The (Limited) Hangout

Home Forums Member Created Forums Zenscreamer’s Forum The (Limited) Hangout

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #11551
      ZenscreamerZenscreamer
      Participant

      Hi there!

      Having been offered the privilege of my own forum I am happily going to proceed mucking about in various areas of interest of my own. For those who don’t know me from the Forums, I am a former atheistic materialist raised to think things through in a scientific step-wise fashion, but over the last several years I have been sliding up an every-steepening curve of information and interpretation that has taken me very very far away from “normal” interpretations of the “facts”. I will admit up-front that I am still attempting to make sense of it all, and any opinions are subject to ongoing revision when new material reaches integration.

      With the aforementioned caveats in place, I am planning this thread to be a catch-all arena for armchair philosophizing and topics not pulled fully into view. Pull up an Empty Chair and enjoy!

    • #11552
      ZenscreamerZenscreamer
      Participant

      I learned the term Limited Hangout from our friend Morpheus, and I am sure that my understanding of the implications of the term is only superficial. That said, in the interests kicking this Hangout with a bang, I offer the following

      possible introduction to the Limited Hangout as applies to 9/11.

      Actually, today was my first day on that site, and my first exposure to this “take” on the 9/11 event, and this version makes much more sense to me than some of the others.

      YMMV!

      • #11557

        Hi Zenscreamer,

        That is an interesting hypothesis. It seems the person your link sent me to is saying a technology was used  during 9/11 to prevent all cameras in the area of downtown Manhattan from actually recording images. And that all ‘live’ TV images and video were faked in real time, plus any images and video showing planes or holes in the towers created by the planes or the collapse itself that were submitted by private parties from that day, but after the event, were also faked.

        Does this also include all cameras that were using actual photographic film rather than electronic image capture and memory cards? How about the video cameras trained on the towers from midtown or from New Jersey and Staten Island? Were they also blacked out? I saw images taken from the New Jersey Parkway of the Towers burning. Were those images also faked? Would not this technology disrupt police, fire and rescue radio communications? How about cell towers and AM-FM as well?

        I know when I take pictures with my electronic camera(s) I often immediately look at what I just shot to confirm it was what I wanted. I suspect others do the same, and did so that morning. Yet nobody complained their camera didn’t work that morning, at least not that I remember reading about.

        What about the thousands of eye witnesses that morning who all confirm they saw, with their own eyes, at least one plane hitting a tower? I agree the power of suggestion is very high when watching a live video while listening to a narrative telling you what you are seeing, even if it doesn’t match what you are actually seeing. But there was no voice-over narrative with regard to the physical witnesses that morning, only for those who were watching on TV. So what compelled hundreds of people to believe they saw a plane when the website is saying they did not?

        I could go on with a more detailed analysis, but I think you follow my point of view. While I have no problem entertaining all alternative explanations of what happened that morning, as far as I’m concerned it really doesn’t matter what I think did happen. All I need to know is the official story is full of holes. I do not need to provide an alternative theory of what happened in order to reject as nonsensical the ‘official’ explanation.

         

        Cognitive Dissonance

        • #11563
          ZenscreamerZenscreamer
          Participant

          When I got up in the morning yesterday I had no particular take on the 9/11 even either, and like I said I just tripped over the site myself. That said, I found the thorough addressing of the issues you raise there on the site rather compelling.

          Certainly the US military had the technology to create a large smoke-screen which would obscure the collapse as viewed from far away, and the buildings did actually come down (controlled collapse) as was the intention anyway. The “live footage” of the buildings would be pre-produced with turn-of-the-millennium CIA CG technology, and the anchors just needed to read off of the script for the “live” reports. (There is some evidence that at one point at least one newsreader got “ahead” of the timeline for a bit.)

          The site also addresses the “amateur photos by private parties” illusion as the persons who “came forward” were all somehow connected to the media business, and amazingly good shots. The site also proposes an evacuation of the area (in the hour between “crashes”) that would reduce the number of non-involved persons with divergent reports, and the possible use of a guided missile that was taken for a small plane as part of the theatrics.

          Were there actually thousands of eye-witenesses? Who says that there were? I don’t know anyone who was in downtown Manhattan that day — do you? Some people who do know such individuals have anecdotal stories of complaining their equipment didn’t work during an inexplicably large mass evacuation, but if the story itself is media complicity in a giant scam to scare the public, how much traction do you suppose these type of anecdotes would get?

          Like I said, I don’t have a huge investment in the thesis. Given that, I find it is much more coherent than some others I have seen out there — imagine the government “having its cake and eating it too” by coming up with the NeoCon’s “new Pearl Harbor” and jump-start a never-ending war footing, but NO ONE DIES. Pure propaganda!

          I agree that there is no burden on the ordinary person to create an alternative thesis in order to justifiably dis-believe the preposterous thesis put forward as the “official version” of events. I just find this one easier to swallow than the “those crazy evildoers would even kill thousands of innocent civilians to get their way” version.

          Like I say, YMMV!

          • #11567

            Thank you for your response.

            I still don’t understand how actual silver emulsion photographic film was blocked, then faked. The website talks exclusively about electronic ‘video’, either electronic still images or electronic moving images. It is plausible something deliberately interfered with that electronic process. But there were people taking silver emulsion film pictures that day, including some at the Statue of Liberty, on Manhattan and from the New Jersey shore.

            9/11 is an extremely difficult subject to research for a variety of reason. There were so many moving parts and so much correct and incorrect information out there, some if it well meaning, but wrong, and some of it deliberate misinformation. Plus so much time has passed that the memory of that day is very much a product of what we were told rather than what we know. An entire generation has grow since then never ‘knowing’ anything about the event other than what they have read about it. Add in the emotional variable and it is a hot button issue for nearly everyone including myself. While you are researching may I suggest two individuals you may wish to read.

            Peter Dale Scott, who continuously examines ‘Deep State Politics’, of which 9/11 was/is just one part of.

            http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Dale-Scott/e/B001IGJXJO/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1425050848&sr=1-2-ent

            http://www.peterdalescott.net/q.html

            And David Ray Griffin, a theologian who quickly grasped that something was wrong with what we were being told about 9/11 and has written extensively on the subject, including a thorough dissembly and debunking of the 9/11 Commission report.

            http://www.amazon.com/David-Ray-Griffin/e/B000APTCK4

            Good luck with your continuing investigation.

             

            Cognitive Dissonance

            • #11568
              ZenscreamerZenscreamer
              Participant

              Thanks so much for the leg-up Cog. :-) As always, you’re way ahead of me on this. :-)

            • #11570
              MorpheusMorpheus
              Participant

              I would also suggest Webster Tarpley’s book on it:  9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA

              He is the only one I  know who connected the threat against Bush that day – “Angel is next” and he also names names. I learned some of the Limited Hangout/Gatekeeper analysis from him.

      • #11558
        MorpheusMorpheus
        Participant

        Hi Zenscreamer,

        Glad to see you started your own hangout. I wasn’t sure by your post if you were asking if this site was a Limited Hangout or if the people that was mentioned on the page you linked to. Just looking at the “Who” page left me suspect about the information they present. They also sort of mix Hangout with a Gatekeeper as there are distinctions from my perspective. Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky are good examples of Gatekeepers while the recent 28-page redacted report blaming the Saudis as the culprit is a Limited Hangout.

        Thanks for the hat tip.

        • #11561
          ZenscreamerZenscreamer
          Participant

          You caught me! Yes, I was trying to be clever and put up a place to “shoot the breeze” — and it is true I’m still trying to get up-and-running on the terminology you use!

    • #11559
      Hobo SapienHobo Sapien
      Participant

      Oh hey, Zen. I’m going to have to research this Limited Hangout concept, haven’t encountered the term before. I think I have a feel for it, I’ve been a monster at extracting meaning from context all my life, but definitions are nice. Link, maybe?

      The page you linked to seems like bickering and smears. Cog seems to have gone deeper than I have time or attention for tonight, and his stated concerns make me squint a little, as a former photojournalist, at this September Clues. Maybe that’s the point. I guess I have to hunt down this Limited Hangout thing first.

      I remember 9/11 very well, as with most things. I was living in a house with a TV in the living room, kind of strange for me after shunning the tech for 20 years prior. Roomie called me out just in time to see the second plane hit. I watched for maybe a minute, absorbed some of the caster’s commentary. With a feeling of profound disgust and as much certainty as I allow myself, I turned to her and said, “We did this.”

      • #11564
        ZenscreamerZenscreamer
        Participant

        Well met, Hobo Sapien!

        You are right, despite my little attempt at humor in the title of this thread, I was owing myself the effort to put together a little cheater’s guide to this terminology, if only so I could follow arguments put forward by my friend Morpheus.

        To that end, from How to Identify a CIA Limited Hangout, the first item to come up on Google after the CIA Wikipedia definition itself, I have put together a quick reference.

        A Limited Hangout:

        1. contains little that is new
        2. reveals nothing about big issues
        3. may center on a figure with a “Damascas road” conversion
        4. prepares groundwork for a large-scale covert op

        Given that definition, the people on the page I linked don’t seem like Limited Hangout candidates, but more like shills for the orthodoxy. I think the term “Gatekeeper” might more correctly apply, but I’m no expert.

        I have no wish to impugn the profession of photojournalism.

        Glad to meet you!

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Thoughts From Cognitive Dissonance Ψ ψ

s2Member®