BBC Planning Huge New 7/7 Conspiracy Hit Piece

The BBC is set to air a new 'Conspiracy Road Trip' hit piece on the 7/7 London bombings. As we saw with last summer's 9/11 version, the program tries to get "truthers" to recant and swallow the official story - in the process ideologically burning them at the stake for the consumption of the viewing sheeple.

I talk to Jon Scobie of We Are Change Birmingham who took part in the filming as one of the central participants. He astoundingly reveals that producers admitted to him from the start that the show would not be unbiased, and that no less than five executive-level directors make the decisions on editing before the programme even airs.



Great interview. Worth checking!

*And check out the related info that explains the ACTUAL train arrival and departure times on 7/7 juxtaposed to the official story. It seems that it was impossible for the bombers, arriving at Luton station at 7:21:54, in the rush hour, to have caught all the necessary departing trains, except for one, so that the full bombing scenario could play out.

Related Info:

The 7/7 Train Times from Luton to King's Cross Disprove the Official Story

Obama invokes 9/11 aaa-gain!

Why is it that every time the presidents want to go invade another country or send troops to some other country for anything, or take away more of our Constitutional rights they invoke 9/11?
Perhaps because 9/11 is the lie that changed the world and gave us a never ending war, plus a reason that the government can invoke support for just about anything in the guise of keeping us "safe".
Here is that quote from Politics Daily
"We are at war," Obama said. "We are at war against Al-Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them."

Lately every time Obama opens his mouth he is war drumming and using 9/11 as the call to arms.
Obama is sounding more like Bush everyday.

Obama also called America the homeland.
THE WHAT???? yes that's right.. you read it correctly..the man said the homeland.
Such a subtle note of brainwashing PSYOP propaganda that word "homeland" is.

Here is the quote from "Salon News
"First, although our intelligence community had learned a great deal about the
Al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, called Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, that we knew that they sought to strike the United States and that they were recruiting operatives to do so, the intelligence community did not aggressively follow up on and prioritize particular streams of intelligence related to a possible attack against the homeland."

Obama invoking 9/11 and calling America "The Homeland" are techniques employed by those who have the need for propaganda or PR to spindoctor something so that "We The People" will buy it. (Remember that Obama and all presidents reads from a teleprompter and someone writes his/their speeches.)
I went to http://www.gatecreepers.com/entries/propaganda-techniques-infowarrior-resource-part/#1.9 and looked up propaganda.
Here is what they had to say.
Propaganda Techniques" is based upon "Appendix I: PSYOP Techniques" from "Psychological Operations Field Manual No.33-1" published by Headquarters; Department of the Army, in Washington DC, on 31 August 1979 (from http://www.zoehouse.com/is/sco/proptech.html)
Here are a few of the types of propaganda that I heard in Obama's talk.
Assertion:
Assertions are positive statements presented as fact. They imply that what is stated is self-evident and needs no further proof. Assertions may or may not be true.
Glittering Generalities:
Glittering generalities are intensely emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. They appeal to such emotions as love of country, home; desire for peace, freedom, glory, honor, etc. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. Though the words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people, their connotation is always favorable: "The concepts and programs of the propagandist are always good, desirable, virtuous."
Generalities may gain or lose effectiveness with changes in conditions. They must, therefore, be responsive to current conditions. Phrases which called up pleasant associations at one time may evoke unpleasant or unfavorable connotations at another, particularly if their frame of reference has been altered.
Vagueness:
Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application.
Rationalization:
Individuals or groups may use favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague and pleasant phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs.
Simplification:
Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.
Transfer:
This is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. This technique is generally used to transfer blame from one member of a conflict to another. It evokes an emotional response which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities.
Least of Evils:
This is a technique of acknowledging that the course of action being taken is perhaps undesirable but that any alternative would result in an outcome far worse. This technique is generally used to explain the need for sacrifices or to justify the seemingly harsh actions that displease the target audience or restrict personal liberties. Projecting blame on the enemy for the unpleasant or restrictive conditions is usually coupled with this technique.
Last but not least I leave you with this quote from Hermann Göring
"Of course the people don't want war ... that is understood. But voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Related Info:

Obama Plays The 9/11 Card Again

The Christmas Underwear Terrorist

Interview with the Staff of GateCreepers.com

John-Michael Talboo (JMT)-Q:

GateCreepers.com is a collection of original articles devoted to debunking myths on conspiracy theories, exposing propaganda techniques of the mainstream media and government, exploring concepts such as the hive mind, and other such topics which dumb down the population and keep us in servitude. The site is also devoted to debunking the debunkers of several specific topics including 9/11 and the JFK assassination, our brother from another mother so to speak!

I have found that when debating people on the subject of government complicity in 9/11 they very often seem to be referring to one of the 48 myths about conspiracy theories discussed in your article, Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories, almost as if it was their playbook. This of course makes it a very good debating tool, as you can just say, well thanks for bringing up debunked myth #16 about conspiracy theories, next. An example of this can be found in the comments of a short post I put together for this blog in which I questioned whether Noam Chomsky had indeed dispelled 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic. I would hazard a guess that type of result brings a smile to your writing team.

Did that article, or the site in general come about due to seeing these tired, often media propagated, talking points being parroted during personal debates? If not, how did it come about?

GateCreepers-A:

Yes, the very fact that people are referring to those myths as if it were their playbook is the main reason why we wrote this article. We found that writers of hit pieces kept using the same arguments over and over again in an almost formulaic way. This is probably not a coincidence either, as one of the declassified documents we found on Namebase and reproduced for our readers' benefit was a CIA memo that gave many of those said talking points in response to skepticism of the Warren Commission report. We came across those talking points in media hit pieces, but forum debates inspired us even more to do this as we experienced first hand the frustration of having those hackneyed points repeated to us.

We found particularly tiresome how many of those debunkers claim an intellectual high ground based on skepticism and critical thought. The fact that those points are still repeated uncritically today by self-appointed 'debunkers' shows how little substance there is behind their claims, and we find it particularly odd how those people never focus their skepticism on government lies. In a way, we consider our Myths article as well as our website as an intellectual case for conspiracism in general and as filling this void of skepticism towards the government.

Finally, we admire the works of Alex Jones and many other truth activists who are unfairly ridiculed by the media, and we consider this our tribute to their efforts. We felt that the clarity and resounding truth of their arguments needed to be generalised to challenge the broader philosophical points of the debate.

JMT-Q:
The fact that the CIA suggested many of those talking points in response to skepticism of the Warren Commission report is very interesting in light of the many parallels between the JFK Assassination & 9/11. During an appearance on the Alex Jones show, Jim Marrs who wrote the book Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, which was the basis for the Oliver Stone film
JFK, pointed many of these out, stating:

If the purpose of the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks was to curtail American freedom, centralize more power in the federal government, and set back the social agenda of the United States in favor of an open-ended military intelligence build-up, then they succeeded admirably. To many people such as myself it all had a familiar ring to it. In many ways the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks fits the same template as that of the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, and here's how...

Within hours, despite a lack of real evidence, one man was blamed for the event, along with hints that he was connected to foreign enemies.

Official pronouncements were widely publicized only to be later admitted to be errors.

Although within the jurisdiction of the local authorities the entire case was usurped by federal agencies, particularly FEMA and the FBI, the CIA, all agencies under the control of a president who benefited from the tragedy. A group of specialists, medical in the JFK's case, and some engineers in that of the WTC, were convened, but limited in what they could view and study, and blocked from conducting an objective probe by federal officials.

Evidence in both cases was hastily removed and destroyed forever lost to a impartial and meaningful investigation.

And he continues with more points including how both events culminated in foreign wars, which we all know were based on lies, the staged Golf of Tonkin incident in the case of Vietnam, and lies about WMD and other things concerning Iraq. Also mentioned was the fact that JFK assassination critics, just like 9/11 critics, were largely labeled conspiracy theorists and called unpatriotic. Peter Dale Scott has also written a piece in the Journal of 911 Studies entitled "9/11, JFK, and War: Recurring Patterns in America's Deep Events."

What do you think of the parallels between these events? How do they connect to the CIA talking point memo obtained through the FOIA? What Lessons can we learn from the JFK Truth Movement?

GateCreepers-A:
As we analyse it, the most striking parallel between 9/11 and the JFK assassination is how the establishment went out of its way to discredit any non-sanctioned version of the events. Yet, many other historical events are reinterpreted by historians without them being called names or risking their reputation; even in most cases where it's damaging to the American image they are simply ignored. We noted in our Myths article that the term 'conspiracy theory' was popularised by the American media following widespread doubts about the JFK assassination. The equivalent in foreign languages for that invented concept with all its connotations are usually direct translations or slight variations.

COINTELPRO was a notable program that was going on during, before and after the Kennedy administration, to counter the Civil Rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War at the time. One tactic they used was to plant anti-white colouring books and attribute them to the Black Panthers. As you're probably aware, many in the 9/11 Truth Movement and the Anti-War movement suspect that those activities are still going on. Primary infiltrator suspects are those who endorse dodgy theories based on untenable evidence, but even more so the ones who engage in disruptive behaviour and try to divide the movement by spreading doubt by accusing other activists of doing those same things.

Operation Mockingbird was / is another CIA operation that started in the 50s, where they infiltrated all the major media outlets. At the same time, another CIA memo hosted on our site, found on cia-on-campus.org, reveals that they wanted to 'improve' relations with academia. As with COINTELPRO and Guantanamo, both operations are claimed to have been put to an end. Yet, the hit pieces that are regularly published through both mainstream and 'alternative' outlets with those talking points are a testimony of the fact that those activities are ongoing. In fact, many so-called 'alternative' publications, often the same ones that publish anti-9/11 Truth propaganda, are known as Gatekeepers (from which our name derives) and have connections with organisations like the Ford Foundation, and receive CIA funding, directly or indirectly. Regarding academics, it is remarkable that Noam Chomsky endorses both the official story of 9/11 and that of JFK's assassination.

As recently as 2005, the 'false news' scandal broke out. The Pentagon openly announced that it would conduct information warfare on the internet, and the USAF has a PR guide on how to deal with bloggers. It was even revealed that foreign media is being manufactured by the US government, under the guise of competing with other foreign media, but probably also because they know that many Americans no longer trust their own domestic media. This has led to many activists raising questions about the motives of the anti-truth internet trolls.

The fact that COINTELPRO started in 1953 and hadn't stopped during the Kennedy administration indicates that they probably won't stop with the new Obama administration either, in spite of his claims that he would shut down Guantanamo. Similarly, Operation Mockingbird in all likelyhood never stopped and will continue during Obama's reign.

The fact that those parallels exist in the first place suggests that the perpetrators have used the same modus operandi for both events. Inevitably, this would result in them using the same methods to conduct the media cover-up. The difference between 9/11 and JFK, however, is that we now have the internet at our disposal to counter the propaganda. Although media concentration was less severe at the time, the internet has a far greater reach than the rogue elements of the media at the time. Their response has been government-sponsored trolling, and attempts to discredit the internet itself. Those tactics will ultimately fail in the face of the large numbers of truthers who are wise to those tactics and will counter them wherever they can be found. As evidence of this, you can already see overwhelmingly negative responses to hit pieces in the comments sections of both mainstream and 'alternative' publications. Discrediting the internet will not be effective forever as more and more people get exposed to it and stop believing the rumours.

We believe that what needs to be addressed next is the way of thinking itself that has been instilled into people. Currently, the movement mostly focuses on the by-products of this mentality, namely by debunking government lies and false flag operations. But the public mind itself has been moulded by several ways, from the media to the public school system. The anti-conspiracy mentality is part of this mindset. People have been conditioned to dismiss every kind of evidence except a narrow subset which conveniently corresponds to whatever the media feeds the masses. For many people, only the mainstream media and the government itself qualify as 'reliable' sources; this is especially true of people incapable of critically analysis, and would rather just believe a source they consider 'safe'. This kind of mindset for example leads people to automatically reject JFK Truth as 'unreliable' because it's in what they would call 'conspiracy books' rather than on the news.

JMT-Q:

The type of things you have pointed out have actually shaped the comment policy on this blog. As blog contributor Mark E. Smith has pointed out:

The facts speak for themselves and it is because the facts are irrefutable that debunkers are reduced to ad hominem attacks, criticizing the Truthers because they cannot refute the truth.

The same thing happened with the JFK assassination. For many years, anyone who insisted that it wasn't just a lone nut, was dismissed as a loony conspiracy theorist. When a subsequent investigation found that there had been more than one shooter, no apologizes were issued for all the smears that researchers had previously endured. The smears and insults had served their purpose in stigmatizing researchers and hiding the truth from the public. This should not be allowed to happen again.

The problem with the subsequent investigation he mentions is that they didn't pinpoint the extent of the conspiracy, and only years later did the lead counsel conclude that the CIA wasn't being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation.

So you can see why even this can be viewed as a whitewash, in that while it acknowledges the conspiracy, it then downplays it and still only pinpoints the blame on Oswald.

What steps do you think can be taken to ensure that a new US investigation will not just be another whitewash, or semi-whitewash?

GateCreepers-A:

Our solution is simple. We need to ensure that prominent 9/11 Truth researchers are part of the investigation and are the ones who ask the questions. The usual whitewash tactic is to conduct so-called 'bipartisan' investigations, which essentially means that they pick their enablers from both the Republican and the Democratic Party. As a movement we will have to make clear that we will not accept the results of the investigation unless it is conducted with full transparency and people are held accountable, even if our/their theories are partly or fully vindicated. Continuous, relentless demonstrations would be appropriate, and should escalate pressure (whilst remaining peaceful) in the event of any suspected bias or prevarication. Every time a question is avoided or improperly investigated, protesters should fill the streets with signposts chanting the question out loud and demanding a real answer.

JMT-Q:

Switching gears a bit, what are your thoughts on those in this movement that focus most of their attention on a perceived Zionist connection to 9/11? Of course, pointing out evidence of Israel intelligence foreknowledge and possible involvement is one thing, but this in no way automatically translates to Zionism. That being said, religious ideology of any stripe can be a dangerous thing when people take it too far. The point can also be made that George Bush's interpretation of Christianity helped shape his deplorable foreign policy, and in all the speculation that perhaps he was involved in 9/11, I have never seen anyone say that the Christians carried out 9/11.

This issue also seems to be used against prominent truth activists like Alex Jones, who all in one breath are accused of being both anti-Jewish and pro-Zionist. What do you make of things like this, and how can we deal with and debate these sensitive issues?

GateCreepers-A:

Zionism is a nationalistic ideology that has little to do with religion, other than its founders having cynically used the Jewish religion to justify their agenda. There is a damning article about this, unfortunately in French, by a Jewish peace movement, which explains how the Zionist founders actually wanted to kill the Jewish diaspora and its culture to replace it by an artificial Israeli culture. They explained in detail how they created myths and taught them as historical facts until they were recently questioned (the Exodus for example), and how they suppressed Yiddish and other languages and recreated Hebrew, which was a dead language like Latin, to replace it.

That said, although evidence shows Israeli involvement in the false flag operation, it doesn't point to 9/11 having been commissioned by Israel. We acknowledge that Israel stood to gain from 9/11, (Netanyahu was quoted to that effect), and that many of the suspects such as Zelikow are avowed Zionists. But that doesn't automatically translate to 9/11 being a Jewish, or even a Zionist conspiracy. Simply acknowledging this from currently available evidence doesn't make one an Israeli apologist, anymore than suggesting an Israeli connection to 9/11 is anti-semitic.

Those attempts to portray Alex Jones as a CIA disinfo agent, or a Jesuit, or a covert Zionist, or a white supremacist are based on connections that are at best tenuous, such as his wife being Jewish or his show being on GCN, which in turn uses ABC's airwaves, or a rant made by William Cooper almost 10 years ago, or even just the fact that Alex Jones is allowed to speak on air. The role of COINTELPRO is not just to feed disinformation or only revealing part of it, but also to sow doubt within the movement to divide it. Perhaps the ones who are deserving of suspicion are the ones who are the most eager to denounce fellow patriots rather than the actual criminals.
One of the core issues that makes our movement easy to divide is that it's a broad coalition, and as a result many tend to bring their own agendas into it. Many Christians for example want to bring religion into the debate, so they denounce 'secularism' and call for 'going back to Christianity'. Others see multuralism as an evil, so they promote white nationalism or forcible assimilation. We're not saying that the elites aren't trying to suppress religion or to use immigration to divide and conquer, but those agendas dilute our goals as well as our credibility.

Others want a particular group to be the central focus and claim that they are the 'top' elites, be it Zionists, Freemasons, Jesuits, Socialists, and so on. All of those have a role to play and should be investigated, The problem is when one can be accused of being disinfo simply for not accepting any of those groups as the 'main' evil. And of course, simply being Jewish or a Catholic does not make one a Zionist or an elitist.

Realistically, no one can investigate every group of the NWO. Like us they are a broad coalition, the main difference being that they are a pyramidal hierarchy and we are a grassroots movement. We need both 'bigger picture' researchers as well as focussed researchers.

Alex Jones partly addresses this by interviewing other people and encouraging his listeners to do their own investigations and look at other sources. Once in a while he denounces Israel, but that is still not enough for his detractors.

JMT-Q:

To wrap up, please tell the readers what actions you think are imperative that they take, and please also give them a heads up on any forthcoming projects to be looking out for from GateCreepers. Thanks for the interview, it's been an absolute pleasure.

GateCreepers-A:

We believe that the actions currently being taken by the 9/11 Truth Movement are the right ones and can't think of anything to add beyond the current consensus or what we have already said. Essentially, do nothing to give the elites an excuse to crack down on demonstrations, and try to pursue the truth while avoiding diversionary and divisive agendas. As for Gatecreepers, we would rather not comment on future projects, but we will make announcements whenever we come up with anything new.

JMT:

Well I for one will stay tuned.