Sunday, September 27, 2009

Anarchists: STAY HOME

Just another group of scenesters. Without your matching black uniforms and consistently earned reputation for vandalism and petty violence, the police would have a much harder time justifying their bloated crowd-control budgets to the public. You're all so caught up in the idea of yourselves that you've been far too slow to realize just how often and how deeply your 'organizations' have been infiltrated and commandeered by the very state that you march against. Simply put, if you get two anarchists in a room together, there's a pretty good chance one of them's a cop.

This is the point at which you abandon a movement. When it becomes overrun to the extent of accomplishing exactly the opposite of the goals for which it was chartered. When your meaningless little stageplay serves only the police state, as it is played out on their terms, you're provoked on their terms, and finally arrested on their terms. And in the end no one's mind is changed. No one's understanding is broadened. No real work has been done. I believe our founding fathers would be dismayed to see our freedom to assemble be reduced to street parades.

Yes, you should be able to assemble in Pittsburgh's streets and protest, and yes it's fucked that these monsters will actually employ sonic weaponry and gas grenades to prevent you from doing so. But here's the million dollar question. What's our best strategy of opposition to this tyrannical establishment? Street parades? Putting our cards on the table? Wearing our hearts on our sleeve? Or is it non-compliance, plain and simple? Non-compliance coupled with persistent efforts to disseminate the information that the mainstream media has hidden from the people. Now, non-compliance can take many forms, like eating fresh, local and organic foods, like they don't want you to.. never drinking their tap water, like they want you to.. never joining their military or police organizations, or mainstream political movements, never buying new vehicles, never buying new shoes or more clothing until truly necessary, canceling your cable, staying off prescription drugs, refusing vaccinations, voting 3rd party, etc..

Basically, there are only two things you can do. Improve your behavior, or try to encourage others to improve theirs. Cliche protests accomplish neither of these. Non-compliance and information dissemination accomplishes both. Turn on, tune in, drop out, Gibroneys. For real.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Smokin' Gibroneys Outa Their Holes

I found this Gibroney's video to be snarky and adolescent in its tone, and not terribly helpful. What do you think?

I'd like to discuss so called "no planers" with you. I'd like to know what has convinced you that they are creators of disinformation. I've watched September Clues and several films like it, and find some of the evidence to be very compelling indeed. While I see no reason not to believe the towers were hit by aircraft, I think the many obvious discrepencies and violations of simple laws of physics contained in the film footage is very incriminating evidence, and certainly not outside of the establishment's capabilities.

I find it amusing that many within the 9/11 truth movement go on at great length about just how capable the government is of great conspiracy.. yet when the topic of video manipulation arises most 9/11 truthers declare it ridiculous without providing any clear reasons why. For example, the majority of the 9/11 truth movement agree with David Ray Griffin that the cell phone calls from high altitude were faked. He even goes on about the corporation that patented the technology in his books, yet for some reason we're to believe that no discussion of a comparable VIDEO manipulation of the terrorist attack is necessary, because the idea's just so obviously ridiculous.

I can understand why many of the 'leaders' of 9/11 truth would steer clear of this topic. Namely, because it would risk alienating the movement from the general public, who are far too stupid to grasp such things as video manipulation of news footage. Again, I'm on the fence as to whether or not the projectiles that hit the buildings were authentic American Airlines flights, but i find the generally belligerent tone of the 'mainstream' of 9/11 truth toward 'no planers' to be very counterproductive. I'm interested in hearing any specific criticisms of no plane theory that you may have. Thanks for reading.

Interesting Back and Forth

Gibroney: You are absolutely correct when you say that the collapse of WTC7 was probably the result of controlled demolition. The CIA, Department of Defense, and Secret Service (plus the IRS) all shared office space on the 25th floor. Some sites around the world which contain sensitive information are internally wired for remote demolition from the outset in order to 'plug leaks', so to speak. If the building had not been demolished, individuals with no security clearance would gain access to it in the aftermath.

