Sunday, May 27, 2012

National Geographic Catapults George W. Bush's Propaganda


National Geographic reaired their 9/11 interview with George W. Bush this morning.

Bush: "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - May 24, 2005

This reminded us of another famous quote which is similar to Bush's.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels, Hiter's Nazi Propaganda Minister.

Source:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/bushism_keep_repeating_catapult_propaganda.htm

The “Big Lie” and Propaganda

First this: The “Big Lie”

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas in disguise.

Propaganda has only one object, to conquer the masses. Every means that furthers that aim is good; every means that hinders it is bad … You can make a man believe anything if you tell it to him in the right way … Nothing is easier than leading the people on a leash. I just hold up a dazzling campaign poster and they jump through it…

The people must begin to think as one unit, react as such, and put themselves at the disposal of the government wholeheartedly…To belabour the people so long until they succumb to us. ~ (Paul) Josef Göbbels

Source:

http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-big-lie-and-propaganda/

Propaganda

A modern definition is the systematic, widespread dissemination or promotion of particular ideas, doctrines, or practices, meant to further a particular cause or agenda and weaken that of another; it is a systematic effort to manipulate attitudes, beliefs, or actions by the use of symbols. It is commonly used to describe any deceptive or distorted accounts, usually as a dismissive, disparaging, and pejorative term, which in its broadest sense, can be and is applied to any account one does not agree with...

Today, with the negative, Nazi-esque connotation which comes with that word, euphemisms such as misinformation, disinformation, image consulting, political consulting, news consulting, advertising, infomercials, public relations, damage control, and the art of spin have taken its place in the English lexicon, all but concealing its true nature and omnipresence. And omnipresent, it is. The industries that deal with information control – in both the commercial and governmental sectors—work with hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Uninformed, ignorant masses are far easier to manipulate than educated, thinking masses.

Source:

http://greyfalcon.us/Hitler%20and%20the.htm


Picture at top taken by blog contributor "ataviisms" in the NYC subway. Here are his photography and 9/11 websites.

Related:

History Repeats Itself

AE911Truth Podcast Episode 1

Published on May 17, 2012 by AE911TruthPodcast

Hosted by Bernie Suarez and Andrew Steele. In this inaugural episode Bernie and Andy talk about the film "9/11 Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out!" and the upcoming Final Edition 30-City World Premiere tour, (Look for the closest screening near you and purchase your tickets at http://expertsspeakout.eventbrite.com/ ), as well as volunteer opportunities at AE911Truth ( http://ae911truth.org/en/take-action.html ).



Related:

'9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out' Trailer & Rebuttal to Pat Curley

Here is the feature-length, low-resolution, pre-release version of the film:



Excerpt:

Psychologists help out the conspiracy theorists that won't let go of the official conspiracy theory.



Twenty Four Uncut Interviews from the Film

EXCLUSIVE AE911Truth Colorado 911 Visibility & Richard Gage: Premier Explosive Evidence w Live Panel

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth LA Press Conference

LIVE STREAM WORLD PREMIERE "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"

WORLD PREMIERE TOUR "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"

Opening Night - "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - Beverly Hills, CA

Coast To Coast AM - 2011-09-11 - Unraveling 9/11 (Full Show)

Published on May 25, 2012 by PIGAMOUS



Unraveling 9/11

Date: 09-11-11

Host: John B. Wells

Guests: Russ Baker, Craig Hulet

Guest host John B. Wells (email) was joined by award-winning investigative reporter Russ Baker for a discussion on why so many unanswered questions linger about what exactly happened ten years ago on September 11th. He observed that America has become divided between those who believe in a conspiracy beyond the "official" version of 9/11 and others who reject these ideas as "the ravings of lunatics." Additionally, he surmised that the reluctance of the mainstream media to examine these 9/11 conspiracy theories is the result of professional self-preservation as opposed to censorship from the government. As such, he likened 9/11 to "quicksand" in the eyes of journalists who see it as such a massive story that they are tentative to even begin deeply investigating it.

In looking at attempts to unravel the events of 9/11, Baker opined that one of the problems with such investigations is that they tend to focus on "very technical, particular matters which, themselves, may not be resolvable." Conversely, he stressed that researchers should "pull the camera back" and examine what may be the larger motives behind the event. Baker also suggested that clues to the true nature of 9/11 could be found in the contradictory stories that emerged following the event, such as the whereabouts of Dick Cheney on that day. "The inconsistencies are really interesting to me," he said, "it's the cover-up where you can see that there is something going on, that's the real proof."

Baker expressed optimism that the true story of 9/11 could be uncovered with the help of persistent and level-headed investigative journalists. On an individual basis, he advised people to find reliable sources of information and share that news with others. In searching for those sources, he cautioned against listening to people who "speak about everything with tremendous certitude, that they know exactly what's going on. They don't." Ultimately, Baker said that Americans need to become more "responsible citizens" and, by becoming more politically active, candidates would be less reticent to push for difficult investigations. "I'm not discouraged," he mused, "I think change is eminently possible."

9/11 & Corporatism

In the first hour, geopolitical analyst Craig B. Hulet reflected on 9/11 as well as the current state of America. Expressing profound skepticism for the "official" version of the 9/11 event, he declared that "there's absolutely no possibility that Bin Laden did it." Instead, Hulet contended that "it had to be nation-state intelligence" and suggested Saudi Arabia as a possible suspect. To that end, he noted that the FBI collected, from the 9/11 Commission, all documentation suggesting such a possibility and promptly classified the information. Beyond just 9/11, Hulet pointed to the wealthy elite as being behind global unrest and, in turn, lamented the rise of "corporatism" in America and warned that it "lends itself to nothing but lies and fabrication and manipulation and theft."

Website(s):
whowhatwhy.com
russbaker.com
craigbhulet.com

Book(s):
Family of Secrets
The Hydra of Carnage

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2011/09/11

Related:

Coast to Coast AM 911 debate with Richard Gage and Dave Thomas 08/22/2010 - Debunking Dave Thomas, Ryan Mackey, and Zdenek Bazant et al.

Red Flag – Saudi Government Suspects Protected at Every Turn

What Did Israel Know?

Coast To Coast AM 05-20-12 - 9-11: Truth & Enigmas - Show Description 05-20-12

Coast To Coast AM Feb 11 2012 - Behind 911 Part 1 - Show Description

Architect Richard Gage on Coast To Coast AM - 9.6.2009

Coast to Coast AM 04-30-09 - Thermite & 9-11 - Show Description - Excerpts included in the video "9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review (2008-2009)" here at 911debunkers.blogspot.com

Thursday, May 24, 2012

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out - Trailer

This is the trailer for the much-anticipated Final Edition of the expert-packed 90-minute documentary by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The powerful documentary takes its cross-country World Premiere Tour of 30 cities with AE911Truth founder and the film's director, Richard Gage, AIA, from May to July 2012. Order the DVD today at: http://shop.ae911truth.org/DVD-Cased-9-11-Explosive-Evidence-Experts-Speak-Out-DVD-ESO-CASED1-PP.htm...



This is an excellent trailer. Make sure to check out the documentary. We live in a world with an endless War on Terror thanks to 911. Exposing the crime, and seeing justice done, will end this conflict.

We can have peace if we want it but we have to become educated and speak out so that no amount of censorship or misinformation will stop the truth movement.

Related:

'9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out' Trailer & Rebuttal to Pat Curley

Here is the feature-length, low-resolution, pre-release version of the film:



Excerpt:

Psychologists help out the conspiracy theorists that won't let go of the official conspiracy theory.



Twenty Four Uncut Interviews from the Film

EXCLUSIVE AE911Truth Colorado 911 Visibility & Richard Gage: Premier Explosive Evidence w Live Panel

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth LA Press Conference

AE911Truth Podcast Episode 1

LIVE STREAM WORLD PREMIERE "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"

WORLD PREMIERE TOUR "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"

Opening Night - "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - Beverly Hills, CA

Scientism - Why Pseudoskeptics Treat Science As A Religion (even though they say they don't)

The following article is new at DebunkingSkeptics.com; a site that stands in solidarity with the 9/11 truth movement, as well they should and visa versa. We are fighting the same people on different fronts and sometimes on both. The larger encompassing battle here is true skepticism vs pseudo-skepticism, with the spoils of war being the truth in all matters.

Scientism - Why Pseudoskeptics Treat Science As A Religion (even though they say they don't)

Now let me clarify something. Critics of pseudoskeptics have accused them of believing in Scientism - the belief that science is to be treated as an authority with all the answers and taken on faith, just like a religion is. In response, pseudoskeptics claim that science is a process of independent peer review and replication and therefore not a religion.

