BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de façade van alledag ligt.
Bij fundamentele Christenen zie je dit gedrag ook.quote:Op vrijdag 23 september 2011 19:53 schreef Gray het volgende:
Soms komt het op mij echter over alsof bepaalde debunkers meer geïnteresseerd zijn in het saboteren van de zoektocht die truthers maken, dan dat ze daadwerkelijk de dialoog en zoektocht vooruit helpen. Ik ben benieuwd waarom mensen dat doen, want ik kan daar met mijn verstand niet bij.
Op vrijdag 6 januari 2012 23:32 schreef remlof het volgende:
7 mei ga ik op Pim Fortuyn z'n graf pissen *G*
7 mei ga ik op Pim Fortuyn z'n graf pissen *G*
Stompzinnige post, dit is nu precies wat ik bedoel. Dit lokt weer reactie uit en voegt inhoudelijk niets toe.quote:
[..]
Bij fundamentele Christenen zie je dit gedrag ook.
“I'm just like anyone. I cut and I bleed. And I embarass easily.” M.J.J.
[quote]Op woensdag 12 augustus 2009 21:21 schreef ... het volgende:
Is fiddlergurl nog een kloon van Paul?
[quote]Op woensdag 12 augustus 2009 21:21 schreef ... het volgende:
Is fiddlergurl nog een kloon van Paul?
Ik vraag me wel af hoe oprecht die 'zoektocht naar waarheid' van sommige mensen eigenlijk is. In theorie zou geleverde kritiek inderdaad tot een betere hypothese leiden. In de praktijk zie je toch erg vaak dat hier helemaal niets mee gedaan wordt, zelfs met de meest simpele dingen. Neem nou zoiets als 'het was niet heet genoeg om staal te smelten!'. Met een klein beetje zoekwerk kom je er al achter dat staal helemaal niet hoeft te smelten om veel van zijn kracht te verliezen. Je wijst men daar dan op, maar even later komt die kreet gewoon weer langs. Dan ben je imo meer met een zoektocht naar waarheid zoals bij een religie bezig. Alleen aannemen wat binnen je straatje past, en de rest negeren.quote:
[..]
Nee, het is een oprechte vraag, al komt die wellicht niet zo goedbedoeld over als ik poogde. Ik ben benieuwd wat jouw beweegreden is voor het posten zoals je dat doet.
Zelf zou ik hier graag zien dat men een poging doet gezamenlijk te zoeken naar 'de waarheid', hoe onsuccesvol die ook mag blijken. Begrijp me niet verkeerd: ik ben van mening dat debunkers hierin een belangrijke rol spelen, door middel van het leveren van kritiek die leidt tot het verscherpen van de theorieën die de 'truthers' aanbrengen.
Soms komt het op mij echter over alsof bepaalde debunkers meer geïnteresseerd zijn in het saboteren van de zoektocht die truthers maken, dan dat ze daadwerkelijk de dialoog en zoektocht vooruit helpen. Ik ben benieuwd waarom mensen dat doen, want ik kan daar met mijn verstand niet bij.
Ik hoop dat je dit niet verkeerd opvat.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Deconstructing 9/11
THE RATIONALE OF THE 9/11 HOAX
by Simon Shack - January 1, 2010
If you have come to terms with the fact that 9/11 was a massive money-making scheme and - of course - a pretext to wage hugely profitable wars, the basic rationale behind this Grand Deception should, hopefully, become clearer. It is essential to consider all the variables which such an audacious false-flag operation would entail and what precautions its plotters must have observed: The Grand Deception plan was undoubtedly meant to be foolproof and, ideally, free of unnecessary elements of risk and opposition. There was simply no rationale for the 9/11 plotters to commit a mass murder of some 3,000, mostly white-collar professionals (brokers, bankers, financial analysts, etc.) whose families would likely have access to first-rate, ‘uptown’ legal assistance. Surely, killing that many people would have been an utterly senseless, self-inflicted aggravation on the part of the perpetrators. Since they could reliably rely on the fully compliant ‘top-brass’ of the mainstream media, they would have used this unique, exclusive asset to its full potential.
Ever since day one, the major hurdle for many people to even start considering 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ has been: “I can’t believe my own government would murder 3000 of their own people". Once that psychological obstacle is removed, it should become apparent that the whole operation consisted essentially of a covert demolition of a redundant, asbestos-filled building complex. To kill thousands of people in the process never was an envisaged proposition as it would have encountered severe resistance among the insiders involved. The second objective was to blame this destruction on a foreign enemy; an inanely fanciful, outlandish tale involving hijacked airliners used as missiles was concocted, to be supported by digital imagery and special movie effects. How this was done is thoroughly illustrated in my September Clues video analyses.
WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN ON 9/11 ( the deceptive imagery )
No unauthorized, private imagery was captured on September 11, 2001. Most - if not all - of the imagery we have of that morning’s events is prefabricated and/or manipulated. The September Clues video research – and many similar independent studies - have amply demonstrated the unfettered complicity of the mainstream media – a disturbingly 'reliable' partner in crime. The 9/11 morning broadcasts were, by and large, digital computer-animations and all successive, so-called “amateur” video snippets (featuring crashing planes or collapsing towers) have likewise been methodically exposed as a series of poorly crafted forgeries. The defining time-windows of the day (tower strikes and tower collapses) were certainly not meant to be captured on film - much less aired on television: As it is, no real footage of the real-life morning events is to be found. To be sure, the existence of specific, military-grade technology able to achieve this precise aim is well documented. In all likelihood, electromagnetic weaponry (EMP/HERF) routinely employed in war zones was employed, causing the temporary jamming of all unshielded camera equipment *. With no real footage being captured, the TV networks could ‘safely’ broadcast their substitute, artificial imagery of the morning’s events.
*see: Visual Control
WHAT DID HAPPEN ON 9/11 ( the tower collapses )
The ‘ground operations’ in Lower Manhattan called for a coordinated demolition of the entire WTC complex (9 buildings in all). Just what type of explosive forces caused this destruction is hotly debated among scientists galore – yet it is but a secondary and ultimately doomed endeavor - since there is no certifiably authentic rubble nor any authentic imagery to examine. We may however assume (as of the events’ timeline) that the demolition process started a full hour after the alleged “plane strikes”, leaving plenty of time to evacuate the area. The briskly displaced bystanders – as well as more distant eyewitnesses - would have had very slim chances to make out the precise dynamics of the collapses as, most plausibly, smokescreens (military obscurants) started blocking the WTC from view. The time-window of the Lower Manhattan evacuation was filled in with two convenient, yet blatantly phony Distraction Dramas: The Pentagon and Shanksville mock-events. These two diversions also helped sway the attention away from the absurd absence of helicopter rescues at the WTC. As it is, the improbable tale of 3,000 souls trapped for up to 100 minutes in the WTC top floors (with no rooftop rescues - “due to locked access doors") may have a simple explanation: The WTC towers were empty. To be sure, all photographs and video snippets depicting people (or silhouettes thereof) falling down the side of the WTC’s have also been comprehensively exposed as digital forgeries. Only time will tell whether anyone really was killed on 9/11 - and under what circumstances - but, as things stand, the bulk of available evidence suggests otherwise.
HOW MANY DIED ON 9/11?
Perhaps – and probably - none. A ‘fanciful’ contention? No. Not if measured against the thoroughly fanciful, grotesquely contrived and conflicting 9/11 ‘victim memorials’. A close scrutiny of the numerous available listings of alleged 9/11 victims provides countless indications that they are, by and large, outright fabrications. Most of them are still easily accessible on the Internet by the general public – yet some have been (‘mysteriously’) shut down. Of course, if it’s true that the WTC was fully evacuated, thus follows that the many memorials listing the 9/11 victims must, in turn, be fabricated too. As elaborated below, that is precisely what they appear to be. The 9/11 victim memorials simply do not stand up to scrutiny and comparison. The sheer bulk of inconsistencies and absurdities pervasive in those unseemly listings unveils their true nature : Just another piece of the Grand Deception. Let us see why, point by point :
MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(1): The totals’ nonsense
At a first glance at the various 9/11 memorials, we see that each and every one reports a different casualty toll. Here’s a selection of total figures, all ostensibly meant to represent official and definitive listings of all victims of 9/11 for WTC, Pentagon and 4 flights (minus the “19 hijackers”) :
• SEPT11th memorial: “3.181”
• CNN memorial: “2.985”
• FOX News: “2812”
• La Repubblica ( Sept11,’09 ): “2.752”
• America Forever memorial: “2.467”
• 10 year anniversary of the attacks at Ground Zero: "2.982"
As absurd as this may seem, it is a fact that more than 8 years after 9/11, there is still no consensus whatsoever on the total death toll. Indeed, the first and last of the above-listed memorials show a discrepancy of a full 714 names! These are entirely verifiable figures – in full public view. Of course, even a discrepancy of only 2 or 3 victims should be considered unacceptable at this time. Let’s hope that the National 9/11 Memorial, currently under construction in Manhattan will finally reveal to the world the exact number of the 9/11 victims... Whatever that figure will be (and which names will be retained or discarded), the fact remains that for all of 8 years virtually all memorials have displayed wildly conflicting casualty tolls.
Most will remember that, in the days, weeks if not months following 9/11, the news media kept reporting what, admittedly, were speculative casualty figures ( the “20,000 victims" soon became “10,000”). Yet the first, official casualty toll was still a hefty “6,729” (New York Times). Then, a full 12 days after the event, Major Giuliani went on record with an “estimated 6,333 victims”, a figure which was touted for some time before gradually - and inexplicably - dwindling to less than half that figure. How, one must ask, could it possibly take weeks to obtain reasonably accurate figures of the WTC tenants’ missing employees? Now, this was no tsunami sweeping unfathomably populated coastlines of Indonesia, Thailand or Sri Lanka; these were two confined building-collapses in civilized Manhattan! Undeniably, in the shocked post-disaster climate, the inflated death tolls effectively boosted the drama and the public outrage over the “murderous Binladen attacks”. However, as weeks went by, Mayor Giuliani’s “6,333” estimate started raising a few eyebrows. In time, the news media came up with a ‘shocking news story’ : As the tale went, a horde of greedy, despicable fraudsters were usurping the 9/11 compensation funds claiming the loss of "non-existing, totally made-up relatives"
A long string of such scams were reported - & denounced with righteous outrage – for weeks on end. Ultimately, even though a whopping total of 400 such “callous con men schemes” were reported, it did little to account for – or even remotely explain – Giuliani’s previous “6,333” estimate (of September 23, 2001). The Grand Deception was already creaking and - unbeknown to most – initiating its own, inevitable collapse. Now, some people will argue that these wild inaccuracies were brought about by “the havoc and confusion” surrounding the 9/11 events. Fine. Let us not argue about it - and agree for now on at least one incontrovertible fact: Between the first official NYT death toll figure (6729) and the figure found on, for instance, the “America Forever” memorial (2467), we have a discrepancy/margin of error of 4262 ‘units’. These are plain and simple arithmetics. Lastly, let it be said that the vast majority of "9/11 victims" are NOT listed in the SSDI (Social Security Death Index). The few that ARE to be found listed on the SSDI are usually names that have been cited in the press, i.e. more 'prominent' and 'public' victims...
MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(2): The prosaic nonsense
A common aspect of the various 9/11 memorials are the consistently sappy and contrived tributes supposedly posted by families, co-workers and friends. We are talking about thousands of brief writings which, of course, require some steady patience to sift through. However, and for what it’s worth, I can personally testify that it’s hard to find any 9/11 tribute graced with any ring of authenticity. The prevalent impression is that they are written by the same person – or at best – by a gang of bored, unimaginative novelists. Naturally, some will retort that this is a ‘subjective’, personal interpretation; I can only encourage everyone to spend some time reading those tributes for themselves. Taken together, those tributes read like an endlessly reshuffled concoction of mawkish and tear-jerking rhetoric. I’m confident that anyone armed with a critical mind – and a healthy sense of humor - will actually enjoy sifting through these tributes as an eye-opening, entertaining and slightly surreal experience. Best of all, this ‘enjoyment’ comes with an odd sense of relief and appeasment as one gradually comes to realize that:
1. The 9/11 memorials are all in conflict with each other.
2. The 9/11 memorials are anything but credible tributes to real victims of a real terror attack.
3. Perhaps, in the light of these facts, few - or nobody - died in the “9/11 attacks”.
(Author’s appeal: I welcome anyone asserting to be a family member of a 9/11 victim to come forward with documentation – such as would be admissible in a court of law - of their loved one’s existence and passing. I can be reached on my private e-mail posted on the contact page.).
MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(3): The portrait-morphing evidence
Three main observations can be drawn from a methodical cross-scrutiny of the many 9/11 memorials which feature portraits of the “victims” – henceforth referred to as “entities":
1: Most of the “entities" found in the memorials are represented with two - and no more than two apparently different portraits.
2: When two seemingly different portraits of a given entity are compared, they reveal more often than not striking similarities in facial expression, pose, angle/perspective, lighting, reflections.
3. Striking similarities are also observed between separate, often alphabetically adjacent entities of same or different sex. While a few such cases might be expected in a list of 2500+ portraits, the sheer frequency of such instances featuring seemingly ‘cloned’ facial attributes cannot reasonably (in a statistical sense) be ascribed to ‘coincidence’ or ‘happenstance’.
Naturally, this topic needs to be visualized by the reader since it deals with photographic issues. Please see our illustrated article for image-supported descriptions of this issue: The Memorial Scams. (Other interesting issues related to the metadata - or ‘exif’ data - embedded in all the .jpg picture files will, in time, be comprehensively expounded and added to this article.) Finally, for a comprehensive study of the 9/11 memorials, please download and read the “Vicsim Report" by Hoi Polloi: Vicsim Report page.
MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(4): The “VIP” Vicsims
Some of the more prominent ‘casualties’ of 9/11 - such as “Flight93-hero Todd M. Beamer”- have long been exposed as stolen identities from previously deceased namesakes . The Barbara Olson story also turned out to be a fraud when Ted Olson (George W. Bush’s solicitor general) was caught altering 3 times his tale of her alleged phone calls from “Flight77”. Similarly, “the 9/11 victim number 0001”, Father Mychal Judge, was another faith-based saga for devout believers: At least three different versions of the causes/circumstances of his death were published by the news media – and the evacuation of his corpse from the WTC has also been exposed as another staged photo-op. In other words, the stories surrounding the 9/11 “VIP" casualties are riddled with so many questions as to be divested of any sort of credibility. With such an abundance of deceptive, media-promoted bunkum, it is perfectly reasonable to question every single official newsstory to emerge from the events of September 11, 2001.
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 24-09-2011 13:14:35 ]
THE RATIONALE OF THE 9/11 HOAX
by Simon Shack - January 1, 2010
If you have come to terms with the fact that 9/11 was a massive money-making scheme and - of course - a pretext to wage hugely profitable wars, the basic rationale behind this Grand Deception should, hopefully, become clearer. It is essential to consider all the variables which such an audacious false-flag operation would entail and what precautions its plotters must have observed: The Grand Deception plan was undoubtedly meant to be foolproof and, ideally, free of unnecessary elements of risk and opposition. There was simply no rationale for the 9/11 plotters to commit a mass murder of some 3,000, mostly white-collar professionals (brokers, bankers, financial analysts, etc.) whose families would likely have access to first-rate, ‘uptown’ legal assistance. Surely, killing that many people would have been an utterly senseless, self-inflicted aggravation on the part of the perpetrators. Since they could reliably rely on the fully compliant ‘top-brass’ of the mainstream media, they would have used this unique, exclusive asset to its full potential.
Ever since day one, the major hurdle for many people to even start considering 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ has been: “I can’t believe my own government would murder 3000 of their own people". Once that psychological obstacle is removed, it should become apparent that the whole operation consisted essentially of a covert demolition of a redundant, asbestos-filled building complex. To kill thousands of people in the process never was an envisaged proposition as it would have encountered severe resistance among the insiders involved. The second objective was to blame this destruction on a foreign enemy; an inanely fanciful, outlandish tale involving hijacked airliners used as missiles was concocted, to be supported by digital imagery and special movie effects. How this was done is thoroughly illustrated in my September Clues video analyses.
WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN ON 9/11 ( the deceptive imagery )
No unauthorized, private imagery was captured on September 11, 2001. Most - if not all - of the imagery we have of that morning’s events is prefabricated and/or manipulated. The September Clues video research – and many similar independent studies - have amply demonstrated the unfettered complicity of the mainstream media – a disturbingly 'reliable' partner in crime. The 9/11 morning broadcasts were, by and large, digital computer-animations and all successive, so-called “amateur” video snippets (featuring crashing planes or collapsing towers) have likewise been methodically exposed as a series of poorly crafted forgeries. The defining time-windows of the day (tower strikes and tower collapses) were certainly not meant to be captured on film - much less aired on television: As it is, no real footage of the real-life morning events is to be found. To be sure, the existence of specific, military-grade technology able to achieve this precise aim is well documented. In all likelihood, electromagnetic weaponry (EMP/HERF) routinely employed in war zones was employed, causing the temporary jamming of all unshielded camera equipment *. With no real footage being captured, the TV networks could ‘safely’ broadcast their substitute, artificial imagery of the morning’s events.
*see: Visual Control
WHAT DID HAPPEN ON 9/11 ( the tower collapses )
The ‘ground operations’ in Lower Manhattan called for a coordinated demolition of the entire WTC complex (9 buildings in all). Just what type of explosive forces caused this destruction is hotly debated among scientists galore – yet it is but a secondary and ultimately doomed endeavor - since there is no certifiably authentic rubble nor any authentic imagery to examine. We may however assume (as of the events’ timeline) that the demolition process started a full hour after the alleged “plane strikes”, leaving plenty of time to evacuate the area. The briskly displaced bystanders – as well as more distant eyewitnesses - would have had very slim chances to make out the precise dynamics of the collapses as, most plausibly, smokescreens (military obscurants) started blocking the WTC from view. The time-window of the Lower Manhattan evacuation was filled in with two convenient, yet blatantly phony Distraction Dramas: The Pentagon and Shanksville mock-events. These two diversions also helped sway the attention away from the absurd absence of helicopter rescues at the WTC. As it is, the improbable tale of 3,000 souls trapped for up to 100 minutes in the WTC top floors (with no rooftop rescues - “due to locked access doors") may have a simple explanation: The WTC towers were empty. To be sure, all photographs and video snippets depicting people (or silhouettes thereof) falling down the side of the WTC’s have also been comprehensively exposed as digital forgeries. Only time will tell whether anyone really was killed on 9/11 - and under what circumstances - but, as things stand, the bulk of available evidence suggests otherwise.
HOW MANY DIED ON 9/11?
Perhaps – and probably - none. A ‘fanciful’ contention? No. Not if measured against the thoroughly fanciful, grotesquely contrived and conflicting 9/11 ‘victim memorials’. A close scrutiny of the numerous available listings of alleged 9/11 victims provides countless indications that they are, by and large, outright fabrications. Most of them are still easily accessible on the Internet by the general public – yet some have been (‘mysteriously’) shut down. Of course, if it’s true that the WTC was fully evacuated, thus follows that the many memorials listing the 9/11 victims must, in turn, be fabricated too. As elaborated below, that is precisely what they appear to be. The 9/11 victim memorials simply do not stand up to scrutiny and comparison. The sheer bulk of inconsistencies and absurdities pervasive in those unseemly listings unveils their true nature : Just another piece of the Grand Deception. Let us see why, point by point :
MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(1): The totals’ nonsense
At a first glance at the various 9/11 memorials, we see that each and every one reports a different casualty toll. Here’s a selection of total figures, all ostensibly meant to represent official and definitive listings of all victims of 9/11 for WTC, Pentagon and 4 flights (minus the “19 hijackers”) :
• SEPT11th memorial: “3.181”
• CNN memorial: “2.985”
• FOX News: “2812”
• La Repubblica ( Sept11,’09 ): “2.752”
• America Forever memorial: “2.467”
• 10 year anniversary of the attacks at Ground Zero: "2.982"
As absurd as this may seem, it is a fact that more than 8 years after 9/11, there is still no consensus whatsoever on the total death toll. Indeed, the first and last of the above-listed memorials show a discrepancy of a full 714 names! These are entirely verifiable figures – in full public view. Of course, even a discrepancy of only 2 or 3 victims should be considered unacceptable at this time. Let’s hope that the National 9/11 Memorial, currently under construction in Manhattan will finally reveal to the world the exact number of the 9/11 victims... Whatever that figure will be (and which names will be retained or discarded), the fact remains that for all of 8 years virtually all memorials have displayed wildly conflicting casualty tolls.
Most will remember that, in the days, weeks if not months following 9/11, the news media kept reporting what, admittedly, were speculative casualty figures ( the “20,000 victims" soon became “10,000”). Yet the first, official casualty toll was still a hefty “6,729” (New York Times). Then, a full 12 days after the event, Major Giuliani went on record with an “estimated 6,333 victims”, a figure which was touted for some time before gradually - and inexplicably - dwindling to less than half that figure. How, one must ask, could it possibly take weeks to obtain reasonably accurate figures of the WTC tenants’ missing employees? Now, this was no tsunami sweeping unfathomably populated coastlines of Indonesia, Thailand or Sri Lanka; these were two confined building-collapses in civilized Manhattan! Undeniably, in the shocked post-disaster climate, the inflated death tolls effectively boosted the drama and the public outrage over the “murderous Binladen attacks”. However, as weeks went by, Mayor Giuliani’s “6,333” estimate started raising a few eyebrows. In time, the news media came up with a ‘shocking news story’ : As the tale went, a horde of greedy, despicable fraudsters were usurping the 9/11 compensation funds claiming the loss of "non-existing, totally made-up relatives"
A long string of such scams were reported - & denounced with righteous outrage – for weeks on end. Ultimately, even though a whopping total of 400 such “callous con men schemes” were reported, it did little to account for – or even remotely explain – Giuliani’s previous “6,333” estimate (of September 23, 2001). The Grand Deception was already creaking and - unbeknown to most – initiating its own, inevitable collapse. Now, some people will argue that these wild inaccuracies were brought about by “the havoc and confusion” surrounding the 9/11 events. Fine. Let us not argue about it - and agree for now on at least one incontrovertible fact: Between the first official NYT death toll figure (6729) and the figure found on, for instance, the “America Forever” memorial (2467), we have a discrepancy/margin of error of 4262 ‘units’. These are plain and simple arithmetics. Lastly, let it be said that the vast majority of "9/11 victims" are NOT listed in the SSDI (Social Security Death Index). The few that ARE to be found listed on the SSDI are usually names that have been cited in the press, i.e. more 'prominent' and 'public' victims...
MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(2): The prosaic nonsense
A common aspect of the various 9/11 memorials are the consistently sappy and contrived tributes supposedly posted by families, co-workers and friends. We are talking about thousands of brief writings which, of course, require some steady patience to sift through. However, and for what it’s worth, I can personally testify that it’s hard to find any 9/11 tribute graced with any ring of authenticity. The prevalent impression is that they are written by the same person – or at best – by a gang of bored, unimaginative novelists. Naturally, some will retort that this is a ‘subjective’, personal interpretation; I can only encourage everyone to spend some time reading those tributes for themselves. Taken together, those tributes read like an endlessly reshuffled concoction of mawkish and tear-jerking rhetoric. I’m confident that anyone armed with a critical mind – and a healthy sense of humor - will actually enjoy sifting through these tributes as an eye-opening, entertaining and slightly surreal experience. Best of all, this ‘enjoyment’ comes with an odd sense of relief and appeasment as one gradually comes to realize that:
1. The 9/11 memorials are all in conflict with each other.
2. The 9/11 memorials are anything but credible tributes to real victims of a real terror attack.
3. Perhaps, in the light of these facts, few - or nobody - died in the “9/11 attacks”.
(Author’s appeal: I welcome anyone asserting to be a family member of a 9/11 victim to come forward with documentation – such as would be admissible in a court of law - of their loved one’s existence and passing. I can be reached on my private e-mail posted on the contact page.).
MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(3): The portrait-morphing evidence
Three main observations can be drawn from a methodical cross-scrutiny of the many 9/11 memorials which feature portraits of the “victims” – henceforth referred to as “entities":
1: Most of the “entities" found in the memorials are represented with two - and no more than two apparently different portraits.
2: When two seemingly different portraits of a given entity are compared, they reveal more often than not striking similarities in facial expression, pose, angle/perspective, lighting, reflections.
3. Striking similarities are also observed between separate, often alphabetically adjacent entities of same or different sex. While a few such cases might be expected in a list of 2500+ portraits, the sheer frequency of such instances featuring seemingly ‘cloned’ facial attributes cannot reasonably (in a statistical sense) be ascribed to ‘coincidence’ or ‘happenstance’.
Naturally, this topic needs to be visualized by the reader since it deals with photographic issues. Please see our illustrated article for image-supported descriptions of this issue: The Memorial Scams. (Other interesting issues related to the metadata - or ‘exif’ data - embedded in all the .jpg picture files will, in time, be comprehensively expounded and added to this article.) Finally, for a comprehensive study of the 9/11 memorials, please download and read the “Vicsim Report" by Hoi Polloi: Vicsim Report page.
MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(4): The “VIP” Vicsims
Some of the more prominent ‘casualties’ of 9/11 - such as “Flight93-hero Todd M. Beamer”- have long been exposed as stolen identities from previously deceased namesakes . The Barbara Olson story also turned out to be a fraud when Ted Olson (George W. Bush’s solicitor general) was caught altering 3 times his tale of her alleged phone calls from “Flight77”. Similarly, “the 9/11 victim number 0001”, Father Mychal Judge, was another faith-based saga for devout believers: At least three different versions of the causes/circumstances of his death were published by the news media – and the evacuation of his corpse from the WTC has also been exposed as another staged photo-op. In other words, the stories surrounding the 9/11 “VIP" casualties are riddled with so many questions as to be divested of any sort of credibility. With such an abundance of deceptive, media-promoted bunkum, it is perfectly reasonable to question every single official newsstory to emerge from the events of September 11, 2001.
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 24-09-2011 13:14:35 ]
PONDERING QUESTIONS OF STRATEGY AND OPPORTUNITY
One question which naturally emerges from the study of the 9/11 memorials is : “Even if many ‘victims’ identities appear to be entirely made up by a computer database, could it still mean that a number of real people were killed on 9/11?” Or did 9/11 claim no victims at all?
If we are to apply a logical thought-process to this particular issue, we need to look at questions of strategy and opportunity which the perpetrators must have prefigured. Surely, any sensible investigation must start by defining the type of crime that is being investigated. By defining the scope and the objectives of the crime, we should be able to rule out what the perpetrators themselves would have ruled out, in terms of unnecessary risks and liabilites. Was 9/11 designed as a barbaric murdering spree or was it more of a gigantic bank robbery? Let us make an’ educated guess’ and say that the latter is the case.
Bank robberies are considered terrible failures by the robbers themselves in the event of any bystander, guard/police officer getting killed; the sole objective of a bank assault is that of stealing money – never that of commiting murder. The penal aggravations of manslaughter is most unwelcome to any professional gangster – a grave mistake to be carefully avoided. To be sure, there was no ‘added-value’ for the 9/11 perpetrators to commit a mass murder of some 3,000, mostly white-collar professionals. As we have seen, a large amount of alleged “victims" appear to be mock-up identities. Of course, precisely how many remains to be verified. Yet, consider this: if 300 deposit-boxes are emptied by a gang of bank robbers and fingerprints are found in just thirty boxes, would they be suspected only for robbing those thirty? Or would a court of law assume that they also robbed the other 270?
The idea that nobody was killed on 9/11 is, usually and predictably, rejected offhand by many folks as ‘outrageous’ or ‘unbelievable’. Others will accept that some simulation took place - but that a number of real people must have died. So let us imagine an ‘intermediate’ scenario of, say, 1000 people being killed that day. If this were true, an immediate problem emerges: what if those 1000 families, at some stage, discovered that the other 2000 families were untraceable/non-existent? It is quite unlikely that the 9/11 planners would have run the risk of such a dire, worst-case scenario: Imagine a horde of angry families filing an avalanche of executive court orders, all demanding access to public records and official verifications! Truly a recipe for disaster… Surely, the 9/11 plotters didn’t want any of that? Thus, we may reasonably assume that every precaution was taken to ensure that NO civilian lawsuits might ‘spoil the show’; in all logic, the assassination of any number of people on 9/11 was a definite no-no, a stupid and senseless aggravation to be avoided at all costs. The chief directive of the Grand 9/11 Deception plan may well have been: “Zero casualties”.
“TOO MANY” PEOPLE INVOLVED?
The almost unlimited resources of the 9/11 planners allowed for a multifaceted simulation which certainly involved a great many people by any conspiracy standards – only a few of which needed to be fully briefed about all details of the plan. A recurring objection skeptics keep raising is that “too many people had to be involved, therefore it would have been impossible to keep them all quiet.” Not so. Allow me to set forth a brief personal perspective on this issue: As the son of an idealist Norwegian sociologist who pluckily ‘fought’ the Sicilian Mafia with a typewriter, I often like to remind people of the concept of “omertà”; in Sicily, tens of thousands of honest citizens know perfectly well the names and whereabouts of the Mafia bosses – yet they are kept silent for decades with bribes and fear. Historically – and this is a nigh but undeniable fact - cold cash and hot threats have never failed to put a lid on people’s mouths.
A limited number of people were needed to pull off the 9/11 hoax – a hoax which relied on an incalculably larger budget than any smalltown Mafia hit. Needless to say, the US executive branch also firmly controls all key government-appointed agencies, an asset no criminal organization could ever dream of. Most importantly, every single major news corporation has been, in the last 50 years or so, thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted by the higher echelons of power. Today, their globalized monopoly of world news makes them the single most powerful persuasion-machine ever known to mankind. In fact, their unchallenged control of information was a crucial player in the 9/11 plan: Most lower-level operatives involved in the execution of the plan were induced - much as the average ‘Joe Public’ - to believe in the televised version of the events.
Hence, the “too-many–people-involved” argument fails on two counts:
1: It is effectively disproved by historical precedents.
2: It does not account for the wide, unprecedented range of assets available to the 9/11 planners.
One question which naturally emerges from the study of the 9/11 memorials is : “Even if many ‘victims’ identities appear to be entirely made up by a computer database, could it still mean that a number of real people were killed on 9/11?” Or did 9/11 claim no victims at all?
If we are to apply a logical thought-process to this particular issue, we need to look at questions of strategy and opportunity which the perpetrators must have prefigured. Surely, any sensible investigation must start by defining the type of crime that is being investigated. By defining the scope and the objectives of the crime, we should be able to rule out what the perpetrators themselves would have ruled out, in terms of unnecessary risks and liabilites. Was 9/11 designed as a barbaric murdering spree or was it more of a gigantic bank robbery? Let us make an’ educated guess’ and say that the latter is the case.
Bank robberies are considered terrible failures by the robbers themselves in the event of any bystander, guard/police officer getting killed; the sole objective of a bank assault is that of stealing money – never that of commiting murder. The penal aggravations of manslaughter is most unwelcome to any professional gangster – a grave mistake to be carefully avoided. To be sure, there was no ‘added-value’ for the 9/11 perpetrators to commit a mass murder of some 3,000, mostly white-collar professionals. As we have seen, a large amount of alleged “victims" appear to be mock-up identities. Of course, precisely how many remains to be verified. Yet, consider this: if 300 deposit-boxes are emptied by a gang of bank robbers and fingerprints are found in just thirty boxes, would they be suspected only for robbing those thirty? Or would a court of law assume that they also robbed the other 270?
The idea that nobody was killed on 9/11 is, usually and predictably, rejected offhand by many folks as ‘outrageous’ or ‘unbelievable’. Others will accept that some simulation took place - but that a number of real people must have died. So let us imagine an ‘intermediate’ scenario of, say, 1000 people being killed that day. If this were true, an immediate problem emerges: what if those 1000 families, at some stage, discovered that the other 2000 families were untraceable/non-existent? It is quite unlikely that the 9/11 planners would have run the risk of such a dire, worst-case scenario: Imagine a horde of angry families filing an avalanche of executive court orders, all demanding access to public records and official verifications! Truly a recipe for disaster… Surely, the 9/11 plotters didn’t want any of that? Thus, we may reasonably assume that every precaution was taken to ensure that NO civilian lawsuits might ‘spoil the show’; in all logic, the assassination of any number of people on 9/11 was a definite no-no, a stupid and senseless aggravation to be avoided at all costs. The chief directive of the Grand 9/11 Deception plan may well have been: “Zero casualties”.
“TOO MANY” PEOPLE INVOLVED?
The almost unlimited resources of the 9/11 planners allowed for a multifaceted simulation which certainly involved a great many people by any conspiracy standards – only a few of which needed to be fully briefed about all details of the plan. A recurring objection skeptics keep raising is that “too many people had to be involved, therefore it would have been impossible to keep them all quiet.” Not so. Allow me to set forth a brief personal perspective on this issue: As the son of an idealist Norwegian sociologist who pluckily ‘fought’ the Sicilian Mafia with a typewriter, I often like to remind people of the concept of “omertà”; in Sicily, tens of thousands of honest citizens know perfectly well the names and whereabouts of the Mafia bosses – yet they are kept silent for decades with bribes and fear. Historically – and this is a nigh but undeniable fact - cold cash and hot threats have never failed to put a lid on people’s mouths.
A limited number of people were needed to pull off the 9/11 hoax – a hoax which relied on an incalculably larger budget than any smalltown Mafia hit. Needless to say, the US executive branch also firmly controls all key government-appointed agencies, an asset no criminal organization could ever dream of. Most importantly, every single major news corporation has been, in the last 50 years or so, thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted by the higher echelons of power. Today, their globalized monopoly of world news makes them the single most powerful persuasion-machine ever known to mankind. In fact, their unchallenged control of information was a crucial player in the 9/11 plan: Most lower-level operatives involved in the execution of the plan were induced - much as the average ‘Joe Public’ - to believe in the televised version of the events.
Hence, the “too-many–people-involved” argument fails on two counts:
1: It is effectively disproved by historical precedents.
2: It does not account for the wide, unprecedented range of assets available to the 9/11 planners.
UPHOLDING THE 9/11 MYTH : ACTORS AND ACTRESSES
To uphold and perpetuate the myth of the 9/11 victims, a grand ‘travelling circus’ was set up since day one and is still maintained to this day : A bunch of actors and actresses play the role of “mourning family members”, all of which get constant, extensive press coverage. An early team of ‘9/11 widows’ gained instant international fame: They were credited of ‘forcing’ the government to set up the 9/11 commission: The so-called “Jersey Girls” were portrayed as ‘left-wing activists’ who asked ‘inconvenient questions’. Of course, it was all a comedy of smoke and mirrors, a dog and pony show for public consumption. Here’s their Hollywood-style movie promoted on the “PRESS FOR TRUTH” website:
“The Jersey Girls” accomplished absolutely nothing in the way of obtaining serious answers from the government. Their role was ostensibly to enact and ‘give a face’ to the (non-existent) ‘grieving 9/11 families’. According to some 9/11 researchers, they are now living in luscious mansions even though they notoriously declined to collect monies from the 9/11 compensation fund. The “Jersey Girls” have gradually been ‘phased out’ from public visibility to make room for another set of “grieving mothers & widows”. Today, their roles are filled by the likes of Mary Fetchet, Carol Ashley & Carie Lemack:
THIS IS WHAT THEY DO : Improving Americas Security Act
What is their role and who do you think might be their handlers?
The pictures these women wear on their chests are in fact the very same we can find in the many 9/11 memorials. Incidentally, Mary Fetchet is the founder of the very active and prominent “VOICES OF SEPTEMBER 11 memorial” . Mary allegedly lost her son Brad in the World Trade Center collapse. As many “9/11 victims”, most available pictures of Brad Fetchet are of very poor quality – and most show him in his childhood days. There seem to be very few portraits of Brad as a young adult.
Below is a reasonably sharp picture of Brad (“dancing with grandma”). It should be clear to anyone that this is a crude copy/paste job of Brad's face over an older gentleman with pronounced neck-wrinkles. The ‘matrix’ used for this sloppy montage is clearly extracted from the ubiquitous, familiar picture of the young “Brad Fetchet” to be found in all the memorials:
Sally REGENHARD is yet another “activist mother” cast in the role of “truth warrior” (Jersey Girls-style), brandishing ‘accusatory’ signs in public events - much as a heckling, hippie street protester ... On those occasions, Sally also tearfully carries along pictures of her alleged 'lost son':
However, there’s a problem with Sally’s story: there are very few pictures of her son ‘Christian’ – and most of them are obvious composites of the same ‘master portrait’. Below, we have three of them. I don’t think many comments are needed here - judge for yourself…
In conclusion, a whole lot of actors were (and still are) employed to sell the 9/11 Hoax to the public. From the short performances of alleged “eyewitnesses to crashing airplanes” seen on the 9/11 TV broadcasts, to the fake whistleblowers (such as Willy Rodriguez and Sibel Edmonds) - and all the way to the alleged “mourning family members” - all are just a bunch of 3rd rate actors and actresses willing to play out the Grand Deception Game for a fat pile of cold cash. Let us hope that actors of the caliber of Robert De Niro and Billy Crystal are not also part of the ‘game’. They both happen to be directors of the NATIONAL 9/11 MEMORIAL AND MUSEUM ...
A massive propaganda effort has relentlessly hammered into the public psyche the official September 11 saga. Countless lucrative films and documentaries have been produced over the years, casting actors in the roles of "real survivors and family members of the tragedy". Please watch my analysis of "911Hotel", a particularly crass propaganda film:
To uphold and perpetuate the myth of the 9/11 victims, a grand ‘travelling circus’ was set up since day one and is still maintained to this day : A bunch of actors and actresses play the role of “mourning family members”, all of which get constant, extensive press coverage. An early team of ‘9/11 widows’ gained instant international fame: They were credited of ‘forcing’ the government to set up the 9/11 commission: The so-called “Jersey Girls” were portrayed as ‘left-wing activists’ who asked ‘inconvenient questions’. Of course, it was all a comedy of smoke and mirrors, a dog and pony show for public consumption. Here’s their Hollywood-style movie promoted on the “PRESS FOR TRUTH” website:
“The Jersey Girls” accomplished absolutely nothing in the way of obtaining serious answers from the government. Their role was ostensibly to enact and ‘give a face’ to the (non-existent) ‘grieving 9/11 families’. According to some 9/11 researchers, they are now living in luscious mansions even though they notoriously declined to collect monies from the 9/11 compensation fund. The “Jersey Girls” have gradually been ‘phased out’ from public visibility to make room for another set of “grieving mothers & widows”. Today, their roles are filled by the likes of Mary Fetchet, Carol Ashley & Carie Lemack:
THIS IS WHAT THEY DO : Improving Americas Security Act
What is their role and who do you think might be their handlers?
The pictures these women wear on their chests are in fact the very same we can find in the many 9/11 memorials. Incidentally, Mary Fetchet is the founder of the very active and prominent “VOICES OF SEPTEMBER 11 memorial” . Mary allegedly lost her son Brad in the World Trade Center collapse. As many “9/11 victims”, most available pictures of Brad Fetchet are of very poor quality – and most show him in his childhood days. There seem to be very few portraits of Brad as a young adult.
Below is a reasonably sharp picture of Brad (“dancing with grandma”). It should be clear to anyone that this is a crude copy/paste job of Brad's face over an older gentleman with pronounced neck-wrinkles. The ‘matrix’ used for this sloppy montage is clearly extracted from the ubiquitous, familiar picture of the young “Brad Fetchet” to be found in all the memorials:
Sally REGENHARD is yet another “activist mother” cast in the role of “truth warrior” (Jersey Girls-style), brandishing ‘accusatory’ signs in public events - much as a heckling, hippie street protester ... On those occasions, Sally also tearfully carries along pictures of her alleged 'lost son':
However, there’s a problem with Sally’s story: there are very few pictures of her son ‘Christian’ – and most of them are obvious composites of the same ‘master portrait’. Below, we have three of them. I don’t think many comments are needed here - judge for yourself…
In conclusion, a whole lot of actors were (and still are) employed to sell the 9/11 Hoax to the public. From the short performances of alleged “eyewitnesses to crashing airplanes” seen on the 9/11 TV broadcasts, to the fake whistleblowers (such as Willy Rodriguez and Sibel Edmonds) - and all the way to the alleged “mourning family members” - all are just a bunch of 3rd rate actors and actresses willing to play out the Grand Deception Game for a fat pile of cold cash. Let us hope that actors of the caliber of Robert De Niro and Billy Crystal are not also part of the ‘game’. They both happen to be directors of the NATIONAL 9/11 MEMORIAL AND MUSEUM ...
A massive propaganda effort has relentlessly hammered into the public psyche the official September 11 saga. Countless lucrative films and documentaries have been produced over the years, casting actors in the roles of "real survivors and family members of the tragedy". Please watch my analysis of "911Hotel", a particularly crass propaganda film:
Ah kijk. Nou, aangezien je persoonlijk aanval dus geen persoonlijk aanval is, kan ik er ook best inhoudelijk op reageren. Voor mijn gevoel moet dit in FB, maar als je het mij hier vraagt, dan zal ik het ook maar hier neerplempen.quote:
[..]
Nee, het is een oprechte vraag, al komt die wellicht niet zo goedbedoeld over als ik poogde. Ik ben benieuwd wat jouw beweegreden is voor het posten zoals je dat doet.
De waarheid ga je hier niet vinden. Die ga je überhaupt niet op internet vinden. Maar een aantal dingen zijn voor mij zeker. En ik val in herhaling, want alles wat ik hier schrijf staat al elders, maar ik zal je het terugzoeken besparen. Bovendien is een goede samenvatting nooit weg.quote:Zelf zou ik hier graag zien dat men een poging doet gezamenlijk te zoeken naar 'de waarheid', hoe onsuccesvol die ook mag blijken. Begrijp me niet verkeerd: ik ben van mening dat debunkers hierin een belangrijke rol spelen, door middel van het leveren van kritiek die leidt tot het verscherpen van de theorieën die de 'truthers' aanbrengen.
Ik WEET dat er slachtoffers zijn gevallen in het WTC. Ik heb dat al vaker toegelicht en omdat ik daarin toch niet wordt geloofd laat ik het bij deze constatering. Inmiddels WEET ik ook dat in ieder geval één van de vier vliegtuigen op die dag daadwerkelijk werd gevlogen door de piloot die volgens de MSM om het leven is gekomen in de betreffende crash. Omdat niemand mij hier gaat geloven, heeft het ook totaal geen zin om die waarheden hier te onderbouwen. Dus als je mij vraagt hoe het staat met mijn onderzoek, dan weet ik inmiddels genoeg om aan te nemen dat er in ieder geval 1 vliegtuig is gebruikt en dat er zeker 2 mensen (3 inclusief de piloot) zijn omgekomen op 11 september.
Mijn ervaring hier is dat het geen zin heeft om dat te beweren, tenzij je met namen komt en foto's die 'geanalyseerd' kunnen worden door amateurprutsers die per ongeluk een illegale versie van Photoshop hebben gevonden. Zoals vaker aangegeven begin ik daar niet aan uit respect voor de slachtoffers en nabestaanden. Dat ik daarom niet geloofd wordt is mij inmiddels een dikke rotzorg.
Ik WEET dus dat de no-plane theorie onzin is. Ik zie dus ook niet in waarom ik daar meer energie in zou steken dan het wijzen op onzinnigheden in die theorie en het aangedragen bewijs. Daarnaast vind ik het met de kennis die ik heb soms gewoon ook grappig om te zien wat voor bullshit er wordt aangedragen, meestal overigens is er niets grappigs aan, maar is het gewoon stuitend en respectloos, maar sommige mensen weten niet beter.quote:Soms komt het op mij echter over alsof bepaalde debunkers meer geïnteresseerd zijn in het saboteren van de zoektocht die truthers maken, dan dat ze daadwerkelijk de dialoog en zoektocht vooruit helpen. Ik ben benieuwd waarom mensen dat doen, want ik kan daar met mijn verstand niet bij.
Wat ik wel interessant vind zijn bijvoorbeeld zaken als de Israëlische link die je benoemde. Super interessant, maar zo gauw je daar induikt, kom je tot de conclusie dat het aan elkaar hangt van suggestieve beweringen die in het begin nog als 'mogelijkheid' worden aangedragen, maar gedurende het verhaal verdraait worden naar 'feit'. Ook daarover heb ik hier al zo vaak vanalles getypt dat ik er mee in herhaling val, maar goed, je vraagt er een beetje om.
Ik ben hier dus vooral voor mezelf. En zoals je aangeeft beperk ik me (bewust) tot het bekritiseren van theorieën die niet kunnen kloppen of waarvan ik weet dat ze niet juist zijn. Voor het overige blijf ik erbij dat diepgaand onderzoek zinloos is vanachter de computer. Immers, vrijwel elke bron van informatie die je tegenkomt is corrupt omdat ze geplaatst zijn als bewijsstukken in een vooraf bedachte theorie.
Waarom zou ik? Ik vind het alleen stuitend dat je me na al die keren dat ik heb geprobeerd het uit te leggen nog steeds niet begrijpt...quote:Ik hoop dat je dit niet verkeerd opvat.
Goh. Kun je niets originelers bedenken? Volgens mij heb ik die vergelijking ook al honderd keer de andere kant op gemaakt. En verder:quote:
[..]
Bij fundamentele Christenen zie je dit gedrag ook.
quote:Op zaterdag 24 september 2011 12:58 schreef Fiddlergurl het volgende:
[..]
Stompzinnige post, dit is nu precies wat ik bedoel. Dit lokt weer reactie uit en voegt inhoudelijk niets toe.
Cuz I'm praying for rain, And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
Dit bedoel ik dus.... Reasonably sharp? In welk universum is dit 'reasonably sharp'.quote:
[ afbeelding ]
Below is a reasonably sharp picture of Brad (“dancing with grandma”).
En dan de constatering dat er relatief weinig foto's van de betreffende persoon zijn:
Kommop, iedereen met een beetje verstand in zijn kop prikt toch door dit soort onzin heen? We hebben het over foto's op internet in een periode voordat digitale foto's (portretten) gemeengoed waren, voor de facebook-hype. Natuurlijk staan er weinig foto's op internet en worden overal dezelfde fototjes gebruikt. Echt dat ik mijn tijd nog verspil aan dit soort onzin.quote:As many “9/11 victims”, most available pictures of Brad Fetchet are of very poor quality – and most show him in his childhood days. There seem to be very few portraits of Brad as a young adult.
Cuz I'm praying for rain, And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
Ja... daar verbaas ik me ook nog steeds over. Kijk voor de gein in die foto eens naar de lijnen van zijn lach, die zeg maar doorlopen naar de hals. Die lopen gewoon door die plek, en kloppen met de lijnen in die andere foto. Dat wordt voor het gemak maar even genegeerd ofzo? En dat mensen meestal dezelfde blik opzetten voor een foto. Daar had iemand ooit nog een keer een mooie animated gif over, van een persoon die iig echt is. Al die gezichten van al die verschillende foto's stonden heen mooi over elkaar heenquote:
[..]
Dit bedoel ik dus.... Reasonably sharp? In welk universum is dit 'reasonably sharp'.
En dan de constatering dat er relatief weinig foto's van de betreffende persoon zijn:
[..]
Kommop, iedereen met een beetje verstand in zijn kop prikt toch door dit soort onzin heen? We hebben het over foto's op internet in een periode voordat digitale foto's (portretten) gemeengoed waren, voor de facebook-hype. Natuurlijk staan er weinig foto's op internet en worden overal dezelfde fototjes gebruikt. Echt dat ik mijn tijd nog verspil aan dit soort onzin.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Het geeft de indoctrinatie van het blinde geloof aan. Sorry als je je er door aangesproken voelt.quote:
[..]
Stompzinnige post, dit is nu precies wat ik bedoel. Dit lokt weer reactie uit en voegt inhoudelijk niets toe.
Op vrijdag 6 januari 2012 23:32 schreef remlof het volgende:
7 mei ga ik op Pim Fortuyn z'n graf pissen *G*
7 mei ga ik op Pim Fortuyn z'n graf pissen *G*
Ach... kijk dan naar de handen van Brad en kijk eens door de bril van oma naar het stukje gezicht van Brad. Brad zijn gezicht is op een slechte manier over het hoofd van opa heen gesoept.quote:
[..]
Ja... daar verbaas ik me ook nog steeds over. Kijk voor de gein in die foto eens naar de lijnen van zijn lach, die zeg maar doorlopen naar de hals. Die lopen gewoon door die plek, en kloppen met de lijnen in die andere foto. Dat wordt voor het gemak maar even genegeerd ofzo? En dat mensen meestal dezelfde blik opzetten voor een foto. Daar had iemand ooit nog een keer een mooie animated gif over, van een persoon die iig echt is. Al die gezichten van al die verschillende foto's stonden heen mooi over elkaar heen
Door die bril zie je heel mooi een lok haar ja, precies zoals je zou verwachten.quote:
[..]
Ach... kijk dan naar de handen van Brad en kijk eens door de bril van oma naar het stukje gezicht van Brad. Brad zijn gezicht is op een slechte manier over het hoofd van opa heen gesoept.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Echt, dat je het nog uit moet leggen is gewoon diep en diep triest. Oma is grijs en oma heeft haar wat door de bril te zien is... En de handjes van Brad zijn witter dan zijn gezicht. Denk je dat we die ook nog uit moeten leggen, of zal Jokkebrok zelf ook wel begrijpen inmiddels hoe flitslicht werkt? Na al dat gepluis in foto's zal hij dat toch inmiddels wel snappen, denk je niet?quote:
[..]
Door die bril zie je heel mooi een lok haar ja, precies zoals je zou verwachten.
En dan durft Gray zich nog af te vragen waarom reacties op dit soort quatsch niet positief opbouwend zijn.....Come on.
Cuz I'm praying for rain, And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
hoe weet je nu 100% zeker of jouw visie juist is?quote:
[..]
Ah kijk. Nou, aangezien je persoonlijk aanval dus geen persoonlijk aanval is, kan ik er ook best inhoudelijk op reageren. Voor mijn gevoel moet dit in FB, maar als je het mij hier vraagt, dan zal ik het ook maar hier neerplempen.
[..]
De waarheid ga je hier niet vinden. Die ga je überhaupt niet op internet vinden. Maar een aantal dingen zijn voor mij zeker. En ik val in herhaling, want alles wat ik hier schrijf staat al elders, maar ik zal je het terugzoeken besparen. Bovendien is een goede samenvatting nooit weg.
Ik WEET dat er slachtoffers zijn gevallen in het WTC. Ik heb dat al vaker toegelicht en omdat ik daarin toch niet wordt geloofd laat ik het bij deze constatering. Inmiddels WEET ik ook dat in ieder geval één van de vier vliegtuigen op die dag daadwerkelijk werd gevlogen door de piloot die volgens de MSM om het leven is gekomen in de betreffende crash. Omdat niemand mij hier gaat geloven, heeft het ook totaal geen zin om die waarheden hier te onderbouwen. Dus als je mij vraagt hoe het staat met mijn onderzoek, dan weet ik inmiddels genoeg om aan te nemen dat er in ieder geval 1 vliegtuig is gebruikt en dat er zeker 2 mensen (3 inclusief de piloot) zijn omgekomen op 11 september.
Mijn ervaring hier is dat het geen zin heeft om dat te beweren, tenzij je met namen komt en foto's die 'geanalyseerd' kunnen worden door amateurprutsers die per ongeluk een illegale versie van Photoshop hebben gevonden. Zoals vaker aangegeven begin ik daar niet aan uit respect voor de slachtoffers en nabestaanden. Dat ik daarom niet geloofd wordt is mij inmiddels een dikke rotzorg.
[..]
Ik WEET dus dat de no-plane theorie onzin is. Ik zie dus ook niet in waarom ik daar meer energie in zou steken dan het wijzen op onzinnigheden in die theorie en het aangedragen bewijs. Daarnaast vind ik het met de kennis die ik heb soms gewoon ook grappig om te zien wat voor bullshit er wordt aangedragen, meestal overigens is er niets grappigs aan, maar is het gewoon stuitend en respectloos, maar sommige mensen weten niet beter.
Wat ik wel interessant vind zijn bijvoorbeeld zaken als de Israëlische link die je benoemde. Super interessant, maar zo gauw je daar induikt, kom je tot de conclusie dat het aan elkaar hangt van suggestieve beweringen die in het begin nog als 'mogelijkheid' worden aangedragen, maar gedurende het verhaal verdraait worden naar 'feit'. Ook daarover heb ik hier al zo vaak vanalles getypt dat ik er mee in herhaling val, maar goed, je vraagt er een beetje om.
Ik ben hier dus vooral voor mezelf. En zoals je aangeeft beperk ik me (bewust) tot het bekritiseren van theorieën die niet kunnen kloppen of waarvan ik weet dat ze niet juist zijn. Voor het overige blijf ik erbij dat diepgaand onderzoek zinloos is vanachter de computer. Immers, vrijwel elke bron van informatie die je tegenkomt is corrupt omdat ze geplaatst zijn als bewijsstukken in een vooraf bedachte theorie.
[..]
Waarom zou ik? Ik vind het alleen stuitend dat je me na al die keren dat ik heb geprobeerd het uit te leggen nog steeds niet begrijpt...
[..]
Goh. Kun je niets originelers bedenken? Volgens mij heb ik die vergelijking ook al honderd keer de andere kant op gemaakt. En verder:
[..]
Jammer inderdaad. Als eerste omdat ik het heel leuk vind om dat soort posts zelf te maken, maar ook om te lezen van anderen. Als tweede, omdat het jezelf dwingt je bevindingen goed te ordenen, waarmee je dus aan zelfreflectie doet en kritisch kijkt naar je eigen analyse. Dat kan je 'zaak' aansterken.quote:
[..]
Ik denk dat het een 'actie wekt reactie' verhaal is. Ik heb ook gemerkt dat je als debunker soms wordt uitgemaakt voor vanalles en nog wat (bijv. post van Lambiekje over dat je ziek bent als je het officiele verhaal gelooft). Andersom werkt dat ook zo natuurlijk, debunkers maken ook thruthers uit voor vanalles. En niet iedereen post zijn of haar onderzoek zo uitgebreid al bijvoorbeeld jij doet. Helaas...
Ben het met je eens, die waarheid is niet snel te achterhalen. Ik ga mezelf dan ook niet wijs maken dat we hier even in onze vrije tijd het 9/11 mysterie kunnen oplossen. Maar de poging is leuk.quote:
[..]
De waarheid ga je hier niet vinden. Die ga je überhaupt niet op internet vinden. Maar een aantal dingen zijn voor mij zeker. En ik val in herhaling, want alles wat ik hier schrijf staat al elders, maar ik zal je het terugzoeken besparen. Bovendien is een goede samenvatting nooit weg.
Dit lijkt me een prima conclusie.quote:Ik WEET dat er slachtoffers zijn gevallen in het WTC. Ik heb dat al vaker toegelicht en omdat ik daarin toch niet wordt geloofd laat ik het bij deze constatering. Inmiddels WEET ik ook dat in ieder geval één van de vier vliegtuigen op die dag daadwerkelijk werd gevlogen door de piloot die volgens de MSM om het leven is gekomen in de betreffende crash. Omdat niemand mij hier gaat geloven, heeft het ook totaal geen zin om die waarheden hier te onderbouwen. Dus als je mij vraagt hoe het staat met mijn onderzoek, dan weet ik inmiddels genoeg om aan te nemen dat er in ieder geval 1 vliegtuig is gebruikt en dat er zeker 2 mensen (3 inclusief de piloot) zijn omgekomen op 11 september.
Begrijpelijk.quote:Mijn ervaring hier is dat het geen zin heeft om dat te beweren, tenzij je met namen komt en foto's die 'geanalyseerd' kunnen worden door amateurprutsers die per ongeluk een illegale versie van Photoshop hebben gevonden. Zoals vaker aangegeven begin ik daar niet aan uit respect voor de slachtoffers en nabestaanden. Dat ik daarom niet geloofd wordt is mij inmiddels een dikke rotzorg.
Ik snap je punt. Persoonlijk kies ik er in dit soort gevallen voor om m'n zegje te doen, mijn tegenargumenten te geven, en als dat niet genoeg blijkt, het daarbij te laten. Het is zinloos iemand te overtuigen die zich niet wil laten overtuigen. Naar mijn mening identificeren die lui zich met hun ideeën, en beide willen ze niet mee knoeien.quote:[..]
Ik WEET dus dat de no-plane theorie onzin is. Ik zie dus ook niet in waarom ik daar meer energie in zou steken dan het wijzen op onzinnigheden in die theorie en het aangedragen bewijs. Daarnaast vind ik het met de kennis die ik heb soms gewoon ook grappig om te zien wat voor bullshit er wordt aangedragen, meestal overigens is er niets grappigs aan, maar is het gewoon stuitend en respectloos, maar sommige mensen weten niet beter.
Ik vind het ook een lastig onderwerp om mee te werken, precies om wat je hier aangeeft. Wat ik vond in de FBI documenten, NIST documenten, de manifesten van PNAC en FPI, en de nieuwsuitzendingen zijn feiten. De samenhang tussen die feiten om daarmee een LIHOP/MIHOP theorie aan te tonen is echter niet hard te maken. Dan blijft er in mijn ogen niets anders over dan conclusies die hier mogelijk uit op te maken zijn als suggestie aan te leveren. Voordeel is hieraan wel weer dat het ruimte geeft voor discussie. Helaas is daar nog niemand op ingegaan.quote:Wat ik wel interessant vind zijn bijvoorbeeld zaken als de Israëlische link die je benoemde. Super interessant, maar zo gauw je daar induikt, kom je tot de conclusie dat het aan elkaar hangt van suggestieve beweringen die in het begin nog als 'mogelijkheid' worden aangedragen, maar gedurende het verhaal verdraait worden naar 'feit'. Ook daarover heb ik hier al zo vaak vanalles getypt dat ik er mee in herhaling val, maar goed, je vraagt er een beetje om.
Jazeker, we krijgen dan te maken met de wc-eend-adviseert-wc-eend redenatie. Vandaar dat ik voor mezelf, of eerst een hypothese op te zetten, waarna ik op zoek ga naar argumenten om deze te onderbouwen. Of ik kijk naar de bewijzen die ik vinden kan en stel op basis daarvan een hypothese op.quote:Ik ben hier dus vooral voor mezelf. En zoals je aangeeft beperk ik me (bewust) tot het bekritiseren van theorieën die niet kunnen kloppen of waarvan ik weet dat ze niet juist zijn. Voor het overige blijf ik erbij dat diepgaand onderzoek zinloos is vanachter de computer. Immers, vrijwel elke bron van informatie die je tegenkomt is corrupt omdat ze geplaatst zijn als bewijsstukken in een vooraf bedachte theorie.
Soms is het lastig om op een forum tussen neus en lippen te lezen.quote:[..]
Waarom zou ik? Ik vind het alleen stuitend dat je me na al die keren dat ik heb geprobeerd het uit te leggen nog steeds niet begrijpt...
Dan vraag ik, zoals ik deed, om uitleg ter bevordering van mijn begrip, in plaats van uitspraken te doen over een ander, terwijl ik eigenlijk te weinig weet van iemand. quote:
[..]
Echt, dat je het nog uit moet leggen is gewoon diep en diep triest. Oma is grijs en oma heeft haar wat door de bril te zien is... En de handjes van Brad zijn witter dan zijn gezicht. Denk je dat we die ook nog uit moeten leggen, of zal Jokkebrok zelf ook wel begrijpen inmiddels hoe flitslicht werkt? Na al dat gepluis in foto's zal hij dat toch inmiddels wel snappen, denk je niet?
En dan durft Gray zich nog af te vragen waarom reacties op dit soort quatsch niet positief opbouwend zijn.....Come on.
Wat je hier doet vind ik juist goed; je spreekt iemand zijn punt tegen door inhoudelijk in te gaan op de stelling. Dat zie ik zoveel liever dan: ALU-GEK-BNW-MAFKEES!@!#!
Maar zoals ik eerder zei, als het niet lukt om iemand met goede argumenten te overtuigen, laat diegene dan gewoon in zijn waan. Zo iemand houdt een monoloog, en staat niet open voor discussie en dus een dialoog. Graag of niet, toch?
Dat gebeurt zelfs nu, kijk maar naar "stapelgate" volgens mij zijn er niet meer dan 4 verschillende foto's van Stapel gebruikt in alle media. Is het geen echt persoon? Natuurlijk wel...quote:
[..]
Dit bedoel ik dus.... Reasonably sharp? In welk universum is dit 'reasonably sharp'.
En dan de constatering dat er relatief weinig foto's van de betreffende persoon zijn:
[..]
Kommop, iedereen met een beetje verstand in zijn kop prikt toch door dit soort onzin heen? We hebben het over foto's op internet in een periode voordat digitale foto's (portretten) gemeengoed waren, voor de facebook-hype. Natuurlijk staan er weinig foto's op internet en worden overal dezelfde fototjes gebruikt. Echt dat ik mijn tijd nog verspil aan dit soort onzin.
Op dinsdag 1 november 2016 00:05 schreef JanCees het volgende:
De polls worden ook in 9 van de 10 gevallen gepeild met een meerderheid democraten. Soms zelf +10% _O-
De polls worden ook in 9 van de 10 gevallen gepeild met een meerderheid democraten. Soms zelf +10% _O-
Dit artikel laat zien dat de overheid van de US al langer op de hoogte was van de terreurdaad die op komst was. Dat verklaart ook, mijns inziens, waarom de FBI al vóór 9/11 bezig was met zogeheten racial profiling van mensen van Arabische afkomst.quote:Officials Told of 'Major Assault' Plans
AFTER THE ATTACK | THE INVESTIGATION
Inquiry: U.S. authorities were advised in August that as many as 200 terrorists were coming to U.S. as part of plot.
September 20, 2001|RICHARD A. SERRANO and JOHN-THOR DAHLBURG | TIMES STAFF WRITERS
WASHINGTON — FBI and CIA officials were advised in August [2001] that as many as 200 terrorists were slipping into this country and planning "a major assault on the United States," a high-ranking law enforcement official said Wednesday.
