot. . . ." I did not know in 1958 that he had been Secretary of War under Taft, Secretary of State under Hoover, and was later known as "the chairman of the American Establishment." I was young and naïve in 1958. I am no longer young. I trust that I am not naïve . . . not about the U.S. government, anyway. This week, I read yet another book that purports to explain why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor: Operation Snow (2012). It blames Stalin and Harry Dexter White. It does not come close to proving its case. The author explicitly says that President Roosevelt knew nothing of what was about to happen at Pearl Harbor, that he in no way goaded the Japanese into attacking the fleet. Therefore, he says, Harry Elmer Barnes was wrong (p. xx). This book was published by the Henry Regnery Company, whose founder published the most detailed account of Roosevelt's behind-the-scenes manipulation of these events, Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941 (1952), by Charles C. Tansill, who in 1952 was one of the two or three most distinguished American historians on American foreign policy. It does not appear in the bibliography of Operation Snow. Neither does Charles Beard's President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War (Yale University Press, 1948). Operation Snow has not one footnote. Yet Regnery published it. This is what happens to every movement devoted to rejecting the official government position. Unskilled amateurs get an outlet for their half-baked theories. So do outright crackpots. Then the skeptics must spend more time and money trying to keep the movement on track. Problem: there is no single track. The government has a single track. The skeptics do not. This is why there are more books on Kennedy's assassination than on any other single event in modern history: too many tracks. The government has a single track: the Warren Commission Report. At the core of every historical revisionist movement there must be a core assumption: "The government's versions of turning-point domestic historical events are guilty until proven innocent." The revisionist history movement is in fact a resistance movement. In the minds of most citizens, it has the greater burden of proof. It must therefore begin the process of recruitment with overwhelming evidence regarding a single central and representative fact in the government's account of the event. This presentation must prove that whatever the government and the dutiful mainstream media have promoted could not possibly have taken place. This creates the initial seeds of doubt. Plant these seeds. Water them. Nurture them. Then look for more seeds. Problem: as soon as a prominent skeptic in the camp of the revisionists offers a theory of what did happen, the can of worms gets opened. This will begin almost immediately. It may even launch the revisionist movement. When you identify what could not have happened, you call the government's version into question. You also put a "Detour" sign on a rabbit trail. In the case of 9-11, the skeptics should begin at the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 at Shanksville, Pennsylvania. There was no debris. Conclusion: it was not a crash site. Whatever happened to the plane, it did not end up at the official crash site. The on-ramp to the highway of skepticism should begin wherever there can be no counter-argument -- preferably an argument based on physics or engineering. Begin where the official report offers zero evidence. Begin where there is self-imposed silence, coupled with ridicule of conspiracy theories. That will be enough to raise serious doubts. As soon as the Shanksville investigators get this story out and defend it in multiple media outlets -- videos, articles, books -- they can go on to Building 7. Meanwhile, the Building 7 specialists are building their case. "Why does this look like a controlled demolition?" Pentagon crash skeptics are doing their work, too. "What really hit the Pentagon?" All of them should keep asking this: "Why have we never been told what was on the 'black boxes' -- which are in fact orange -- that record the flight data that precede a crash?" The government is zero for four. "It's just four of those things, four of those crazy things." If the goal is to raise serious doubts about the government's version, this approach will be successful. On the other hand, if the goal is to explain the four plane incidents by means of a coherent narrative, it will take a lifetime of many investigators, and there will be no agreement. The noise will overwhelm the narrative. The irreducible complexity of history will thwart a common story that has sufficient footnotes to sufficiently reliable sources. For those in search of a theory of why 9-11 happened, here is a good place to start: http://www.garynorth.com/public/12227.cfm CONCLUSION The conclusion of Gödel's theorem also applies to historiography. It is impossible for human beings to come up with a single narrative of any event that is both consistent and complete, relying on nothing outside of its limited evidence. The more information we have, the less consistency our narrative will have. This applies to the official version, too. So, let us concentrate our limited resources on persuading intelligent people that the government is not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Then let us take the next step: "The government is lying." Then let us follow the confession, follow the money, and follow the organizations involved in the government's official version. Let us ask this economic question: "Who wins? Who loses?" Then let us ask this political question: "Who? Whom?" That was Lenin's question, a master of who/whom. Then let us ask the question that Lenin also asked, stealing it from Cherneshevsky: "What is to be done?" You cannot come to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The government can't, either. But you can make a pretty good case that the government will not even make the attempt. Show why and how the government is lying. Show that lying is part of the government's underlying -- with the accent on "lying" -- agenda. That should be good enough for anyone. It will surely be good enough for me." Original article source
