So you admit you were wrong. But you're also wrong about how the name is pronounced and about the name not being common. Wainio is originally a Finnish surname and quite common, especially spelled as Vainio. You wouldn't know how to pronounce it right, I'm pretty sure. English speakers can't pronounce Finnish language right.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902Irrelevant to whether she's fake.
When the passenger lists were published in 2001 the Finnish consulate needed to find out if she was a Finnish citizen. It turned out she wasn't, in spite of her Finnish name. The Finnish consulate also at that time contacted all the Finnish citizens staying in New York and other places to make sure none of them had fell victim in the attacks.
Yes, Honor Wainio's identity has been used and abused - you've done that, following others having done it before you. What's fake here is the sites and sources that you use. That you don't understand that is the sad part. You're so very wrong.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902Irrelevant: if planted, she could be from nowhere.
The photo fakery determines the rat is present in the identities.
(Along with other things.)
There is no photo fakery except what your dear site Septemberclues and possibly others like it have fabricated.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902Nonsense. These images are all over the Web and were merely COMPILED by September Clues. Also, some have ow been removed from places (the Colaios, whose photos were not in question in the first place). Straw man argument.
You have insisted as evidence that some people haven't been found in SSDI. You've completely ignored the fact that not every name is shown there, and there are various reasons for that fact.
[
link to helpdesk.rootsweb.com]
I said this was a SUSPICIOUS aspect, not conclusive, except for:
a) the FAMOUS CONDITIONS OF THEIR DEATHS if geniuine would surely get them a mention, no?
b)
so many of the questionable ones with family (a subset of the total questionable ids), i.e., the photo fakes most duplicated from 9/11 -- are not in the SSDI, so this is highly unlikely in
probablility , again given the particular conditions of their deaths.
I'm sure the mother of Honor Wainio has nothing to complain about her daughter's appearance. For some reason you seem to have a lot to complain about how those people look in photographs, just like the Septemberclues hoaxers.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902Then give your eyes a wipe and check your impugning process: researchers COMPILED seeming anomalies. They could get them wrong but they were doing comparative forensic (visual fakery) science hypothesis, no more.
And what sob-story are you babbling about. I've never shed a tear because of 9/11 victims and I seriously doubt that most people in this world would have, either. I'm only sorry for you if you did that because of listening to George W Bush rants or watching some stupid American sob-story programs, tv-shows and whatever crap.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902The general practise of believing in these victims because of the claim they are real from a tragedy. You are constantly saying not to question their identities and so on: this is an emotional motivation (especially under the circumstances of an intelligence op that day), whether you feel visibly moved or not. It is affecting your approach.
I also seriously doubt that you would know anything about how the intelligence agencies work or what they do and what not. I have no illusions about any intelligence agencies, but Clare you're being paranoid because of what you've been reading and seeing in the internet, mainly the worst sites to be found here.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902You are wrong on all counts.
or those big shots who have ONE photo (no close-up comparison images) and a newspaper article but NO MEMORIAL MENTIONS FROM 2003-2009, and only ONE from before that, in 2003 from one friend?!!
Does none of this make SENSE to you? ...
i.e., Add up?
You are referring to internet and what's to be found in the internet. Pictures, articles and memorial mentions in the internet. Have you been checking all the internet sites since 2001 yourself and if so, have you saved the evidence? Or do you just trust your dear researchers Donald Duck et al on that?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902Your judgement factor of the Internet (or other sources) is not straight. You can get information off anywhere and it is vetting the information with other sources (official, etc.) which shows the claim to be true. These photos are the photos collected from memorial pages, etc., all over the world. They were merely collected by September Clues for comparison.
You have no evidence for your claims. That is my guess.
Internet is what it is, changing all the time. Not all data at all can be found in the net. You should know that not everybody can be found in the internet. Most people are not mentioned at all. There are also people who don't have internet access and many people, especially older, don't know how to use it even if there was a pc available.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902Some information should be consistent. Such as having DIFFERENT photos for different people, not pasty heads.
And having memorials for big shots NOT screen shots from 2009 with no memorials. The people at September Clues did not doctor the other images, and clearly are trying to get word out. They are ordinary people from every word they utter: they make mistakes and change them and plod ahead and get maligned and compile and compare. Thus, it is highly doubtful they faked the screen shot ... when the rest was faked. They are compiling the rest; there is no reason to assume they are faking.
There is, despite your protestations, reason to suspect the warmongers are faking: not only a priori reason to suspect (lots at stake for the perps so they'd pull out the stops most likey), but also the photos themselves compiled at September Clues show paste-heads AT ALL but a LOT of them (and a LOT of other anomalies in large numbers).
In addition, not everybody has friends and relatives using the internet so as to write memorial mentions. Not everybody is considered a famous person despite the fact of having been killed in the USA on that day. And not everybody would be constantly googling their relatives in the net so as to even find a site where to add their information.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902Sure. But now multiple mentions back-dated? In a context of other fakery?
:-/
And for the Colaios not to have mentions (but for one) -- originally --when they're big shots?
:-/
Moving bridges:
Astronut did NOT do the conclusive proof.
Yes he did. You just didn't understand it.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902Oh yes I did. I even challenged him on many points. Re-read and think. He also only did the initial tests because I pointed out there would be movement in the buildings.
Re-think the optical truths and you'll see.
[...]
No it doesn't frighten me one bit.
I see right through you, Clare. I understand how and why you've been hoaxed into believing false info.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902You see nothing so how could you see through me?
LOL
People here -- it should begin to be obvious if you've read the posts -- congratulated themselves for sending me the mentions from 2001 and dropped the matter ... but those mentions are only *backdated* to 2001; they were posted after 2009.
And your hard evidence for backdates is where?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902At September Clues there's a screen shot. These people have no reason to fake that, given that their other photos come legitimately from memorial and other sites all around the world and CNN.
Btw, I've read this entire thread and every post. I listened to your radio show appearance when you first posted a link to it. I no longer bother to open your links because you've made it quite clear it's not worth it. Reading your many many posts has taken enough of my time already. That is, unless you would really have something of value to offer. So far you haven't had anything.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902No comment.
Yes, many of your posts can be interpreted in a way that it is you doing some sort of a intelligence operation. It's obvious that you've lied. It's also obvious that the sources that you use are more or less professional hoaxers. If this is news to you then you obviously haven't read the posts here or opened and read the links.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902Ridiculous. Anyone claiming the work done on the sites I sent is intelligence ops to discredit 9/11 Truth groups is a) a 9/11 truth person who is afraid of "turds in the punchbowl" so much that they miss the punch; b) an intelligence source him/herself.
The real researchers doing some of the more emotionally challenging work on the case are largely maligned and ignored, but the evidence in the videos and photos is clear to anyone objective and/or willing to do the comparative WORK to see it, and THINK about it hypothetically first.
Just think what's REQUIRED for fakery to occur. What would you FIND?
You'd find layers of inaccurate and sloppy data, all the way to finer and finer data -- but they couldn't even get that right. Just as the FBI photos of Oswald's gun show they didn't even bother to photograph the same gun; they used 3 with the same serial numbers but different number plates, and different proportions.
Sloppy, but it fooled people like you.
But that we know already.
You're so sloppy Clare that it seems deliberate.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986902You're so sloppy -- or biased, perhaps -- that nothing challenges you. I have been challenged and have mostly
-picked, chosen best evidence to make it EASY for you
-mostly clearly stated what is inconclusive and why
-what is near-conclusive due to comparative evidence in other areas.
I notice that most people of your mind-set as evidenced in your last few posts, tend not to see comparisons.
You also do not tend to think through hypotheses if you don't yet see a connection. You handle a piece at a time, but with no thought of what it MIGHT mean and what you should LOOK for if it does mean one thing or another.
This means you don't GET TO THE POINT OF COMPARING. Instead it's piecemeal for you.
So you look at a photo and say you might be fooled, and don't compare all those that look odd. And say, maybe they're not BUT IF THEY ARE then what else would we find?
And what combinations and permutations would fake-photo (if so) victims' families be? -- They would be plants, or real but set up with fake photos so other fakery would be protected.
This is called thinking through the hypothesis.
Not "dissing victims".
:)
I DO think these things through. As you can see -- or ... maybe not. If you think optics change because of Astronut's brave but
insufficient test ... then maybe you don't even see that I do think things through. LOL
