“False Flag” Attacks–Debunked!

This blog will deal with the claims made in a very small portion of the movie Thrive—small, but important. One of the key claims Foster Gamble makes in the film is the claim that there is a “Global Domination Agenda” where a small elite is plotting to take over the world. As I have already demonstrated, that claim is completely false. One of the pieces of “evidence” that Mr. Gamble employs to reach this finish line is the idea that this “Global Domination Elite” (“GDE” for short) uses what he calls “false flag attacks” as pretexts to start wars and/or institute policies that supposedly advance this imaginary conspiracy. In doing so, Mr. Gamble makes some pretty serious distortions of a few particular events in U.S. history. As American history is my professional field, I feel particularly obligated to set the record straight as to the misleading information and false conclusions invited by Mr. Gamble in Thrive.

What Does Thrive Say About “False Flag” Attacks?

At 1:30:00 (+/- a few seconds) in Thrive, Mr. Gamble asserts that “it is a documented fact that we entered the Vietnam War under false pretenses.” He is talking about the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, an attack by North Vietnamese forces on U.S. warships which caused President Lyndon Johnson to ask Congress for a resolution broadly authorizing expanded use of military force in Vietnam. A few moments later, Robert McNamara, who was Secretary of Defense under Johnson, is shown on the screen acknowledging that the attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin did not actually take place.

At 1:30:44, after Mr. Gamble mentions that George W. Bush used the idea of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) in Iraq to build support for the 2003 invasion, he states, “Tactics such as this are sometimes referred to as ‘false flag’ operations.”

At 1:30:56, Gamble makes the following assertion:

“A growing number of people believe that 9/11 was a ‘false flag’ operation by the global elite as a means of taking over Middle Eastern oil and dismantling U.S. constitutional protections.”

As he says this, on the screen the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is shown. The title on the screen reads, “Building 7, World Trade Center—September 11, 2001—(not hit by any plane).”

In about one minute of screen time, Mr. Gamble has committed a number of serious historical, logical and factual errors. This article will demonstrate three principal factual conclusions: (1) that Mr. Gamble is absolutely wrong, as a matter of historical fact, to claim that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a “false flag” operation; (2) that belief in “9/11 was an inside job” conspiracy theories is not growing, but in fact shrinking; and (3) the conclusion that Mr. Gamble invites, but does not expressly state, regarding September 11—specifically regarding WTC7, that it was part of a “false flag” operation—is incorrect. Additionally, this article will demonstrate why the whole idea of “false flag” operations, as conceived of by conspiracy theorists, is extremely unrealistic and in fact pretty silly.

What Is a “False Flag” Attack?

If you hear the term “false flag” in ordinary conversation, chances are pretty good you’re talking to a conspiracy theorist. As conspiracy theorists often do, they have taken a fairly obscure term—this one from the world of military and intelligence strategy—and colored its meaning into something not quite the same as its original meaning. Just for the sake of defining the term, I’ll quote the Wikipedia definition:

“False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and can be used in peace-time.”

Historically, false flag operations have been confined to fairly small-scale military maneuvers, especially in naval warfare. Did you see the film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, which involves British Navy ships in the Napoleonic era? There is a scene in that film where a British warship disguises itself as a whaling vessel from Brazil so as to lure an enemy French ship into close quarters, whereupon the British standard is suddenly raised and the attack begins. This is a type of false flag operation in its proper context.

When conspiracy theorists talk about “false flags,” what they mean is a tragic event, usually a very large-scale attack or other act of war or aggression, which is entirely staged by a government or elite group as a means to blame a totally innocent party and thus create a cause to retaliate against that innocent party. It’s the same thing in spirit, but not in scope. False flag operations in real life tend to be small and limited in scale. To conspiracy theorists, however, there is no practical limit to the events that can be staged successfully. Indeed the term “false flag” itself is often used as shorthand to allege a conspiracy behind something.

Why Is The Gulf of Tonkin Incident Not a “False Flag”? 

Mr. Gamble states boldly that “it is a documented fact that we entered the war under false pretenses.” It’s very clear that he’s alleging that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag attack. But it wasn’t. The reality is complicated, and considerably different than Mr. Gamble’s conspiracist shorthand. 

First, and most importantly, he does not tell the audience that what is referred to as the “Gulf of Tonkin incident” was actually two incidents. There were two alleged attacks on U.S. warships by North Vietnamese patrol boats on two separate occasions in early August 1964. One such attack clearly and definitely occurred. In fact it has been admitted by Vietnamese officials. The second attack did not occur. This is the attack that Robert McNamara is speaking of in his brief clip shown in Thrive, which is taken out of context. 

Because we know for a fact that one attack definitely occurred, this automatically disqualifies the Gulf of Tonkin incident as being a “false flag.” However, the second attack—the one that did not happen—doesn’t satisfy the definition either. It didn’t happen, but it wasn’t staged. Gamble clearly wants you to believe that elements of the imaginary “Global Domination Agenda” staged the incident in order to give the U.S. a pretext to go into Vietnam. That’s not what happened. Whatever did happen in the Gulf of Tonkin that night was misperceived by U.S. military personnel as an attack. They made a mistake; but that’s different than staging an attack.

What Happened in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964?

The United States had been supporting the government of South Vietnam since 1954, when a complicated cease-fire ended France’s war there (much of Southeast Asia had long been a colony of the French). This accord separated Vietnam into two countries, North Vietnam which was Communist, and South Vietnam which was pro-Western. American military and intelligence forces, euphemistically called “advisers,” were in the country beginning in the late 1950s, helping the South Vietnamese resist the civil war going on within its borders to unify all of Vietnam under Communist rule. Inch by inch the United States was being pulled in to a more active role, but by August 1964 there were no U.S. combat troops directly engaged in warfare with the Vietnamese.

On August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox, cruising in the Gulf of Tonkin on a mission to collect intelligence about North Vietnamese military activity, fell under attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats. The U.S. returned fire and sank one of the boats. Part of the reason this small battle occurred was because North Vietnam claimed a zone of up to twelve miles from its coasts were its territorial waters, and this claim was not recognized by the United States. Historically, there is no question that the August 2 attack did occur. The only question was who in North Vietnam’s military had ordered it and whether they had authority of the government to do so.

In 1998, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara—the exact person who a brief clip of appears in Thrive—and other U.S. officials, in an effort to repair relations with Vietnam (which ultimately was unified under Communist rule in 1975), went to Vietnam to talk about the war with officials who had been in command of the North Vietnamese government at that time. These fascinating discussions were recorded and became the basis of a book by Robert S. McNamara, James G. Blight, and Robert K. Bringham called Argument Without End: In Search of Answers to the Vietnam Tragedy (New York: Public Affairs, 1999). On page 203 of this book, McNamara and his opposite numbers from Vietnam discuss the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Here was the record of the exchange about the first attack:

Robert McNamara: The first question I have is: was there an attack on the Maddox on August 2, 1964? The answer to that is almost surely ‘yes.’ I say this because I have a fragment of a North Vietnamese shell that I took off the deck of the Maddox, so I think there had to be an attack. But I’d like this on the record. I see my Vietnamese colleagues nodding agreement. Okay, we’ll accept that.”

Gen. Nguyen Dinh Uoc: Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap said that one of the responsibilities of the Vietnamese navy in Thanh Hoa was to guard against any vessels violating the national waters of Vietnam. And if there were violations, the navy had the right to attack in order to protect those waters. That was the general policy adopted by the central authority to defend the country’s sea coast, at the time. It was not a decision made centrally. That is the answer.”

Robert McNamara: Thank you for a very clear answer. It points to something that we certainly did not understand or anticipate at the time…There was a far greater decentralization of authority and command with respect to the North Vietnamese military than we understood at the time…”

So you see here that even the North Vietnamese admit that the August 2 attack did in fact take place. This is proof positive that Foster Gamble (A) is wrong that the Gulf of Tonkin was a “false flag,” because it is clear that an attack did take place; and (B) that he took the McNamara quote out of context. Before I explain where the McNamara quote comes from, let’s look at the second part of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Two days after the August 2 incident, the USS Maddox and another ship, the USS Turner Joy, claimed that they were under attack again. Technicians aboard these ships saw radar blips and there were also visual sightings of what people interpreted as patrol boats headed toward the U.S. ships. In fact, they misinterpreted what they saw. I will quote from another book, Edwin E. Moise, Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), where it states on page 203-04:

“Several participants in the incident who contend that there really was a PT boat attack on the night of August 4 have summarized for the author the reasons for their belief. John Barry firmly believes that his ship actually was attacked by torpedo boats…Ensign Douglas Smith was completely convinced, on the basis of what he could see on his radar screen, that the Turner Joy was under PT boat attack. Despite contrary evidence of which he has become aware since, he is still inclined to believe in the reality of the attack…The evidence of the radar screen returns was convincing then, as it is now…

When the documentary evidence is added, the weight of the evidence is overwhelming: no attack occurred. There exist rational explanations of how all the evidence of an attack could exist without there having been an attack.”

The captain of the Maddox cabled Washington that his ship was under attack. Not long after he began to send cables hedging on this conclusion and suggesting that perhaps the second attack had not, in fact, occurred. McNamara did not tell President Lyndon Johnson that the Maddox commander was changing his mind. When Johnson made the decision to seek Congressional authority to strike back, on the basis that U.S. forces had been attacked, he did not know that the August 4 attack was in serious question.

In 2003, Robert McNamara gave a lengthy interview to filmmaker Errol Morris. This interview became the basis of a documentary film called Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara. It is from this film that the brief clip of McNamara that appears in Thrive is taken. (I hope Mr. Gamble got the appropriate clearances to use it). In the specific clip that is used in Thrive, McNamara, who died in July 2009, is clearly talking about the August 4 attack. To my knowledge, at no time did he ever hold the opinion that the August 2 attack did not take place.

It is important to view the questions about the August 4 attack in their proper context. The brief and misleading presentation of the Gulf of Tonkin issue in Thrive clearly invites the reader to jump to the conclusion that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was some sort of deliberate fabrication. Indeed, the characterization of the event as a “false flag” attack requires that interpretation. But, as we’ve seen here, the August 2 attack did occur, and the August 4 attack, which did not occur, was a result of mistake, not fabrication. There is not a single shred of evidence anywhere that the apparent August 4 attack on the USS Maddox was a deliberate and knowing fabrication. Thus, it is impossible that it could have been a “false flag.”

Did the Gulf of Tonkin Incident Really “Get us into Vietnam?” 

Historically speaking, the answer to this question is clearly no. By August 1964 the United States was already deeply involved in Vietnam. It is therefore a mischaracterization of history to assert that the Gulf of Tonkin incident caused the United States to enter the Vietnam war. It simply didn’t happen that way. 

While obviously the point of this section of Thrive is not to engage in any sort of deep historical analysis, again the conclusion that Mr. Gamble invites with his words, and his selective presentation of the issues, is telling. Look at his exact words again: “It is a documented fact that we entered the Vietnam War under false pretenses.” It is not a documented fact, because it simply isn’t true. He’s playing games with the idea of when and under what circumstances the U.S. “entered the Vietnam War.” 

I will again quote the Moise book, Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War. In the preface, Moise states: 

“The incorrect report of August 4 did not really “cause” the outbreak of large-scale war in Vietnam. By August 1964, Washington and Hanoi were already on a collision course. The level of combat in South Vietnam, and the level of outside support on both sides, were increasing; meanwhile the United States was sponsoring a program of covert operations against North Vietnam…If reports from the Gulf of Tonkin had not caused President Johnson to order airstrikes against North Vietnam in August 1964, something else would have done so within a few months. 

“[T]he Tonkin Gulf incidents—the real one of August 2 for which the United States did not retaliate, and the imaginary one of August 4 that provoked the airstrikes and the Tonkin Gulf Resolution—deserve careful attention.”

This analysis is absolutely supported by all historical data regarding the United States’s entry into the Vietnam War. If you go to the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C., you’ll see two dates on the wall—1959 and 1975, the prior being the first year in which a U.S. serviceman died in Vietnam, and the latter being the last year in which that occurred. Those are, incidentally, also the dates by which the U.S. government, for purposes of veterans benefits and classification, defines the “Vietnam conflict.” It is true that a sustained long-term air campaign (“Rolling Thunder”) and large-scale infusion of American ground forces into Vietnam did not occur until 1965, after LBJ asked for, and received from Congress, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. But it is totally false to state or imply that the war began in the Gulf of Tonkin. If it did, what war did the Americans who died between 1959 and 1965, and whose names are inscribed on the Vietnam War Memorial, die in? 

By his misleading use of the term “false flag,” Foster Gamble seems to want you to conclude that the Gulf of Tonkin incident alone took the United States and North Vietnam from peaceful coexistence to open armed conflict, and that, if the Gulf of Tonkin incident hadn’t happened, or if the truth about the August 4 attack had been known, the Vietnam War would not have occurred. This conclusion is ludicrous and is totally at odds with every bit of historical knowledge we have about the war. It simply isn’t true. 

Okay, So the Gulf of Tonkin Wasn’t a False Flag. Does That Mean the Vietnam War was Perfectly OK? 

No. That is not the argument at all. The issue is whether the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a “false flag.” It was not. The legitimacy or morality of American involvement in Vietnam is a totally different question. 

Because I’m sure I’ll be asked about it, I’ll state that, personally and as a historian, I do not believe the Vietnam War should ever have been fought. I have not been able to find in the historical record anything that I regard as a convincing argument having been made by proponents of the war, such as John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson or Robert McNamara, as to why U.S. national interests at stake in Vietnam justified the terrible price of that conflict. I believe the U.S. government sorely misjudged both the stakes and the likely consequences of the war, and compounded the damage by making one disastrous decision after another. That’s what I think about Vietnam. But was it started by a “Global Domination Elite” with a “false flag” in the Gulf of Tonkin? Absolutely not. 

Is the Number of People who Believe 9/11 Was a “False Flag” Growing? 

Let’s move on to the subject of 9/11. Mr. Gamble is curiously circumspect about 9/11, as we’ll see in the next section, but let’s look briefly at what he specifically says: “A growing number of people believe that 9/11 was a ‘false flag’ operation by the global elite as a means of taking over Middle Eastern oil and dismantling U.S. constitutional protections.” 

This statement is utterly false. Although most 9/11 conspiracy theorists refuse to accept it, fewer people believe that 9/11 was an “inside job” now than did four, five, or six years ago. An interesting article from Slate.com charts the rise and fall of 9/11 conspiracy beliefs: 

“[I]n the immediate aftermath of 9/11, only a tiny segment of the American population, 8 percent according to one poll in early 2002, was inclined to believe that their government was lying to them about what happened that day….

Although most Americans still believed that the Bush administration was “mostly telling the truth,” by early 2004 16 percent of the population believed it was “mostly lying” about how much it knew prior to the attacks—double the number from the same CBS poll two years prior…By mid-2006, one in three respondents would tell pollsters that they believed the government either orchestrated the attacks or allowed them to happen in order to go to war in the Middle East…

By 2009, with the first-ever African-American president having taken office, the number of Americans who said that Bush let 9/11 happen in order to go to war in the Middle East was at 14 percent. (Because the wording of questions about responsibility for 9/11 has changed over the years, getting a consistent measure of the public’s view is difficult)…. In another poll in 2010, only 12 percent of Americans said they did not believe Osama Bin Laden had carried out the 9/11 attacks.”

Did you follow that? Belief in conspiracy theories started out at 8% in 2002, doubled to 16% in 2004, exploded to 33% in 2006, then slumped to 14% and was still falling as of 2010. If you follow the links in the above quote you can see the raw poll data upon which this summary is based. Any way you slice it, you’ll see that 9/11 conspiracy theories are becoming less popular, not more.

It is very clear: Foster Gamble is simply wrong when he says “a growing number of people” believe that 9/11 was a “false flag” operation. In fact, the reverse is true: a shrinking number of people believe that 9/11 was a “false flag” operation. 

Was September 11 a “False Flag” Operation? 

No. 

Mr. Gamble is curiously circumspect about the subject of 9/11. He doesn’t specifically state in Thrive that “9/11 was an inside job.” All he says specifically is that “a growing number of people” believe that it is, a statement which, as you’ll see above, is incorrect. But let’s not kid ourselves. Thrive is aimed at conspiracy theorists. Among such people, the delusional belief that 9/11 was an “inside job” is an axiom. If Mr. Gamble does not believe that it was, I challenge him to come out and say unequivocally, without reservation, that he believes that 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda terrorists without the foreknowledge or assistance of the U.S. (or Israeli) government. 

Clearly Mr. Gamble invites you to make the conclusion that 9/11 was an “inside job.” While he makes his incorrect statement about the numbers of people who believe it is, on the screen we see World Trade Center 7 crumbling. 9/11 conspiracy theorists continually point to WTC7, a skyscraper that collapsed several hours after the main WTC towers fell, as “evidence” that it was a conspiracy. I’ll give Thrive a very rare point for factual accuracy when I note that the caption flashed on the screen at this part of the movie, stating that WTC7 was not hit by a plane, is correct. It was not hit by a plane. However, that doesn’t mean that September 11 was a “false flag.” 

At my other blog, I have written extensively about September 11 conspiracy theories and why they’re false. You can peruse examples here, here and here. I won’t rehash all the material debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories in this article. If you need convincing that 9/11 was not an inside job, I suggest you consult this website, or this one, which has a page devoted specifically to explaining why WTC7 does not indicate conspiracy, or you can go to an article I created in 2010 setting out very carefully what we know about 9/11 and why we know it was not an “inside job.” In a nutshell, WTC7 collapsed because it was severely damaged structurally, and set on fire, by debris that struck it when WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed earlier in the day. Uncontrolled fires raged for hours in the building and authorities knew well ahead of time that it was going to collapse. Here is a recent news article incorporating footage that graphically shows how bad the damage was in WTC7. It is very clear that September 11 was not an “inside job.” 

So, Mr. Gamble is 0 for 3. He is wrong when he says the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a “false flag.” He is wrong when he says that a growing number of people believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. He is also wrong when he invites the audience of Thrive to draw the conclusion that 9/11 was a “false flag.” 

“False Flags” in General: They’re a Lot Rarer Than You Think. 

For the most part, I’m annoyed when conspiracy theorists like Mr. Gamble assume that certain events must be “false flag” attacks. They always—always–jump to this conclusion without investigating the evidence behind a particular event. They also ignore the fact that, in real life, “false flag” attacks are exceptionally rare. I can think of only one that makes any sort of fit with the concept as Mr. Gamble describes it, and ironically he doesn’t even mention it in Thrive. On August 31, 1939, the day before the beginning of World War II, Nazi commandos attacked a German radio station on the frontier between Germany and Poland, and planted false evidence to make it look like Poles had done it. This is known as the “Gleiwitz Incident.” However, even at that, it wasn’t very consequential. By that time Hitler had been railing at Poland for months, with his usual demand being the return of a piece of Polish territory, known as the Danzig Corridor, to Germany. Had the Gleiwitz Incident not occurred at all, the war would have begun the next day just as scheduled. Furthermore, the Gleiwitz Incident failed to fool very many people in the first place. Virtually no one outside of Germany believed it, and as for belief within Germany, Hitler, being an absolute dictator, did not require public support to launch his war against Poland in the first place. Gleiwitz simply didn’t matter very much—far from being the global game-changer of the kind Mr. Gamble imagines happened in 1964 in Vietnam, or suggests happened in 2001. 

Only one other alleged “false flag” even bears mentioning. Whenever you hear the words “false flag,” conspiracy theorists trot out another tired trope—that being “Operation Northwoods.” This was a memo drawn up within the U.S. intelligence community in 1962 suggesting that acts of terror be committed against U.S. interests abroad and blamed on Fidel Castro, so as to galvanize public opinion for an invasion of Cuba. The document was declassified in 1998. What conspiracy theorists forget is that this document, and the scenario it suggests, was so outlandish and outrageous that President John F. Kennedy, to whom it was presented, was aghast at the suggestion and rejected it out of hand. Not only was “Operation Northwoods” never attempted, Kennedy fired the guy who proposed it. Sadly for conspiracy theorists, this document does not help make their case that “false flag” operations are common. 

When I hear conspiracy theorists complain that “false flag” attacks are used to justify American action against terrorists abroad, I sometimes present them with a list of terrorist attacks that have occurred in the past 30 or so years and then ask them to identify which ones they are willing to believe as really having occurred—i.e., as not “false flags.” For example, conspiracy theorists love to talk about 9/11 and the 2005 “7/7” London Underground massacre as being “false flags.” 

However, what about lesser-known acts of terrorism? What about the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in the summer of 1985, in which a U.S. Navy diver was murdered and his body thrown on an airport runway? Or the hijacking of the cruise liner Achille Lauro, also in 1985, where an elderly American passenger in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, was murdered and thrown overboard? Or, at the very end of the year, the machine-gun massacres at airport ticket counters in the Vienna and Rome airports? These are three terrorist incidents that occurred in 1985 alone. Which of these three are “false flag” attacks? All of them? One of them? Two? If any of them were “fals flags,” where is the evidence that they were faked? 

When I ask questions like this, conspiracy theorists usually confess that they’ve never heard of these incidents so they can’t opine whether they are “false flags” or not. Some will add a naked and uninformed conjecture that they probably are, because most conspiracy theorists are reluctant to concede that terrorism really exists. 

The reality is this: “false flag” attacks are extremely rare, they are of limited size and scale, they are difficult and dangerous to pull off, and even the ones that do occur (like the Gleiwitz attack) are rarely convincing or consequential. The scale and scope of “false flag” activity imagined by Mr. Gamble and other conspiracy theorists is simply the stuff of fantasy. 

Thrive is wrong about “false flag” attacks. Period.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

195 responses to ““False Flag” Attacks–Debunked!”

  1. Fawn says :

    Was George W. Bush’s idea of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a false flag operation? You mentioned it at the beginning of this blog post but did not go into more detail. I’m curious as to your perspective on that one.

    • muertos says :

      No, it was not. It doesn’t fit the definition of “false flag operation” because there was no “operation.” The Bush administration had faulty intelligence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Obviously that intelligence was incorrect. I don’t think Bush and his advisers cared very much whether the intelligence was correct or not, but even if they knew it was faulty (and I suspect they probably did), it’s not a “false flag” because no operation occurred except political spin. Not the same thing at all, in fact, not even close. The WMD issue is more appropriately characterized as a causus belli, not a “false flag.”

      • Treok Walker says :

        Muentos, You say, “it’s not a “false flag” because no operation occurred except political spin”. THEY INVADED IRAQ. It might not be considered a false flag, but that is not as you call it, political spin, NOT EVEN CLOSE. It was full out lying, so that an invasion could take place. Who are you anyway, as all you do is pump out verbal excrement.
        Bush never had faulty information. THEY MADE UP FALSE INFORMATION, and now you are doing the same.
        You are just like a person in WW2 in a German occupied country, collaborating with the fascists, probably for monetary gain, or fear. One day, you will be defeated, or wake up.

      • muertos says :

        Treok: as I stated in another comment just now, I challenge you to present a single piece of evidence that I’m being paid to write this blog.

        As for being “defeated,” I’m curious. Who do you think is going to “defeat” me, and how, and what will happen to me as a result? Please be specific.

      • Treok Walker says :

        Muertos, I believe I said you are either working for the government or are a Moron, so, great, you aren’t working for the crooks, you are stupid enough to do this for free, basically what I and John Gatto say is the result of compulsory schooling, you can’t think for yourself.
        Eventually, if you are lucky, you will be defeated by the TRUTH, and the result would be, you would be welcomed to the human race. Ever heard of the Truth? Oh yeah, you did, and thought you would debunk it.

      • muertos says :

        you would be welcomed to the human race

        I see. So, if I don’t believe in conspiracy theories or accept Thrive as gospel truth, what does that presently make me? Inhuman? Subhuman?

      • treok says :

        Watch Aaron Russo’s America: From Freedom To Fascism, and lets hear you debunk that one.
        You are a closed minded human, that avoids truths about our monetary system, that it is a form of slavery, and to distract from that, you go into the other things that Foster talks about.
        Our economic system is slavery. Are you calling that a conspiracy theory,, or is your brain so weak, that you have no opinion on that.

      • muertos says :

        This blog is not about Aaron Russo’s opinions. It’s about Foster Gamble’s assertions in the movie Thrive. Nice try on changing the subject, though.

        Please explain to me why it is unreasonable to ask for reliable evidence that the claims made in Thrive are true. What I perceive from your comments is that you think it’s terribly short-sighted of me not to simply accept everything the movie says on faith. Why is that the wrong approach? What’s wrong with not believing something until and unless the evidence indicates that it’s true? For all your foaming and frothing about how closed-minded I am and how you think I would’ve supported Nazis in the 1930s, you have yet to make any coherent assertion as to why my approach is incorrect, unreasonable or inapposite. Please address this point specifically before you start bringing in extraneous subjects that have nothing to do with the subject of this blog, which is the movie Thrive.