So then, is science a religion, you might ask? Well, yes and no. Technically, science is not a religion. It is a tool and methodology of obtaining logical conclusions through evidence and inquiry. As such, it is not an entity that holds positions or viewpoints, like people do. Therefore, science is not pro or anti-paranormal, anymore than a pencil, computer program or mathematical formula is.

However, the scientific establishment is another matter, because it involves people, politics, power, money, institutions and vested interests. And as such, politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression are naturally a part of it. Realists know and understand this. But for some reason pseudoskeptics don't.

The key fallacy that pseudoskeptics make is lumping the scientific process and the scientific establishment into one, and assuming that they are one and the same. That is the major fallacy of the organized skepticism movement, which consists of the JREF, CSICOP and Michael Shermer type crowd.

In doing so, they falsely assume that the science and medical establishment is objective and unbiased, and free of politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression. That's where their major mistake is. And as such, they deem the science and medical establishment as an unassailable authority that is not to be questioned or challenged. In that sense, they treat science as a religion. So even though they claim that science is not a religion, they still treat it as such, by holding the views of the science establishment as an unquestionable authority.

So, if researchers such as Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake or Dr. Gary Schwartz come up with evidence for psychic phenomena, it is automatically dismissed as invalid, simply because it challenges the orthodoxy of the science establishment, not because the experiments were not legit. And they will use any excuse to do so, including the lamest ones.

Likewise, when evidence comes up that vaccines, fluoride, aspartme or mercury dental fillings are dangerous and harmful, that evidence is suppressed and deemed inadmissible, simply because it threatens the medical establishment and its vested interests, not because the evidence is untrue.

By filtering out such contrary evidence, even when it is legit and valid, pseudoskeptics definitely are treating the science and medical establishment as a religion. And as we all know, religion is authority and faith based, not evidence based.

You see, no one likes to invest a lot of time and money into something, only to have it proven wrong or changed. And the science/medical establishment is no exception. They are people with political interests, not objective unbiased machines. So let's get real here.

You don't have to be educated to understand this. Anyone with common sense, street smarts, and real life experience knows this. But pseudoskeptics, in their fanaticism, ignore such common sense realities. They are fanatics, not realists.

Furthermore, organized skeptics like to tout "science" as a peer reviewed process of independent replication, and therefore totally reliable. In doing so, they treat it like a "democratic process" in which the majority of scientists decide what's true by agreeing on it. This is another fallacy, because it assumes that most scientists are objective and unbiased, and free to say whatever they want without consequence.

But this is not the way the real world of money, power and politics works. Any realist knows that when you work for an institution or receive funding, you have to "tow the party line", or else you are out. It's that simple. Any scientist who says something that opposes the views of those he works for, will jeopardize his career and reputation. There are many real life examples of scientists and researchers who have lost funding or suffered damage to their career for espousing unorthodox positions, even if their position was legit and evidence-based.

Moreover, most people are not unbiased, open minded, or hold truth as the highest value. Instead, they are concerned with their image, reputation, career, funding, and hold rigid views that they feel safe and comfortable in. Many people do not like uncertainty or mystery. They want a world where things make sense and are predictable and well-defined. That's why they are prone to fall into rigid unchanging belief systems. Why would scientists be any different. They may be more educated than the average person, sure, but they are humans, and humans have biases.

It is the truth seeker and freethinker who questions everything and does not hold any authority as truth, who is most likely to find the truth. Not the most educated or well connected with institutions.

Pseudoskeptics ignore all this, or are blind to it, because they are fanatics, not truth seekers or freethinkers. When you look at the overall picture, this becomes obvious.

Thus, the key difference in this area between the pseudoskeptic and the truth seeker/freethinker, is that the former holds the science/medical establishment as a religion of unquestionable authority, whereas the latter does not, and recognizes it for what it is - an institution with vested interests, politics, power, money, control and censorship that is not above suppressing that which threatens it.

Anyone who examines the material produced by pseudoskeptics can see this apparent pattern. They hold everything said by the science/medical establishment as unassailable truth and authority, and never question or scrutinize it, ever, while automatically dismissing anything that opposes it. That's not skepticism. It's thought control, mind control, and suppression of truth.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Sibel Edmonds: US Government Needs to Keep the Fear Factor Alive by Creating Terror Threats

The Obama administration has the worst track record when it comes to prosecuting whistleblowers. Obama once claimed he'd work hard to have a transparent government, but many have faced retaliation for revealing controversial government information. Sibel Edmonds, who is a whistleblower, waited 340 days for FBI clearance of her memoir but finally released it on her own. Edmonds, founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, joins us for more.



