Pentagon Strike in Maxim magazine

Renaissance

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I recently bought a copy of Maxim's magazine for an article it had on 911, which included the Pentagon Strike flash video. I didn't see this on SotT, but I could have missed it. If not, below is the article. Some friends saw me with the magazine and poked fun, not believing that I really 'bought it for an article'. For those not familiar with Maxim, it's better known for it's pictorials of women with few articles of clothes than for its articles covering the skinny.

I found a description of the Maxim audience in the below article:

The American Observer

Reading between the Lines
Traditional Men’s Magazines take cues from British competition.
By Eric Kay

New magazines make waves in the industry

This new breed of men’s magazines, known for covers featuring scantily-clothed women and light pieces on alcohol consumption, sex and pop culture, are referred to as laddies. Maxim, the most popular of the laddies came onto the scene in 1997 and drastically altered the landscape.

With a circulation of 12.8 million, more than double GQ’s and Esquire’s, Maxim has forced the traditional men’s magazines to make changes and incorporate certain successful laddie elements.

“The key moment was the arrival of Maxim because it was hugely successful with skimpily-attired women coupled with goofy stuff about beer and marked by having few serious pieces,” said Peter Carlson, magazine critic for the Washington Post. “So when that formula proved successful, it spawned a lot of imitators and got the attention of GQ, Esquire and Playboy.”

With more than 2.5 million readers annually, Maxim magazine is still finding new readers, according to Carlson. Its subscription base increased nearly 4 percent from last year.

Traditional Magazines Follow Laddie Formula

The hallmark of the laddie magazines is their quick-read nature, according to Carlson. Many of the stories in Maxim and FHM are barely a page long.

“I read Maxim for the reviews on books, games, music and whatnot,” said 23-year-old Blake Hering. “There’s always a decent military article and obviously the hot pictures of females. I also like the small tidbits of information you don’t find anywhere else.”
(...)
Maxim and For Him Magazine have locked their sites on the coveted 18-34 male demographic. Both magazines have 27-year-old median age readers with household incomes near $64,000, according to Media Post Communications, a media and advertising research agency.
(...)
Pentagon Strike is covered in Theory #3. When I first began typing up the article I noted that the cover headline included 'Stranger Than Fiction.' I hadn't read the recent 'Stranger than Fiction' (good article btw!) article on SotT so I thought it might be covering the 9/11 story in Maxim - it didn't, but it is an interesting synchronicity covering the same topic.

Maxim said:
(on cover)
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Stranger Than Fiction

(Under table of contents, pg. 8)
Conspiracy Theories
106 WHAT REALLY BROUGHT DOWN THE TOWERS?

It’s four and a half years after 9/11, and there’s still much unknown about that day. We examine the theories, from remote-controlled planes to our own government’s intentionally letting it all go down, no matter how absurdly bat-s*** crazy they happen to be.


(pg. 106-111)
What Really Brought Down The Towers?

- Planes flown by terrorist?
- A remote-controlled aircraft?
- Preplanted explosive devices?

As major questions surrounding the official version of the truth emerge, "What really happened on 9/11?" is becoming the new "Who shot JFK?" of a new generation. How crazy are the new conspiracy theories? Depends how far down the rabbit hole you're willing to go.


Few of these guys simply talk. More accurately what they do is spew. Like a printer cranking out multiple copies of a statistical prospectus, they seem hellbent on spitting out every fact, figure, and thread of conjecture in their heads before the paper runs dry. About Dick Cheney's connection to the strangely precedent right-wing Project for the New Century think tank. About Mohamed Atta's U.S. intelligence connections and love of pork chops and strippers. About implausible demolition patterns observed at the World Trade Center on that fateful morning.

"There are so many problems with the official story of 9/11, it's hard to know where to start," says Sander Hicks, a 34-year-old independent publisher from Brooklyn whose "middle-of-the-road Christian values" father marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960's. "A person of intellectual honesty cannot embrace that story."

On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center collapsed in an implosion of concrete, flying steel, and human bodies. In Washington, D.C., the Pentagon suffered a giant, blackened gash in a recently renovated section. Meanwhile, United Airline Flight 93 plummeted into a rural Pennsylvania field, killing everyone on board.

