Gibronosity

The Gibroney Hunter: So tired of people using the "youtube is your source?! how ridiculous!" This is one of the dumbest things you can say because clearly youtube is what you make of it, meaning that if you wanna watch hampsters play piano you can, and if you want to watch documentaries or news clips, you can do that too. Really, it totally depends on how YOU choose to use youtube. Youtube videos have sources just like anything shown on television. If it's from ABC it says so. If it's from the AP it says so.

Some Gibroney: The problem with that is...many people post what they want..and call it a fact or a truth..when it is not. Then someone...who doesn't know any better sees it and propagates it as fact. There is NO accountability or social responsibility on YT. That is the problem. Anyone..and I MEAN anyone can post. IN FACT corporations have posted videos that they intended to influence people on YT and say that they are by one person..but they have THEIR own Monetary agendas. JUST ask AL GORE and HIS PENGUINS.

The Gibroney Hunter: They just arrested a group of punk kids who were going around tackling people unexpectedly, and a bunch of other cheap pranks. They were identified and are now facing charges. So I disagree that there's no accountability. I don't believe that there's any social responsibility on television, or radio, or print, or anywhere else, really.. which is the whole point. Youtube is simply a medium on which to post all other media. It is what you make it, plain and simply. It's the viewer'sresponsibility to fact check while watching a youtube video just as it is when watching a national geographic documentary. People don't suddenly become more stupid and unable to discern between shit and shinola, just because they're on a site called youtube. It's a childish argument to try to hide behind the perceived illegitimacy of youtube, rather than addressing any of the points being made during the film. The claim of there being no evidence is also ridiculous. Google Dr. Steven Jones and his research regarding the presence of nano-thermite in the dust debris from 9/11. So far his findings have been corroborated by at least 9 other physicists. Also there's the massive amount of insider trading that took place directly before the terror attacks. These are just two examples from volumes of evidence. This evidence is not about determining who DID perpetrate the attacks. That's getting ahead of ourselves. First we have to deal with the obvious fact that the official story is simply false.

Some Gibroney: I work with the govt..and when I'm trying to get something accomplished..it's like pulling out my own teeth to get it done. I like to use the term "it moves at the speed of govt" It's another reason why I don't THINK the conspiracy theory works. Far too complicated. TOO many unnecessary steps in the dance. They could have streamlined the whole thing. Of course..that is my opinion..if there is/was a conspiracy. Just playing the devils advocate.

The Gibroney Hunter: How could they have streamlined the whole thing? 9/11 wasn't just about dragging America into another illegitimate war, the establishment can do that anytime they wish. The point of 9/11, from their perspective, was to shock and awe the American public into not only supporting war efforts, but to usher in a more oppressive environment here at home, which is exactly what was accomplished with the Patriot Act, now renewed by our "Liberal" president. They wanted another Vietnam, but without the pesky freedom of speech or right to assemble aspect of it, which eventually shut down the war machine. This time, that problem would be accounted for. Hence the nightmarish snuff film of 9/11 shown to the American people by the Banker-controlled Media puppets, for the purpose of shocking us into accepting a much more Orwellian state.

Some Gibroney: Ok...stream line it..by..Lets not have these guys training on aircraft they won't be using. Let's take them off continent to a base or friendly country and train on the acyual aircraft they are going to use. Then LETS really pack this things with explosives or whatever. We won't chance them living in a rented home in FLA and talking to people. Why chance them going through an airport and being compromised.. Just fly straight in on commercial routes. TOO many steps to the dance. That's true..but the objective was different. There was a common goal for the good of the nation. I can't believe that not of those people..did not have a conscience and wouldn't step forward and talk either before or after. 7 years is a long time to keep from being compromised. We also didn't have the internet...where we can remain nameless and face less and leak tons on Intel with out having to be named. It just doesn't add up to me.. Of course you still have to prove that IS what happened.

The Gibroney Hunter: Sybel Edmonds, former F.B.I translator recently broke her federal gag order by announcing to the media (who curiously enough didnt' cover it) that U.S intelligence had communication and was in collusion with Osama Bin Laden UP TO THE VERY DAY OF 9/11. So you no longer have to believe that not one of those people did not have a conscience and speak out. Of course, there are many other examples of individuals speaking out. I don't have to prove anything happened, only that we've been lied to by the federal government about 9/11 so extensively as to warrant a new and truly independent investigation, which is a point that has been overwhelmingly proven over and over again. You're correct that someone could post information anonymously on the internet, but without authentication of source, no one would believe it. Without a credible journalist to stand by the story, no one would take it seriously. And no journalist (not even the very few good ones) would put their neck on the line for an unverified online source that could be a teenager pranking them for all they know. Internet or not, sources still need to be just as verifiable now as they did 40 years ago, in order to be credible by journalistic standards. Your statements regarding the "hijackers" is supported by the assumption that the were more than merely patsies. Many have argued that their ridiculous behavior at the flight schools (their instructors have gone on record saying they don't see how Hanyur could have piloted that airbus into the pentagon), obnoxious behavior at strip clubs.. was meant to attract attention to them. It's not uncommon for intelligence services to employ individuals to take part in drills and other exercises. This is a possible explanation for some of the hijackers (at least 6 of whom have come out publicly, stating that they're still alive, by the way). Rather than being idle speculation, this is a very critical line of inquiry that SHOULD have been addressed by the fraudulent 9/11 Commission.

Some Gibroney: That's definitely where we are on the same page. I'm all for an independent investigation. I don't care what the outcome is. I'm indifferent. I just want facts and truth through due process and the diligence to be accurate and thorough. That means proving ever accusation and not just speculating on very limited info at best. Like I said..that has been my point all along. IF the FACTS take us there...then that's where we go. But don't try to LEAD the evidence there. That's JUST WRONG. Agreed but..here there are two crimes you are required by law to report. can you guess what they are?. CHILD abuse..and TREASON. So Osama..doesn't have any obligation..and besides we already know he doesn't like the infidels. So it stands to reason from his history..he knew of something...and if he had anything to do with the planning...then he is guilty. it's still conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. Once again I am speculating he knows something or had some part of it. I can't prove it. Airbus? To my knowledge it was a 757. I also think the pilot school instructors were speculating. I 've worked with complete idiots..but when they had to get something done...they DID. Which six were these? You make a point about being CREDIBLE..and that is also my point about YT. YOU can be anyone on here..BARKING up a storm...but a lot of it..is purely misinformation..that they pass on as FACT that they heard somewhere else. That doesn't make any of it fact or even true.. I dislike YT for that reason. ZERO accountability.

The Gibroney Hunter: I used the term airbus as a general term to describe a large aircraft, not as an actual description of the literal model of aircraft, and yes you're correct it was a 757. The flight instructors, having had direct experience attempting to instruct certain of the alleged hijackers, cannot be said to be speculating, but to be giving their opinion regarding Hanyur's skills. So now you're saying that people who are incompetent can suddenly become competent? Seems to run counter to your previous remarks about 9/11 being an inside job, being too "complex" to have been pulled off. Again, I simply disagree about the issue of accountability on youtube.  I think the increase in voices being heard actually increases the total amount of credibility, as there are more independent criticisms available of just about any topic. I agree with you that most of what's on youtube is as you say, purely misinformation, but can you give me of an example of a medium for which that isn't true? Isn't most of what's on television also uncredible and full of misinformation (think Fox News, or NPR)? While someone's opinion expressed on youtube is completely uncensored or edited (except for obscenity), they still need to support their claims and opinions with facts if they want anyone to take them seriously. The mere fact that I am using youtube right now does not automatically make me more prone to believing uncorroborated, baseless things. "shooting the messenger" is a cop out intended by most. people as a way to divert the subject from the issue itself, which is that the crime of 9/11 clearly has not transpired in the way that we were told it did, by our government. Just do a google search for "9/11 hijackers still alive" and you will have access to all the names, dates, places relevant to the topic.