Rivero's Inconsistency Part 34

Here's Rivero's comments over Israel's demand for sanctions against Iran:

Netanyahu knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is not going to get the level of punitive sanctions he wants from the UN, because Russia and China will veto.

The UN will, again, as happened with Iraq, become "irrelevant". At the end of the day, the US will have been "groomed" for some military confrontation against Iran, possibly by some kind of false flag event, and we'll be off and running in yet another military misadventure.

And remember, before the US "neutralized" Iraq through military intervention, Iraq was considered to be Israel's primary existential threat, accused of having weapons of mass destruction.

We know that was a lie.

Taking the statements I have added emphasis to:

1 - Russia and China will veto.

American use of veto to protect Israel is always condemned by Rivero et al. Perhaps rightly so, but leaving aside the issues.... we see that Russian and Chinese vetos are not condemned - even though they would presumably be employing their vetoes to protect their own interests as much as any American vetoes are given to protect American interests. (Does China have a UN mandate for its action in Tibet? Wouldn't China veto any action against its interests if it were proposed? Surely it would?)

If Chinese, Russian and French vetoes are to be respected, what about those of the USA? Are the validity of such vetoes to be based entirely on one's personal opinion of the situations involved? Fair enough - but that's a matter of opinion and the use of veto shows a difference of opinion (and interests). What's the answer - abandon all vetoes? (As if ultra-nationalists like Rivero would accept it! They generally oppose the UN in principle anyway as it's part of the "globalist NWO" conspiracy for world government. Unless, of course, it's useful to their propaganda - such as over Israel, or Iraq wherein the UN becomes a legitimate and ultimate authority.)

2 - "before the US "neutralized" Iraq through military intervention, Iraq was considered to be Israel's primary existential threat, accused of having weapons of mass destruction.

We know that was a lie."

So why does Rivero so often suggest Israel manipulated America into attacking Iraq so as to protect and serve Israel? If Iraq really was not a threat, and this was well-known to Israel and America, then it cannot be claimed that it served Israel's interests to manipulate America into attacking Iraq. Why would Israel have bothered to instigate 911 as a prelude to attacking Iraq when it already knew Iraq had no WMDs and hence posed no existential threat?

An Illustration of Fascist Method

This is from WhatReallyHappened - it's a quote by Michael Rivero. He's speaking about public distrust of the vaccine against swine-flu, but it points to the wider purpose of WhatReallyHappened, and the rest of the crypto-fascist movement ie to undermine the legitimacy of democratic government (the other major aspect is promoting the idea of (jewish) world conspiracy)

There is a fundamental truth underneath the issue of the vaccine.

The popular revolt against government-mandated shots reveals a basic lack of trust in government by the people.

A government that has lost the trust of the people is a government which can no longer function.

And a government that cannot function and that cannot be trusted is a government that is useless and a waste of money.

The US Federal government has outlived its usefulness to the people.

And waving flu or terrorists or Iranians at us will not create the illusion that continuing to support such a useless government is necessary.

The point of such stories about flu vaccines etc is to create a sense of crisis. (There's never any good news at conspiracy websites - there's never any news which contradicts their worldview.)

This operates alongside an effort to create a sense of government illegitimacy - the role served by the election fraud meme, for example. Another factor, of course, is the definition of an enemy - internal and external - jews.

That's a simple description of the method of all these conspiracy websites, but one that fits with history of Weimar and rise to power of Nazism. The history of Weimar and its fall is a lesson unlikely to be forgotten by fascists. Why wouldn't they see it as an archetype worthy of an attempt at repetition?

Furthermore, statements like Rivero's above invariably reveal that the conspiracist conception of reality views the creation of false realities as an enormously powerful method: why wouldn't they employ the same methods themselves? Obviously it isn't beyond their ken to even dream of it, as their entire worldview is based around it.

Indeed, the history of the John Birch Society reveals that whilst the Birchers communicated a fear of a communist conspiracy, they were themselves engaged in a conspiracy to defeat it - whether the communist conspiracy existed or not, the Birchers certainly did, and had themselves formed secret networks, passed around 'secret' texts, worked undemocratically and unaccountably to pursue their own agenda etc. ie the exact same things they'd formed to oppose.

Deleted at Big Dan's Big Blog

Here's an example of my comments which have been deleted at Big Dan's Big Blog. All the instances of quotes from "plunger" I had culled from old threads at Big Dan's Big Blog. Plunger is also a contributor to BradBlog, and is on good terms with BradBlog's moderator Agent99, whom also post at Big Dan's Big Blog. Hence the views expressed by Plunger given here can be taken as somewhat representative of those at BradBlog - either that, or the views expressed here are unknown to BradBlog, in which case, Plunger and Agent99 (and any other member of the two blogs) is deceiving BradBlog about their views. Or vice versa, of course.

My comments are in bold. The thread they were deleted from is here.

I should point out that until this point I had been completely civil, and was intent on asking why the Blog owner - Big Dan - was linking to fascist "news" sources, whilst claiming sources such as Chris Bollyn, WhatReallyHappened, DesertPeace and Smoking Mirrors were "anti-fascist". The blog owner deleted at least 30 posts of mine which asked about this issue. Having experienced such censorship, and having spent hours reading through the back-history of threads at Big Dan's I was less inclined to maintain my civility - they simply don't deserve it, such is the preponderance of their hatred, their stupidity, and their service to genuine fascism.

Plunger: "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

LIES.

I challenge you to stand that statement up. Where is the least evidence that statement was actually made? I'll tell you - there's no evidence for it having been made.

But that says everything about you - you will accept such obvious tripe as "fact" - and you feed your hate on it. You embrace bullshit to justify your own hate, and to create hate in others. Despicable.

Plunger: "Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, all of them are ON ISRAEL'S PAYROLL. All of them were directly involved in 9/11, and many foreign intelligence services have them dead-to rights, and are blackmailing them."

You just pick things from the air - and say they are true. And thereby your hate is justified. No matter you have no evidence - no matter it's utter bullshit. Which came first - your hatred or your "facts"? Regardless - now they are one and the same: your hate leads your bias, your bias feeds your hate......

plunger: "Bin Laden does not exist."

HAHA - sure. Because you say so? Sure....

plunger: Henry Ford said this........
Charles Lindbergh said this......

Oh really? Like anyone gives a shit what they said? We're supposed to listen to Henry Ford, now, are we? Why? Oh - that's right - because .....errr.......because they confirm your beliefs. Big deal. It doesn't mean anything beyond asserting they *said it*. You believe it if you want to, Mr Gullible.

plunger: "33. The International Jew. By Henry Ford."

Oh - look - a real authority on "the international jew"! Pathetic.

plunger: Patrick Buchanan

Oh - look - listen up people, Buchanan's speaking! Bwahaha.

plunger: Who Rules America? By Dr. William Pierce

Woooaah! What a source that is! National Alliance founder, Nazi William Pierce! Pardon me if I pass? Sheesh. Let's find a Nazi for some "information" on Jews, shall we? HAHA. Facts, plunger, facts! HAHA. It'll be bloody Adolf fucking Hitler next?

plunger: From Adolf Hitler's last Will and Political Testament. Google users enter: Hitler my political testament

Hitler!? Oh yeah - world renowned for his scholarly ojectivity on jews, right.......? You're BATSHIT MAD.

plunger: Benjamin Freedman's 1955 speech

Ben Freedman? Oh lordy! The only jew every anti-semite totally trusts? LOL All the rest are lying snakes, but Freedman's reliable? LOL Believe it if you want. But so what?

Just look at that "range" of sources........?

And you say you're not anti-semitic?

Sure - it's just your sources that are anti-semitic. HAHA You don't fool anyone.

plunger: You will find no writing of mine that condemns the entire country of Israel for anything - ever.

and

plunger: You insinuate that I paint all Israelis or Jews with the same brush, despite the fact I never have.

That doesn't prevent you fielding a mass of sources whom DO! That's your entire gambit - claim you don't say those things, then field every crazed anti-semite whom does! Like Hitler, like William Pierce, like Lindberg, like Henry Ford, Like Ted Pike, Like AFP, like TBR etc etc. How transparent. That's pure rhetorical trickery on your part.

Plus you employ OBVIOUSLY manufactured quotes such as "We the Jews control America!"

SO, THAT IS YOU SAYING IT, plunger - WHEN YOU FIELD THOSE SOURCES AND QUOTES AS "FACTS" AND AS THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS AND CLAIMS, AND INSIST THEY ARE "FACTS" THEN IT IS YOU SAYING THOSE THINGS.

And you do CONTINUALLY say things such as:

plunger: Obama will say nothing, in deference to his true master, the Master of all who are (s)elected to serve Israel's AGENDA.

So pardon me, but your self excuse is frankly disgusting contortion and dissembling.

You don't say such things? RUBBISH!!

plunger: ALL LIES. Media = Jewish-owned and complicit.

One wonders what the point of the word "Jewish" is in that phrasing if it isn't meant to imply what it is obviously meant to imply. Don't give me your bullshit about you NEVER say such things. Combine such words of yours with the quotes and sources you cite and there is simply NO ROOM FOR DEBATE - YOU ARE AN ANTI-SEMITIC HATER. You have a Hitlerite conception of World Jewish Conspiracy - the exact same mobilising myth of Nazism. Your denials are self-delusion, if that. I don't believe you even believe your denials - they are only there for your audience and to provide a peg on which to hang your righteousness.

Your faux rage at being 'cruelly labelled' is pathetic and a travesty to language and definition.

plunger: Israel controls everything inside the US. .....Israel actually controls the launch and targeting codes of the entire US Nuclear arsenal. .....Bottom line - Israel owns the United States - thanks to GHW Bush. None of this is speculation. These are facts.

FACTS?! HAHA You are a disgusting joke and a fraud. I seriously think you are mentally ill.

Look at the vileness running through everything you write?

I have spent more time than I wish to engaged with far-right polemicists, and you are very clearly amongst them. You would be amongst the extreme even at Stromfront.

And don't pretend otherwise - your stupid enraged denials are ridiculous.

----------------------------------------------------

From these quotes from Plunger's contributions to Dan's blog, it seems obvious why my posts at BradBlog about Obama's Healthcare Reforms were deleted - I was arguing against the idea that Obama was "serving" some (jewish) conspiracy and instead was dealing with political realities ie I was recognising there was extremely fierce opposition to Obama's proposals rather than agreeing with the (far-right) conspiracy notion that that such disagreement is a pretense designed to deceive the public and prevent them realising there is a monolithic (jewish) conspiracy secretly ruling America.

This makes me wonder whether BradBlog's purpose is essentially the same too: is BradBlog's intent to suggest that there is a conspiracy? They suggest Obama is "betraying" Americans, and always meant to - do they mean to suggest such "betrayal" is on behalf of the (jewish?) conspiracy?

BradBlog also suggest vote fraud is endemic: is BradBlog suggesting such fraud is perpetrated to maintain the (jewish?) conspiracy? Is that BradBlog's intent - or do they just attract an audience which holds such a perspective?

Agent99 is a regular poster at Dan's Big Blog, and, as we have seen, actively ensures Plunger's comments appear at BradBlog using his privileged moderator status there. How much do Agent99's views about a jewish conspiracy reflect those of BradBlog? Is BradBlog's focus on Voter Fraud intended as a means to insinuate a conception of a Hitlerite Jewish World conspiracy into mainstream/progressive discourse? Or just to undermine confidence in what passes as "liberal democracy"? Or do they have a genuine concern for democracy?

I raise this question with the history of Weimar in mind - a crucial factor in the rise of Nazism was the undermining of confidence and faith in the Weimar Republic: before Nazism could gain a hold on the reigns of power, Weimar had to lose legitimacy, and the ensuing crisis opened a vacuum into which Hitler was swept. There were two major, and connected, factors: the loss of legitimacy of Weimar, and belief in a Jewish conspiracy.

It's worth noting that Big Dan defended his use of Willis Carto's AmericanFreePress with the examples that AFP had excellent coverage of vote fraud issues AND of Jewish/Israeli control over America.

Clearly there are obvious reasons why fascists would promote issues over vote fraud and "stolen elections"; 911 being an "inside job"; (Israeli/Jewish) blackmail of American politicians; demonisation of Israel/Jews; jewish control of media, political process, business, banking, etc.

Mainstreaming such views is crucial to the fascist enterprise.

Insight - Bradblog Censorship

Big Dan's Big Blog is frequented by just a few active posters, each of whom seems closely affiliated to BradBlog. At least one of the posters at Big Dan's Blog is a moderator at Bradblog, namely Agent99. (This is the same person whom continually deleted my comments at BradBlog: Agent99 lied that I'd been previously banned, continually deleted my posts and eventually suggested I was "mentally deranged". It seems posting a relevant Guardian article at BradBlog about Obama's Healthcare Reform means one is "mentally deranged". Clearly the issue was really about preventing anyone arguing against the premise that Obama was betraying people, had always meant to, and is in fact, an agent of ThePowersThatBe (jews?))

Whilst checking through the old threads at Big Dan's Big Blog, I came across an interesting post made by Agent99, the moderator at BradBlog.

Agent99 was responding to a request by another poster (at Big Dan's) to "approve" a comment made over at Bradblog:

I don't know why the suddenly over-avid spam filter is picking on you, plunger, and I spent a good deal of time going through the banned list to see if anything in there is causing it. I have my admin window now set to include blacklisted comments so I can approve the ones that get shunted over there wrongly.

Big improvements are looming, but not soon enough to suit me....

Sorry.

99 | Homepage | 12.22.08 - 9:54 pm | #

LINK

Agent99's response is quite revealing of the techniques used at BradBlog to suppress commentary they wish to prevent appearing.

It shows the influence of the moderators' own politics on what gets posted, of course, and also the extent to which "approved" members privileged status will inevitably skew the content of comments, and thereby also skew what appears to be the view of "the general public".

How can it be a representative view when only "approved" comments are allowed?

This is quite interesting and ironic in light of how Big Dan's Blog and Bradblog seem to insist that any and all critical comments are the responsibility of the pro-Israeli "Megaphone network", or organised right-wing, fake, grassroots campaigns.

Likewise, Bradblog and Big Dan's Blog, and any number of other such "alternative news sources" believe this sort of censorship and control of opinion is behaviour typical of mainstream media - an (assumed) characteristic which they perpetually condemn.

The self-described "alternative" sources like to pretend they are superior to 'mainstream media' specifically because (so they claim) to offer a wider range of views and give expression to views considered verboten in what they consider to be the "mainstream corporate controlled fascist media'.

[Because the mainstream is all part of "the great conspiracy", don't you know, and stamps out the least voice of opposition......as the following example, posted by "plunger" at Big Dan's Big Blog illustrates:]

ALL LIES. Media = Jewish-owned and complicit.

plunger | 12.28.08 - 11:43 am | #
LINK

Such a view of the mainstream media as strictly controlled and these peoples' "alternatives" being more 'open' is patently untrue: the mainstream media are often far more willing to publish opposing views than are these "alternative" sources; the mainstream reflects a much wider range of opinions than allowed at Prionplanet, Brad'sBlog, Big Dan's Blog, WhatReallyHappened, SmokingMirrors blog, Desertpeace, etc etc. Yet it's these blogs that claim to represent "liberty" and "freedom of speech" and condemn the mainstream for limiting those same things. What a con.

Banned from Big Dan's Big Blog

LOL - what a surprise.

I'll post the "dialogue" that led to it later.

Brief synopsis - they suggested AFP et al were "good sources of information".

Denial of knowledge about Willis Carto, AND suggestion that because Carto is "an anti-semite" then my purpose was to defend Israel - I must be a zionist, mossad, etc etc.

Suggestion that I was Socrates - wrong. Suggestion I was the person banned from Bradblog earlier - correct. (I posted from my default IP, as I had done initialy at Bradblog.)

Then they flooded the thread with irrelevant stuff about Israel/zionism/jews.

I was asked if I was a zionist. My suggesting the question is totally irrelevant but very revealing about them is, of course, reason to confirm that I must be.

Then they banned me.

Progressives huh? Defending AFP as a "good source of information" whilst suggesting Chris Bollyn (formerly of AFP) was "anti-nazi", and whilst condemning the NewYorkPost for being "NAZI"

They really are badly deluded or dishonest nazi sympathisers. what other option is there?

And whilst I am supposedly part of some organised network of zionist shills, the thread was flooded with responses denouncing me. Where did they all come from so quickly? If there's any network it's working against what I was trying to say - my viewpoint was the solitary voice, I was the one whom was banned.

Weird.

I have a few copies of the dialogue, need to sort the format before posting it. I'm interested to see if anything is deleted, and what it is (if anything).

ETA --- Agent99(?) seems to have posted this in that thread:

Danny, you got yerseff the Giant Haystacks, Auntie Semite, Socrates, and any other name he can dream up asshole who's made himself extremely unpopular all over the net. He comes in loaded for bear, armed with a bunch of different proxy servers and non-viable email addresses, and screen names. The instant you ban one set, he pops up with another.

I advise you to keep at it as long as he does or yer apt to find yourself wishing to stop blogging.

.
99

Interesting. That's quite a leap that they can put together usernames I have used - I did use Giant Haystacks at Bradblog - and I used "Auntie Semite" at Prisonplanet. (I have never used Socrates anywhere.)

They put that together within a few posts of mine at Big Dan's Big Blog. So Bradblog seems closer to Prisonplanet than they'd like be known, I imagine. Certainly some of the same people are visiting both, at least. Maybe they are sharing more - like IP addresses? Nevertheless - that shows at least some continuity between someone/some people at Bradblog, BigDans' and Prisonplanet. Kinda surprising on the face of it, but not if the accusations that they're all succouring fascism, and are essentially all the same group are true.

Big Dan's Big Blog

Having looked over Big Dan's Big Blog - I noticed a few things, which are quite striking.

The site has an appearance of being liberal/progressive/left - judging by the tone, subject and perspective of the content. There are two main links section - one called "NEWS", the other called "Exposing Fascism".

Under the 'NEWS' links there's a link to AmericanFreePress! Also WhatReallyHappened, and Alex Jones.

Under the "Exposing Fascism" title there's a link to Christopher Bollyn! Judging by some of the other links in this list, Bollyn's appearance there is not to suggest Bollyn is himself fascist, but rather that he "exposes" it!

I posted the following comment..........

You have a pile of links under the title "Exposing Fascism".

Under your "NEWS" links, you have a link to AmericanFreePress (AFP).

How can you have a title "Exposing Fascism" and then link to Willis Carto's AFP under the title NEWS?

And you link to Christopher Bollyn under "exposing fascism"!? Presumably that's because you wish to suggest Bollyn somehow "exposes" fascism - not to elucidate the facts about Bollyn having worked for fascists - like AFP?

What on earth are you up to?

AFP is run by Willis Carto. Founder of The Spotlight, Liberty Lobby, numerous Holocaust denial publications etc etc. AFP's 2006 conference - jointly held with the holocaust-denying "The Barnes Review" was hosted by Joe Fields - a leader and organiser for American Nazism. AFP's conference included guests such as Paul Fromm (leading Canadian Nazi), a former SS officer and collaborator with Einsatzgruppen A, and John De Nugent. All racist, anti-semitic fascists - the real mccoy. And you link to them?

