Simon Shack's (maker of September Clues) "Nose-Out" study of the FOX 9/11 second tower strike.

[balantz]

Since it has been brought up recently I thought I'd make it easy for people to view for themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ&feature=PlayList&p=02330024F0FA4A22&index=0


And more recent investigation on the FOX fuck-up is covered in the following videos:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FAFFDE39F342242C

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Yes, and those are really fluffy bunnies up in the sky. n/t

[victordrazen]

2. Haven't seen that for awhile thanks balantz

A plane simply can not go into a steel re-enforced building and come out the other side! which is why they stopped showing the nose out. I mean how do people explain that?? But, you know, there is that picture of fuselage on building 5, (I think it's bldg 5), and it's pretty ridiculous too, to think that that fuselage would have come out the far side- with no scorch marks and hardly even damaged, but no one questions anything as long as the Gerber babyfood keeps getting spooned into their mouths.

[balantz]

3. Gerber Baby Food?!!

:puke: :rofl:

[balantz]

4. Kick

[William Seger]

5. Busted nose

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034&feature=channel

[balantz]

6. Lawson is disinfo. n/t

[William Seger]

7. Really?

How do you explain the fact that he's obviously right about Shack's "nose out" fraud? You sure Shack's not disinfo?

[balantz]

8. Yes, Lawson's stuff is garbage disinfo. Watch these additional videos of Shack's nose-out study:

Just past 4:00 into this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXda5Kn2LAM&feature=PlayList&p=FAFFDE39F342242C&index=0


And here are Shack's videos that look more deeply into that FOX broadcast
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzCW197AqpM&feature=PlayList&p=02330024F0FA4A22&index=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LURV-joLI&feature=PlayList&p=02330024F0FA4A22&index=3

"The FOX archives of the 9/11 events have been replaced by an "image medley" cut together with footage borrowed from ABC,CNN,NBC and CBS.

The main reason for this was to remove from public view their infamous, damning "nose-out shot" (see the full analysis of this shot on this channel :"NOSED OUT")."

[William Seger]

9. No, thanks

Lawson's video shows that Shack is a fraud, and Shack's "moving bridge" and "different paths" videos had already convinced me that he is completely inept at any type of video analysis, even before that. Suit yourself, and deepest sympathies about your gullibility, but I won't be wasting any more time watching his videos.

[balantz]

10. You're concern for us media complicity "truthers" is duly noted. Thanks. n/t

[balantz]

11. Kick

[balantz]

12. kick n/t

[Drops_not_Dope]

13. Shack is disinfo

why are you shilling for him?

[zappaman]

14. kick

so more folks can laugh at this foolishness

[JackRiddler]

15. Lawson may or may not be "disinfo" but there's no doubt about Shack.

"Disinfo" meaning a witting agent. But who cares about Lawson? Seriously.

Like all bedunkers looking for the general smear against 9/11 skepticism, he's going after the easy, easy targets provided by the fools and shysters on the supposedly anti-OCT side.

I can tell you, no question, that if I were running this forum the no-plane nonsense would be promptly shut down.

No-planes in its origins is obvious disinfo and an insult to reason. I speak on it at length here because we can see how disinfo works. No-planes was the result of a two-year trial period among increasingly ridiculous phantom objects (the "pod," the "flash") until, finally, the most absurd possible nonsense was devised.

Hey, no plane at all! EVERYONE is a potential agent, or a fool of the highest order! What a great combination - I'm sure if the CIA didn't devise it, they wish they had. If you wanted to invent a device for bogus "inside job" claims calculated to alienate and disgust everyone at once - relatives, people who were in Lower Manhattan, media, any semi-rational thinking person - and assault the very IDEA of evidence in a kind of post-modern non-plus ultra, you could not do better. This is a kind of spearpoint in the attack that would disregard every real piece of evidence - for official foreknowledge, for facilitation and orchestration, for the alleged hijackers and the real nature of their "networks," for cover-up and obstruction, for propaganda preparation - in the name of pretending to investigate 9/11. Insult to injury.

I'm sure in the Propaganda World they have Oscars for this kind of achievement.

The tip-off that whoever was originally devising it (within the Haupt/Webfairy/Woods/Reynolds group) was not merely ill, but consciously seeking to achieve maximum disruption, is the vehemence with which said cell then subsequently accused EVERYONE who didn't immediately salute the nonsense as the True Solution of being a hired agent of the State.

"Nose out" is one of the worst examples. I'm very, very sorry for you if you are truthfully saying that when you see this low-res picture - in which debris flying out the other side happens to look semi-cylindrical from the angle it's shot - you seriously believe you are seeing a nose cone. Because if you do really believe it, that's not a symptom of the kind of mental illness that can be treated, but more just the kind of general cognitive impediment to which we tend to attach very uncharitable labels.

But I don't really believe that someone who can self-evidently write at a good 10th grade level and higher really believes this shit. Triple-ditto on Shack. Those of you who push the nose-cone poison pill must know what you are doing. Along with the right-wing opportunist fanatics like Alex Jones and We Are Dumbteabagfuckers, um, "Change," you are far more responsible for the irrelevance of this forum and of the former "movement" than any of the bedunkers. You are there to provide the ultimate in self-made strawmen for the beating. It's a shame I can't use the choicer language you deserve without getting this post deleted. Congratulations for your successful obfuscation and ruination of the former "movement." You can definitely go home now. Mission accomplished.

[jberryhill]

16. "general cognitive impediment"

Some people are sincerely cognitively impaired.

Attributing dark motives to them is going too far.

It's almost like a food chain sometimes, between schizo's who spin off interesting ideas, and then non-schizo's who have some kind of processing deficit, who pick up the ball and run with it.

[JackRiddler]

17. See, that's not the whole story.

While all the categories you mention of course play their roles, there are also those who engage in conscious deceptions. They don't have to be an operation of the state to do so. They may think it hilarious to hoodwink "conspiracy theorists." They may do it for nothing more than the pleasure of trolling, or as vigilantes with a patriotic calling, or even as "performance art."

I believe the no-planes-anywhere idea originated as performance art. In fact, I can name the circle of self-designated "performance artists" from whom it appears to have originated, and who were visible as its most persistent champions. Their status as "transgressive artists" may in turn be a put-on for something darker, I won't speculate on that. But there is little doubt in my mind that the no-planes-anywhere idea originated within this circle, as a conscious fabrication designed to test the limits of what can be pushed. Some may take it up due to cognitive impairment, but they're not the ones who came up with it.

The story structure also argues for parody or caricature. It's like someone wanted to invent a dedicated debunkers' wet dream of a "conspiracy theory," one again that is as insulting and in some ways intimidating as possible to the key demographics on questions relating to September 11th: the relatives, eyewitnesses, New Yorkers, media producers large and small. It is an attack on the evidence: all evidentiary claims are pushed aside as irrelevant, because there were no planes and the eyewitnesses and the videos are themselves fake. The ravings of a schizophrenic would rarely be as simple-minded and direct as the no-plane-crash claim.

[jberryhill]

18. You may have a point there...

I also keep an eye on birthers for entertainment, and the famous "fake Kenyan birth certificate" kept them busy for a while there.

But that seemed to be less "disinfo" than someone having a good time.

"The story structure also argues for parody or caricature."

That's highly subjective. Scientology strikes me as among the most successful "jokes that got out of hand" in history, but with L. Ron Hubbard dead, it's not clear to me if anyone in that organization understands it was a joke.

People do sincerely believe a number of things that strike other people as "Surely, you have to be kidding."

There is a prolific member of this forum whom I've thought to be kidding sometimes, but I'm coming around to believing he is serious.

[JackRiddler]

19. Your Scientology example...

"Scientology strikes me as among the most successful "jokes that got out of hand" in history, but with L. Ron Hubbard dead, it's not clear to me if anyone in that organization understands it was a joke."

I'm not talking about "anyone in that organization." My point is that at least the originator, Hubbard, understood that the mythology he made up for Scientology was his own fabrication. From his perspective, it didn't get out of hand but worked as originally intended, probably far more successfully than he had ever dared to imagine.

It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that in the 1940s Hubbard repeatedly stated in public that the way to get rich was to start a religion:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/scientology/start.a.religion.html

This is what he then did. He wrote a self-help guide attached to a science fiction mythology and sold it as a cure-all and, finally, a religion.

Of course, people change. To resolve cognitive dissonance, they can persuade themselves to sincerely believe things they at first knew were untrue. I'm not in Hubbard's head to tell you what he really thought at different times. If you succeed at founding a profitable cult, it may be easy and more rewarding to convince yourself you are truly a prophet.

The point that matters here is whether the science fiction writer knew he was writing a fiction when he first devised the principles of his new religion - and whether we, at a great distance but using the available evidence and the tools of reason, can in fact reasonably conclude that this must have been the case.

How the people who later helped him build his organization understood it is again another matter. Obviously a great many people must believe in the Church mythology, or they would not allow the Church to prey on them. But if you look at the Church's history and practices, its executives act as though it's a scam for their enrichment, one that they enforce using mobster methods. (I'm thinking especially about the episode around Hubbard's death.) Scientology becomes much harder to explain if you think its leadership seriously believes the Xenu mythology and none of them know it's a scam.

I can imagine that some of those associated with the Church - thinking of the Hollywood stars in particular, who need not have great stakes in the matter - just find that the techniques (or the business connections) work well for them, and don't give much thought to the mythology at all.

--

I submit it's reasonable to expect that motives are often base, even if you should be cautious in determining when and not make accusations wildly.

[jberryhill]

20. "motives are often base"

Motives are sometimes base, but I believe few people wake up every morning asking themselves, "How much of a jerk can I be today?"

"Scientology becomes much harder to explain if you think its leadership seriously believes the Xenu mythology and none of them know it's a scam."

Exhibit A -



These people are waiting for their cargo. They are humans as intelligent as you and I. In fact, I doubt I would be able to make a decent airplane model out of tropical island materials. So that puts them one up on me, personally. Albeit their religion might be summed up as "the original no-planers".

You are a highly rational person. That makes you unusual among people generally, and I'm not sure you appreciate how many people are unreflective and do not understand or place such a high value on rationality, but are nonetheless sincere.