The good, the bad and the down right disturbing.

So I've now watched all of the aired episodes of Jesse Ventura's show and I'm very impressed with it. The 9/11 episode, the global warming episode and the Bilderberg episode are by far the best. The manchurian candidate episode was a little weird but I have no doubt this sort of thing goes on. You only have to watch shows like Derren Brown: Trick of the Mind and The Hypnotic World of Paul McKenna to see mind control is very real, and we'd be naive to think the CIA doesn't experiment with it. One more episode to go - 2012. Or as I will call it ... the turd in the punchbowl! ... I mean seriously! 2012!? I'm more likely to believe in the reptilians than that BS.

While you Americans are getting some balanced and informative conspiracy television, we Brits on the other hand are getting our usual dose of propaganda from Orwell's ministry of truth, the BBC. On Sunday they aired another episode of our favourite TV show The Conspiracy Files. Mike Rudin, one of many people who make me ashamed to be British, produced yet another hatchet job on the truth movement. This time on the subject of Osama Bin Laden. I don't know much about the Bin Laden stuff so I don't have a lot to say but here's some things I noticed...

1. They called him the most wanted man in the world, but did not mention the fact that he is not wanted for 9/11.

2. They made no mention of the fact that the infamous confession video was manipulatively mistranslated.

3. When they attempt to debunk the fake video claims they overlay parts of Bin Laden's face over the blackbeard Bin Laden video and it appears to match quite well.

Well, using the same logic ...



Pretty convincing right!? Except it's total BS. The BBC's analysis proves nothing. Also when they get to the "fatty bin laden" video. They do a slow fade from one Bin Laden to the other. While I've never really doubted the man in that video is Bin Laden (I've always found the idea of a fat guy in a suit sitting down with the real al-Zawahiri a little ridiculous), I should point out that a slow fade is not the best way to analyse things because there can be minor changes between each frame that amount to drastic changes over time, which you don't see because you're skipping through it so slowly. This is a trap I've fell into before when analysing the collapse of WTC7 frame by frame. I skip through 20 or so frames and think a certain point hasn't moved at all, then go back to the first frame and see it has actually moved quite a bit.

The rest of the piece is just the usual appealing to authority nonsense, mixed with psychological analysis and character attacks. We're a religion, we want to believe in conspiracies because it makes us feel better, the truth is too scary, they're too incompetent to pull off such a huge conspiracy, blah blah blah yadda yadda yap yap dribble dribble blah. They even go as far as to say we are HELPING BIN LADEN! That's right. As if subtly linking us to Muslim extremism in the 7/7 piece wasn't bad enough, they are now saying our theories are helping Bin Laden! Conspiracy theorists are now officially terrorists.

Sadly that's not the most disturbing thing I've heard this week. 9/11 has inspired a lot of evil and it has inspired a lot of good. It has triggered a global awakening of humanity and it has inspired many great musicians such as My Chemical Romance. However this has to be by far the sickest thing it has inspired... A life size robot girlfriend that you can have sex with!



Inspiration for the sex robot sprang from the September 11, 2001 attacks, when planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon and an empty field in Pennsylvania.

"I had a friend who passed away in 9/11," Hines said. "I promised myself I would create a program to store his personality, and that became the foundation for Roxxxy True Companion."

- http://www.physorg.com/news182250255.html

The human race, ladies and gentlemen! WTF!? What's even sicker is there's a video on Youtube [mature content], which I'm guessing (and hoping) is just something some sick person has made and isn't an actual promotional video for the doll. The video features digitally synthesized voices talking about things like jet fuel, molten metal, the twin towers etc and mixing it with references to anti-semitism, pedophilia, bestiality and 9/11 victims burning in hell. Either way it's a sick joke. And it's got 55,000 views in 1 day. I repeat. The human race, ladies and gentlemen! I bet the eugenicist social engineers are just loving this.

Related Info:

BBC Propaganda: Is Osama Bin Laden dead or alive?

16 Months of Debunking Screw Loose Change ...

And they finally show themselves on this blog ... to discuss ... pretty girls?!

Comment on IT'S A TRAP!!!:



The ScrewLooseChange guys have largely ignored this blog, except to make fun of us when we make little mistakes. Considering this blog is essentially devoted to responding to their blog, you'd think they'd pay a little more attention. Obviously they know they can't win. Hey guys I'm still waiting for someone to debunk my song. ;)

AE911Truth Debates Explosive Expert: Richard Gage, AIA vs. Ron Craig -

January 11, 2010
911blogger.com, AE911truth.org,

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION, BUT NOT YOUR OWN FACTS.

Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and Ron Craig, explosives and Hollywood special effects expert locked horns in their second live radio debate in two years. The exchange was hosted by Richard Syrett of The Conspiracy Show. LISTEN TO THE DEBATE NOW.

While no data is available yet for listenership numbers, we do know that the show could be heard from Thunderbay Ontario to the Carolinas....from Maine to Minnesota, NYC, Chicago, Washington and all points in between. Also, the program is offered as a podcast, so it will be available on iTunes as a download. It's the most downloaded show on the radio station – Zoomer Radio from Ontario. The show will also be broadcast on TV - http://www.theconspiracyshow.com/

After brief introductory statements, the debate began right away with two very different views of reality on display. Gage's comments were based on observations that the three WTC towers did not suffer a natural collapse as a result of plane impacts and fires, but came down due to an engineered explosive destruction. Craig, on the other hand, asserted the belief that the plane strikes delivered three times the kinetic energy that the buildings were designed to withstand, that the construction was faulty, and that there was "no signature of explosions".

Craig also mentioned that the plane strikes would account for much of the pulverization of the concrete - without additional explanation as to why up to 30% of the powder blanketing Lower Manhattan was composed of finely ground concrete.

The debate proceeded with Ron Craig's denial of what we consider to be observed facts of the building's explosive destruction. He denied the existence of concrete dust as well as the iron spheres found in the dust samples by USGS and RJ Lee, and offered no explanation for the creation of the spheres. He denied that there were red/gray chips in the WTC dust – suggesting that they were planted by the scientists and somehow slipped past the peer-review process.

We believe that he is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own version of the facts.

Craig hinges his argument on the assertion that many tons of precisely placed explosives would hardly damage the stout columns or make a large enough signature blast to be heard for miles. He believes that, if it existed, he would be aware of any higher-tech explosive comprising nano-thermite. “No boogie man here.”

When the issue of “fire initiated collapse” was raised, Gage pointed to the fact that this type of collapse has never happened before or after 9/11, but only three times - on that one day. Craig countered with a video reference to the Delft building consumed in fire which sustained a partial collapse.

The discussion of fire opened up the evidence of moltn metal found weeks after 9/11 in the debris pile. Craig simply denied its existence, though photo, video, and eyewitness evidence suggests otherwise. Once again we feel that Mr. Craig is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts.

Please listen to the debate. The commercials have been cut out from this MP3 file, so the resulting length is about 1 ½ hours.

And please let us know what you think and how you feel our debating technique as well as our content can be improved. We have a few more debates coming up in the next months – at KBDI Denver PBS TV in March – tentatively with physicist/mathematician Dave Thomas from the New Mexico Tech Institute. And then, tentatively, in London at Oxford hosted by former Parliamentary George Galloway.

Related Info:

"When the issue of 'fire initiated collapse' was raised, Gage pointed to the fact that this type of collapse has never happened before or after 9/11, but only three times - on that one day. Craig countered with a video reference to the Delft building consumed in fire which sustained a partial collapse."

A demolition company actually destroyed the Delft building, check the comments here.

Your Government Appointees at Work

This one goes out to all the "debunkers" who think we are just "paranoid nutters."...

By Marc Estrin
OpEdNews.com
January 10, 2010 at 16:06:41

Cass Sunstein is President Obama's Harvard Law School friend, and recently appointed Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

In a recent scholarly article, he and coauthor Adrian Vermeule take up the question of "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures". (J. Political Philosophy, 7 (2009), 202-227). This is a man with the president's ear. This is a man who would process information and regulate things. What does he here propose?

[W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity. (Page 219.)

Read this paragraph again. Unpack it. Work your way through the language and the intent. Imagine the application. What do we learn?

-- It is "extremists" who "supply" "conspiracy theories".
-- Their "hard core" must be "broken up" with distinctive tactics. What tactics?
-- "Infiltration" ("cognitive") of groups with questions about official explanations or obfuscations or lies. Who is to infiltrate?
-- "Government agents or their allies", virtually (i.e. on-line) or in "real-space" (as at meetings), and "either openly or anonymously", though "infiltration" would imply the latter. What will these agents do?
-- Undermine "crippled epistemology" -- one's theory and technique of knowledge. How will they do this?
-- By "planting doubts" which will "circulate". Will these doubts be beneficial?
-- Certainly. Because they will introduce "cognitive diversity".

Put into English, what Sunstein is proposing is government infiltration of groups opposing prevailing policy. Palestinian Liberation? 9/11 Truth? Anti-nuclear power? Stop the wars? End the Fed? Support Nader? Eat the Rich?

It's easy to destroy groups with "cognitive diversity". You just take up meeting time with arguments to the point where people don't come back. You make protest signs which alienate 90% of colleagues. You demand revolutionary violence from pacifist groups.

We expect such tactics from undercover cops, or FBI. There the agents are called "provocateurs" -- even if only "cognitive". One learns to smell or deal with them in a group, or recognize trolling online. But even suspicion or partial exposure can "sow uncertainty and distrust within conspiratorial groups [now conflated with conspiracy theory discussion groups] and among their members," and "raise the costs of organization and communication" -- which Sunstein applauds as "desirable". "[N]ew recruits will be suspect and participants in the group's virtual networks will doubt each other's bona fides." (p.225).

And are we now expected to applaud such tactics frankly proposed in a scholarly journal by a high-level presidential advisor?

The full text of a slightly earlier version of Sunstein's article is available for download here.

Got fascism?

http://web.mac.com/mestrin/marcestrin/Home.html

Marc Estrin is a writer, cellist and activist from Burlington, VT, and author of the novels Insect Dreams, The Half Life of Gregor Samsa; The Education of Arnold Hitler; Golem Song; The Lamentations of Julius Marantz, Skulk, The Annotated (more...)

Thanks to Gregg Roberts of 911research.wtc7.net and ae911truth.org for passing this along. He would have chose the headline: OMG: They really are out to get us - Our conspiracy theorizing is a disease that needs to be cured

Related Info...

Popular Mechanics and others were "enlisted" by the government.

Sunstein and Beck Fire Shots Across Our Bow

Operative Beck Says 9/11 Truthers Are A Threat To Obama's Safety!

The personal paranoia of Glenn Beck

Alex Jones talks about Glenn Beck saying 9/11 Truth is going to Kill Obama

Debunkers = Fish in a Barrel

YouTube.com:

ctcole77 (2 days ago) 911 TRUTH = 911 LIES

The history channel aired your favorite show last night :) "911 DEBUNKED"

911debunkerschannel (1 day ago)

"911 TRUTH = 911 LIES"

History Channel Hit Piece = Dirty Tricks, Malicious Lies & Journalistic Fraud...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/210807_dirty_tricks.htm

ctcole77 (1 hour ago)

History Channel SCIENCE Piece = Educated expert testimony

Nanothermite paper = the first peer reviewed paper in which the chief editor NEVER reviewed it

Nanothermite paper = the first peer reviewed paper in which a physicist claims to be an expert in chemistry

911 TRUTH = 911 LIES

911debunkerschannel (44 minutes ago)

"Nanothermite paper = the first peer reviewed paper in which the chief editor NEVER reviewed it"

"The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' was published, resigned, claiming she wasn't informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.". Strangely, her areas of research seem to contradict that." - Source: http://911blogger.com/node/19963

What you need to know about "Peer-review":

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/steven-jones-tells-911-debunkers-to-put.html

"Nanothermite paper = the first peer reviewed paper in which a physicist claims to be an expert in chemistry"

"First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here: http://cmm.nbi.ku.dk/" - Source: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-discovered-in.html

Chemical Engineer Mark Basile Discusses 9/11 WTC Dust:

http://911blogger.com/node/20998

Oh... and the work of the National Institute for Standards and Technology has not been peer-reviewed!:

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/150907_nist_investigate_911.html

Related Info:

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of Debunking the Debunkers Topics discussed include the "debunkers" take on the new scientific paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," and defence thereof.

The History Channel: JFK and 9/11

'Debunking NIST's Conclusions About WTC 7 is as Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel' and other Responses to 8/21/08 NIST Briefing on WTC7

No fish were harmed in the posting of this blog. Being a vegetarian I prefer my fish bullet-free. But in the interest of debunking the debunkers that would have you believe shooting fish in a barrel is not actually easy: