Questions about controlled oppositions

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax

Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby furroz on June 16th, 2011, 6:27 am

OK,I just want to start off with a few very elementary questions i hope is ok with the moderators of this forum. I could not find an FAQ that covers or brings up some basic questions. But I apologise if I simply overlooked it or if the questions are too inane or irrelevant to address? I am also asking on behalf of others new to all of this, acquaintances etc. So, some questions are meant mainly to further understanding for myself and others the who's and such. I am not under the impression this forum hosts insiders and know-all wizards but for the chance that reasonable insights have emerged and revealed as a result of brainstorming through the convoluted information and research, I must ask.

    Why did we hear immediately the Jewish connection to this particular hoax of 9/11? whether in amateur footage, rumors of Jewish evacuations/or tipped off-absence from towers (I'm aware the towers may have been empty), jews celebrating, Silverstein, etc.

    When exactly did the controlled opposition conspiracies rear their phony heads? Is there an accurate time-line I should be pointed to? (When did we first see thermite dripping from the tower?
    When exactly did the pod theory emerge? etc)

    When did Alex Jones start screaming into his megaphone? I understand that he even predicted 9/11?
    What's the point in such an act by the perps if there is no reason for it? For a time I believed it was all a reaction to the media fakery being exposed by people like the Australian researcher, but things don't seem to make sense anymore.

    This one was only touched on in other thread recently...
    would it not be easy to plant WMDs to support and justify invasion and war? who threw George Bush and his administration (&US government) under the bus? Are they really all (I mean elements in the gang of power) in cahoots? Could there not be some crazy power struggle going on from the beginning?

    I'll only ask these for now. Anyway, thank you for entertaining my musings.
furroz
Newbie
 
Posts: 9
Joined: June 16th, 2011, 5:04 am

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby nonhocapito on June 16th, 2011, 8:21 pm

It is not that we are here to answer questions, especially those that can be answered in too many different ways, or those that can be solved dedicating some quality time to google.

That said, 1) good question. Thanks for reminding me of this little timeline event. It is true, the "Jewish foreknowledge" was one of the first rumors (certainly meant to support the idea that real people were in the towers, only "not the jews"): if you recall the MS Word wingdings bullcrap, which also came out immediately after, that too had a Israeli theme. Personally, I think it was genius to have those rumors, those "conspiracy theories" first, considering the years and years of bullshit that were about to come. I think it is clear that the jewish community was supposed to come out as two times the victim: victim of the terrorists, and victim of the prejudices that invented those horrible rumors against them.
The way disinfo and controlled opposition work, the earlier the layer of bullshit, the easier it is to dismiss it and ignore it because "new theories" make more sense. As stated in other threads, it doesn't really matter what kind of material is used in the disinfo, as long as confusion prevails, and new waves of ideas are always ready to prevent old ones to settle in.

2) and 3) Nobody has compiled a timeline of the post-9/11 disinfo yet, and it would be darn interesting to have one. From the jewish rumors to khalezov, going through Michael Moore and "in plane sight" etc. I too am left to wonder when exactly certain angles came around, but with the layers of bullshit on top of other layers of bullshit, it is hard to keep track. Even the 2012 thing and similar stories might not have been unrelated to 9/11: after all they came around in the same years, and they too afflicted negatively this decade, putting everyone in a defensive position.

4) If you are saying that they should have faked finding the WMD, I disagree. Consider this: Invading Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't make any sense. Strategically, it doesn't help any country but Israel. But you don't want people to realize that: you don't want people to see it as a success. Hence, you make it a "failure", a "questionable" enterprise. It is probably even better for business, allows to cut the costs. It probably worked the same way in Vietnam.

As to the power struggle, that's a different question but yes, it is very possible and also probable that there are power struggles. But I think these are submarine struggles of which we see nothing but bubbles raising to the surface.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby brianv on June 16th, 2011, 8:34 pm

Not this nugget again?

For the 1000th time - Any WMD found in Iraq would be required to have the Country Of Manufacture stamped indelibly upon it. Made In the USA for instance and more than likely.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby nonhocapito on June 16th, 2011, 8:56 pm

brianv wrote:For the 1000th time - Any WMD found in Iraq would be required to have the Country Of Manufacture stamped indelibly upon it. Made In the USA for instance and more than likely.


I don't think that's the reason since they could have faked the whole thing, and pretend the weapons were bought on the black market from russia or china. Similar as to when Rumsfeld explained us that there were these deep structured caves, only to be later left in the lurch as if the caves, obviously, were a total invention: that had to be deliberate too, because they could have faked the damn caves! Why they didn't? Who was going to challenge the claim? the media? :lol:
They either considered it not worthy to fake because the majority didn't care, or the "failure" of the Bush administration was meant from the start. Not to the point to bring them to trial, of course, but enough to leave everyone with the impression that the bucket stopped there. That they were reckless and inconsiderate, that for their selfish interests they left America exposed to the enemy, and then pushed it into the wrong wars. Makes for a nice story.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby simonshack on June 16th, 2011, 9:46 pm

furroz wrote:Why did we hear immediately the ...