      • Treok Walker says :

        You want evidence. DO some work of you own. Research. All you do is say everything is a conspiracy theory. You are the one with a foggy agenda, not me or Foster Gamble, or Aaron Russo or Peter Joseph or John Perkins. You are right up there with George Bush. Someone brings you information, and you disregard it, just like the fact there was no WMD.
        You wanted evidence, I said watch Aaron Russo’s movie. If you are in a court of law, you can bring forth witnesses to support your case. I brought up John Perkins, and you or another mindless one called his book anecdotal. I bring forth Aaron Russo, and you say you are not interested in his opinions,so, you are not interested in “evidence”, and any fool can dismiss any person’s evidence as just ” their opinion.”
        Here is some evidence for you, straight from me. Our economic system is slavery. In it, Banks are given the power to make money, and then sell it to the public through our government. We have to pay them interest, and so we work for the money, and they do nothing. That is simple and probably too simple for your mind to comprehend. No conspiracy, no ufo’s no crop circles needed to explain the agenda of the government and banks, just the simple facts of our monetary system that was made up, not by chance, not by nature, but by those in government and banks so that they can enjoy the fruits of OUR labour, not their own, just like slave owners not too long ago in the United States. They have conspired against human rights, and people such as yourself believe whatever your government tells you.
        You are a collaborator Muertos. plain and simple. nicely brainwashed to keep the current corrupt system going, without a clue what is going on, because as New York State Teacher of the Year John Gatto says(oops, can’t use his “opinion” he’s just another nut right), you were put through 12 years of school, so that you would think what they tell you to think.

      • treok says :

        Only a person in serious denial can accept the official explanations of 9/11. There is a great clip by some psychologists saying that exact thing, that people are in denial of the facts because it destroys their view of their government. However Muertos, you probably aren’t interested in a few therapist, so lets continue.
        You, Muertos say WTC #7 collapsed due to fire. That is laughable. First of all, I haven’t heard of a steel building having a total collapse from fire before, and WTC 7 only had fires for less 10 hours , while steel buildings burning for 18 hours still didn’t collapse totally, only fell over a bit. PLUS, the fact that the building collapsed perfectly in on itself, EXACTLY like a building that has been professionally demolished. Not possible for some fires to destroy all the supporting columns at the exact same time that is needed for a collapse in on itself. There are over ONE THOUSAND ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH that say the exact same thing. But, you probably will ignore them, as I doubt you can debunk them, but maybe you can give it try, as you don’t care about making sense, so I’m sure you can throw come rhetoric their way, by saying you are debunking Thrive, not Engineers and Architects for 9/11 Truth
        And now for the easiest official debunking for me to make. the official story a plane hitting the Pentagon.
        Forget about the Pentagon reportedly being the MOST protected building in the world, with anti aircraft weapons, that will fire on approaching aircraft, except US military, so as not to fire on their own.
        Forget about PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH, totally debunking the ability of someone flying a huge passenger jet in the alleged path.
        Let’s instead look at the initial footage of the Pentagon, with a hole about 15 to 20 feet in diameter in the wall of the Pentagon, and NO PLANE, no skid marks on the lawn, no signs of a huge jet liner, windows intact, big spool on the lawn, and one little piece of metal, easily from a missile, and one bit of an engine, too small to be from a jetliner, but perfect from a missile.
        The official story as I saw, is that the plane disintegrated as it plowed into columns,INSIDE, the building. FUNNY how the plane could have disintegrated inside when it couldn’t have gotten inside the building through a little 15 or 20 foot hole. To believe that official story means you think the plane folded it’s wings in, folded down it’s tail wing, shrunk down a bit, all instantaneously while it made impact, then entered the building through the hole, then all the wings folded back out instantaneously, and the plane continued into the Pentagon, and completely disintegrated, including the huge engines that don’t just evaporate or melt from abit of fire. Totally ridiculous explanation, defying all logic, and of course Muertos eats it up.
        After not releasing any video of the supposed plane for some time, after many people said there was no plane(even the first CNN reporter on the scene said there was no trace of a plane, other than a couple of small pieces of something, and of course he tried feebly to spin that into something else later) the White House released one video clip, which was so poor, and showed no plane, that they had to circle the little white looking sliver, and say that was the plane. Obviously it was not a plane, and the simplest explanation given all the evidence, is that it was a missile. In the video from the white house, it looks like a missile, the 15 to 20 foot hole in the pentagon looks like it was made by a small missile, not by a huge passenger jet, and the other holes further in the pentagon walls look like the end of the missile run. A plane was seen flying over the pentaqon afterwards, so, easy to figure that a US military craft which wouldn’t be targeted by pentagon anti aircraft weapons, flew in, launched the missile, and flew off. Simple. No theory. No bizarre explanation.
        Denial, plain and simple. Muertos, you are afraid of seeing that our governments are run by people that are criminally insane, and you listen to whatever conspiracy theory they come up with, not matter how ridiculous.
        Too funny brother. The facts are staring you in the face, and you look to your government to tell you what they mean, and when it defies all logic and physics, you believe them anyway. I’ve met others just like you, in person, that believe the same lies you do, and I have had to give up on them, and I’m pretty sure, you will be no different, deny the truth until the end. It doesn’t really matter, unless you’d like to see a better world, oh yeah, you aren’t interested in all humans Thriving, are you, just the elite few.
        Sincerely,
        Treok

      • muertos says :

        Treok, you may be interested in a post I made recently on my other blog, addressed to a 9/11 Truther such as yourself.
        http://muertos.blog.com/2012/02/01/an-open-letter-to-a-911-truther/

      • treok says :

        Muertos, the article you directed me to is just more rhetoric. You mentioned none of the facts I brought up. I guess you think that by wasting my time with a bunch of drivel, that I will leave your site, and stop putting truth on here. of course, you are correct, eventually I will leave you to your delusions, but first…..
        Interesting isn’t it, that in your joke of an article,, you say there is no proof 9/11 is an inside job, and yet, I wrote about 2 things that are blatant proof, and in your normal way of ignoring truth, you don’t respond, and you direct me to an article of yours that says NOTHING AT ALL about the truth that I presented.
        You aren’t interested in truth at all. No wonder you call me a 911 truther, I didn’t call myself that, but you are obviously bothered by the truth, and try to turn into some kind of insult or label like conspiracy theorist.
        I presented you with facts, and you come back with nothing.
        Surely, any one else reading your comment will see it for what it is. Nothing at all. Rhetoric. Misinformation. All the things you accuse Foster Gamble of. You are the one with the agenda. You are the one avoiding the truth.
        I gave you proof that the official 911 story is obviously ridiculous, and so of course you have nothing to say. What could you say, except to try to distract from my proof, and so you send me off on a wild goose chase to your childish article, that says NOTHING about my two main points regarding a steel building burning and collapsing in on itself, and there being no plane at the pentagon, and the absurd “OFFICIAL” story of the plane doing impossible things, and then disintegrating.
        Grow up Muertos

      • Treok Walker says :

        Have you decided to quit putting out rhetoric Muertos. You haven’t disputed the proof I posted. I guess as your brain has no independent thought, you had to go to your handlers to ask what to say about my proof.
        Can hardly wait wait to see what laughable garbage they come up with.

      • Dick van Fagballs says :

        for someone debunking conspiracy theories you sure do use very few citations in your articles

    • sabretruthtiger says :

      OK.

      Time to educate the anti-conspiracy ‘tards. It’s common knowledge that those people who dismiss ever so-called ‘conspiracy theory regardless of the facts suffer from a psychological dysfunction known as ‘Cognitive Dissonance’. It’s obvious to anyone that does any research that the so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ or a more apt name ‘Truthers’ argue science and facts whereas their detractors use logical fallacies, particularly ‘Ad Hominem’. This reveals the relative veracity and values of the respective arguments, i.e Truthers are right..

      Case and point: 911. 911 is scientifically proven beyond any doubt to be controlled demolition and logistics dictate that it must be an inside job.
      The evidence or proof is the following:

      FACT 1: A gravitational collapse of the north tower violates Newton’s third law of equal and opposite forces. The top 15 floors supposedly crushed the many floors below all the way to the bottom. Putting aside the basic physics violations addressed in later points, When two bodies interact by exerting force on each other, these action and reaction forces are equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction. This means that for every floor destroyed in the lower section, a floor is destroyed in the upper section. This means that after 15 floors have been crushed in the lower section there is no piledriver left to continue the collapse.(Even if it could crush the stronger lower section, which it couldn’t)

      FACT 2: The north tower ACCELERATED through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton’s third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it’s weight, which means it’s exerting much less force than when supported at rest. This means a large portion of the resistance was removed by explosives.

      FACT 3: The top section of the North Tower almost fully disintegrated before the lower section started to explode downward, this disintegration would absorb any momentum and expelled the mass laterally, there was NO piledriver left to cause any kind of gravitational collapse!!!

      FACT4: The top section of the South Tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics shows that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum.

      The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. discontinuation of the upper section’s toppling proves the removal of the lower section’s resistance, disproving gravity induced collapse and proving explosives.

      An off centre, leaning mass CANNOT cause a symmetric collapse.

      FACT 5: The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, and this repeated in sequence for each successive floor.this is impossible in a collapse resulting from structural or fire damage, as such causes result in organic uneven damage.

      Even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.

      FACT 6: The 2.2 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) ADMITS to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.
      Freefall means all the object’s gravitational potential is converted to motion, in order to crush tonnes of structural steel and concrete, a large part of that gravitational potential must be used, which would slow it down to a rate much less than freefall.

      This proves beyond any doubt that the resistance was removed by explosives. The ONLY building collapses involving freefall speeds are controlled demolitions.

      FACT 7: Office fires don’t burn hot enough to weaken the steel. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, the large steel frame would draw away heat rapidly from hot spots. Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). “Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.”

      The team at NIST could not get their computer model to collapse, in the end they managed a partial asymmetric collapse that looked nothing like the actual event by removing all thermal conductivity!!!

      The smoke emanating from the towers turned black for a while preceding the collapses. Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.

      Videos of people standing in the gash from he plane before the collapse proves the fires had progressed past their hottest point and combined with the sooty smoke, were cooling. Steel strengthens when it cools, it had survived it’s weakest point. Why should it fail?

      No steel high-rise has ever fully collapsed from fire.

      FACT 8. Nanothermite a high-tech military-grade explosive was found throughout the WTC dust and analysed by top scientists, and published in the peer reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. All throughout the dust, iron-rich micro-spheres were present, the only way they can be formed is through a highly explosive, extremely high temperature event whereby the steel is vaporised, forming small round droplets due to surface tension.

      How does it feel to be on the side of lies and evil, I guess you rationalise it to yourself thinking you’re making some kind of Roddenberryesque utopia, or that you’re one of the elite. Perhaps you’re a sociopath. Whatever the reason people like you are WRONG. There are no ifs or buts.

      • FA! says :

        Fact 9. That you have to go to this much trouble to prove the obvious, means that americans are idiot sheep that are complicit in genocide and deserve to be slaughtered by their own government.

      • Poetry Wound says :

        “Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved”

        Black smoke can also mean petroleum based materials are burning, such as furniture, carpeting, plastic office equipment, etc. No fire officials say the WTC fires were oxygen starved. Besides, do you know how hot oxygen-starved fires can get?

        “The 2.2 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) ADMITS to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition”

        That’s not a scientifically correct assertion and that’s why it’s not found in any physics or engineering texts or classrooms anywhere on the planet. The building had already started collapsing from the East side. The free fall was measured on the North wall, which collapsed last. No one says a brief moment of free fall of one portion of the building means the whole building was CD’d. That’s just ludicrous. Besides, do you even know if CD’d buildings fall at free fall? Well, do you?

        “The team at NIST could not get their computer model to collapse, in the end they managed a partial asymmetric collapse that looked nothing like the actual event by removing all thermal conductivity!”

        This is incorrect on many level and reveals an ignorance about models and how they’re run. I assume you’re referring to the ANSYS model which ran just fine. You can even get a copy and run it yourself with the huge volume of data NIST released. Or you can build your own model. Nothing’s stopping you. A modeled output never looks exactly like the event being modeled and it would be suspicious if it did. Do you know why?

        “Videos of people standing in the gash from he plane before the collapse proves the fires had progressed past their hottest point”

        Incorrect. It proves the fires weren’t in that particular location. That’s all. They were burning in other areas. How is that suspicious? And since the collapses of both towers began on the fire floors, how would explosives have survived the plane impacts, fireballs, and fires? I’ve never seen a demo expert explain that and that right there pretty much destroys the demo theory.

        “The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition”

        The collapse wasn’t symmetrical. It started on the East side and moved West. No videos show the collapse of the East or South sides, let alone the inerior areas. But they collapsed first. Otherwise, how do you explain the 18 second seismic signal of WTC 7’s collapse measured by LDEO?

        “No steel high-rise has ever fully collapsed from fire”

        That’s true and might still be true. WTC 7 may be the only skyscraper to ever collapse solely from fire. NIST says so, but there are engineers who disagree and say the damage caused by the falling debris may have played a role in the collapse as well. But even if WTC 7 is the only steel highrise to collapse from fire, so what? Are you claiming nothing can happen if it’s never happened before? That’s not too smart. Lots of other kinds of steel structures have collapsed from fires, so we know fire can weaken steel and cause total collapses.

        “Nanothermite a high-tech military-grade explosive was found throughout the WTC dust”

        Pure nonsense. Only Steven Jones and his team make the claim that there was nanothermite in their dust samples and they refuse to send them to any independent testing labs or let anyone else examine them. Why? Because, in my opinion, they are afraid that when the harsh light of corroboration and repeatability are shown on their dust samples, they will fail.

        Lots of other things wrong with what you’ve written. It appears to be the standard conspiracy scripture which has all been debunked many many times before.

      • Michael says :

        The pilderiver collapse explanation of the towers doesn’t break Newton’s 3rd law, or else all piledrivers would and chain reactions of dominoes and the snowball effect would not exist . Cordite is too weak to have been used as an explosive at the pentagon.Explosions seen before collapse are too slow to be bombs. Cases of hijackers being alive are cases of mistaken idendity. jet fuel burns hot enough to soften, not melt steel. the broken outer parts of the towers fell at free-fall, not the main structures. Speed & wall structure accounts for planes thru steel. http://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-black-smoke-and-orange-flames-as-an-indicator-of-an-oxygen-starved-low-temp-fire.2373/Fires in wtc7 spread to all floors. Video shows it was hit by debris from the collapse of the north tower. Photos on the site 911myths prove lots of wreckage from all planes were found. The site also talks about the air security system, “lost” money, bbc etc. It has a link to aerowebspace disproving the claim flight 77 shouldn’t have stayed so low to the ground at it’s speed. some saying “About to collapse” was probably confused to mean “collapsed by the time it reached bbc. Vido proves that pillars were cut at a 45 degree angle AFTER collapse look up thermite debunked on youtube.Squibs are air pressure. Jones refuses to share his “thermite”. Liquid metal at WTC is due to oxidization. Sounds of explosions were electricity and falling people. The 2nd tower to be hit as hit lower down so the extra weight made it’s supports snap first. the collapse of wtc7 is one of the most studied. I believe it fell because the heat weakened the bottom supports starting ath the NE corner which was leaning. Look up richard gage debunked, closeup debris hitting wtc7, wtc7 controlled deolition impossible etc. You’ll probably accuse me of being a Mossad agent spreading disinformation, but have an open mind. Look up 9/11 conspiracy theories debunked http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c, zeitgeist part 3 debunked, kennedy secret, society speech debunked Also look up boston bombing conspiracy theories debunked(people were treated before or during being photographed), sandy hook conspiracy theories debunked, & the 21 1-star reviews of the book “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” on amazon. Even the claim of a fake black smudge in the Naudet 9/11 footage is debunked, Jim’ Huibrogdste’s footage shows it is smoke that disappeared, & arguments against his & Naudet’s footage are debunked by camera rapidly shifting, time, the angle of the falling man’s body, & the fact hat he’s basically swimming through air. Please tell me you’ll spread what I’ve told you. conspiracies[dot]skepticprojec­t[dot]com/articles/zeitgeist/p­art-three/ rationalwiki[dot]org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

        Think about how many people would have ot be cooperting for 9/11 to be an ainside job: contruction workers, Air trffic control tower crew, airlines, the people on the planes, hundreds of eyewitnesses to the crashes, etc

        Having crisis actors & a fake CGI explosion for a false flag would be a stupid idea. The camera operator, ALL the joggers, ALL the hospitals, & ALL the victims & people near the detonation site would need to be cooperating. Predictive programming would be redundant, and would only help expose a secret society. It is by far the worst argument for the existence of the Illuminatii ever.The Illuminatii is an antisemitic hoax based off a real science group from Bavaria that was forced to close down in the 1780′s. Search subliminal messages don’t work & click on snopes. The NWO would require a third of the world to sit at screens all day & it would cost trillions a year to maintain the computers Please join https://www.facebook.com/groups/481442468611871/

        .

        9/11 WTC. PLANES THRU STEEL.

      • Luke says :

        Absolutely brilliant reply and completely debunked the so called 9/11 debunk!

        I agree a lot of incidents are perceived as false flag attacks and I agree most are not but let’s look at FACTS here. Why would the 9/11 commission report completely ignore the collapse of Wtc7? Why did the towers fall at free fall speed when this is not possible without explosives dispersing the pockets of air that would slow down its collapse?

      • conspiracykiller says :

        “Why would the 9/11 commission report completely ignore the collapse of Wtc7? ”

        Read the following thread on a conspiracy theorist website:

        WTC 7 wasn’t as high a priority to the 9/11 commission as it is to you because it had been fully evacuated by the time it collapsed so no one was killed. There were only three people in the building when the North tower collapsed on it and they all survived, so WTC 7 became yet another building that was damaged/destroyed as a chain reaction of the towers’ collapse on that day. On the other hand, the Marriott next door to the south tower suffered fatalities when it collapsed, and this WAS mentioned in the 9/11 commission report.

        Besides, The report didn’t go into any detail on what caused the towers to collapse, either. The 9/11 commission report wasn’t set up to document what happened to every nut, bolt, and toilet seat throughout the course of 9/11. It was to document who did it, how they got away with it, and our responses before and during the attack, as well as some recommendations. They left the technical analysis to other reports.

        What benefit would it give you for the report to mention that an empty building collapsed and killed nobody, exactly?

        http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread561727/pg1

        “Why did the towers fall at free fall speed when this is not possible without explosives dispersing the pockets of air that would slow down its collapse?”

        They didn’t, and you obviously haven’t bothered to do any research other than watch the bullshit conspiracy youtube videos.

        http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

      • Anastasio says :

        @Luke

        Luke, do you have to be completely stupid to believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories or is it just pure coincidence that 99.9% of you truthers are?

        There’s so much wrong with sabretruthtiger’s post that you would have to be a complete fuckwit to even entertain the plausibility of it – never mind call it a “brilliant reply”.

        But what more could you expect from someone who contends that imaginary explosives were used to remove the pockets of air from the Twin Towers?

        Say wuuuuhhh??!

  2. Professor Pious says :

    What perfect timing for this blog entry, given that Foster Gamble has just released a special YouTube alert on Iran titled: “IRAN: Follow the Money (with Foster Gamble)”

    At about 4:20 into this video, Mr. Gamble starts to mentions “False Flags” in history, then goes on to promote the notion that the US may be planning to sink the Nuclear Aircraft Carrier USS Enterprise and blame it on Iran as a pretext for war on Iran. Where might Gamble get such a notion? He doesn’t cite any sources for this particular conspiracy theory, yet it turns out this particular bit of paranoia has been around in various forms since at least 2006.

    The most recent iteration of this conspiracy theory started around January 23, 2012 with this YouTube video that has since gone viral in the Internet crankosphere:

    Note how closely Gamble repeated the narrative of this video (and failed to credit the source). It’s the sort of speculative hysteria people expect from Alex Jones. Perhaps Gamble stumbled across it at The Daily Paul, where it keeps popping up, or David Icke’s web site, which featured it as a headline. (Recall that David Icke appeared in the Thrive Movie.) Now I recall this particular false flag scenario mentioned numerous times over the past 6 years or so, by the owner of the mother of all conspiracy theory web sites, Michael Rivero on his whatreallyhappened.com site. It has been a favorite theme of his for years whenever the US mentions Iran (anyone can verify this using the Internet Archive at archive.org). This recent revival of this particular conspiracy prediction seems to stem from Rivero’s radio show on 2012-01-13 (available on YouTube).

    Yet the earliest mention is attributed to American white nationalist and Holocaust denier Hal Turner around September 30, 2006:

    http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/104451

    Sadly some conspiracy theories never die, they just get recycled.

  3. john reed says :

    WTC7 falling down the way it did because of fire for hours doesn’t seem more realistic than the conspiracy theory. An even taller building had burned like a torch in madrid three or four years later for almost 24 hours. it has been renewed and started a new life. didn’t fell…
    Sorry, but your statements and the photos are not proving anything. I was expecting undoubtable evidences, but you do as the conspiracy theorists do, you claim and use other’s claims as evidences.
    It seems that you don’t know a clue about 9/11 but strongly beleive conspiracy isn’t possible. It’s a bit like false flag operations. You beleive they don’t exist, ok, but you can’t bring evidences of it neither. Why would YOU know what was or wasn’t a flse flag op in history. How can you tell. Why should we trust you claiming that more than we should trust the opposite claim ? What makes you’re right ? tell us ? give us real stuff.

  4. Hank says :

    (Don’t mind the pigeon English I am Dutch)

    I love how you “debunk” False Flag attacks, Illuminati and NWO, talk about David Icke and alle the other debunks. Reason? You’ve shown you’ve put some effort into it and that you are capable of thinking. Pretty rare these days. Whether or not you use trustworthy resources is up to you to decide.

    Personllay I think not. That is not a shame because not EVERYTHING can be found on the internet. There is more than enough to proof that something is very wrong and that false flags, illuminati and so on are real.

    On this page (http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/995-lawsuit-end-tyranny) you can read about a lawsuit that’ll expose all of this. Some of the conclusions can be found here (http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1023-financial-tyranny)

    Of course, not all is shown (concrete evidence) because that would do no good to the trial itself. The complaint itself can be found here (http://www.rumormillnews.com/pdfs/11%20civ%208500%20Keenan%20Complaint.pdf)

    Or is this whole lawsuit just a fake? What they have been saying it pretty heavy stuff. I know Americans are totally into lawsuits/claims because you can heavily punish the defendant and (if ur lucky) get pretty rich if you are in it for the money. So if all of the information is just one huge smear campaing, they ll be dragged to court and bleed for this campaign for the rest of their lives.

    Therefore i am pretty sure they have evidence to back their story up, elsewise they are digging their own graves at this very moment.

  5. joanna1 says :

    “belief in “9/11 was an inside job” conspiracy theories is not growing, but in fact shrinking;”

    This blog is a joke.

    • Hank says :

      Do you mean that less and less people believe this was an inside job? Well maybe where you are from but here it is they other way round..

      Recommend you to take alook at 9/11 Explosive Evidence

    • sabretruthtiger says :

      Wrong, it’s growing. Only an idiot doesn’t realise that 911 was an inside job. It’s scientifically proven to be controlled demolition.

      FACT 1: A gravitational collapse of the north tower violates Newton’s third law of equal and opposite forces. The top 15 floors supposedly crushed the many floors below all the way to the bottom. Putting aside the basic physics violations addressed in later points, When two bodies interact by exerting force on each other, these action and reaction forces are equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction. This means that for every floor destroyed in the lower section, a floor is destroyed in the upper section. This means that after 15 floors have been crushed in the lower section there is no piledriver left to continue the collapse.(Even if it could crush the stronger lower section, which it couldn’t)

      FACT 2: The north tower ACCELERATED through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton’s third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it’s weight, which means it’s exerting much less force than when supported at rest. This means a large portion of the resistance was removed by explosives.

      FACT 3: The top section of the North Tower almost fully disintegrated before the lower section started to explode downward, this disintegration would absorb any momentum and expelled the mass laterally, there was NO piledriver left to cause any kind of gravitational collapse!!!

      FACT4: The top section of the South Tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics shows that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum.

      The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. discontinuation of the upper section’s toppling proves the removal of the lower section’s resistance, disproving gravity induced collapse and proving explosives.

      An off centre, leaning mass CANNOT cause a symmetric collapse.

      FACT 5: The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, and this repeated in sequence for each successive floor.this is impossible in a collapse resulting from structural or fire damage, as such causes result in organic uneven damage.

      Even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.

      FACT 6: The 2.2 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) ADMITS to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.
      Freefall means all the object’s gravitational potential is converted to motion, in order to crush tonnes of structural steel and concrete, a large part of that gravitational potential must be used, which would slow it down to a rate much less than freefall.

