Saturday, March 27, 2010

Phil "The Pill" Jahan of Let's Roll Forums

Well this ban was quicker than usual, and usually they're quick. It was like "a hot knife through butter," or aluminum through steel, if you absolutely must. (How about "flying goose through a composite-material airplane nose-cone?")

Phil Jahan, the personality behind the long-running 9/11 forum Let's Roll, recently took up the StevenWarRan cudgel when he began linking to several of my blogs amongst much where-have-you-been-all-my-life wonderment and other assorted positive commentary.

It wasn't a very fecund connection, in as much as his links generated blog visits in only the low single digits. However, when I realized that I had long been a fallow member of his community under the pseudonymous name WWGWD?, I posted a thank you on his forum, which led to a phone call from Phil himself from his perch somewhere, "50 miles north of Chicago."

That call led to a brief posting exchange between us, and my summarily being banished. Phil was looking for what he called "feedback" on a major insight he'd had. That concerned the facial resemblances between two men, John Wenckus, a victim on one of the 9/11 flights, and Mike Rivero, a "9/11 patriot" and web master for a news amalgamator called WhatReallyHappened, a name which reminds me of other CIA-inspired, tri-part named web sites, like GirlsWithWings and StoriesThatMatter.

I failed to save the beginnings of our discussion, but I''l just let the part of the thread I did save take over from here. I think the tone of our discussion says a lot about the state of affairs concerning the direction no-planes theory is going.

Well, yes, I also might imagine Wenckus has a "shallow backstory" with X number of people willing and still able to play relatives and friends to various degrees. That will be becoming more difficult as the tenth anniversary approaches, and scrutiny increases around the issue of validity. The Wenckus identity needs to be explored, his family members contacted, and vouchsafed, or not. I'm still confused why a "company man" would need to "step into" one of these manufactured identities though.
I look at it a little differently. There is no "reason" why this was done, IMO, other than sheer arrogance. I think it really is about that simple. They certainly didn't need to use a picture at all, as many of the victims on the planes have no pictures at all. Yet they did use it. And my first guess would be simple arrogance.

I will go a step further than you, already being fully persuaded that the passengers are the holy grail of 9/11. Hardly any of the passengers can stand up to any scrutiny. So why stop with Wenckus. We might find a brick wall. Lets go after all 265, because they cannot bear any scrutiny whatsoever.

I'm with you Phil. Additionally, this work has already been undertaken over at Reality_Shack, the forum of Simon Hytten and Max Konrardy in Rome.

You will disapprove of them, because Simon is the great explicator of no-planes theory, but really---if we all get down off our ideological high horses we will see our positions are not so far apart. You also agree that no planes crashed in Arlington and Shanksville; also that no regularly scheduled commercial flight---a Boeing filled with passengers, and commandeered by Muslim hijackers---hit the twin trade towers. So it isn't a stretch to imagine that what we all think we "saw" on television "live" that day, might not be a fair description of an actual "reality." Yes? Am I being fair?

The thread I link to above is 35 pages long, of mostly photo comparison and analysis concerning internal morphing of what the public only knows as second-hand identities. It is not limited to just the airplane passengers, and in fact, Reality Shack seems to have a bias that 100-percent of the casualties are merely digitally fabricated.

I've done similar work, most recently concentrating on the employees of Cantor Fitzgerald. Many of those are just computer generated fictions, or "Vicsims" as Max named them. The last 20 or so blogs over at StevenWarRan concern false victim identity.

However, I had a falling out with Reality Shack, perhaps over some manipulation around this issue. I feel a large percentage of the supposed dead were actual people playing legitimate roles (I put it that way because they often were elevated in their careers in illegitimate fashions,) who were "rendered"---as was spelled out in the Operation Northwoods document---into "permanent" new identities. You would find many of these "victims" at the top of the NYFD hierarchy.

Then, I think there were some actual deaths, (not hard to imagine when the heart of a massive scheme was the destruction of two giant buildings. Something was bound to go wrong.) and even a few deliberate murders---which were undertaken for ceremonial and occult reasons---such as the murder of Father Mychal Judge at the hands of his fellow fire department members.