The claim of lack of evidence pointing to Al-Qaeda is simply false, as is the theory of 'multiple bin Ladens' on video. Al-Qaeda was directly implicated in the 1993 WTC attacks and were known to have been planning to try again. It should be noted that at the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the structural deficiencies of the twin towers were used as evidence by the prosecution (though the 9/11 Commission omits these facts, see my recommendation below), plus bin Laden has admitted it himself in the videos you claim are fake, even though many individuals in the intelligence communities of the world are trained to identify these specific types of fakery. Such dissimilation would be obvious to all of the world's other agencies and governments; are they in on the conspiracy too?

Also, you claim that:

"If all of this to be explained as merely part of an elaborate disinformation campaign, then that would seem to clash with the "gross incompetence" theory, since that very incompetence should logically be expected to result in the uncovering of this supposed disinformation."

Unfortunately, your conclusion is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because a government is incompetent in one instance, that it can be RELIABLY expected to be incompetent in others. Having said this (and after doing a bit more reading) I must retract the statement I made in my previous message about the administration's mishandling of Iraq etc. being indicative of incompetence on 9/11. The pattern is interesting, but admittedly ultimately inconclusive. In addition, I am not the only one propagating the meme that "the theory IS the conspiracy". Noam Chomsky, for one, has said that it is not unlikely.

By the way, I think that your theory that Chomsky is self-censoring to protect his family is a pretty far stretch.

I am not claiming that disinformation (which needn't be elaborate) is the ONLY source of the 9/11 truth movement. Much earnest grassroots activism has sprung up, because it's obvious that the government ACTUALLY HAS something to hide. However, a tried and true method of thought control is restricting the scope of a debate, and encouraging vigorous discussion within that framework. And as any good liar knows, the best lies are the ones that contain as much truth as possible.

I should add that I don't pretend to be able to PROVE that there is an organized campaign for disinformation; it's just an extremely well-supported theory, given that powerful individuals in many sectors of government, including the FBI and CIA, have means, motive, and opportunity, three things they crucially DON'T have in the case of deliberate conspiracy; see my previous message for remarks about the utter impracticality of such plans versus the broad practicality of disinformation.

For more evidence for incompetence, including Al-Qaeda infiltration of the US military, I suggest the work of journalist Peter Lance, particularly his book "Triple Cross". He describes the ineptitude across the four most recent previous administrations as "the biggest intelligence failure since the Trojan horse."

The Gibroney Hunter:
Your theory to explain Bldg 7 is very interesting. It's my first time hearing of it. Are you aware of what specific buildings are wired for this, or is that perhaps not public information? I'll look into this more deeply when I have enough time.

I acknowledge that my view of the OBL video evidence is only my opinion, since I'm in no position to prove or disprove that. There are, however, some serious problems, not only with the video but with the way in which it has been presented by our media. The C.I.A translation of the audio has been contradicted by a German team of translators who contend that OBL (or someone resembling him) simply acknowledges approval or pleasure regarding the attacks, but doesn't acknowledge responsibility. Also, the individual in the video is seen wearing a gold wristwatch, which is a clear violation of muslim norms, at least among fundamentalist jihadists. I mention this fact not because it relates to the identity of the man in the video, but because it's indicative of the overall phoniness of it. Again, there is no reason to state conclusively that the man in the "Smoking Gun" video is a double, but it is faulty to reject this idea a priori, as there is a long historical precedent for this, especially among leaders who are at high risk of assassination. Saddam Hussein was notorious for his impressive cast of body doubles.

I disagree that my statement is a non-sequiter. Although it may appear so on it's face, a deeper examination shows that rather than simply presenting one instance and then another unrelated one, we are, in fact, proposing the same scenario. I'm proposing that the federal government lied about the cause of the collapse of the WTC complex, and then engaged in a massive disinformation campaign in order to control and manipulate public opinion. You're also proposing that the federal gov. lied about the collapse (blg 7 being wired for demolition) and then engaged in disinformation regarding those collapses. Therefore we are both proposing the same thing (albeit with very different proposed motives). The fundamental difference, however, is that my view has an extensive body of evidence to support it, and yours, to my knowledge, doesn't have a comparable amount of supportive evidence. You mention means, motive, and opportunity, which are indeed an important part of any investigation. However, these three characteristics amount to pretty much nothing, without any evidence to go with them, especially when there are alternative explanations which do, in fact, incorporate a large amount of verifiable facts (like witness accounts of explosions throughout the buildings and basement, nano-thermite, etc..). Essentially, the question is not "can you prove the 'theory is the conspiracy' idea", but "can you even present a compelling fact-based argument for it?" The issue of fire insulation (or lack thereof), while certainly relevant, does not adequately explain how jet fuel, which burns at 1000 C at maximum, could possibly have compromised the steel (1,300 minimum melting temp) so extensively in such a short period of time.

I certainly agree with you that Al Qaeda did play an important role in the '93 and '01 attacks, however I think a much more important and telling aspect of the attacks is the C.I.A fingerprints left all over, which Chomsky mentions in the video. To be clear, when I speak of a lack of evidence linking Al Qaeda to the attacks, I'm referring to the funding, and much of the planning and execution stages of the attack, for which there is indeed a lack of evidence (at least by law enforcement standards), and not to the obvious evidence linking Osama Bin Laden and his 19 patsies to American intelligence.

I'm not sure I follow your statements about intelligence agencies around the world presumably being eager to expose one another's dirty laundry. Surely there is much that is common knowledge within certain intelligence circles, and just as surely, any outing of these secrets would result in an "intelligence war" sort of scenario. In other words, you seem to be assuming that people in glass houses would be eager to throw stones, but precisely the opposite is true, especially in the intelligence field, which is essentially built on secrets.

The short answer to "are they in on the conspiracy too?" is yes. This becomes clear when one considers that the same group of international bankers and wealthy elite control groups like MI6, the C.I.A, and Mossad, organizations which on their surface appear to be functioning entirely independent of one another. Obviously this isn't to say that everyone within these groups would have to have been aware of such involvement. Intelligence organizations are highly compartmentalized, and this, in my opinion, is adequate to theoretically explain how a surprisingly small group of criminals are able to govern them. Unflinchingly obeying and never questioning orders from above is precisely the behavior that individuals are rewarded for. The assertion that "the government can't keep a secret that big" is a common argument posed by people who do not accept that 9/11 was an inside job. One good historical example that counters this thinking is the Manhattan Project. For roughly a decade, 48,000 Americans were involved in it's undertaking, and not until it was confirmed that we had the bomb and the Germans didn't, did anyone at all start talking. Also, it's important to note that every year, the list of 9/11 whistleblowers grows, so perhaps we're in agreement after all, that the federal government indeed cannot keep a secret this big.

This is getting a bit wordy, so I'll conclude by noting my disagreement that Chomsky being threatened is a stretch. I suggest the film "The Insider" to shed light on how easy it is for very powerful people to level threats at people of normal means. The film is a true account of a tobacco corporation making a whisleblower's life miserable. Tobacco corporations are relatively low on the totem pole, so to speak. One can imagine how miserable the globalist elite are capable of making one's life. Again, no evidence. But I disagree that the idea in itself is a stretch from reality. In reality, perhaps a threat wouldn't even be necessary, considering how well-informed and intelligent Chomsky is.

Thanks for reading, god bless.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Crushing Gibroneys Is My Business. And Business Is Good.

Fat guy talks alot about the need to present evidence, but other than simply accepting and parroting the government's official story, he fails utterly to present any evidence of his own. He doesn't seem to grasp the fact that both he and the guest are positing conspiracy theories, just different conspiracy theories. Because of this fact, it is unfair of him to demand evidence from the guest without equally demanding it of himself.

One can disprove the government's official story without posing an alternative theory at all.  This is called ruling possibilities out, and it is a common practice of criminal investigators and law enforcement. Basically, Fatty is saying that unless one has a fully developed alternative explanation for events, one has no right at all to approach the government's explanation with skepticism. This is counterintuitive since obviously one would have to realize the discrepancies in the official account before even acknowledging a NEED to pose an alternative.

Monday, September 14, 2009

More Gibroney Huntin' (cont)

This dude not only accepts the "gross incompetence" fable, but takes it one step further, and asserts that 9/11 Truth is actually fomented and instigated by the establishment itself, in order to cover up incompetence and enforce a false notion of American omnipotence. And we're the "conspiracy theorists"?