      This proves beyond any doubt that the resistance was removed by explosives. The ONLY building collapses involving freefall speeds are controlled demolitions.

      FACT 7: Office fires don’t burn hot enough to weaken the steel. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, the large steel frame would draw away heat rapidly from hot spots. Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). “Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.”

      The team at NIST could not get their computer model to collapse, in the end they managed a partial asymmetric collapse that looked nothing like the actual event by removing all thermal conductivity!!!

      The smoke emanating from the towers turned black for a while preceding the collapses. Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.

      Videos of people standing in the gash from he plane before the collapse proves the fires had progressed past their hottest point and combined with the sooty smoke, were cooling. Steel strengthens when it cools, it had survived it’s weakest point. Why should it fail?

      No steel high-rise has ever fully collapsed from fire.

      FACT 8. Nanothermite a high-tech military-grade explosive was found throughout the WTC dust and analysed by top scientists, and published in the peer reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. All throughout the dust, iron-rich micro-spheres were present, the only way they can be formed is through a highly explosive, extremely high temperature event whereby the steel is vaporised, forming small round droplets due to surface tension.

      How does it feel to be on the side of lies and evil, I guess you rationalise it to yourself thinking you’re making some kind of Roddenberryesque utopia, or that you’re one of the elite. Perhaps you’re a sociopath. Whatever the reason people like you are WRONG. There are no ifs or buts.

  6. Hank says :

    Believe what you want I consider it a piece of disinformation. Besides, that is America, not the rest of the world. On top of that, a bill passed last week which make freedom of speec an act of terrorism. Say goodbye to ur first amendment.

    There so much information that it is an inside job jo don’t want to know. Seem y post March 1, 2012 at 1:40 pm.

    There is a courtcase going on to make this al coming out. You are entitled to your own opinion though..

    • muertos says :

      “Believe what you want I consider it a piece of disinformation.”

      Where is your evidence that the poll I linked in the above comment, and in the article, is incorrect? Why would it be “disinformation”?

      Anyone can file a court case over anything, so the fact that a case was filed means nothing. Truthers have had a poor record filing lawsuits. In their latest one, not only did they fail to produce any evidence that “9/11 was an inside job,” but they were sanctioned by the judge for wasting the court’s time on a frivolous case:
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/us-sept11-lawsuit-idUSTRE8112D820120202

      • geeksquad1001 says :

        LOL a “poll” done by a “public affairs” also known as a PR (public relations) company as your ‘evidence’ that the number of people that believe that, 9/11 wasn’t carried out by 19 Al Qaeda

        (remember it was created by the CIA and THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS FUNDING AND FUNDED THE TERRORIST GROUP IN SYRIA AND LIBYA)

        terrorists with box cutters took over planes with a 50 or more people in each

        (LOL 20+ MALES LET 4 PUNKS WITH BOX CUTTERS TAKE OVER THE PLANE AND OPEN THE COCK PIT WHICH HAS 3 PILOTS TRAINED IN MILITARY STYLE COMBAT SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT KIND OF SITUATION AND FLY THE PLANE INTO BUILDINGS LOL WHAT WERE THEY SCARED OF GETTING A PAPER CUT LOL)

        fly the planes wildly off coarse for 45 mins and flying the planes into buildings, ALL THE WHILE STILL FLYING ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL DATA

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html

        and to add to that at least 7 of the terrorists ARE STILL ALIVE TODAY, is declining is EXTREMELY AMUSING to say the least from someone who ‘does alot of research’ hehe! Also how do they get their “polling data”– Angus Reid polls are conducted using the Angus Reid Forum, Springboard America (www.springboardamerica.com) and Springboard UK (www.springboarduk.co.uk)! HEHE from internet forums WOW now thats reliable! NOT! LOL

        HEY BUD PLEASE DONT TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY BUT IF YOUR NOT DISINFO THEN YOUR QUIT DELUSIONAL

      • a rational person says :

        @ geeksquad1001: jesus h christ, u are a flaming butt reaming moron. u are probably the stupidest fucker who left a comment on this whole page.

        commercial airline pilots are not trained in military combat. not in 2001 and not today. and in 2001 policy in dealing with a hijacking was not to fuck with the hijackers in any way. yes that was FAA policy.

        hijackers still alive…that is a load of shit and u know it. why hasn’t a single one of em ever come forward and said “here i am, im innocent”…going on 12 years now and not one has ever been found…how come mohammud atta’s dad agrees his son did 911? u got an answer for that, moron?

        u stupid truthers make me sick…rosie o’donnall…charlie sheen…bunch of ignorant fucks just like you.

      • geeksquad1001 says :

        @a rational person

        LOL. WOW such harsh words……and strong language you must be really sure of yourself……see I dont need to resort to name calling to get my point across I JUST LET THE FACTS DO THE TALKING!

        So let it begin, first smart guy, THE PILOTS WERE TRAINED IN MILITARY COMBAT STUPID!

        “John Ogonowski was captain of American Airlines flight 11. Ogonowski was an Air Force fighter pilot in Vietnam and joined American Airlines in 1979.”
        “His co-pilot, Tom McGuinness, flew F-14 fighters for the Navy. Tom entered The Navy Flight Weapons School, a.k.a. ‘Top Gun’, among the highest standing pilots of the force. Eventually, Tom left the Navy as a Lieutenant Commander”

        “Chic Burlingame was captain of American Airlines Flight 77. Burlingame was a graduate of the Naval Academy and honor graduate of the Navy “Top Gun” school, in Miramar, CA. He flew F-4 Phantoms for the Navy, where he landed the fighter jets on aircraft carriers in stormy conditions. He then left the Navy in 1979 to join American Airlines.”

        “Victor Saracini was captain of United Airlines Flight 175. Saracini was a former Navy fighter pilot of the Vietnam era.”

        “LeRoy Homer was the first officer of United Airlines Flight 93. It crashed in Somerset County, PA, at 10:10 am. Homer was an Air Force Academy graduate and a former Air Force pilot.”

        “Jason Dahl, captain of the crew of Flight 93. At 13, the San Jose, Calif., native joined the Civil Air Patrol and earned a scholarship for flying lessons.”

        “No one, whether armed with razor or handgun, is going to take the controls away from these guys, much less overpower two of them.

        Their absolute best defense would have been to roll the airplane over, using the eight-click “barrel roll.” At fourth click, you are inverted; at eighth click, you are once again upright and straight and level. The total maneuver time is 10 seconds. A forced takeover could never have happened inside one of their cockpits.” –Col. Donn de Grand Pre

        “The takeovers of the four flights were staggered, and news of the hijacking of Flight 11 was relayed to the pilots of Flight 175, and probably to the pilots of the other flights. Awareness of hijackings in progress would have raised the guard of the flight crews.”

        So YES THE PILOTS WERE TRAINED IN MILITARY COMBAT! AND YES PILOTS DO GET TRAINED IN CLOSE QUARTER COMBAT http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/60155/

        “Anti-Terrorism and security training has taken a larger roll in flight attendant and airline pilot training, this includes what to look for, what to report and how to defend yourself against the hijackers…..
        …..Another change for Airline Pilots is the FFDO program. FFDO stands for Federal Flight Deck Officer. This program is run by the US Marshals to give pilots Anti-Terrorism, close quarters combat, and firearms training. Right now there are more airline pilots carrying firearms than ever before. It is possible that on a commercial flight you may have an Air Marshal as well as a pilot who is a FFDO.”

        SO PILOTS DO GET TRAINED AND AS THE FIRST LINE OF THE QUOTE STATES “it has taken a larger role” so before 9/11 their still was training for pilots.

        Now about the 7 hijackers……

        Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September. Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco. He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Dayton Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
        Here is a video of him in 2007

        Wail Alshehri, a name used by one of the suspected hijackers on American Airlines Flight 11. A man by the same name is a pilot whose father is a Saudi diplomat in Bombay. “I personally talked to both father and son today,” [said Gaafar Allagany, head of the Saudi Embassy’s information center.]
        http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092101probe.story

        LMFAO Mohamed ATTA’S dad HAS MAINTAINED THAT HIS SON WAS INNOCENT AND TOLD REPORTERS HE TALKED TO HIS SON TWO DAYS AFTER THE 9/11 ATTACKS!
        http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/atta.html
        http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/atta_9-11.html

        According to The Orlando Sentinel, the Saudi Arabian embassy confirmed that four of the five mentioned by Al-Faisal – Saeed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Abdulaziz Alomari and Salem Alhazmi – are not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington.
        http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers_flt_175.html

        Saeed Alghamdi flight 93 supposed hijacker, Mr Al-Ghamdi was named as a terrorist on the United Airlines flight that crashed in Pennsylvania – a plane said by some experts to have been heading for the White House. He first knew that he was on the FBI’s list when he was told by a colleague. Speaking from Tunisia, he said: “I was completely shocked. For the past 10 months I have been based in Tunis with 22 other pilots learning to fly an Airbus 320. The FBI provided no evidence of my presumed involvement in the attacks. “You cannot imagine what it is like to be described as a terrorist – and a dead man – when you are innocent and alive.”

        Ahmed Alnami flight 93 hijacker, Mr Al-Nami, 33, from Riyadh, an administrative supervisor with Saudi Arabian Airlines, said that he was in Riyadh when the terrorists struck.

        He said: “I’m still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked.”

        He had never lost his passport and found it “very worrying” that his identity appeared to have been “stolen” and published by the FBI without any checks. The FBI had said his “possible residence” was Delray Beach in Florida.
        http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers_flt_93.html

        For a full list of the alive hijackers that supposedly killed themselves flying planes into buildings but I guess somehow rose from the dead not knowing that they carried out those attacks…..lollol
        http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html

        NOW FINALLY HERES THE “OFFICIAL” conspiracy theory for everyone in 5 mins

        ROFL

        “u stupid truthers make me sick…rosie o’donnall…charlie sheen…bunch of ignorant fucks just like you.”

        Ya so you call the family members of victims and first responders ignorant fucks?
        GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU DISRESPECTFUL PUNK!
        http://nyccan.org/signatories.php
        Signatories

        Family Members

        Survivors

        First Responders

        Donna Marsh O’Connor — Mother of Vanessa Lang Langer
        Bob McIlvaine — Father of Bobby McIlvaine
        Helen McIlvaine — Mother of Bobby McIlvaine
        Jean Canavan — Sister in Law of Sean Canavan
        Manny Badillo — Nephew of Thomas Joseph Sgroi
        Chris Burke — Brother of Tom Burke
        Michele Little — Sister of David M. Weiss
        Lorie Van Auken — Wife of Kenneth Van Auken
        Monica Gabrielle — Wife of Richard S. Gabrielle
        Patricia Casazza — Wife of John Casazza
        Mindy Kleinberg — Wife of Alan Kleinberg
        Robin Della Rocca — Aunt of Vanessa Lang Langer
        Michelle Madden — Mother of Richard B. Madden
        Barry Zelman — Brother of Kenneth Zelman
        Margaret Canavan — Mother of Sean Canavan
        Ciaran Canavan — Brother of Sean Canavan
        Celine Traynor — Sister of Sean Canavan
        Kathleen McKeon — Sister of Sean Canavan
        Teresa McCaffery — Sister of Sean Canavan
        Mimi Kelly Donegan — Sister of Bill Kelly Jr.
        Gayle Baker — Sister of William A. Karnes
        Cynthia Droz — Wife of Charles A. Droz
        Cherie Faircloth — Sister in Law of John Resta
        Lorraine Moskal — Wife of William D. Moskal
        Paul E. Geidel — Father of Gary Geidel, FDNY
        Teresa Badillo — Sister of Thomas J. Sgroi
        John Sgroi — Brother of Thomas J. Sgroi
        Eileen Sgroi — Sister-in-law of Thomas J. Sgroi
        Anthony Badillo — Nephew of Thomas J. Sgroi
        Lauren Badillo — Niece of Thomas J. Sgroi
        Ann F. Rago — Aunt of Thomas J. Sgroi
        Susan McCormick — Sister of Lt. Paul T. Mitchell
        Thomas Resta — Brother of John Resta,
        Sylvia San Pio Resta, and their unborn baby
        Robert Carlo FDNY — Brother of Michael Carlo, FDNY
        Ivy Moreno — Mother of Yvette Nicole Moreno
        JoAnn Meehan — Mother of Collen Ann Barkow
        Maureen Santora — Mother of Christopher A. Santora
        Al Santora — Father of Christopher A. Santora
        Maureen Godshalk — Mother of Bill Godshalk
        Adele Welty — Timothy Matthew Welty, FDNY
        Gila Barzvi — Mother of Guy Barzvi
        Robert T. O’Connor — Stepfather of Vanessa Lang Langer
        Robert Andreacchio — John Andreacchio
        Dolores LaVerde — Mother of Jeannine LaVerde
        Madeleine Zuccala — Wife of Joseph J. Zuccala
        Madeline Bergin — Wife of John P. Bergin, FDNY
        Nancy Yambem — Wife of Jupiter Yambem
        Patricia J. Perry — Mother of John W. Perry
        James L. Perry — Father of John W. Perry
        Joel R. Perry — Brother of John W. Perry
        Janice Perry Montoya — Sister of John W. Perry
        Maureen Hunt — Sister of Kathleen Hunt Casey
        Patricia Reilly — Sister of Lorraine Mary Riley
        Jo Anne Bruehert — Wife of Richard G. Bruehert
        Cathy D’Alessandro — Sister of Rocco Nino Gargano
        Richard Pecorella — Fiancee of Karen S. Juday
        Renee Stahlman, — Mother of Eric Stahlman
        Sam Stahlman — Father of Eric Stahlman
        Gary Meo — Best Friend of Eric Stahlman
        Judith Hobson — Mother of Robert Wayne Hobson, III
        Michelle Spinelli — Frank Spinelli
        Christopher Spinelli — Frank Spinelli
        Manuela Nita-Vasquez — Wife of Cono Gallo
        Janine Winter — Cousin of Kathryn LaBorie
        Alissa Torres — Wife of Luis Eduardo Torres
        Robert Mercado — Brother in Law of Marc David Sullins
        John M. Ulhich — Cousin of Bradley Van Hoorn
        Madeline Smith — Mother of Jeffrey R. Smith
        Audrey Magnuson — Wife of Ronald Magnuson
        Christine O’Neill — Wife of John P. O’Neill, FBI
        Sally Asaro — Sister of Carl F. Asaro, FDNY
        Buzz Smith — Father of Jeffrey R. Smith
        Myrta Gschaar — Wife of Robert Gschaar
        Joanna Jakubiak — Daughter of Maria Jakubiak
        Carol Eckna — Mother of Paul Robert Eckna
        Stanley Eckna — Father of Paul Robert Eckna
        Richard Eckna — Brother of Paul Robert Eckna
        Maria R. Fisher — Sister of Andrew Fisher
        Margaret Mauro — Sister of Dorothy Mauro
        Eileen Woods — Sister of James Woods
        Joyce Woods — Mother of James Woods
        Robert Nelson — Nephew of Richard Fitzsimons
        William A. Brinnier — Best Friend of Frank DeMartini
        Catherine Statz — Sister of Patricia J. Statz
        Ira Lassman — Father of Nicholas C. Lassman
        Bill Kelly — Father of Billy Kelly
        JoAnne Kelly — Mother of Billy Kelly
        Kathleen Hamilton — Sister of Billy Kelly
        Colleen Kelly — Sister of Billy Kelly
        Meigan Keane — Sister of Billy Kelly
        Robert Madden — Brother of Richard B. Madden
        Susan Newton-Carter — Wife of Christopher Newton-Carter
        Laura Paterson — Steven B. Paterson
        Patric Tengelin — Brother of David Tengelin
        Geraldine Lewis — Mother of Adam Lewis
        Patricia Bingley — Mother of Kevin Dennis
        John Echavarria — Cousin of Matthew Pedicini
        Michael McNulty — Uncle of Sean Peter McNulty
        JoAnn Statz — Mother of Patricia Statz
        Cathie Ong — Sister of Betty Ann Ong
        Valerie Lucznikowska — Aunt of Adam Arias
        Bryan Jackson – Cousin of Commander William Donovan Jr.
        Jane Pollicino – Wife of Steve Pollicino
        Jacqueline Statz – Sister of Patricia Statz

        Janette MacKinlay
        William Rodriguez
        James G. Lecce
        Gregory P. Mango
        Robert Clouser
        Raymond Hayden
        Eileen Coles
        Linda Abbott
        Sue Astacio
        Miguel Espinal
        Daniel Lenahan
        Nancy Siesel
        Sharron L. Clemons
        Michael Hughes
        Sharon Wlosek
        Robert Dorn
        Patrick Mangan
        Robert E. Salt
        John Nevin
        H. Lee Alexander
        Thomas Sarr
        David Long
        Colin Hall
        Rachel Hughes

        Edith Beaujon
        John Feal
        Charlie Giles
        Regina Cervantes
        Steve Centore
        Pat McQuillan
        Bill Gleason
        John Schroeder
        Joey Rapps
        Thomas Mecir
        Ed Potkay
        David Kirolos
        Ben Strutt
        Brian Carswell
        Robert Penn
        Justin Frank
        Judy Wolff
        Wiliam Dement
        Edmund Mulqueen
        Amilcar Rodriguez
        Dan Feinstein
        Jose Oyola
        Gaetano Fundaro
        Julieanne Jackson
        Nereida Ferran
        Frank DenDanto III

        OR HOW ABOUT OVER 1,700 ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS THAT HAVE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THE “OFFICIAL” STORY ABOUT HOW THE TOWERS AND BUILDING 7 FELL TO BE IMPOSSIBLE!
        http://www.ae911truth.org/

        OR HOW ABOUT THE HUNDREDS OF PROFESSORS AND THOUSANDS OF SCHOLARS
        http://stj911.org/members/index.html
        http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=35

        OR THE HUNDREDS OF PILOTS
        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

        OR THE OVER 200 SENIOR MILITARY, INTELLIGENCE, AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
        http://patriotsquestion911.com/

        OR THE HUNDREDS OF MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS
        http://mp911truth.org/

      • a rational person says :

        @ geeksquad1001 : you are still a moronic nutbag. all of ur shit was debunked 10 years ago. i don’t know why anyone would waste their time lapping up your stinking shit tasting vomit but i got new for you hoss, every single thing u posted can be debunked at http://www.911myths.com. yep, every single one. not even gonna waste my time or anyone elses on your shit. u are still the stupidest fucker on this page. thank u once again for proving it.

      • geeksquad1001 says :

        @arationalperson you still cant say anything but call names and attack me thats funny how when people cant dispute FACTS THEY GO TO NAME CALLING! So what was debunked 10 years ago exactly? well 10 years ago how is that possible for anything to be debunked because the 9/11 commission report wasnt even out yet lol. So that part of your statement is complete non-sense. FIRST YOU TRY TO SAY THAT THE PILOTS WERENT MILITARY TRAINED WHICH I WENT ON TO PROVE THAT THEY WERE IN FACT MILITARY TRAINED. And I proved that at least 7 of the hijackers are still alive today. So none of my statements I made can be debunked because their fact and I proved that clearly. SO what was debunked 10 years ago again? lol

        I have given facts and supporting evidence to all my claims and you havent given any, just one round of name calling after another. So its clear to see who is the insane dumbass and its not me….

        OHH YA AND SINCE WE ARE ON THE TOPIC OF DEBUNKING, YES I DEBUNKED YOUR STUPID CLAIM THAT ATTAS FATHER SAID HIS SON WAS INVOLVED WITH THE ATTACKS OF 9/11 WHICH HE NEVER SAID AND TO THE CONTRARY HE SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE. i PROVIDED THE LINK TO THE CAIRO TIMES ARTICLE AND OTHERS WHERE ATTAS FATHER ADAMANTLY DENIED THAT HIS SON HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 AND HE EVEN SAID THAT HE TALKED TO HIS SON 3 DAYS AFTER THE ATTACKS. So the only person getting debunked is yourself.

        Thank you come again…..which if you do respond its only going to be name calling cause thats about the most intelligent thing you can do.

      • a rational person says :

        @ geeksquad:

        fuck off. here’s the article where atta sr. admits his son did it. its from 2005.

        http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/atta.father.terror/index.html

        any more questions, nutbag?

  7. Hank says :

    Well what if i tell you thatt the people behind 9/11 are also the people who controll almost everything that is going on in the world. corruption within police and government and within the courts aswell, is nothing new.

    Again entitled to you own opinion. Nothin is black or white. There ll always be a big grey zone of what is true. Within that zone, i believe 9/11 is a hoax and nothing more. Do you really believe that your security is so improved since 9/11 that it didnt happen again? Nonsense…

    Check this one out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIB6z4fkINs
    Yeah i know just another conspiracy. But do you actually belive the official reports?

    This was my last post btw. Truth ll come out sooner or later.Have a nice day.

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

      This was my last post btw. Truth ll come out sooner or later.Have a nice day.

      Hi Hank Your English is fine, fine enough that I know you’ll understand this: on the Internet, you are known as a “hit and run troll.” That is someone who asserts something in his first posting, but then if he is challenged, he gets all defensive and hits back with some more beliefs but then runs away because he fears that he might have to admit that the challenger, in this case, muertos, is right.

      So Hank, may I bid you farewell by saying:

      As you exit, Hank, please don’t let the door hit you from behind!

  8. Hank says :

    Hialarious Hollywood, calling me a troll. Hilarious to say the least really. Oke one more post then. He makes a blog and people believe that. Fine with me like i said “Entitled to your own opinion”. Besides there is in my opinion no black and no white. That is why i referred to the grey zone.

    You have you sources and i have mine. And btw. 9/11 is over 10 years ago and people still don’t know what happnend. What makes you think we ll figure it out here and now?

    Wanna spend a 10 year argument with me?

  9. JD Mumma says :

    muertos – Do I understand you correctly that you do believe that there is such a thing as “False Flag” events?
    If yes, please list the event(s) that you believe fit your definition of a False Flag event.
    My apology if these have been addressed already above – I did not read every word of your article and every comment.
    Thanks!

    • muertos says :

      Thanks for your post. Please do read the whole article, as your question is addressed there. Thanks!

      • JD Mumma says :

        1) The reason I asked is because your title says “”False Flag” Attacks–Debunked!” Which is a generalization implies all False Flag situations. So you are saying the title was not fully representative?

        2) I was unaware that “conspiracy theorists” had the unified perspective you presented.

        3) Can you tell me about the “scope” of your fact gathering and where you derived your basic premise that “conspiracy theorist” mean “very large scale” when “they” talk about “false flag” events?
        RE: “When conspiracy theorists talk about “false flags,” what they mean is a tragic event, usually a very large-scale attack…”

        4) Can you tell me where you derived you definition of “false flag”, specifically referring to the “scope” of the operation and a specific focus on “naval warfare.”
        RE: “It’s the same thing in spirit, but not in scope.” & “especially in naval warfare.”

        5) Do you consider the ‘Reichstag fire’ a false flag event?

        6) Robert S McNamara* says about the Gulf of Tonkin attack – “It didn’t happen”. Will you also be “debunk” him?
        “Robert McNamara admits Gulf of Tonkin attack did not happen” Excerpt from the documentary The Fog of War

        *Secretary of Defense, serving under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson from 1961 to 1968,

      • muertos says :

        You still have not read the article. I very clearly discuss the quote by McNamara and explain how his statements are taken out of context. Not only did he believe and clearly state that one of the two separate attacks that comprise the “Gulf of Tonkin incident” did actually occur, but the North Vietnamese in charge of naval operations that night admitted that it had occurred. You would know this if you’d actually read the article.

  10. Pyrrhoneous says :

    Ok Muertos,

    Grouping individuals into demographics such as “truthers” and “conspiracy theorists” is horribly unscientific and the terms are dismissive. These people are individuals and should be treated as such. What these individuals profess and believe varies widely, and there is no consensus in these groups except to say that they have reason to believe the “official” story is a lie. Do not clusterfuck them.

    A problem here on your blog and in academia in general is this whole idea of discrediting someone based on one misstep. If an individual has made fallacious claims in the past, that does not indicate all current or future claims made by them are fallacious and to be ignored. Also, the whole notion of judging a scientist based on his credentials and recognition instead of the merits of his work is a part of the personality worship miasma that permeates modern society and culture. While thrive may not be 100% true, that does not make all of it false by default. 20% of it may be true, or 90%- there is still value. Your blog seems quite thorough but you appear to be running on the idea that all of it is false and your mission is to prove this through “debunking”. And citing polls is retarded. The majority of people are stupid and stubborn. Hence anything “mainstream” will intrinsically reflect that. The fact that you even make statements like “9/11 was an inside job” conspiracy theories is not growing, but in fact shrinking;” is very telling of your thought processes.

    Your unscientific failings make sense now, considering you are not even a scientist. Concerning the “illuminati” or “global elite”, etc – Having studied history you of all people should understand that history is but a series of conspiracies. It is “a tale agreed upon by the victors” or, more accurately, the owners. Who controls the past, controls the future. it’s really simple. the fact that the world’s richest (read: most powerful) people meet in secrecy (no media) is indisputable fact. Of these, the Bilderberg group is the most prominent, but others include: the population council, trilateral commission, council on foreign relations, and numerous other “round table groups”. What do you suppose they are discussing? it certainly isn’t how best to redistribute their wealth or put it towards solving the world’s problems. Do you suppose they want less power? less control?

    • Joel says :

      Pyrrhoneous, you overestimate how much the historical narrative is controlled by “the victors.” Historians routinely construct narratives from primary sources, not the secondary source tale of the victors. For example, the book “Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England” produces a narrative concerning the changing fortunes of female beer makers in the Middle Ages. It uses tax records, legal contracts between individuals, wills, city council decisions, baptismal promises, a few letters, archeological evidence, and more in order to establish its claims. That was in the Middle Ages! There are more sources now days, far too many for any shadowy organization to control.

      As for science, it is both a common and necessary practice to group similar individuals together. The individuality of subjects obfuscates pertinent trends, and good scientists control for these “variables.” Actually, this trend goes far beyond just the usual sciences. Consider the history of Christianity. Certainly, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants are very different groups, but one can still look at them in aggregate. Likewise, even within those groups, there are still your Lutherans, your Calvinists, your Assemblies of God, etc, but you can still look at the general categories. Same with sociology and psychology. It all depends on how one defines their question. Demanding a higher degree of granularity than the question merits is poppycock and a logical fallacy.

      The powerful individuals do meet, but it is not in secret (Muertos provided links to their minutes), so we don’t really need to wonder what they are discussing (except, perhaps, to wonder how they find it interesting enough to stay awake for). But, as he noted, even if they were discussing some nefarious scheme to bring bellbottoms back into style, there is no evidence that what is discussed in those groups ever translates into dictate that then guides the actual running of the world. Claiming that the existence of these groups implies actual control is tantamount to claiming that the mere existence of Canada necessitates the exportation of maple syrup.

      • JD Mumma says :

        Joel – I’m glad you brought up “logical fallacy”
        Would you like to also describe which logical fallacy you just used when you stated:
        “The powerful individuals do meet, but it is not in secret (Muertos provided links to their minutes), so we don’t really need to wonder what they are discussing”,
        or would you like someone else to do that?

      • Joel says :

        Well, Mumma, I suspect you probably are thinking I was making an appeal to authority fallacy, but since you decided to use an “argument by innuendo” fallacy to make your point, I’m not positive in this.

        That aside, assuming that you are indeed supposing that I used an appeal to authority fallacy (if not, I apologize for misunderstanding you), you would be incorrect. Referencing an authority is a valid practice, but what crosses over into fallacy territory is when the “authority used” isn’t actually authoritative. For example, we can all conclude that J.K. Rowling is an authority on the contents of her own books, but I believe we can all likewise conclude that she is not an authority on the contents of the Wheel of Time series. To use her as an authority regarding Harry Potter is valid, but to use her as an authority regarding Rand Al’Thor is fallacious. Thus, it becomes a question of if my appeal was to a legitimate authority or not. Presumably, you are under the impression that it is not (again, assuming that this was the fallacy that you are thinking I used).

        Now, this is easily addressed: the minutes of the meetings are produced by the individuals in the meetings. If anyone can have accurate knowledge of those meetings, the minute taker has it. Compare this to anyone outside of the meeting: they weren’t present at the meeting, so they don’t know what was discussed, and therefore are fundamentally incapable of authoritatively stating one way or the other.

        Of course, ability to tell the truth isn’t the same as the actual ability to tell the truth. But, past behavior is a reliable indicator of future behavior. I have been unable to find any indication that the members of the group, past or present, have criticized the minutes as being fundamental inaccurate on significant level, nor have they spoken in a way that would oppose the contents of those minutes. There is no reason, then, to assume that the minutes are incorrect, at least to the perception of other individuals who have the potential of judging their veracity. Likewise, since the stories of the individual members have been consistent with the minutes themselves, we have no reason to assume that they are being duplicitous in their behavior.

        In short, the minutes had the potential of being truthful, they are vouchsafed as being actually by numerous individuals, and no reason has been given to suspect otherwise. They are a valid authority.

        But, again, since you relied on innuendo instead of clear and direct discourse, I may be misidentifying what fallacy you thought I was engaging in.

      • JD Mumma says :

        Well Joel,

        1) Your guess of your own logical fallacy was incorrect. Which I am surprised since you seem to present yourself as knowledgeable about logical fallacies and write so much about logical fallacies.
        The very common and obvious fallacy you made was a inductive argument (aka faulty generalizations)
        Your original statement: “The powerful individuals do meet, but it is not in secret (Muertos provided links to their minutes), so we don’t really need to wonder what they are discussing”

        I’ll let you chose which one you used from the list below:
        Cherry picking fallacy
        Confirmation bias
        False analogy
        Faulty generalization
        Hasty generalization
        Misleading vividness
        Sampling bias

        2) I did not make the fallacy of “argument by innuendo” since I did not make an implicit suggestion to a conclusion. Unless you have a definition I

        am unfamiliar with or you made up your own definition.
        You brought up the topic of “logical fallacy” and since you used a logical fallacy as the main part of your arguments I simply asked “Would you like to also describe which logical fallacy you just used when you stated: … or would you like someone else to do that?”
        I gave you the option to rethink what you wrote and give the answer. I did not imply or innuendo that you used fallacy logic, I directly asked you to be specific about which logical fallacy you used.

      • Joel says :

        Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself more, Mumma.

        First, there are far too many fallacies, and not all of them hold the same weight, for your original statement to not have additional implied meanings. By being intentionally vague, you were able to suggest the weight of specific fallacies without actually identifying them. Likewise, you implied (and now confirmed) that the fallacies I supposedly made were obvious. These innuendos could then lead someone to a conclusion of hypocrisy, untrustworthiness, and the possibility of simple ignorance.

        As for presenting myself as being knowledgeable about logical fallacies, that seems like an odd interpretation for you to take. You’ll note that my only independent mention of it was very brief and quite poor (in the same sentence as the word “poppycock,” no less).

        Anywho, your list of fallacies are invalid.

        Neither cherry picking or sample bias are valid since all the four groups that Pyrrhoneous noted make public the content of their meetings in one form or another. Since no group was excluded, your claims don’t fly.

        “Confirmation bias” could be potentially valid, but currently there is no information that I am aware of that I am disregarding in favor of what I’ve presented. Certainly, you are free to prove me wrong by pointing to valid information that opposes my statements.

        I did not make an analogy at all, so I could not have made a false one.

        Neither hasty generalizations nor faulty generalizations occurred. 100% of the identified groups produce records of their meeting content. While there are the unnamed “other round table groups,” we already have a significant sample size and a significant trend. It is reasonable to conclude that those other groups are very likely to confirm to the established trend: it is possible that they do not, but evidence is needed for that to be legitimately considered.

        And finally, for misleading vividness, I didn’t use any vivid examples, so I couldn’t have made that error.

        I’d be happy to discuss this matter more, if you’d so like, but I am not sure if such a discussion would benefit anything. We are already rather far from the actual topic.

  11. search engine agency says :

    Thanks for posting this, It is a good article and I did enjoy reading all of the replies, there will always be conspiracy theorists, It is not a bad thing it is just a fact that when the truth is not clear people speculate on what might have, or did happen.

  12. Mehdi says :

    Hello to owner of this blog, i must say, that Thrive is New Age mind control, but Gulf of Tonkin was flase flag, there is no doubt about it, read the book by Greene “The Quiet American”, 9/11 was inside job, no doubt about it.

    But you make interesting point in Thrive, there is no doubt.

    Peace out

    • muertos says :

      Read the book “The Looming Tower” by Lawrence Wright. 9/11 was not an inside job, no doubt about it. Dr. Steven E. Jones is not a reliable source, his work is totally incorrect and he was discredited years ago: http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

      • Mehdi says :

        This is nonsense, stop lying. We have”ve done own study on universtiy.
        Stop Lie.

        You should do your home work instead,

        Peace

      • muertos says :

        “You should do your home work instead.” I’ve been debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories for seven years now, so I would venture a guess that I’ve done a considerable amount of “home work.” Nevertheless, this article I wrote at my other blog explains why I don’t argue much with 9/11 Truthers anymore: http://muertos.blog.com/2012/02/01/an-open-letter-to-a-911-truther/

        I doubt you’ll read it, but I put it out there just the same.

      • Mehdi says :

        Well, i know it since 2003, Peace brov…

      • muertos says :

        I’m not surprised, as you still seem to believe the same silly 9/11 conspiracy theories that were debunked in 2003. Peace brov!

      • Mehdi says :

        Yes by George Bush…😀

        C U man, sorry, U can’t be trusted, in one case, you are paid by government to defend officials story and you are gate keeper, or your mental potention is not able to see alanyze phenomenon using experimental work to proove your allegation of “This is true”. Those incidents happens all the time, people has
        low capabilty for critical thinking, because they are thought to be lazy and distracted.

        Sorry for that, you might not be nor either of those two cases. Thank you, that i know what ideas you promote, but unfortunately i must leave it. As it is.

        Take care

        Mehdi

      • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

        Mehdi,

        You are obviously a paid information agent of the Thrive Movement. So just how much money is Foster Gamble paying you to come on this blog and try to bully anyone who dares disagree with your employer’s movie?

        Have you no shame, sir?

      • Rehsab Thgir says :

        Ahem. I LOLd.

  13. Asshole says :

    You are a fucking idiot! May you rot in hell and die you bastard whore. Eat shit and die.

    • muertos says :

      Wait, I thought fans of this movie believed in peace, love and everybody in the world “thriving”? So much for that, I guess!

    • Rehsab Thgir says :

      Golly.

      • muertos says :

        This goes to show you what happens when you dare to criticize conspiracy theorists’ sacred cows. They’re all peace, love and understanding until you disagree with them–then you’re a traitor and collaborator who should die a fiery death.

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

      Dear Asshole,

      You are obviously a paid information agent of the Thrive Movement. So just how much money is Foster Gamble paying you to come on this blog and try to bully anyone who dares disagree with your employer’s movie?

      Have you no shame, sir?

    • Frankie says :

      Dude, grow up and grab your conspiratardist books and shove them down your ass.

  14. Mr. Anon says :

    To my knowledge, Muertos, the 9/11 conspiracy theories are among the most debunked and factually unsustainable mainstream conspiracy theories out there. Unlike things like the Global Domination Agenda (which is unfalsifiable), the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been factually disproved through numerous documents of evidence.
    I haven’t had much experience with conspiracy theories until recently (when I watched Thrive), but it seems to me like if Gamble is writing about 9/11 truth, chances are he is just trying to gain supporters.

  15. bensteigmann says :

    The Gulf of Tonkin was a bad idea to include. However, you were wrong about parts of it. The U.S. was engaged in extremely aggressive activity against The North Vietnamese that directly provoked this. See the following: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/TONKIN.html

    It is sickening to note that, as Sutton showed, in these proxy wars, Western firms were supplying armaments to both sides: http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/best_enemy/

    Regarding the Iraq War, this was not simply “faulty intelligence”. In fact, the Downing Street Memos show that the public was deliberately decieved: http://downingstreetmemo.com/

    The Iraq war was planned first by a Zionist/neo-conservative think tank in a document entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” (http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm). It was a Zionist imperative to remove Saddam Hussein from power back in 1994 – in order to facilitate greater imperialistic ambitions. Many of these people would be influential in the Bush Administration, and would write an important policy planning document entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, which set forth essentially the same imperialistic roadmap as the “Clean Break” document did, but added more rhetoric about a “revolution in military affairs” and so forth. This document, among other things, stated (p. 51), “the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic catalyzing event — like a New Pearl Harbor.” (http://tinyurl.com/7onk)

    This term is NOT meaningless. That document specifically refers to the Revolution in Military Affairs, which is beyond the scope of this essay, but the end goal of which, as outlined in Joint Vision 2020, is “Full Spectrum Dominance”: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1225.pdf

    The first commentator to bring up the name of Osama Bin Laden as being responsible for 9/11 was Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak on a BBC broadcast shortly after the Twin Towers had collapsed. He also spoke of the next countries to be invaded. See @7:00: http://www.viddler.com/explore/stenchofzion/videos/37/

    Here is Gen. Wesley Clark noting the global war agenda – that among other things the U.S. pledged itself to undermine Lybia far before 2011. He presented this in 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

    Regarding 9/11 – both Hamid Gul, former head of the ISI, and Andreas von Bulow, who had experience overseeing the German secret service, noted Mossad involvement (http://tinyurl.com/6tb5ufc, http://tinyurl.com/768rnkh). The former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, also noted that it was common knowledge in intelligence agencies around the world that the Mossad orchestrated the 9/11 attacks (http://tinyurl.com/7qkzx9s).
    The day before 9/11, the Washington Times noted the results of a recent important Army School of Advanced Military Systems project. The article noted, “Of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.” (http://tinyurl.com/6rmeycq)

    And the actual bin Laden (not the “Wag the dog”, media portrayal of him portrayed in the media) comes across very differently than what you’d expect. In a September 28 interview published in the Pakistani newspaper, Ummat, he stated: http://tinyurl.com/nahop

    “I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States … I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act… The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the U.S. system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. … whether it is President Bush or any other U.S. President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. … Daily UMMAT: The losses caused in the attacks in New York and Washington have proved that giving an economic blow to the U.S.is not too difficult. U.S. experts admit that a few more such attacks can bring down the American economy. Why is Al-Qaida not targeting their economic pillars? USAMA BIN LADEN: I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [U.S. Government] system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in control of the American-Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word.”

    For more, I recommend the following research project, from my correspondent ZionCrimeFactory, which refutes the counterarguments on this subject. I don’t agree with everything he says, and there are aspects of his style I don’t like, but his information is important: http://zioncrimefactory.com/israel-did-911/

    There is that connection, and there is the fact of Wargames on that day (http://tinyurl.com/y3muh6g), and whistleblowers (http://tinyurl.com/yes4adn), that establishes an altogether different picture of 9/11 than the standard narrative.

    Among this crowd, there has been a tendency, especially with a Popular Mechanics piece several years ago, to assume that the standard narrative is solid. The standard narrative is full of holes, and the first step to figuring that out can be to look at how full of holes these low grade “debunking” exercises are. So on the subject of popular mechanics, here are 4 short phone calls that completely discredit it’s presentation on 9/11 (http://tinyurl.com/7z77pko). Here, also, are critiques of claims made by several prominent and semi-prominent “debunkers” over the years (http://tinyurl.com/3v5qxun).

    • bensteigmann says :

      I would also like to discuss Pearl Harbor, because it provides an excellent perspective. Contrary to mainstream thought today, there was very significant Soviet Influence in the American government in the 1940s. The VENONA documents and other disclosures show that the FDR administration was permeated with Soviet spies. These, along with Anglophile internationalists, were the deciding influences in getting the United States into WWII. First, as for the Anglophile internationalists, Thomas E. Mahl establishes in “Desperate Deception: British Convert Operations in the United States, 1939-1944″ (http://tinyurl.com/75xadct), that William Stephenson (“Intrepid”) and a few hundred other British intelligence agents infiltrated the United states in order to bring the United States into WWII. And in this scheme, Lord Victor Rothschild, a confidant of Churchill, would act as a key Soviet agent (http://mailstar.net/perry.html), relaying all the intelligence information Churchill found out to Stalin. Of course, in addition to Communism and British operations, Zionism was the other major force leading to the U.S. involvement in WWII: http://zioncrimefactory.com/2011/11/30/organized-jewry-the-inciter-of-global-war-and-genocide/

      Jarrold and Leona Schecter established in “Sacred Secrets” (http://tinyurl.com/7qzqnlj) that Harry Dexter White, a very influential Soviet Agent, would also be a key agent of influence in getting the U.S. into the war. White, on direct orders from Stalin, authored 8 of 10 points in the Hull Memorandum which provoked war with Japan. We know now from the McCollum Memorandum, first brought to public attention by Stinnet in his authoritative book on the subject, “Day of Deceit”, that FDR provoked the Japanese. The McCollum Memorandum explicitly calls for Japan to be provoked into committing an “overt act of war” and describes how that might be done: http://rationalrevolution.net/war/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm

      Historian Harry Elmer Barnes and his colleagues, after the war, wrote the revisionist classic, “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace”. In Ch. 7 of that book, “The Pearl Harbor Investigations”, Percy L. Greaves, Jr. noted (p. 645), “The APHB top-secret report concluded with this paragraph: Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States…”: http://tinyurl.com/6f4ekas

      The notable historian Charles Beard quoted Henry Stimson’s diary in “President Roosevelt and the coming of the war, 1941: appearances and realities” (p. 517), as saying “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”: http://tinyurl.com/67szowe

      The geopolitical background to all of this is provided by historian Charles Callan Tansill in his book “Back Door to War” (1952): http://mises.org/books/backdoor.pdf

      Stalin of course was unthreatened by the Japanese, which would be dealt with by the U.S., so he unleashed his fury on Central Europe (http://tinyurl.com/74ukgkb).

      And as for the subsequent war with Germany that followed, historian Thomas Fleming, in “The New Dealers War” (http://tinyurl.com/8y8ujhp), noted that FDR had written plans to invade Europe by 1943 that were leaked just before Pearl Harbor, and that this was what contributed to Germany’s declaration of war on the United States.

      The Schecters also verified the claim, put forth by Elizabeth Bentley and Maj. George Racey Jordan and others, that Harry Dexter White provided stolen U.S. treasury plates to the Soviets, which they subsequently used to used to print extremely high quantities of occupation currency in the eastern zone of postwar Germany, sparking a black market and serious inflation throughout the occupied country. The Schecters noted that this was just “another thread in the tapestry of service [White] wove on behalf of the Soviets.”

      Alger Hiss, another instrumental Soviet agent, would be an instrumental figure in the Yalta decisions (http://tinyurl.com/7qgl4jf), which included giving Stalin vast amounts of Europe, greatly expanding the power of the Soviet Empire, and which also led to Operation Keelhaul, which forced the repatriation of two million Soviet refugees for either slave labor or death in the vast Soviet GULAG system. He also founded the United Nations (http://tinyurl.com/6ropn2y), becoming it’s first Secretary General, assisting the Globalist intentions of families like the Rockefellers (http://tinyurl.com/7xfvx4j). The UN would subsequently become a hotbed of Soviet activity (http://tinyurl.com/7odvbsq).

      The IPR and Owen Lattimore, on behalf of the Rockefeller Foundation, would play a decisive role in the Communist victory there.

      The Tydings Committee was a smear job against McCarthy, and dismissed his concerns over Lattimore. The McCarran Committee, was set up after that, because people were aware that Tydings Committee dismissals were based on insufficient evidence. This Committee, which investigated the Institute of Pacific Relations, showed in great detail in it’s Report how the IPR subverted policy. Se pp. 204-205:

      “This section will relate how IPR people in and out of Government were instrumental in keeping United States policy on a course that was anti-Chiang and often pro-Communist in orientation. …
      At the end of 1945 when General Marshall left for China, the balance of power was with the Chinese Nationalists … and remained so until at least June 1946. … Chiang’s divisions were chasing the Communists northward and the prospect of victory by Nationalist China was at its highest. … However, when General Marshall arrived in China, he undertook to bring about the coalition government which his directive demanded. … This plan failed when coalition failed. …
      When the Chinese government did not effect coalition, by the summer of 1946 United States military assistance to China was brought to an end. Not only did the United States stop sending military supplies to the Chinese Government; the shipment of war materials actually purchased by the Chinese also was halted. … The Chinese also had purchased surplus equipment that remained on Okinawa and other Pacific islands. Even the shipment of this was banned. … A complete embargo took effect in the summer of 1946. It was maintained at least until May 1947.
      General Chennault testified that the first shipment arrived in Shanghai in December 1948. … Chennault further stated that the war material sent to China after the embargo did not arrive in time to aid the Chinese Nationalists in the field. … Admiral Cooke … testified that the Chinese had a number of divisions equipped with American arms. …
      When the flow of American ammunition was stopped, these divisions lost their fire power and were defeated. Even after the Eightieth Congress appropriated $125,000,000 for aid to the Chinese, shipments were delayed and when the guns finally reached the Chinese general in north China they were without bolts and therefore useless.”

      The full details concerning this and connections to the IPR, Lattimore, etc., are given in the Report. See p. 208 ff., as well as information given before the citation I provided: http://www.archive.org/details/instituteofpacif1952unit

      Why might this bizarre situation have occurred? In “The Daily Compass” (NY), Sunday, July 17, 1949, in an article entitled “SOUTH KOREA – ANOTHER CHINA”, Owen Lattimore revealed his intentions and objectives – “The problem was how to allow them [China] to fall without making it look as if the United States had pushed them.” He then stated, “The thing to do, therefore, is to let South Korea fall-but not to let it look as though we pushed it.” (this was before the Korean war – hence we can ): http://www.dcdave.com/article5/110602.htm

      Conservapedia (which I normally don’t recommend), nevertheless has an article on Lattimore that is very well documented: http://www.conservapedia.com/Owen_Lattimore

      Significantly, as the article notes (and this relates to the Pearl Harbor topic),

      “On November 25, 1941, twelve days before Pearl Harbor, Lattimore dispatched an anxious cable to Currie in the White House arguing against a proposed diplomatic understanding between the United States and Japan. When Congress later investigated the Pearl Harbor attack, U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull testified that he took a tough line with the Japanese because of this cable from Lattimore to Currie reporting on Chinese morale in the Kuomintang. This cable was the only documentary evidence Hull presented which influenced his decision to reverse himself and send the ultimatum to Japan.[19] The use of harsh, demanding language toward Japan only strengthened the position of the war party in Tokyo. Japanese Ambassador Nomura found it impossible to reach an agreement because the U.S. demands were extreme.[20]
      Prof. Anthony Kubek has written that Lattimore, by this one act, designed to accomplish the Soviet objective of promoting war between the United States and Japan – did more to promote the Sovietization of China than in any other act of his career. All Comintern designs for conquest of China hinged upon destroying Japan and the balance of power in the Pacific. [21]”

      It also notes:

      “Lattimore wrote a letter of introduction for Haakon Chevalier to KGB operative, Lauchlin Currie. Chevalier was attempting to obtain a Government job during this period of time. Chevalier is a known Soviet Secret Intelligence Service (KGB) contact and was associated with numerous members of the Communist Party on the West Coast. Currie also recommended Lattimore to President Roosevelt to serve as a special advisor to Chiang Kai-shek. Currie gave evidence in New York to a grand jury investigating Lattimore’s role in the publication by Amerasia magazine of secret State Department documents. In December 1952, Lattimore was indicted for perjury.[34]”

      The rest of the article should be read, as it establishes the extent of Lattimore’s propaganda, and how he, among other things, completely whitewashed the Soviet Gulags.

      he McCarran Committee Report stated emphatically (p. 214 of the document, 222 of the pdf) “OWEN LATTIMORE WAS FROM SOME TIME IN THE MIDDLE 1930′S A CONSCIOUS, ARTICULATE INSTRUMENT OF THE SOVIET CONSPIRACY” (emphasis in original)

      The full story on Lattimore is presented by journalist John T. Flynn in “While You Slept: Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It” (http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf), and “The Lattimore Story” (http://tinyurl.com/87ljrga).

      Here’s where things get interesting – the McCarran Committee Report noted (p. 3) that the Institute of Pacific Relations received “generous support from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Corp.” – that of the total funding for the organization from 1925-1950, “48 percent came from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Corp.”

      This was one of the contributing factors in the development of the Cox Committee (See Cox Committee transcripts here: http://tinyurl.com/8a5v769). Budenz, who had testified about Lattimore, gave some very important testimony in the Cox Committee. And of course the Cox Committee eventually evolved into the Reece Committee (see Reece Committee transcripts here: http://tinyurl.com/6lpg9jc).

      Carroll Quigley, a historian of international financial groups that set up various “power structures” to influence governments, noted the following in his macro-history text “Tragedy & Hope”, when discussing the Reece Committee (pp. 954-955): “It was this group of people, whose wealth and influence so exceeded their experience and understanding, who provided much of the framework of influence which the Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers took over in the United States in the 1930s. It must be recognized that the power of these energetic Left wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie, and, once the anger and suspicions of the American people were aroused as they were in the 1950s, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of the Red sympathizers. Before this could be done, however, a congressional committee, following backward to their source the threads which led from the admitted Communists like Whittaker Chambers, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations. The Eighty-third Congress set up in 1953 a Special Reece Committee to investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations. It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the “most respected” newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any revelations to make the publicity worthwhile. An interesting report showing the Left-wing associations of interlocking nexus of tax-exempt foundations was issued in 1954 rather quietly. Four years later, the Reece Committee’s general counsel, Rene A Wormser, wrote a shocked, but not shocking, book on the subject called “Foundations: Their Power and Influence.””

      Reece Committee research director Norman Dodd, in his investigations, encountered the Ford Foundation chieftain Rowan Gaither, who told him, off the record, “Mr. Dodd, we are here operate in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.” (http://tinyurl.com/abxywc)

      And significantly, David Rockefeller would state in The New York Times, August 10, 1973, in an article entitled “From a China Traveller” , which praised of Mao’s regime, just after a massive period of death: “One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony… There is a very real and pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive… The enormous social advances of China have benefitted greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose… The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in history.”: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10D12FA355B1B778DDDA90994D0405B838BF1D3

      Then, in the 1970s, David Rockefeller, as admitted in his memoirs, was actually responsible for building up China into the superpower that it is today: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24018026/China-Chase-and-Rockefeller

      More insight into all this can be garnered if one reads the chapter of Douglas Reed’s book “The Controversy of Zion” entitled “The Revolution Extends” (http://tinyurl.com/6rfpcrs)

      Curtis Dall, in “FDR: My Exploited Father In Law”, and Douglas Reed, in a chapter of “Far And Wide” entitled “Communism Penetrant”, note FDR sacrificed American interests in favor of Globalism and what was at the time Communism. In that chapter, Reed showed how Roosevelt consciously worked to subvert Constitutional safeguards, helped further the aims of World Communism, and ultimately served higher circles. He asked, “What real purpose did Mr. Roosevelt promote through the way he used his imperial powers?”, and then noted:

      “He furthered the main principles of a plan for the redistribution of the earth published in 1942 (but clearly prepared much earlier) by a mysterious `Group for a New World Order’, headed by a Mr. Moritz Gomberg. What this group proposed was startling at the time but proved farsighted. The main recommendations were that the Communist Empire should be extended from the Pacific to the Rhine, with China, Korea, Indo-China, Siam and Malaya in its orbit; and that a Hebrew State should be set up on the soil of `Palestine, Transjordan and the adjoining territories’. These two projects were largely realized. Canada and numerous `strategic islands’ were to pass to the United States (the reader should keep these `strategic islands’ in mind). The remaining countries of Western Europe were to disappear in a `United States of Europe’ (this scheme is being vigorously pursued at present). The African continent was to become a `Union of Republics’. The British Commonwealth was to be left much reduced, the Dutch West Indies joining Australia and New Zealand in it. The scheme looks like a blueprint of the second stage in a grand operation of three stages, and substantial parts of it were achieved; what was not then accomplished is being energetically attempted now.”

      He subsequently cited Admiral William D. Leahy’s text “I was There” (1950) to argue that “Mr. Roosevelt’s grand design was for a large apportionment of the globe between the Communist Empire and the United States, at the expense of the British Commonwealth and French Empire. Support of Communism in China, too, was primarily intended to prevent a British revival there and in the planning of the Pacific campaign everything was done to exclude the British and make China and Japan into a Soviet-American sphere of influence.”: http://douglasreed.co.uk/far.pdf

  16. Charlotte says :

    “But it is totally false to state or imply that the war began in the Gulf of Tonkin.”

    Well, in that case, maybe next time you can debunk the “conspiracy” that public school was a giant waste of my time. Why on earth was I taught this (and many other un-truths) in school–by my history teacher, directly?

  17. Bob Dole says :

    I read the entire debunking, he DOES NOT debunk anything. Seriously.

    Don’t waste your time here, he argues and cherry picks topics and most of his view points are rudimentary and naive at best.

    Nuff said.

    • muertos says :

      Most conspiracy theorists are incapable of recognizing when their pet theories have been refuted, and “you haven’t debunked anything!” is a common canned thoughtless response from conspiracy nutters who are unwilling to face facts. It’s OK, though, I forgive you, I’ve seen this effect many times before. Nuff said!

      • bensteigmann says :

        Likewise, people such as yourself are unable to recognize when their articles are refuted. You put yourself in a comfortable cocoon, claiming that your opponents “haven’t read” the material they are presenting, which is independently verifiable, meanwhile, your material stands refuted to all objective observers: https://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/false-flag-attacks-debunked/#comment-1397

      • muertos says :

        It does not “stand refuted to all objective observers.” The link you posted is a wall of text cut and pasted from conspiracy nutbar websites with zero credibility. That is supposed to be persuasive how, exactly…?

        In any event, Ben, I’m still wondering if your mom is going to email me and ask me to take down your comments again, as she did with Edward Winston regarding the nuttery you spewed on the Conspiracy Science/Skeptic Project forum some time ago. If your own family is embarrassed by your involvement with conspiracy theories, this should be a wake-up call that perhaps something in your approach could stand some re-thinking.

      • bensteigmann says :

        As I’ve said, its independently verifiable, despite your use of poisoning the well fallacies and appeal to ridicule.

      • bensteigmann says :

        This is an interesting strategy, isn’t it. When I link to primary sources, like the federal reserve’s website, to refute your arguments on the Fed, you claim I haven’t read the material. When I link to secondary sources, you dismiss them out of hand. IT is clear that you have no interest in facts, and are just working to push a pre-determined ideology.

      • Joel says :

        Ben, the problem is that your “sources” aren’t what you think they are.

        Consider the Downing Street Memo. You made the claim that it is a fact that the public was intentionally deceived about the Iraq, and you used that as a source. The problem is, that memo, even if real (which isn’t certain, given the dubious nature of its discovery), doesn’t necessarily support your claim. First, the website’s highlighting and underlining gives emphasis that the original author may not have intended. Further, it is a summary of a meeting written after the fact by one individual. Even at that, the topics discussed in the meeting weren’t themselves inherently trustworthy. Consider “C,” who heads the British Foreign Intelligence Services. He wasn’t reporting any firsthand knowledge: directors don’t do that. Instead, he was reporting what he had been given. Chances are, there were several layers between the original information and him. Indeed, the original information likely didn’t come from a fully knowledgeable source either. Next, look at what the memo actually says: it makes no claims that any deliberate deception was going on (it does make claims that the U.S. goal had a particular outcome it wanted and that it was pursuing that outcome, but there are no clear claims of maleficence). So, your evidence is a 6th hand account (at best) that could be interpreted in more rational ways than you did. That is a piss poor place to hang an argument on.

        Yes, that isn’t the only source you cited, and it wasn’t at the center of your argument, but it nicely illustrates the problem with your other sources: even when you cite something valid (and you don’t always do that), what the source can claim and what you are trying to make it claim are two very different things.

      • bensteigmann says :

        Joel, many of the sources I use, while they are secondary sources, nevertheless link to independently verifiable primary sources. For instance, consider the following, which refutes many aspects of the worldview of many adherents of this site: http://skepticdenialism.blogspot.com/2011/12/evidence-1.html

        Regarding Iraq, the item you discussed, in conjunction with the other items I presented, do indeed support my position. When you combine it with the fact that leading military officials admitted that the wars were pre-planned years in advance, we can clearly see that people were deceived. For the broader view, I do not like the style of the following person, but it is a good enough article to warrant consideration, on the Zionist hand behind the Middle East Wars: [ANTI-SEMITIC LINK REDACTED DUE TO VIOLATION OF HATE SPEECH POLICY–I DO AND WILL PROHIBIT THIS DISGUSTING SHIT FROM BEING POSTED ON MY BLOG. BEN STEIGMANN, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED ONCE.]

        It’s ironic that Middle Eastern rogue states are being propped up as “nuclear threats”, when the real nuclear danger is ignored. Israel has nuclear ambitions against the rest of the world, and poses a definite threat. This threat was expressed by Martin Levi van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, when he wrote: “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.bookextracts

      • muertos says :

        Ben Steigmann, you’ve posted a violently anti-Semitic link, which I redacted. This is your first warning. I really hate to redact peoples’ comments even when I disagree with them but you’ve pushed me over the line, and I advise you not to do it again.

        I’ve retained the substance of your argument because my comments policy (https://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/comments-policy/) requires it. But as a personal favor I would prefer if you take your disgusting Jew-hating shit elsewhere.

        Is this in any way unclear to you?

  18. Jim Treanor says :

    Having been in USS Turner Joy’s CIC on 4 August 1964, I’d suggest that Edwin Moise, NSA historian Robert Hanyok, and the majority of the historical community have gotten it very wrong in asserting that the reported attack that night did not occur. For anyone who’s interested, I’ve spelled out why in a detailed analysis of the Moise and Hanyok accounts posted on my website (http://jimtranr.com). Suffice it to say here that their conclusions are based on heavily cherry-picked “evidence,” faulty–and, in some instances, real-stretch– assumptions, and to some degree ignorance of how things actually work in a fast-moving operational environment. One key problem with their methodology is the short shrift given the multiple topside eyewitnesses who, from different locations, saw a number of discrete and credible indications of a night PT attack.

    It was not, by the way, the captain of USS Maddox but the task group commander aboard Maddox who reported the 4 August attack to Washington. The focus on the “doubts” expressed in his messages is one of two linchpins of the no-attack argument, but it ignores the total context of his comments, both written and uttered, including a very telling post-incident remark to Turner Joy’s CO. The other linchpin, the testimony of then-Commander and F8U Crusader pilot James Stockdale that he had “the best seat in the house”, was demonstrated in a post-incident exercise to be of at best (and that’s giving his testimony a huge benefit of doubt) questionable credibility. I’d add that he came within a hair of blowing our fantail off because he refused to accept shipboard air control of his operations that night.

    I’d note finally that Commander, Seventh Fleet, ordered an independent investigation of the events of that night. His lead investigator, a well-qualified submariner who both was familiar with torpedo characteristics and had real-world prior experience with the so-called “Tonkin Ghost”, was initially a skeptic about the reported 4 August attack. He concluded his investigation with no doubt that what had been sighted was a torpedo wake and that all other pertinent evidence indicated an attack.

  19. Robert Peterman says :

    Aw, this was an extremely nice post. Spending some time and actual effort to create a good article… but what can I say… I hesitate a lot and don’t manage to get anything done.

  20. leinad says :

    Nice try on debunking Thrive, but you didn’t win over the whole jury.. You say that you are an expert on these subjects, history to be exact. I have to ask, were you actually there during these events? first hand? I’m going with NO! So the info that you are an “expert” on is just that, info. You have read books that tell you this is the way it was, but you did not live those stories. Thats all they are, STORIES! Basically, all the books and info out there have told you what to believe! They don’t say, “Here’s some info, read it and then decide what you believe.” I know it’s hard to be a critical thinker nowadays, but you have to question everything! Maybe you are not ready to think outside the box and that’s perfectly fine. YOU are still on your own journey, working out your own life.I get it. Just know that when you a ready to let go of this “system” and move forward with love, we will accept you with open arms, We won’t dismiss your thoughts. I believe a lot of the info presented in Thrive is scary to many people. Maybe it’s easier to “debunk” rather than embrace.. Good luck on your journey. *ONE LOVE*

    “As you think, so it shall be. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

  21. leinad says :

    I just posted a comment and below my comment there is a message displayed which reads; “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” Why is my comment awaiting moderation? Lets go with the definition of moderation… from Google search..

    mod·er·a·tion
    noun /ˌmädəˈrāSHən/
    1. The avoidance of excess or extremes, esp. in one’s behavior or political opinions
    2.The action of making something less extreme, intense, or violent

    …. I have to ask, why would you MODERATE our comments? Maybe if a comment doesn’t mesh well with your theory, well then you can ” Make it less extreme”! ;-P

    • muertos says :

      Comments are moderated because I get several dozen auto-spam comments a day, and if there was no moderation there’d be more of those than there are real comments. Deal with it.

  22. joey diaz says :

    McNamara has an interview documentary that he goes into detail saying they went into war with out knowing exactly what happened in the gulf if tonkin, and that most people in the room weren’t interested in finding out the truth, they just wanted to go to war. Also check out a doc called most dangerous man in America. It also backs up gulf of tonkin being a false flag.

  23. Ian Audy says :

    Debunked? Ha ha ha! Josef Goebbels knew all nicely explain too, and he cleverly debunked each conspiracy theory against Hitler’s Germany. And the atrocities merrily continued on, until the last fanatical blind freak dead or capitulated.

  24. Mac says :

    It seems Mr. Muertos is quite good at ignoring specific points that critics of his have made. For example, I was looking forward to hearing Mr. Muertos’s rebuttal to one commenter by the name of Treok on the subject of the collapse of WTC 7 (near the top of this blog post), particularly because however briefly, it was featured explicitly in the THRIVE documentary.

    Mr. Muertos seems to have this habit of selectively choosing which arguments are worthy of his rebuttals, on more than a few occasions (there are a couple more examples even here in this blog post). I note that you did post a blog response to Mr. Treok, but as Mr. Treok subsequently responded, there was no rebuttal on the specific subject of WTC 7 in that blog post. Following this there was no acknowledgment or even response from Mr. Muertos on the subject of WTC 7.

    I would just ask that Mr. Muertos not be hypocritical in requesting overwhelming evidence for extraordinary claims from his doubters, while simultaneously electing to arbitrarily absolve himself from the very process that he requires his opponents to go through in order to be considered valid arguments in his eyes.

    Cheers

    • Mr. Anon says :

      There are very few conspiracy theories that Muertos hasn’t dealt with before in the subject of 9/11. I urge you to read his comprehensive debunking that he wrote for skeptic.org, where he proves that 9/11 was caused by Al-Qaida terrorist and not the US government.

      • Mac says :

        Mr. Anon,

        Thank you for the advice and link.

        I will probably just stick to this blog since I came here for the honest criticism of the documentary, and not so much to delve into other conspiracy theories. As far as 9/11 goes, for me to make a truly informed decision about the subject I would have to read more about it than I really have a desire to.

        Hopefully Mr. Muertos will take my criticism constructively as that is how it was meant, and I do applaud him for putting in the effort to construct what seems to be an exhaustively thorough debunking of the film. It is important to have both sides heard and to have an open and honest discussion about important issues presented in the film, and Mr. Muertos seems to be doing a pretty good job at keeping the overall theme of the debate civil and respectful. It’s rare to find debate online without the conversation quickly devolving into name-calling and ad hominem attacks, and refraining from that is part of the reason this website is enjoyable to visit.

        Cheers

  25. George Soros says :

    This blog is a waste of time. Anyone who actually watches the evidence presented through the multitude of videos posted on youtube and actually reads the articles posted on the hundreds of websites proving beyond any shadow of doubt that 9/11 was an inside job, and yet continues to state confidently that the official story is true is either an absolute idiot or an absolute new world order operative. Anyone who resorts to nitpicking semantics (“well, technically, ‘false flag’ means bla, bla, bal…”) as a counter to very clear reality that 9/11 was staged to stun the world into submission, justify an endless war of aggression against a tactic (terrorism) and to destroy the very foundation of this country (our declaration of independence, our constitution and our bill of rights) and merge us into a “new world order” (old diabolical tyranny), has nothing of substance to add to my very awake and aware understanding. I hope the Rothschild cabal of Luciferian, greedy, sadistic, depraved control freaks have paid you well to sell your soul to this scam. I have no reason to ever visit this blog again.

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

      Hi George!

      Your situation is best summed up in the last stanza of the the Eagles’ classic from 1976 : “Hotel California”

      Last thing I remember, I was
      Running for the door

      I had to find the passage back
      To the place I was before

      ‘Relax,’ said the night man,
      ‘We are programmed to receive.

      You can checkout any time you like,
      But you can never leave!’

      By now you must realize that Muertos is that “night man” who is programmed to receive you. You may not visit this blog again, but Muertos has your IP address and that’s all the info he and Google (I mean the Government) need to guarantee your rightful place in the coming FEMA camp roundup.

  26. Stevespy says :

    Idiots like this posting “debunking” stories, makes me look at the case even more. There are far too many professionals stating that the 9/11 were an False Flag operation. There has been CIA whistle blowers and the controlled way the buildings were brought down, just doesn’t make sense unless explosives were planted in advance. The pentagon strike is clearly not a Jumbo Jet, as the hole in building just want’t large enough.

    I would encourage anyone looking at these incidents to look at the evidence yourself and draw your own conclusion. With video technology improving, more and more documentaries are coming out highlighting the government cover up.
    Youtube search 9/11 Ripple Effect and 7/7 Ripple Effect. As politicians tell lies, so do governments, If you let them get away with it.

  27. KeepinthePeace says :

    This article is so much contrived crap! It was a staged event and/or at the very least, let to happen… A true FALSE FLAG event that has been used to take more and more rights away from us all. I was in the Army and worked for The Department of the Treasury. I served my time and there are to many glaring facts about this event, the circumstances surrounding it, and the men involved to be ignored. Though, that is EXACTLY what our government and zombie like sleeping sheep of a people would have us believe. Belief is a powerful tool and the message is loud and clear that if you think 9/11 was somehow other than what the main stream media and government says it is, you are a subversive and a terrorist yourself. Nothing could be further from the truth and sadly this beyond tragic event will not be investigated further until some of the folks that were integral in shaping this staged event, are long dead and gone. At the risk of sounding cliche, the coffee has a strong liberating smell so wake up and smell it people! This country is in a sad state where it’s citizens have given up virtually all their rights for a false sense of security.

  28. Who Cares says :

    @muertos

    I sit here, on my throne of wisdom, and kindly ask you to catch a whiff of my scrotum.

    It may yet prove to be the source of your enlightenment.

    Sitting there crowing on your dungheap, is not impressing anybody.

    I have plenty of scrotum stench to go around for you — believe me. Just inhale my scrotum. Inhale it in deeply. Be at peace. Be one with our cosmos. Absorb my essence. Yes — sniff it in.

    Good.

    I love it when dickflops like you and muertos come out of your little holes every now and again, to steer humanity clear of the latest ‘superstition’ and ‘farce’ that somebody has supposedly produced, with the aim to protect those poor, deceived souls, who may end up falling for the evil traps lurking about — how disastrous for us petty fools!

    I truly love it.

    You have done this throughout history. Our entire human cultural history consists of peasants like you, lifting up your wooden hoods covering the holes in the ground you dwell in, to scream at the top of your lungs “ALL YE FOOLS, BEWARE OF THE LATEST DEVILRY LURKING ABOUT! HAST WE NOT SUFFERED YE AND THY ILK’S PROGENITORS IN ABUNDANCE? CLEAR THESE PLAINS ALREADY, SO THAT WE MAY SUFFER OUR PRESENCE IN SPADES O’ LESS. VANISH FROM THESE HOLES ALREADY! ‘TIS OURS!”

    Proceeding with crawling back into your holes and shutting those wooden hoods once you’re satisfied the area’s cleared — only to crawl back out again, once another imagined Devil lurks about.

    But you’ve achieved nothing throughout history. Not a single idea has been put forward by you, not a single invention, not a single act that’s developed mankind’s consciousness or improved our conditions for the future.

    You’re nothing but a petulant and assinine group of armchair critics. You’re parasites, preying on people’s souls, with no contribution in return.

    You’re good at picking. Picking faults and failings. Picking your noses. Picking your assholes. Picking on people and their ideas.

    You’re also good at picking your timing. When the world collapses, you’re nowhere to be found. You’re inside your holes. But WOE to anybody who dares make a contribution of some kind to the world — then you crawl back out and start your favorite hobby: Picking.

    How about you stay behind in your lightless caves, pick your (and each other’s) assholes, and never show yourselves again? If the world does collapse, don’t worry — it would have done so already: BECAUSE YOU LOT ARE COMPLETELY USELESS, SO IT’S NOT AS IF IT WOULD HAVE MADE AN OUNCE OF A DIFFERENCE ANYWAY!

    As I said: Smell my scrotum nice and deep, seal my scrotum scent in a tube, and take it down to your family in that hole you’re dwelling in underground. Perhaps it will enlighten you no-goods yet.

    • Wyboth says :

      Well, Who Cares, I must admit that you’re quite good at writing offensive posts. But that’s as far as the good goes.

      As I did with Hollywood Tom, I’ll go through your post and address every point that you make. Your first point: “YOU ALL SUCK!” This isn’t really a point, but it’s the main thing that you say in your post, so I thought it deserved a mention.

      Second point: “You’re wrong about conspiracy theories. They are real.” Most of the conspiracies that I’ve seen have absolutely no evidence supporting them. None. Zip. Zed. Zero. When asked about how they can prove their claims, they can’t respond because there is no proof for it. We don’t believe them for this exact reason: there is no proof. If there was sufficient evidence for them and they seemed plausible, then we might pay them some attention, but as of now, I’m not convinced that the Namekians of Planet Namek are visiting Earth on December 21, 2012 and are going to conquer it in the name of Lord Slug.

      Third Point: “You don’t contribute anything to society.” Oh, really? You’re telling us that, in our lifetimes, we have done absolutely nothing to help society? News flash: we have. Basically every contribution to society comes from people like us, who have a college degree and are working hard in our respective fields to contribute meaningful things to society. You, on the other hand, sit around on forums all day and shout at all of us because we didn’t like your ideas and call us a bunch of worthless losers because of it. Who’s the one that’s not contributing again?

      Those were all of the points that you made in your comment. I didn’t pay much attention to the first one because it is meaningless and contributes nothing to the discussion. Now, I have a question to ask you. Have you ever considered that you might be wrong? Have you ever considered that the idea that an evil group of people are trying to take over the world is made-up and not real? Have you ever considered that you’ve been misled and that all of the garbage you’ve been spewing isn’t real? Because it sure doesn’t seem like it. You’re so sure of yourself that you’re willing to call us stupid dunces because we don’t agree with you. You aren’t God. You don’t know everything. You’re wrong about this, and you’re making yourself look like an idiot by supporting it like you do. I hope this clears up some things for you.

      Cheers,
      Wyboth

      • Who Cares says :

        @Wyboth

        Point 1: You’re an idiot

        Point 2: You’re an idiot

        Point 3: You’re an idiot

        Final Point: You’re boring

        Absolutely Final Point: Inhale my hairy, aromatic ballsack

        Truly Final Point (cross my heart and hope to die): Would you be so kind as to clean up my anus with your tongue? I did wipe it earlier this morning, but I suspect I couldn’t catch all of it on paper…

      • Wyboth says :

        @Who cares I really think that my post deserved a better reply than this. But since all you did was yell at me, I assume you’re infuriated that you can’t come up with a good rebuttal, so you’re going to keep going on your anger strike. If you’re going to keep acting like a two year old and throw more temper tantrums, all of us are just going to ignore you. If you have anything to say that doesn’t involve anuses, please do so. Otherwise, don’t reply.

  29. sophos says :

    You are doing a very good job by “debunking ” thank you all .
    Concerning false flag operations I have a question for “muertos” : According to you, during the last 50 years did the US ever use terroristes in a false flag operation ?If so how many times when and how ?

  30. Jerry says :

    I had to stop reading and start laughing right at the beginning when you said your proof was from some movie. You just cant accept that this is what government does.

  31. sosolobi says :

    I think most American people are too good-hearted and trusting, to believe their Government is capable of false flag operations. It’s all a game of power and world domination. Fascism disguised as democracy.

    The USA is a War Lord that keeps sending off young (uneducated) people – decades after decades – as cannon fodder to far away countries to fight senseless wars for economy (read: arms and oil) purposes, instead of using the money to solve problems within its own borders.

    Please DO read the PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses – Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. A Report of
    The Project for the New American Century September 2000. That’s where you can see how the the False Flag operation, the New Pearl Harbour, was already being cooked up and turned into 9/11.
    Once Again, it was all about World domination.

    America = False Flag Attacks.
    This disgusting game of power should stop at long last.
    The total waste of money that could be spent in a better way to make The U$A a better society for ALL people, not just for some. No more waste of lives.

    The USA is addicted to wars and oppression. It spreads devastation all over the world, and make us believe it’s about democracy. How in the world can a country that presents itself as a democracy, but lives, breathes and breeds fascism be capable of giving the good example and bring peace in the world??

    It’s time to wake up and see the true face of America.

  32. curiousmuch? says :

    your analysis of what constitutes a false flag is deeply flawed… you are under the false impression that people are arguing the reason behind a false flag is to convince the policy makers of the nations to make a desired decision. that’s why you keep repeating nonsense like “vietnam war would have happened anyway, thus it’s not necessary to create a false flag”, which while the first part of the premise is true in and of itself, the second part shows how you completely miss the point. false flag operations are thought to be necessary in partially democratic nations, where some form of clear cut and simplistic reasons are necessary to present to the public before asking them to make huge sacrifices to support the destructive policies you decide upon. so, vietnam war might have happened anyway, but it would have required some similar simplistic reason which would appeal to the tribal instincts of the masses, causing fear of loss of security (the communist threat in a box) and anger at the other.

    • Anastasio says :

      @curiousmuch

      It is evident, like many other critics of this blog, that you have not read and understood the material that you have attempted to correct. Allow me to present the Wikipedia definition of ‘false flag’ which is used by Muertos within the first few paragraphs of this very debunking:

      ———————————————————————————————————–
      ““False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.”
      ———————————————————————————————————–

      It doesn’t sound entirely dissimilar to your own ‘counter-definition’:

      ———————————————————————————————————-
      “simplistic reasons are necessary to present to the public before asking them to make huge sacrifices to support the destructive policies you decide upon”
      ———————————————————————————————————–

      Simplistic reasons are necessary? And why exactly? And where is your evidence that the Vietnam War required a simplistic reason when you yourself assert that it ‘would have happened anyway’?

      Forgive me for being blunt, but your own cryptic reasoning is in serious need of redress.

      One might argue that your insinuation that any given government requires permission from its people to engage in war, is completely erroneous. Fictitious even. In fact it’s difficult not to accuse you of implying that the US government used the Gulf of Tonkin affair as a means of asking permission from its citizens to install a draft. Presumably this is what you meant by huge sacrifices?

      Obviously public opinion didn’t matter to the US government once it ‘got its foot in the door’, despite public support for the war falling below 50% less than two years later, right?

      ———————————————————————————————————–
      “false flag operations are thought to be necessary in partially democratic nations”
      ———————————————————————————————————–

      By who exactly? On whose behalf do you speak for?
      And what is meant by a ‘partially democratic country’ and why would it need a false flag operation to engage in war?

      Do you actually have any examples or are we to blindly confide in your cynical interpretation the world around you? Please tell us you have something more valuable than your biased opinion to add to the debate?

      • curiousmuch? says :

        Your pathetic attempt at defending the author is even weaker than the original material so it’s obvious you’re not helping him much, but let me just address your moronic response anyway for the sake of argument.

        ” you have not read and understood the material that you have attempted to correct”

        Oh the irony…

        “It doesn’t sound entirely dissimilar to your own ‘counter-definition’:”

        If my argument was that the author’s definition presented in the article was incorrect, you would have had half a point. Alas, your half-witted attempt at countering my argument falls flat on it’s face because my criticism is based on his reasoning and conclusions, not this particular definition, which he doesn’t really follow in the main body of the article.

        “Simplistic reasons are necessary? And why exactly? And where is your evidence that the Vietnam War required a simplistic reason when you yourself assert that it ‘would have happened anyway’?”

        Another sample of irrational blabber demonstrating that you simply don’t comprehend written English that well. My argument is not that the simplistic reasons are necessary for the rulers to decide on the policy, but to sell that policy to the public.

        “Forgive me for being blunt”

        I forgive you, but not for deliberately being manipulative and misrepresenting my arguments.

        “One might argue that your insinuation that any given government requires permission from its people to engage in war, is completely erroneous”

        One would be wrong, given that in a pseudo-democratic nation like the United States, public opinion eventually makes a difference, like costing the Neo-Conservative wing of the Republican Party their power and influence over U.S. foreign policy.

        “Obviously public opinion didn’t matter to the US government once it ‘got its foot in the door’, despite public support for the war falling below 50% less than two years later, right?”

        Why would you rest your case on a benchmark figure as stupid and irrelevant as 50%… This is not a presidential race. Most people are not single issue voters for your figure to be meaningful. What is important is that almost half (sometimes more than that) of the nation bought these simplistic reasons, which provided enough comfort zone for the war to be declared and continued. Mind you, the reasons to continue the war are almost always the same and even some people who might oppose the reasons for starting the war can find themselves agreeing with these, such as “if we leave now, it would create a bigger mess, our troops will be more under threat if we pull out immediately etc.”

        Iraq war followed a very similar pattern where the case was made on the aftermath of the 911 attacks, yet despite the very unfavorable public opinion of the war during the second term of the Bush administration, arguments such as the ones expressed above helped the continuation of the war.

        “By who exactly? On whose behalf do you speak for?”

        By the professional policy makers, people who aren’t necessarily elected themselves but have an interest in pushing their ideology to the representatives of the people. In the case of the Iraq war, this can be described as the Neo-Conservative cabal, consisting of scholars, journalists, think tanks etc.

        “And what is meant by a ‘partially democratic country’ and why would it need a false flag operation to engage in war?”

        Do you ask so many questions because you’re so ignorant? That would mean countries such as United States, where the decisions of the elected representatives are usually influenced by strong forces other than their constituency such as a media network that shares strong financial interest with powerful corporations, or by their own financial interests.

        “Do you actually have any examples”

        How about the many defense contractors who financially gained from the Iraq war? Is that not a relationship which you consider to be a real example?

        “Please tell us you have something more valuable than your biased opinion to add to the debate?”

        I just did, and I am quite pleased with myself with the thought of wiping that smug grin off your face by discrediting your whole line of argumentation…

      • anticultist says :

        retardedmuch?

      • curiousmuch? says :

        great counter argument dumbo-cultist… givenitalonghardthoughtmuch?

      • anticultist says :

        Just take it on the chin, I don’t need to counter argue your walls of liquid shit sprayed up on the wall above us. You show your ignorance to reality without a word from any of us.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        In other words, you’re just an incompetent coward who can’t put his money where his filthy mouth his😉

        yeah dude, that lame “I’m above this shit so I won’t grace it with my response, but I totally could if I wanted to” pose is really old and all that it does is to expose what a loser you are.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        sorry it needs a clarification just in case, dumbocultist I actually meant to say “LOOOOSEEER”…. but I’m certain you have been at the receiving end of the punishment long enough to understand what I meant the first time.

      • anticultist says :

        Coward ? You are sitting at your keyboard talking about the neo cons from way back in the Reagan and Bush era, instead of living in the present. You have the nerve of calling me a coward when you can’t even move on with your life.

        You have yet to provide an actual false flag that proves conspiracy theory is true.

        Your inane waffling about neo cons proves nothing, other than you read a few news items about late 20th century politics.

        The rest of us have too you fucking biff.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        is that you again, pest?😉
        I knew your pose couldn’t last long and here you are… predictable as a broken clock.

        “You are sitting at your keyboard talking about the neo cons from way back in the Reagan and Bush era, instead of living in the present”

        in case you didn’t notice dumbocultist, this blog post is about patterns historical events. It would be quite irresponsible if these major periods in U.S. history were to be left out of the discussion. By your definition the author of this blog post isn’t moving on with his life. I doubt you think the same way of him or are capable of seeing the sheer stupidity of the double standards you have chosen to implement… but then again, you are the “dumbo”cultist for a reason.

        “You have yet to provide an actual false flag that proves conspiracy theory is true.”

        Which was never my intention to begin with dumbo… To prove a false flag conspiracy one would have to be involved in it, receive some sort of evidence from someone involved in it and another source to confirm it, or have authority to question the possible suspects and examine the evidence.

        What I am trying to do is to figure out the plausibility of such events based on the rationality/accuracy of the given justifications, the course of events immediately following the possible false flag attack and the eventual aftermath of the whole process. My tools for this are the available public records and lessons learned from a few thousands years of recorded human history, such as “people can lie, manipulate and even kill in order to advance their agendas”.

        “Your inane waffling about neo cons proves nothing, other than you read a few news items about late 20th century politics.”

        Well, since we determined that a dumbocultist could’t read even if his worthless life depended on it, let me just conclude by ridiculing you some more… These Neo-Cons are on public record with their expressed beliefs as to how this world operates, and how it should operate. There is no sane historian who disagrees with the fact that these people were influential in the Bush administration. So when I read about some of these people almost wishing for a catastrophic attack on American soil which would be used as an excuse to implement their policies, and then about how much of the intelligence regarding an impeding attack being somehow discarded, eventually leading to a war in Iraq which to this date has no alternative justification based on factual arguments, I conclude that this gives credence to the claim made by some people that this attack might be a false flag operation carried out by way of deliberately not preventing the attacks. How plausible is this, I have no way of measuring…

        But to dismiss it completely as implausible takes a person like you, pretending to be skeptics together with your fellow “patriots” in your little discussion boards, where die hard “america rulezz”, “go capitalism”, “banks rule” sort of people who all think alike converge, and ultimately agree with each other on how other political movements which all think alike and agree with each other should be treated as cults…

      • anticultist says :

        So you have fuck all to say other than the neo cons were a bunch of meanies and the government got people into a war.

        Figures you would be as empty as all the other tards passing through here.

        Trot along you imbecile

      • curiousmuch? says :

        Aww that’s cute… is that how you always react to getting pwned, little dumbo? Let me know when you’re capable of producing more than idiotic strawman and reduction to absurdity fallacies and perhaps your punishment can continue… congrats though, your retardation has reached a new level, you’re now officially dumber than your hero GWB…😉

      • anticultist says :

        Tell yourself whatever you want if it makes you sleep better at night, it’s not me scared by what if boogey men out to ruin the world.

        You pwn yourself son, that’s what is most embarrassing about all this. Worse still you don’t even see it.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        btw, after demonstrating how desperate you are, that you can’t even respond with a single rational counter argument, I believe I deserve the privilege of officially calling you my bitch. It’s up to you to decide whether you want to keep this title… Respond with more incoherent strawman and absurd misrepresentations and stay my bitch, do your homework and relieve yourself of being my property.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        OMG, you totally woke me up with that grand insight… NOT… you’re still my bitch.

      • anticultist says :

        By the way I am not even from the USA so how I could be a patriot or a fan of GWB further erodes your stupid ass claims.

        You ought to at least think what you are saying before jumping to conclusions, much like your bullshit about people lied before therefore equals false flag fallacies.

      • anticultist says :

        You couldn’t come up with a rational observation backed by logic if I gave you one on a plate.

        Your entire series of posts have just been you championing yourself with pats on the back. Yet all you have done is said “neo cons are bad , war is bad , people lie , therefore false flag, maybe I don’t know.”

        You can’t just imply everything is corrupt, then finish it with maybe it’s true what do I know.
        You completely suck at providing valid evidence and debate, when you just negate your own points after saying them. You don’t even believe your own claims.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        “people lied before therefore equals false flag fallacies”

        Here you go being my bitch again… I get the feeling you really like this position😉

        The argument is clear loser, you learn from collective human experience what is possible and look at the facts at hand to see whether it might or might not apply in a particular instance… In this case, I demonstrated clearly why there is an argument to be made as to why and how it might apply. In the mean time you clearly demonstrated how stupid you can be by failing to grasp the difference between what is plausible and what is certain, as well as the underlying reasons for coming to those conclusions…

        “By the way I am not even from the USA so how I could be a patriot or a fan of GWB”

        and I should take your word for it why Mr skeptic?

      • anticultist says :

        Further proof everything I am saying abut you was true, you are just a retard as my first post said.

        You aren’t even on the same level as me which is why you’re unable to even believe your own false flag claims. You still have no evidence for those what ifs and maybes too, how ironic you are running around here claiming victory when all you have done is read off a trope about how bad government and right wingers are.

        Well done, gold star, now fuck off and come back when you have an adult observation.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        “You couldn’t come up with a rational observation backed by logic if I gave you one on a plate.”

        That’s rich, bitch… almost made me laugh… almost…

        “Your entire series of posts have just been you championing yourself with pats on the back. ”

        why, do you think I should give you more credit for being such a mental weakling of an opponent? … I’m getting there… not yet though…

        “neo cons are bad , war is bad , people lie , therefore false flag, maybe I don’t know”

        the fact that you really believe this to be a summary of my arguments… well… now that’s fucking hilarious… that’s laughing at a stupid bitch humour right there… LMFAO🙂

        “You can’t just imply everything is corrupt, then finish it with maybe it’s true what do I know.”

        I don’t imply everything is corrupt dumbo, just possibly some individuals in the Bush administration, and I am smarter than you so I actually know the difference between claiming to know with certainty and expressing the plausibility of something… You just can’t fucking handle it bitch, because your world view is black and white dogma.

        “You completely suck at providing valid evidence and debate, when you just negate your own points after saying them. You don’t even believe your own claims.”

        My dear bitch, the claims are not of a scientific nature… So, it’s not as a matter of certainty that I present them and thus I only contemplate on what I consider to be plausible based on the evidence (Neo-Con ideas expressed on public record, refusal to deal with the threat of impending attack despite the clear warnings and the blatant manipulation in the aftermath of the attack leading to the Iraq war), none of which you could refute…

        My advice bitch, stay down!

      • anticultist says :

        What part of fuck off didn’t you understand ?

      • curiousmuch? says :

        “Further proof everything I am saying abut you was true, you are just a retard as my first post said.”

        Well, if even a retard can make you his bitch… then what are you? a total and complete LOOOSEEER, as I expressed before.

        “You aren’t even on the same level as me”

        If I believed in god, I would have thanked the dude for this! Not even maggots are on the same level as you… and what did you say about patting myself on the back… oh the hypocrisy… LOL

        “You still have no evidence for those what ifs and maybes too”

        I never claimed to have evidence to conclude that 911 was a false flag now did I, dumbo? I already expressed more than twice that I am coming to a conclusion based on what is available to me… which doesn’t include any maybes or what ifs when it comes to evidence… get it maggot?

        “you are running around here claiming victory”

        well, you’re right… that’s a bit redundant… since your corpse stinks of pwnage anyway…

        ” read off a trope about how bad government and right wingers are.”

        seriously dumbo, when did I ever said that… for someone who is just hell bent on evidence, you fail at backing your accusations quite miserably… hence why and how I made you my bitch…

      • curiousmuch? says :

        “What part of fuck off didn’t you understand ?”

        I understand your desires fully, I just don’t give a shit about them because I really enjoy the ass whopping I am delivering to your obviously sub-par intellect.

      • anticultist says :

        OK well I have managed to drag you down to the shittiest level you could probably go to, and therefore made anything you might have said utterly meaningless and unworthy of reading.

        Everyone here can now see you are nothing but a shit throwing monkey unworthy of taking serious, thanks for playing right into my little game.

        Thought you were supposed to be smart, you are nothing but a fucking internet amateur.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        “OK well I have managed to drag you down to the shittiest level you could probably go to, and therefore made anything you might have said utterly meaningless and unworthy of reading.”

        lol, whatever will help you get through the pain🙂 …

        “Everyone here can now see you are nothing but a shit throwing monkey unworthy of taking serious, thanks for playing right into my little game.”

        Aww the classic “pretending to be playing 3D chess” while getting your ass whopped act of the loser… fucking priceless.

        “Thought you were supposed to be smart, you are nothing but a fucking internet amateur.”

        yes, I am such an amateur but thanks to you and your interweb smarts I got the chance to repeat and elaborate on my arguments over and over again, without spamming and while making my opponent look like a complete loser while doing so. You sure are a bona fide genius, Dumbstein.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        Come on loser, I want to see if you’re really going all out for it and doubling down on the legitimacy your pretend strategy… I love watching zit faced imbeciles pretending to understand game theory… Come on dude, stick to your guns or it won’t work… you know it as well as I do…

      • anticultist says :

        Thanks for being the star clown in my circus.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        Thanks for being my reliable bitch and doing exactly what I knew you would do. I told you to double down and stick to your guns, you did and did so pathetically by using the oldest trick in the book – trying to sneak it past me by responding hours later…

        Your playbook is old bitch, don’t forget to tell your predictable gang of morons their number is up.

      • a rational person says :

        curiousmuch? you’re a fucking nutbag.

        what conspiracy shit do you believe in? 911 was an inside job? lizard people? haarp? rfid chips? fema camp? judy wood ray guns did 911? illuminati? jews run the world? federal reserve is evil? queen liz is an alien?

        why don’t u tell us what you really believe? or are you a fucking coward, nutbag?

      • curiousmuch? says :

        One conspiracy “fact” I believe is this… There are a bunch of morons pretending to be skeptics (e.g. dumbocultist), creating/joining internet discussion forums to “debunk” anything which goes against their moronic collective rigid world view (i.e. capitalism rocks, usa rulezz) and mistakenly believing, the hipsters they are, that they have mastered some true scientific knowledge of how to discredit their opponents, as try and apply their amateurish understanding of game theory in their ridiculous trolling tactics, ultimately failing miserably and most of the time actually falling prey to their own stupidity.

        This is because the people they try to debunk are usually much ahead of their game having infiltrated their little cultist circles, knowing full well how these “skeptics” put to use their public high school education backed with a couple of “for dummies” books. This is also how I am able to dictate to dumbocultist what he/she’ll do, knowing full well he’ll stick to his juvenile plan, and end up predicting his responses well ahead of time… So, when he pretended to achieve some sort of 3D chess victory by begging me to accept his alternate reality of how things have panned out in our exchange, I knew I had the little loser on the ropes and squirming for a way out… Now, all he has left to save his sorry ass from more humiliation is to double/triple down on his rhetoric (ridicule, claims of victory, fantasy 3D chess alternate universe theories) and I will ride it out by ignoring that pathetic little wanker. This is also why I am not responding to him, but to you… which will ultimately incite him to post more replies, perhaps one every hour… perhaps less… Anyway, when you own an energizer bunny, you know how they’ll act every time you charge their batteries.

      • anticultist says :

        “One conspiracy “fact” I believe is this… There are a bunch of morons pretending to be skeptics (e.g. dumbocultist), creating/joining internet discussion forums to “debunk” anything which goes against their moronic collective rigid world view (i.e. capitalism rocks, usa rulezz) ”

        Yep it is a conspiracy theory you have. I am not American, don’t think the USA rocks, don’t necessarily think capitalism rocks, but then again I don’t hate it either.

        Shame you have to make shit up about people when they have never said them, in order to make yourself feel better. Further proving what a clown you are.

      • a rational person says :

        wow curiousmuch? what a fucking hero you are. we should all worship you. “ridiculous trolling tactics,” huh? right wing lovers of capitalism?

        i am a fucking marxist, douchebag. capitalism can suck my fucking dick.

        “game theory”? ok, here’s some “game theory” for you. a bunch of socially retarded white kids who live in their parents basements watch some idiotic youtube videos about conspiracy theories and suddenly think they’ve “taken the red pill” and they know everything about everything. and they think everyone who calls them out on their conspiracy bullshit is some sort of right wing troll. then they go around the internet farting out their conspiracy bullcrap (like u’re doing here) and they pretend like they get to ignore facts because, oh yea, they watched a bunch of youtube videos about conspiracy theories and now they know OMG 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB AND QUEEN LIZ IS A REPTILE PERSON AND NASSIM HARAMEIN IS GONNA WIN THE NOBEL PRIZE AND EVERYONE WHO CRITICIZES CONSPIRACY THEORIES IS A GREEDHEAD AND A GARBAGE BEING!!!!

        you ppl should be sterilized so you can’t breed and pollute the world with more of your bullshit brain dead thinking.

      • anticultist says :

        Hey Rational

        Read that last post made by retardmuch? Look how much I got under their skin. His entire post was just vitriol about me lol, I think this one is sewn up mate.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        just as predicted, dumbocultist responds… I so own this looooser…

      • a rational person says :

        i wanna know what conspiracy shit he believes in so we know how nuts he is. theres a scale you know.

        911 inside job = run of the mill nutbag
        haarp = super fruitcake nutbag
        federal reserve is evil = loopy ron paul nutbag
        jews run the world = anti semite heil hitler nutbag
        illuminati runs the world = 2 tons of nutbags (alex jones)
        judy woods ray guns = totally batshit guacamole for brains nutbag (stratoblaster)
        i love eustace mullins = purple spinning space donut nutbag (foster gamble)
        lizard people run the world = absolutely fucking off the charts, round ’em up, put ’em in an asylum before they kill somebody nutbag (david icke)

      • anticultist says :

        I don’t think this head case has the balls to admit what conspiracy theories he believes in because he knows as soon as he does, he walks right into being shown up for the world class clown he is.

        He would rather just say people are right wing capitalist drones, and hint that the world is ran by evil people carrying out false flags without any evidence. Also using rhetoric hat allows him to say I was only speculating, the typical ass wipe techniques “the only asking questions” crowd do.

      • a rational person says :

        yea, most of the conspiritards who come on here are too pussy to admit what conspiracy theories they believe in because they know it makes em look like the fucking raving loons they are. then we get shit like “why do u care what i believe?” they’re just a bunch of pussies!

        but a lot of em let it slip anyway…like that scientologist guy who believes in xenu…or that stupid kid who worship the zeitgest guy, whatever the fuck his name is…jeezus christ, i still can’t believe ppl like this really exist. i need a drink.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        “i am a fucking marxist, douchebag. capitalism can suck my fucking dick.”

        yeah, sure you are a retarded person… just like your buddy dumbocultist isn’t an american, nor a capitalist apologist…

        “they think everyone who calls them out on their conspiracy bullshit is some sort of right wing troll”

        well, I know for a fact dumbocultists is a right wing troll… he has a whole website dedicated to attacking zeitgeist and he posts regularly on certain internet forums along with his buddies like JimJesus etc. who are self-admitted libertarians… unlike your idiotic presumptions, I happen to be stalking the stalkers and trolling the trolls with a method… which is why I share my experiences in what they know so fellow citizens who are trolled by these losers know the real deal.

        “911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB AND QUEEN LIZ IS A REPTILE PERSON ”

        and you’re supposed to be a rational person, ironically bitching and moaning about others coming to conclusions about you with prejudice, lumping you together with everyone else. your fake cry of “i am a fucking marxist” sounds like a joke… and yeah, everyone who questions the official story of any event also believes in lizard people thank you very much for that display of utter genius… are you sure you’re not a capitalist like dumbocultist?

        “yea, most of the conspiritards who come on here are too pussy to admit what conspiracy theories they believe in”

        you must be the dumbest marxist I ever saw… and all you fucking needed to do is to read what I wrote on 911. Obviously anything complex and not fitting into one of your imaginary boxes on the “types” of people you believe there are must be met with an effort to try and shoehorn that person into a comfort zone where you can act like you figured them out… what a retarded person you are…

      • anticultist says :

        LOL this guy is a fucking crazy bastard, he is stalking people haha

        He thinks I am American ha ha, not a very fucking good stalker are you son.

      • anticultist says :

        rational this retard completely misssd your sarcastic comment about being a marxist douchebag ha ha. That reply he just made showing how he was completely oblivious to your sarcasm is a classic.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        ‘sup my bitch, jealous you got some competition for the spot?

      • a rational person says :

        curiousmuch is just a loony nut. he obviously believes that 911 was an inside job. probably believes in lizard people too. so he’s a nutbag. not a single rational thought in his head.

        for the record i hate capitalism. i think libertarians are lower than pond scum. i fucking hate them. one reason why thrive sucks so bad is because it’s a big circle jerk for loons like foster gamble who like ron paul. fuck that shit.

        and zeitgest is fucking bullshit too. its like scientology with 911 truth in place of l. ron hubbard. only a stupid nut would agree with that crap. so u believe in zeitgest, curiousmuch? u one of those fucking nutbags who worships that peter joey guy and cums over pictures of bubble cities that nobody will ever build?

        jeezuz…these nutbags are all the same. srsly. total sterilization. that is the only answer. u believe in 911 truth or thrive or zeitgest, u cannot have children. ever. period. thats really the only way.

      • anticultist says :

        Yup dude is a thrivetard/zeitard and a self admitted stalker.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        I enjoy watching my two bitches make out. Keep at it losers, incestuously validate each others opinion on how everyone else is a victim of cult mentality and how smart and above it the two of you are… lmfao🙂

      • a rational person says :

        hahahahahaa, the stupid fuck probably dosen’t realize that peter jim jones manson or whatever the fuck his name is (the guy who leads zeitgest) is a super capitalist libertarian who supported ron paul for president in 2008 and makes money selling his stupid conspiracy movie to netflix.

        srsly, i bet this fuck doesn’t even know that. these conspiritards never do their research on anything so why should we expect him to know that his biggest idol is a fucking capitalist.

        fucking nutbags!

    • Anastasio says :

      @ curiousmuch?

      ——————————————————————————————————-
      “Your pathetic attempt at defending the author is even weaker than the original material so it’s obvious you’re not helping him much, but let me just address your moronic response anyway for the sake of argument. “
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Defending? Why of course not! I am not Muertos’ shield but a mere constituent of the unwashed lay who seeks to differ with your penchant of interjecting personal definition into a public forum. Not so much for the sake of argument with a man who speaks with the same polemical rhetoric as a child mid-tantrum, for that would be a waste of my precious time, but for the sake of letting you demonstrate in your own words to everyone here why you are patently wrong. Besides, all this bickering and you still haven’t shown that the Gulf of Tonkin was a pretext for a war that the US had already been inextricably involved in for the past ten years.

      So by all means, take centre stage and address away my good man!

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      ” you have not read and understood the material that you have attempted to correct” – Anastasio

      Oh the irony…- curiousmuch?
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      It is truly an admirable feat that you should detect irony without the use of a percontation point! And more ironical still that your insertion of ellipses is rather telling of an ineptitude or an absent confidence to expand on the irony you so smugly apprehended, rather than your desire to use said ellipses for the rhetorical effect for which they were presumably intended.
      For if you truly understood irony as much as you would yearn to have us think, then I would wager you would have ceased with your ‘fabulous insights’ after your first posting here! For make no mistake, my student of Eiron, I have done you the honour of perusing your ‘wit’ from the very first capital letter to the very last full stop and have arrived at the unfortunate conclusion that you perhaps do not understand yourself much either.

      For it is evident to those with just the slightest insight into the world of semantics and logical fallacy, that your argument can be ground down into morphemic paste and reconstructed into more palatable tallow catch, more deserving of consumption by us mere mortals of inferior intellect.

      Thusly:

      1) You argue from personal definition. No doubt about it. You have taken the literal meaning of false flag to fit your own and have blundered most spectacularly in doing so.

      2) The employment of personal definition evokes the ugly demon we know as ‘circular reasoning’. (Your argument appears at first glance to equipoise on whom you have decided needs convincing with a false flag event.)

      3) Anyone who disagrees with your personal definitions is a halfwit, apparently (you are just another example of the unwitting elitist faux-intellectual uprising sweeping the cyber world).

      4) You appear to have trouble deciding whether public opinion is/was important enough to appease to engage in war or who actually has influence (patience, we shall get to this later).

      5) You have no evidence to fall back on. Defensive insults yes, anything of substance, nada.

      In fact, your sole provision of what you call evidence is your own belief that someone who appears to be profiting from supplying a service during war time has had an influence on how that very war started i.e. a false flag event (and you tritely dismiss the broken window fallacy in the process), and still, we both agree that the Vietnam War would have happened anyway.

      Yes curiousmuch? Despite the ‘simplistic reasoning’ of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, despite the US being involved in the war since 1954, the Vietnam War would have happened anyway.

      Can you dig it? We are in accordance my good fellow, why the hostility?

      Ergo, my incandescent luminary, for your convenience and the sake of brevity I have pruned the ‘florid prose’ of your argument to reveal its most pertinent fruit – and appetising it is not!

      Your personal turmoil and whimsical meandering reasoning is rapture to behold and delightful to highlight in face of the fanfare of deluded and smug omniscience which punctuates every post you have ‘graced’ us with. These are truly rare moments on this blog, and I hope your presence here will not be short-lived!

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      Another sample of irrational blabber demonstrating that you simply don’t comprehend written English that well.
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Correct! I would be the first to argue that my English skills are not on par with Strunk’s recommendations nor do I hold Politics and the English Language to be the literal tenets of written communication! I am no lyrical alchemist nor practising student of the old bard! I wear my numerous grammatical errors and prolonged, verbose sentences proudly like egg on my tie sir, for I am just a humble working man, borne of the proletariat – and yet, I, a simple layman of our mother tongue, can discern the conflict and lack of evidence and reasoning in your own use of English.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “My argument is not that the simplistic reasons are necessary for the rulers to decide on the policy, but to sell that policy to the public. ”
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Then I would argue what use is the public’s opinion to a policy that has already been decided? Presumably the rulers need not create a false flag event to deceive and convince and themselves? A rather superfluous concept to say the least. Shame you never caught that one before hitting Post Comment.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “I forgive you, but not for deliberately being manipulative and misrepresenting my arguments.”
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Such a crass insinuation, and we were getting along so well! I have done nothing of the kind sir! I object! I object! Did my hand guide yours in to writing what is posted under your very own moniker? Do I stand guilty of telepathically influencing your thoughts and ideas from across the Atlantic Sea? Do you accuse me of hacking this blog and altering your words so I may ‘go on the pell’, so to speak?”

      In the most polite and respectful manner, I shall forgo your forgiveness on this one occasion, as it is more a question of a grown man’s responsibility for his actions, surely? You are guilty of scribing what is scribed by your hand alone, and the evidence shall remain on this blog for the world to see! All are invited to read your insinuations and then question the validity of my related objections and consequently the validity of your argument. I gain nothing from making your argument look weak; you are doing a capital job of that yourself! But to shun the responsibility and ownership of your very own words now is a key indicator that your confidence in your ‘beliefs’ is waning.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      One would be wrong, given that in a pseudo-democratic nation like the United States, public opinion eventually makes a difference, like costing the Neo-Conservative wing of the Republican Party their power and influence over U.S. foreign policy.
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      There’s that word again – pseudo-democratic. The very wording implies that only the mere illusion of democracy exists, and therefore the vote and opinion of the public is generally irrelevant, as according to the definition of democracy. Does anyone else apart from curiousmuch? think that an unfair interpretation of pseudo-democratic?

      Hence the bone of contention: if the US is a pseudo-democratic nation, how can public opinion make a difference? If the policies are not affected by public opinion then why consult them? Since when did the voice of the hoi polloi matter the dictatorship as vividly described by yourself?

      Most importantly, why do you continue to contradict yourself and call me stupid? Most peculiar!

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      Why would you rest your case on a benchmark figure as stupid and irrelevant as 50%… This is not a presidential race.
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Another fantastic show-boating of your inclination to self-conflict and an example of how not to use the English language!

      If you find the official survey conducted by Lunch and Sperlich at the time to be ‘stupid and irrelevant’ then that, is quite simply, fair enough. You’re entitled to your opinions as am I, but your curt, and somewhat fascist dismissal of the irrelevant vox populi, which you claim to be a deciding factor in false flag events, is deeply bemusing. Whether it’s a presidential race or not, public opinion is important, per you argument correct? Hence the simplistic reasons, aka, false flag events, needed to sway it in the ‘policy maker’s’ favour, correct? Therefore, my pointing out that support for the war fell, and continued to fall below 50% after two years should have some meaning in a democratic nation that had no less than four presidents oversee the Vietnam War (I recline the opportunity to speak for the significance what that figure bears to a ‘pseudo-democratic nation’ as you have still not acquainted us with your self-definition and significance of the term yet).

      Opinion poll shows that less than half of the US public opposed the war for the majority of its existence, yet you continue to argue thusly:

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      Most people are not single issue voters for your figure to be meaningful. What is important is that almost half (sometimes more than that) of the nation bought these simplistic reasons, which provided enough comfort zone for the war to be declared and continued. Mind you, the reasons to continue the war are almost always the same and even some people who might oppose the reasons for starting the war can find themselves agreeing with these, such as “if we leave now, it would create a bigger mess, our troops will be more under threat if we pull out immediately etc.”
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      And who asserted that most people are single issue voters? Oh that’s right…you did! Your implication that public opinion can and requires to be swayed by a single event (in a pseudo-democratic nation no less) kind of delivers the same effect no? I seem to be taking a lot of flak for the accusations you are making Like I said before, it’s all about responsibility and accounting for your own actions.

      So, again, why is it important in a pseudo-democratic country, (that presumably isn’t democratic) that the public’s opinion is engineered to mirror that of the policy makers? Why is almost half, or sometimes more than half (majority rules in democracy remember!) of the public a significant portion in a pseudo-democratic country and stupid and irrelevant to a war that was overseen by four presidents? Where are you plucking your values of almost-half-or-sometimes-more from curiousmuch? I have a good idea but shall recline from commenting in the interests of propriety!

      So let’s have a look at what your words actually say, seeing how you are blissfully unaware of their impact:

      Most people (less than half) are not single issue voters, but it is important that sometimes more than half of those people (who are not single issue voters per your assertion but must be able to be influenced by a single issue) are swayed by a single event (such as the Gulf of Tonkin) because their opinion matters in a pseudo-democratic nation (where the public presumably have no say yet their government apparently needs their permission to draft them involuntarily in to the armed forces) where the question of the race for the presidential leadership comes up no less than three times during the Vietnam War, but apparently it is irrelevant and stupid to mention that and somehow “almost half” constitutes a majority?

      I’d suggest confusedmuch? as a more suitable title.

      I’m sure there is nothing in the above passage that can’t be made sense of with a decoder ring, but unfortunately I tend to leave mine at home when doing my opponent the honour of making my argument legible and coherent.

      You’re quite a confused individual curiousmuch?, and your self-definitions and inability to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about are probably the reasons why your detractors here have sought to ridicule you rather than to waste their time to try and figure out whatever it is you’re trying to say.

      At least I have entertained you to that end. For you will find that even though I am but an unworthy, illiterate serf in your presence, you can never take a man’s magnanimity through insult and prevarication.

      Keep making your backwards assertions, and I shall reciprocate by perusing, understanding and educating you in in what they actually mean to someone other than yourself.

      It’s the least I can do for your effort.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      Iraq war followed a very similar pattern where the case was made on the aftermath of the 911 attacks, yet despite the very unfavorable public opinion of the war during the second term of the Bush administration, arguments such as the ones expressed above helped the continuation of the war.
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Oh I see? Kind of backs up the insinuation about getting the foot in the door no? You have good ground to accuse me of being lazy, perhaps even ignorant here, but do you have the polls that show that “if we leave now, it would create a bigger mess, our troops will be more under threat if we pull out immediately etc.” was a governing and widely held philosophy and non-false flag event that overruled the importance of the public’s support for the war? In fact, perhaps you can educate me in the relevance to false flag events, its non-relevance to a presidential race and most importantly, how more than half of the US public were swayed without a false flag event?

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “By who exactly? On whose behalf do you speak for?” – Anastasio

      By the professional policy makers, people who aren’t necessarily elected themselves but have an interest in pushing their ideology to the representatives of the people. In the case of the Iraq war, this can be described as the Neo-Conservative cabal, consisting of scholars, journalists, think tanks etc. – curiousmuch?
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      No curiousmuch? No. This is simply your belief that false flag events are necessary. Not the voice of the unnamed (unelected?) “professional policy makers” or anyone else. It is simply your cynical interpretation of history and you are simply not intelligent enough nor do you carry the authority to speak on anyone’s behalf, unless of course their brain cell count can be totted up on one hand.

      Just a few paragraphs prior you were trying to convince me that the opinion of the public was paramount, and curiously enough, that assertion is now suspiciously omitted from your argument. Because, lo and behold…

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      Do you ask so many questions because you’re so ignorant? That would mean countries such as United States, where the decisions of the elected representatives are usually influenced by strong forces other than their constituency such as a media network that shares strong financial interest with powerful corporations, or by their own financial interests.
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      …the public do not even get a mention in your idea of how ‘it all really works’ because now you flit to the idea that public opinion isn’t that important because it isn’t the sole or strongest influence in a government’s affairs.

      Congratulations, that has to be the best example of fucking yourself over I have witnessed to date anywhere on the internet. As we finally get to the crux of the problem I imagine your points and assertions are no doubt sliding away from you because even you now realise that they are not worth holding on to.

      You have completely incriminated yourself of incompetence at the most fundamental level of polemics, which we would know as making a point and sticking to it.

      And to answer your query, though I may feel a little dumber after entertaining whatever it is you’re trying to say I do not ignore anything. I ‘ask so many questions’ simply because your argument is…questionable. Yes I ask questions curiousmuch?, because this is a debate and that’s exactly what the art of polemics can be defined as; questioning your opponent to get answers.

      I will of course address any instances of ignorance on my part, but as I have shown, you are unable to decide for yourself the importance and influence of public opinion and how it speaks to its government, therefore your false flag event argument (Gulf of Tonkin, or simplistic reasons as you would have it) in this case is also not beyond question, ergo, your circle of reasoning could best be described in allegorical terms as the Ouroboros; a self-devouring, mythical entity.

      Beautiful.

      Who would have known you could evoke such fanciful rhetoric in a man so unlearned in English?

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      How about the many defense contractors who financially gained from the Iraq war? Is that not a relationship which you consider to be a real example?
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      A real example of what exactly? That services are required and provided during times of war? Is this another conspiracy or yet another refutation of your own argument that public support is paramount despite the fact that higher powers are pulling the strings?

      Just what are the defence contractors guilty of?

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “Please tell us you have something more valuable than your biased opinion to add to the debate?” – Anastasio

      I just did, and I am quite pleased with myself with the thought of wiping that smug grin off your face by discrediting your whole line of argumentation…-curiousmuch?
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Wow not so fast hotshot! It’s one thing to claim it and another to actually do it!
      We still have plenty of time for wiping smug grins off faces and discrediting arguments and I’m just warming up!

      Please, let’s not end it before it began by feigning premature victory.
      That’s the easy way out.

      • Bruce Campbell's Chin says :

        Hey, curiousmuch?, are you Matt Salmon from the conspiritards and skeptics group? Your writing style is very similar.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        How sad must it be for you that all your hours wasted on coming up with such prose fails to hide your stupidity… and how sad is it for anyone who believes that they’ll get away with stupidity just because they can put their stupidity in a nice gift wrapped basket… of course both are rhetorical questions so save your precisious breath.

        ” a mere constituent of the unwashed”

        oh hey, at least you have a sense of humor, but unfortunately not a sense of self… LMFAO…

        “that would be a waste of my precious time”

        apparently it’s not that precious so that it takes you days to come up with a reply to a “child mid-tantrum”, most of it obviously spent on embellishments instead of the content… again, how sad.

        “all this bickering and you still haven’t shown that the Gulf of Tonkin was a pretext for a war”

        yeah, dipshit… It’s obvious that you haven’t read the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and how this event was used to portray the North as the unprovoked aggressors against U.S. and not mentioning the years of U.S. military assistance to the south which provoked such an incident (the actual attack).

        “It is truly an admirable feat that you should detect irony without the use of a percontation point! ”

        It is truly admirable you are so stupid to believe such is necessary… The irony is implicit, in the actions of a man accusing someone else of something in the mean time doing it themselves. Get it dumbo? How stupid of you to go off a tangent on this and waste more of your “precious” time.

        ” You have taken the literal meaning of false flag to fit your own and have blundered most spectacularly in doing so”

        again demonstrating quite well your lack of comprehension skills, halfwit. I have never explicitly called on Gulf of Tonkin as a false flag operation. I have used that term in relation to what I believe to be a deliberate act on behalf of some elements of the U.S. gov’t in the 911 attacks. I challenge your dumbness to come up with a quote of mine saying otherwise. Which renders the second of your five points a tirade meaningless until you do so…

        ” Anyone who disagrees with your personal definitions is a halfwit, apparently”

        well, thanks for proving otherwise… hint: sarcasm

        ” You appear to have trouble deciding whether public opinion is/was important enough to appease to engage”

        nope, this is just you being a moron once again… public opinion not so much important in making the decision internally to go to war, it is almost necessary to go to war and still stay in power, it’s importance diminishes as the war goes on because the declared reasons for staying in the war are usually shared by some people who disagreed with this in the first place.

        “You have no evidence to fall back on”

        except that I do, halfwit… such as the examples I have given on 911 attacks… motive > “negligance” > lies and public manipulation > course of action fitting the motive…

        “In fact, your sole provision of what you call evidence is your own belief that someone who appears to be profiting from supplying a service during war time has had an influence on how that very war started”

        wrong again, dumbo. just read above… and the example of military contractors was not given to demonstrate that they were the primary motives behind the war… but as an influence of sorts which is undemocratic (hence the reason for calling U.S. a pseudo-democracy) and which does have a profit to make as a result of the continuation of the war.

        “Hence the bone of contention: if the US is a pseudo-democratic nation, how can public opinion make a difference?”

        Since I explained how this works before… why do you bother to ask such a stupid question again?

        yeah… in fact, I think I demonstrated enough of your stupidity so I’ll leave the rest of your ramblings untouched for it’s just an exercise in redundancy to express again what I have already made very clear…
        unlike you my time is actually precious that I can’t explain thing over and over again just because a halfwit doesn’t get them the first time, so I hope you’ll stay down this time dumbo.

    • Anastasio says :

      @curiousmuch?
      ——————————————————————————————————–
      apparently it’s not that precious so that it takes you days to come up with a reply to a “child mid-tantrum”, most of it obviously spent on embellishments instead of the content… again, how sad.
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      How sad? Well, it might well cheer you up, my sour faced-friend, when I tell you that it took the whole of my tea break on Monday (approximately 25 minutes) to write my reply to you. I usually have better things to do in my unpaid time over the weekend, hence my tardy reply. Strangely enough, it took you three days for you to formulate your own response, and though the promptness, or lack thereof, of your retort bears absolutely nothing of significance to me, what does it say to an obviously concerned individual such as yourself?

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “It is truly an admirable feat that you should detect irony without the use of a percontation point! ” – Anastasio

      It is truly admirable you are so stupid to believe such is necessary… The irony is implicit, in the actions of a man accusing someone else of something in the mean time doing it themselves. Get it dumbo? How stupid of you to go off a tangent on this and waste more of your “precious” time. -curiousmuch?
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      That would be hypocrisy in its most literal sense that you have described, my student of Eiron, and I am wholly cognizant of the implication of my actions and words, and it obviously takes a smarter mind than yours to appreciate that.

      You, however, have just illustrated yet again the extent of your blinkered self-assuredness and inability to recognise what everyone in this audience has known from act one, which of course more comfortably fits the parameters of irony.

      So play on my brave protagonist!

      Your keenness to address my every instance of Socratic Irony and sarcasm is, somewhat cheap, and yet much anticipated from a man of such diminished, noetic value.

      To employ such poetic rejoinders such as “dumbo” and “dipshit” when addressing your blunders would be the waste of my precious time I fear most.

      You say it better than I ever could.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      again demonstrating quite well your lack of comprehension skills, halfwit. I have never explicitly called on Gulf of Tonkin as a false flag operation.
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      *brakes screeching* Well is that right now?! Let me fetch my spectacles and peruse your initial argument again for fear of misquoting you!:

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “that’s why you keep repeating nonsense like “vietnam war would have happened anyway, thus it’s not necessary to create a false flag”, which while the first part of the premise is true in and of itself, the second part shows how you completely miss the point. false flag operations are thought to be necessary in partially democratic nations,” – curiousmuch February 28th 2013 8:26pm
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Look curiousmuch, there it is right there, copied and pasted from the very same text that you wrote here a few days earlier!

      Muertos argues that the Vietnam War would have ’happened anyway’ regardless of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident because it is not necessary to create a false flag…to which you respond that a false flag operation was necessary i.e. the Gulf of Tonkin Incident!

      If the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the very context in which your argument is made, is not the necessary false flag you refer to then which is it?

      Be warned curiousmuch, I am not in the habit of letting people back-peddle their way out of an argument and I shall make no such exception for you my boy!

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      I have used that term in relation to what I believe to be a deliberate act on behalf of some elements of the U.S. gov’t in the 911 attacks.
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      And you also explicitly used that term (your own personal definition) in your first post in refuting Muertos’ assertion that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was not a false flag event. So you are either deliberately misleading or forgetting what you wrote five minutes earlier.

      Would you like to accept this as truth or do I have to copy and paste your own words again?

      And believe it or not, no one actually cares what you believe.
      “I believe” is the stock argument of the conspiracy theorist and it means absolutely nothing to me.

      All the same,iIt’s rather fitting that you should demonstrably argue from belief and accuse me of being a halfwit for questioning it.

      Your whole line of reasoning and logic has just been crushed like a grape between the teeth of a vice. Having your faith put on the spotlight and your personal attachment to it walked all over does kind of explain your irrational and indignant responses.

      I was almost careless enough to put it down to an age thing before I realised the imminent risk of alienating a whole generation of 10-year olds.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      I challenge your dumbness to come up with a quote of mine saying otherwise. Which renders the second of your five points a tirade meaningless until you do so…
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Well I just did! If Muertos’s is incorrect about there being no false flag event then which one are you talking about that was necessary to the US Military’s involvement in Vietnam?

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      It’s obvious that you haven’t read the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and how this event was used to portray the North as the unprovoked aggressors against U.S.
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      The above smacks of the typical conspiracy theorist cynicism that the internet is bombarded with daily and makes no provisions for the fact that, whichever way you look at it, attacking the assets of another country in international waters, is an act of war. You don’t have to sell it or gift wrap it to anyone.

      However you believe the event was ‘portrayed’, public permission was not needed, nor asked for in order for the US Government to deploy troops to Vietnam.

      Your use of “unprovoked” and ‘portrayal’ in this instance, is deliberately misleading – or misguided.

      Take your pick.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      You appear to have trouble deciding whether public opinion is/was important enough to appease to engage” – Anastasio

      nope, this is just you being a moron once again… public opinion not so much important in making the decision internally to go to war, it is almost necessary to go to war and still stay in power, – curiousmuch
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Almost necessary? So by your own definition; public opinion isn’t exactly necessary? Who do you think you are convincing with your unsure weasel wording here, curiousmuch?

      I’m also very aware that you have now appended “and still stay in power” to your claim, even though it is going to fuck you over big time as we will see shortly.

      Bravo, you utter numbnuts, even in trying to refute my accusation you deliver yet another example of your inability to decide whether public opinion is important or not.

      In short, as it is painfully evident to everyone reading, referendums are not held to decide whether a country goes to war or not. In the case of Vietnam, the decision had already been made internally, (per your latest assertion) and the public vote/ voice was not necessary (per your latest assertion) to Johnson’s decision for military involvement, and to top it all, Johnson did not stay in power (in spite of your latest assertion) meaning that your suspicions can be proven historically incorrect.

      Yet, despite what your claims of public support actually mean to a government regarding war, Nixon managed to continue the Vietnam conflict for another five years despite that important/ unimportant (why can’t you decide?) public opinion falling to 28% by 1971.

      None of it matches up to what you claim. I honestly do not know how I can make it any simpler for you curiousmuch?

      It’s really not my fault you don’t understand it.

      ——————————————————————————————————–

      its importance diminishes as the war goes on because the declared reasons for staying in the war are usually shared by some people who disagreed with this in the first place.”

      ——————————————————————————————————–

      The importance of public opinion diminishes despite you claiming 5 minutes earlier that public opinion is important for a president to stay in power? Make up your mind man!

      So, it is unimportant that only 28% of the US public supported the Vietnam War by it’s terminal years and protests continued for it’s duration, but equally important that this figure does not affect the voter’s actions at the polling booth?

      For the second time; any examples you could share or we again just to accept your ‘learned’ opinion as veritable fact?

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “You have no evidence to fall back on” – Anastasio

      except that I do, halfwit… such as the examples I have given on 911 attacks… motive > “negligance” > lies and public manipulation > course of action fitting the motive… – curiousmuch?
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Except that means, motive and opportunity do not constitute evidence – which puts you right back at square one, you dumb shit.

      You offer a rudimentary, supposititious joining of the dots guided by your delusional inclinations and call that evidence and me a halfwit!

      You are quite a specimen curiousmuch, I really am eliciting some of your finest quotes that unfortunately for you are now chronicled for everyone to come and have good smirk at. Keep it up champ.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “In fact, your sole provision of what you call evidence is your own belief that someone who appears to be profiting from supplying a service during war time has had an influence on how that very war started” – Anastasio

      wrong again, dumbo. just read above… and the example of military contractors was not given to demonstrate that they were the primary motives behind the war… but as an influence of sorts which is undemocratic (hence the reason for calling U.S. a pseudo-democracy) and which does have a profit to make as a result of the continuation of the war. – curiousmuch
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      No, I am undoubtedly correct. At the time of my commenting the defence contractors insinuation was the only example of evidence you had provided, and even then we are required to turn a blind eye to the textbook definition of evidence to continue the debate.

      You have given no example of the unnamed military contractors “influence of sorts” and therefore no authority to judge the integrity of American democracy, bearing in mind that no referendum for the invasion of Afghanistan was held, or expected, in the first place i.e. the public’s permission was not needed!

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “Hence the bone of contention: if the US is a pseudo-democratic nation, how can public opinion make a difference?” – Anastasio

      Since I explained how this works before… why do you bother to ask such a stupid question again? – curiousmuch
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Why do I keep asking? Oh I don’t know, maybe because you are unable to answer it satisfactorily to fit the rest of your argument – and it is most satisfying trying to anticipate what will be produced next time your two brain cells collide.

      The importance of public opinion in a ‘pseudo-democratic’ country, one would assume by the definition of democracy, is of no importance – and still you continue to argue that it is important?

      It appears that it is simply a case of you having to tidy up your definitions and stop confusing the issue with your subjectivity.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      yeah… in fact, I think I demonstrated enough of your stupidity so I’ll leave the rest of your ramblings untouched for it’s just an exercise in redundancy to express again what I have already made very clear…
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Again, for clarification, saying it is one thing, doing it is another. But I won’t argue that you have demonstrated stupidity of someone’s ownership.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      unlike you my time is actually precious
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Oh I see. Well I can clear that up for you; see your first quote on this post – something about the implied cognitive dissonance about ‘spending days’ to come up with an argument to someone you regard as mentally inferior.

      Something like that anyway. The confused, amateur pettiness of your opinions tend to occupy little cognitive space in my mind.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      , so I hope you’ll stay down this time dumbo.
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      And I bet you do hope that more than anything right now.

      Unfortunately, if you look around this blog, you will see that’s not likely to happen.

      • curiousmuch? says :

        “when I tell you that it took the whole of my tea break on Monday (approximately 25 minutes) to write my reply to you.”

        yeah, right… of course nobody has any way to confirm this, so the only fact remains is that it took you a few days to respond when the discussion went on between some idiots and me. needless to say your sorry excuse of a response included my words from this exchange proving once and for all that you read them, making it all the more likely your idiotic response took quite a bit of time to compile. that must have been one hell of a tea break dimwit…🙂

        “I usually have better things to do in my unpaid time over the weekend”

        this you keep repeating… all the more reason to believe otherwise. inferiority complex much?

        “That would be hypocrisy in its most literal sense that you have described”

        only if done cognitively… you, otoh was blissfully ignorant of the situation… hence the irony… halfwit…

        “for fear of misquoting you!”

        obviously you don’t consider ignoring the context some form of intellectual dishonesty comparable to the level of misquoting… even a halfwit dipshit like you should know better than that. the quote is my perception of the argument presented by the author, not my specific claim… summarized for halfwits like you, it’s analyzing the rationality of a claim while accepting the premise for the sake of argument…

        things like this show me, your obvious mastery of the english language is backed by little analytic intelligence.

        “And you also explicitly used that term (your own personal definition) in your first post in refuting Muertos’ assertion that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was not a false flag event.”

        already explained above, you’re also suffering from verbal diarrhea, dumbo. have you heard of the phrase “less is more”?

        “It’s rather fitting that you should demonstrably argue from belief”

        it is rather fitting that you can’t do anything but the same in arguing for the official story… you don’t know the facts apart from what you have been told, and imbeciles like you have no independent ways to verify the information. you know why, dipshit? because this is not some event that we can repeat in a laboratory environment… this is not a scientific experiment that can be verified by our peers. this event also requires a leap of faith from idiots like you to believe in the government story, it’s just that you have convinced your idiotic, arrogant self that this is not the case and you have knowledge to support your argument somehow… and THIS is hypocrisy…

        “Well I just did!”

        BWHAHAHAHAHA, you are just an imbecile who can’t understand what he reads, that’s all…

        “You don’t have to sell it or gift wrap it to anyone.”

        Yes, you do dipshit… When your public is unaware of the covert war that you have been waging against another nation, their perception of the attack changes and so does their reaction. The case is the same with 911, why do you fucking think that the Bush administration tried to frame the attacks as “they hate us for our freedoms” instead of a blowback as many CIA analyists believe…

        “Almost necessary?”

        for someone who is hell bent on posing as an intellectual, you surely come off as a fucking moron.

        “your inability to decide whether public opinion is important or not”

        allow me to rape you intellectually… LOL🙂

        here is how I would explain it to a 10 year old… yeah that old cliche…

        when an administration decides on war, they will not care whether the public is in favor of that war or not… at that particular moment, public opinion doesn’t influence that decision… like when Bush administration internally decided to somehow link Iraq with Al-Qaeda, they didn’t take a public opinion poll. But to actually implement their plan, they had to bring public opinion to agree with their decision. it’s not likely that an administration survives a hugely unfavorably perceived war, this is evident in the fact that 2008-2012 elections created a much less hawkish stance in terms of american foreign policy.

        So dipshit… let me repeat it… public opinion is not important in making the decision… it is important in getting the public to go along with your plan and let them keep your positions of power after the implementation…

        “The importance of public opinion diminishes”

        yes fucktard… it does… the importance of the public opinion on whether “starting the war” was a good idea or not diminishes… what becomes important is the public opinion on the reasons for “staying the course of the war”… so when Obama took power, the public no longer believed the justifications for starting the war, but they were much likely to believe the need for staying in Iraq for a various number of other reasons such as troop security, instability of the aftermath etc… you are really fucking dumb to fail to understand this the first three times….

        “Except that means, motive and opportunity do not constitute evidence”

        yes they do dipshit… they are considered circumstancial evidence in the court of law… the word you were looking for is “proof”… ironically failing to come up with it… seeing how you are the wizard of words … LMFAO !

        “No, I am undoubtedly correct. At the time of my commenting the defence contractors insinuation was the only example of evidence you had provided”

        no you weren’t dimwit… that was one example I gave with regards to why I think U.S. was a pseudo-democracy, not with regards to why I think 911 was an inside job of sorts. that evidence is presented above and in my previous comments… confused much fucktard?

        Anyway, I don’t even care to read the rest of you bullshit covered in icing… this much is enough to demonstrate what a total moron you are….

        of course, you’ll respond to this in 25 mins as well… riiiight… maybe you ought to spend more time and think about the stupid shit you write…

        LMFAO @ Losertasio

      • anticultist says :

        Fuck off you belligerent troll

      • a rational person says :

        curiousmuch? who gives a shit what you say. you’re a nutbag who believes 911 was an inside job. that alone proves you’re a gullible fool who won’t look at facts and can’t think straight.

        i said it before and ill say it again: mandatory sterilization for conspiracy nutbags. otherwise the future is totally fucked.

      • Joel T. says :

        @Anastasio, that was a beautiful reply. You’ve managed to turn the chore of responding to a troll into high entertainment. Bravissimo!

    • Bruce Campbell's Chin says :

      Curiousmuch.? Is a grade A bellend. Hall of fame worthy of stupidity. He believes in chemtrails even when its been broken down to him and simplified. Insults have no effect on him as in his world he is right about everything no matter how much it defies reality. The man has serious mental issues as well as being compulsive obsessive. On his Facebook group (he’s head admin) he will delete posts where people get one over him, which is not difficult as he makes himself look a uninformed and biased twat very easily. First he post goes then the person.

      Here’s his Facebook group. Join it and witness the ignorance and his sockpuppet debating.

      https://www.facebook.com/groups/124653774371406/

      • Bruce Campbell's Chin says :

        I kinda pushed him in this direction to post here. Playing him from the beginning. Needed to be taken down a peg or two. I see that is impossible as he is truly fucked in the head and needs professional psychological help.

    • Anastasio says :

      @curiousmuch?

      From one post alone:
      ——————————————————————————————————–
      that must have been one hell of a tea break dimwit…

      hence the irony… halfwit…

      even a halfwit dipshit like you …

      you’re also suffering from verbal diarrhea, dumbo…

      and imbeciles like you…

      from idiots like you…

      you have convinced your idiotic, arrogant self…

      you are just an imbecile …

      Yes, you do dipshit…

      you surely come off as a fucking moron…

      allow me to rape you intellectually… LOL …
      (My personal favourite, the LOL kind of sucks the poetry right out of it)

      So dipshit… let me repeat it…

      yes fucktard… it does…

      you are really fucking dumb to fail to understand this…

      yes they do dipshit…

      seeing how you are the wizard of words … LMFAO !…

      no you weren’t dimwit…

      confused much fucktard?…

      this much is enough to demonstrate what a total moron you are….

      maybe you ought to spend more time and think about the stupid shit you write…

      LMFAO @ Losertasio… (ouch!)

      ——————————————————————————————————–

      That’s right kid, let it all out, you’re in good hands here. I’m sure the police will catch up with however did this to you.

      I imagine this guy has probably learnt from the very best chat room bots.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “when I tell you that it took the whole of my tea break on Monday (approximately 25 minutes) to write my reply to you.” – Anastasio

      yeah, right… of course nobody has any way to confirm this, so the only fact remains is that it took you a few days to respond when the discussion went on between some idiots and me. – curiousmuch
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      You might possess the free time to sit at your computer for the sake of calling people ‘dipshit’ and letting them know that you “own them”, yet I cannot afford myself the same creative luxury, funnily enough.

      Yes, it is a fact it took two days for my reply to arrive in your mailbox; who can or would deny it? But I’m afraid it’s the best I can do given my other commitments away from the keyboard. You’re just going to have to put up with it I’m afraid!

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      needless to say your sorry excuse of a response included my words from this exchange proving once and for all that you read them, making it all the more likely your idiotic response took quite a bit of time to compile.
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      On that note, all of my responses include many quotes from all of your posts, also meaning that I have read them in strict accordance with your incrimination.

      BAM! There goes one half of that ‘reading and understanding ‘ irony you continue to congratulate yourself for ‘apprehending’.

      Owned by your own tongue no less!

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “I usually have better things to do in my unpaid time over the weekend” – Anastasio

      this you keep repeating… all the more reason to believe otherwise. inferiority complex much? – curiousmuch?
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Woah sit down Freud! This statement was uttered to you once as an explanation as to why I never even so much looked at a computer over the weekend – and this somehow merits a diagnosis of self-inadequacy?

      Is this an example of a cultural tendency to simplify a problem to a mental disorder that has ultimately led to the over-prescription of medication in the US?

      Or are you just acting outside of your domain of authority again, true to character?

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “That would be hypocrisy in its most literal sense that you have described” – Anastasio

      only if done cognitively… you, otoh was blissfully ignorant of the situation… hence the irony… halfwit…-curiousmuch
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Tit for tat and still, after penning the premise out with your own hand, you still cannot absorb it cerebrally. Understanding the definition is one thing, knowing how to recognise irony and where and when to call it is a skill you evidently do not possess.

      But by the end of our exchange I’m sure you will come to understand why you are the plat principal of your own voracious nescience
      .
      Whether you are man enough to accept it or not, remains to be seen.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “for fear of misquoting you!” – Anastasio

      obviously you don’t consider ignoring the context some form of intellectual dishonesty comparable to the level of misquoting… even a halfwit dipshit like you should know better than that.
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Of course I would consider ignoring the context as dishonest to an argument as much as seeking to blur it by changing the goalposts, the definitions, phrases and terms previously employed by yourself!

      I have done nothing to invalidate your argument that you haven’t done yourself, and have done nothing more surreptitious other than to ask you to expand on certain points and to explain the definition of some choice vocabulary you have lavished upon us.

      My points were been made to your initial claim that “false flag operations are thought to be necessary in partially democratic nations”, a claim which you so far been unable to prove, and on many occasions, appeared to disagree with yourself. It’s all there under your screen name.

      If you never explicitly claimed the Gulf of Tonkin as a false flag event, then what was the necessary false flag event needed for Johnson to present to congress to allow military intervention, as according to documented history – proof of which is the very resolution you pointed out?

      Do you still not have an answer?

      It’s a simple question that makes the humble assumption that you are capable of further extrapolation on your own premise. If this is not the case i.e. you’re unsure of what you’re talking about, then why demand anyone else to understand you?

      Dishonest? Maybe, but I’d wager it has more to do with your amateur perception that forum etiquette is unimportant.

      That and a capricious vocabulary to boot.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      the quote is my perception of the argument presented by the author, not my specific claim… summarized for halfwits like you,
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Backtracking are we now? I warn you, I do not miss a trick curiousmuch and I will not let you slime your way out of this!

      ‘The quote’ (presumably this is your quote what you are talking about?) relies heavily on your claim (yes it is a claim) that Meurtos’ analysis of what constitutes a false flag is deeply flawed, and also unequivocally implies that Gamble is arguing that the Gulf of Tonkin was used to sway public opinion to make “huge sacrifices” to the destructive policies of the government, which of course, he isn’t. The fact you have not called Gamble out for being deeply flawed either confirms this.

      Foster Gamble, without a doubt, argues that the Gulf of Tonkin Event was a false flag which was designed to persuade congress to draft the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which then gave Johnson “carte blanche” (Gamble’s own words) to initiate military operations in Vietnam, to which Muertos gave an acceptable response that it would have happened anyway and the Vietnamese acted of their own volition, an act of war no less, when attacking the USS Maddox in international waters.

      That, curiousmuch?, is the context and its violation of which you protest.

      Context is not just a word, as you can see it actually means something!

      Gamble does not mention the importance of public backing in his film, nor on his website. There is not one single instance of Gamble waxing about the necessity of false flags that backs up the confused argument you brought to the table.

      Congratulations curiousmuch. You threw yourself head-first into a debate that was a league deeper than you anticipated, and you forgot to bring your floatation device.

      Who would have thought that your argument was never actually within the context to begin with. Well you certainly didn’t anyway!

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      it’s analyzing the rationality of a claim while accepting the premise for the sake of argument…
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      How very clever! I bet Socrates would have said exactly the same thing if he were around today.

      But sadly, as I have proved through use of your own words, that is not what you did.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “It’s rather fitting that you should demonstrably argue from belief” -Anastasio

      it is rather fitting that you can’t do anything but the same in arguing for the official story… you don’t know the facts apart from what you have been told, and imbeciles like you have no independent ways to verify the information. – curiousmuch?
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Official story of what exactly? For a man who whines so much about the importance of context you’re sure not averse to omitting it yourself when the occasion suites! You slide between 9/11 and Vietnam with the grace of a dog scratching its itchy arse across a carpet!

      So forgive me for declining to deny or affirm your accusation.

      But still, unlike you curiousmuch, I have not stated what I believe and you have no empirical way of discerning which ‘facts’ have been brought to my senses.

      Your perception of me is therefore a deliberate construct of an evidently troubled and desperate mind which seeks compensation of dignity through my vilification.

      I stand guilty of simply telling you that your interjection to argue your own irrelevant personal definition of ‘false flag’ is unwarranted and patently wrong. No need to rupture an aneurysm over it, but if that is how you normally deal with being wrong then go right ahead.

      ——————————————————————————————————-
      “Well I just did!” – Anastasio

      BWHAHAHAHAHA, you are just an imbecile who can’t understand what he reads, that’s all…- curiousmuch?
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Of course one would assume a care of duty on the author to make his points comprehensible to the reader, rather than rely on the reader’s familiarity with hieroglyphics. You have changed your irrelevant argument more than once since its inception, and you constantly to-and-fro between the idea of the importance of public opinion in war time.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “You don’t have to sell it or gift wrap it to anyone.” – Anastasio

      Yes, you do dipshit… -curiousmuch
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Prove it. For the third time of asking, prove it.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      When your public is unaware of the covert war that you have been waging against another nation, their perception of the attack changes and so does their reaction.
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      How many covert wars has ‘your public’ been unaware of and how has their reaction and perception been gauged and collated with other instances/ examples of the same phenomenon? Presumably out of all the wars that have raged on mother earth you must have more than 9/11 to offer as an example?

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      The case is the same with 911, why do you fucking think that the Bush administration tried to frame the attacks as “they hate us for our freedoms” instead of a blowback as many CIA analyists believe…
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Frame the attacks? And how is this related to a false flag event? Propaganda you could bleat, perhaps, but a ‘necessary false flag event’? I don’t think so.

      Whichever way you look at it, a terrorist organisation committed the largest mass murder ever on American territory which provided the impetus for war.

      Can anyone else imagine Al Qaeda despairing over unfair representation in its attack on the US or is it just me that finds that hilarious?

      For the sake of argument, do you have any preceding examples to compare it to in order to gauge the effectiveness of this framing?

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “Almost necessary?” – Anastasio

      for someone who is hell bent on posing as an intellectual, you surely come off as a fucking moron. – curiousmuch
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Forgive me, but did I miss something? I asked you if public opinion was important or not to a government and you insisted it was “almost necessary to go to war and still stay in power”, which implies it isn’t necessary by definition.

      You see curiousmuch, almost going to war isn’t going to war. Almost winning a race isn’t winning a race. Almost impossible isn’t impossible.
      Almost comprehending the implication of the words you use isn’t comprehending the implication of the words you use.

      Therefore, and I take great delight in educating you to this effect, almost necessary isn’t necessary.

      A minor nitpick some might argue, but in the context of gleaning smug irony from making your argument as unintelligible as possible, it is important to draw your attention to the other half of your ‘irony’ dissolving like an aspirin in a glass of water.

      It has been shown to the blog that you do not understand your own use of English, so you have no ground to argue irony unless of course, it is applied to yourself in retrospect.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “your inability to decide whether public opinion is important or not” – Anastasio

      allow me to rape you intellectually… LOL – curiousmuch
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Should I be surprised at the ‘quality’ of your riposte?

      If you have the balls pound away. I’m sure you have convinced yourself of the feasibility of such an action but your puerile, expletive-and-smiley-ridden-tirades tell quite a different story.

      You have demonstrated more than once that you cannot decide whether public opinion is important during war time or not, and subsequently accused me of ignorance of the irony that you believe arises from your verbal Dali of an argument.

      I’m afraid it will take more than what you call intellectual rape to back scuttle your way out of this one.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      here is how I would explain it to a 10 year old… yeah that old cliche…
      when an administration decides on war, they will not care whether the public is in favor of that war or not… at that particular moment, public opinion doesn’t influence that decision… like when Bush administration internally decided to somehow link Iraq with Al-Qaeda, they didn’t take a public opinion poll. But to actually implement their plan, they had to bring public opinion to agree with their decision. it’s not likely that an administration survives a hugely unfavorably perceived war, this is evident in the fact that 2008-2012 elections created a much less hawkish stance in terms of american foreign policy.
      So dipshit… let me repeat it… public opinion is not important in making the decision… it is important in getting the public to go along with your plan and let them keep your positions of power after the implementation…
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      This is of course contrary to your previous claim that public opinion was “almost necessary” and contrary to your first argument you raised here that:

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “false flag operations are thought to be necessary in partially democratic nations, where some form of clear cut and simplistic reasons are necessary to present to the public before asking them to make huge sacrifices to support the destructive policies you decide upon”
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Which has now mysteriously turned into (presumably with the most intellectual of honesty):

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “it is important in getting the public to go along with your plan and let them keep your positions of power after the implementation…”
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Optimus Prime would surely covet your metamorphosis talents.

      ——————————————————————————————————-
      “The importance of public opinion diminishes” – Anastasio

      yes fucktard… it does… the importance of the public opinion on whether “starting the war” was a good idea or not diminishes… – curiousmuch?
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Presumably because it supports your argument more than any other reason.

      Your insinuation reads that a government, presumably through precedent, comfortably predicts that its public will acquiesce to its engagement in war by the time of the next election. More importantly you also constructs a tenuous link between a false flag event and the impact of that event on public opinion over time, for which I simply ask you to provide a scale.

      Personally speaking, I never thought the Afghanistan or second Iraq War were a good idea and would have voted for the means to pull UK troops out in an instant given the opportunity.

      However, I do not speak for everyone – and neither do you.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      what becomes important is the public opinion on the reasons for “staying the course of the war”… so when Obama took power, the public no longer believed the justifications for starting the war, but they were much likely to believe the need for staying in Iraq for a various number of other reasons such as troop security, instability of the aftermath etc… you are really fucking dumb to fail to understand this the first three times….
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Sorry, but how is this related to a false flag event? And just where are you pulling your information from? Direct me to the source and let me read it for myself, rather than have you play the incompetent middle man.

      Besides, according to the BBC’s poll in 2007, 68% of Americans favoured withdrawal within a year including 24% who favoured an immediate withdrawal. So one could argue by the time Obama took power that the US public were not in fact “much likely” to believe the need for staying in Iraq!

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “Except that means, motive and opportunity do not constitute evidence” – Anastasio

      yes they do dipshit… they are considered circumstancial evidence in the court of law -curiousmuch?
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      And just when did we step foot inside The Old Bailey curiousmuch?! We are on a public blog, not a court of law! What you offered as evidence has not been presented in a court of law and consequently cannot be cited as such.

      Therefore your offering of means, motive and opportunity are not evidence but simply a reflection of what happens when you stick a hand grenade in a barrel of shit.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      … the word you were looking for is “proof”… ironically failing to come up with it… seeing how you are the wizard of words … LMFAO !
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      And why do you think I ask you for proof when we both know that we wouldn’t be having this conversation if it existed? It seems you’re willing to overlook the most obvious detail to bask in your fictional irony; and you wear it like a cheap suit.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      “No, I am undoubtedly correct. At the time of my commenting the defence contractors insinuation was the only example of evidence you had provided” – Anastasio

      no you weren’t dimwit… that was one example I gave with regards to why I think U.S. was a pseudo-democracy, not with regards to why I think 911 was an inside job of sorts. that evidence is presented above and in my previous comments… confused much fucktard? – curiousmuch
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Context boy, context! My point is that at that juncture you had only provided one tenuous link between defence contractors and their effect on US democracy as an example of evidence, which I used to highlight the fact that examples and evidence are not exactly forthcoming from you.

      I’m sure everyone reading can tell I wasn’t debating why you offered the example for contention.

      Another cheap shot or just getting careless in your blind indignance?

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      Anyway, I don’t even care to read the rest of you bullshit covered in icing…
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      A disinclination already made obvious by your manic desperation and awkward style of presenting yourself. No words are necessary.

      Perhaps it’s in the best interests of your health that you stop reading here as I imagine the stress would probably send you to an early grave.

      ——————————————————————————————————–
      this much is enough to demonstrate what a total moron you are….
      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Remember my favourite saying curiousmuch? Saying it is one thing, doing it is another!

      Is it not a curious thing how our exchanges always end on this note? Predictable, perhaps as much as the next volley of coprolalia heading my way.

      • a rational person says :

        anastasio, this guy curiousmuch is just a nutbag. he thinks 911 was an inside job. that proves he’s nuts. probably believes in lizard people too. u’re giving him a spotlight to showcase his retarded views. the guy is obviously crazy. who cares what he thinks?

      • weheka says :

        Looking down past the “normally locked” door, down the steep flight of wooden steps onto the solitary figure hunched over an old computer, typing furiously, on a desk lighted by a single bulb and surrounded by scraps of paper, broken pencils, calculators, dictionaries and old kentucky fried chicken boxes…….”curiousmuch” father with a sad hang dog look on his face says to his friend, “and this is where we keep “curiousmuch”, we think he may have gone mad”

  33. OG says :

    For a history major you didn’t have anything great to present, looks like your opinion vs his…you dident debunk anything…I think false flags are brilliant gengis khan and all the greatest war mongers would use it. A Rockafeller said “we make more in 1 day of war then a year of peace” false flagging is so brilliant..people obviously benefit from war, the country is in debt but someone got there pockets stuffed! That’s the “illuminati” to what extent? I can’t say but this country elects people that ACT PERFECT no cursing, perfect family WHEN NO NORMAL PEOPLE ARE… This is a war for your mind and people are to conscerned with who Kim Kardasian is fucking and not what “Collateral Damage” really is

  34. Achamian says :

    None of you truly know of what you speak. All you,”know,” is what has been fed to you by the sources from which you wish to eat. Conspiracy or non-conspiracy theorist, sceptics or non-sceptics all know nothing. All you can truly know is your own experience in this reality. So please, stop this sad display of ignorance.

    • boswell says :

      Relativism is bullshit son

    • weheka says :

      Obviously you know something we don’t achamian…….now I wonder what that might be?????….mmmm…conspiracy anyone??….anyone?

      P.S. Anastasio, your posts and absolute demolition of the curious one was entertainment at it’s best.

  35. SiBorg Jonnie says :

    It would be just lovely if we could believe in our governments, believe their word, believe they have OUR best interests at heart, believe they want to make the world a better place, however and unfortunately the world is NOT like that. it has been proven time and time again that our govs are full or corruption and lies..

    official secrets and the secret services are now used for a whole plethora of illegal actions which they feel need to be hidden from the public. its all a big joke unfortunately the joke’s on us and the world.

    its fools like the writers of this site that do nothing for the world, just keep the sheep in place by clinging on to the view that everythings just wonderful.
    NEVER BELIEVE THEY WOULDN’T DO IT… THEY WOULD AND THEY DO

    • a rational person says :

      another nutbag. jeezus.

    • Joel T. says :

      It would also be lovely if people could understand that such dichotomies are false. By saying that claims of false flag incidents are, well, false, that does not necessitate that one is also claiming that the government is perfect and everything is wonderful. Indeed, the authors have gone out of their way to specifically note that the problem with conspiracy theories is that they prevent the real problems from being addressed with real solutions.

  36. Ben Montes says :

    Ha HA HA HA!!!! It is so obvious that these debunk (artist??) have the Feds dicks up their asses and will continue at all cost to lie, misrepresent the Truth, and lamely try to brainwash any and all that believe your Lies. I Am So Thankful that my eyes are open!!!

    • Joel T. says :

      “I Am So Thankful that my eyes are open!!!”

      How can you tell that your eyes are open? I mean, with your head that far up your ass, you can’t see anything either way.

    • a rational person says :

      hahahaha wow this ben montes fucktard is a raving nutbag! jeezus, talk about somebody off their medication! call the psych ward, i think we found their missing patient!

      • Frankie says :

        I would treat them, but too bad that I am studying psychology and will only treat mild mental disorders.

    • Frankie says :

      Your eyes are open only to what you want to believe. It is easier to believe in this conspiracy crap than doing your goddamn’ homework and get the fact straight.
      You are someone who cares only about being right, and not about what’s true, and the same goes for all the conspiratards, who think they own a monopoly in truth, but well, continue on your pigsty.

  37. J in Denver says :

    I’m curious what your take is of the attack on the USS Liberty.

    Also curious about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VeJuiJv6Rs and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VeJuiJv6Rs and this http://em.pgpic.com/wtc10.wav

%d bloggers like this: