Charlie Sheen interviews Barack Obama for 20 minutes about 9/11

[Dig]

I think this whole gimmick was counterproductive.

* First you kind of mislead your loyal followers into believing that this was something big and real. It seems as a bit childish to scream for attention to people that follows your radio program daily and call it a big thing when it is not.

Aww, poor baby, do you want me to get you a bottle?  WTF? You are serious? You are really so sensitive that the entire events of 9/11 and the cover up are less important than getting your feelings hurt?  Our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters are being exterminated and dehumanized while being deceived into committing genocide for elite madmen.  I think we can overlook our short term event of being "misled" and focus on creating a bigger awakening to the truth about 9/11. Just my opinion.

* I don't think Obama will bother to answer the questions. The style of having him answer the questions seems to ridicule the president which probably will turn him off into taking this seriously. Obama takes himself seriously so by ridiculing him with this mock interview you are further away from any real answers from Obama.

The whole point is that Obama is not answering basic questions required to be answered by our government.

By not having responses to these basic questions, the government is guilty of obstruction of justice to the greatest terror massacre in US history.

The conspiracy people should try to be as serious and mature as possible if they want to gain credibility.
[/quote]

First...

[Scootle]

Its no different to a famous comedian making up some sketch about how he plans to start a demolition company using fire as his tool to satirize the collapse of WTC7. Obviously it would be fiction but it would still wake people up to the aburdity of the thermal expansion theory.

[tritonman]

Have you considered that those people lighting up the servers may have left with a negative impression of Alex Jones/Truthers?  And that the next time Alex hypes some "major" story, they won't bother coming back?

I have already seen this happen many times today. 

[Monkeypox]

Uh, now that comment seems utterly counterproductive, lacks sanity, and is really, really hateful.

WTF?

That ain't satire, that is just plain f**king nasty mean.

Makes a valid point though.  Negative publicity will not help anything.

[chrisfromchi]

I don't see what the problem really is. I wasn't waiting for a day for this info like some of the detractors here were last night...that was fun.
So this was interesting watching what was happening on the internet on this forum and the ATS website.

Like you guys can't rewrite it with just 20 bullet point questions for yourselves? everyone of those are hardcore questions.

What do you want? a video? a free movie? a smoking gun to make it those you tell stuff to suddenly believe you?

How are you going to go back in time to change things to be the way you want? Is 9/11 not an inside job now cause Charlie sheen?

Isn't by all this mean that Charlie Sheen is now the spokesman of 9/11 truth? He is really a huge celebrity.

Whats the problem? is it cause you all were hoping that today was the day you'd get the information to change the world? Is it disappointment?

I'm looking forward to when Charlie is on the show again and maybe there he can read out his 20 questions point by point like in his letter.

[JTCoyoté]

All I gotta say is, WE SHALL SEE.

In the real world, the coyote dies just as often as the roadrunner.

In your dreams.... now go away Duke's already eaten... unless of course you are suggesting something else.

--Oldyoti

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom;
and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more,
it will lose that, too."
~Somerset Maugham

[Dig]

STUPID, ANGRY truthers talking about DAMAGED CREDIBILITY. GIVE ME A BREAK.

First, the one who came up with this is not AJ himself. It's an a PROFESSIONAL COMEDIAN, AN ACTOR. Colbert is known for his acting more than anything else. CHARLIE SHEEN is known for that, and for being a Truther secondarily, and perhaps for being a family man, and so on. AJ is backing AN ARTIST for something he came up with on his own.

Second, for all those who're still living in their cocoons of trutherdom, well, wake up, THE WORLD HAS CHANGED. It's no longer the 90's, or 2003. We are not the wackos, the conspiracy theorists, the tin-foil hat kooks ANYMORE. We have to live up to OUR NEW STATUS. We, as a whole, are the MAINSTREAM, the biggest GROUP, among the many factions of the old paradigm. We cannot WORRY as much as we did about how to APPEAR credible ANYMORE. Because we ARE. We have the track record. Those who, DESPITE all what has transpired in the last few months, ARE STILL DELUSIONAL don't deserve that much of our respect and our circumspection. They will wake up by FORCE, either by OUR AGGRESSIVE MEDIA CAMPAIGN OR BY THE NWO HITTING THEM. We cannot be besieged in our tactics BY continuing along the OLD PARADIGM of trying to APPEAR legitimate. WE ARE. NO MATTER WHAT. WE ARE. GET THIS through your head. And through the heads of your supposed friends who haven't woken up to reality by now. (Most of you complaining are liars, I know.)

Well about time you showed up butthead, I have been trying to communicate the same message but lack your literary talents.  Now keep contributing damn it!

[In case you cannot speak sanese (as others have called it), that was meant to be a compliment]

[tritonman]

We have not even hit an all time forum count at one time with this one at least not yet.  And these are people in the know to one degree or another. 

[Valerius]

But, is Obama real?

[RoadRunner]

Oh come on this f*cking stupid.  So anyone who disagrees or doesnt like the way things turned out today is a government agent?  So no one is allowed to give an opposing view or criticism anymore without being trashed as a cointel agent or a troll?

Isnt the whole point behind the truth movement and fight against tyranny simply to find the truth and expose the truths.  The truth by itself is all you need.  Lies and fabricated make-believe stories or fantasies arent needed, and only paves the way for more lies, more coverups and more confusion.

Seems to be the case, well atleast in JT's eyes. I am not against the article, I love the facts it presents and the fictional encounter, but I don't see the necessity to lie about it.

I'd see the article as a extremely well written hit piece against the current administration if they had simply placed the following disclaimer on top.

"The following article is a fictional representation of what it would be like if the President were to be confronted with the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11. Although this interview never actually occurred, these questions are based on real observations and facts associated with the event. We hope to make this interview a reality, so please spread this article to all that are interested in finding out what really happened on that day"

People would get behind the truth, and spread the article to their friends. I suggest if you decide to send the article to your friends, you add this disclaimer before they reach the hyperlink.

[spangler]

The conspiracy people should try to be as serious and mature as possible if they want to gain credibility.

You mean the people parroting the government's 9/11 conspiracy theories?

[JTCoyoté]

It still adds to the impression that alex and in indirect realtion, 'tuthers' simply make things up, the MSM if they did touch it would rip it to peices.
You CANT fight the machine by trying to BE the machine, it will squash us like a frikkin bug for christs sake.

Well I guess I get to earn my salt today...

You do not become like the machine by being honest... There is no dishonesty in an editorial commentary that utilizes a hypothetical situation. An editorial that lays out in reality, the actual facts, factually-based questions, everything upfront and above board... the only hypothetical, is the event that surrounds all of this reality... namely the meeting with the President. The other hypotheticals are the president's comments, or answers to the questions.

A detailed disclaimer follows the main article explaining not only the fact that it is a hypothetical, but also the reasons for writing the article as a hypothetical as well...

This isn't like becoming the machine at all, nor is it even loosely like the machine in any way...   the machine would make you believe that it was true, and do everything in its power to make you believe it was true...The machine would even follow it up with future articles telling you it was true...  If you can't see that difference, then you haven't been paying attention.

--Oldyoti

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can
vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
attributed to ~ Alexander Tytler

[stymo1]

All I gotta say is, WE SHALL SEE.

In the real world, the coyote dies just as often as the roadrunner.

You watched believed way too many roadrunner cartoons as a child. This is starting to show some fruit. Only 1 article, but it is not a hit piece, and it is hopefully the first of many to come.

Charlie Sheen wants an interview with the President

http://www.examiner.com/x-16500-Lake-County-Independent-Examiner~y2009m9d8-Charlie-Sheen-wants-an-interview-with-the-President


September 8, 3:09 PM
Lake County Independent Examiner
Robert Rule

With the eighth anniversary of 911 just days away Charlie Sheen like many other Americans including Obama’s former green jobs Czar, Van Jones, want to know the truth. These people are dubbed “truthers” and laughed at by the mainstream media but do they have a reason for their doubt?

There are a lot of inconsistencies that could lead someone down that road. Charlie Sheen has reportedly sent a letter to President Obama asking the President for an interview to clarify some questions he has about it. Many polls that have been taken show that almost 84% of Americans believe the Government did it. That is a pretty big number.

Many organizations have claimed to have debunked the “truther” theory like Popular Mechanics and National Geographic. The new investigation by National Geographic was inconsistent with the previous one bringing up even more questions.

Charlie Sheen is putting his whole reputation on the line with his letter because the media is like those cruel kids on the playground when it comes to people questioning their Government. What Charlie is most upset by is something no one is talking about. He really wants to know why Obama promised change and criticized every Bush policy but he now has kept every single policy made by the Bush Administration.

There are many facts that could lead one to believe the “truthers.” Charlie says he just wants some answers and he’d rather get them from the top. Here are some of the questions he has for President Obama and he has requested others to do their own personal investigations.

CS – I really wish that were the case, sir. Are you aware, Mr. President, of the recent stunning revelations that sixty percent of the 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack?

CS – You’ll notice sir on page one of the dossier dated August of ‘06 from the Washington Post, the statements of John Farmer, senior council to the 9/11 commission, his quote stating, “I was shocked how different the truth was from the way it was described.”

CS – He goes on to further state “The [NORAD Air Defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years….”

