Monday, June 4, 2012
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
The Official Story
vs. The Truth Movement
The scientific and historical investigation begins in earnest on Sunday, September 18, 2011. Ace Baker compares the official story of 9/11 with the claims made by the truth movement. This chapter features original interview material with Official "collapse" modeler Frank Greening, and introduces some of the other major players - Zdenek Bazant, Dylan Avery, Jim Fetzer, David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds, Jim Hoffman, and the crew from Popular Mechanics.
Chapter 2 also debuts a new song “9/11 Was an Inside Job (guess you didn’t get the memo)”, a humorous lambasting of Norman Mineta’s testimony regarding Dick Cheney in the White House bunker.
Fearlessly Answered Questions
Could plane crashes and fires really cause what we saw? Where’s the tail? Where are the engines? Where are the seats? Where is the luggage? Where are the passengers? Why did World Trade Center building 7 go into freefall? Wouldn’t the core be left standing? Does this look like a hollow steel shaft? How could that possibly be? Where are the floors?
Where was America's mighty air defense? Was it just a coincidence that a number of military war games were taking place on 9/11, including simulated hijackings, planes crashing into buildings, and fake blips injected into the radar screens? Is this real world or an exercise? Was it just a coincidence that a bio-terror exercise called Tripod II was scheduled for the day after 9/11, on the pier right next to the World Trade Center, and that FEMA agents had already arrived the night before 9/11?
Was it just a coincidence that on the day before 9/11, the Pentagon announced it had misplaced $2.3 Trillion? Was it just a coincidence that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon in an area that had recently been renovated, and that contained financial records, and not the area where the top brass had their offices? Did the Bush administration receive warnings that Al Quaeda was going to strike? How specific were the threats? How can security be strengthened in the future? Do the orders still stand? Why would the U.S. government do such a thing? Did Brent Blanchard get the memo?
View The Great American Psy-Opera at psy-opera.com, or . . .
Become an Affiliate
Earn money and spread the word by imbedding chapters into your own website, blog, forum, or facebook. It's easy. Go to psy-opera.com, call up the chapter you want to embed, follow the embed links to youreeeka, and create a free membership. You will earn 50% of the revenue from people who watch on your site.
“9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera” is a copyrighted, non-profit work of education, research, criticism, and parody. ©2011 Peace Through Anarchy
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Who leaked the information?
How much damage was done to national security?
What can be done to contain the leak?
How can we prevent future leaks?
How should we punish the person who leaked the information?
. . . instead of asking the fundamental question:
Is this information true?
In addition to the goal of garnering unquestioning public acceptance of important lies, "leaks" propagate the "government can't keep a secret" meme. This is a key pillar in defense of large disinformation campaigns protecting, for example, 9/11. Recently AP news has started citing "Leak" as an allegedly reliable source, the same way they have for a long time cited "government sources" or "a high ranking Pentagon official" or whatever.
If you believe that large groups of people cannot keep a secret for a long time, then answer the following. What are the accomplishments of the NSA? Where can I download plans to build a nuclear weapon?
Friday, August 27, 2010
Facebook is suing Teachbook in federal court, alleging trademark infringement. They claim that use of the word "book" in the name of a social networking site dilutes the value of their famous brand. A great number of reports have appeared about it, see this, and this, for instance.
I suspect Facebook secretly owns Teachbook. This unfolding drama makes much more sense to me in that light. Let's think about it.
You may or may not know, most teachers are reluctant to use Facebook, citing privacy concerns, fearing their students will friend them. Owning a spin-off site for teachers, with privacy, would be a nice solution. What's a cost-effective way to get the word out, and jump start subscriptions? A nice controversial lawsuit. Membership on Teachbook has gone from a mere 10 users, to nearly 5000, just in the last few days as news of the lawsuit spread.
If Facebook can prevail in the lawsuit, it will establish precedent that it enjoys a trademark in the suffix "book". The best chance for a plaintiff to win in such an endeavor is to control the defendant. And, as Vladimir Lenin so infamously said:
The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.
We should pay careful attention to how Teachbook handles their defense. There are any number of ways that they could underlitigate, and try to lose on purpose. The first would be answering the complaint right away. Their first two moves should be:
1. Under California law, file an anti-SLAPP Special Motion to Strike. This is a low-cost Motion that would force Facebook to essentially prove up its whole case right at the beginning, just to proceed to discovery. This is a federal case, the judge may or may not allow the California statute 425.16 to be used.
2. File a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State Cause of Action Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. This is standard defense in almost every federal case. The judge would have the authority to toss the case right out, again, prior to any discovery.
If Teachbook doesn't respond with those two moves, I will immediately smell a rat. However, even if Teachbook litigates vigorously, and even if they get the case dismissed, or even if they counterclaim against Facebook and prevail, it still makes sense that Facebook is behind it. After all, what harm is there in losing a court case to yourself?
I think Facebook is playing both sides in this game, and they have created a no-lose situation for themselves. The worst case is that Teachbook becomes popular among teachers, and Facebook has solved their teacher problem. The best case is all that, PLUS they really do get to own the word "book", and then force every other "book" site to surrender their name.
It's brilliant, and it's the only scenario that makes sense to me. Why else would Facebook risk suing a little tiny website with nothing to lose, and everything to gain from a potential counter-suit?