Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Rick Leventhal - 911 - Thanks Alot

There has been endless speculation as to who Mark Walsh really was. You remember the famous interview on 9/11. The guy in the Harley Shirt who looks like actor Mark Humphrey and sounds like LAX TSA hoaxter Nick Pugh, and we could go on and on about this. But the thing nobody seems to get, is the fact that we have the REAL culprit dead to rights and in hand. Rick Leventhal, the reporter who conducted the famous interview with the Harley Guy is a known known (as our former defence secretary once said), and is guilty of treason beyond any shadow of a doubt. In this piece we see how disappointed Rick becomes when someone not in the cast gets some air time, telling the truth about what happened that day. His disdain is palatable as he says "thanks allot" to the guy who was just trying to tell the simple truth about what he saw, that there was no plane, that "it was a bomb, not a plane, a bomb" that damaged the tower on 9/11. I was wondering how it would go if Rick was interviewing others who simply told what they saw rather than what was on the script, My guess it would go something like this,,, One more note, If I were writing the script you can bet your boots Rick Leventhal would still be reporting, at least one more time anyway, giving his last interview to Larry Silverstein or Condoleezza Rice, or Dick C. or W, or Paul W, or The then sitting JChfsofStfoftheUSafs or Don R. or any of their silent partners in MI on death row in G-BAY Cuba, It would surely be a rating smash,

Stackpot's You Tube


  1. Mark "Psycho" Walsh, not Mark Humphrey, is who the Harley Guy is and he was a former Fox employee. Leventhal works at Fox, Harley guy worked at Fox.


    That other guy who says "No Second Plane, there was a bomb, No Second Plane" is there to make it look like Leventhal is on-the-spot doing a "live" interview and also to give conflicting information out (to get the geniuses asking 'why would Leventhal do that if it was pre-shot? Well, why would any film-maker? To make it look more 'real') and lay false trails for investigators to follow. Ace Baker emphasizes this "No Second Plane" (but Yes, first plane?) guy in the beginning of his gatekeeping flick "9-11 Psy Opera." Ace Baker does not go near the non-plane media-fakery or the vicsims. Why not? Because he's a limited-hangout gatekeeping shill that's why. The whole sequence, including the "No Second Plane" and the thanks-a-lot by Leventhal, was almost certainly shot ahead of time and aired as "live." Leventhal saying thanks-a-lot as if he didn't get what he was looking for (yeah right) EVEN IF THIS WAS SHOT LIVE could have been easily cut out with the 17 second delay that is effective on all 'live' broadcasts. It wasn't. Not because they screwed up (they sure screwed-up a lot didn't day? but always in a way that lends credibility to the 9-11 imagery and tries to give the impression that the TV networks were not complicit and were doing their job) but because THIS IS THE WAY THEY WANTED IT TO BE. Ask yourself this: Would Rick Leventhal go out ON-THE-SCENE-LIVE to meet a pre-designated Harley Guy among a whole bunch of other people any one of whom might have totally contradicted Harley Guy's story? I seriously doubt it. Too risky, too much stuff they might have to take out in 17 second delay if it was really live. They did the conflicting "witnesses" acting to lend authenticity to this documentary movie they made and to get all sides of the truthers they knew would be sleuthing around to butt heads arguing the fine-points of the dramatizations INSIDE THE MOVIE rather than realize that it was exactly that: a premanufactured movie, that as soon as it was discovered to be full of fakery, CGI & actors, should no more have been considered an accurate representation of what happened that day than Oliver Stone's idiotic 9-11 film. And by the way, there seems to be a definite connection between the sets of Oliver Stone's 2006 movie and some of rubble imagery:

    Watch/listen at 1min30sec: Oliver Stone informs us that:

    "We shot the rest in Los Angeles in...at the rubble field, WE BUILT ONE - 1 acre big - and we built two gigantic holes complexes with holes in them..."
    Now, Oliver Stone's movie "World Trade Center" was made in 2006 - while the most notable images of the rubble at Ground Zero (credited to FEMA and Kurt Sonnenfeld) were released no earlier than 2009 - and in fact, all those images feature EXIF data showing that they were "last modified" in 2009...

    So is the currently available imagery of the Ground Zero rubble just a by-product of Oliver Stone's Hollywood movie? It certainly seems to be a possibility.



    The smoking gun is not inside the movie, the smoking gun IS the movie and it points directly to those who made this movie and were able to air it as 'live' while simply demolishing 9 empty buildings (7 at the WTC, 2 across the street, the last one damaged and not fully demolished until 2008) behind a smokescreen.

    ~ Negentropic MK I

  2. "Just think about this when someone says 'regardless of how many vicsims are discovered to have been manufactured, it's absurd to say that no one died on 9-11.' Let's just assume 500 people were killed on 9-11 and they faked the rest of the victims to make 3000. Wouldn't it be a very real possibility that the families and friends of these 500 would then all gather in a club and wonder: 'Where the hell are the friends and families of the other 2500 people?'" -- Simon Shack

    "This is the media capital of the world, that's what they call New York. Now, we know, at least according to what we were shown on TV, that the Twin Towers burned for almost an hour to over an hour before collapsing, and they have NO VIDEO IN NEW YORK CITY of people running out of the towers! That would be the most dramatic shot of all-time! Anybody that got that video would have won Pulitzer prizes or whatever the hell it is that they give the reporters. They tell us 50,000 people work in there. If 3000 people died, there should be 47,000 people on those streets! Forty-Seven-Thousand! There is no video of this. Are we supposed to believe the media wasn't there to capture that when they've already told us all morning that the media is there covering the events 'live'? Not only that but the helicopters that were supposedly in the sky, they didn't get no shots of this massive number of people running out of the supposedly filled Towers out onto the street either? On top of that, you're trying to tell me that 52 people filmed an unexpected, off-course plane doing 500 miles an hour in a crowded skyline but nobody, not one of them and nobody else, got a video of the thousands of people leaving the building that it hit FOR A WHOLE HOUR? How can anybody believe that?" ~ Brian S. Staveley

    "See, the 'Big Lie' professionals in the business of deceiving this entire world's population on a daily basis probably know better - when it comes to fooling BOTH the experts and the average Joe Public. The BIG LIE has to seem too bloody stupid in the eyes of the experts - and too bloody smart in the eyes of Joe Public. There is no quest either for the lowest or the highest common denominator in these psy-op schemes - or much less to target any specific IQ group (if you may pardon this unsavory way to put it). The aim is to strike the human consciousness somewhere 'in the middle' - so as to befuddle EVERYONE - and of course - to make EVERYBODY endlessly quarrel with each other." -- Simon Shack, December 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM

    September Clues Addendum by Simon Shack


    ~ Negentropic MK II

  3. My (as always, very long information-bomb-spam) answer to some pathetically weak challenges by Richard Gage groupies to Staveley's quote about the 50,000 - 3000 would equal 47,000 fuckers running onto the streets:


    ~ Negentropic MK III