New Video About 9/11 & The Olympic Bombings *Truth*.

dude just dont go or go on a vacation some were else on those days of the event

prizehunta seems to have unloaded a shotgun of crazy in the air to see what hits, sadly, not much of it does. By it's erratic, frequently misspelled, factually incorrect, sometimes incoherent style, it seems at odds with the carefully delivered video he linked to in the first post. I must question as to whether prizehunta was the creator of the video, or if somebody he knows made it, or if he simply re-uploaded it from another video-sharing site user.

From the video's punctuated, formatted (and sourced!) style:



to prizehunta's posting style:



The top image also says he's "raise[d] suspicions . . . in another of my videos" - yet prizehunta's YouTube account TopPranker only has 3 other videos as of posting; one a prank video, and the other two as ref videos for Points2Shop - and none of them show the same level of technical skill as his conspiracy video. Since by prizehunta's own admission, he only has one account ("On The Subject of My Youtube Username, If you look at my first Upload you will know why, i cannot change it and im not making i new account.... , where is this other video?

It's also interesting to note that prizehunta hasn't offered a rebuttal to any of my points, or raised questions, but simply and steadily goes off one more and more wild tangents in his own post.

I never once used the word "coincidence."

coincidence
-noun
. . .[A] remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection . . . - [source - The Concise Oxford English Dictionary]

What exactly do you mean " . . . it is ALL Coincidences [sic]"? What does the "it" refer to? The World Trade Center being portrayed as destroyed or damaged in popular culture, or something else? There is no consistency between the images you showed in the video, either in the type of damage caused (towers half-destroyed, parts missing, etc.), or the cause of the damage ("Terrorist Nuke", meteor shower, interdimensional dinosaurs doing battle with fat Italian-American sanitary engineers, etc.)


What is "this" referring to? Damage to the World Trade Center in pop culture, or your conspiracy theories as a whole? How many is "way too many"? Your video only contains 8 images of the World Trade Center and 1 video, making a total of 9 altogether. Despite the fact your preceding title card said: "There were many references to the World Trade Cent[er] being attacked before 9/11 happened" - [YouTube video] [still from video], you include a frame from an episode of The Simpsons (To be exact, the frame is from Season 7 Episode 1 [production #4F22] titled "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson. I'll include a copy of the image below:



Nowhere in this image is the World Trade Center damaged, or destroyed. There are no signs of attack on any of the buildings via any force, nor any planes visible. I believe what your intention was is to imply that the $9, and the Twin Towers next to it, makes the visual "9[/]11". This is laughable at best. If you can prove how this is proof of foreknowledge, please do so. And that's proof, not speculation or insinuation.

So only 8 images, culled from a variety of comic books, movies and TV, from a time period spread over eighteen years, are enough to convince you (or at least, convince your viewer, if you were the one who made the video, prizekilla) of an international conspiracy to insert "subliminal messages" into popular media to make it "acceptable", and then later destroy the World Trade Center.

...

Needless to say, you still have yet to prove any of these images were created by people who had foreknowledge of the attacks, and are not simply images of an easily recognisable landmark being used in various works of fiction.

Side note: for fun, try looking into how many instances of the Statue of Liberty being damaged or destroyed exist in popular culture. Here's an incomplete list from Wikipedia. There's an episode of G Gundam, the seminal Planet of the Apes ending (spoilers!), the poster for John Carpenter's Escape from New York, the teaser for Cloverfield ...or this collection of images from a variety of movies [source - credit goes to MovieMiscellany.com] Needless to say, the Statue of Liberty is still standing.



Again, you need to specify what "it" means. Do you mean "Illuminati: The Game of Conspiracy" or do you mean "Illuminati: New World Order"? They are two different games. I presume you mean the INWO release. You say it was produced from 1994 to 1997, "getting stop [sic] 3 years during production" - what does this mean, "during production"? Do you mean production was stopped 3 years after publication, and ended in 1997? Or do you mean production was momentarily stopped for 3 years after 1997, before continuing again production in 2000? I also note that you now say the game was produced in 1994, despite your early assertion in the video it was from 1995. Do you admit you were wrong on the year, simply because you did not research it yourself?



It's not clear if the two towers are in fact separate, with the black strip in the middle being part of the building in the background, or one building. Besides that, nowhere on the card is the building (or buildings) identified as the World Trade Center, nowhere on the card is the cityscape identified as New York City, nowhere on the card are the any of buildings under attack, are damaged or destroyed, and nowhere on the card are there any planes, or numbers relating in anyway to "9" or "11" or any combination therein. The skyline in no way compares to that of New York City, and the buidling(.s) on the card is(/are) far too small in relation to the other buildings to possibly be WTC1 and WTC2. What is mentioned on the card is a reference to Cthulhu - how does his Our Lord and Master Cthulhu fit into your conspiracy? I also don't understand what you mean when you say "They [who? Steve Jackson Games?] couldn't off [sic] read this from books because it didn't happen yet, for instance [sic] the Face in smoke." What's a "Smoke Face"? When did a "Smoke Face" happen? What is specific about this "Smoke Face" that means "they" [who?] couldn't have "read this [in] books."

You need to be specific, prizehunta. So far you've added more speculation and baseless insinuation, without establishing any link between the images or their creators, or rebutting anything I've said.



What?! Where did this date come from? The way you say "if I am wrong and nothing happens" implies you're conflating the date "12/21/12" with that of the Olympic Games (27 July 2012 opening date, 12 August 2012 closing date). The 2012 Olympic Games end a total of 131 days(!) before the 21th of December. What does this date have to do with anything?

What do you mean "you will give in that this is all publicity stunts"? Publicity stunts by who? [you?] For what? This is so vague and unexplained it is mind boggling why you included it.


And here we go really into scatter-gun territory. What does a Steven Soderbergh movie have to do with anything you've said? You never even mention it again in this post. Stay focused.



This is unsupported by any evidence, facts or citations. Please provide some proof and evidence of your rather fanciful claim. Not just frames from movies, comic books or TV shows. Even I could scour the millions upon millions of entertainment and hit upon things, like one of my favourite jokes from Open All Hours, or Torchwood: Miracle Day. Hell, I reckon I would probably be pretty good in this conspiracy racket. You could rake in some major ad revenue from these conspiracy videos, just by posting video clips from obscure TV shows like Open All Hours (I bet you've never seen that clip used in conspiracy videos before) or pictures from comic books. I'd make a killing from YouTube ad revenue alone. Pity I have too much self-respect.



A bold (zing!) claim. Evidence that there is "no War on Terror", please. I also don't understand when you say "Teror is everywhere and always..." "Always" what? Your sentence trails off.


This is missing so much context I wonder why you bothered to include it, or what you hoped to achieve with it. By President Bush, you mean George H. W. Bush, as opposed to George W. Bush. You need to make this distinction clear, as they are not the same person. Second, he did not do a speech on "[the] New World Order" - The "New World Order" was not the subject of his speech, titled "Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Persian Gulf Crisis and the Federal Budget Deficit", delivered to Congress on September 11th of 1990, seven months after the end of the Cold War ("On December 3, 1989, Gorbachev and Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, declared the Cold War over at the Malta Summit" [source], instead, his speech was, as indicated by the title, on the Persian Gulf Crisis. I'll quote from it below (bold emphasis is mine):

". . .I've just returned from a very productive meeting with Soviet President ... Gorbachev, and I am pleased that we are working together to build a new relationship. In Helsinki, our joint statement affirmed to the world our shared resolve to counter Iraq's threat to peace. Let me quote: "We are united in the belief that Iraq's aggression must not be tolerated. No peaceful international order is possible if larger states can devour their smaller neighbors."

Clearly, no longer can a dictator count on East-West confrontation to stymie concerted United Nations action against aggression."

What we have here is a speech, following the collapse of the Soviet Union after 45+ years of Cold War politics, that the United States and Russia would cooperate, rather than compete. The old order politics, the bipolarity of the Cold Wad had ended, and a new system ("a new world order") was coming into place. Prizahunta, saying that "President Bush ... did a speech on the New World Order" is dishonest and misleading. Bush only used the phrase twice in his speech. [source]

I'll quote some more (bold emphasis mine):

"A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective—a new world order—can emerge: A new era—free from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, EAST AND WEST (capitalised for double emphasis), north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.

A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor, and today that new world is struggling to be born. A world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.

This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and the other leaders from Europe, the gulf and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come."

You made read his full speech here at Wikisource.

You can see how conspiracy theorists, like prizehunta, will cherry pick, and show cut down and bias versions of the speech, such as here. Note how the video begins to add subtle, creepy music halfway through the speech. My advice? Watch the whole speech below, in one unedited part.





I must ask if prizehunta has read the whole transcript, seen the whole speech as delivered or if he is merely cherry picking quotes from other sources, and applying a sinister motive and insinuation of an international conspiracy down to the use of three(!) simple words. Beyond ludicrous.


Here he goes really nuts; the exclamation point at the end shows desperation. Again, he's got nothing but applying a sinister significance in hindsight. In this case, the United States Emergency Services telephone number being "Nine-One-One". You can read about the history of the number here. I also quote from the same article:

"In 1968, a solution was agreed upon. AT&T; chose to implement the concept, but with its unique emergency number, 9-1-1, which was brief, easy to remember, dialed easily, and worked well with the phone systems in place at the time . . .[M]any assert that the number 9-1-1 was chosen to be similar to the numbers 2-1-1 (long distance), 4-1-1 ("information" or directory assistance), and 6-1-1 (repair service), which had already been in use by AT&T; since the 1920s.

Prizehunta offers no evidence or explanation how an emergency service number from 1968 has any significant connection to September 11th. He also doesn't account for the fact that "9-1-1" is not a globally used emergency services number, and various other numbers are used throughout the world [source]. He also doesn't explain that the number is pronounced and spoken "Nine-One-One", and not as "Nine-Eleven."


I don't know what he is talking about here. Presumably the WTC1 and WTC2, but since he doesn't make any claims beyond an incredibly bizarre and vague "they tip over", I have nothing more to say. He seems to think buildings are like dominos, and is vastly unaware of how buildings are designed and constructed.


This is my favourite of the bunch, simply because it is so wrong on so many levels. If he can provide sources for this, that "BBC announced BOTH towers fell 23 minutes before the second place hit the second tower", I'll eat my hat. However, he can't, since he's wildly confusing several other baseless conspiracy theories without even checking on them first. I believe he's referring to this news announcement:

If this is the "announcement" he's referring to, he's clearly wrong on several elements: the BBC wrongly reported the collapse of WTC7, not WTC1 and WTC2, and they incorrectly reported on this after both planes struck the North and South Tower. Because prizehunta hasn't provided the right context, or even the right building, I won't bring up the sequence of events that led up to the collapse of Building 7. I will however, say, please note during the video, such as 1:50, where the news anchor says "There were, I suppose, fears of possible further collapses around the area?", as Building 7's collapse was not a surprise and was expected to fall, due to severe damage it sustained from falling debris and fire. The BBC has simply misreported "going to collapse" with "has collapsed."

Prizehunta does not provide a single shred of evidence for why this is news report is proof of a conspiracy. He vastly underestimates mistakes that news organisations can make in responding to a live, unfolding event such as the September 11th attacks, where incomplete information, rumour, speculation, eye and ear witness testimony, impromptu press releases, statements made by rescue workers, etc. all flood in with no time to check the facts, as the event is unfolding live.

Case in point: Take a long read through this list of premature obituaries. Like this reporton the "death" of George W. Bush , Jeff Goldblum's death, Pope John Paul II being reported dead on 3 seperate occassions [source 1][[source 2] or this incident by CNN, where [Richard] Cheney was not only reported as dead, but described as "the UK's favourite grandmother."

Also, to highlight how confused reports can make it on the air: In 1998 [James Earl Jones] was erroneously pronounced dead during a radio broadcast of a Pittsburgh Pirates baseball game by play-by-play announcer Lanny Frattare; Frattare had confused him with James Earl Ray, Martin Luther King's assassin, who had just died. [source] [source] All because of a similar name.



This, ladies and gentlemen, is it. His collection of vague, rambling thoughts about emergency telephone numbers, quotes from political speeches out of context, incorrect news reports and Simpsons episodes is what he calls "simple proofs [sic]" of an international conspiracy that destroyed the World Trade Center and planted images in the media to make it "acceptable", whatever the hell that means. Is anybody convinced by this? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?



I'll let this quote speak for itself. Prizehunta's conspiracy is nothing but a platform of superiorty for him to stand on - anybody who disagrees with him "never allow [themselves] to see the signs", and that "there is ALOT [sic] Going on you do not understand,". You see, "you don't understand", but prizehunta does. Only he knows the true knowledge of the world, the inside plan, and what's going to happen in the future. How does he know this? By painstakingly researching politics, history, science, geography, logic...? No? How does he know then? Because of comic books and movies, and next, apparently, by playing Assassin's Creed.

Puh-lease.