The advisory was passed on by the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency. It cautioned that it had picked up indications of a "large-scale target" in the United States and that Americans would be "very vulnerable," the official said.
FOR THE RECORD
Los Angeles Times Friday September 21, 2001 Home Edition Part A Part A Page 2 A2 Desk 2 inches; 57 words Type of Material: Correction
Attack warning--An article Thursday reported that in August, Israeli intelligence warned U.S. officials that terrorists were preparing a large-scale attack in this country. The article cited as its source a high-ranking law enforcement official. The Times has since learned that the official's account was based on a British newspaper report, not on independent information. See article on page A17.
It is not known whether U.S. authorities thought the warning to be credible, or whether it contained enough details to allow counter-terrorism teams to come up with a response. But the official said the advisory linked the information "back to Afghanistan and [exiled Saudi militant] Osama bin Laden."
"There was a connection there," he said.
Separately, federal authorities are gathering evidence that suggests that a small network of individuals helped fund and protect some of the 19 suicide attackers by providing cash, documents and possibly even safe houses.
Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft has said that authorities suspect that more airplanes were going to be hijacked and that other co-conspirators, possibly handlers and associates of the suicide attackers, remain at large.
Mindy Tucker, spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said Wednesday that "we believe there are associates of the hijackers that have connections to the terrorist network that are present in the United States."
Other law enforcement authorities said such logistical support is typical within many terrorist cells.
Some participants help others slip unnoticed from city to city, and country to country, by providing them with fake or fraudulent passports, cash gained through bank and credit-card fraud, and havens in their homes or in apartments rented under aliases, the authorities said.
Officials continue to scrutinize the backgrounds of several individuals now in detention. They include Habib Zacarias Moussaoui, who was in a Minnesota jail on an Immigration and Naturalization Service violation on the morning that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed. He is now being questioned in connection with the attacks.
Moussaoui's parents were born in Morocco, and he is a French citizen, born in the southern town of St. Jean de Luz in May 1968, according to an official at the French Embassy in London. It was reported earlier that he was a French Algerian.
According to news reports, Moussaoui earned vocational degrees in automotive mechanics. On his university application, he expressed particular interest in learning business English so he could travel and "work in an international business."
French officials confirmed that Moussaoui was on a special immigration watch list because of his suspected ties to Islamic terrorists and because he had made several trips to Afghanistan.
Moussaoui spent at least three years in Britain in the late 1990s, according to French officials. He came to the French Embassy in London in September 2000 and had his French passport extended. At the time, he described himself as unemployed and said he had lived at several addresses in the suburbs of London.
By this year, however, he was able to afford to travel to the United States and begin flying lessons. He was arrested Aug. 17 after the staff at a flight school grew concerned about his offer of thousands of dollars in cash for instruction in how to fly jumbo jets and his lack of interest in learning to take off or land jets.
Authorities also continue to question two men removed from a train in Fort Worth on the day of the attacks. They had a large sum of money with them--$20,000 in cash--as well as box cutters similar to those allegedly used by the hijackers on at least one of the commandeered planes, one source said.
The men had boarded a flight in Newark, N.J., that was bound for San Antonio on the morning of the attacks. But the flight was diverted to St. Louis after the World Trade Center was hit, and the two men then took an Amtrak train to Texas.
The train was stopped in Fort Worth on a routine check for drugs, and the men were detained because of the materials and cash they were carrying. The train's final destination was San Antonio.
Also Wednesday, owners of fitness clubs in Florida and Maryland said several of the suspected hijackers had worked out in their gyms.
"They may have been told to go get as strong as they could get in case of body conflict or a fight," said Jim Woolard, who owns eight World Gyms in Florida's Palm Beach and Broward counties.
Ziad Jarrahi, a suspected hijacker on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, made no secret of his aim: to learn how to fight.
On May 6, he signed up for a two-month membership, later extended to four, at the U.S. 1 Fitness Center in Dania Beach, north of Miami.
"He told me that he was from Germany, that he was visiting," said Roxanne Caputo, who is in charge of sales. "He would come in every day, sometimes twice."
Ik heb het document, met de pagina A17 waarnaar verwezen word, nog niet gevonden. Eens kijken of me dat nog lukt.
Nou, volgens mij scheld ik zelden. Ik ben misschien scherp, maar ik noem zelden iemand een alugekbnwmafkees.quote:
Wat je hier doet vind ik juist goed; je spreekt iemand zijn punt tegen door inhoudelijk in te gaan op de stelling. Dat zie ik zoveel liever dan: ALU-GEK-BNW-MAFKEES!@!#!
Maar zoals ik eerder zei, als het niet lukt om iemand met goede argumenten te overtuigen, laat diegene dan gewoon in zijn waan. Zo iemand houdt een monoloog, en staat niet open voor discussie en dus een dialoog. Graag of niet, toch?
Maar het is wel erg vermoeiend dat 'self-declared experts' hier niet in staat zijn om de meest simpele foto's op de goede manier te interpreteren. Meestal kan ik daar wel inhoudelijk op reageren, maar het is echt TE treurig zo nu en dan.
Het is niet mijn visie. Het is onderbouwt met echte reallife feiten. Dus ik DENK niet dat het zo is, ik WEET dat het zo is.quote:
[..]
hoe weet je nu 100% zeker of jouw visie juist is?
Wat mij betreft nu genoeg over mijn motieven. Ik laat jullie weer lekker verder over de inhoud bakkeleien.
Cuz I'm praying for rain, And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
Ik doelde hierbij ook niet op jou hoor!quote:
[..]
Nou, volgens mij scheld ik zelden. Ik ben misschien scherp, maar ik noem zelden iemand een alugekbnwmafkees.
Yesch.quote:Maar het is wel erg vermoeiend dat 'self-declared experts' hier niet in staat zijn om de meest simpele foto's op de goede manier te interpreteren. Meestal kan ik daar wel inhoudelijk op reageren, maar het is echt TE treurig zo nu en dan.
Aangezien jij ook geen expert bent op welke wijze ook, heb je dus een gezonde discussie. Tot je je verheven voelt omdat je klakkeloos alles van tafel veegt omdat het je niet past en je je gesteund voelt door de "officiële verklaring".quote:
[..]
Nou, volgens mij scheld ik zelden. Ik ben misschien scherp, maar ik noem zelden iemand een alugekbnwmafkees.
Maar het is wel erg vermoeiend dat 'self-declared experts' hier niet in staat zijn om de meest simpele foto's op de goede manier te interpreteren. Meestal kan ik daar wel inhoudelijk op reageren, maar het is echt TE treurig zo nu en dan.
Op vrijdag 6 januari 2012 23:32 schreef remlof het volgende:
7 mei ga ik op Pim Fortuyn z'n graf pissen *G*
7 mei ga ik op Pim Fortuyn z'n graf pissen *G*
Topreactie! Helder en onderbouwd verhaal dat keurig binnen de context past. 10 punten.quote:
[..]
Aangezien jij ook geen expert bent op welke wijze ook, heb je dus een gezonde discussie. Tot je je verheven voelt omdat je klakkeloos alles van tafel veegt omdat het je niet past en je je gesteund voelt door de "officiële verklaring".
SPOILEROm spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.Cuz I'm praying for rain, And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
Je bent nu een beetje aan het huilen.quote:
[..]
Topreactie! Helder en onderbouwd verhaal dat keurig binnen de context past. 10 punten.
Je kon het weer niet laten om toch nog even iets te moeten zeggen wat weinig vernieuwends toevoegt aan de gemiddelde ongefundeerde kritiek die je iedereen geeft die het niet met jou eens is?
Op vrijdag 6 januari 2012 23:32 schreef remlof het volgende:
7 mei ga ik op Pim Fortuyn z'n graf pissen *G*
7 mei ga ik op Pim Fortuyn z'n graf pissen *G*
Wat ben je toch een internetheld.quote:
[..]
Je bent nu een beetje aan het huilen.
Cuz I'm praying for rain, And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
Het is jammer dat je niet bij de inhoud kunt blijven (die je in deze zelf hebt aangewakkerd) en je tot dit soort reacties (alweer) moet beperken.
Op vrijdag 6 januari 2012 23:32 schreef remlof het volgende:
7 mei ga ik op Pim Fortuyn z'n graf pissen *G*
7 mei ga ik op Pim Fortuyn z'n graf pissen *G*
Gray wilde iets van me weten en ik had, na hem keurig antwoord te geven, aangegeven dat ik klaar was met het praten over mijn motieven omdat juist dat niets met de inhoud te maken heeft.quote:
Het is jammer dat je niet bij de inhoud kunt blijven (die je in deze zelf hebt aangewakkerd) en je tot dit soort reacties (alweer) moet beperken.
Dat jij er toch over door wil blijven zeuren is typerend voor jouw zuigende manier van trollen.
Dat je het vervolgens zo draait alsof ik er over begon tekent slechts je machteloosheid in de discussie. Net als je eerdere treurige opmerkingen.
Cuz I'm praying for rain, And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
| Forum Opties | |
|---|---|
| Forumhop: | |
| Hop naar: | |