Charlie said he has a hard time believing a couple guys with box cutters could highjack planes and fly them into the targets with such accuracy. He also can’t believe it was just a coincidence the military was training that day and NORAD was told to stand down. There was construction going on where the plane hit the Pentagon so no one was there in their offices. “There are just too many coincidences.” To the defense of Mr. Sheen the Gulf of Tonkin was a staged attack which led to the Vietnam War and that has been declassified. So was 911 an inside job?

Hopefully the media will take it easy on Charlie because after researching this story even I have some questions now. He will be on the Alex Jones radio show all this week.

[tritonman]

A disclaimer was put up after the fact.  That is where the trouble began.

[tritonman]

Stymo what is that site anyway? Is it from an actual paper or just on a web page.?

[endof]

Well I guess I get to earn my salt today...

You do not become like the machine by being honest... There is no dishonesty in an editorial commentary that utilizes a hypothetical situation. An editorial that lays out in reality, the actual facts, factually-based questions, everything upfront and above board... the only hypothetical, is the event that surrounds all of this reality... namely the meeting with the President. The other hypotheticals are the president's comments, or answers to the questions.

A detailed disclaimer follows the main article explaining not only the fact that it is a hypothetical, but also the reasons for writing the article as a hypothetical as well...

Now theres a disclaimer, there was no disclaimer for quite some time if your anaware of that.
Id be much happier if it had been posted with to start with.

Add to this the hyping before hand, alex saying he might be target because of 'what he knew' telling us that he had people ready, to spread this 'sensational news' everywhere if they didnt hear from him, hype hype hype, huge announcement blah blah

then the post of the 'interveiw'
then 40 mins later, addition of disclaimer
Then special guest will also be Charlie sheen, talking about the 'interview' that never took place.

I mean cmon.

This isn't like becoming the machine at all, nor is it even loosely like the machine in any way...   the machine would make you believe that it was true, and do everything in its power to make you believe it was true...The machine would even follow it up with future articles telling you it was true...  If you can't see that difference, then you haven't been paying attention.

Is it all that different? the MSM news just use much bigger lies and very slowly change the story slightly closer to the truth until its dropped anyway, most never even notice.

You thought disclaimer was there all along huh? interesting.

[Matthew]

I'm getting really sick of lazy journalism.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2153283/barack_obama_charlie_sheen_van_jones.html

According to the Prison Planet blog, actor Charlie Sheen is demanding a meeting with President Barack Obama in order to demand that an investigation be opened over whether the Bush administration was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

This bit of news might be just another example of an overly egotistical actor thinking that his role as an aging lothario on Two and a Half Men buys him face time with the President of the United States. However, with the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks coming up and the revelation that the now former White House Green Jobs Czar Van Jones was himself a 9/11 truther focuses attention on the new paranoid style of American politics. But this time the paranoids are not right wingers seeing commies under the bed. The paranoids are left wingers seeing Bush administration operatives under the rubble of 9/11.

Like many conspiracy theories, the 9/11 Truther movement stems from a combination of ignorance of science and history and a political agenda that has sent a group of people around the bend. People believe that the Bush administration engineered 9/11 because, as the slogan made famous by the TV show The X Files stated, they want to believe. They want to believe that George W. Bush was both nefarious enough and clever enough to slay three thousand human beings, make it look like a group of enraged Muslims did it, then use the event as an excuse to create an empire in the Middle East in order to grab all of the oil. Or it is something like that.

A now famous article in Popular Mechanics thoroughly debunked the 9/11 Truther conspiracy theory. However a casual attention to Occam's Razor should be sufficient to laugh off the idea that the US Government, which has done most things incompetently, pulled off the mother of all false flag operations.

But reason and logic are really not things that need enter into a conspiracy theory like 9/11 Trutherism. People who embrace 9/11 Trutherism do so because they find the current world situation intolerable. The United States is engaged in a long war with Islamofascist terrorism and will be for the foreseeable future. Even Barack Obama, not the most bellicose President when it comes to actual enemies of the United States, has resigned himself to continuing most of the policies of George W. Bush.

Having found the current situation intolerable, 9/11 Truthers reject the idea that it was inevitable, brought on by the tides of history and the mistakes of previous administrations, but rather some cabal did it to us. The sad part, though, as Jonah Goldberg points out, 9/11 Trutherism is becoming mainstream among the Left. Considering what else the Left believes, that should not be too surprising.

Sources: Charlie Sheen Requests Meeting With Obama Over 9/11 Cover-Up, Alex Jones, Prison Planet, September 8th, 2009

Van Jones a 9/11 'Truther', Mark R. Whittington, Associated Content, September 4th, 2009

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report, Popular Mechanics, March, 2005

How Sad, Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online, September 8th, 2009

[NWOisevil]

Is it just me or do the journalism standards on www.infowars.com really need to be tightened?  This article should not have been allowed to be published in the way that it did.  I saw the original just a second ago- and- while I don't think anyone should have believed that Charly Sheen interviewed BHO, I find it a bit disturbing that it was reported as fact.

Still though, why so much fake outrage?  I don't think it was THAT BAD... I've seen worse things on the internet.

[RoadRunner]

You watched believed way too many roadrunner cartoons as a child. This is starting to show some fruit. Only 1 article, but it is not a hit piece, and it is hopefully the first of many to come.

Dont tell me what I did as a kid or what I believe. You had sex with too many goats and have too many hillary clinton posters in your closet, YEAH!! TAKE THAT! I can make shit up too!

[Sub-X]

STUPID, ANGRY truthers talking about DAMAGED CREDIBILITY. GIVE ME A BREAK.

First, the one who came up with this is not AJ himself. It's an a PROFESSIONAL COMEDIAN, AN ACTOR. Colbert is known for his acting more than anything else. CHARLIE SHEEN is known for that, and for being a Truther secondarily, and perhaps for being a family man, and so on. AJ is backing AN ARTIST for something he came up with on his own.

Second, for all those who're still living in their cocoons of trutherdom, well, wake up, THE WORLD HAS CHANGED. It's no longer the 90's, or 2003. We are not the wackos, the conspiracy theorists, the tin-foil hat kooks ANYMORE. We have to live up to OUR NEW STATUS. We, as a whole, are the MAINSTREAM, the biggest GROUP, among the many factions of the old paradigm. We cannot WORRY as much as we did about how to APPEAR credible ANYMORE. Because we ARE. We have the track record. Those who, DESPITE all what has transpired in the last few months, ARE STILL DELUSIONAL don't deserve that much of our respect and our circumspection. They will wake up by FORCE, either by OUR AGGRESSIVE MEDIA CAMPAIGN OR BY THE NWO HITTING THEM. We cannot be besieged in our tactics BY continuing along the OLD PARADIGM of trying to APPEAR legitimate. WE ARE. NO MATTER WHAT. WE ARE. GET THIS through your head. And through the heads of your supposed friends who haven't woken up to reality by now. (Most of you complaining are liars, I know.)

Evidence please I complained,prove I am a liar or will you be posting your disclaimer in about 40 minutes times

"We as a whole are the mainstream" really and here we are still asking for people to look at the facts in the hope of a reinvestigation,thats right I seem to have forgotten all the attention 9/11 is getting in the mainstream you apparently think we are part of. 

[endof]

Is it just me or do the journalism standards on www.infowars.com really need to be tightened?  This article should not have been allowed to be published in the way that it did.  I saw the original just a second ago- and- while I don't think anyone should have believed that Charly Sheen interviewed BHO, I find it a bit disturbing that it was reported as fact.

Still though, why so much fake outrage?  I don't think it was THAT BAD... I've seen worse things on the internet.

Because it was massively hyped as though it were the second coming of jesus, the 'biggest thing ive ever done' 'huge important guest' according to alex.
And it turns out to be....this.

[Optimus]

Seems to be the case, well atleast in JT's eyes. I am not against the article, I love the facts it presents and the fictional encounter, but I don't see the necessity to lie about it.

I'd see the article as a extremely well written hit piece against the current administration if they had simply placed the following disclaimer on top.

People would get behind the truth, and spread the article to their friends. I suggest if you decide to send the article to your friends, you add this disclaimer before they reach the hyperlink.

No, it is not a lie, it is satire. You seem to be confused between the two.

Encyclopedia > Satire
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Satire

Satire is strictly a literary genre, although it is found in the graphic and performing arts as well as the printed word. In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humor in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit.

A very common, almost defining feature of satire is its strong vein of irony or sarcasm, but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. The essential point, however, is that "in satire, irony is militant"[2]. This "militant irony" (or sarcasm) often professes to approve the very things the satirist actually wishes to attack.

[JTCoyoté]

Seems to be the case, well atleast in JT's eyes. I am not against the article, I love the facts it presents and the fictional encounter, but I don't see the necessity to lie about it.

I'd see the article as a extremely well written hit piece against the current administration if they had simply placed the following disclaimer on top.

People would get behind the truth, and spread the article to their friends. I suggest if you decide to send the article to your friends, you add this disclaimer before they reach the hyperlink.

If the disclaimer would've been placed at the top, most people would never read the article... the honesty is in the disclaimer itself, even at the bottom...

As soon as the mainstream media starts disclaiming their lies and deception anywhere within the body of an article, or the top or the bottom, then I'm sure you can talk Kurt and Paul into placing a disclaimer at the top of the "once in a blue moon" hypothetical editorial... I think this is the very first one they've done... judging from the response, we need to do more just like it.

Going to have to work a lot harder at dissuading opinion, here Road-Runner... the fact that I only see you and a couple of the other guys here when something needs to be debunked... that betrays you my friend.

JTCoyoté

"A patriot must always be ready to defend
his country against his government."
~Edward Abbey

[Berminator]

http://www.gcnlive.com/ListenLive/windowsmedia32Ntwk2.asx

Rivero's on...

[Donovan]

Still though, why so much fake outrage?  I don't think it was THAT BAD... I've seen worse things on the internet.

Its because when you have so many sources (TV, News, Papers, Websites) that spew out garbage/propaganda/lies that at least you'd like to know of a place that wont jerk you around and give you the straight facts and straight truth.

So now what are people going to think.  Should they believe all the stories on infowars and prisplanet, or not.  Are they the truth, or a twisted version of the truth to a make point.

Thats where the confusion begins, and then the place where people went to get the truth suddenly becomes a place where you have to treat it the same way as the MSM.

[stymo1]

A disclaimer was put up after the fact.  That is where the trouble began.

I had the same problem with it when I first saw it. But then thought about it a while, and now I can see the why part of it. The anniversary is only days away, and nobody talks about it (911) any more but us. Even being a fake interview, many key yet unanswered questions were brought back out into the open and will have to be dealt with again. More people will be seeing these unanswered questions, complete with data links, than would have had it not been done. 

[Dig]

C'mon...2,000 thread reads by 10pm CST!

[stymo1]

Dont tell me what I did as a kid or what I believe. You had sex with too many goats and have too many hillary clinton posters in your closet, YEAH!! TAKE THAT! I can make shit up too!

You didnt watch roadrunner cartoons?

Goats? HAHAHA....... Obaaaaaaaaaaaaama!
That Hillary thing was kind of mean spirited though.

[deconstructmyhouse]

I am slayed dead by all the "disappointed" folks. I mean, what is the deal? What WOULD have satisfied you?

At the end of the day, when all was said and done, I was actually more blown away by AJ's statement that he spends 30,000 a month JUST ON BANDWIDTH to keep the infowar train ramming down the tracks into the NWO's back yard.  
 
I mean, that's a rare level of unstoppable dedication and full on commitment.  

I also appreciate this psy-op.  To hell with all the unrequited expectations voiced on this forum.  I know enough about life to know that there's a mysterious component to every action, you never know what's going to happen with it.  I don't pretend to even know.  I do know good intentions and dedication when I see it, and that is NEVER wasted.

IMO the psy op has already worked.  It has regenerated discussion around (and I don't care if it's under, over, around or THROUGH) the single most important (and criminally unresolved) topic OF THIS CENTURY

[TheCaliKid]

Shouldn't you change that from "doesn't" to "won't"?


If ever Alex got behind a stinker, this is it.


Sorry if I offend anyone, just my 2 cents.

[releasethebonds]

Infowars /Prison Planet Forum is not KNOWN FOR SATIRE! Don't you get it? I almost posted that on forum.

EPIC FAIL OF EPIC PROPORTIONS... AS RON PAUL SAYS 'BLOWBACK'

[JTCoyoté]

Now theres a disclaimer, there was no disclaimer for quite some time if your anaware of that.
Id be much happier if it had been posted with to start with.

Add to this the hyping before hand, alex saying he might be target because of 'what he knew' telling us that he had people ready, to spread this 'sensational news' everywhere if they didnt hear from him, hype hype hype, huge announcement blah blah

then the post of the 'interveiw'
then 40 mins later, addition of disclaimer
Then special guest will also be Charlie sheen, talking about the 'interview' that never took place.

I mean cmon.

Is it all that different? the MSM news just use much bigger lies and very slowly change the story slightly closer to the truth until its dropped anyway, most never even notice.

You thought disclaimer was there all along huh? interesting.

Yeah you guys were watching that real close weren't you... the article was put up and saved to the page in three stages, beginning at eight o'clock this morning... if you would take the time to read it, it is a huge article, takes almost 20 minutes or so to read every word... the photos were added as well as the disclaimer at the end of the process, this was about 8:30 to 8:45 AM...

Yep you guys are watching us real close aren't you... the whole thing was supposed to be up and ready to go by 9 AM as it was touted on the radio show all day yesterday... I think we made it don't you...

fascists

JTCoyoté

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not
as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law
and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.  
~John Adams

[stymo1]

I am slayed dead by all the "disappointed" folks. I mean, what is the deal? What WOULD have satisfied you?

At the end of the day, when all was said and done, I was actually more blown away by AJ's statement that he spends 30,000 a month JUST ON BANDWIDTH to keep the infowar train ramming down the tracks into the NWO's back yard.  
 
I mean, that's a rare level of unstoppable dedication and full on commitment.  

I also appreciate this psy-op.  To hell with all the unrequited expectations voiced on this forum.  I know enough about life to know that there's a mysterious component to every action, you never know what's going to happen with it.  I don't pretend to even know.  I do know good intentions and dedication when I see it, and that is NEVER wasted.

IMO the psy op has already worked.  It has regenerated discussion around (and I don't care if it's under, over, around or THROUGH) the single most important (and criminally unresolved) topic OF THIS CENTURY

WHAT SHE SAID X 2!

[tritonman]

I feel that same way Dawn, however we now have to make the best of it and hope he has  a hell of a lot more up his sleeve on this one.  We will know very soon one way or the other.

[ekimdrachir]

The truth will set you free, don't be afraid of it being revealled, and it is making everyone think, about charlie sheen meeting, or rather wanting to meet, barack obama. Chances are, obama has already read this article! So it was a success!

[Modzilla_Kicker]

Evidence please I complained,prove I am a liar or will you be posting your disclaimer in about 40 minutes times

"We as a whole are the mainstream" really and here we are still asking for people to look at the facts in the hope of a reinvestigation,thats right I seem to have forgotten all the attention 9/11 is getting in the mainstream you apparently think we are part of. 

As far as mainstream is concerned, why do you think the NWO had to put a G Beck on one of their propaganda outlets to fakely champion the same causes that WE THE NEW MAINSTREAM AUDIENCE AND ACTIVISTS have been doing, and growing exponentially doing so? We have so many gauges to know the pulse of the nation, and the polls are just one. Gun sales are another. Activism is another. Talking about activism, we have the MOST activists than the NWO's factions combined. HANDS DOWN. I'm not talking about the sheeple or non-activists who will bother to show up for a concert or a political rally for fun. If you know anything about the sociology of politics, the activists are usually the minority in the overall population, the by-standers are the majority. Well, we have the majority of the minority to our side. DEAL WITH IT.

Second, I said "most are liars." If that struck a chord with you, i'm sorry. Do some introinspection and come back later. Anyway, I started my lecture addressing two types of truthers: a) STUPID, who cannot understand what move is credible at one time and will not appear so at other times. b) ANGRY, I understand the feeling of many who used to be respected by friends for being the source of news as if from the heavens. I am in the same boat. BUT, friends, we are at crucial points in the infowar. There isn't much time left, this one move could mean a lot, IF WE DECIDE TO GET OVER THE DISAPPOINTMENT and use it to MAXIMIZE its effect. I wouldn't back such moves were it done at a time when we had to prove our credibility. What this move is intended for is not that, it's to use our acquired credibility, i.e. the MEDIA POWER OF AJ in 2009, to force the other side to cover our AGENDA. WE ARE THE AGENDA SETTERS NOW. They used to. Not ANYMORE. "ARRRRRGGGGG".

[deconstructmyhouse]

Did anyone notice the BBC's headline article, WHICH CAME OUT TODAY!  which imo makes the Aj psy op all the more powerful; I mean this coincidence is a god send:

BBC REPORT: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8244065.stm


More plane terror plots 'likely'
 

Al-Qaeda is likely to try again to use aircraft to attack the West, Whitehall officials have told the BBC.

Security correspondent Frank Gardner said they believed the airline bomb plot was part of al-Qaeda's "obsession" with using commercial airliners.

The warning comes after three British men were convicted of plotting to blow up flights from London to North America using bombs disguised as soft drinks.

Defence expert Michael Clarke agreed that al-Qaeda was "still plotting".

On Monday, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 28, Tanvir Hussain, 28, and Assad Sarwar, 29, were found guilty at Woolwich Crown Court after the UK's largest ever counter-terrorism operation

Their arrests in 2006 changed the face of air travel, prompting the introduction of restrictions on the carriage of liquids.

UK intelligence officers believe the plot was directed by al-Qaeda figures in Pakistan, including a British man - Rashid Rauf - from Birmingham, now thought to be dead.

'Soft targets'
   
ANALYSIS
Daniel Sandford
Daniel Sandford, home affairs correspondent

Essentially, the rules in British courts are that you cannot use intercept material as evidence in a trial - except in very exceptional circumstances.

There has been a lot of pressure already to start introducing it - particularly in terrorism trials where people may have been detained or kept under control orders because of such evidence.

In the first airline trial the jury were deadlocked, but in the second trial when these fascinating e-mails communicating between the plot's leaders and Pakistan were introduced, there was no such deadlock.

These e-mails were not intercepted - they were taken off the Yahoo server in America - but it shows, people are saying, that intercept-type evidence works.
Liquid bomb plot: What happened
Airlines bomb plot: The e-mails
Profiles: Airline plot accused
Will airport restrictions continue?

Prof Clarke, director of defence think tank the Royal United Services Institute, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that al-Qaeda was more "marginalised" now than in the past, but still posed a threat to the West.

"There's no doubt there are people in the tribal areas on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan who have tried these plots," he said.

"There were four or five big plots and they've all come to light in the UK. They haven't worked, but they're still plotting."

Commercial airliners, he said, were also "very soft targets", adding: "If it's possible to get a bomb onto an airliner then it's a goner."

Sajjan Gohel, from think tank the Asia-Pacific Foundation, said: "If the group [al-Qaeda] can't target the US directly it will go after its allies, namely the UK.

"Also it can tap in to the very large Pakistani diaspora inside the [UK] - many of whom travel to Pakistan where al-Qaeda is based - whom it can recruit, train, radicalise and send back to the UK."

Earlier, John McDowell, head of the Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command, said security staff and police were racing against time when they foiled the plot.

He told the BBC the arrest of the men was "a relatively close thing".

"It's always a balancing act to try to acquire the necessary evidence while at the same time ensuring that public safety is your most important consideration," he said.

"So, we ran this as long as we could run it as a covert, proactive operation and we moved in at the time that we felt that the risks were too great."

The operation also had to be speeded up after alleged US pressure led to the arrest of Rauf in 2006.

Michael Chertoff, former US Homeland Securities Secretary, said Rauf "was the individual involved in essentially supervising the plot, although he was not someone who was going to take part in the actual attack itself".

Former US security chief Michael Chertoff's reaction

'Convict themselves'

The case has reinforced calls for the use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails as evidence in court.

The prosecution case included a series e-mails linking Ali and Sarwar with jihadist figures in Pakistan.

These were not intercepted - they came from the Yahoo server in the US - but the BBC's home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford said they had given ammunition to those calling for intercept evidence to be used in British courts.

At present, phone tap and intercepted email evidence is not admissible, but Sir Ken Macdonald, who was head of the Crown Prosecution Service when the airline plot was uncovered, says the case is proof that a change in the law is needed.

"This is the best evidence you can have - people convicting themselves out of their own mouths," Sir Ken told the BBC.

At the time of his arrest, ringleader Ahmed Ali had identified seven US and Canada-bound flights to be blown up over the Atlantic within a two-and-a-half-hour period.

Airline terror plot: The evidence

Slide 1
    Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Tanvir Hussain and Assad Sarwar were arrested in August 2006. They were each accused of two charges of conspiracy to murder using home-made explosives.

    All three were found guilty in an earlier trial of conspiracy to murder involving liquid bombs - but that jury could not decide whether their plans extended to detonating the devices on planes.

    Now a second jury has decided that such a terror plot did exist.

THIS ARTICLE CONTINUES FOR FIVE PAGES AT THE ABOVE LINK

[endof]

Yeah you guys were watching that real close weren't you... the article was put up and saved to the page in three stages, beginning at eight o'clock this morning... if you would take the time to read it, it is a huge article, takes 20 minutes or so to read... the photos were added as well as the disclaimer at the end of the process, this was about 8:30 to 8:45 AM...

Yep you guys are watching us real close aren't you... the whole thing was supposed to be up and ready to go by 9 AM as it was touted on the radio show all day yesterday... I think we made it don't you...

well if thats your explination, then i will accept it, but it still seems like the disclaimer could have easily been published right from the start.
However you didnt touch apon why it was so massively hyped as if it were second coming of jesus christ himself, only to turn out to be a fake interview with the president.
Its smells like a giant publicity stunt for which deception is used as its key delivery method, those are the tactics of the msm.

Tell me, why not just publish it without any prior hype with a disclaimer right at the top maybe even, as would be any article.
It really wouldnt have mattered then, its not the content at fault here, its the delivery.

[Dig]

Infowars /Prison Planet Forum is not KNOWN FOR SATIRE! Don't you get it? I almost posted that on forum.

EPIC FAIL OF EPIC PROPORTIONS... AS RON PAUL SAYS 'BLOWBACK'

Prison Planet Forum is not known for satire?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I AM PASSIONATE ABOUT DISARMING THE PSYCHOPATHS WITH HUMOR AND ALLOW THE MASSES TO SEE THE TRUTH THROUGH IT!

Here is one of my greatest heroes...

"Political Satire became obsolete the day Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize"
- Tom Lehrer (greatest political satirist in the past 50 years)
_____________________________
From wiki:
Lehrer earned his BA in mathematics (Magna Cum Laude) from Harvard University in 1947, when he was 18. He received his MA the next year, and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He taught classes at MIT, Harvard and Wellesley.  When asked by an Australian newspaper about his silence since the 1960s and his legacy now, he commented that his particular brand of political satire is more difficult in the modern world. "The real issues I don't think most people touch. The Clinton jokes are all about Monica Lewinsky and all that stuff and not about the important things, like the fact that he wouldn't ban landmines... I'm not tempted to write a song about George W. Bush. I couldn't figure out what sort of song I would write. That's the problem: I don't want to satirise George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporise them."

Tom Lehrer - Wernher von Braun

2 min - Jul 5, 2007 -    (100 ratings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro

Tom Lehrer - The MLF (Multi Lateral Force) Lullaby

2 min - Oct 1, 2007 - (10 ratings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB7PRY1Aqds

The element song

1 min - Oct 17, 2006 -    (255 ratings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNfx0FO4hzs

Tom Lehrer - When you are old and gray

2 min - Oct 1, 2007 -    (14 ratings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NOZH0y7VxE

Tom Lehrer - National brotherhood week

2 min - Jul 26, 2007 -    (59 ratings)   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY

Tom Lehrer - New Math

2 min - Sep 3, 2006 -    (135 ratings)   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXx2VVSWDMo

Tom Lehrer on Sociology

3 min - May 27, 2007 -    (22 ratings)   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX5II-BJ8hI

Tom Lehrer - Pollution

2 min - Jul 26, 2007 -    (55 ratings)   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPrAuF2f_oI

Tom Lehrer - So long, mom (a song for world war III)

2 min - Jul 26, 2007 -    (44 ratings)   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pklr0UD9eSo

Tom Lehrer - The Vatican rag

1 min - Oct 1, 2007 -    (23 ratings)   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f72CTDe4-0

Tom Lehrer - Masochism tango

3 min - Oct 1, 2007 -    (14 ratings)   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TytGOeiW0aE

Tom Lehrer - Poisoning pigeons in the park

2 min - Oct 1, 2007 -    (18 ratings)   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhuMLpdnOjY

Tom Lehrer - Send the marines

1 min - Oct 1, 2007 -    (8 ratings)   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHhZF66C1Dc

Tom Lehrer - Who's next

2 min - Oct 1, 2007 -    (14 ratings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FgMTAj4f_o

We will all go together when we go

3 min - Oct 16, 2006 -    (172 ratings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU2mwrxRQyA
______________________________

[RoadRunner]

If the disclaimer would've been placed at the top, most people would never read the article... the honesty is in the disclaimer itself, even at the bottom...

As soon as the mainstream media starts disclaiming their lies and deception anywhere within the body of an article, then I'm sure you can talk Kurt and Paul into placing a disclaimer at the top of the "once in a blue moon" hypothetical editorial... I think this is the very first one they've done... judging from the response, we need to do more just like it.

Going to have to work a lot harder at dissuading opinion, here Road-Runner... the fact that I only see you and a couple of the other guys here when something needs to be debunked... that betrays you my friend.

JTCoyoté

"A patriot must always be ready to defend
his country against his government."
~Edward Abbey

Can you stop trying to make this an individual attack against me, this thread is about summarizing the concerns of like-minded individuals which do not agree with the method in which this article was presented. So let me continue to expand on what I believe to be our other concerns about this method.

The article can be summed up as Bait for the mainstream media, and it has a two step strategy:

1) It must convince the mainstream media to cover it, by becoming an unavoidable internet sensation on either negative or positive terms

2) Once it is covered, a 9/11 truther must defend its position as being a legitimate piece of Journalism and they must also convince the American audience to take deeper look at the questions that the 9/11 Truthers want answered in the article.


Now lets say the Mainstream media decides to cover it, which means they fell for the bait and step (1) has been successful. Then their strategy will most likely be:

"Present the article as lie propagated by the delusional 9/11 Truthers (Now because of the method Alex Jones chose to present it, they have credible right to do so). Focus on a few straw men arguments that 9/11 Truthers have used in the past which were not presented in the article. Do not have anyone who represents the movement come on the show and defend the articles position or purpose"

In this likely scenario, the essential Step 2 never occurs.

So without the representation needed in order to use this article to our advantage, we are unable to gather any supporters through the Television by method of 9/11 Truther TV interview.

Which means the entirety of our audience who may become supporters of 9/11 Truth, will not have been converted by the mainstream media's coverage. They will have to read the original article online, and of course, the online article causes the negative psychological reaction towards the truther movement, which I described in my first/initial post in this thread. So it is a lose-lose situation for 9/11 Truth.

This is my perspective, I believe others share the same concern.