Tuesday, July 29, 2014

33 | The "33" People versus Simon Shack

Simon Shack, the man behind September Clues, a movie revealing the hoax that September 11 was, in better fashion than any other, at least in my opinion, is constantly belittled by his critics, two of which are radio show hosts Don Fox and Jim Fetzer.  Let us see what these gentleman have in common when it comes to Gematria.
  • Don = 4+15+14 = 33
  • Don Fox = 4+6+5+6+6+6 = 33
  • Jim Fetzer = 1+9+4+6+5+2+8+5+9 = 44
  • James Fetzer = 1+1+4+5+1+6+5+2+8+5+9 = 47
Isn't it all so very curious?  Much like Alex Jones, these men dismiss Simon Shack's no plane evidence as pure lunacy.  I believe they do this because they want to steer people in search of the truth, away from it.  In total, that is their role in this giant scheme against we the people of this planet.
  • Alex = 1+3+5+6 = 15
  • Jones = 1+6+5+5+1 = 18
  • Alex Jones = 15+18 = 33
Please finish by reading this attack piece against Simon Shack, where the named individuals above are contributing.   This is how the "33" maintains "order" over "people" and "society".
  • People = 7+5+6+7+3+5 = 33
  • Person = 7+5+9+1+6+5 = 33
  • Society = 1+6+3+9+5+2+7 = 33
  • Order = 6+9+4+5+9 = 33
It might make you wonder who really controls destiny.
  • Destiny = 4+5+1+2+9+5+7 = 33
It should also be noted that Simon Shack has a "33" in his corner in "El Buggo".
  • El Buggo = 5+3+2+3+7+7+6 = 33


  1. Actually El Buggo supports Simon's work. You may wish to re-read the article.

  2. Yes the Fakeologist is 100% correct. El Buggo is part of Shack's disinfo crew. El Buggo was merely tagged in my post. He has never written anything with me and Fetzer. I've never seen El Buggo write anything critical of Shack.

    And where have you ever heard me or Fetzer state that planes hit the Towers on 9/11? Jim has been a no-planer for YEARS and I have always maintained publicly that no commercial plane crashed anywhere on 9/11.

    My blog address is http://donaldfox.wordpress.com. I have nothing to do with DonaldFox.com.

    Shack deserves to be roundly criticized as his "work" is of very poor quality. The VicSim report is enough to completely discredit Shack. We don't even have to get into his denial that man-made satellites exist. A belief that is mainly advocated by Flat Earthers.

  3. Wow you've attracted the likes of Don Fox to your site! You must feel honoured for him to share his mindless drivel with you personally. His 'by the book' scientific method (as in story book) that entertains and enlightens us all rivals only that of Dr. Fetzer's most deligtful verbal diarrhea.

    Crazy like a fox.

  4. Don Fox, while I don't agree with Simon Shack on everything either, I recognize the validity of parts of his arguments and that is what I focus on. Why do you focus on tearing him down? If you agree on the "no planes on 9/11" part, why divide over the rest? Also, am I mistaken about your name? I do recognize that many people have "33" names without being implicated in the conspiracy.

    1. I didn't give a crap about Simon Shack one way or the other until he started attacking me. Then I let him and his moronic disinfo crew have it.

      I promote the Nuclear Demolition Theory of the WTC buildings on 9/11. I've been attacked by pretty much every government shill out there. Shack is just another shill.

      Shack and El Buggo will try to convince you that nuclear weapons don't exist. They are obviously full of shit. Why do you defend someone who is spreading lies and disinfo?

      For the record I don't get paid a red cent for 9/11. Veterans Today doesn't pay writers. I have a free blog and can't sell advertising on it. I work for a living. The only thing I get out of this is the enjoyment in pissing off the shills of the world like Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, Steve Jones, Chris Bolllyn, Niels Harrit, Simon Shack, OBF and El Buggo etc.

  5. Simon Shack is a hack.
    He exists to discredit those who look into the events of 9/11.
    He uses some obvious problems with the footage from that day and other issues to weave an illusion of objectivity.

    He is in fact a coward. If he is a real person at all and not a guy or two pretending to be a character on a screen.