awepittance Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 September 11, 2001, shook the United States to the core, a country that had been nearly untouchable since its democratic inception. However, immediately following this horrific tragedy, another equally as impactful ‘terrorist attack’ occurred when weaponized anthrax was sent to multiple Congressman and journalists through the U.S. Postal Service.The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were both one-time major events that happened in two prominent cities. Unlike 9/11, the Anthrax Attacks localized terrorism and spread fear to every corner of American life – now the simple act of getting your mail could prove to be fatal. Five people died as a result of breathing in the deadly anthrax spores, including postal workers and a NY Post reporter. Countless others were infected, yet survived. Initially, the Bush administration tried to unsuccessfully link this ‘second wave of terrorism’ to al-Qaeda. When that talking point out-lived it’s usefulness, the official narrative began leaning towards Saddam Hussein and his mythological biological weapons program. Establishment propagandists like John Mccaine and ABC news reporters intentionally spread disinformation to plant the seed in the public mind that the anthrax came from Iraq, which eventually lead to Colin Powell’s infamous 2003 WMD speech at the UN. All the while, the U.S. government was fully aware that the anthrax did not come from an external source, because the strain showed tell-tale signs of being a specific anthrax strain that was weaponized and manufactured by the U.S. military. Regardless, the idea of the Anthrax Attacks being executed by an external terrorist organization remained the conventional wisdom that the public was conditioned into believing during the aftermath of 9/11. Eventually two men were accused of being the perpetrators behind the attacks, yet no charges were ever brought to either person. The first accused individual, Steven Hatfill, ended up being rewarded a multimillion dollar settlement from the government for being wrongly accused before any evidence was presented against him. The subsequent accused individual, Bruce Ivins, allegedly committed suicide while the FBI was trying to break him into confessing. The National Academy of Sciences was asked by the FBI to verify its evidence pointing to Ivins as a suspect. Instead, the NAS concluded that the DNA in the anthrax sent in the mail was in fact not a match to the anthrax Bruce Ivins worked with. However, before the National Academy of Sciences finished their independent investigation, the FBI rushed their premature conclusions to the press to announce Ivins guilt. To this day, the FBI has never commented on the glaring contradiction that pokes a hole in the official narrative we have been told about the Anthrax Attacks. MR I know my last movie here had some pretty harsh reactions, but I'm going to present to you my 2nd attempt at a non narrative documentary for honest reactions. This one doesn't have up-beat or dancey music intercut with snuff footage, it's pretty ambient all the way through. Took me about 6 months to put this together, spent days mining Cspan and TV archive houses. Also another reminder of how much Glenn Greenwald is a bad ass (he is the surrogate narrator guiding the story) hope you enjoy edit: somebody already caught a typo with the word 'nuclear' and I'm planning on fixing that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 It's a war of information. An "infowar" if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chartnok Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 C0nSpiRacy Spice Girls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 that's cool, let me know if you guys watch the movie and have any thoughts on the content or style in which it was done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 that's cool, let me know if you guys watch the movie and have any thoughts on the content or style in which it was done. I'm gonna watch it in about an hour when I'm done with my busywork. Will report back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YO303 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 that's cool, let me know if you guys watch the movie and have any thoughts on the content or style in which it was done. . Will report back. sorry, will is gone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 that's cool, let me know if you guys watch the movie and have any thoughts on the content or style in which it was done. . Will report back. sorry, will is gone Goddammit. That guy is so unreliable. He should change his name to Won't, ammarite or ammarite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 oh you guys, I can understand the need for levity though after all your government tried to murder and then terrorize you with anthrax, its pretty depressing but that's just like my opinion, the movie doesn't say that. I want viewers to draw their own conclusions, but it would be hard to call the US government anything but a pathological liar in this instanceand please LimpyLoo, i want absolutely nothing to do with Alex Jones. There are actually people out there who are very pissed off at the US government who don't wear tin-foil hats and who aren't gun toting birthers fyi. I dare you to try to find anything in this documentary that even you would consider 'bat-shit' or as brown-shirt Maher says 'fucking nuts' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 it is pretty funny (and possibly pathetic) how easily people divert attention from any of the substance in the actual audiovisual. It's also funny how quickly and subconsciously people are to associate skepticism over the anthrax attacks (far more dubious than the 9/11 attacks) with 9/11 itself. It's as if people bought the narrative part and parcel. Whether the two events are at all interconnected is not my concern; what is though, is the amazing lack of evidence connecting the attacks with either Al Qaeda or the Baath regime....if anything the video brings up all of the evidence to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 psychologically speaking I'm sure there is something to the idea that while suffering from extreme trauma and duress lies and manipulation, propaganda, gas-lighting, whatever you want to call it have a much more profound and lasting effect than the same assault done during a non traumatic period. I think it will be decades from now before we truly understand the stockholm syndrome-style effects we are still experiencing simultaneously being terrified by and taught to look up towards the US government as our benevolent father figure. You can look back on parts of us history like the McCarthy era and the internment of the japanese in WW2 as obviously horrible and embarrassing eras of the United States, but what happened to us after 9/11 is a different beast entirely, so insidious that we pretend like it's not a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 the us government is not a monolithic entity, however much it might serve your narrative to believe it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 the us government is not a monolithic entity, however much it might serve your narrative to believe it is ??? why is this relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 wasn't talking to you mate, just putting it out there. i like this video. it's a lot better paced than the other one you posted. i like the gist of what you're doing, although i think the execution still leaves something to be desired. there's still something teenage about these vids, tonally. forced dread. like "ohhh the bad g man is on the news the REPTILES ARE HERE DRONE MUSIC BLARGH" lol. i'm kidding of course, i enjoy it. the anthrax attacks are an interesting window into the kind of warped, deliberately confusing narrative set forth post 911. these pieces would probably work better projected onto a wall as an installation. i'm not sure they really stand as "documentaries". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I got 5 minutes in but the ominous music was giving me anxiety so I had to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 if the US was a monolithic entity it would actually make the whole situation a lot less scary to me, the way it is now It makes me far more un-easy to think that they have this power and are so corrupt but on the other hand totally riding by the seat of their pants. We have bumbling sociopathic narcissists in control of a nuclear football. but I appreciate the viewings even if the style has fallen flat on some, getting a lot of good feedback outside of watmm but I wanted to post it here because I know how harsh some of the criticisms were last time. and in reference to it not standing as a documentary, it's not in the traditional sense. but even if i made a professional level fully produced documentary i still wouldn't be able to make it the style of having a narrator or regular music, so perhaps you still wouldn't consider that a documentary. lol, 'teenage' , harsh but I can take it. keep the feedback coming. I'm most curious of course about how people not familiar/familiar with the anthrax attacks will react to the information presented. limpy: that music making you uneasy is mine and/or :zoviet*france: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Really good work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 And the music selection is top-notch. Better than squarepusher, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 that's an understatement, that video is better than idm itself and transcends science in its methods of evidence gathering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A/D Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I'm interested to keep going, had to stop watching earlier but I'm finding it a bit heavy on the style side. I'm looking forward to reviewing the content but I generally turn off videos with this much music and stylized editing because I feel like it's deliberately removed from "pure information" (whatever that means). That said I trust you did good research so I will watch the rest and report back. I'm only a few minutes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian trageskin Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 interesting document. i knew close to nothing about the anthrax attacks, the french media didn't relay that information much back then, as far as i know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A/D Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Just finished it. I think it's a well-done piece. My only complaint is the parts which rely heavily on Greenwald's journalism, which is probably good but as a contradiction to official sources I would like to see it backed up. Nice work Robbie. It's important that this gets spread around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 thanks for the feedback guys, unfortunately this being covered as a story since the first letters were sent up until Bruce Ivins post suicide conviction in the court of public opinion is almost un-heard of. Glenn Greenwald is literally the only one I'm aware of who followed the thread from the very beginning and wrote about it in such a way. There are a few other more conspiracy type writers who went further, but i didn't find their research as trust-worthy. I think Greenwald went as far as he could go without resorting to speculation. Although he's the 'narrator' of the content, most of it doesn't come from him and was gathered from AP, Charlie Rose, ABC News, MSNBC and Cspan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adieu Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Is 36 minutes the run time? The 3+ hours of the last one sort of scared me away. That's a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 yes. don't blame you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.