Some Gibroney: Is there a cover-up involving 9/11? Most certainly, especially given all the evidence in the materials you've sent me. However, it is my opinion that most theories of this sort are cover stories deliberately propagated (if not created) by intelligence organs of the gov't to distract people from its periodic episodes of gross incompetence w/r/t security, exemplified by the JFK assassination and 9/11.

Some facts:

The CIA has brought radical Muslims into the US. The hijackers trained on US military bases. More military training exercises were scheduled for September 11, 2001 than usual. Hijackers were able to enter the airspace of, to say nothing of crashing a plane into, the headquarters of the most powerful military in human history and so on and so on...

We know that the US gov't has a long history of psychological operations against its own population; the UFO/alien myth for instance is propagated (probably with the collusion of Hollywood) to distract the public from the size and scope of the black military budget and the high-tech weaponry and vehicles it produces. The US gov't is also well known for its history of covert paramilitary action, but the vast majority of that is concentrated abroad, with a few exceptions (COINTELPRO being one).

As far as I can tell, there are two viable explanations that incorporate all of these facts:

1) A high-level conspiracy involving dozens, if not hundreds, of specially trained individuals and agents, none of whom are affected by the temptation to expose one of the greatest conspiracies in world history and thus become (inter)national heroes.

2) Gross incompetence (with probably some bad luck) on the part of the US intelligence/security apparatus, with a cover-up/conspiracy theory generated later to make sure the administration would not be viewed as bunglers, but as nigh-omnipotent masterminds.

The main reason we can reject explanation 1 is that any of the purported 'inside job' 9/11 schemes would have a very low chance of succeeding. Undertaking such a plan would be costly, elaborate, and difficult to keep under wraps because of the extremely high risk of detection and/or defection. If the aim of the 9/11 attacks was to drum up support for an aggressive foreign policy in general (and eventual war with Iraq in particular), a far easier plan would've been to engage in some of the things recommended by Operation Northwoods, particularly a bombing campaign. Stealing or fabricating seemingly Iraqi-made explosives is well within the powers of US intelligence, but even in that case, an eventual leak of their real source is very likely, given the amount of manpower and resources necessary for such an operation.

It is very useful to compare the events of 9/11 with those of the Kennedy assassination. They share many features: a devastating security breach, evidence for (probably unwitting) CIA involvement with the perpetrators (making the incidents a form of blowback), a deliberately avoidant and selectively informative gov't commission, and, I believe, manipulation of public paranoia in the form of deliberately and systematically withheld evidence (e.g. Kennedy's missing brain, the confiscated Pentagon security camera tapes). In both cases, the credibility of the US security apparatus is on the line. Fear is a crucial component of the power of these organizations; if they lose face they lose much of their ability to indimidate.

Machiavelli wrote that "it is better to be feared than loved", but being feared is also better than being thought a buffoon (and fessing up to criminal negligence). We need only look as far as the Bush administration's record in Afghanistan and Iraq to see how incompetent they really are when it comes to security, in both the short- and long-term. And as depicted in the video you sent me, before 9/11, high US gov't officials were either dismissive of critical intelligence (e.g. the memo infamously ignored by Condi Rice and others), or they never received it, which explains Bush & co.'s fetishistic obsession with more communication and integration among the US's various intelligence agencies. Though the CIA probably had contacts with bin Laden's organization, including several of the hijackers, it would be fallacious to then conclude that the CIA intended for those individuals to undertake terrorist acts against the United States; it seems evident to me that the authors of that video are taking Chomsky's words out of context.

The video does not address another crucial section of that particular Q&A of Chomsky's talk in Hungary, in which he discusses the nature of controlled experiments conducted in the best laboratories in the world under controlled conditions. A scientist routinely encounters strange patterns and coincidences, even apparent violations of the laws of nature under such conditions, but if (s)he approaches the experiment with scientific skepticism, (s)he will perform the experiment as many times as possible to make sure that all of the data is meaningful and there are no hidden variables. We don't have that luxury with the 9/11 attacks; they can only happen once. The precise reasons for (say) the structural collapse of the WTC complex can only be surmised, and only very sketchily modeled. There are so many variables in this case, it should come as no surprise that the conclusions of Steven Jones and others are only endorsed by a fraction of accredited architects and engineers.

In conclusion, it seems reasonable to me to surmise, based on the available evidence, that certain facts about the 9/11 attacks are indeed being downplayed, ignored, or denied by certain members of the American political establishment. But it's far more likely that they're all trying to cover their asses after carelessly letting a catastrophe unfold. It's important to maintain healthy skepticism w/r/t the actions of very powerful states, but just because they're hiding something, doesn't mean they're hiding what you (or me, or anyone else) THINKS they're hiding.

The Gibroney Hunter:
Thanks for taking the time to respond, it's amazing how rare it is for people to be willing to seriously debate or discuss the matter, rather than resorting to arguing like children. I'll try to address some of your points.

The "gross incompetence" theory is commonly offered as a response to the abundance of incriminating evidence indicating federal involvement. I could find some merit in this if the case against the establishment was based solely on a few instances of counterintelligence. Unfortunately, however, much of the evidence is far too direct and damning to be accounted for by such a theory.

For example, the video evidence of building 7's collapse is in no way consistent with a collapse caused by fire. A photograph clearly showing smoke rising from the lower levels of the north tower, before either building was hit by aircraft. The fact that the federal government promised to have a large amount of evidence linking Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to the attacks. 8 years on, they have yet to reveal any of this evidence whatsoever. Which would seem counterintuitive, since the single best way to disprove us "conspiracy theorists" would be to simply provide us with the evidence that we were, after all, promised by the government shortly after the attacks. (The "smoking gun" video evidence, which in my opinion features an obvious body double with darker skin and higher cheekbones, is the sole article offered to the public)

If all of this evidence (which is by no means the bulk of it all) is to be explained as merely part of an elaborate disinformation campaign, then that would seem to clash with the "gross incompetence" theory, since that very incompetence should logically be expected to result in the uncovering of this supposed disinformation. It's important to keep in mind that there are numerous independent journalists, investigators, and truth seekers working daily to uncover any and all information regarding 9/11. As far as I know, no one has provided hard evidence of such a disinformation campaign (as opposed to the disinformation that is the official story, for which there is overwhelming evidence of it's existence)

I find it very difficult to believe that if, for example, Steven Jones' evidence of nano-thermite was falsified, no one would uncover this fact or at the very least uncover reasons to be suspicious of that fact. To summarize, the reason I don't give much credence to the theory that the 9/11 Truth movement is the result of disinformation, intended to serve as a smokescreen for incompetence, is because there's simply no evidence to support this claim. If you're aware of any, I'd be very interested to see it.

The main reason the cause of the structural collapse of the buildings can only be surmised is because the steel debris, which should have been treated as evidence in a massive crime scene, was sold off to China to be recycled. It's highly likely that a forensic study of that steel would have resulted in a conclusive analysis of the towers' collapse.

I believe the reason Steven Jones' work has been ignored by mainstream science is blacklisting, plain and simple. Assuming the establishment's story is true, it should be in their best interest to have his work peer-reviewed, in order to finally quell this controversy. Instead he's fired from his job and ignored by all major scientific journals. The sad truth is that the financiers of scientific and medical research have far too big a say in the direction of that research, and this generally explains why ideas such as Jones' are whitewashed. Also, a Danish scientist, along with 8 others, recently reached the same conclusions as Jones, and his findings have been gaining attention and traction since he presented them. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the history of science is aware that new ideas are not always welcomed with open arms, and often it's a gradual process of awareness.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

More Gibroney Huntin'

Some Gibroney: OK, so answer the point if you would, why, if the elite powers of the world have conspired so deeply, with the stakes incredible power, and the ante 4,000 lives that has been planned since at least the first WTC attack, why aren't we winning the shit out of this war? What, we'll kill our own citizens but won't find Bin Laden because of Pakistan's sovereignty? My friend, it is you who needs to pull their head out of the sand, this conjecture doesn't add up. Not to mention winning the war itself.

The Gibroney Hunter: We won't find Bin Laden because he's a CIA asset. If this sounds far fetched to you, I would suggest doing a google search for "Sibel Edmonds". She's a former FBI translator who recently broke a federal gag order by revealing that the federal intelligence community was in constant contact with OBL right up to the day of 9/11. While it's true that the American people are not winning the war, the globalist elite surely are winning in Iraq, since their goal was never really to 'spread democracy' or even to 'stabilze' the region, but quite the opposite actually.

Their goals, many experts agree, are multifaceted. Control of the worlds energy resources, obviously (you don't need to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to grasp that one), to further balkanize the muslim world, as it is the world's largest source of opposition to globalization and power consolidation and also to usher in an environment of stricter control and monitoring of the populace here at home. Dead soldiers is not their concern.

Some Other Gibroney: What evidence would you cite for the North American Union?

The Gibroney Hunter: While plans for the North American Union are considered "theoretical" by the establishment, the very fact that they even have theoretical plans to economically tether Canada, the U.S, and Mexico, should be worrisome to every advocate of national sovereignty and supporter of the U.S constitution. I would suggest reading about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) which was founded in 2005. Also, Lou Dobbs occasionally makes mention of the plans for a NAU on his CNN show.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Another Gibroney Handled Swiftly

Here's a comment some gibroney left for this video, followed by my response.

Some Gibroney: while you are trying to figure out who did 9/11, or killed JFK, you're enduring another day of being nickled and dimmed by the Rich & Power and their stooges in government - and you aren't doing a thing about it, you're not even aware of it because you are distracted with nonsense.

The Gibroney Hunter: And while you're busy giving Chomsky 29.95 for each of his crappy books, nothing at all changes. You pathetic armchair liberals and intellectual masturbators have had fifty years of being a fixture of the establishment to make a difference. And what have you accomplished? Jack shit. Except to create the spineless liar that used to be Noam Chomsky that we see here.

It's amazing that people like you are so quick to point out their mistrust of the establishment, yet when you attempt to utilize that mistrust while considering the issue of 9/11, suddenly you're labeled a conspiracy theorist. Apparently the mainstream left has no problem distrusting the government regarding torture, WMDs, rationales for starting wars, prior knowledge of the attacks, and pretty much any area of the subject of 9/11 EXCEPT the possibility of it being an inside job. This is irrational behavior. When someone demonstrates their capacity to deceive you time and time again, the smart thing to do is take every thing they say with a grain of salt. INCLUDING THE OFFICIAL STORY OF 9/11.

Regardless of whether or not you believe it was an inside job, EVERYONE should be in agreement that a new and honest investigation is in order. After all, our nation spent more money trying to find out how many times Clinton got his dick sucked, than it did trying to determine who was responsible for the largest mass murder to take place on this continent in modern history.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

My Response To Jason Burmas' attack on "No-Planers"

My comments directed toward Jason Burmas and Alex Jones, originally posted on youtube:

It seems clear to me that the towers were hit by aircraft. However, Jason Burmas' belligerent tone and mockery isn't helping anyone. The 'nose-out' footage is very compelling indeed, and the long list of inconsistencies and suspicious anomalies within the footage does seem to indicate that the public video record of 9/11 has been manipulated and filtered by the establishment. This includes amateur films, as they have all been confiscated and possibly tampered with by the Central Intelligence Agency before being released publicly.

I'm not a 'no-planer' but I find the in-fighting to be very self-defeating. It should be clear to Burmas that the clowns in that picture are not real no-planers, but rather a couple of half assed operatives, probably meant to incite precisely this type of in-fighting. Jones and Burmas are playing into the establishment's hands by trash talking, and pretending that there's no credible evidence behind 'no-plane' theory.

Also, it's important to note that the vast majority of no planers do not argue the point that no aircraft hit the buildings, but rather present evidence that whatever did hit, it was not a hijacked American Airlines flight. Also very suspicious (regardless of which side of the plane issue you are on) is the peculiarly small amount of home video recordings of the events. 36, last time i checked. Planes or not, one would expect perhaps thousands of independent video recordings of the events of 9/11. Very strange.