Questions about controlled oppositions

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

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby furroz on June 20th, 2011, 8:27 am

nonhocapito wrote:
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. [u]There is no doubt in my mind that this whole angle of Bush being inept and arrogant was part of the script.


Well, regardless of what people decide as to why he failed I still believe he is not reptilian and actually has the human need for validation, and acceptance, however stupid he probably is. I believe he even wrote a book to this goal. I do find it interesting, the more I look at this, how Bush so conveniently was linked to the Bin Laden family from many years before. Linked in a way that has not been disproved or denied, but for always remains open to suspicion, no? And who actually sets presidents' daily agendas and writes his every word anyway??? :unsure: I mean how convenient to have a camera in the classroom recording his foolish reaction that generates and promotes a narrative ! Shite, they even zoomed in!
furroz
Newbie
 
Posts: 9
Joined: June 16th, 2011, 5:04 am

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby hoi.polloi on June 21st, 2011, 5:01 am

I agree, and if the Z Magazine article about STRATCOM is any indication, Bush was rushed to Omaha, Nebraska the moment the war games started. The video of the reading and the "Andrew Card" story may as well have been a pre-recorded video for all we know - part of the war games/simulation?

Anyway that's just what I think.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby furroz on June 21st, 2011, 9:13 am

Sorry...can you elaborate on why you agree?
furroz
Newbie
 
Posts: 9
Joined: June 16th, 2011, 5:04 am

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby hoi.polloi on June 21st, 2011, 3:59 pm

I don't understand why there should be such elaborate "self-sabotage" on the part of the Bush and Clinton gangs.

On the other hand, I am not sure they are quite capable of viewing their actions as self-sabotage. After all, they are still sitting pretty stinking rich. So they lost a little public face. What does that matter to them? They are still treated like untouchable celebrities.

As for your suggestion that there are power struggles happening now, I think you could be right. I don't see a lot of 9/11 as needing to be pre-planned. I believe in both human powers to improvise on the spot - especially belonging to liars and cheats - and the power to plan way ahead. Which balance of planning and improvising actually happened? It doesn't really matter; the "evil plot" semi-succeeded and semi-failed. Our military does not seem to be blatantly in Iran as quickly as it seems they would have liked.

Most likely, in my mind, the reason there are so many holes in their plot is because there are a lot of holes in any plot. They frequently use their powers to:

1. distract us away from the suspicious clues of foul play

2. while we are distracted, fill those suspicious events with controlled employees or controlled opposition, which function the same way: to continually distract us (see 1)

Of course you could compile a number of questions about how each little strange event comes together in your mind as some "understanding" of everything that happened - but it wouldn't be very scientific or even very deductive.

In my increasingly humbled opinion, the best method of looking at the 9/11 event so far is to research for yourself your own questions you want to ask people -- not ask us other researchers how our questions are inadequate.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby furroz on June 22nd, 2011, 4:54 am

Fair enough. I didn’t realise I was doing that.

I've found that one of the psychological obstacles have been these 'holes in the plot' that keep some people resistant to fully accepting the possibility the hoax could be pulled off at all, but I probably made the mistake in thinking I could gleam more insight about it outside of my own limited research. But alas...it seems a waste of time anyway - being that any understanding of how it happened wouldn't be very scientific or even deductive.
furroz
Newbie
 
Posts: 9
Joined: June 16th, 2011, 5:04 am

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby hoi.polloi on June 22nd, 2011, 6:29 am

Well - until we get some real confessions from the media. :rolleyes:

They are stuck behind their fortress of fakery. Science and deduction could come into play once we have real confirmed believable hard evidence of something. And unfortunately for them - and perhaps us, depending on how you look at it - that is all going to be quite hard to believe if it actually comes out.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby repentantandy on June 23rd, 2011, 1:17 am

Back in the mid-1970s, when communications satellite links began to replace terrestrial microwave towers and buried coaxial cables for distributing TV network feeds to local stations in the USA, the paradigm of live-transmission (from whatever program streams were originating in each network's master-control room in NYC) continued virtually seamlessly.

