LIHOP Shills: Jesse Ventura's Fake Truth Kool Aid is Deeee-LI-cious! Drink up!
So over at 911Blogger, the LIHOP shills, including True Faction regular Zombie Bill Hicks are scrambling to dismiss the legitimate criticism of Ventura for seeming to backtrack from advocating controlled demolition to advocating LIHOP in a nationally televised interview. For example, we get some common sense questions like these:
trained demolitions expert
from his Navy Seals days..?And yet, he states that at most, they knew in advance but ALLOWED the event to take place, abeit that's still criminal negligence and aiding and abetting in conspiracy to commit mass murder..
Is he off the CD aspect now, to as to appear more "reasonable"..? Is that it?
I don't get it..
Submitted by Robert Rice on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 8:01pm.
and
I don't get it either
but after watching this man he must have his reasons. I do not want to speculate what his reasons are but he does know 9/11 was an inside job and that the three buildings came down by controlled demolition. You can count on that. Perhaps he will drop a 9/11 truth bomb in the near future after he gets everyones attention.Submitted by 9-11 Joe on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 8:27pm.
Cue the shills...
Cmon guys........
.....this is Jesse Ventura. He's been pushing all aspects of 911truth on MSM more that any other pop personality. He's written a book and has a TV show that advances the cause. And you're questioning him?The media loves him and he keeps getting invited back to these shows, which if I were to speculate, is one of the reasons why when asked about his "conspiracy theories" he doesn't come out of left field with nano-thermite or explosions before the planes hit, etc.
And what DOES he say? He says all that people know about 9/11 is what the government and the media tell them. He's slamming the media right to their face. Jesse loves a fight -- a man who loves the ring. He's also someone who's not accustomed to losing. It was a body blow directed at MSM and Stephanopoulos didn't like it at all.
I love watching Jesse to see how he's gonna catch these shmucks off-guard. Jesse fights to win, and he's smart about it.
Go Jesse.
Submitted by 911Peacenik on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 10:07pm.
Yes indeed, this is Jesse Ventura. The same Jesse Ventura who first did the rounds in the 9/11 truth circuit to build up cred by supporting the case for explosive demolition, only to later discredit the movement in his pathetic "Conspiracy Theories" show by inviting OCT supporter Van Romero on to demonstrate "super thermite" made by mixing thermite with paint and brushing it on to a piece of steel. Anyone familiar with the research into the red gray chips in the dust knows that the idea of painted-on thermite involved nano thermite in a sol gel form, not regular thermite mixed with paint. Are we to believe Ventura is just that stupid?
In the recent televised interview, Ventura incorrectly claims that the "August PDB" warned of planes being hijacked and flown into buildings. Since he was in theory supporting a LIHOP case only, this flub makes his entire premise easy to dismiss based on this incorrect statement. So, not only is he pushing LIHOP now, he's doing it in a slipshod manner. Sucks, huh? Not to Zombie Bill Hicks! He just wants everyone to "remember" that "Nico Haupt invented the term LIHOP" and that "LIHOP really is MIHOP when you think about it."
I see a lot of love
for Nico Haupts special little divisional creation in this thread. You guys eat it right up.Something no one seems to understand: Had the protocols in place that day been allowed to run their course, the attacks would not have been (as) successful.
Something no one seems to understand: If 9/11 was allowed to happen, then people in certain positions MADE it happen by obfuscation and malfeasance, not to mention pure criminality. Thus..
Something no one seems to understand: lihop IS mihop. NOW: (lihopmihop) is divisive in that it takes a group of people (9/11 activists who want a new investigation) and divides them along totally made up lines.
Who gives a shit if Person A thinks the buildings were blown up and Person B does not, but both want a new investigation?
(lihopmihop) causes people to lose sight of the ultimate goal and stand against each other. Stupid bullshit.
Submitted by zombie bill hicks on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 9:55am
I see a lot of love
for 'Zombie bill hicks' special little misdirection creation in that thread. Some of you fakes and weak-minded idiots at 911Blogger eat it right up.
Something that should be blatantly obvious: Whether or not the protocols in place that day had been allowed to run their course becomes an irrelevant distraction when you deal with the observable FACT that the buildings exploding into dust and immediately incinerating almost 3000 of our fellow citizens had nothing to do whatsoever with planes hitting them, and that therefore, the perps would never have pinned the success of the fake alibi - planes hitting their targets - on unlikely human hijackers that could barely fly.
Something that the LIHOP fakes and useful idiots are pushing that is completely absurd: trying to blur and completely eliminate the distinction between LIHOP and MIHOP, which only serves to benefit the relatively small and rapidly dwindling handful of discredited LIHOPers who are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with being identified as such since they are so far outside of the mainstream of 9/11 truth. To deny that it makes a difference whether we were attacked by Arab Muslims or not, the official "truth" of which has served as justification for the launching of endless wars that have already claimed millions of innocent lives, is not only ludicrous, it seems odd behavior for those supposedly dedicated to uncovering the whole truth about 9/11.
Something that should be blatantly obvious: to define the crime of our government officials as specifically "allowing arab muslim hijackers to attack America" when there is no credible evidence that that is what happened, and much reason to suppose that it did not, is a truly pointless diversion with which a certain small but noisy contingent of truth police seem intent to use for hijacking the truth movement into a dead end. What good does it do to accuse government officials of treason specifically for LIHOP when you have no proof that "they let those evil Moooslims attack us" in the first place, and even more importantly, no proof that there were any "evil Moooslims" flying any planes that day?
LIHOP=MIHOP causes people to lose sight of the ultimate goal of getting to the full truth of 9/11, while letting a tiny group of fakes steer the movement down a dead end that is unlikely to lead to new investigations or to prove anything regarding what really happened that day.
Stupid bullshit.
'zombie bill hicks' is an obvious shill.
The Truefaction shills and
The Truefaction shills and others make it a point of getting in touch with "truthers" who get on tv and couching them(browbeating them) on their bullshit LIHOP talking points and on what to avoid-like the Pentagon,CD and any mention of Israelis.
Disappointing, yes
But his words are vague and, similar to Sunstein, one can read the exoteric and esoteric meanings. It all depends on how you define the "it" in LIHOP. If "it" refers to 9/11, then there is a definite esoteric interpretation. Perhaps Cheney/Rumsfeld sat on their hands and allowed the Mossad to rig the towers? [ETA Scrap that; when typing this post I forgot about his mention of the August PDB] One person at blogger did point out that JV's words do not rule out an inside job. Now, of course, if "it" means "an attack by Muslim terrorists," then yes, the LIHOP position does indeed keep alive the myth that the attack was, "in fact," an Islamic terror attack.
He clearly advocated controlled demolition last season, and this season, if I'm not mistaken, the entire hour is on the Pentagon, and particularly an interview with April Gallop (I'm sorely hoping that the North of Citgo evidence will be covered but I'm preparing myself for disappointment), who clearly believes that a plane did not crash there and that the scene was staged with explosives.
Not only can such a scene at the Pentagon NOT be staged by "Islamic terrorists" but they can not be staged by MI6, CIA, ISI, OR the Mossad. All heads have to turn towards Rumsfeld in the Pentagon scenario.
So with that being said, I'm far from convinced that JV is a "shill."
Did you read his American Conspiracies book? It's very good; I learned a lot.
ETA That being said, zombie's post was just silly.
not so sure...
"the scene was staged with explosives.
Not only can such a scene at the Pentagon NOT be staged by "Islamic terrorists" but they can not be staged by MI6, CIA, ISI, OR the Mossad"
I disagree. In fact I started a thread a while back suggesting that the explosives could have been planted during the renovation work that had just been completed before 9/11. This was done by contractors, not government employees. This doesn't mean that there weren't moles in the Pentagon helping to ensure the success of the op, but it's totally possible that explosives were planted by foreign agents posing as contractors.
I stand by my suspicion of JV's motives.
Adam Syed: "I'm far from convinced JV is a shill"
Yep.
Colleen Rowley Pimps LIHOP AND Wikileaks in LATimes
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rowley-wikileaks-20...
This is LIHOP?
Pulling a picture of WTC exploding out his wallet and presenting it to a Fox News pottedmeathead as an exploding building is LIHOP?
Jesse Ventura on FOX Business News 10/14/10
gotta earn his truther cred somehow...
why not by saving his most truthy truth for the most unreceptive audience imaginable? sorry, I just don't buy that he's a genuine truther. not for a second.
Or maybe
he read the critical comments of his LIHOP appearance at 911blogger and decided to make things right? :)
DRG told me in an email that several months back, he actually emailed JV's publicist Dick Russell and harshly criticized a previous time that JV pitched the LIHOP scenario, telling Dick that "The government can not 'allow' al Qaeda to bring the buildings down at free fall acceleration" and the message (at the time) was received and understood, and that in his very next appearance he was much more MIHOP.
I think given his immense celebrity and popular appeal, he's playing the real truth / PR truth game like a professional juggler.
But I'm not (yet) convinced he's not sincere. Of course, maybe I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance... he's been someone I've looked up to LONG before I became a 9/11 truther... this was my very first Amazon review incidentally:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R31651JHBJQ0WV/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
I'm open to being proven wrong
but so far I don't think he's been very good on the facts. yes, any pub is good pub, but we have to be extremely careful.
Does anybody know who 9/11
Does anybody know who 9/11 logger shill "SnowCrash" really is? Based on his "work" I am convinced he is a tool meant to deflect all conversation from Israel/Zionist participation in 9/11.
SnowCrash Damage
The 9/11 Blogger thread "David Ray Griffin is back! on The Kevin Barrett Show" was welcome news for me as I had been concerned for the health of David Ray Griffin.
I commented on the original post by asking why this "very good news" was not front page news?
Not News?
This is very good news and important for those concerned for the future of David Ray Griffin. Why has 9/11 Blogger not posted this as a news item?
End
This resulted in a hostile and disruptive comment from SnowCrash.
Welcome back
"...returns to touch bases with the movement he has galvanized -- and to explain why we should not accept reports of passenger phone calls as evidence that any airliners were hijacked on 9/11."
Welcome back.... to voice morphing, research assistant snitchjacketing, kidney failure Bin Laden and missiles and flyovers hitting the Pentagon! @ Kevin Barret's wonderful show of course!
Gosh, why wouldn't this be on the front page?
Mr. Griffin, I am glad you are alive and I wish you a healthy future, but I also wish you would stop sow nonsense and harm 9/11 Truth Movement with damaging associations. But, I fear we have all drifted too far apart now for any of us to take each other's advice.
Submitted by SnowCrash on Thu, 05/05/2011
I replied to this provocative comment by SnowCrash quoting some of the disruptive rhetoric.
SnowCrash Damage
Funny but I could say that, you, SnowCrash constantly "sow nonsense and harm 9/11 Truth Movement".
I don't care if I am banned for speaking the Truth.
I am giving up on 9/11 Blogger mainly because of SnowCrash and his constant domination of threads with repetitive nonsense and disruptive illogical rhetoric.
End
SnowCrash then re-edited his post. I replied with the comment below. My comment has since been deleted from 9/11 Blogger after having been published for two days with no explanation.
SnowCrash,
I notice that you often re-edit or revise your posts such as you have done with your first comment by changing your original wording from "sow nonsense and harm 9/11 Truth Movement" to "…stop inculcating the 9/11 Truth Movement with nonsense and harm it…etc"
I understand your need for a Thesaurus but this smacks of revisionism. Your later comment has also been re-edited.
I also notice you frequently allude to a "bond" with the 9/11 Blogger moderators by mentioning the name of Erik Larson in the same breath as your own and claiming "The owner of this site knows me well". Does this mean you are permitted to insult people by calling them "Nuts" without fear of being reprimanded?
Finally, the frequency with which you use variants of the word "Snitchjacket" should be seen as disruptive.
End