Just about everyone agrees on that much. Four years later, a growing and increasingly prominent group of Americans believes that a government conspiracy is the only explanation of "the New Pearl Harbor" that makes any sense. Armed with a spate of books, compelling videos, and a recent high profile ad campaign, the loose community that some call the 9/11 Truth Movement has moved from the shadowy basements of the Internet out into the open. Across the board, the movement operates on the conviction that the U.S. government is keeping the whole truth under wraps. And that it either planned or allowed 9/11 to happen as a pretext for invading Afghanistan and Iraq and rolling back civil liberties at home.

"It's becoming a cause," says Jimmy Walter, the millionaire who runs reopen911.org. Walter is blowing stacks of cash on cable TV spots and full-page ads in The New York Times, plus funding the free distribution of DVDs (more than 365,000 so far, he says), to demand new investigations into the attacks. "It's hard to say it feels good, but it actually does feel good to stand up and be a patriot."

While Walter may be the Truth Movement's most prominent promoter, it's not a one-man crusade: Just check out the six million hits on a google search for "9/11 conspiracy." Or a 2004 CNN.com poll in which 89 percent of respondents said they believe there's a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11.

The surest sign of the conspiracy movement's growing momentum: opposition. Two major magazines, Popular Mechanics and Scientific American, recently devoted features to debunking various 9/11 conspiracy theories. In September 2005, a book by two British journalists, titled 9/11 Revealed, prompted the U.S. State department to post a detailed critique of the authors "absurd, sinister interpretations" on the agency Web site.

"That's the first time the government has ever taken notice of any alternative ideas," says David Ray Griffin, professor emeritus of philosophy at California's Claremont School of Theology, who dropped his respected and prolific scholarly work to write 9/11 conspiracy books (The New Pearl Harbor, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions). "We all thought that was a pretty big step."

In fact, the government had refuted earlier 9/11 rumors. But the movement has an answer for everything. One might ask, for instance, wasn't it the threat of WMDs, not 9/11, that sold the American public on the need for war in Iraq?

"September 11 was very important to Iraq because it squelched domestic dissent," explain Hicks. "They waged the invasion of Iraq on the heels of the Afghanistan invasion, which conveyed the sense that we were unbeatable. You've got to remember the context." In other words, it all fits together - if you listen carefully to the way they tell it.




THEORY #1

There were no suicidal Islamic highjackers.

The case: In the days after 9/11, Americans came to know and hate the 19 terrorists, commanded by a nefarious Egyptian named Mohamed Atta, who used boxcutters and a perverted version of Islam to hijack airplanes, level the towers, smash up the pentagon, and bring the United States to a virtual standstill. But what if they actually had nothing to do with it? Some of the most sensational 9/11 conspiracy theories insist that Atta and company were framed.

"The jets were controlled by advanced robotics and remote-control technology, not hijackers," insists Carol A. Valentine on her website public-action.com, which peddles a wide range of conspiracy theories. Hang on it gets wilder.

Elaborate umbrella theories involve the use of multiple decoy planes, remote controlled commuter jets packed with explosives, and the manipulated passenger lists. The most incendiary idea: that all four "hijacked" planes were secretly directed to a U.S. Air Force base, were all their passengers were loaded onto United Flight 93, the plane that went down in Pennsylvania. Some variations of other theories tie in here, including claims that the story of hero passengers thwarting the terrorists on Flight 93 was, amazingly, fabricated, cell phones and all.

Fuel for the fire: Some say the four 9/11 planes' light passenger loads - the most crowded had 81 aboard while Flight 93 had just 37 - suggest someone deliberately capped ticketing for the four flights. As for the hijackers themselves, conspiracy theorists cite numerous media reports of alleged 9/11 jihadists (or at least Arab dudes with the same names) turning up alive after the attacks.

Believe it or not? To believe this (and many 9/11 conspiracy theories), you have to believe that the government is evil enough to cook up a head-spinningly complicated plot against its own people in its largest city. Once you've made that leap, remote-controlled decoy planes don't seem that far-fetched.




THEORY #2

Explosives - not planes - really brought down the World Trade Center towers.

The case: On March 26, 2000, more than 4,450 pounds of gelatin-based nitroglycerine, linked by 21.6 miles of orange detonation cord that burned 24,000 feet per second, was ignited in Seattle. Barely 17 seconds later, the monstrous kingdome - 400 plus tons of structural steel and 52,800 cubic yards of concrete - crumpled neatly to the ground in a controlled demolition. Almost as if by magic, the damage was limited to the dome’s own footprint.

Is it odd that the collapse of the Twin Towers looked eerily similar to just that kind of prearranged job? Conspiracy theorists think so. Rejecting the official story - that 1,800-degree infernos sparked by burning fuel fatally weakening the Towers’ steel support beams - they say planted explosives destroyed the buildings.

“It’s undeniable,” says Jim Hoffman of 911research.com. “There’s never been a fire induced collapse of a steel frame building before.” William Rodriguez, a 20-year WTC maintenance worker insists he heard and felt a massive explosion in the basement floors - “I just thought a generator blew up” - just before the first plane struck. He is suing George Bush and others for “knowingly failing to warn of 9/11."

A video on reopen911.org uses red arrows to track supposed “mysterious explosions” within one tower as it collapses. Conspiracists agree that two airplanes hit the WTC, but point to the towers’ rapid fall and the fact that the massive buildings “pancaked” straight down into their own foundations as evidence of other forces at work. Lots of attention goes to World Trade Center 7, a 47-story building that was not struck by a plane, but also collapsed upon itself after the attacks.

Fuel for the fire: The implosions were highly unusual, as the magazine Fire Engineering pointed out in 2002. Bringham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, who recently released a scientific paper questioning the cause of the Twin Towers’ collapse, notes that even FEMA concluded the official reasons for WTC7's collapse had “a low probability of occurrence.”

Believe it or not? In Popular Mechanics’ anti-conspiracy feature, engineers say steel doesn’t need to melt to lose it structural integrity. And for this theory to work, you have to believe that someone could booby-trap some of the world’s busiest buildings without anyone noticing.




THEORY #3

American Airlines Flight 77 never crashed into the Pentagon.

The Case: Officially terrorists piloted American Airlines Flight into America’s military headquarters. But if you watch “Pentagon Strike,” a hair-raising video widely circulated on the internet, you see a much different version of events.

Set to a throbbing backbeat of ominous techno, the video fires a barrage of questions and statements aimed at contradicting the accepted story. IN REALITY, A BOEING 757 WAS NEVER FOUND, it says, going on to claim that the debris at the Pentagon shows no evidence that such a massive plane hit the building. AIRPLANE CRASHES LEAVE WRECKAGE, screams one screen shot. Eyewitness quotes scroll over pictures of the buring building, suggesting a small commuter plane...or a missile...or a military jet...or explosives. Why the video asks, did the Feds hustle to clear debris away and seize surveillance film? (The video can be seen at pentagonstrike.co.uk.)

Fuel for the fire: Hani Hanjour, the alleged hijacker pilot, reportedly sucked so bad in lessons that he couldn’t safely fly a single-engine Cessna, much less pilot a 155-foot-long Boeing 757 into a 7,000-foot dive, turning 270 degrees into a ground-level target at 530 mph.

Believe it or not? Many eyewitnesses did report a full-size plane, and many in the Truth Movement refute this as the type of wild fantasy that discredits their more reasonable claims.




THEORY #4

OK, maybe Al Qaeda did it. But the government let it happen.

The case: Just as some believe the U.S. allowed the Japanese to bomb pearl Harbor in 1941 to drag the American public into a war the government wanted, many say at least a few in Washington knew what was coming on 9/11. Some suspect that someone, somewhere decided that a war against the Middle Eastern terrorists (and anyone else - cough, Saddam, cough - who got in the way) wouldn’t be all bad.

More than any outright conspiracy theory, the sense that the Feds botched a chance to stop 9/11 generates mainstream interest. Two members of congress, Democrat Cynthia McKinney and Republican Curt Weldon, aggressively question the government’s handling of advance intelligence. Recently, Weldon convinced 246 members of the House, from both parties, to sign a letter demanding a full investigation into Able Danger, a classified military intelligence effort to track Al Qaeda agents that began in 1999. According to a Weldon spokesman, the Department of Defense won’t allow key testimony on the project.

“The Pentagon has substantiated that Able Danger existed,” Weldon staffer John Tomaszewski says, “We were getting somewhere, and it abruptly halted. Why? There were three meetings where FBI guys showed up expecting to meet Defense intelligence, and the DIA guys just wouldn’t show us. Why was the exchange stopped?”

Fuel for the fire: Beside Able Danger, skeptics point to major miscues. On August 6, 2001 President Bush was given a now-infamous intel brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” which cited potential hijacking plans. So how off guard, they ask, could the government really have been?”

Believe it or not? Obviously someone f***** up. Does this mean 9/11 was deliberately allowed to happed? No. But the fact that, for example, guys like Dick Cheney’s indicted ex-chief if staff Scooter Libby, teamed up to write a 2000 report for the Project for the New American Century think tank speculating that a ‘new Pearl Harbor” would be needed to “rebuild America’s defenses” gives the theory plenty to go on.




THEORY #5

Someone else did it, but there’s too much we don’t know.

The case: One of the most common threads of conspiracy holds that some other hostile force either helped Al Qeada with the attacks, failed to warn the U.S., or did the job itself. Suspicions about Pakistani intelligence, the Saudis, Hussein, and others are out there, but suggestions that Israel had a hand in the attacks - or at least knew about them - are most commonplace.

Between May and September 2001, for example, the Feds deported more than 100 young Israelis who earlier in the year had shown up at Drug Enforcement Agency offices, military bases, and agents homes, snooping around under the pretext that they were art students looking to make sales. (The shady kids carried portfolios of shoddy, mass-produces art.) The strange visits occurred around the country, including areas where 9/11 hijackers are thought to have lived. According to a Salon.com report, several of these possible spooks lived just down the block from Mohamed Atta. Did the know something was up?

“The most shocking smoking-gun thing we have is the way Israeli intelligence were tracking Atta and were ejected from the U.S. on August 21 for getting too close,” says Hicks. “It shows the levels of protection Atta had.”

Fuel for the fire: Then there’s Saudi Arabia, home to most of the hijackers. The U.S. allowed prominent Saudis to scurry home at a time when no commercial planes were flying, a move that still looks either strange or sinister, depending on your point fo view. Meanwhile, Griffen notes allegations that Pakistan - up to its neck in the funding of Afghan jihadist - may have been in contact with Atta.

Believe it or not? Many of these theories stretch the patience of the most credulous. But, dismissing an entire tree for one rotten apple may be rash. For those who simply can’t wrap their minds around such an epic deception, many are eager to frame things in a more pragmatic perspective.

“Losing a couple of buildings in New York is nothing compared to the global capital at stake, Hicks says. “It’s like Jack Nicholson and John Hudson in Chinatown. As Jake Gittes, Nicholson asks Hudson, the magnet who’s monopolizing L.A.’s water supply, why he’s doing it. ‘You’ve got cars, women, and houses, so why are you doing it? Is it greed or power?’ And Hudson has this great pause before he says, ‘The future, Mr. Gittes - it’s the future.”
There were also some smaller 'mini-articles' within this article. Of interest, below 'Theory #3' was one with David Icke: "Davis vs. Goliath - Among other things, uber-conspiracy theorists David Icke blames 9/11 on our shape-shifting, reptilian overloards." Isn't it interesting that right under the 'Pentagon strike section (where there is no mention of Signs-of-the-times), David Icke is indulged ...as a crackpot.

So if the Maxim reader does do any internet searching of the above and comes across SotT (and according to a 2001 Mediamark research study the average Maxim reader is more internet active than the average American and readers of other men's magazines) they are already likely perverted (discouraged?) with their notions of David Icke, osit. David Icke, You're Not Helping!

I also found it interesting that the 'theory three' section was substantially shorter than the rest, although in reading it, it seemed to me the most powerful; of course it was then discredited as 'wild fantasy'.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Excellent observations of how COINTELPRO works. Yup, David Icke has been a set-up from the get-go, IMO. Too bad more people can't think critically.

I still believe that the Pentagon event is the weakest point of the whole operation. Notice that they only have "eyewitnesses," and we all know how easily eyewitnesses can be "created" or bought. That's their WHOLE proof... and that says something. Problem is, there are more believable eyewitnesses who tell a different story.

I also think that if ALL pressure was brought to bear on this one event, on demanding the surveillance videos be released, that would do the deed. You can talk endlessly about explosives in the WTC, melting point of steel, and on and on. One expert against another. The same with all the other theories. But with the Pentagon, there are surveillance videos that exist and have never been released.

Of course, probably by now, they have been destroyed.

Sometimes I wonder why they didn't have a hollywood studio just create some videos and release them. I guess that is because there are too many independent experts who could take such a video apart if it was faked.

So yeah, the most dangerous part of the whole operation, the weakest point, has to be defended the only way they can defend it: debunking and ridicule.
 

Ben

Jedi Council Member
All branches of the STS matrix are working within the path of least resistance to keep the majority of people in check. I used to think: surely they would have gone to more effort than this to keep things covered up (and hyperdimensional beings can surely achieve a lot with the effort they put in). But it is now obvious to me that they just don't need to. They always have the vast majority of people under control with the least amount of effort required, leaving people like us frustrated that people cannot see what is just beneath the surface.

This attitude says it all:

"To believe this (and many 9/11 conspiracy theories), you have to believe that the government is evil enough to cook up a head-spinningly complicated plot against its own people in its largest city."

Of course not, there's no historical precedent for THAT!
 
"To believe this (and many 9/11 conspiracy theories), you have to believe that the government is evil enough to cook up a head-spinningly complicated plot against its own people in its largest city."

You have a pretty good point Ben. The key word in this remark is BELIEVE. The fact is that no matter which way one goes, it is a matter of belief. The only other factor involved is evidence. One can look at the evidence or choose to "believe" our leaders. We must choose to believe, because we--the governed--are not allowed access to facts and evidence. Our leaders and our secret government retain the power to hold and withhold any information, facts and evidence that they so choose through the mechanism of the "National Security State." We are supposed to "trust" our leaders on "faith" that though they choose to with-hold information and facts from us, "for our own good," that they would not lie to us. Hello. Want to look at their track record in the past for lying? What more evidence should one need?

Does it help to provide the arguments and information available that pretty well proves that Pearl Harbor was just such a plot? (Not to mention the other wars and conflicts in recent modern history--publicized and not publicized.) How about the fact that they still won't release all that they're holding re: WWII and Pearl Harbor SIXTY years after the event? Why would they keep these secrets if they didn't have something to hide? What gives anybody the RIGHT to withhold this information from the people? Any information from the people?

How can democracy as we were taught it to be, exist, when the "governed" that choose the "government" do not have access to the information necessary to make an informed decision? We have been conditioned to accept the idea that a secret government is o.k. That is nonsense. The Secret Government Negates Everything That We Were Taught In School About How Our Government Works--we were told lies, we were merely conditioned and propagandized while being told that WE were the free country with the free press and that the Soviet Union and China were the oppressive, lying governments that taught propaganda and dummied up facts as history in their schools.

He who controls the secrets controls everything--starting with the false perception of truth and reality that is foisted upon voters--the polity--the 'res publica'--the voting public--the BLIND. Sooner or later the blind have to say, Enough! No More Secrets! No More Lies! No More War! No More Killing! No More Harming The Many For The Benefit Of The Few!

A good place to start IMHO is to re-read and re-member what the text of the Declaration of Independence states: "WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. . . "
 

Justin

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
"To believe this (and many 9/11 conspiracy theories), you have to believe that the government is evil enough to cook up a head-spinningly complicated plot against its own people in its largest city."

And that is where most people get stuck and just CAN'T believe these theories. Or at least they can't CONSCIOUSLY believe them (aka denial). They may know that the theories make sense but just can't accept the implications.
 

Renaissance

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Just found this at another forum, its the Maxim Story scanned to a pdf file:

http://www.911blogger.com/files/MAXIM-MARCH-2006-911-Conspiracy-Theories.pdf
 

vinny

The Living Force
Justin said:
"To believe this (and many 9/11 conspiracy theories), you have to believe that the government is evil enough to cook up a head-spinningly complicated plot against its own people in its largest city."

And that is where most people get stuck and just CAN'T believe these theories. Or at least they can't CONSCIOUSLY believe them (aka denial). They may know that the theories make sense but just can't accept the implications.
yup, the size of the lie is directly proportional to people's unwillingness to see it as a lie. Small lies are easy to notice and understand, as we have all made them at some point. HUGE shameless lies that involve misery and death for thousands or millions are more difficult to think about - "surely no-one would lie about something that important" is the pathocrats trap for us all.

If one has NO CONSCIENCE then lying about such things is completely natural, and as easy as eating breakfast. It is an essential part of their 'game' of oneupmanship against and domination of 'lesser' humans who exhibit this 'pathetic weakness' known as conscience :-(
 

jar

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Justin said:
"To believe this (and many 9/11 conspiracy theories), you have to believe that the government is evil enough to cook up a head-spinningly complicated plot against its own people in its largest city."

And that is where most people get stuck and just CAN'T believe these theories. Or at least they can't CONSCIOUSLY believe them (aka denial). They may know that the theories make sense but just can't accept the implications.
And what’s amazing to me is most of these same people not only can’t accept the implications, as you say, but refuse to even make the slightest effort to find out for themselves. For example, I wonder what would happen if they just read through the Cosmic Cointelpro Timeline? (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/timeline.htm) Would it make a difference?
 
I

Illuminati

Guest
hmm i lost the evidence somehow, but i had a cameraclip from a near gas station close to the Pentagon showing a missile, striking the Pentagon, there has never been an airplane assault, its all a scam by the Us government to lullaby people.

beware of the Illuminatis in this world!!
 

Craig

Jedi Master
sleepyvinny said:
yup, the size of the lie is directly proportional to people's unwillingness to see it as a lie. Small lies are easy to notice and understand, as we have all made them at some point. HUGE shameless lies that involve misery and death for thousands or millions are more difficult to think about - "surely no-one would lie about something that important" is the pathocrats trap for us all.

If one has NO CONSCIENCE then lying about such things is completely natural, and as easy as eating breakfast. It is an essential part of their 'game' of oneupmanship against and domination of 'lesser' humans who exhibit this 'pathetic weakness' known as conscience :-(
Yep, it's the infamous "Big Lie" of Hitler's Mein Kampf. Wikipedia writes:

Hitler wrote that people came to believe that Germany lost World War I in the field due to a propaganda technique used by Jews who were influential in the German press. This technique, he believed, consisted of telling a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe anyone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". The first documented use of the phrase "big lie" is in the corresponding passage: "in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility".

Later, Joseph Goebbels put forth a slightly different theory which has come to be more commonly associated with the phrase big lie. In this theory, the English are attributed with using a propaganda technique wherein they had the mendacity to "lie big" and "stick to it".

There is an uncited rumor to the effect that Goebbels also offered up his version of the big lie technique without attributing it to either Jewish or Allied propaganda. That uncited quote is the most wide-spread attribution of the big lie, and it is usually given in a context where the implication is that the propaganda technique was invented by Goebbels, who was the propaganda minister for the Third Reich.

The phrase was also used (on page 51) in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. - OSS report page 51
Sound familiar? Seems the neocons in Washington took a direct leaf out of his book and wove in even more deceptive maneuvers.

Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.
 

Justin

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
jar said:
And what’s amazing to me is most of these same people not only can’t accept the implications, as you say, but refuse to even make the slightest effort to find out for themselves. For example, I wonder what would happen if they just read through the Cosmic Cointelpro Timeline? (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/timeline.htm) Would it make a difference?
Probably not. Then you could furnish them with a box of declassified government documents that prove all the cointel projects actually happened. Would that make a difference? Probably not. The cognitive dissonance is so painful for some people that they will find any way at all to avoid it.
 

anart

The Living Force
Justin said:
Probably not. Then you could furnish them with a box of declassified government documents that prove all the cointel projects actually happened. Would that make a difference? Probably not. The cognitive dissonance is so painful for some people that they will find any way at all to avoid it.
It follows that the reason it is so painful is that these people's entire identities lie comfortably in the fake plastic arms of the propoganda that they happily drink in every day - to shatter that illusory identity with the truth would be to literally destroy their world, and very likely what they consider to be their minds.
 

Cyre2067

The Living Force
The article sucks and is obviously designed to play down the theories, however there's another note i detected. That of it's presence. This article, while misleading, may have the effect of creating more rebels. Also it's release happens the same month of V for Vendetta, another movie designed to inspire rebellion.

Intentionally, two sides are being created.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Ya'll might want to check out these forums for some serious background on abovetopsecret.com

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=523

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=626

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=751

The last one pretty much proves our case that abovetopsecret.com is most definitely cointelpro/psy-ops and that they were "commissioned" (probably by Dick Cheney and the Pentagon) to produce the CatHerder piece. Our debunking of the CatHerder piece is apparently a big problem for them because they have certainly taken serious steps to try to get it removed.
 
Top Bottom