Dear furroz,

Welcome - and sorry for truncating your post to a quote limited to: "Why did we hear immediately the..."

That question you submitted has to do with something we should call:

"VAPORNEWS"

Now, I didn't invent that term - as it happens, I just borrowed it from this fascinating thread at the STRAIGHT DOPE forum -dated September 14, 2001 ! http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... hp?t=87244"

Please check out that discussion page (only 3 days after the fact!) and see how much bullcrap was spewed by the mainstream media on the day. Once you've done that, you may wish to check out this other page - also from the STRAIGHT DOPE forum (from 2004)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... p?t=246296

Have you done so? Ok. My point is: why wonder about what the media propagated immediately after 9/11? Since the mainstream media was actively behind this gigantic hoax based on simulated events, don't you think their Core Master Plan included generating AS MUCH CONFUSION AS POSSIBLE?

Having said that, I fully concur with nonhocapito's take regarding the early rumours to the tune of 'no Jews went to work [in the WTC] that day' .(This is btw, in Italy, one of the MOST COMMON comment you will get when mentioning 9/11 to 'the man on the street'.) Of course, this 'street myth' would have been readily ridiculed by anyone consulting the (fake) 9/11 victim memorials featuring PLENTY of 'dead Rosenbaums, Rosenfelds, Rosenblums' etc...

nonhocapito wrote:
I think it is clear that the jewish community was supposed to come out as two times the victim: victim of the terrorists, and victim of the prejudices that invented those horrible rumors against them.

Disclaimer: I do not believe that 'only Jews did it'. I'm not stupid. But one has to be dumb, deaf and blind to point the finger at "Bin Ladin" or any other Arabic entity. And no, I'm not muslim or Arabic. I'm an expat Scandinavian living in Italy - and couldn't care less about national (and much less religious) loyalties!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby bostonterrierowner on June 16th, 2011, 10:33 pm

In my opinion the purpose of WMD thing was a message to the masses in doubt. People inclining towards "conspiracy" theories but still not completely detached from MSM "reality". This message to them is: MSM caught CIA and "humiliated" it hence MSM are not totally useless :)
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: May 2nd, 2011, 11:01 pm

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby nonhocapito on June 17th, 2011, 8:42 am

simonshack wrote:Disclaimer: I do not believe that 'only Jews did it'. I'm not stupid. But one has to be dumb, deaf and blind to point the finger at "Bin Ladin" or any other Arabic entity. And no, I'm not muslim or Arabic. I'm an expat Scandinavian living in Italy - and couldn't care less about national (and much less religious) loyalties!


Agreed. Simon. It is so boring that only with the zionist-Israeli angle we are constantly forced to "disclaim", when all the other angles are considered perfectly OK to suggest. But you're right of course, the world is ruled by a constantly shifting cluster of different interests, these interests have to bargain and fight and compromise with each other to agree on one target or the other, so there certainly isn't a one single force above all others (although one force can prevail again and again). One thing for sure, the pigs in charge all have in common the methods, starting with media fakery of course.

(Talking about which, thanks for those old straightdope links. If we could browse through a lot of such material, I think after a decade we could spot the shills and propagandists right away in those threads or old websites. Because the "normal" people, the citizens, are much more reasonable, and would take matters slowly trying to understand them properly, until the disnfo agents start pushing them and pushing them in all directions. I still remember the first Loose Change movie, with all those parts about the planes being landed in a secret location and the people being marched out and made disappear. Where that came from? It was an idea that had no reason to be, except of course to take the 9/11 imagery for granted -- and except to push people forward, not allowing anyone to handle the "truth" at their own personal pace. Something that one Alex "one new movie every six months" Jones obviously knows very well.)
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby RoyBean on June 17th, 2011, 10:47 am

Some while ago I compiled a time-line for reasons I can't remember, and actually lost the doc I was working on when I lost the flash stick :o

I did find the original text I created for reference...not sure if it helps in what you are seeking

Events/people that fueled and promoted disinfo

April 2001 - The National Security Archive published the Northwoods documents online
July 2001 - Alex Jones predicts a false flag w/Osima patsy
9/11 - 5:20pm BBC reports wtc7 collapse, 23 minutes before blah blah (planted seed)
9/11 - William Rodriguez tells his tale
Sept 23 2001 - BBC reports "hijackers alive and well"
October 12, 2001 - Rumsfeld interview with Parade Magazine "Missile hit pentagon - slip up"
December 2001 (?) - Bush claims to have seen the first plane crash on live TV
Aug 2002 - Alex Jone's "Masters of Terror" (war games/exercise drills on 9/11) first highlighted
2002 - Larry Silverstein "Pull it" on PBS
2003 - Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission: (Dick Cheney stand down orders)
Spring 2004 - The Pod theory (letsroll911)
June 2004 - Fahrenheit 9/11 released
July 2004 - In Plane Site released
April 2005 - Loose Change 1st Ed
2005 - thermite/thermate vids and Steven Jones appears
2005 - original Scholars for 9/11 Truth created (Fetzer, Jones, Wood, Reynolds)
2007 - Ace Baker appears

