Monday, February 3, 2014

Ian Greenhalgh / Allan Weisbecker

Sandy Hook / Edward Snowden


  1. I enjoyed Alan as usual. His take on Snowden is, I think probably on the money. The idea of there being factions within the NSA, CIA etc is one thing that I think is overlooked often. I agree with Alan that Snowden is probably a great big warning to everyone - we are watching everything, EVERYTHING.

    We are living in very dangerous times.

    1. Are they really watching everything?

      They certainly want us to believe that they are. And maybe it is true. But it may be that they produce hoaxes like Snowden to try to make us believe that they are watching everything when in fact they are not capable of doing so.

      They want us scared, paranoid, in fear of them.

      So, is Big Brother really omniscient? Or does lie to you, telling you that he is, hoping that you believe it?

      Again, I am not certain. But don't believe everything you are told, especially by these maniacs.

    2. Stooy44

      Excellent point. They want us to think they know everything. The truth is they know NOTHING. They know ONLY as much as we ALLOW them to know.

    3. Yes, they are watching everything, every packet of data on the internet. They have replicated the switching infrastructure so that the data packets that pass through the switches are duplicated and passed to an identical switch owned by the NSA.

      Don't forget, the TCP/IP system the internet was built upon came from the military Arpanet, as the internet grew from next to nothing in the early 90s, the surveillance systems grew in parallel.

      Of course, much of what they do in surveillance is illegal, but they have just totally ignored the laws. The ISPs and Telcos have been working closely with them.

      Nothing you do electronically is safe from surveillance, nothing, not one goddamn thing.

    4. I agree, Ian, that nothing we do online is safe. There is no question about this. They cannot possibly be watching everything, that would take too many employees. But, to be sure, their systems are designed to look for anything programmed to be suspicious, and then report suspicions which can then be looked at by actual people. The extent to which these systems of theirs works in another question.

      But again, for sure, nothing we do online is safe from covert observation.

    5. I've always felt something was fishy with Snowden but I had a hard time putting my finger on it. Allan did a great job of codifying the Snowden Affair. Intimidating the public is the most likely motive.

      Ian: great job keeping score in the debates! You must have put in a lot of time transcribing all of that. Jim dismantled both of those guys.

      FYI: If you're going to debate Jim Fetzer you better be able to counter the points he lays out in the VT articles!

      I'd LOVE to do a 9/11 debate on the destruction of the WTC buildings if a worthy opponent would accept the challenge. I'd debate ANY of them: Judy Wood, Andrew Johnson, Morgan Reynolds, Steve Jones, Chris Bollyn, Mark Bilk, OBF, Simon Shack or even the Popular Mechanics morons if someone could dig them up. WHOEVER wants to deny nukes and debate me on the issue in public forum.

  2. I didnt understand anything of Weisbeckers weird critzism. I think it was petty and pointless. Snowden got the documents out thats what matters, who cares what words they use to thrash NSA, "abuse" or "crime", LOL, ridiculous. Whats this Weisbecker dudes agenda?

  3. Weisbecker is good. I know exactly what he means by liberals being the worst when it comes to seeking the truth. I have found the right-wingers are best when it comes to openness to government and media conspiracies. Trying to open anyone's eyes to the truth is futile. Revelation comes suddenly and people will seek you out.

    One of the best publications for getting the truth out used to be The Spotlight, now the American Free Press. They used to print stories by truthtellers without editing such as the late Sherman Skolnick of Chicago, one of the best investigative journalists ever.

    I'm sure the AFP covered the 1999 MLK trial results finding James Earl Ray not guilty. Not a word appeared in the mainstream press. So, if you truth tellers want to be published, try AFP and also use their advertising section. Converting the general public is a waste of time.

    BTW, I think it was Kevin Ryan who wrote on the tenants of the WTC on 9/11. I think this is what Allan was referring to:

    1. Given the recent developments with Chris Petherick, Michael Collins Piper and other staff of the AFP, I wouldn't put much faith in that organisation to tell the truth. Christopher Bollyn may be correct and the Spotlight and AFP are controlled opposition run by Mark Lane for the CIA.

    2. Agree, sad to say we can withdraw our faith in the AFP organization to tell the truth. I personally try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater or to “eat the meat and spit out the bones”, that is, try to accept some of the good facts that entities reveal on these false flag type events and just ignore that with which I do not agree. But the whole AFP thing seems stark and sudden and you have to wonder if someone has “gotten to them” or silenced them or bought them off or whatever. Also, the facts on the ground about Sandy Hook seem so blatant and clear and strong. Though I am not extremely familiar with AFP’s writings, AFP’s stance on Sandy Hook seems to stand out as a big departure from the general truth level of AFP’s other writings over the years.

      While probably it is the 9-11 no planes issue that sheds the strongest light on the media's involvement in false flag attacks, it is doubtful that the 9-11 no planes issue or Sandy Hook was the beginning of the fear of the media and the “shutting down” of open inquiry by certain people (groups, websites etc). The takeover of the media by the controlling “shadow” factions within our government has been known and documented for many decades, so those in publishing, now including web bloggers, have been conceivably under or vulnerable to this fear motivation to some extent all along. [find John Swinton quote about the press 1880].

      Dr. Fetzer respects the very important information Pilots for 911 Truth have provided us, but we noticed that the logical conclusion elaborated by Dr. Fetzer of that important information, the no planes issue, was the “crossing of the line” that apparently caused Pilots for 911 Truth to shut down and get off the truth train.
      Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo
      By Jim Fetzer *
      “I would like to make it clear that Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse the No Plane Theory nor the article mentioned in the OP. I personally have not read the article in detail, nor do I intend to. People are free to make their own choices”. – Rob Balsamo
      I had a couple of minor disagreements with Mr. W. but generally liked his deeper analysis of the Snowden matter and his general style of inquiry. I believe Snowden was an equal player in the “op” and not someone who acted independently originally in taking the NSA files but then sold them to Greenwald and gang. Each actor is paid well but they are all in the same play.
      I also do not buy the idea that Snowden did not tell us anything we did not already know. Yes, we knew about those big programs like TIA and others, but they sort of were passed out of the news quickly. Snowden’s material made it crystal clear that we are being watched and recorded ALL the time, every day. That is a whole new level of information.

      We may be witnessing a staged fake fight between the CIA and the NSA or this may be a real fight. Regardless, the end game and outcome is continued and increasing of surveillance police state.
      (Here is an article, Fake & Faker, about Snowden by Mike King of

  4. Motorfot, I think the point Weisbecker was making about Snowden is the the media are the puppetmasters controlling what the public sees and hears. Citing the sensational trial in 1999 of the MLK case, he noted the media ignored it. By omission, they censored the truth that a jury reached a verdict that Ray did not kill King but that the government did.

    The fact that the media are reporting the Snowden story so often, means they are sending a message to the public about the dangers of speaking out and telling us how the government is keeping track of everything we do and what will happen if we don't conform.

    1. Re: the media are the puppetmasters controlling what the public sees and hears.

      This is not a new observation. The idea was well articulated more that 100 years ago:


      4. NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.

  5. Right, El Buggo, the media have always been in control, but now they are getting sloppy. In the case of Snowden, don't you feel something is "off" in the way his story is being reported? Too much time has been used and therefore, Snowden can't really be the hero some are making him out to be. What do you think? I thought that is what Weisbecker was saying in effect.

    1. lets think about it. he worked for the cia, and in theory, he could have been set up to do what he did. But if so, how does that change anything? The cat is still out of the bag regarding the extent of NSA surveillance.

  6. Don't miss Sofia's Feb 5 interview on Red Ice Radio- both hours available free at:

  7. i have to apologize for not having my notes/thoughts more together for the interview. I thought I'd remember better from my past research. I write better than i speak, I think. Here's my VT piece:

    1. OK, lets pretend you are right and that NSA wanted Snowden to leak maybe a million classified documents of them surveiling Merkel, the EU etc. What have they gained from that so far? In what way is the NSA:s agenda furthered? How does a hightened awareness of their surveilance benefit them?
      Are they masochists? Maybe they were bored because it was to easy to spy on us?
      I think your hypothesis is stupid on par with the Paul is Dead conspiracy. But please explain how this is good for the NSA?

    2. I wouldn't totally give up on your friend, Allan. I don't think people go backwards in truth-finding. They simply can't absorb too much at a time. For me, listening to Sofia's arguments that Sandy Hook was an event created (in part) to measure society's response was mind-boggling. It took me a few days to deal with deception on this particular level. It required a sort of mind-breaking brain exercise. I felt the same way after hearing Judy Wood's presentations.
      I would give your friend some time, and broach the subject again down the road.

  8. No problem, Allan.
    You don't have to apologize.
    No need whatsoever.
    You did very well.

  9. to answer why (i think i did make this one plain in the interview) is very simple, and it echoes both Strangelove and the East German Stasi: make it absolutely certain that they are being watched (and punished, like Hastings) and you will scare them shitless. This equals obedience.

    I would ask you: what negative has resulted for the National Security State? Embarrassment? Pu-lease.

    My VT piece explains this in detail.

    1. The NSAs work is made much more difficult by the exposure. Now they have to testify before congress, they are being audited, they probably have had to wipe terabytes of data to cover their illegal actions, their wxchangeprograms with other countries have been interrupted by foreign governments, foreign leaders are now seeking to communicate safly, people are now starting to take out their batteries and simcards from their phones when they feel a need for privacy, foreign companies now understand they have to guard secrets better etc etc. Everything the NSA are doing has been made many degrees more difficult by the attention they are getting and the chinese water torture of releasing a little bit of information at the time is really painful for them as the issue does not go away. The Obama administration is also hurt by this and it is more difficult for them to spin foreign affair issues. Most important is that this issue with the NSA is really waking people up to the fact that 1984 is here, and that they needto vote in people who oppose the system in control.

    2. A question to you Mr Weisbecker:
      Would you rather see Snowdens release of documents undone?
      The answer to this, I believe, proves who you are.

  10. Who won the Cold War?
    The USA or the Soviet Union? America...They say!!
    So how come the Soviet Union Union is still alive and well -
    except it's now called The United Soviets Of Amerika!!
    All Power to the Soviets!!!...As they used to the former Soviet Union!!!

    No one ever went to the slammer
    in the USSR for reading Mark Twain or listening to Elvis.

    Plus ça c'est la même chose.....

    1. The Cold War was a hoax, there were no winners and losers. The USSR was on the verge of collapse in1971 due to the failure of Krushchev's agricultural policies that emphasised production of cotton and turned vast areas into toxic wastelands. They had several failed harvests so were in very real danger of widespread famine, food riots were common place. That is why the SALT treaty came about in 1972, and in it was a secret clause where the US gave Russia colossal shipments of grain to solve their food problem. The US propped up the Russians as long as they could due to needing a 'clear and present danger' to keep their immense military-industrial-corporate war machine running.

    2. ....And who, Ian, was the man who was almost politically ruined by failed harvests in the Caucacus? At the time, people were wondering if he would survive. He did survive and went on to greater things. Russian historians are, to this day, bewildered by how the man survived. Who was he, Ian?

      Btw, Ian, your take on the Cold War is facile, simplistic and asinine in the extreme.

    3. Nono, the cold war was a hoax, as all the atomiv weapons. And the russions kept quiet about the moon hoax and about Paul Maccartneys death in exchange for the food, yes I believe that absolutely.

    4. Cold War a hoax?
      Nuclear weapons a fiction?
      a con job?
      Moon landing a lie?
      JFK assassination
      never happened?
      Hitler still alive and selling
      second hand Volkswagens in Uruguay?

      Where is all this going to end?

      Thank God we still have Clare Kuehn and PID to believe in!!

      God a myth? Duh!!

  11. Oops!!

    There's only ONE Union.

    Would the Union of the United States Of America PLEASE stand up!!!!

    God save America 'cos NOBODY else can!!!

  12. Ian, I wouldn't know about the AFP or what it's done lately. I should have made that clear. I read the Spotlight when Willis Carto and Liberty Lobby owned it and it was a very brave paper in the 70's and 80's and published on subjects the major media wouldn't touch.

    Mark Lane defended the Spotlight in a libel trial brought by E. Howard Hunt. Lane ended up winning the case and showed the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination. I wouldn't trust anything Bollyn has to say. He's wrong on 9/11 and has a history of really weird, paranoid behavior.

    1. I don't know what the truth is about the AFP or the Spotlight before it, but I really doubt they are on the level and strongly suspect they are controlled opposition. Those who are really against the system and publicise things that they don't want to be known end up dead more often than not, whereas the Spotlight/AFP survives. I don't trust them at all.

  13. This shows where Bollyn is on 9/11: He's a thermite believer.

    Christopher Bollyn

    Scores of people jumped to their deaths from the Twin Towers to escape the intense heat caused by huge thermite reactions that occurred on the floors where the planes crashed. These reactions produced large amounts of molten iron and super-intense heat that literally cooked the people trapped on the floors above.
    The video's background photo of a man falling from the tower is very shocking but it should be remembered that he is one of many who jumped on 9-11. These photos are seldom discussed in the mainsteam media because they indicate that the heat was so intense that many people chose to jump to their deaths.

    The fact that a large amount of molten iron was seen falling from the 81st floor of the South Tower indicates that the temperature on that floor was about 2,200 degrees F. (1200 C.) - prior to the "collapse". If the bright yellow molten iron seen falling was produced by a massive thermitic reaction, as the large amount of white smoke (aluminum oxide) seen coming from this floor suggests, then the temperatures reached on that floor would have initially exceeded 4,000 degrees F. Thermitic reactions evidently continued to occur and were indicated by puffs of white smoke that were documented in the FEMA study of the towers before they collapsed

    1. Well enough but Mark Lane was involved with Jim Jones and defended Gerald Posner in a libel case. Mae Brussell accused Mark Lane of being controlled opposition way back.

    2. I thought large amounts of the molten material were from batteries stored in a bank?

    3. Chris, that was the flow from the 80th floor of the South Tower, which appears to have been a result of the melting of the back-up batteries for the Fuji Bank.

    4. What if we are watching a Hollywood animation here? As cluesforum.onfo so clearly have demonstrated. What should the significance of this observation then be? Not very important at all I guess, or a pure distraction maybe? Lets spend a few years discussing the significance of this molten metal in this Hollywood animation. That should make the 911 operation management quite happy. We should stay in the virtual reality they created for us that day so that we don't look at the medias complicity in this operation or talk about their Weapon of Mass Deception (WMD. Do you hear me Jim?

  14. For those interested, Dave Gahary just posted an interview with Wolfgang Halbig on the problems with the official story about Sandy Hook

    1. I hope Wolf has eyes in the back of his head and a good insurance policy after that interview.

      A very brave man. I wonder if he knows Jim Garrisons story?

    2. In the AFP interview of Mr. Halbig, I learned the important fact that I was mistaken in thinking that the

      full official story

      of Sandy Hook, that is the following...

      Report of the State’s Attorney for the
      Judicial District of Danbury on the
      Shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School and
      36 Yogananda Street,
      Newtown, Connecticut
      December 14, 2012
      Stephen J. Sedensky III, State’s Attorney
      November 25,

      Report of the State’s Attorney for the


      No at about 43: minutes, Mr. Halbig said their was a classified "FBI report" that he was going to contact his senators to obtain a copy of that FBI report.

      Mr. Halbig said that that the Danbury state attorney, report referenced above, "The FBI report is not included in the Dabnbury state attorney's findings. They refused to publicize anything the FBI said in the report that was released to all of us in the public domain."

      So we see that the CT. State Attorney completely left out of his report the FBI actions and findings on Sandy Hook, so the Danbury state attorney DID NOT provide the complete and truthful official story of Sandy Hook.

      I knew the Sandy Hook report by Mr. Sedensky was a big lie, but the bigness of the lie and the Official Official story, we will not know until the FBI report is also released.

      In listening to Mr. Halberg and to Mr. Weisbecker and so many other guests on these radio interviews, it is clear that major omissions are a big part of their lie strategies.

      In searching for truth about a false flag event, it is imperative that we get "the full official story" from some governmental entities, not Wikipedia, because it is that official story that we work to show as an impossibility.

      "They" the perps know how important it is for us to have the complete official story, in writing from governmental entities, and that is why they are withholding it from us.

  15. posted at 11.33, eh total?

    sandyhook was made to be widely exposed as a hoax. piper and Johnson are playing their part now in drawing attention to this obvious fact via their (intentionally) disastrously inadequate debating performances. next stop 9/11.

    edWARd sNOWden is a computer generated man AmericA is being brought down on all sides, as all changes.

  16. El Buggo said :"What if we are watching a Hollywood animation here? .......Do you hear me Jim?"

    Forget it Bug- didn't you know that, "scientifically speaking", just as with all of the 9/11 videos, the videos apparently showing something flowing out of a WTC window have a "prima facie" reason to be be accepted as genuine, without any actual serious investigation to try establish that "fact" being necessary?

    We know this for a "fact" because Jim Fetzer told us so, many moons ago. :-)

    See: "Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method" :

    Regards, obf.

  17. Instead of debate, why couldn't we use probability theory to disprove 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, etc.?

    by Elias Davidsson
    Probability theory used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

    It is also possible to “disprove” the official 9/11 account by using probability theory. If it is shown that the probability of the official account is so low as to approach zero, it can be safely maintained that the official account is untrue.

    The probability of a compound event to have occurred is the product of all sub-events necessary to accomplish the compound event. The underlying assumption is that the probability of each sub-event is independent of the probability of another sub-event. The following sub-events appear independent of each other. All of them have a low to extremly low probability. In order to simplify the demonstration, we arbitrarily assigned a probability of 0.1 (or 10 percent) to each of the following selected propositions which underpin the official account. Skeptics may try other combinations of probabilities, higher or lower, in order to test the methodology.

    1. Four young, healthy and educated Muslims who possess large chunks of cash and like to party, can be expected to prepare for many months to sacrifice their lives in a murderous hijacking operation.

    2. Four groups of Muslims can be expected to board four different aircraft in the United States on the same day without raising suspicion.

    3. Young muslim men, known to have been in Afghanistan, would be expected to receive a visa to the United States in order to learn to fly.

    4. Foreign Muslims who plan to hijack planes in the United States, can be expected to choose to train in US, rather than Arab, flight schools in order to prepare their hijackings.

    5. A person planning a hijack operation in the US could be expected to tell an official US employee about his criminal motives, as Mohamed Atta had reportedly done in his encounter with Johnelle Bryant of the Agricultural Department in Florida.

  18. Davidsson, continued:

    6. Muslims who meticulously plan a hijacking operation in the United States, could be expected to "forget" a Kor’an on a bar stool on the eve of their operation and a flight manual in Arabic on the morning of their operation, in a rented car left near the airport from which they intended to hijack a plane.

    7. Hijackers can be expected to fly from another town to the airport from which they intend to commit the hijacking operation merely two hours before their intended hijacking should start.

    8. US military authorities can be expected to schedule, for exactly the date of the murderous events, war games and exercises including simulated plane hijackings and planes crashing on government buildings.

    9. Conversations from cell phones made from passenger aircraft can be expected to function at any altitude and speed.

    10. Passports of hijackers could be expected to be found on the crash sites, regardless of the lack of bodies and wreckage.

    11. The US air force could be expected to bungle its attempts to intercept the hijacked planes.

    12. No plans could have existed at the Pentagon to protect US government buildings against the risk of an accidental or malicious plane crash.

    13. Neither the CIA nor the FBI could have any prior knowledge of the identities and whereabouts of the alleged hijackers before 9/11.

    14. A law enforcement authority, such as the FBI, could be expected to show little interest in investigating mass murder.

    15. A government would be expected to oppose an investigation of a terrorist attack against its own country.

    16. Terrorists can be expected to commit mass murder without making any demands.

    17. Five individuals with only packing knives can be expected to overwhelm fifty adults in a plane.

    18. Hijackers in three different planes can be expected to successfully enter the pilot cabin without raising alarm.

    19. A person who had never flown a Boeing passanger jet could be expected after a little simulator training to plunge the aircraft successfully between the first and second floor of the side of the Pentagon, even under conditions of extreme stress.

    20. A crashed plane can be expected to leave any visible trace.

    21. A high rise steel building can be expected to collapse on its own footprint after a raging fire.

    22. Debris from a crashed plane can be expected to be found many miles from the crash site.

  19. "Instead of debate, why couldn't we use probability theory to disprove 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, etc.?"

    I goes without saying that all of our truth seeking efforts are based on probabilities. Science is tentative and fallible and so is the "facts" and "data" and "evidence that we truthers are working with.

    Still it is extremely important to make the government state their position fully and in writing and available to all. They need to say what they are saying and we need to first devote our limited resources to what they are saying. In like manner we need to examine whether the publically stated objectives of a government program are true (highly probable, "cannot possibly be true.").

    Mr. Weisbecker addressed his remarks to Dr. Fetzer based on what he understood Dr. Fetzer's stated position to be. Dr. Fetzer elaborated on what his position is and said he is open to further information and argumentation.

    Also is important to show when the government is tap dancing as far as giving s the full official story in writing, that is, telling us their full position.

    I think Dr. Judy Wood is a master at avoiding telling us what here position is, and Dr. Steven Jones is no slouch in this regard either.

    For example, Dr. Wood (and Andrew Johnson and Dr. Reynolds on the DEWs issue at least) tell us they have no hypothesis, no theory. When you ask Dr. Wood to tell us what she is saying, she will invariable say something like read all of my material, follow her "comprehensive forensic investigation".,check the "evidence", but they seem to studiously avoid saying what conclusions they have reached, that is DEWs did it. They seem to say that whatever conclusions drawn from her evidence are your own conclusions and nothing she has said or written.

    That is another form of serious lying.

  20. Jim Fetzer wrote:

    "Chris, that was the flow from the 80th floor of the South Tower, which appears to have been a result of the melting of the back-up batteries for the Fuji Bank."

    Dr Fetzer, before making any assumptions as to what can be seen in the extant "tower collapse" imagery ('molten metal', 'squibs', 'spire-dustification' and whatnot) - any proper, serious investigation should first ascertain whether the available collapse imagery is legit and authentic - i.e. that it is a truthful and reliable source of information. Now, according to my longstanding research, this is simply not the case.

    My latest collapse-imagery study is titled "DUST BUST" - please take a minute or two of your time to look it up. It is a quite brief study which requires no special qualifications of any sort in order to be fully grasped and appreciated :

    If you are interested in this particular subject, feel free to examine all of that 32-page thread on Cluesforum (titled "CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE"). Thanks for your time.

    Simon Shack

  21. Hi
    I like the way you start and then conclude your thoughts. Thanks for this nice information regarding regarding I really appreciate your work, keep it up. Santa Barbara Green building