Of course by the 1970s, those master-control program streams consisted mainly of the playback of previously created films or tapes rather than actual "live" material, the practise of telecasting "live" dramas, sitcoms, game shows, soap operas, etc. having been largely discontinued in the early 1960s.

Yet the vast majority of network newscasts, in which an anchor/presenter reads a news script (between various pre-recorded story segments) plus sporting events, awards shows (Emmy, Oscar, Tony, etc.) and high-profile "breaking news" coverage (where field correspondents report from the scene in "real time") continued to be done "live," with all the customary hazards of missed cues, wrong camera shots, microphones turned on (or off) at the wrong time, incorrect identifier-titles being superimposed, and playback equipment either jamming or being loaded with the wrong adverts, promos, theme music, or other pre-recorded segments.

And there was also the ever-present risk of an on-camera/on-microphone performer, guest, interviewer, commentator, or interviewee not just missing a cue or reading the wrong line in the script -- but spontaneously SAYING SOMETHING HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE (usually some prohibited-by-the-FCC obscenity/expletive) that would have embarrasing consequences for the network, necessitate a public apology (for offending sensitive viewers) and possibly even result in an FCC fine being levied on the licensed stations actually owned by the offending network.

The first widely employed means of reducing the "inappropriate comment" risk on live-TV programming was borrowed directly from telephone call-in shows on radio. It was the use of a specially modified tape recorder that continuously played back a loop of tape carrying live-program material recorded at least seven seconds earlier, so that there was a time delay in which a producer could decide to temporarily kill the program signal before it went out on the air, if "something risky" was said.

Adapting this method of "instant censoring" for television was less successful and more failure-prone than for radio, however, since a continuous loop of audio tape could hold up under several hours of use before it started to lose its oxide coating and the sound quality would deteriorate. Videotape was much more delicate, so the networks had to employ a more clumsy method of obtaining the same level of content control that talk radio already enjoyed: stationing two broadcast-quality video recorders (which were as big as upright pianos in the 1970s) next to each other and feeding an entire, hour-long reel of tape (coming out of the recording deck) into the playback deck. And because old-fashioned videotape traveled at at least 15 inches per second, the "slack" build-up necessary to establish even a seven-second delay (between the two machines) had to be temporarily collected in a large basket placed between the recording and playback decks. And if the tape snarled (which it often did) while coming back up out of the basket, the producer had to immediately switch back to a direct transmission of the live program -- or the picture and sound would be lost for the viewers at home. Needless to say, this jury-rigged method of "instant censoring" live-TV programming was only used in the most risk-prone situations, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, even as video tape equipment was becoming smaller and more reliable.

Finally, the arrival of what were called "digital delay" units in the 1990s completely did away with the need for tape-based mechanisms in the "instant censoring" of live television, and by 9/11/01 all the networks (and many local stations too) were fully equipped with them and capable of programming these units (depending on their memory capacity) to delay a live program stream for durations as short as a fraction of a second to an expanse of several hours. Because of the multiple signal paths many network program streams take in the modern era (sometimes involving huge racks of processing circuits and even multiple satellite uplinks and downlinks) these delay units are often used just to keep picture-and-sound "in sync," rather than to guard against inappropriate outbursts -- but their prevalence and widespread use in the TV industry has essentially "done away" with virtually ANYTHING on network TV reaching the viewers as a genuinely "live" stream (meaning that it travels from the point of original performance to the viewers at home at the universal-standard, electrical/vibrational speed of 186,000 miles per second). The next time Obummer speaks to the nation from the Oval Office, try listening to him on several radio and TV receivers (tuned to different stations) at the same time, and you'll see what I mean. Back when Nixon, Ford, Carter, or Reagan addressed the populace, there was only a very slight echo between the various network streams being heard at home in synchronization. Not so anymore.

Well, the point of all this historical/technical digression is that it is entirely possible, and moreover highly plausible, that virtually NOTHING that has come to us from network television, since the 1990s, has been truly "live". Instead, I would postulate that an array of vigilant, trained, and loyal network AND government censors, backed up by banks of digital-delay devices in strategic choke-point locations, has been "riding herd" to make sure that nothing "really inappropriate" reaches the masses via the TV mainstream. Oh yes, there may have been the occasional screw-up, since the human factor is still necessarily involved ("nose-out," anybody... or how about another "wardrobe malfunction?" ;) ) but the level of control is probably quite awesome and intense, and has been for more than a decade.

It won't be too much longer before "they" figure out how to apply it to the Internet too, which means Cass Sunstein's boys won't be needed anymore. :angry:
repentantandy
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: April 1st, 2010, 6:17 pm

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby fbenario on June 23rd, 2011, 1:37 am

repentantandy wrote:Back in the mid-1970s, when communications satellite links began to replace terrestrial microwave towers and buried coaxial cables for distributing TV network feeds to local stations in the USA, the paradigm of live-transmission (from whatever program streams were originating in each network's master-control room in NYC) continued virtually seamlessly.

The entire post is well-written and informative. Thank you.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby hoi.polloi on June 23rd, 2011, 3:13 am

Yeah thanks. Good read.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby guivre on June 23rd, 2011, 8:21 am

Really fascinating post, andy.

This probably is nothing, but I feel compelled to mention the TV pirating incident that happened in the late 1980's, in Chicago.

http://labyrinth13.com/OtherWorks_MaxHeadroom.htm

The "Max Headroom pirating incident" is the fascinating story of the successful hijacking of two television signals in the Chicago, Illinois area on Sunday, November 22, 1987. This feat was accomplished by a mysterious person wearing a Max Headroom mask who somehow over-rode the station signals and then proceeded to perform an illegal broadcast on live television.

Television broadcasts at two different stations (WTTW and WGN) were interrupted by the hijacker on the same day, only hours apart. The first incident occurred during the sports segment of the WGN 9:00 p.m. news broadcast; the second incident took place around 11:15 p.m. during a late evening showing by WTTW of an episode of the Doctor Who television show.


In any case, it was very strange and the FCC investigated, though the pirate was never found. Perhaps this was held up as an example for more control, perhaps not, but the timing seems very close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NteORzWN7o&feature=related

More in depth technical information here:

http://www.textfiles.com/magazines/TOLMES/tns14
http://www.textfiles.com/magazines/TOLMES/tns15
http://www.textfiles.com/magazines/TOLMES/tns16

And this was all around the time of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Another similar incident which caused the FCC to "step up security":

http://web.archive.org/web/20070128101239/http://www.signaltonoise.net/library/captmidn.htm

FCC investigator Dillon says the implications of the incident involved a threat to the national security. "There's lots of highly sensitive data involved. If you have a bandit, it could disrupt the business of the United States--things like defense communications, medical information, telephone communications, and teleconferences.


Again, probably nothing, but it does seem to be part of the premise to put the system we have now, in motion.
guivre
Member
 
Posts: 187
Joined: June 24th, 2010, 10:48 pm

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby Brutal Metal on June 24th, 2011, 4:16 am

Donnie Rums was on Charlie Rose last week and Charles asked him if he read W's book yet? The reply "No I haven't". Rose was flabbergasted and asked repeatedly for the next couple minutes WHY NOT? "I haven't had time but I'll get to it!"
"What do you mean you haven't had time?" Rose asks then says "You not at all interested about how the President described the events of 911 and the steps taken by his highest ranking aids in office?" Rums sat there like a deer in the headlights of an 18 Wheeler :P His silence was deafening! If you think for One Second that that clown doesn't know more about what Actually happened that day than us average folks it's time to line up single file for Lobotomies!!
Brutal Metal
Member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby RoyBean on July 2nd, 2011, 8:51 am

repentantandy wrote:
Well, the point of all this historical/technical digression is that it is entirely possible, and moreover highly plausible, that virtually NOTHING that has come to us from network television, since the 1990s, has been truly "live". Instead, I would postulate that an array of vigilant, trained, and loyal network AND government censors, backed up by banks of digital-delay devices in strategic choke-point locations, has been "riding herd" to make sure that nothing "really inappropriate" reaches the masses via the TV mainstream. Oh yes, there may have been the occasional screw-up, since the human factor is still necessarily involved ("nose-out," anybody... or how about another "wardrobe malfunction?" ;) ) but the level of control is probably quite awesome and intense, and has been for more than a decade.


Right! :lol:

Morning Joe: Mark Halperin calls Obama a DICK on live television
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=449FGJwDQRY


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0702-rutten-20110702,0,1487754.column

".... His show has a delay switch because two years ago, he used an obscenity to characterize Obama's then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Last year, Scarborough was suspended for making contributions to Republican candidates. Yet there he is, every morning, egging his guests to take just the sort of extreme and, therefore, entertainingly attention-getting remarks that Halperin made.
RoyBean
Member
 
Posts: 141
Joined: January 8th, 2011, 6:08 am

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby RoyBean on July 2nd, 2011, 8:55 am

Brutal Metal wrote:Donnie Rums was on Charlie Rose last week and Charles asked him if he read W's book yet? The reply "No I haven't". Rose was flabbergasted and asked repeatedly for the next couple minutes WHY NOT? "I haven't had time but I'll get to it!"
"What do you mean you haven't had time?" Rose asks then says "You not at all interested about how the President described the events of 911 and the steps taken by his highest ranking aids in office?" Rums sat there like a deer in the headlights of an 18 Wheeler :P His silence was deafening! If you think for One Second that that clown doesn't know more about what Actually happened that day than us average folks it's time to line up single file for Lobotomies!!


Of course I can't be sure but I don't think anyone was implying that in this thread
RoyBean
Member
 
Posts: 141
Joined: January 8th, 2011, 6:08 am

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby Tufa on July 2nd, 2011, 1:36 pm

Some TV, that isn't live but look live to the audience, such as political discussions, studio discussions, and generally when people meet and talk on TV; these was all taped, without exception, already at 1978 onwards. This is also to an advantage for politicians, and those who participate, as you can tape a political discussion on
Monday morning be transmitted later same day.

Editing was limited to simple cutting, and was often discouraged; recording was made by multiple cameras to a single tape recorder, with live editing.

The 1978 is a personal and first-hand account, and a cut was also made, myself being pessimistic and negative at the end, so the end-comments was re-recorded immediately with some positive-end-statements.
Tufa
Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: November 24th, 2009, 11:13 pm

Re: Questions about controlled oppositions

Postby Brutal Metal on July 3rd, 2011, 5:20 am

RoyBean wrote:
repentantandy wrote:
Well, the point of all this historical/technical digression is that it is entirely possible, and moreover highly plausible, that virtually NOTHING that has come to us from network television, since the 1990s, has been truly "live". Instead, I would postulate that an array of vigilant, trained, and loyal network AND government censors, backed up by banks of digital-delay devices in strategic choke-point locations, has been "riding herd" to make sure that nothing "really inappropriate" reaches the masses via the TV mainstream. Oh yes, there may have been the occasional screw-up, since the human factor is still necessarily involved ("nose-out," anybody... or how about another "wardrobe malfunction?" ;) ) but the level of control is probably quite awesome and intense, and has been for more than a decade.


Right! :lol:

Morning Joe: Mark Halperin calls Obama a DICK on live television
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=449FGJwDQRY


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0702-rutten-20110702,0,1487754.column

".... His show has a delay switch because two years ago, he used an obscenity to characterize Obama's then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Last year, Scarborough was suspended for making contributions to Republican candidates. Yet there he is, every morning, egging his guests to take just the sort of extreme and, therefore, entertainingly attention-getting remarks that Halperin made.

Oh I wasn't implying that WE don't know about Rums Roy B just the average Dumbass American thinks Bush,Cheney,Rice etc divulged Everything they know about 911 which is preposterous, throw Obama in there too..
I also happened to DVR that Morning Joe episode and Scarborough baited Halperin before Mark asked if the broadcast was on a delay, Joe nodded and then the "Obama acted like a Dick" comment was spewed! :lol:
Brutal Metal
Member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 4:58 am

PreviousNext

Return to Truthers and shills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest