This is Robbie Martin officially kicking off the AMA
You can check out some of my original investigations into subjects like 9/11 [
here], the 2001 Anthrax attacks
[documentary, 'Alleged CIA involvement'
article ], and The New Cold War [
podcast w/ transcript]
The instructions for using the promo code to watch A Very Heavy Agenda Part 1 can be found in the first post of
The code will remain active for another 12 hours, and even if you redeem the code at the very end of this period it will still activate a 72 hour
viewing window [as long as you are logged into a Vimeo account or provide a real e-mail address]
If this is the first time you're hearing about A Very Heavy Agenda, check out some of my recent
podcast/media appearances where we discuss the film.
What happened to the anthrax panic? Were all the loose ends tied off and explanations forthcoming?
People forget how manic it got in the popular press. For a while there, it was death-in-the-mail for all of us. There were suspects, rumours
of suspects and speculative tales of anthrax labs being discovered all over the place.
How did so much terror fade away?
ETA - Watching your doco at the moment. It was a murky business and doesn't look any better today
edit on 2.24.2016 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)
Great question. The FBI's official 'amerithrax' investigation concluded with them pinning the attacks solely on a Ft. Detrick, Maryland bio-weapons
lab employee named Bruce Ivins. Conveniently Ivins allegedly committed suicide a week before the FBI brought their 'case' to the American public.
Even though the FBI used an outside entity (The National Academy of Sciences) to verify their DNA tests to trace the anthrax to Bruce Ivins, they
still went forward with their 'case' before the NAS could complete their own tests. When the NAS eventually did complete the job they were assigned
they found that the DNA was not a match and the FBI was over confident in their claims.
To your second question, i think the anthrax letter attacks provided the perfect climate of fear and panic that allowed the Bush administration (even
though they tried so many other things) to have something 'real' as a means to convince Americans going into Iraq was a good idea to prevent future
terrorism. While the common narrative now is 'they lied about WMDs' people forget that the Iraq-anthrax connection was the thing that got the ball
rolling in the first place.
Many semi-mainstream journalists i've spoken to about this privately describe the entire event as being 'memory-holed' possibly intentionally because
of where questions would lead (potentially to the highest levels of the Bush administration).
edit on 24-2-2016 by RobbieMartin because: (
don't know any actual mainstream journalists, lol so i put the qualifier 'semi' before)
I'm probably in-step with you on that second paragraph too. There's been a steady level of existential threat being leaked into our cultural waters
for years now. It's something I don't want to believe and I'm not a big fan of conspiracy anyway. Needless to say, there are these loose ends and
implications of organised mischief that make me wonder about it all.
It's hard to tell the difference between unusual circumstances and exploiting unusual circumstances for unknown ends - typically national security.
Are you asking about the film A Very Heavy Agenda or just what i'm doing in general?
If you're asking about the film, the answer is simple. Getting to spend a week at Russia Today studios in Washington, DC right before Ukraine's
government was overthrown gave me a fairly clear inside perspective on what was actually happening as we ramped up into a 'new cold war' situation
with Russia. This is when I learned that Neoconservative war hawks in DC were still very active and particularly upset that Russia Today was even
allowed to exist. This situation pretty much fell into my lap. Before I had wrongly assumed (like a lot of other people) that the neocons in DC were
shunned into hiding.
edit on 24-2-2016 by RobbieMartin because: [added extra sentence]
Are you strictly anti-interventionist, is there ever a time when intervention is a good thing, and if so why? I personally think that we should not
believe that seriptious activity does not ever occur, or that when it occurs it's due to some nefarious group laughing hysterically from the top. I
believe that even in paradise the critic will find fault, that those in power do have our best interests in mind, and also are faced with moral
ethical choices that thankfully many of us will never have to deal with. Anyway, welcome and I enjoyed your documentary, though I am right leaning
especially regarding foreign policy and energy.
edit on 24-2-2016 by TechniXcality because: (no reason given)
It's hard to honestly answer the question of 'is there ever a time when intervention is a good thing' since every US military intervention i've
witnessed since as long as I've been alive has been based on blatant lies and manipulative narratives filtered through our mainstream media. I'm glad
you enjoyed the film even if you are 'right-leaning'. Arguably, conservatism (especially what people call paleoconservatism) has an
anti-interventionist spirit at its core (see Ron Paul). It is only through modern neoconservative influence that this spirit has been lost.
disclaimer: In case anyone thinks my movie has any kind of partisan slant to it, keep in mind that the key neoconservatives in my film have actually
made an effort to be non-partisan and cheered on Clinton and Obama whenever they launched any kind of aggressive military maneuver.
24-2-2016 by RobbieMartin because: (added sentence)
edit on 24-2-2016 by RobbieMartin because: typo
to your 2nd point, i can't say I agree with that at all. I have seen too many examples of blatant Machiavellian strategic thinking and an 'end
justifies the means' mentality out of our leaders to trust any kind of decisions they make, especially the people in control of our military. The
anthrax-Iraq propaganda is some of the most evil I've ever seen.
edit on 24-2-2016 by RobbieMartin because: added response to 2nd
Thank you for your time and answering the question and addressing my point. However, due to the format of the thread and others will have many more
questions, I will not pursue debate (though if you'd like to I'd be more than willing, perhaps in another thread), I do have one more question since
we are referring to the nefarious and Machiavellian - do you believe 9/11 was an attack orechastrted or even carried out by our government? thank you
I believe that the framing of 'do you believe 9/11 was an attack orchestrated or carried out by our government' is problematic.
Firstly, our government has millions of employees and many different departments.
Secondly I believe there is ample proof and documentation that the Bush administration most definitely lied about aspects of the attacks (especially
not having specific enough warning) and that the 9/11 commission itself was designed to let every single official off the hook.
Until we have a proper unbiased thorough investigation of 9/11 untainted by the meddling of the Bush administration, no one knows exactly what
happened that day.
edit: The film 9/11 Press for Truth lays out a rock solid case that the Bush administration orchestrated a coverup of the attacks.
24-2-2016 by RobbieMartin because: final edit: Press for Truth recommendation
I've been trying to think of the best way to phrase this... How did these despicable opportunists appropriate the term 'conservative' when they don't
seem to have any concrete core values or morality in their associations and actions? Death and Corruption don't automatically come to mind when
someone says either liberal OR conservative to me...
First of all, thank for taking a participation in the event of the century. And thank you for giving ATS this great opportunity to watch your flic.
But i was kinda disappointed, with the lack of back of facts. You show a lot of talk shows, and a really long memorizing event in the first hour, not
bringing any real news to the table, al thou you have all the facts on your side.
The thing was about the Anthrax letters you never established a real hard line to the real origin of the anthrax, which was from an American lab (the
strain -- you know)
You somehow failed to draw the line from one source to another with clear context, as to whom , why and where. It all got a bit blurred to me. Ok,
maybe im not the brigthest around here, but the goal is, atleast my goal is, to bring clear evidence that this was an inside job. Not saying it was
the government, but rogue individuals within the government, which it clearly summarizes to, imho.
You know, follow the money?
Why of why did'nt you follow the aftermath which clearly shows a major cover up?
I know we can start with WTC7, but its kinda irrelevant, until you see the major cover up afterwards.
Dont take me wrong, i love your work, and i look very much forward to your 2nd and 3rd.
But focus on the aftermath, its clear to me, there is something hidden.
(ohh crap 28 pages? if not more ?) ((just like JFK!!))
*Why did'nt Bush and Cheney testify under oath to the 9/11 commission?
*How can any sane person appoint Henry Kissinger to the head of the 9/11 commission ?
*How can NIST exclude explosives, when they never tested for it ?
and so on...
Then mentality at the time was horrendous, and no one asked the tough questions...
Regards to Abby, i follow her on social media too
Here is a little i brewed up back in the days
edit on 24/2/2016 by kloejen because: (no reason given)
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.