9/11 Vicsim report update 

likes this

The most important and least reported/diffused aspect of has an important update. 

Just to let this possibility sink in for everyone, and this is statistically speaking, now, I want to add a critical comment for your consideration.

If the six characters we identified here had been real people, they also do not fit the official profile of:
Completely legitimate, innocent, uninvolved, random victims of a terror event perpetrated by government, by extremist faction or by insurrection.

VICSIMS: the simulated victims of 9/11 • Re: 9/11 vicsims with real-life counterparts (Master List) www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic….

No tags for this post.

9 thoughts on “9/11 Vicsim report update 

  1. xileffilex

    Today June 14 2017, it is being reported that a 23 storey residential tower in London has gone up in flames. We note tales of “jumpers” and a disaster drill give-away statement, in a tweet of course.
    London Ambulance ?Verified account @Ldn_Ambulance
    We have now taken over 50 patients to five hospitals across London following the fire at #GrenfellTower Tower.
    8:17 AM BST


    Chatty witness/escapee
    “multiple casualties”

  2. antipodean

    I think that once the shell of the Towers had gone up the owners realized they had built a White Elephant that would be difficult to find tenants for. So maybe a decision was made not to finish building the interior.
    I can remember in the late 80s when I visited New York I’d never really heard of the WTC. The Towers were never on the ‘to do’ list.
    My mate pointed them out to me on the sky line, when we were in the plane approaching Newark. He only knew because he’d visited them on a previous trip.

    There was a good thread on Clues Forum discussing Eric Darton’s book Divided we Stand. A good read about the difficulty WTC 1&2 had attracting tenants.


    1. UNreal


      The CF discussion is interesting – but the book is in my view fraudulent and act as confirmation for presence of personnel in the towers. Who would be scared to death if we suspected the towers to be empty ? This was the role of this book, Richard Gage and others – to have us tricked into personifying the events and making tenants tangible. From the book excerpts, it also sound like the “asbestos” story is merely used to persuade us of the human presence in the towers, as it both confirm occupancy and make it plausible there were fewer occupants in the towers than announced or experienced when passing by for New Yorkers and other visitors.

      From a planning perspective there are no better way to be sure the towers were empty on September 11th 2001 than to fake the occupancy from the beginning. Any other solution is inferior and could endanger the operation. Too many witnesses and complications. There never were tenants in the buildings, and that is why they were only “international” trading & bank companies as well as by city officials that pretended to be there. This operation was well planned and they never were taken by surprise or were victims of the real estate market. These people make and own the market. There never was anything to be rented out. Rumors of bad planning and “surprises” underway suppose these people were incompetent – they were not and are not. They planned 30 years ahead.

      I my view Darton’s book is a psyop and not worth reading nor analyzing – unless you’re interested in how intelligence services proceed when they create experts and authorities to feed us false information. In the excerpt underneath the author gives a first hand testimony that “validates” the presence of office space and tenants in numerous ways. It is very unlikely there ever were any tenants, nor as many floors as claimed by the author (see my previous post).

      And up in the towers, where asbestos removal was still under way,
      a host of details pointed toward a rift opening up within the trade cen-
      ter itself. In 1985, when New York State moved most of its offices out,
      Dean Witter consolidated its operations in twenty-four floors of Tower
      2 under a twenty-year lease. Visiting the brokerage and investment
      firm’s offices and cafeterias, one invariably found them spotlessly
      maintained. But on adjacent floors, particularly those with multiple
      tenants, the paint was dingy, the carpets were stained, fixtures re-
      mained broken, and burned-out fluorescent lights went unreplaced, as
      did discolored ceiling tiles. And the listing of a company on the direc-
      tory did not reliably indicate that a company was still there.
      -Eric Darton 1999 book excerpt (from CF – p.190)

      1. ab Post author

        @unreal I agree wholeheartedly. This leads to another question-is asbestos really dangerous? Could this have been yet another false premise to renovate and rebuild, plus sue the pants off who knows? Mesotheliosis might be the most expensive type of lawsuit ever. Did they incorporate this into the 9/11 psyop to promote the asbestos lie?

      2. UNreal


        In heavy doses everything can be dangerous – even toothpaste. Regardless, after 4500 years of use it sounds strange it suddenly becomes so dangerous. It does however provide a very good excuse to refurbish public buildings, even imply human health concerns which in the case of the WTC would be a much needed storyline to support non-existent occupants. Also, Asbestos is reputed to provide excellent fireproofing. How could kerosene burn so fierce with asbestos filled floors ? Sounds like a win-win-win scenario.

        Asbestos is a set of six naturally occurring silicate minerals
        Six celebrities that have died from mesothelioma

  3. UNreal

    The notion of 911 victim’s being fake was a very important turning point in 911 research

    VicSim is a great term and Hoi and CF research on this topic has been very thorough and detailed. The mere concept of fake victim’s represent a considerable psychological hurdle most people will be unable even unwilling to integrate. The personified “jumpers” and TV-eyewitnesses of that day make such thoughts and considerations nearly impossible for normal citizens.

    But why where there no victims or personnel in the towers ?

    I’m not sure if Hoi and CF have elaborated on this question in detail or reached a definite conclusion. As i see it, many questions still resides as to how-come the towers were unoccupied on that day and if this was the case during all those years or not.

    Many have hypothesized that the towers were first occupied, then occupants were removed from the buildings after the 1993 carpark bomb. I see a major flaw in this theory. If you think of the number of potential witnesses to such a gradual or sudden non-occupancy would generate.. It is unlikely and careless to take such risks and open up for this level of exposure. Even impractical. Why endanger the operation in such a way ? It can’t be justified by efficiency, believability or rent/income as this group of people print money and get double insurance.

    The most plausible scenario would be that there never were any occupants. No images or people wandering around the premises, taking pictures and getting familiar with the details of the buildings that in part were built for demolition. If the towers were built to be torn down, and should have no occupants when demolished – it doesn’t make sense to have any tenants, nor to build all those floors either.

    So the WTC towers can not ever have had any occupants and needed very few floors. But why keep it around for 30 years ? Why not 5 or 10 years that would have been amply sufficient ?

Leave a Reply

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