-------------------------------------------------
Edmonds talks about her experience with the controlled mass media, the cover-up of pre-911 intelligence and also general corruption in Government departments - with individuals inside the USA working with foreign nations (presumably Turkey and Israel) to the detriment of US National Security.

Regarding Bin Laden, and Bin Laden related groups, according to Sibel, the CIA and State Department had been working with them throughout the 90s, right up to, and AFTER the attacks of September 11. In other interviews she has also said that the US had intimate ties to Osama Bin Laden right up to the day of the attacks.

This is the real world we live in. The billion dollar budgeted intelligence agencies DO have tentacles everywhere, but they don't talk about it. They know what's going on and manipulate things to serve certain geopolitical interests. This sort of thing has been going on for a long time. And >> if these interests find themselves with no serious threats, or rather no military excuse to intervene in foreign countries, like at the end of the Cold War, then they lose a measure of their ability to control events - hence the War on Terror.

This is a great clip.

And note: when asked about bombshell information, Sibel states she did not release information that she knew was classified. There is obviously more story to tell. However, what we do know is damning enough.

Related Info:



FBI Blocks 9/11 Whistleblower’s Book

Two more recent interviews with Edmonds

Debunking the Debunkers:

FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is Credible... and Yes... She is a Truther Too!

Sibel Edmonds, SNAFUs, and Freedom Fries!

Nitpicking the Nitpickers: Curley's Mistranslation

Curley's Mistranslation - Part Deux!

Saturday, May 19, 2012

WTC 7 Petition to the National Institute for Standards and Technology, U.S. Congress, and President Obama

Revise the U.S. government final report on the collapse of Building 7

http://avaaz.org/en/petition/Revise_the_US_government_final_report_on_the_collapse_of_Building_7/

Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47 story building, contained offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) several financial institutions and then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management. 

 Despite never being hit by an airplane, Building 7 was reduced to a pile of rubble in about 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001.  After 9/11 this fact has been widely covered up by the U.S. mass media and was even omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. 

 NIST, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (a U.S. government agency) was authorized by Congress to determine “why and how WTC 7 collapsed.”  NIST produced a preliminary draft of their final report in August, 2008 omitting the fact that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for part of its descent.  After a physicist challenged NIST on this point the final report, in November 2008 admitted free fall acceleration for 105' or 2.5 seconds. 

 NIST wrote, “A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found . . . (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s . . . .”  (Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48)
 
However NIST claimed that this was consistent with their own fire based collapse theory which alleged that the entire collapse began because column 79 became laterally unsupported and buckled due to heat.  NIST has refused to disclose their entire computer model and this column 79 theory was not based on any hard evidence.

 NIST has already admitted the scientific fact of free fall acceleration in Building 7.  This is remarkable!  Now we ask that NIST tell what this means: that the entire building structure below for at least eight floors was removed just as Building 7 began to fall.   Does this not imply use of explosives?   We petition for a response.

 This may give a very different understanding of what really happened on 9/11.
 The reason this matters in 2012 is that the U.S. continues to kill countless people in the so called war on terror all based on the assumption that the World Trade Center attacks were done solely by Muslims.  Muslims would not have had the access to Building 7, the equipment, the knowledge of the sophisticated process of controlled demolition nor the time to arrange it. 

 I want peace for myself, my family and friends and millions of people I don’t even know. 

http://avaaz.org/en/petition/Revise_the_US_government_final_report_on_the_collapse_of_Building_7/

Debunking the Debunkers: World Trade Center 7: An Engineered Collapse

Saturday, May 12, 2012

James Kust of the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire is Misinformed

In a recent article published in the student newspaper of the University of Wisconsin–Eau entitled, "New campus organization of 9/11 ‘truthers’ is misinformed," James Kust writes, "To imply that our government would stoop so low, that our leaders are so driven by greed that 2,996 deaths are simply collateral damage can only be described as offensive. It’s offensive to every family member and friend of those who lost their lives that day, and it’s offensive to Americans who, naively or not, exercise a degree of faith in those who lead them."

This statement is misinformed.

Thousands Of Victims' Family Members Believe 9/11 Was An Inside Job

http://www.911blogger.com/news/2006-09-22/thousands-victims-family-members-believe-911-was-inside-job

We, the undersigned Families, First Responders and Survivors of September 11 raise our voice with those from across our country and around the world in support of NYC CAN and the establishment of an independent, impartial subpoena powered investigation into the events surrounding the September 11 attacks on our nation.

http://nyccan.org/signatories.php

Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

Scholars and Family Members Submit Request for Correction to 9/11 NIST Report

http://stj911.org/press_releases/NIST.html

9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Target

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/09/but-if-911-was-conspiracy-people-would.html

Bryan Hunt, FDNY, retired 8-15 Years
“I retired from FDNY in 1998. I knew many of the guys who died in the WTC collapses. May they rest in peace. I’ve read tons of information re. the deaths of my brothers on 9/11. I’ve watched the videos, listened to the rantings on both sides. It wasn’t until 2006 that I began questioning the “official story” and did my own research. There is bad info on both sides, but I’ve concluded that the “official story” doesn’t add up. It sounds like a whitewash. The 9/11 Commission didn’t investigate anything–they just took statements. We need a real, independent investigation, with supeona powers. If the “offical” version is correct, so be it. And if heads are going to roll at any level of the government or military, so be it. Let’s do it, and let’s not be afraid of the truth. The brothers deserve that much.”

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469




More “offended 9/11 family members” support ae911truth!

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=161621.0

To his credit, Kust goes on to state the following regarding the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth College Outreach Team at his campus:
But as strongly as I’m opposed to this organization’s intentions, I feel even more strongly about something else — our nation’s First Amendment. There’s no law, thankfully, that prohibits this College Outreach Team from existing.

They are free to organize here and use student fees here and spread their message here. That message — no matter how much I personally disagree with it — is protected by law. I respect that right, and when this organization becomes active on campus, I urge you to respect it as well.

As is demonstrated in the article, "Bringing Truth to the Youth: AE911Truth University Outreach Repeats its Success at St. Mary’s College," if Kust will give the the College Outreach Team a chance to inform him that they are not misinformed he will probably be changing his tune.

Similarly, here is a report from my mother, Kimberly Talboo, on her recent college outreach, which yet again swayed the opinion of, rather than offending, a 9/11 family member:
I was given an assignment in my Communications class at school to head a debate team. The purpose was to attempt to persuade the audience of about 15 classmates that you were correct about the theory behind the topic you had chosen for discussion. The topic was to be something you knew at least a little about and something controversial.

I first handed out fact sheets with the top questions from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I then showed the short film, "Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7," narrated by Ed Asner and featuring four 9/11 family members.


[Feature-length AE911Truth film Experts Speak Out viewable here.]
What happened later was a bit of a surprise. I had a hand full of students that were just children when the buildings collapsed and they weren't aware of any of the information I had supplied. They were flabbergasted and totally interested in what I had conveyed to them. Several people from the 40-50 age range said they figured there was something about the collapse of the first two towers that was questionable but didn't know about WTC7 and now were starting to question what really did happen that day. A small group said they were aware of some of the events but that I had shed new light on the situation.

One girl said she had a cousin who had received emails from someone in another country warning her, in advance, to stay away from NYC on the day of the attack. Another had lost a relative in the buildings.

The synopsis of the debate was that everyone in the room agreed that something didn't add up.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

My Top 10 Insane Conspiracy Theories



For Infowars Nightly News last night, Paul Joseph Watson counted down his top 10 insane conspiracy theories which distract from exposing real coverups. Many of them were about Alex Jones and himself. His humorous list inspired me to make a slightly more serious list of my top 10 insane conspiracy theories.

10) YouTube meddling with view counts 


It's a conspiracy!

Okay, it wouldn't surprise me if YouTube does meddle with view counts, but I'm sick of people making a big deal over the fact that every video on Alex Jones' channel and other big truth/conspiracy channels gets stuck on 300 views for a while shortly after they've been uploaded. It happens to every channel!

9) The Pentagon no-plane/missile/flyover theory



The circular reasoning of Pentagon no-planers: "There's no plane debris, therefore a plane didn't hit the Pentagon." *Shows pictures of plane debris* "Those pieces of debris were planted!" "Oh really?!" "They must have been, because we know a plane didn't hit the pentagon!" "How do you know a plane didn't hit the pentagon?" "Because there was no debris!"

*Facepalm*

And don't even get me started on the flyover theory.

8) Vaccines do no good



Contrary to what some may assume, I'm not actually "anti-vaccine". Vaccines are 250-year-old technology that obviously have done a lot of good. I actually agree with skeptics on this point. It's not vaccine technology in general that's the problem, but the specific products that the pharmaceutical industry puts out.

7) Lady Gaga is a man


Stefani Germanotta as a little girl

Lady Gaga is kind of a guilty pleasure of mine. Most people in conspiracy circles believe she's an Illuminati puppet who's part of some demoralization agenda. While there probably is some truth there, you have to admit she's very talented, at least compared to many other popular "artists" today (*Cough* Justin Bieber *Cough*). Also, her songs translate quite well to heavy metal![1] [2] [3] [4]

I've never really cared much for celebrity conspiracy theories. Could Kurt Cobain, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and Amy Winehouse have really been murdered? Well, it wouldn't surprise me, but I haven't really researched any of them so I don't know. Could Disney teen sensations be under some form of mind control? Again, it wouldn't surprise me. We're all under mind control to some degree. That's what propaganda, marketing and indoctrination is. The theory that Lady Gaga is a secretly a man though is just silly.

6) The Moon-landing hoax theory



Back when I was a teenager I actually used to believe this. Eventually I realised a lot of people would have to be involved and fully aware of the hoax. Compartmentalization would be stretched beyond its limits. In 2008, MythBusters pretty much answered my remaining questions.

5) The man in the "fatty" Bin Laden video isn't Bin Laden


Al-Zawahiri and Al-Harbi talking to a fat guy in a suit... apparently.

Again, this was something I used to believe until this 9/11 Myths article set me straight. See, we agree with the debunkers on some things!

4) The Intelligent Design = Creationism conspiracy theory



This is a conspiracy theory advocated by those who attack us: the skeptics. Basically, in early drafts of the intelligent design book, Of Pandas and People, the authors used the word "creationism" instead of "intelligent design". Then in a subsequent draft, all instances of the word "creationism" were replaced with "intelligent design" and all instances of the word "creationist" were replaced with "design proponent", and in one case, since I guess the Ctrl-H function didn't exist in the 80s, "cdesign proponentsists". This is cited as proof by many that intelligent design is simply a conspiracy to sneak creationism into the classrooms. And "cdesign proponentsists" has been widely ridiculed as the 'missing link' between creationism and intelligent design.

I'll admit, it's kind of funny. The problem is, "creationism" and "intelligent design" are just labels. The "skeptics" have it backwards. This doesn't prove that intelligent design = creationism. All it proves is that what we now call intelligent design was at some point during its development referred to as creationism. That doesn't change the fact that they are two distinctly different ideas. Also, there are references to the term "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer" going back to the 1700s. The term was even used by Charles Darwin in 1861.

The Skeptics Society: Hard forensic evidence isn't good enough evidence for the 9/11 conspiracy theory, but a few old, mined quotations and a typo is all the proof you need for the ID = creationism conspiracy theory! Don't believe the anti-establishment conspiracy theories, believe the pro-establishment conspiracy theories!

3) "That's No Moon!"



I'm fairly open-minded about a lot of what David Icke says, even the reptilian stuff. I'm not saying I believe it, but I'm not completely close-minded to it either. I've heard of crazier beliefs (*Cough* Scientology *Cough*). But his most recent claim that "the moon is not real" is just too much. It's not so much the theory itself but the new age belief that it's part of. Icke essentially believes that thousands of years ago the world was like Pandora from Avatar. There was an abundance of life and we were all spiritually connected and everything was in harmony etc. And then the evil moon - which was actually built by aliens - came a long and screwed it all up. The problem is, if we didn't have a moon, we wouldn't be here!

Because of complex gravitational interactions with the outer planets, the tilt of the Earth would, if it didn't have a large moon, vary chaotically. We know this because we can observe it happening to Mars. The Earth's tilt is at a relatively constant 23 degrees. If we didn't have a moon it would vary between 10 and 40 degrees over periods of millions of years. Millions of years may sound like a a long time, but in evolutionary terms it's really not. Such variation in tilt would cause an erratic climate which would prevent complex life from evolving in the first place. So the moon sort of functions as a cosmic tail rotor. It's not bad. It doesn't screw up a perfect balance. It's a neccesary part of one!

2) "It's the Joooooos!"



Suck my jaggon, anti-semites!

1) TV fakery and fake phone calls



What the September Clues people are arguing essentially is that the entire population of New York City was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy. It's no surprise that I would put the TV fakery theory at number one. The reason I'm putting the fake phone call theory at number one as well is because I honestly believe it to be equally offensive.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

9/11 Tarpley vs Kay Debate

Editor's note: I strongly disagree with many of Tarpley's conclusions about 9/11 and his unfounded allegations against several other 9/11 researchers.

9/11 Tarpley vs Kay Debate

Date: Saturday, April 28, 2012
ProgressivePress.com

Tarpley noted that conspiracies aren't needed under dictatorship or mob rule, but that they flourish under oligarchy.
Kay bases his arguments on the assumption that real conspiracies are small and large ones are fanciful. Conspiracy theorists keep expanding the scope of the conspiracy to explain away "new evidence" in the form of reports from e.g. the 9/11 Commission, NIST or the media. But these are not new facts, they are only reiterations of the appeal to authority fallacy.
Tarpley pointed out that the increased distrust of authority is due to the failure to give people the goods in terms of a better standard of living. In his presentation he gave facts about drills on 9/11 and pointed out that the Founding Fathers and A. Lincoln were firm believers in a conspiracy against freedoms of the people.
Kay takes examples where conspiracies came to light as proof that our free, open society is fool-proof against conspiracies, so that 9/11 couldn’t have succeeded as an inside job. His examples are the 1933 plot against Roosevelt and Operation Northwoods. Tarpley calls him on this, pointing out that the news of the 1933 plot was suppressed by the media, that the plotters got off scot-free, and that the plot against FDR continued. As for Northwoods, it was essentially implemented in the form of the Tonkin Gulf hoax. Moreover, the instigator of Northwoods, Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, became the chief of NATO where he installed Gladio units to carry out false-flag operations. Someone from the audience refuted Kay’s allegation that conspiracy theories are disproved by history, pointing out how belief in a conspiracy around the JFK assassination has grown from a small minority to a huge majority.
Kay repeats the old argument that someone somewhere would blow the whistle. Tarpley replied that they would risk their lives or their livelihoods by breaking their vow of silence. Kay betrays a complete lack of understanding of social structures such as exist in the intelligence community, special forces and organized crime. The perpetrators or moles are not going to talk. That goes for the patsies, too, who as Tarpley pointed out, often can’t talk because they are liquidated. As for the media, Kay assumes we have never heard of Operation Mockingbird.
Kay made a point that the internet has allowed people to find “factoids” to support their point of view, whatever it may be. In other words, that opinion drives people’s perception of reality.
When asked what aspect of the inside job argument he felt was strongest, he spoke of his background in metallurgy and his interest in the studies on the building collapses. He said the best propaganda point for 911 truth was the video of WTC 7 collapsing, but that this clip shows the side of the building that was undamaged. Of course he didn’t explain how a steel building is supposed to burn down, apparently due to his own herd-instinct subjectivity overruling his metalurgy.
Kay had the last word in an appeal for investigative journalism rather than just connecting the dots. He mentioned cases like the NYT publishing the Pentagon papers.
I suppose Kay would consider it an outlandish conspiracy theory if one were to point out that this is an efficient way for an oligarchy to rule. Keep up the façade of a free open society by allowing diversity of views, while suppressing only the really dangerous facts that would threaten Wall Street rule. Moreover this very fiction of a free society helps the empire expand by harnessing young fools abroad to join color revolutions to overthrow their national governments, which are then replaced by kleptocrat klients of Wall Street.

9/11 Debate: Webster Tarpley vs. Jonathan Kay.

Published on Apr 30, 2012 by Bullsh!tPolitics

Although, I think this is not one of Tarpley's best debates, due to time restrictions. It was still a very cogent and convincing presentation on the subject. Kay, acting as the religious status quo inquisitor, brings up couple of good points about the mentality of the truthers, though it didn't save his speech from being banal & lacklustre. Overall, Kay's efforts i thought, lacked the ideal form of focus, substance and facts, which is the key ingredient for any competitive debate. In simpler terms, "he brought a knife to a gun fight".



Related:

Debunking Jonathan Kay, his book Among the Truthers, and Other 'Debunkers'

Debunking 911myths.com: War Games