WRH publishes all the Willis Carto stuff they can - they even publish and promote Curt Maynard, IHR, Barnes Review etc. Mike Rivero is very close to N American organised fascism, and serves to promote and protect it.

Alex Jones publishes Willis Carto's stuff (AFP), he employs AFP's Jim Tucker, publishes Reverend Pike whom also writes for Willis Carto's AFP and David Duke's "White Rights Website".

I'm interested to hear what your justification is for promoting all these people whilst creating an image that you are "anti-fascist", liberal, left, progressive, etc.

You're promoting the leading and most active far-right propagandists in the business.

Either you know that, or you don't. If you don't, then perhaps you better do a little more checking on your sources?
COMMENT
SITE

BradBlog Hypocrisy

Funny, BradBlog seems to pretend to be some "progressive" place, concentrating on election/vote fraud.

They have been irate this past week, accusing Obama of "betrayal" over health reform. I thought they were engaging in something akin to the right-wing conspiracy theories of NWO hoodoo, and forgetting about political realities, so I posted, suggesting that I thought "betrayal" was far too strong a term, as was their suggestion that Obama was always intent on betraying supporters of reform, because he's in the hands of his (NWO?) controllers, etc etc. I asked for evidence for this being purposeful "betrayal" rather than realism and political dealing to obtain some reform - none was provided.

Whilst responding to a ridiculous comment by "agent99" that I was posting at the behest of someone who was "paying me", I found my post disappeared. Using a proxy my post appeared - so I was being blocked by IP. My post was subsequently deleted and a note appeared by "agent99" saying I had previously been banned.

Never having posted there before, I found that somewhat disconcerting. Effectively that's lying - how can they know who anyone is - so how can they know if someone had been previously banned? Of course you can ban a single IP address, or a block, but I'd never posted there before, and barely ever even visited (place looks like ebay, and is slooooow)

I then posted from an article by the London/Manchester Guardian's Michael Tomasky, saying claims of "betrayal" and "sell-out" were wrong, because they assumed a level of presidential control over Congress which didn't exist. I also posted an article by a healthcare professional, arguing much the same thing in The American Prospect.

Here's the Guardian writer Tomasky's comments which Bradblog deleted, over and over -

The thing they do have to watch is the "If there's no public option, Obama is a total hack and sell-out" rhetoric, which emanates from a few quarters and is just wrong because it assumes a degree of presidential power over individual senators that doesn't exist.
LINK

And here's one of the quotes from the American Prospect article which BradBlog also repeatedly deleted:

So my advice to progressives is to chill, at least on this matter. To get health-care reform through the Senate, the public option is almost certainly going to have to be dropped. Perhaps, after House-Senate conference, some version will survive; for example, if the House bill includes a public plan and the Senate bill includes health co-ops, a logical compromise would be to give states a choice between them. But if no public option survives this year, it can be enacted separately later.

If health-care reform passes this year, a lot more will need to be done to make it work. But if it dies this year, it will be very dead indeed. The opponents of reform understand that, and the supporters must too.
LINK

Hardly the most outrageous comments? Yet these posts were repeatedly deleted - even though posted from different proxy addresses. Amazing! Bradblog deletes Guardian articles! Too dangerous, huh? Or is it that they just disagree with Bradblog? Or what?

Following deletion, "Agent99" posted the following explaining why he was deleting my comments:

forum, COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
... Agent 99 said on 8/21/2009 @ 11:52 am PT...

NOTICE: THERE IS A MENTALLY DERANGED PERSON WHO HAS BEEN BANNED FROM THE BRAD BLOG FOR A LONG TIME, CONTINUING TO COME IN OFF A NUMBER OF PROXY SERVERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD AND USING A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SCREEN NAMES. SO IF YOU SEE COMMENTS WHINING ABOUT "A FIRST-TIME POSTER" BEING BANNED FOR DISAGREEING WITH US, ETC. JUST DISAPPEARING, THAT IS WHY.

SORRY.

LINK Also here.

Nice! First they lie that I have been previously banned, they delete my posts, then claim I am "mentally deranged". They pass these lies and denunciations off to their readers whom seemingly accept it without comment. That seems very interesting. No-one at Bradblog minds Guardian Commentary being deleted!? Or that people genuinely enthusiastic for radical reform are accused of being "mentally deranged"?

Intrigued, I reposted the above comment from "Agent99" in a subsequent thread about "hatespeech"......again, it was repeatedly deleted. Also, the Guardian commentary was repeatedly deleted - even when it appeared on its own without any commentary by myself. Quite amazing for a self-proclaimed progressive blog - one that criticises the mainstream media for effective censorship and distortion.

It left me wondering what their purpose really was. There really isn't much difference in their critique of Obama from that of the "right-wing mobs" they criticise - the comments are littered with the same crude denunciations of fascism that litter Alex Jones' Prisonplanet - the same accusations of "NWO" stooges and puppetry appear, just as at prisonplanet - the same conspiracy theories appear. Although the cheap, undefended accusations of "betrayal" attack Obama from the position of pro-reform: apart from that, there doesn't seem much difference.

Does suggesting Obama is NWO puppet purposefully "betraying" reform actually help or hinder obtaining reform?

Seems to me it does nothing to support reform - so it functions as similar criticism as appears at Prisonplanet, and any other number of right and far-right venues.

Agent99's own website seems to pursue the usual far-right heresies about taxation being unconstituitonal and the Federal Reserve being 'the root of all evil' and even features a link to Mike Rivero's WhatReallyHappened. Hardly classic "leftwing" concerns. And this person - Agent99 - is running (wild?) as a moderator at "progressive" Bradblog?

Agent99 denounces myself - a supporter of socialised medicine (and socialism) - as "mentally deranged" and working for pay for some mysterious "controller".....

Agent99: I mean, hell, just ask the guy paying you to come here and spread all these talking points in the classic "concern troll" mode if you have any doubts about the veracity of my assertion here.
LINK

Agent99 seems to operate upon essentially the exact same conspiracy theories as the right-wing commentators at Prisonplanet - s/he shares the view of taxation being unconstitutional and has the perspective that "fascism" is present amongst both the (mainstream) American left and right. Agent99 likes to represent all shades of government, including Obama, as "fascism". Aaron Russo and Prisonplanet, all over.

Here's a quote from Agent99 at his/her website:

I'm no economist, but I know that ..... awareness of certain realities enable one to spot which economists.... should be... well... shot.

Nice. Dontcha love a progressive? Hey - sounds just like Prisonplanet.

And here's "Agent99" promoting Alex Jones' Obama Deception.

Alex Jones is a maniac. He has armies of maniacs maniacally following him. The guy tries very hard to tell the truth as best as he sees it. Just... well... he also goes wild with outrageous predictions that sometimes come true. ...... Obama isn't running diddly. He's the same as * already. The same. There is no possible other explanation. He's not the man running our country.

Hmmm. Now the President is supposed to be single-handedly "running the country"? And if he isn't, who is? Woooooo. Scary,huh? One minute it's a dictatorship, the next moment, Obama isn't running the country? Both are indicative of a malevolent "NewWorldOrder", apparently.

And Alex Jones "tries very hard" to tell "the truth", does he? For who - Willis Carto? And he makes predictions that "sometimes come true", does he? Oh yeah, sure. A broken clock does too, right?

This all seems a very peculiar slant for a moderator of a supposedly "progressive" blog, such as BradBlog. As familiar as I now am with the rhetoric and concerns of the (far)right-wing in America, I find this "progressive" moderator of Bradblog surprisingly similar.

Another video provided by "Agent99" is "Al Qa'eda Doesn't Exist".

the fraudulent ways the Al Qaeda myth is propagated in the controlled corporate media. The documentary also offers ways that citizens can become involved in helping to spread understanding about the true government-sponsored terror paradigm.

The video is produced by TheCorbettReport. Who they? Checking their website, we come across familiar (and frankly tired old) territory:

The Corbett Report provides podcasts, interviews, articles and videos about breaking news and important issues from 9/11 Truth and false flag terror to the Big Brother police state, eugenics, geopolitics, the central banking fraud and more.

The website has the now familiar look and feel of right-wing pseudo grass-roots propaganda.

Sure enough checking under the LINKS tab, we get four (!) LINKS to "REAL NEWS" including a link to Alex Jones' INFOWARS.COM Under the main page, The Corbett-Report links directly to a domain specifically about the film "Al qa'eda Doesn't Exist", "http://www.alqaedadoesntexist.com". The "film" so far only comprises of a trailer and a prologue.

A check run against the WHOIS entries for both sites produces the non-surprise of Go-Daddy's proxy registrar. Why do so many of these hokey websites return Go-Daddy's proxy registrar as the registrant? Rather, why do the registrars insist on using Go_Daddy's proxy registration service?

Checking the "bibliography" for the "Al Qa'eda Doesn't Exist" documentary shows it includes a link to a Prisonplanet article(!)

Another link at Agent99's website leads to Jason Bermas' "Fabled Enemies". Bermas is an Alex Jones crone, responsible for Loose Change, and the film is the usual hyperbole and distortion beloved of Prisonplanet: the film apparently provides

an overview of what is certainly the largest and most audacious false flag attack in American history.

Certainly? Based on......what?

Then there's links to Walt And Mearsheimer - authors of The Israeli Lobby, so beloved of the (far) right. There's also links to Norman Finkelstein - author of "The Holocaust Industry", another trope of the far-right. There's links to 911 conspiracy theories - soooper-de-doooper nano-thermite: "Yup there were bombs in the buildings and the Danish have the balls now to come out and say it."

There's links to Israel/Palestine, of course, and even a video here titled AIPAC - with a continual caption advertising Willis Carto's AmericanFreePress! It says "Welcome to the real world".....of Willis Carto? Oh yeah.

Then we have Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley, here.

There's conspiracy theory junk from Zeigeist Addendum here.

"Proof" bombs were planted in the towers on 911, here.

Dr. Jones tells of his discovery of unexploded nanothermite particles in the WTC dust, apparently - lol. Here.

A link to The Israeli Art Students...at antiwar.com...a link to "save antiwar.com".....and even a link to holocaust denial : "A Jew unveils the farse of the Gas Chamber in Auschwitz", which Agent99 links to under the heading, "a basis for the bishop" - presumably in defence of the Holocaust denying Bishop, central to the bruhaha with the Pope. Gee. Some real Holocaust denial to go along with Finkelstein, AFP criticism of AIPAC, Walt * Shearmeister, Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley, Jason Bermas.......

Then a link to Mike Rivero's (holocaust denying, crypto-fascist) WhatReallyHappened: the link says "compare holocausts", directing to a WRH page which equates Israel and The Occupation with the Nazi Holocaust.

Another link, and we're brought right in touch with Aaron Russo - director of "From Freedom to Fascism" - which is nothing about fascism, and everything to do with escaping any obligation to pay income tax.

Another link from Agent99's website goes to UNObserver.com - which I have only ever found linked to from Rivero's WhatReallyHappened.com. It's a site I have had suspicions about before. Their "subscriptions" page says it all - there's a load of options to subscribe, but no way to pay the subscription fee! The page says

Thank you for visiting our website. We hope that you will be interested in our monthly magazine, which is available only to subscribers. Since 1978, the U.N. OBSERVER & International Report has earned a reputation within the Diplomatic Community for accuracy and unbiased analysis. We are now making this information publicly available.

Each monthly issue contains additional in-depth information on the United Nations and other international organisations, but is available only by subscription. The printed version costs $93 (€79) per year for institutions or $70 (€59) per year for individuals. The electronic version costs $35 (€29) for one year. Please indicate your choice in the form below.
LINK

It smacks of being a disinfo/propaganda website. No way to actually pay for a subscription? Must just be an oversight, huh? Sure........reminds me of coming across 911 Conspiracy Guru Karl B Schwarz's website, which was selling his book. But nowhere to buy the book.....which elsewhere was always claimed to be "forthcoming". I'm a great author too - you should read my forthcoming classics......

Anyway, UNObserver looks like a variation on BankIndex to me - a load of conspiracy stories masquerading as something "serious". Looks like propaganda outlet to me.

All good "progressive" stuff. Sure.

Something odd about BradBlog letting Agent99 moderate, especially in that fashion. And what of Agent99? Links to Rivero, Alex Jones, Holocaust denial, conspiracies, tons of anti-Israel stuff whilst indulging Ahmadinejad, various Islamic sources etc.......accusations of "fascism" everywhere - against Obama and other democratically elected leaders.....a video with Willis Carto's AFP captioned throughout......links to Jason Bermas' rubbish, Stephen Jones, Richard Gage, bombs in the towers, all the rest of that junk.

This is supposed to be the "progressive left"!? Really? Webster Tarpley! Jason Bermas! Alex Jones! Mike Rivero! Aaron Russo! Errr......hold on a minute?

ETA - TheCorbettReport, linked to by Agent99 certainly has the now--familiar hallmarks of (far-right) bullshit website. It is of course registered through GoDaddy's proxy registrar, thereby hiding its registration details (effecting anonymity and violating the spirit of the registration laws) but looking through its "content" it is obviously operating under the same agenda as Alex Jones' Prisonplanet, and the countless other crappy websites dishing up stuff such as

WeThePeopleWillNotBeChipped.com joins us to discuss the growing opposition movement to implantable RFID and other biometric control grid technologies. We discuss the internet of things, emoting across the web, IBM and the holocaust, transhumanism and the crypto-eugenicist agenda.

James Corbett of The Corbett Report joins Captain Jack on Badlands Radio (99.9FM KVMP in central Texas) to discuss Bilderberg, the corporate media and how the people can really fight back against the agenda of a global government by and for the financial oligarchs.
LINK

HAHA. Yeah - issues concerning all Progressives. And Prisonpunnet, of course. LOL

There's Huxley's Brave New World too, with the usual tedious Alex Jones-type slant

-Brave New World - Film, Literature and the New World Order

Most frightening of all, Huxley's own family background and experience might show that Brave New World is not so completely fictional as we would like to believe...

How revealing! Then there's ponerology - SOTT's (Sign of The Times) ludicrous non-explanation of "how the world works:

ponerology and psychopathy are two significant concepts that best explain the sorry state of human affairs in this world which continue to negatively impact on our society, our lives, and our future. No, I don't think it has anything to do with "greed" or even "moral weakness" (however you define it). It has to do with psychopathology and its influence on the nature of evil in society.
LINK

See - it isn't capitalism to blame, it's psychopathology! Ah - we can safely put Marx and socialism to bed then........what a relief, eh?

This is all the same bullshit you can find oozing out of a million (far) right conspiracy websites.

Look at the interviews - the list includes Daniel Estulin, Alex Jones, Jim Tucker, Mike Rivero, Gerald Celente, Jermoe Corsi! ......a veritable who's who of the alumni of American crypto-fascism. The page on "Bilderberg" links to Willis Carto's AmericanFreePress.

They also have an interview with Paul Grignon, animator for a film about "money", which was linked to by Agent99 at Bradblog.

Amusingly at the Alex Jones interview it says:

Alex also mentions that he visits and approves of this website.

No shit! LOL What more proof of it being a great place for lefty progressive types to get some "real news" does one need, eh Agent99? HAHAHA

Bittersweet Symphony

Had to change the link - they'd stopped the embedding at the official Verve channel.

Shame.

Slave to the money, then you die...........

I can change.........i am here in my mode........but i'm a million different people from one day to the next. I can't change my mode, no,no,no,no

I love this song, and the video too. The video reminds me of being young, and my own attitude to life - pushing aside convention without respect. And whilst I was so many different people in one moment to the next, I couldn't change - no, no, no, no.

I love the unexpected shouldering of old women - what could be a more profound but still gentle rejection of the most basic precepts? It isn't about throwing old women to the ground though. obviously? :D

It's the attitude of shrugging everything off that I like - whilst it's still done with only a gentle bump. It's outrageous behaviour, but it's still done with a relative gentleness, considering the depth of rejection.

Where was it filmed? It reminds me of walking through New York at 23 or so. A buzz. Nirvana were everywhere - everywhere.

Someone asked me if I was David Bowie - successful attempt at flattery.

I take the you down the only road I ever been down........

A bittersweet symphony................that's life.......

I like his conviction in the video - he just walks away. Bumps everyone off, and walks on. I like that. I'm not like that - I don't think.

Poplawski and Prisonplanet

Richard Poplawski's best friend, Eddie Perkovic, an anti-semitic far-right extremist like Poplawski, has the following published on his MySpace page

DOCUMENTS I RECCOMEND YOU READ BY GOOGLE: "Civil War II" by Tom Chittum "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" "The Turner Diaries" by Dr. William Pierce "Jewish Supremacy" by Dr. David Duke ........
LINK

Following Poplawski's triple cop-killing homicidal episode, evidence began to emerge that Poplawski was a far-right extremist - a member and contributor to the neo-Nazi Stormfront and Alex Jones' Prisonplanet.

Alex Jones' Prisonplanet, seemingly perturbed by associations between Jones' Prisonplanet, Poplawski and the more obviously neo-Nazi, anti-semitic, racist and fascist Stormfront, set about attempting to distance themselves from Poplawski - even claiming that Poplawski "opposed the views" of Prisonplanet.

However, rather than turn-up any evidence that Poplawski "opposed" the views of Jones' Prisonplanet, the evidence actually showed that Poplawski had only said (at a Stormfront discussion about Alex Jones) he wasn't "100%" about Alex Jones. By reading the thread at Stormfront in which Poplawski (Braced for Hate) said this, it is clear Poplawski did not "oppose Alex Jones' views" but rather wasn't sure Alex Jones was actually anti-semitic. It needs to be understood that Stormfront, as a rabidly Nazi forum, considers "the jews" as responsible for all evils in the world and any public figure whom fails to share such conviction is considered 'suspect' - an agent of Zion itself. This was the context of the discussion at Stormfront in which Poplawski had said he wasn't "100%" about Alex Jones, and which Prisonplanet erroneously claimed showed Poplawski "opposed" Jones' views. It does not show opposition to Jones' views at all - it only shows that Stormfront Nazis debate whether Jones is fully onboard with their views or not.

Whilst Stormfront has no reservations about its own extreme anti-semitism and fascism, Alex Jones' Prisonplanet differs only in so far as it carefully substitutes age-old euphemisms in place of references to jews: Prisonplanet peddles an almost identical world-conspiracy schema, substituting euphemism for specific and blatant anti-semitism. IMO this is a deliberate use of euphemism so as to avoid accusations of obvious anti-semitism, which allows Jones to mainstream the same world-conspiracy as that propounded at Stromfront and Nazism in general (whilst avoiding the appearance of obvious Nazi sympathies and anti-semitism.) Euphemism aside, Stormfront and Prisonplanet both propound the same (Hitlerite) fantasy of (jewish) world-conspiracy.

Jones' use of standard anti-semitic euphemism is so successful at escaping blatant anti-semitism it allows him access to more mainstream and even left-wing audiences - a constituency unavailable to the more obvious extremists found at Stormfront etc. (even though they are saying essentially the same thing.)

That's the upside for Jones - access to audiences denied to more obvious far-right extremists. The downside, however, is that so successful are Jones' efforts at employing euphemism to avoid criticism for anti-semitism, he is considered "suspect" by the more obviously extremist fringe such as those found at Stormfront. This explains the debate Poplawski was engaged in about Alex Jones at Stromfront: it explains the scepticism towards Alex Jones found at Stormfront and explains exactly what Poplawski meant when he admitted he wasn't "100%" about Alex Jones.

Clearly, far from opposing Alex Jones' views, Poplawski and the other Stormfronters were debating whether Jones' euphemisms were genuinely anti-semitic or not, whether Jones' world conspiracy was the same Hitlerite Jewish world conspiracy, or not. This is what Poplawski wasn't "100%" about with regard to Alex Jones. To claim Poplawski "opposed" the views of Alex Jones is wilful distortion - Poplawski merely wasn't "100%" that Alex wholly shared the views of the extremists at Stormfront. That is not being opposed to Alex Jones' views.

So, back to Poplawski's best friend's MySpace page and his recommended list of reading material.

The first name in the list is "Civil War II" by Tom Chittum

Little surprise to find Tom Chittum extensively promoted and published at Alex Jones' Prisonplanet:

Report Suspicious Activity
Tom Chittum January 23 2004
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_chittum.html

Ft. Dead Puking Buzzard
Tom Chittum December 19 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/121903chittum.html

Millions of Houses Worth Trillions of Dollars. PANT! Pant! Pant!
Tom Chittum December 9 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/120903chittum.html

Fighting Behind a Four-Foot High Wall of Body Bags
Tom Chittum December 3 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/chittum120303.html

The Nukes Are Falling
Tom Chittum November 25 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/chittum112503.html

Thinking About Russia and Nukes
Tom Chittum November 18 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/chittum111903.html

A Depression of Hitherto Unimaginable Severity
Tom Chittum November 6 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/chittum110603.html

What Great Man Will Lead Us?
Tom Chittum October 26 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/chittum102603.html

An Open Letter to Mr. Lyndon LaRouche
Tom Chittum September 30 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/chittum093003.html

BAWK! Mutinous National Guardsmen Go on Looting Spree
Tom Chittum September 22 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_chittum_092203_spree.html

BAWK! Chicken Little Was Right
Thomas Chittum September 15 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_chittum_091503_little.html

Sgt. Skull Opines on the Glorious Imperial Battle Plan
Tom Chittum September 8 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_chittum_090803_plan.html

Achtung! You Are Approaching the Secure Zone
Tom Chittum September1 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_chittum_090103_zone.html

Prisonplanet does not publish authors they disagree with - they do not publish critics - they do not publish opposition.

ETA: Prisonplanet wrote:

There’s no doubt that Poplawski was a neo-nazi and a white supremacist who held distasteful opinions. The fact that such views are a complete 180 from what we write about every day......debunks the ridiculous notion that his shooting rampage was remotely influenced by anything he may have read on our websites.
LINK

Clearly Poplawski's views were not "180 from what Prisonplanet write about every day."

Here's what we can glean about Poplawski's views, which clearly mirror exactly what Prisonplanet "write about every day", minus the obvious anti-semitism of course:

Perkovic said Poplawski....grew angry recently over fears Obama would outlaw guns.
....
He said Poplawski feared America was "going to see the end of our times." LINK

Prisonplanet and Alex Jones make such claims frequently as do the public comments posted on the articles

[Poplawski] thought Obama had good press because of his race.

Again, a theme common at Prisonplanet.

This is from Poplawski's posts at the (world's leading) Nazi forum, Stormfront

1. The federal government, mainstream media, and banking system in these United States are strongly under the influence of- if not completely controlled by- Zionist interest.

This is exactly the same as what Alex Jones and Prisonplanet say - though Jones employs the vague and undefined term "New World Order" rather than Zionists. But the problem is, Jones and Prisonplanet never define quite what this New World Order means, and it operates as a substitute for zionsists/jews. Jones can claim it doesn't mean zionists/jews.....but why should we believe him when he links to and promotes Willis Carto's AmericanFreePress, employs AmericanFreePress's Jim Tucker, employs Michael Rivero of WRH, promotes Eustace Mullins, Christopher Bollyn, Tom Chittum, Reverend Pike etc. etc. All these connections and promotions of committed anti-semites (oh - anti-zionists! lol) are far more significant than any denials of anti-semitism Jones might make.

2. An economic collapse of the financial system is inevitable, bringing with it some degree of civil unrest if not outright balkanization of the continental US, civil/revolutionary/racial war, SHTF/TEOTWAKI scenario etc.

Well, that's Prisonplanet's output in a nutshell.

2A. This collapse is likely engineered by the elite Jewish powers that be in order to make for a power and asset grab.

Again, substitute NWO for zionist and we have a phrasing common to Alex Jones' Prisonplanet, indeed one that is ubiquitous to Jones' Prisonplanet, and one that commonly features amongst the readers' comments with the term zionist still attached. Such comments receive no public rebuke in Prisonplanet editorialisng nor in their comment moderation.

One can read the list of significant persons in government and in major corporations and see who is pulling the strings. One can observe the policies and final products and should walk away with little doubt there is Zionist occupation and- after some further research & critical thinking- will discover their insidious intentions.

Again, this is standard Prisonplanet fare, only with the vague and amorphous term NWO replacing Zionist.

I also don’t think there is too much debate about the eventuality of a collapse of economic and social order in this country. All signs seem to point to a once great nation in the midst its last gasp, suffocating under the weight fiscal irresponsibility. Poisoned by design by the moral decadence that is a direct byproduct of item 1.

Poplawski again sounding exactly like Alex Jones. Quotes from Poplawski at Stormfront, recorded here.

Clearly there is no "180" difference between Poplawski's views and those of Prisonplanet - it is difficult to see any essential differences, other than Jones and Prisonplanet employ the vague euphemistic term NewWorldOrder (NWO) instead of the blatant anti-semitism favoured by Poplawski.

Real Truth Online = Real Dodging Online

Larry from Real Truth Online claims:

Another tactic of yours is using certain arguments against ME (like saying youre not an architect) and then making "expert" claims in the very next sentence.

But Larry from Real Truth Online also says:

The ONLY thing that would cause a perfect symmetrical collapse is perfectly leveled weakness all around the building at the very same level and the very same time.

That seems like Larry aka Real Truth Online making an "expert claim". So I tried to find out Larry's relevant expertise.......

The following are all separate examples of 'Larry The Real Truth' avoiding answering the same simple question:

Are you an architect, Larry?
LINK

Still waiting for Larry to answer if he's an architect.
LINK

---Are you an architect?
LINK

Larry - are you an architect?
LINK

Are you an architect Larry?
LINK

Are you an architect Larry?
LINK

So, are you an architect or someone with relevant expertise, Larry?
LINK

Are you an architect Larry?
LINK

What's your expertise? Are you an architect?
LINK

What's your expertise? Are you an architect?
LINK

What's your expertise? Are you an architect?
LINK

how many times have you been asked if you are an architect?
LINK

I readily admit I am no architect and have no relevant expertise. As a non-expert I have no choice but to accept expert-opinion, which I am happy to do, unless given good cause to do otherwise.

Larry doesn't play by the same rules. His reasons for avoiding the question are obvious. If Larry answered he'd be guilty of what he accused me of ie

using certain arguments against ME (like saying youre not an architect) and then making "expert" claims in the very next sentence.

So, are you an architect Larry? Let's have the real truth online, for once, shall we?

And when you've answered that question, Larry, and perhaps get in the habit, maybe you'd like to address the other questions you have repeatedly avoided answering? Such as -

1) Why do you link to Willis Carto's AFP and other far-right jew-hating websites?

2) How do you justify working for publisher Alex Jones (Prisonplanet) when he has close relationships and promotes Willis Carto's publications?

3) Jones and yourself attack Obama for being fascist, but you're both silent about your own links to Willis Carto whom has close ties to genuine Nazis and fascists. Why? How do you justify this?

4) What is your explanation for the building collapses on 911? Demolition? Who What When How?

911 (again) - Freefall? Topple? Collapse Initiation

For a long time I felt the building collapses were suspicious - because to me, they looked suspicious. And of course, right after 911 there was a dearth of evidence for any explanation. As time has progressed, evidence has accumulated, and I now longer consider the buildings' collapses remotely suspicious.

There are several issues which frequently arouse suspicion, including whether the buildings fell at speed of gravity (freefall), whether the buildings should have toppled, rather than suffering total collapse. These were avenues I explored as much as I could following 911 and the years after - I no longer believe they need be cause for suspicion.

First, the amount of energy imparted by a large jet plane, loaded with fuel, was greater than that released by the recent N Korean nuclear bomb-test. That's before the release of energy from the fires initiated by the fuel explosions.

---The argument for demolition is that there was insufficient destructive power from the plane impacts, the explosions and subsequent fires. That raises the question of how much explosives would be required to exceed the destructive capacity of jetplanes, explosions and fires. Think about it? If the planes, explosions and fires were insufficient to destroy the WTC, then how much explosives would have been needed? The more explosive required, the greater the problem of explaining how they got there - the greater the size, scope and complexity of any conspiracy. Likewise - if it is argued it would only require "a small amount" of explosives, then how can jet-planes, explosions and fires be discounted?

To exceed the energy from plane crashes, explosions and fires would require an enormous amount of explosives. Jetfuel has about 18 times the energy content of TNT. So how much energy from explosives would be required if the energy from planes, explosions and fuel initiated fires was insufficient? The implication is an enormous amount of explosives. The evidence for any explosives is zero. Who What When How? There is absolutely zero evidence for this scenario - it is only based on peoples' a priori sense that the planes, explosions and fires could not have done it. Beyond that, there is nothing to sustain the claims as there is no evidence whatsoever.

Secondly, the collapses initiate at exactly the spot one would have expected them to if the collapses were caused by the plane impacts, explosions and subsequent fires.



--If the buildings were demolished by explosives, how did those responsible know exactly where the planes would hit the towers? Also, how did the (huge amount) of explosives not get triggered in the plane impacts and explosions and fires? How did the detonation system survive impacts and fires - and still allow collapses to be initiated right at the point of impact - twice.



Thirdly, the collapses of the WTC1+2 most certainly do not occur at freefall speed. Watch the above videos - and watch how the debris falls faster than the collapse point. As the building collapses, material is ejected sideways and forms an umbrella or mushroom around the collapse point as it proceeds down the towers. If the collapse point was moving at freefall, it could not have been obscured by the material which had been earlier ejected - the collapse point would not have been obscured as it would have fallen at the same rate as the ejected material which certainly was in free-fall and which obscures the collapse point (because it fell faster than the collapse point). Regardless - the collapse is progressive - once started it continues because resistance is only offered by the floor/s immediately below the collapse. How is one floor, or several support members supposed to withstand the weight of the building which is falling? The physics of moving mass is quite different to static loads. Once moving there is far greater force being applied. Of course it is going to proceed quickly - and that speed adds to the energy, increasing the likelihood the remaining floors are going to collapse.

--On the other hand there is zero evidence for any method of collapse through demolition and explosives. Absolutely zero.

Should the buildings have toppled? This struck me as peculiar - surely they would topple, and not collapse straight down? Having read an explanation of large building dynamics by a NASA dude, I am happy to accept my intuition was totally wrong - it is effectively impossible for the top of a large building to topple over.

I'm no physicist - nor an architect or building engineer. However, the principle seems relatively straightforward: when the building above the impact zone starts to rotate because of failed support members, there is a fulcrum around the centre. As one side of the block sinks as support fails, the other side obviously lifts. So, as the building sinks towards the failed supports, it rotates around the fulcrum, and severs the supports at the opposite side to the failed members - as the opposite side of the rotating mass lifts. As the sinking part of the rotating block begins to meet resistance, the opposite side will begin to sink. Once initiated, this process continued all the way down, with the top essentially rocking back and fore, and crushing wach floor as it falls. Once collapse begins, the forces involved are massive compared to the static load. The NASA dude obviously explains it better than I can, and it seems perfectly feasible. I've seen other physics professors explain it, and they aren't surprised by the collapse (so far as the physics of it goes)

Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

The NIST hypothesis of collapse initiation does not require all of the columns to fail at the same instant. This is clearly explained in NCSTAR1-6, and even quoted by Dr. Griffin on page 187. Since Dr. Griffin has apparently misinterpreted NIST’s comments, the author explains, in his own words, why a slightly more gradual failure is predicted:

The total load on the structure is approximately constant up to the moment of collapse. The structure supporting this load is slowly weakening, through a combination of loss of material strength (caused by heating and annealing), a loss of strength in individual members (caused by creep and inward pulling leading to an increase in strain), and a loss of system capacity (caused by inward pulling leading to eccentric loading, reducing the columns’ maximum strength before buckling). Not all structural supports are affected to the same degree or at the same time.

The critical moment of collapse is called the loss of stability. Up until this time, an individual structural support can fail without causing a collapse. The load formerly borne by a failing support is redistributed to other supports, usually those nearby, in milliseconds. Any support that “fails” at this time will sag slightly, but will still be attached, and from a distance appears to still be carrying its load, when in reality its strength will be only a small fraction of what it was previously.

When the stability point is reached, there is no longer enough reserve capacity locally to prevent a larger scale motion of the building. At this point, when a structural element fails, the nearby elements do not have enough capacity to take the added load. Some of these elements will also fail. Supports close to the local failure will either buckle or tear free. Supports far away from the local failure will also see some increase in their load, and some of these may fail as well, but in others including the WTC case, these elements remain – for a little while.

Local instability leads to local motion, and the upper structure begins to sag in the area of the failure. The surviving structural elements, away from the local failure, begin to see rotation in addition to their increased static load – this rotation creates the “plastic hinges” described in Bazant and Zhou [21]. Supports closer to the rotation will experience a greater share of the remaining load, and a greater twisting motion as the upper structure rotates, and these will fail next. As these supports fail, the load is redistributed further and further away, and soon every support will fail. Twisting will either cause the columns to break free at their connections, or to buckle leaving the connection relatively intact, depending on the relative strength of the connection and the column itself. In either case, the amount of twisting that these columns can survive is not large – structural steel typically flexes only about 3% before strain hardening begins, and rotation can lead to a significant leverage effect in the connections. All such connections will fail before the far corner of the structure descends by a single floor. This means that the local collapse leads to a global collapse in a period of less than one second.

In order for the structure to actually topple over sideways, the upper structure would have to rotate by, say, 45 degrees, which would put the centroid of the WTC 1 upper block approximately at the edge of the lower block. Recall that the structure was 208 feet across. Rotation by 45 degrees means that, if the hinge point is along one exterior wall, the opposite side of the upper block must fall “through” about 163 linear feet of the structure below. If the hinge point is at the center, the descending side must crush through 82 feet, while the ascending side must somehow rise, breaking all of its supports through tension. Despite this damage, the supports at the hinge must continue to support the full load of the upper block as it rotates. Even assuming the upper block and the hinge would survive this behavior, it is therefore impossible for the upper block to topple over without first “falling vertically” through an enormous part of the lower structure. For this reason, claims that the Tower should have toppled instead of collapsing vertically are nonsensical – you cannot have toppling without some vertical collapse, although you can have vertical collapse without toppling. The toppling collapse also requires this crushing to be asymmetric, only occurring on one side, which is simply not plausible – as the leading edge of the rotating block crushes structure below, the crushed structure resists, and this reactive force will tend to keep the upper block centered, meaning the likely outcome is either a downward collapse or no collapse at all. For these reasons, in a structure of these dimensions, the vertical collapse is strongly favored energetically, even discounting the fact that the upper structure also tends to break up under its own weight when rotated.

If all the supports had failed simultaneously, as Mr. Hoffman insists, neither of the WTC Towers would have displayed the rotation seen above. In reality, both Towers did rotate a few degrees, which is precisely what we expect in a gradual collapse mechanism. There is, therefore, no reason to believe the supports failed simultaneously, or that they must in the NIST model. NIST never makes this claim.

Dr. Griffin still insists that his belief is “obvious,” again shirking the burden of proof
LINK

--Just to restate - there is no positive evidence whatsoever for any other method of collapse. To suggest explosive demolition is to imply the conspiracy was massive: including all the engineers, physics professors, architects, investigators, firemen, recuse workers, clean-up workers etc etc - they were lying, or 'in' on the conspiracy? Then you have to explain how the buildings were fitted with such an amount of explosives as to dwarf the energy imparted to the buildings by 500mph jets, full of fuel and weighing 100 tons. (18 times the energy in fuel as TNT). Also it needs explaining how the collapse was initiated at the exact right place; how the explosives didn't trigger at impact, nor in the subsequent explosions, nor during the fires. None of this has any plausible explanation, and there is just no evidence for any of it.

To an objective observer, there is only one remotely plausible explanation - and it isn't demolition.

Conpiracists like to disparage the obvious explanation by saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". But in fact it is conspiracism that makes the extraordinary claim - and yet there is absolutely no evidence for conspiracy - let alone any of extraordinary quality. Whereas the obvious explanation has mountains of positive evidence.

Ultimately, we have to ask "Why believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence, whilst discarding the obvious explanation for which there is massive amounts of evidence?" Why? What is the reason to do so? It isn't because of the evidence - because there is none for demolition, and there's huge amounts for the obvious explanation. So why believe it?

You can continue forever saying "I simply don't believe it!" Fine - but until there is some reason to believe the super-extraordinary claims of conspiracy - there is simply no reason TO believe it. 911 Conspiracy might be right - but until such time as there is very good evidence for it, and very good evidence to give reason to disbelieve the obvious explanation, then there is simply no reason to do so.

Some further excerpts from Ryan Mackey's paper:

The Seattle Kingdome was imploded by Controlled Demolition, Inc., using roughly 4,700 pounds (2,200 kg) of explosives and 21.6 miles (35 km) of detonating cord [147]. For sake of comparison, the DELTA group [148] estimated the gravitational energy of the Towers at 5 x 1011 J, or 2.5 x 1011 J released in each of the two collapses, which is equivalent to the energy output of roughly 60,000 kg of TNT per tower. (Our own rough estimate, presented in Appendix B, is slightly higher at 100,000 kg TNT per tower.)

When Dr. Griffin claims that the WTC Towers contained more explosives than were used at the Kingdome, this means his theory requires over 2,200 kg per tower. However, since he has also stated that the gravitational energy was insufficient to create the dust, and that explosives must have been responsible, this raises the bar much higher – his theory now requires that more than 60,000 kg of explosives were detonated in each tower. This is greater than the payload capacity of two B-52 heavy bombers per tower.

60,000 kg of high explosives – 60 metric tons – is an enormous amount by any measure. Historically, there have only been a handful of non-nuclear detonations of this size or larger, all creating enormous fireballs and shock waves strong enough to visibly compress water vapor from the atmosphere. Despite the extremely unusual nature of such a large event, Dr. Griffin has no conclusive evidence of explosives – no sounds, no flashes, no shockwaves, no shrapnel, no chemical residue, no seismic activity, and no physical remains of any explosives. Hundreds of thousands of people would have personally witnessed this. Glass windows sheltered from debris were not shattered, helicopters flying nearby were not destroyed, and a few lucky survivors were even pulled alive from the lower levels after the collapse had ended. Dr. Griffin provides no explanation of how this is possible. He also has produced no explanation of how such a staggering amount of explosives could have been smuggled into the Towers without detection, how it could have been placed without being seen, how many individuals would have been required to plant it all, or how long this process would have taken. Just one of the hurdles would have been wiring the explosives – using the Kingdome as a reference, this explosion would have required almost 1,000 km of detonating cord to be strung in each tower.

Dr. Griffin’s claim also drives a wedge between his own theory and that of Dr. Steven Jones. Earlier in Dr. Griffin’s book [8], he left open the possibility of “incendiaries” rather than explosives, but incendiaries do not create dust. Because Dr. Griffin claims the dust was created by “controlled demolition,” he has no alternative to explosives except to propose that explosives were used in addition to incendiaries, or unless he embraces a theory involving science-fiction weaponry such as that proposed by Dr. Wood.

On the basis of the analysis above, it is now clear why Dr. Griffin refuses to present any details of his controlled demolition theory. The details that may be inferred from his conclusions prove its absurdity, even if there was no ready alternate hypothesis available, such as the NIST Report provides.
........

....if large pieces of steel were propelled by explosives, then smaller pieces should have traveled further still – as a material shrinks in size, its surface area to volume ratio rises. A piece of steel scaled down by 50% would experience four times less impulse, but would weigh eight times less, and thus receive twice as much initial velocity. This means that, if explosives had propelled steel fragments, we would see small pieces propelled much further than large pieces – and this is not the case. If explosives had driven a large fragment 600 feet, then very small pieces would have been ejected like shrapnel, damaging buildings and killing onlookers at distances of hundreds or even thousands of meters; this too did not happen.

In contrast, in the gravity-driven ricochet model, all pieces fall at the same rate regardless of their size, and therefore can ricochet similar distances; in this case larger pieces will travel slightly farther as they are less susceptible to drag. This is consistent with observations, and with the NIST theory.
..........
NIST estimates that the inventory recovered in this fashion, almost entirely from WTC 1 and 2, is between 0.25 percent and 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the Towers. This agrees with Dr. Griffin’s estimate. However, what he fails to appreciate is that the total above is the amount that was collected, not the amount that was examined. The overwhelming majority of structural steel was examined in the search, and discarded simply because it did not meet the criteria above – the remaining steel, in the professional opinion of the engineers, displayed no unusual or important characteristics needed for the investigation.

Furthermore, of the NIST inventory, a considerable fraction is in the form of “coupons,” or small pieces removed from larger steel elements to facilitate easier storage and protection from the elements. Because of this, the NIST inventory represents a larger fraction of the original steel than its raw weight would indicate. But in any event, Dr. Griffin’s assertion that the steel was all shipped off to Asia “before it could be properly examined” is simply wrong.

Dr. Griffin also repeats the commonly echoed misconception that “removing any evidence from the scene of a crime is a federal offense.” This is similarly misleading. It would be illegal for an anonymous individual to remove material from the collapse site, of course, but the search and rescue operation, followed by the recovery and firefighting efforts, followed by reclamation, were always under the control of the Federal Bureau of Investigations and FEMA. Such removal of potential evidence lay within their jurisdictions.
..........

Summary

We find that Dr. Griffin has failed to provide any positive evidence of explosives. In examining his claims closely, we have been able to assign some numerical limits to his explosives hypothesis, adding some detail that he refuses to provide.

Dr. Griffin, however, states that it is the absence of evidence that matters:

NIST claimed that it “found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001.” How exactly that statement should be interpreted is not clear: NIST might have simply meant that it found no such evidence because it did not look for it. Or NIST might have meant that it was already aware of such evidence, so there was no need to find it. But this statement should not, in any case, be taken to mean that no such evidence exists.

The author can clarify that statement for Dr. Griffin: NIST is not and never has been aware of any such evidence. Evidence for explosives does not exist. The NIST study proves that the collapses were expected, in the manner and timing they were observed, without explosives being involved in any way. Furthermore, if there had been explosives, the collapses would not have taken place in the way that they did. In discussing Dr. Griffin’s claims, we have consistently compared the evidence that he feels is significant, holding up to both the NIST and his own explosives theory. Without exception, the evidence is either irrelevant or actually confirms the NIST account.

Having examined all of Dr. Griffin’s claims, we can now confidently state that no such evidence exists. And since Dr. Griffin has also not found any problems with the NIST hypothesis, as we saw in the previous section of this report, Dr. Griffin has no valid reason – either because he believes he has evidence, or because he believes there is an absence of evidence – to suspect explosives.

Prisonplanet - "adverts disguised as news"

This is what Prisonplanet's "advertise" page used to say, back in April 2007:

TEXT ADS

Text ads are disguised as news headlines near the top of the "general" or "police state" section on Prison Planet.com and get guaranteed massive immediate hits.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/advertise.html

Nice to know they treat their readers with such respect, eh?

The page is available at webarchive: HERE and yes, it does say "Text ads are disguised as news headlines....."

9/11 Conspiracism and Sibel Edmonds

Alex Jones appears to do everything to prevent the words "Saudi Arabia" appearing in context with Sibel Edmonds.

Here, there is a whole page at Prionplanet about Sibel Edmonds, and her claims of "foreign government" and "criminal" involvement with 9/11. But throughout the entire page there is no mention of Saudi Arabia.

Of course Jones takes the least suggestion of "inside job" as vindicating his hypothesis.....but what about at least mentioning Saudi Arabia? Furthermore, Edmonds' claims seem to revolve around Al Qaeda being responsible - Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Why Jones downplays AQ and completely omits to mention Saudi seems obvious - it doesn't fit with his preconceived notions, and it doesn't fit with all his friends' views that the "foreign government" involved was Israel. Why else would AJ avoid mentioning Saudi and instead refer to just "foreign governments" and "criminal elements". (Of course 'criminal elements' were involved! They hijacked planes and flew them into huge office buildings!)

Here, there's a prisonplanet page on Alex Jones' interview with Sibel Edmonds......and not a mention of "Saudi Arabia". The transcript provided says "partial transcript"......and fails to mention Saudi Arabia, but it does feature Alex trying to get Sibel Edmonds to say "inside job". It's headlined

Foremost 9/11 Whistleblower Discusses Possibility Attack Was Inside Job

Edmonds agrees weight of evidence leans towards criminal complicity

Doesn't mention Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia.....just "inside job". Alex Jones knows his audience will read that as Israel?

Rivero of whatreallyhappened,com certainly must know that his audience will suspect Israeli involvement at the merest mention of the phrases "inside job", "government complicity", "foreign government involvement" etc. he does everything he can to make sure his audience thinks like that. Purposefully avoiding mentioning Saudi can only help create such impressions in his audience's mind.

Whatreallyhappened has this on Sibel Edmonds:

....if she is to be believed, a treasonous plot to embed moles in American military and nuclear installations and pass sensitive intelligence to Israeli, Pakistani, and Turkish sources was facilitated by figures in the upper echelons of the State and Defense Departments. Her charges could be easily confirmed or dismissed if classified government documents were made available to investigators.
LINK

No mention of Saudi Arabia at all. But Israel appears in the list, of course. Maybe Israel deserves to be in the list, in this case, but why not Saudi Arabia? It seems a concerted, or at least subconcious, effort at avoiding mentioning Saudi and AQ, unless it is in terms of "government contact" with AQ. But anyway, government contact with Al Qaeda in no ways means the government intended Al Qaeda to attack America.

Another reference at WRH to Edmonds says:

How many House or Senate Republicans have you heard screaming, or even better, calling for an investigation? The right wing remains silent. Some may have their hand, directly or indirectly, in the same AIPAC cookie jar.
LINK

Israel (AIPAC) again, but nothing about Saudi Arabia.

It's funny - try to find a mention about Saudi Arabia amongst the far-right connected 911-conspiracy crowd and there's absolutely nothing. Indeed, the far-right has a record of tactically embracing Islam, with the intent of making common cause against their shared enemy - Israel.

Sibel Edmonds appears frequently amongst the far-right 911-conspiracist crowd - but her claims are edited, and waved around only to confirm the meme that "foreign governments" were involved with 911. Nothing is mentioned about Saudi or about Islam.

Amongst such a morass of stories and commentary that "Israel did it!", Sibel Edmonds' quotes about "foreign government involvement", shorn of any implicatory mention of Saudi, are clearly meant to implicate Israel - and that's how the far-right 911 conspiracy sites employ her quotations.

Sibel Edmonds and 911

Why do all the 911 conspiracists cite Edmonds as giving support to their notion that "Israel" was behind 9/11?

Here's a few paragraphs from her own website, dating back to 2006. I draw attention to the fact she implicates Al Qaeda - and Saudi Arabia.

Senator Graham’s Revelation

It has been established that two of the 9/11 hijackers had a support network in the U.S. that included agents of the Saudi government, and that the Bush administration and the FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship.

In his book, "Intelligence Matters," Senator Bob Graham made clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties in the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Here is an excerpt from Senator Graham’s statement from the July 24, 2003 congressional record on the classified 27 pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11: “The most serious omission, in my view, is part 4 of the report, which is entitled Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters. Those 27 pages have almost been entirely censured [sic]….The declassified version of this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. In other words, officials of a foreign government are alleged to have aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, which took over 3,000 lives.”

In his book Graham reveals, “Our investigators found a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government. On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state, but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia.” He then cites another case, “We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close relationship with two of the terrorists; a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family.”

The most explosive revelation in Graham’s book is the following statement with regard to the administration’s attitude on page 216: “It was as if the President’s loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America’s safety.” Further, he states that he asked the FBI to undertake a review of the Riggs Bank records on the terrorists’ money trail, to look at other Saudi companies with ties to al-Qaeda, to plan for monitoring suspect Saudi interests in the United States; however, Graham adds: “To my knowledge, none of these investigations have been completed…Nor do we know anything else about what I believe to be a state-sponsored terrorist support network that still exists, largely undamaged, within the United States.”

What Graham is trying to establish in his book and previous public statements in this regard, and doing so under state imposed ‘secrecy and classification’, is that the classification and cover up of those 27 pages is not about protecting ‘U.S. national security, methods of intelligence collection, or ongoing investigations,’ but to protect certain U.S. allies. Meaning, our government put the interests of certain foreign nations and their U.S. beneficiaries far above its own people and their interests. While Saudi Arabia has been specifically pointed to by Graham, other countries involved have yet to be identified.

In covering up Saudi Arabia’s direct role in supporting Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission goes even a few steps further than the congress and the Executive Branch. The report claims "there is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before 9/11." Their report ignores all the information provided by government officials to Congress, as well as volumes of published reports and investigations by other nations, regarding Muslim and Arab regimes that have supported al Qaeda. It completely disregards the terrorist lists of the Treasury and State Departments, which have catalogued the Saudi government's decades of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Why in the world would the United States government go so far to protect Saudi Arabia in the face of what itself declares to be the biggest security threat facing our nation and the world today?
LINK

Errrr, excuse me, but that all points to Saudi Arabia, if anywhere. Edmonds, like everyone else, has been exploited by the anti-Israeli goons? Where did they get the idea from that she was on about Israel? Her claims have been used to accuse Israel, haven't they?

And who knows if she's even honest?

Odd Sponsor (?) of WhatReallyHappened.com

What an odd website.

But what an especially odd website to be sponsoring other peoples' websites.

These people appear to be advertising at WRH. Maybe Rivero gives advertising space away? Or maybe conspiracycards just have more money than they know what to do with? Or maybe it's something else........

The website is http://conspiracycards.com

It's registered through every hokey site's favourite proxy registrar - godaddy. Never have guessed, would you? [For those that don't know, godaddy allows registration of domain names via a proxy - so unlike any other regular registrar, nobody can tell who actually registered the sire name. Good for keeping your anonymity.....but why would anyone really want that?]

Check out the website - it's just weird. The basic premise appears to be selling "information cards" - with information about various conspiracies. They claim these are useful aids to conversations.....or something.

Click on the CARDS link, and it says

We hope this page will showcase published Conspiracy Cards sometime in the near future.
LINK

So the cards are not even available yet. But it does say

Sign up now and we'll let you know when these cards become commercially available or buy the CD which has over 150 cards in both high quality ready to print yourself and optimized JPGs to email to friends. We all need to get the word out...be a Truth Trooper now and help yourself by helping others and the people you care about wake up. Good Luck !

This is a limited time offer. Buy your cards on CD now while you still can. $22.50

The image admits they're "concept form" only:


Packaging Concepts for Conspiracy Cards (Work in Progress)

Soooooo, why would you even want these cards?

They say:

We realize after much research that in order to reach people with crucial information they need know it is essential to be armed with more than just your word. As you may have experienced it can be quite difficult to engage conversation within these topics. You can hand someone a DVD, but they may never watch it. You can recommend particular books, but they may never read them. What better way to illustrate your concerns than to hand them a card on whatever topic you need to introduce or would like to debate? We don't expect people to just suddenly believe simply by reading a few controversial facts on these cards. It is our intent that these powerful cliff notes will initiate their curiosity to look in to these facts even further for themselves. No doubt some people may refute these facts at first and will try to debunk them...this is good, and may just encourage them to actually research for themselves and consequently leading them on their own road to awakening.

If you're a Truther and are trying hard to wake people up... be prepared and arm yourself with ConspiracyCards.
LINK

Errr......right. Brilliant concept - lol - and not even up and running properly. Yet. But some time soon. They hope.

Until they get their card concepts fully worked up, what can you do in the meantime??

But What Can I Do?

This is probably the most common reply when people first wake up. Well you made the first step towards making a difference by educating yourself and arming yourself with the truth. If everyone knew what was really going on we wouldn't be in this predicament.

if you're visiting this site for the first time...learn !!! Then tell two friends and tell those friends to tell two friends and guess what? We'd all know this shit by now and *Their* New World Order agenda would crumble like a house of Cards. So please spend as much time as you'd like on this site and learn, but don't stop there...spread the word, It's our only hope.

Bookmark this site and send the link to 2 friends...let's start our own pyramid for truth!

Wow! Wake up - and.....bookmark the site. Hmm. Radical man. Not exactly a fully worked-out plan, is it?

They also say:

If you like what we do, please donate $1-$5-$10-$20. We try to survive from donations. Any amount helps and is appreciated.

Donate? What for? To help sustain their crappy website? Which sells "conspiracycards"? Which don't exist yet? Buy, or donate? Eh?

They say

"Click here to see the first prototype cards"

The prototype cards? So they don't exist? But you can buy a CD with them on........for $22.50........and it's a non-profit website? Eh?

they have a link to seemingly buy a Mike Rivero action figure:


Note it says "concept". And when you go to the page it says:

Mike Rivero is based in Hawaii and is a well know Truther who has been fighting the New World Order and revealing the truth on many crucial topics for more than fifteen years. Needless to say Mike most definitely deserves his own Action Figure as well as a Patriot Pack Card. These images below are Photoshop concepts I created to honor Mike Rivero as the Truth Trooper Hero he truly is. No they are not real, but maybe someday ... who knows? Enjoy !
LINK

EH? So they're just "concept artwork"? And the point of that is what? These people are having a love-in for Rivero, AND they sponsor his website? Is that for real? LOL

Clicking "about us" brings this message:

ConspiracyCards.com is a small outfit dedicated to revealing the truth behind many conspiracies pertaining chiefly to the New Word Order. Our staff will Bend Over backwards to ensure the information presented in these cards is accurate and up to date as best we can. Should new evidence come forward...we will not hesitate to make the proper corrections. Our only goal is simply the pursuit of truth and to inform the public on how they can best prepare or avoid any possibilities that might endanger their lives.

We are not coerced, paid or bribed to bring you this crucial information. We have a genuine concern for the state of our world today and hope that the information we present can awaken the public to the secret agendas that intend to destroy our quality of life as we know it.

Our focus is to offer concise information concerning issues that may effect your immediate or long term health. It is not our intention to confuse the issues with topics for sheer entertainment value. Many of these topics are controversial and we strongly encourage everyone to research fully and from as many sources as possible.

Eh? If people pay for the cards then conspiracycards.com surely are being paid to bring people this information?

Don't you love the "accurate and up to date.....as best we can..."? LOL.

The usual guff is in there - global warming is a hoax, they're coming to get your guns, 911 - of course, etc etc etc.

Some of the adverts are perhaps more revealing - Gun Owners of America - Alex Jones' Prisonplanet - Midas Resources (Ted Anderson/Alex Jones gold selling shenanigan)

But remember, you can buy a CD, with the jpgs on! Woohoo. Amazing. Print them out yourself! Hmmm. WTF? For $22.50? Who in hell is gonna buy them? And yet they are sponsoring WRH?

This rubbish is generating funds sufficient to sponsor other peoples' websites?

How? It's just not credible?

It looks amateurish as hell. It has a page on getting off the grid. Go to the page and it says

"More tips on how you can survive off the Grid coming soon"

And just a load of hokey videos off of ....youtube. And some more adverts for various conspiracy site junk. Hmmm.

It says :

ConspiracyCards.com is more than just cards for curious entertainment. It's an Awakening center with Conspiracy Cards of crucial information that can save your life. Open your mind and learn what the Illuminati don't want you to know concerning their Depopulation agenda using False Flag operations to herd you and your family to a FEMA camp to be executed or injected with a lethal Vaccine that will give you the Avian/Swine Flu rather than prevent it. Learn about the Bilderberg Group and how JFK warned people before he was assassinated for not going along with the New World Order.

These factual Conspiracy Cards are specifically designed to inform you of very important issues to which you may not be aware. But don't expect to see these topics discussed or debated in traditional media such as TV or newspapers. Most all media sources are owned by very powerful groups who have no intention of divulging the truth. Why?...well we hope to clarify their agenda and explain their motives with these factual cards... that may just save your life.

This site does not require a membership nor any fees to access the crucial information within. All we ask is that you learn and share the information. This is a non profit venture done out of urgent concern for the future of mankind. However donations are very much appreciated and would help fund the continuation of this project. Thank You !
LINK

Non-profit? Hmmm. I bet it is. So how can they sponsor WhatReallyHappened? They sell "conspiracycards - which aren't available yet, only on CD as jpegs - and yet they're "non-profit"? Do they know they aren't going to make a profit on the cards? What if the cards (heaven forbid) actually took off and they made a fortune? Eh? Doesn't make sense.

They have a pile of adverts, sorry I mean information, which lead to naturalnews.com - frequent and prolific sponsors of Alex Jones' Prionplanet.

Cannabis cures cancer! Reich's Orgone! Quantum nonsense! Pages and pages of such rubbish......

Who We Are links to a page with a picture of Ron Paul, Aaron Russo and Alex Jones. Eh?

If you have learned valuable information that served as a warning or that may have enhanced your life or health...what is that worth ?
$1 - $10...every donation counts and is appreciated to help sustain this website and our efforts. Thank You !

Sheesh.......what information?

For more information feel free to look into it for yourself.

Oh - thanks! Look into it yourself! What is this crap? Why are adverts for it at WhatReallyHappened?

What springs to my mind are the claims made my NewYorkTimes about fake grassroots websites which resurfaced recently in light of the anti-Obama campaign to prevent healthcare reform.

It seems to me to be a pretty obvious way to channel funds to "conspiracy" (read right-wing extremist) websites - take out advertising, for crap or non-existent products as a means to funnel money to politically sympathetic websites. How does anyone know who is behind the firms that sponsor all these far-right conspiracy websites? The websites are under no obligation to say.....and if the advertisers are registered through GoDaddy proxy registrar system, how could anyone find out who owns them or if they are legit?

Seems very odd.