Be the 1st to vote.

Brilliant piece, as usual, by Simon and a great intro from Stewart Ogilby – both removed after only a few hours.

Veterans Today

Simon Shack’s
Published on January 21st, 2014
Written by: Stewart Ogilby

Note: I am pleased to publish Mr. Simon Shack’s statement below my own column. Persons interested in reviewing research done by himself and his associates need to access the link he placed at the end of his statement.

Americans have traveled a long way from a home that was established for them by a handful of brilliant men less than two hundred and fifty years ago. These men struggled together despite major disagreements in order to secure a form of government never before seen among men except paradoxically in the soon to be decimated Iroquois confederacy. Among these brilliant men was Thomas Jefferson, arguably the brightest as well as the most contradictory and enigmatic. Today we cling to his writings and yearn for freedoms and rights for mankind that he found in his prodigious reading and that he expressed in letters and early Virginia political writings. Those ideas became encoded in the new government’s founding documents.

Located on the continent’s eastern edge, Jefferson’s compatriots were men of property. Emerging Western social philosophies provided ample rationalization to set up a nominally classless system whereby the unexplored new continent would be exploited in such a manner as to yield them and their progeny substantially increased wealth. The majority of newcomers for more than a century would be slaves, sometimes euphemistically itemized as indentured servants, black slaves from Africa, impoverished immigrants, females and other workers. Non-emancipated and non-propertied non-homesteaders would be vote-less in the new Republic. The founders and certain others would own property that others would work. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose, and the only thing that has changed today is the breed of our owners.

Man’s nature evolved to meet needs of a progressively rational, civilized and urbanized animal. Encoded attributes advantageous to individual struggles for survival constitute our inherited nature. Survival demands self interest in conjunction with participation in actions undertaken by one’s kin, tribe, clan, or islanders. The will to power and greed are both hard-wired to some degree. However, when those characteristics dominate after individual needs are met effectively we may rightfully define resulting behavior as sociopathic. Such persons own tags of money and power.

As a businessman Jefferson was an abysmal failure. A case can be made for Jefferson not sharing the strong personal vested interests of his compatriots. Monticello was auctioned off following his death but his true legacy is incalculable. Thomas Jefferson’s ghost looms above our Republic’s present guardians. They abhor the sentiments of Jefferson and his mentor, George Mason, that found their way into our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Above all, they detest our First Amendment’s provision that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …”.

Existing power targets individuals who become significant enough to threaten its positions. That has been that way since Socrates and since the Inquisition. Today we can name examples: Kennedy, King, Wellstone, Zundel, and many others. Look carefully at those who are derided by propagandists who own, manage and control America’s press, TV channels, and Hollywood and who conspire to censor the Internet. They insist that certain persons whom they label “idiots”
be ignored. Pay close attention to those persons who are officially trivialized, castigated, and eventually muzzled and you will find those most feared by the powers of the world in which we live.

This brings us directly to a man who calls himself Simon Shack. Others debate instrumental questions about 9/11, the watershed event of our age. Shack raises a huge fundamental issue in his analysis of 9/11. His methodical analysis of 9/11 obliges us to face squarely the possibility of sweeping corporate complicity. If Simon Shack is right, his analysis proves that we live today in a world of corporately crafted fantasy, a pathological world of hoaxes and fears and wars and lies controlled by persons owning tags of money and power.

The extent of greed and mendacity in such a world, supported by corporations, the hub of modern economic society, lies at the very heart of Shack’s revelations. Should that key issue be documented and exposed accurately, the structure of such a world would need to be denounced and overturned. If one enters into Google just 3 keywords: 911 MEDIA HOAX, it does appear that the 911 cat is out of the bag.

All mankind thrives better in a world of truth, compassion, peace, cooperation, and love. Simon Shack’s work, which I considered to be preposterous at first glance, requires serious consideration. In the best tradition of free journalism and open debate, let the man speak for himself.

Imagine – in the “Age of Imagery” by Simon Shack
21 January, 2014

Imagine the news media without the ‘’ of imagery. Imagine a world without videos or pictures – only radio and printed press. Just imagine. It’s a bit hard to do (John Lennon may disagree) yet that’s what the public had to rely upon not so long ago, before the advent of photography and TV.

Without imagery, we’d have to put our blind trust in faceless voices & scribes to keep us informed of what’s going on around this world. We’d only have those news media folks’ word for it – assuring us that their words were trustworthy and true. If a volcano erupted somewhere around the globe, a thousand words couldn’t even begin to describe what the fiery spectacle looked like in reality. With no imagery to back the story up – we’d have to IMAGINE it all for ourselves. Imagine that.

Without any visuals of daily news events reaching our eyes, inquiring minds would inevitably start wondering whether any given event described by these voices & scribes were being truthfully relayed – or if the event even took place at all. Hey, didn’t Orson Welles fool his audience back in 1938 with his simulated CBS radio ‘news’ broadcast of a dramatic alien invasion? The shocking ‘news broadcast’ terrified many Americans and a public outcry ensued – yet this cheap corporate media hoax was hailed as a ‘work of art’ by many pundits.

Fortunately, all this is now a thing of the past… Today, we can count on what is considered the most acute of our five senses – eyesight – to empirically verify that any sort of news event occurred as reported, can we not? We could rightly say that we live in the “Age of Imagery” – what with the tons of pictures, movies and videos that jostle for our attention on a daily basis. To be sure, any modern news story is unfailingly accompanied with visuals of the same – virtually making you feel as if “you were there”. Virtually, that is. Virtually. And that is the whole point of the matter.

An image may be worth a thousand words – but it may also prop up a thousand lies.

An image can only be considered, at best, as a virtual copy of reality. It cannot be used to prove the real-world occurrence of what it purports to depict. Any moviegoer knows that. Only a madman would contend that the ‘Empire State building’ (in fact, a digital depiction thereof) seen exploding and collapsing top-down in the 1996 movie “Independence Day” PROVES that it was actually destroyed in reality… On 9/11, we were shown two skyscrapers collapsing on TV in almost identical fashion (top-down). As it is, none of the extant and wildly contradictory images depicting these two physically inexplicable collapses proves that the event occurred as shown. Au contraire: its inconsistent, artificial and non-physical aspects strongly support the thesis that what was shown on TV on 9/11 was nothing but a “Hollywood-style” production – from start to finish.

As it is, this thesis has been thoroughly tested and corroborated by our longstanding research at and : what we saw on TV on 9/11 was a pre-fabricated ‘action movie’. Only minutes after “Flight 11” allegedly hit the first tower at 8:46AM, the TV audience was treated to sweeping, “aerial TV-chopper birds-eye views” of Manhattan – and so the 102-minute blockbuster was underway…Bring the popcorn, sonny ! If you – dear reader – have not viewed my 90min September Clues research documentary, perhaps you may wish to do so now. The thing is, what TV aired on 9/11 cannot be described – or much less depicted – with words.

Apart from demonstrating the wholesale (pre-)fabrication of the 9/11 TV imagery (and the subsequently released “amateur footage”), we have also performed extensive investigations into what is, undoubtedly, the most ‘sensitive’ issue of the entire 9/11 scam : the purported victims of the day – which have turned out to be every bit as fictitious as the 9/11 TV imagery itself. To this day, no solid evidence has emerged as to how many died on 9/11 – if any. The lack of real victims does not diminish in any way the criminal nature of this – and other similar – government-backed . It only helps explain why so many people would go along with them – no questions asked – for personal profit. Had you realized that this world is riddled with greedy rats?

Our collective efforts spanning over more than half a decade have allowed us to establish, with a fair degree of certainty, that the major Anglo-American TV networks (and the international ‘media cartel’ as a whole) – acting as the lackeys and on behalf of the “powers that be” – were fully complicit in staging this epochal news hoax which, they say, “has changed the world forever”…

Over the years, unsurprisingly we may say, relentless efforts have been deployed by our opponents to dismiss, ridicule our simply downplay the significance of our findings. Our 9/11 research has been ostracized, banned and censored from most 9/11 “truther” forums and websites. A steady flow of outlandish media-absolving theories have been churned out, manifestly designed to try and restore some credibility to the phony 9/11 imagery – such as: “the planes were holograms” (thus, the TV imagery was real…), “the towers were pulverized by exotic weapons” (thus, the TV images showing absurd collapse-physics were real…) and so on and so forth.

Let us rejoice, ladies and gents. After all, 9/11 has provided us with a precious revelation. We – as in “the humanity as a whole” – owe to this sorry scam our newfound and all-important awareness: the use of FAKE IMAGERY – aired and published all over their global media networks – has been singled out as the prime weapon of mass distraction used by the ‘powers that be’ (or “The Nutwork ”, as I like to call it). It has been – for several decades now – the main pillar of their rule-by- strategy – and Its hypnotic effect on the masses has proven to be very efficient indeed. Its ‘practical applications’ are manifold and certainly not confined to the staging of phony terrorist attacks. But let us not digress – this is all for another day.

May reason prevail

Simon Shack


No tags for this post.

4 thoughts on “Imagine

  1. tsisageya

    I appreciate the appreciation of Stewart Ogilby, but I don’t understand the surprise. Veterans Today is a nonsense site and I don’t go there anymore. The title seems good but the content is bad.

    However, it’s a good clue for September Clues that Simon’s interview would be deleted, I’m guessing.

  2. UNreal

    Very interesting article, and Simon does express himself very well in writing.

    What is remarkable is the obvious “handling” of Simon’s research in the “alternative” media,,,
    is it safe to say that VT is just another front for the 9/11 Psyop, maybe linked to Fetzer’s recent attempt to discredit September Clues ?

    In the best tradition of free journalism and open debate, let the man speak for himself

    If Ogilby really believe what he wrote in his initial and uncensored version, he might just be willing to debate over this himself ?

    original article cached HERE

  3. Blue Moon

    Just yesterday I ran into an old friend who was raised in New York City- She can be described as sensitive so I don’t do a lot of rigorous debating with her on much- However, 9/11 did come up for the first time since I’ve known her and she claimed her sister, who lived near Battery Park, discovered the next day (9/12) that her car had been squashed by debris- She also said her sister saw body parts strewn here and there- She did not want to elaborate so I didn’t push it- Last year I sat with an “eyewitness” who claimed he saw people falling from the buildings on 9/11- Over a ten minute stretch he averted his eyes as he spun this tale, shockingly free of personal details, in effect a general impression of the day as told a multitude of times from various media sources- He played with his face, twitched, and made a deliberate effort to then look me in the eye when he said my name- I’m no facial recognition expert but this guy was about as kosher as an Easter ham- However, yesterday, my NYC friend exhibited none of that evasive eye work and I’d wished she had the sand to discuss it further- All that said, she still does not pass the smell test- It’s second hand- She’s not deceptive by nature (she’s certainly been frank with me in the past) but she’s taking the word of a sibling she admits she is not very close to and who may still be just as overwhelmed and easily deceived as she and the world were on that day- So, yesterday was another near miss- I’ve always wondered if urban legends were prepared in advance with the objective to get the locals to spread lies while in such a traumatized condition- Conforming ones beliefs to the group consensus is probably a survival tactic the perps counted on, even for the “eyewitnesses”-

    1. columjaddica

      These operations are intended to traumatize the public. Some people can honestly believe their own lies after they try to put their mind back together.

      I was talking about the Aurora movie theater shooting with my father and he claimed he knew people who died there. I called him on it and he said it was second-hand through his friend. I know the guy as well so I asked him about it, he said that one of his friends told him that they knew somebody….

      Everybody wants to be part of the story and I think a lot of people stretch the truth, but one way or another on all of these stories you end up with a fair number of people around that are always saying “Nuh-uh, it couldn’t be fake, I know people involved”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.