Sorry...(stopped there in the original) this was a 1st draft and by no means comprehensive list of notable events.
RoyBean
Member
 
Posts: 141
Joined: January 8th, 2011, 6:08 am

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby warriorhun on June 17th, 2011, 3:14 pm

Dear furroz,

you ask:
Why did we hear immediately the Jewish connection to this particular hoax of 9/11? whether in amateur footage, rumors of Jewish evacuations/or tipped off-absence from towers (I'm aware the towers may have been empty), jews celebrating, Silverstein, etc.


I think the fake Jewish angle gives part of at least two of the later disinfos "credit" in a way that negates both:
Disinfo no. 1: It was an inside job, Bush government/CIA did it, all alone! The Jewish connection is a side-track to muddy the waters!
Disinfo no. 2: Mossad did it, the Jews alone! The Bush/CIA connection is a side-track, to muddy the waters!
Neither is true, the correct answer: both involved, with Jewish Media fakery. What gives a bit of help IMO is the fake clips of "Palestins cheering in Gaza for the Twin Towers fall". There is the Jewish involvement angle all right, without any "conspiracy theory".

you ask:
would it not be easy to plant WMDs to support and justify invasion and war?


I simply do not understand the question. Why the fuck would having WMDs justify the invasion of a souvereign foreign country? If this is the case, do not you think we should invade the old US of A as per yesterday? I mean, the fuckers have WMDs galore, they proved ready to use it in history (if the nukes are not a hoax, that is) so they clearly threaten the world peace! Let us overthrow the evil dictatorship of Obama, and free the people of USA, let us teach them how democracy works, because it is evident they have fucked it up! Well?
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: January 10th, 2011, 10:26 pm

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby fbenario on June 18th, 2011, 1:32 am

warriorhun wrote:you ask:
would it not be easy to plant WMDs to support and justify invasion and war?


I simply do not understand the question. Why the fuck would having WMDs justify the invasion of a sovereign foreign country? If this is the case, do not you think we should invade the old US of A as per yesterday? I mean, the fuckers have WMDs galore, they proved ready to use it in history (if the nukes are not a hoax, that is) so they clearly threaten the world peace!

Exactly right.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby furroz on June 18th, 2011, 3:41 am

Thank you all for your comments.

Nonhocapito and Warriorhun, on the jewish angle – that makes sense. I suppose it’s a “Reverse Psychology” tactic made very effective.

Nonhocapito wrote:
They either considered it not worthy to fake because the majority didn't care, or the "failure" of the Bush administration was meant from the start.


Nonhocapito you give me something to ponder with this though I find it hard to believe Bush & Co themselves would be such willing scapegoats simply for the sake of a nice story which actually history will mark as a complete nightmare. And Bush accepting the label and reputation of worst president in history? And did the U.S. not suffer permanent damage post 9/11? well who knows the level of insanity that exists with these people. It's all possible.

simonshack wrote:
"VAPORNEWS"

Now, I didn't invent that term - as it happens, I just borrowed it from this fascinating thread at the STRAIGHT DOPE forum -dated September 14, 2001 ! http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... hp?t=87244"

Please check out that discussion page (only 3 days after the fact!) and see how much bullcrap was spewed by the mainstream media on the day. Once you've done that, you may wish to check out this other page - also from the STRAIGHT DOPE forum (from 2004)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... p?t=246296

Have you done so? Ok. My point is: why wonder about what the media propagated immediately after 9/11? Since the mainstream media was actively behind this gigantic hoax based on simulated events, don't you think their Core Master Plan included generating AS MUCH CONFUSION AS POSSIBLE?


Simon, I read the threads, thanks. I understand the vapornews thing better now. I guess I was wondering more about the reports that actually ‘stuck’ and were made to plant seeds of suspicion that grew and still have life. But yes after reading the comments about the jewish angle I see how those particular ‘rumors’ could have a specific intended effect. I still wonder about why it’s made so easy to trace everything back to zionist/mossad control where even soo many books and articles are written that ‘expose’ the entity. Like "The Power of Israel in The United States by James Petras" recently posted by MartinL
furroz
Newbie
 
Posts: 9
Joined: June 16th, 2011, 5:04 am

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby furroz on June 18th, 2011, 3:43 am

bostonterrierowner wrote:In my opinion the purpose of WMD thing was a message to the masses in doubt. People inclining towards "conspiracy" theories but still not completely detached from MSM "reality". This message to them is: MSM caught CIA and "humiliated" it hence MSM are not totally useless :)


This is interesting too.
furroz
Newbie
 
Posts: 9
Joined: June 16th, 2011, 5:04 am

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby furroz on June 18th, 2011, 3:45 am

RoyBean wrote:Some while ago I compiled a time-line for reasons I can't remember, and actually lost the doc I was working on when I lost the flash stick :o

I did find the original text I created for reference...not sure if it helps in what you are seeking

Events/people that fueled and promoted disinfo

April 2001 - The National Security Archive published the Northwoods documents online
July 2001 - Alex Jones predicts a false flag w/Osima patsy
9/11 - 5:20pm BBC reports wtc7 collapse, 23 minutes before blah blah (planted seed)
9/11 - William Rodriguez tells his tale
Sept 23 2001 - BBC reports "hijackers alive and well"
October 12, 2001 - Rumsfeld interview with Parade Magazine "Missile hit pentagon - slip up"
December 2001 (?) - Bush claims to have seen the first plane crash on live TV
Aug 2002 - Alex Jone's "Masters of Terror" (war games/exercise drills on 9/11) first highlighted
2002 - Larry Silverstein "Pull it" on PBS
2003 - Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission: (Dick Cheney stand down orders)
Spring 2004 - The Pod theory (letsroll911)
June 2004 - Fahrenheit 9/11 released
July 2004 - In Plane Site released
April 2005 - Loose Change 1st Ed
2005 - thermite/thermate vids and Steven Jones appears
2005 - original Scholars for 9/11 Truth created (Fetzer, Jones, Wood, Reynolds)
2007 - Ace Baker appears

Sorry...(stopped there in the original) this was a 1st draft and by no means comprehensive list of notable events.


Yes, thank you, it should help. Very interesting.
furroz
Newbie
 
Posts: 9
Joined: June 16th, 2011, 5:04 am

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby furroz on June 18th, 2011, 3:53 am

warriorhun wrote:
you ask:
would it not be easy to plant WMDs to support and justify invasion and war?


I simply do not understand the question. Why the fuck would having WMDs justify the invasion of a souvereign foreign country? If this is the case, do not you think we should invade the old US of A as per yesterday? I mean, the fuckers have WMDs galore, they proved ready to use it in history (if the nukes are not a hoax, that is) so they clearly threaten the world peace! Let us overthrow the evil dictatorship of Obama, and free the people of USA, let us teach them how democracy works, because it is evident they have fucked it up! Well?


I’m not suggesting there was ever justification to invade a sovereign country, but that’s besides the point since they went ahead and did so with the nuke pretext. But why deliberately set yourself up to be caught red handed in lies and disinfo for all the world to judge - for all of history. So my question was dealing with what I perceive as unnecessary self sabotage.
furroz
Newbie
 
Posts: 9
Joined: June 16th, 2011, 5:04 am

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby nonhocapito on June 19th, 2011, 1:09 am

furroz wrote:
Nonhocapito wrote:
They either considered it not worthy to fake because the majority didn't care, or the "failure" of the Bush administration was meant from the start.


Nonhocapito you give me something to ponder with this though I find it hard to believe Bush & Co themselves would be such willing scapegoats simply for the sake of a nice story which actually history will mark as a complete nightmare. And Bush accepting the label and reputation of worst president in history? And did the U.S. not suffer permanent damage post 9/11? well who knows the level of insanity that exists with these people. It's all possible.


Bush has been labeled as the worst president in history, I guess this is a fact. So, you can decide what to believe: either he was the worst because he was "dumb" and "failed" (maybe he was "set up"), or he was the worst because from the start he was meant to take a lot of blame in order to make the 9/11 trauma and the failing wars possible.
Bush started his act in 2000 with all those vacations he supposedly took, continuing with the trip to Sarasota on 9/11 at that school to read about goats and making a fool of himself. There is no doubt in my mind that this whole angle of Bush being inept and arrogant was part of the script. If you are attached to the idea that Bush was actually dumb, very well, let's say that a dumb guy was picked --to drag the country down with himself. His team was either complicit into enacting a failure, or conned into believing that things would turn out differently. I'd go with the first hypothesis because it fits best into the story.
After all, 9/11 required the idea that America was "unprepared". The wars, evidently, required America to be "arrogant" and incapable to solve conflicts, conflicts that as a consequence usefully drag on for decades. This means big bucks for corporations, but more importantly it means new reasons for the middle-east wound to remain open wide.
You say America isn't coming out well from all this. Well said, and despite what AIPAC declared, it was never meant to come out well, since the interests of America are not at the center of the picture here.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Next

Return to Truthers and shills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests