Troofers March In LA
It comes through loud and clear that the march leaders aren't happy with the nutbars being at the front of the parade. Note as well that one of the banners promotes 9-11 Mysteries, the movie inspired by Holocaust Denier Eric Hufschmid. The music gets really annoying after about ten seconds.
posted by Pat @ 2:33 PM
63 comments
63 Comments:
"It's better than sitting at home, watching TV"
What isn't?
DT
It's both entertaining and annoying to see the interbreeding of conspiracy theories in their culture.
"No plane hit building 7... and there's sodium fluoride in your water."
The fluoride conspiracy theories seem to be making a comeback since Obama took office, presumably because of the re-ignition of the right's lunatic fringe.
I see the good old "CIA owns every in the major media" quote is given an airing.
Wasn't that quote shown to be a complete fabrication by some nutjob conspiracy theory writer?
Kaspar Damm: please provide a source for your fabricated allegation of fabrication?
Just because you don't like the author or his writings, doesn't make the quote go away. You may not like any author that writes anti-CIA books, and you can label them all "conspiracy nuts", but I truly don't give a shit.
The CIA just wants people to think that they own everyone in the media. If they do, then nobody will believe anything the media says. Who does that benefit the most? The CIA!
"You may not like any author that writes anti-CIA books, and you can label them all "conspiracy nuts", but I truly don't give a shit."
Yes you do! If you don't care then why are you here with your ingenious "fabricated allegation of fabrication" line?
As for this quote not going away, you might be haunted by the fear that the CIA owns the media, but
one would suspect this is because you are indeed one of the "conspiracy nuts" you mention.
Deny it! Go on!
The CIA makes everyone think they are a bunch of omnipotent geniuses, rather than just a bunch of incompetents who couldn't find their own butts if they had a map and written directions. The plan is almost perfect, and so simple, no remote controlled hologram planes or supermagiconanothermite required. Bwahahahaha!
A much more plausible explanation for your total mischaracterization of the CIA, James, is the fact that
(A) The CIA can't publish their successes
(B) Incompetence is a good excuse, and
(C) Ignorant, gullible dolts such as yourself fall for it every time.
See?
A) the CIA does publish some of their successes. How else do you know they exist? They're not the fucking Men in Black.
B) Irony. Incompetence is a great excuse... and explains pretty much all the bullshit you're attempting to nail the government for... without the need for non-structured super thermites. But I guess incompetence as an excuse only applies to troofer theories and definately not MODIFIED ATTACK BABOONS!!!!1!!
C) oh so, then you can show PROOF of the CIA feigning ignorance in a story they didn't publish that everyone fell for then, since we "fall for it every time." To make a statement such as that, you're either arrogrant and lying (most likely) or talking out your ass (most definately) or able to back up your claim (not holding my breath).
Is this where you dig up "Northwoods" now?
D) you're an idiot.
Oh, and just because you like an author and his writings, doesn't make his fucking quote TRUE.
Billman: talk about feigning ignorance. Truther or not, in my opinion the CIA employs brilliant men. Fallible like everybody else, but brilliant. Further more, there is an ideological divide between the operational and the intelligence divisions. So let's cut the all-encompassing all-exculpating incompetency crap.
The CIA's infiltrations of mainstream media are well documented by House Committee Hearings, investigative journalists, and memoirs, such as the memoir of Howard Hunt.
These days, we still have similar incidents with all kinds of unhealthy mingling of media and corporate interests, or other forms of media manipulations, such as the Pentagon's "analysts" and the Pentagon's information warfare doctrine. Ring Ellsberg, if you want it properly explained to you.
There is still plenty of good reporting to be found in the mainstream media, but if you insist on believing the mainstream media are all entirely "clean", fine. I'm not even going to argue with that. There is a level of delusional denialism I will stay away from, and this would be a good example.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA you done fucked up now, Troy
Troy's mugshot
"Again, Mark Halburn-Sexton’s husband is posting from work on his daddy’s dime! I’m sure there are those out there who wishes they had all that free time at their place of employment!
I have been called many things in my life…but never a “Twoof.” I’m not too sure what a twoof is, but I’m guessing it’s the sound Troy’s kids make when they hit the ground after he punches them."
twoof-there-it-is
ROFLMAO!
and:
Troy ShitHead
Yep. SLC's finest. LOL!
Pat, do you and Troy still talk much? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The music gets really annoying after about ten seconds.
And not only the music. My God, they can spout a lot of annoying crap.
I wonder what the Truthers make of the suicide bombings of the Moscow Metro today. Will they assume they are false flag attacks as well or are they too parochial to even notice.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62S0FM20100329
Kaspar Damm: please provide a source for your fabricated allegation of fabrication?
A better idea would be for you to provide a secondary source for the quote. Until then, it's a safe bet that your author made it up.
angrysoba: good chance they were indeed false flag attacks, yeah.
That's what Putin does when faced with demonstrations. He could be wagging the dog.
When they murdered Litvinenko, they tried to frame Berezovsky and/or British intelligence for it. False flag attacks are the FSB's specialty.
And if not false flags attacks, then fine, they were islamic extremists. So what?
Litvinenko, by the way, accused the FSB of false flag attacks, remember?
OT, it seems that much of the world is waking up to news a fresh terrorist attack today. How long before the nutters start piping up about false flags?
Litvinenko, by the way, accused the FSB of false flag attacks, remember?
Yes. And?
He was also investigating the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. Remember?
" Spud1k said...
OT, it seems that much of the world is waking up to news a fresh terrorist attack today. How long before the nutters start piping up about false flags?"
About twenty femtoseconds.
Yes, and Politkovskaya was also murdered by the FSB, remember?
BTW, check out this excellent piece in Pravda:
http://english.pravda.ru/print/opinion/columnists/111884-greatest_threat-0
Right on the mark.
These days, we still have similar incidents with all kinds of unhealthy mingling of media and corporate interests
Not this shit again.
Look, buddy, I've worked for your "corporate owned media." The idea that our day-to-day operations were monitored by corporate overseers to the point where they can order "media manipulations" is patently ridiculous.
Yes, there are plenty of examples of business interests and freedom of speech and right to information occasionally being at loggerheads. This is not news to anybody. But these incidents are rare, and far more likely to be business-related rather than political.
If anything, the media is becoming less corporate. Social media and the Internet give anyone the opportunity to have a voice, and the power of "old media" wanes every day as more and more people get their news from aforementioned "new media."
You mean like ... Fox and Montesanto?
check out this excellent piece in Pravda
Could anyone but a Truther form such a sentence?
You mean like ... Fox and Montesanto?
I Googled "Montesanto". It's a holiday resort in the Algarve, Portugal.
http://www.montesantoalgarve.com/
Did you mean Monsanto?
No. I meant the holiday resort.
Anonymous, I could give a shit about the media. I agree with you, they have biased reporting. They were especially biased AGAINST Bush, except for FOX News for the most part. This is apparent with how the media exploded over the Cheney hunting incident, which really wasn't that big a deal except that Cheney's people tried to hide it at frst.
So whatever you have against the media, like all troofers aparently, you always fail to realize they disliked Bush about as much as you troofers do, and even THEY don't believe your theories. Hell, they'd jump on this story and would kill to be the one who broke the "government is evil!" story and win how ever many journalism awards would be coming their way. Even if they were "in on it" coming forward would grant them some immunity with the Supreme courts as well as a higher payout than any "hush money" you think they got to "keep " at first.
But hey, if you insist everyone everywhere is evil, I don't care, really.
And Troy.. pfft. He's had that coming. He still isn't murdering people like you troofers.
@Anonymous,
the only source for that quote, is from a book by a guy named David McGowan, who appears to be an allround conspiracy writer.
His website ( http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/ ) is host to several lengthy writings on various CTs (Apollo program, the Hippie movement and, of course, 9/11).
But of course, we're after the quote, which can be found in his book 'Derailing Democracy: The America the Media don't want you to see'. And that's the problem. It can be found nowhere else. The book was released 4 years after Colby's death, so either he fessed up on his death bed and the author was just extravagantly slow at using that quote, or it's just a fig of the author's imagination.
I have yet to find anyone who isn't sourcing that quote back to McGowan and his book. Which is rather surprising, given the implications if that quote was true.
Its the same thing as the alleged Rex Tomb quote that you can only corroborate from the conspiracy reporter at the Muckracker...
Everything the troofers base their shit on is ALWAYS "well, this troofer QUOTED this" or "This troofer told me that " or "some guy told this troofer and then that troofer told me" therefore IT MUST BE DA TROOF! 9/11 IS INSIDE JOB (based on irrefutuble "I heard from this one guy" logic).
Every attempt at "Debunking the Debunkers" (which is effectively re-bullshitting bullshit) has always amount to RE-STATING the debunked with a different inflection or arrangement of words, or just saying "I don't believe that" or saying "If you look at it the WAY I do, it's obvious..."
Yeah so let the claims of "delusion" and "shill" and other ad-hominem attacks come rolling in... troofers are wrong regardless.
Anonymous cites Dave McGowan and Pravda, and tries to get away with it?!?!?!?!?
How many times must I tell you that a conspiracy website is not evidence, Anonymous, it's a circle jerk.
JamesB as in Boob,your CIA "expertise" exposes you as the worst liar on the planet Earth.What is your major malfunction,numbnuts?
You mean like ... Fox and Montesanto?
That's your rebuttal? Seriously?
Good-Bye
Good Riddance!
"the only source for that quote, is from a book by a guy named David McGowan, who appears to be an allround conspiracy writer."
Translation: if we don't agree with the subject matter, the sourcing is false.
Anonymous, I guess in a nutshell, that's actually pretty accurate. Troofers and Debunkers alike do that all the time.
But when there's only one source to corroborate something and that source is suspect by either party, it's really not a bad argument to make because it's obvious no troofer or debunker will ever trust the other.
Not sure what you're expecting to accomplish here. This isn't "Debunker HQ", like 911myths.com or debunkin911.com could be (maybe even JREF). This is just a blog where we're all allowed to bitch and swear and attack freely with limited moderation (a rare find for any troofer or debunk site). Cordial debate is difficult to come across here, but possible.
Regardless, I concur that your assessment is correct, but that that's not neccessarily implying that doing that is a bad thing. Depends on the subject.
The conspiranoid scribbles, "...Translation: if we don't agree with the subject matter, the sourcing is false."
Some examples of Dave McGowan's deranged writing:
Source: The Center For An Informed America: Wagging the Moondoggie, Part I.
McGowan writes, "...Anyway, a whole lot of people are extremely reluctant to give up their belief in the success of the Apollo missions. A lot of people, in fact, pretty much shut down at the mere mention of the Moon landings being faked, refusing to even consider the possibility."
So, McGowan insists that the US faked the Moon landings????? Riiiight.
Concerning Pravda (Russian: Правда, "Truth"):
Wikipedia writes, "...There is an unaffiliated Internet-based newspaper, Pravda Online (www.Pravda.ru) run by former Pravda newspaper employees."
Thus, Pravda Online is a direct decedent of the original Pravda. And as any Russian will tell you, Pravda has nothing whatsoever to do with the "truth".
The CIA influenced certain media outlets in the past and may well still do so today, but it hardly means they "control" the media. Given all the unflattering stuff that has come out of the "mainstream" media in the last few years, such the disclosure of secret prisons or eavesdropping or Abu Gharib, I'm pressed to see the evidence the media is controlled by the powers that be.
Spud1k said...How long before the nutters start piping up about false flags?
Well, given Russia Today seems to give every anti-American crackpot conspiracy theory ample airing, I suppose fair play would be for US funded media outlets to claim the Moscow attacks were "inside jobs." Then again, there are no such outlets (unless one buys the "CIA controls the media" line) and for all Russia's flaws, I see know reason to fan ridiculous conspiracy theories about the country.
addendum to above "...no reason..."
Another prime example of Russian "journalism" is Russia Today.
Russia Today interviewed Wayne Madsen on the subject of NSA's alleged "Q Group". A portion of the interview follows:
Russia Today: "...What evidence do you have to suggest all these claims you are making?
Wayne Madsen: "I've actually seen documentation about ah...ah...ah...ah...an organization--a program within NSA, ah, it's a program called 'First Fruits', a database that keeps track of journalists who write about the National Security Agency, and also contains information about, ah...who they're talking to, ah...it's ah, ah, ah, draconian organization, ah...it's prosecuted several people who were just doing their jobs. The most egregious being Ken Ford, who was a Rocky Rock Signal Intelligence officer working in the Iraqi shop, who discovered evidence that there was [SIC] no weapons of mass destruction. He was set up in a sting operation by this Q Group and it's the most egregious case I've ever seen, he was, ah...ah...ah...convicted...ah...ah...ah...and sentenced to seven years in prison based on a sting that...ah...involved the tainted jury pool, dirty judges, dirty prosecutors and with the active involvement of this NSA security group--not the only case, but the most egregious I've seen."
Source: Russia Today: Madsen: 'Whistle blown on secret 9/11 unit'
Thus, Madsen provides no proof for his accusation beyond "documentation", which he refuses to produce in order to substantiate his story.
Now, as I recall, professional journalists never rely on unnamed sources. As a result, it's safe to conclude that Russia Today is nothing more than a propaganda mill.
But it's a propaganda mill we know and love. =)
Now, as I recall, professional journalists never rely on unnamed sources.
An unnamed source isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, but the combination of an unnamed source and an unseen document fails to pass muster.
Not to mention that Madsen's whole story is the usual conspiracy bullshit, full of speculation and unseen evidence. I liked this part:
Ken Ford discovered evidence that there was [SIC] no weapons of mass destruction. He was set up in a sting operation by this Q Group and it's the most egregious case I've ever seen
Yeah, the government wouldn't want that secret getting out.
http://ff.im/ionfm
The end of U.S. Electronic Space Defense ? - More clues on Obama Cabinet fronting for EUROSPACE Business ;
03/30/2010
Using an unnamed source is far, far more legitimate when editors and fact checkers within a news organization also know the identity of the source and can vouch for authenticity ... in this case, obviously, Wayne Madsen has no check on him.
I love how the comments are being edited/deleted at YouTube for the vid. The marchers are only "exersising their freedom of expression"...oh, the irony.
Using an unnamed source is far, far more legitimate when editors and fact checkers within a news organization also know the identity of the source and can vouch for authenticity
Yup. If you know the source, but are protecting the source's anonymity, you can use their information more liberally because you can still vet the source.
If I get a "leaked memo" from someone whom I can confirm was a member of the organization at the time, and had a position where they could have been able to see such a memo (which includes people like janitors) then the document is more credible than if it came from some unknown employee.
Which is where Madsen's story fails. When he says "I've seen documentation about an organization within NSA" I'd immediately start wondering how this man could have gotten access to secret documents within a secretive organization.
I'd ask Madsen about his background, and if he can't at least tell me he's been on a field trip to NSA, I would disregard the claim as non-credible. (And usually after that, they start rambling about the 20 other global conspiracies they've personally witnessed.)
"I'd ask Madsen about his background, and if he can't at least tell me he's been on a field trip to NSA"
He worked and was a consultant for the NSA, you doddering ding-a-ling.
Tell me, are your ignorant antics representative for the dismally informed "debunker" cult? I think so.
The nut-bar scribbles, "...He worked and was a consultant for the NSA, you doddering ding-a-ling."
True, however, Madsen is former NSA; thus, he no longer has a security clearance. So the question is valid: How did Madsen obtain access to allegedly sensitive "documents" related to "Q Group"?
Sorry, but until Madsen produces the "documents" he's just blowing smoke up our collective ass.
Got logic, conspiracy boi?
anybody actually read the northwoods document? i did, and guess what?
These men (the Joint Chiefs of Staff, no less!), put this document together in all seriousness, believing at the time that some or all of it might actually be implemented. And yet nowhere is there any indication that they were concerned in the least that the whole thing would be revealed by a whistleblower or whistleblowers. Were they on crack?!
Reading this, w/regard to whistleblowers, I'm left with two possibilities: these men, schooled as they were in planning and executing complicated plans, and intending to work in tandem with the CIA (you remember the CIA, the ones who had, by 1962, gotten pretty good at overthrowing foreign governments with impunity), were somehow completely oblivious to the security risks involved in such a plan, and therefore were equally oblivious that someone, among the multitudes of knowing insiders, would simply HAVE to come forward after the fact and blow their cover so smithereens. Or (possibility number 2) they knew damn well that there is no law of nature that prevents all high level conspiracies from succeeding simply because “someone would have come forward and said something”; on the contrary, they clearly knew that with sufficient planning and compartmentalization – not to mention the obvious reprisals awaiting anyone who tried to “go public” – such operations can and are executed successfully.
Or, I suppose, they were simply deluded, and despite the inevitable danger of whistleblowers, somehow they felt that this time they'd get away with it. Having spent years in training and gathering experience, having worked all their professional lives to reach the highest and most well-guarded inner workings of power, somehow these men, from the military and the intelligence community, had completely unrealistic views on what was and was not possible. Unlike, of course, the rest of us, who are complete and utter outsiders, but “just know” that “something that complicated could never be concealed”. Silly generals!
Anonymous wrote, "...anybody actually read the northwoods document? i did, and guess what?"
The false flag plan named Operation Northwoods, was primarily the work of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and General Lyman Lemnitzer. That said, Lyman Lemnitzer was a mad man whose plan was rejected by President Kennedy.
Wikipedia writes, "...Lemnitzer presented the plans to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962. It is unclear how McNamara reacted, but three days later President Kennedy told the general that there was no chance that America would take military action against Cuba. Within a few months, after the denial of Operation Northwoods, Lemnitzer was denied another term as JCS chairman."
Source: Wikipedia: Lyman Lemnitzer
Source: ABC News: U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba.
Make no mistake, the Operation Northwoods proposal virtually ended General Lemnitzer's military career. And there can be little doubt that both Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, and President Kennedy denied Lemnitzer another term as JCS chairman.
Got history, Anonymous?
Typical quote mining. Looks like you missed this part:
and had a position where they could have been able to see such a memo
Billman's said it too: he needs to illustrate not just a just access to the company, but to the secret documents themselves. Otherwise it's Sibel Edmonds all over again: somebody with a menial position making a lot of outrageous claims they would not have been in position to observe or fully understand. And even Sibel can get better coverage than Russia Today.
GuitarBill, something tells me Kennedy lost. I could be mistaken.
Anonymous whimpers, "...GuitarBill, something tells me Kennedy lost. I could be mistaken."
Could be mistaken?
You're always mistaken, Anonymous.
How desperate,shrill and loony do you have to be when you call Sibel Edmonds a servant? Just ask Trite the DopeStar.
How desperate, shrill and loony do you have to be when you can't understand a figure of speech? Just ask Artrollie the Cyber-Hero.
"Menial" is a word,not a figure of speech.The word actually means something.To you,it's just fodder for your insane and specious schemes.
"Arhoolie,Sackdoily's Cyber-Hero said...
"Menial" is a word,not a figure of speech.The word actually means something.To you,it's just fodder for your insane and specious schemes"
Completely unhinged.
Arhoolie, you've clearly lost whatever mind you once had.
"You're always mistaken, Anonymous."
Unless when I'm being sarcastic, in which case you look like a dork, trying to pass off Kennedy's dismissal of Northwoods as some sort of victory over the JCS.
A dumdum in the cerebellum is satisfactory payback for the BoP group, don't you think, GB?
Anonymous the anti-Semite whines, "...Unless when I'm being sarcastic, in which case you look like a dork, trying to pass off Kennedy's dismissal of Northwoods as some sort of victory over the JCS."
Wow! You showed me. Right Herr Streicher?
So now you're trying to claim that JFK was assassinated by the JCS?
And your proof?
Oh that's right, you're troofer nut-bar, hence no proof is necessary.
So why don't take your "evidence" to a court of law, shit-for-brains.
Too cool! Like John Deutsch telling Mike Ruppert to take his complaints about the CIA and the LA police department to the LA police department or the CIA.
Anonymous the conspiratard scribbles, "...Too cool! Like John Deutsch telling Mike Ruppert to take his complaints about the CIA and the LA police department to the LA police department or the CIA."
Mike Ruppert said, "...I was personally exposed to CIA operations and recruited by CIA personnel, who attempted to recruit me, in the late 70's, to become involved in protecting agency drug operations in this country."
Source: YouTube: Michael Ruppert confronts CIA director about Drug Laundering.
Freudian slip, Mike?
So which is it, Mike Ruppert--you mealy-mouthed asshat: Were you recruited by the CIA, or did the CIA "attempt" to recruit you?
Ruppert is misinformation, and you're too gullible--or stupid--to figure it out. Even your (crazy) man, Dave McGowan, agrees with that assessment of Ruppert.
McGowan writes, "...As far as I can determine at this time, it has not been verified that Ruppert is the prime suspect in the staged 'burglary' (unfortunately, the Ashland Police Department declined to comment on the case, citing a department policy that forbids commenting on ongoing investigations), but that seems to be a far more plausible explanation for his abrupt departure than Mikey's breathless claim that he was facing an 'imminent threat of death.' Indeed, a careful reading of Ruppert's rambling, melodramatic diatribe yields clues that seem to support the theory that Sir Mike did indeed stage the scene at his offices."
Source: Center For An Informed America: NEWSLETTER #84.
Only a schmuck would cite an asshat like Mike Ruppert as "evidence".
Try again, Anonymous the conspiratard.
The point was in Deutsch's recommendation. Dunno if you complete glossed over that or so.
Yeah I think you just glossed over it completely. My heart has volumes of forgiveness though, even for shallow men.
Post a Comment
<< Home