You know where this is all leading to, don't you Phil? The implication behind fraudulent victims is a progression beyond the implications of no-planes theory. They both indict the news media in the conspiracy. For instance, the New York Times was heavily involved in promoting their little victim biographies, bringing home the pain and sorrow of the human experience. Only one little problem though---it was all a lie.

So, if for some reason you are committed to squashing no-planes theory---perhaps because it is too upsetting to the rational mind---then you should stop dead in your tracks doing any further work on these victim identities, because both will paint you into the same corner.

Cheers back Phil!
While I appreciate your reply and you already know that I appreciate you and your work, you never even mentioned John Wenckus or Mike Rivero nor even gave your thoughts on this issue. Not once. And that's really all that this thread is about. A passenger is found, and identical features to Mike Rivero, a 9/11 "patriot." And this is an opening for the no planes argument in what way? What the hell?

This material will already be hard enough for even people who know of the conspiracy of 9/11 to believe, even though true. So why not make it even harder for people to accept this and throw the most divisive antagonistic theory in 9/11 and introduce it to this thread, where it has no legitimate purpose? An honestly good question.

Your links do provide additional ammunition for the arguments I am making here in this thread. And that was the only redeeming feature of your post above. Other than that I am disappointed with you for sidetracking this thread with this no planes nonsense. And I refuse to even argue a single point of it, because that's not the purpose of this information or thread. This is an example of why I am exasperated with people who hold to this theory, because they simply cannot ever exercise discretion and sound judgment.

Wasn't this thread about Mike Rivero being nearly identical to John Wenckus? One would never know by looking at your post, would they?

This is some of the best damning evidence that's been found and presented for ages in 9/11. And you want to turn this thread into a planes, no planes debate? Why? Please PM me with the answer because I sure don't want to see it in this thread. Was it beyond you to even do your own analysis and say the two people are nearly identical? And leave out all non relevant material OUT of this thread? This is all about whether John Wenckus is Mike Rivero, and NOTHING else.

Seriously disappointed-


P.S. This isn't a blog, where you just let it all hang out regardless of what people think. One of the purposes of this forum is to bring in new believers. And try to convince them of what happened. Which is why is why I have taken such a hard stance against the no plane people, because, as a group of people, I can certainly say this of them; They cannot exerise sound judgment. They are obsessed with this idea. They cannot for the life of them ever approach any subject without introducing it and then trying to make it dominate the original discussion. For instance, they cannot come into a thread which is about Mike Rivero possibly being John Wenckus, and address only that issue; Is what they do is come into this thread AND IGNORE WHAT THE THREADS ALL ABOUT, and introduce the no plane nonsense. The no planes people are the most antagonistic, mentally unstable, divisive group of people in 9/11, and they are to be shunned like the plague.
Phil, I am seriously disappointed in you in return. A blog is where one hopefully presents honed and polished articles addressing some specific aspect. A message forum is supposedly a place of open discussion.

I don't think my post was off topic in the slightest. When we spoke on the telephone recently you said you had never heard of the Reality Shack forum. There, they have been doing exactly the same type of work that you now are claiming, "is some of the best damning evidence that's been found and presented for ages in 9/11." This is independent of no-planes theory. It is called Vicsim theory. But it is equally as transgressive and upsetting to standard logic and rational thought as is no-planes, so beware. It has eclipsed no-planes as "the most divisive antagonistic theory in 9/11" to use your words. Think about it: the concept is not only have they been misleading our eyes, but they have been misleading our hearts.

You cannot invite a response from someone, as you did by contacting me, and then dictate that response. You have a single photograph of a putative victim, which yes---it looks a lot like some insider named Rivera---although, I don't understand how or why the two would have been combined into a morphed identity. You offer up only arrogance as an answer. I might also hazard humor, as in "inside joke."

You know Phil, you might want to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Maybe you are under some extraordinary stress. Your little tirade a few posts back in this thread is not very attractive, and rather off-putting, honestly. Perhaps this forum needs a little grist for its mill, and not more slather from the Amen chorus, but I don't think you can handle it.

If you are to take such a didactic approach about no-planes theory then you should wipe your board clean of any reference to me, because I undermine your position.

Otherwise, let me say thank you. This has been one of the most transparent discussions I've participated in in years. But you sound really on edge, Phil. It can't feel very good to be you right now.
"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend." --Alexander Hamilton


You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified. Date the ban will be lifted: Never