Former US intelligence analysts: CIA allegations of Russian email hacking are baseless
Wow - Binney is an absolute looney! Maddow had a segment about this conspiracy theorist as well last night.
Trump is a big fan of Binney.
jamie said:
Wow - Binney is an absolute looney! Maddow had a segment about this conspiracy theorist as well last night.
Trump is a big fan of Binney.
What evidence did Rachel provide that made you think he's looney?
Edited to Add: And did she give Binney an opportunity to present his side?
911 truthers are fairly looney to me. These aren't heroes if you ask me. Also, I can't believe he left the IC in 2001 - I thought your expert would have much more recent knowledge of how things are run there. Bizarre that we're even talking about him - I feel like we're promoting fake news on here by doing so.
What has he been doing exactly the past 10 years that would make him relevant and that he would have any information that the IC has? Just bizarre.
Here's something Binney was involved in 3 years ago:
In August 2014 Binney was among the signatories of an open letter by the group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity to German chancellor Angela Merkel in which they urged the Chancellor to be suspicious of U.S. intelligence regarding the alleged invasion of Russia in Eastern Ukraine. In the open letter, the group said:
Accusations of a major Russian "invasion" of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the "intelligence" seems to be of the same dubious, politically "fixed" kind used 12 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
So Paul - do you believe Russia invaded Ukraine - or were you on board with VIPS here also?
Here's a decent article on VIPS, Binney, The Nation and Russian propaganda:
https://toinformistoinfluence.com/2017/08/15/vips-the-nation-all-russian-propaganda/
Paul - do you have faith in anyone else that makes regular appearances on Infowars?
And another article which delves into the legitimacy of a hack:
jamie said:
And another article which delves into the legitimacy of a hack:
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346468-why-the-latest-theory-about-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong
I'll look at your links and comment on them, but what did Rachel say about Binney that made you think he's looney? And did she give him a chance to present his side?
Rachel just said Pompeo was directed by Trump to talk to conspiracy theorist, Binney.
When I look more into Binney - and the other signatories on VIPS memorandum, I understand why you wouldn't have this garbage on her show. If Infowars and Fox are the only places you have to peddle your theories - there's an issue here.
I thought she had 2 segments that mentioned Binney - could only find this one:
Even VIPS members are disputing the VIPS memo:
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/
(including Scott Ritter)
jamie said:
Here's a decent article on VIPS, Binney, The Nation and Russian propaganda:
https://toinformistoinfluence.com/2017/08/15/vips-the-nation-all-russian-propaganda/
Paul - do you have faith in anyone else that makes regular appearances on Infowars?
This is from the link:
The publisher, “The Nation”. The Nation is aligned with the goals of Russian Information Warfare, in that many of the articles are divisive to the United States, tend to question and undermine the US democratic process, question the leadership, actions, and policies of the United States, and promote Russian national interests.So if you question US leaders, actions and policies, you are a Russian agent. This is a pretty obvious argument against free speech.
Regarding appearances on Infowars, I think it's possible for a credible person to appear. Chomsky had a lengthy interview several years ago. And if Binney appeared, I'd like to know what he said.
jamie said:
Rachel just said Pompeo was directed by Trump to talk to conspiracy theorist, Binney.
When I look more into Binney - and the other signatories on VIPS memorandum, I understand why you wouldn't have this garbage on her show. If Infowars and Fox are the only places you have to peddle your theories - there's an issue here.
I thought she had 2 segments that mentioned Binney - could only find this one:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/pompeo-could-use-cia-against-mueller-probe-as-a-favor-to-trump-1091895363742
You know it's easy to call Binney names and to call VIPS memorandums "garbage." It's harder to rebut them on the merits.
Rachel said that it's "dangerous" for Pompeo to listen to someone who disagrees with the CIA. Since when is it dangerous to consider alternate analyses? In fact, isn't that what the CIA should be doing?
Former CIA official Ned Price almost made a rational analogy to Binney's meeting with Pompeo. He said "Can you imagine if George W Bush had the CIA listen to . . ." but instead of saying "Scott Ritter" he said "A 911 truther." Someone listening to this segment might have reacted -- "Hey, it's a good thing for the CIA director to hear an alternate point of view; what if that had happened in 2003?"
Bottom line -- Rachel bad-mouthed Binney without even pretending to report on his analysis. That's not journalism, that's propaganda.
jamie said:
911 truthers are fairly looney to me. These aren't heroes if you ask me. Also, I can't believe he left the IC in 2001 - I thought your expert would have much more recent knowledge of how things are run there. Bizarre that we're even talking about him - I feel like we're promoting fake news on here by doing so.
What has he been doing exactly the past 10 years that would make him relevant and that he would have any information that the IC has? Just bizarre.
What is the evidence that Binney is a "truther?"
Binney's analysis relies on, in addition to his 36 years at NSA, the NSA's XKeyscore surveillance system made public by Edward Snowden in 2013. He's up to date.
So who's correct? Binney or Ritter? Did Russia invade Crimea or did Crimea want to rejoin Russia? Who's side do you take on download speed? VIPS hacking report has very little credibility. Why should Maddow waste her time on this?
jamie said:
Even VIPS members are disputing the VIPS memo:
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/
(including Scott Ritter)
I posted that article when it came out and I've commented on it. There is disagreement on Binney's attempt to use forensic evidence to prove that in one instance the emails were leaked, not hacked. Those who disagree with forensic analysis remain in agreement with the original memorandum (the OP of this thread) which is based on the absence of evidence presented to prove the hack in light of the NSA's ability to prove it if a hack took place (the OP).
Scott Ritter wrote a critique of the forensic analysis which was also a strong defense of the original position. I think I posted this previously:
Ritter also wrote a critique of the Intel report on hacking, comparing the methodology to what was done prior to the Iraq war:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/16/russia-gate-report-ignored-iraq-wmd-lessons/
paulsurovell said:
I posted that article when it came out and I've commented on it.
You remain unpersuaded, fine. Nevertheless, it is a rebuttal on the merits.
@jamie, I came across that video and was skimming through it just as you were linking to it. Key words: “controlled demolition.”
At least Binney is helping us to understand the NSA's endgame:
The endgame of the National Security Agency is to obtain total information awareness on a global scale, NSA whistleblower and former technical director William Binney said on the Alex Jones Show Thursday.
After being questioned on the larger plan of the national security state as a whole, Binney, who worked at the NSA for more than 36-years, revealed his belief that the agency’s goal of total population control would lead to the creation of a global surveillance apparatus.
“Certainly it is population control, but not just of any given country – but of the world,” the whistleblower said. “And so what they’re after, and I think Obama has stated this from various points, that he wanted a ‘world community,’ so I think that’s probably what they’re after.”
“And in order to do that they need to be able to control the people of the world. So in order to do that, you have to have knowledge of them to know who’s doing what so you can stop it, or manipulate it any way you want.”
Paul - are you on-board with his conclusion?
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
the evidence that Binney is a "truther?"
Is this enough evidence:
Binney's not making any claims about 911. He recently signed a petition calling for a new investigation, based technical questions about how the buildings imploded. He's clear that he doesn't have the technical expertise to reach any conclusions, but he supports a new investigation. He specifically made the point -- "If they find something that they can't explain, then so be it."
The claims of the 911 families, supported by former Sen Bob Graham, are much more controversial. Here's a recent article from Harper's that recalls that the FBI blocked Congress from enforcing a subpoena on an FBI informant who had a relationship with one of the hijackers. And guess who was instrumental preventing that informer from testifying? Answer: See bold below:
https://harpers.org/archive/2017/10/crime-and-punishment-4/?single=1
San Diego looms large in the recorded history of 9/11, though not because it was the focal point of the plot. While preparing for the operation, the future hijackers had been dispersed around the country, in such places as New Jersey and Florida. The reason we know so much about the West Coast activities of the hijackers is largely because of Michael Jacobson, a burly former FBI lawyer and counterterrorism analyst who worked as an investigator for the Joint Inquiry. Reviewing files at FBI headquarters, he came across a stray reference to a bureau informant in San Diego who had known one of the hijackers. Intrigued, he decided to follow up in the San Diego field office. Bob Graham, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told me recently that Robert Mueller, then the FBI director (and now the special counsel investigating connections between Russia and the Trump campaign) made “the strongest objections” to Jacobson and his colleagues visiting San Diego.
Graham and his team defied Mueller’s efforts, and Jacobson flew west. There he discovered that his hunch was correct. The FBI files in California were replete with extraordinary and damning details, notably the hijackers’ close relationship with Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi living in San Diego with a no-show job at a local company with connections to the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation. The FBI had investigated his possible connections to Saudi intelligence. A couple of weeks after the two hijackers flew into Los Angeles from Malaysia, in February 2000, he had driven up to the city and met with Fahad al-Thumairy, a cleric employed by his country’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs who worked out of the Saudi Consulate. Thumairy, reported to be an adherent of extreme Wahhabi ideology — he was later denied a U.S. visa on grounds of jihadi connections — was also an imam of the King Fahad mosque in Los Angeles County, which the hijackers had visited soon after their arrival.
After meeting with Thumairy, Bayoumi had driven across town to a Middle Eastern restaurant where he “accidentally” encountered and introduced himself to Hazmi and Mihdhar. He invited them to move to San Diego, found them an apartment, paid their first month’s rent, helped them open a bank account, and introduced them to members of the local Saudi community, including his close friend Osama Bassnan.
During the time Bayoumi was catering to the hijackers’ needs, his salary as a ghost employee of the aviation company got a 700 percent boost; it was cut when they left town. That was not his only source of extra funds: After Hazmi and Mihdhar arrived in San Diego, Bassnan’s wife began signing over to Bayoumi’s wife the checks she received from the wife of the Saudi ambassador in Washington. The total value reportedly came to nearly $150,000.
Jacobson also found evidence, noted but seemingly ignored by the bureau, that Hazmi had worked for a San Diego businessman who had himself been the subject of an FBI counterterrorism investigation. Even more amazingly, the two hijackers had been close with an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh. Hazmi had actually lived in his house after Mihdhar left town. Shaikh failed to mention his young Saudi friends’ last names in regular reports to his FBI case officer, or that they were taking flying lessons. Understandably, the investigators had a lot of questions for this man. Nevertheless, Mueller adamantly refused their demands to interview him, even when backed by a congressional subpoena, and removed Shaikh to an undisclosed location “for his own safety.” Today, Graham believes that Mueller was acting under orders from the White House.
Another intriguing document unearthed by the investigators in San Diego was a memo from July 2, 2002, discussing alleged financial connections between the September 11 hijackers, Saudi government officials, and members of the Saudi royal family. It stated that there was “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi Government.”
It's reasonable and should be possible to ask questions and sign petitions about these issues without being labeled a "911 truther." To paraphrase a statement mis-attributed to George Orwell:
In a time of hysteria seeking the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
jamie said:
At least Binney is helping us to understand the NSA's endgame:
The endgame of the National Security Agency is to obtain total information awareness on a global scale, NSA whistleblower and former technical director William Binney said on the Alex Jones Show Thursday.After being questioned on the larger plan of the national security state as a whole, Binney, who worked at the NSA for more than 36-years, revealed his belief that the agency’s goal of total population control would lead to the creation of a global surveillance apparatus.“Certainly it is population control, but not just of any given country – but of the world,” the whistleblower said. “And so what they’re after, and I think Obama has stated this from various points, that he wanted a ‘world community,’ so I think that’s probably what they’re after.”“And in order to do that they need to be able to control the people of the world. So in order to do that, you have to have knowledge of them to know who’s doing what so you can stop it, or manipulate it any way you want.”
Paul - are you on-board with his conclusion?
As Edward Snowden said, the NSA has been given the capability that in the wrong hands could create a "Turnkey Tyranny." Binney is describing what that means.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
jamie said:
So who's correct? Binney or Ritter? Did Russia invade Crimea or did Crimea want to rejoin Russia? Who's side do you take on download speed? VIPS hacking report has very little credibility. Why should Maddow waste her time on this?
-- Both Binney and Ritter reject the official hacking story. I'm neutral on the question of the download speed, I'm not ruling it out, but like Scott Ritter, I'm not relying on it.
-- Who denied that Russia took over Crimea (they didn't have to invade, they were already there under agreement with Ukraine).
-- You suggest that it's a waste of time to consider whether the CIA might be wrong in their "assessment" (which by their own admission is not a "proof"). I'm old enough to remember when a flawed CIA assessment led to hundreds of thousands killed and wounded and trillions of dollars wasted. But amnesia has led many -- like Rachel Maddow -- to promote the dangerous idea that questioning the CIA is dangerous.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:You remain unpersuaded, fine. Nevertheless, it is a rebuttal on the merits.
I posted that article when it came out and I've commented on it.
@jamie, I came across that video and was skimming through it just as you were linking to it. Key words: “controlled demolition.”
-- Yes, but there is no dissent within VIPS over the original memorandum, which dissents from the official assessment. And the two Ritter pieces posted earlier elaborate on that. Binney continues to uphold the first memorandum, and as I pointed out, his comments to Ed Shultz on RT describing what he said to Pompeo draw upon both memoranda.
-- Binney hasn't taken the position that there was "controlled demolition." He said on the video there are questions unanswered in the 911 report that should be investigated and he signed a petition to that effect. Should he be called a "911 Truther" on that basis?
-- By the way, Binney (with Ray McGovern) did a follow-up experiment to test transfer speeds to address the objections of the dissenters. But the analysis also emphasizes the original argument (in the OP) that if a hack occurred, the NSA has the proof.
Here it is, in full:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/20/more-holes-in-russia-gate-narrative/
More Holes in Russia-gate Narrative
September 20, 2017
Exclusive: New tests support the skepticism of U.S. intelligence veterans that Russia “hacked” the DNC’s computers, pointing instead to a download of emails by an insider, write ex-NSA official William Binney and ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
By William Binney and Ray McGovern
It is no secret that our July 24 VIPS Memorandum for the President, entitled “Was the ‘Russian Hack’ an Inside Job?,” gave rise to some questioning and controversy – nor was it a surprise that it was met with almost total silence in the mainstream media.
The ongoing U.S. media campaign against Russia has been so effective that otherwise intelligent people have been unable even to entertain the notion that they may have been totally misled by the intelligence community. The last time this happened in 2003, after a year of such propaganda, the U.S. attacked Iraq on fraudulent – not “mistaken” – intelligence.
Anticipating resistance from those allergic to rethinking “what everybody knows” about Russian “meddling,” we based our VIPS analysis on forensic investigations that, oddly, the FBI had bent over backwards to avoid. In other words, we relied on the principles of physics and the known capability of the Internet in early July 2016.
We stand by our main conclusion that the data from the intrusion of July 5, 2016, into the Democratic National Committee’s computers, an intrusion blamed on “Russian hacking,” was not a hack but rather a download/copy onto an external storage device by someone with physical access to the DNC.
That principal finding relied heavily on the speed with which the copy took place – a speed much faster than a hack over the Internet could have achieved at the time – or, it seems clear, even now. Challenged on that conclusion – often by those conducting experiments within the confines of a laboratory – we have conducted and documented additional tests to determine the speeds that can be achieved now, more than a year later.
To remind: We noted in the VIPS memo that on July 5, 2016, a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 megabytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
Recent Tests
Over the last few weeks, we ran three tests to determine how quickly data could be exfiltrated from the U.S. across the Atlantic to Europe.
–First, we used a 100 megabits-per-second (mbps) line to pull data from a one-gigabyte file to Amsterdam. The peak transfer speed was .8 MBps.
–Second, we used a commercial DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) to send the same one-gigabyte file to a commercial DSL in Amsterdam. The peak transfer speed was 1.8 MBps.
–Third, we pushed the same one-gigabyte file from a data center in New Jersey to a data center in the UK. The peak transfer speed was 12 MBps.
None of these attempts achieve anything close to the average rate of 22.7 megabytes per second evident in the July 5, 2016 download/copy associated with the DNC. In fact, this happens to be the speed typical of a transfer to a USB-2 external storage device. We do not think this pure coincidence; rather, it is additional evidence of a local download.
We are preparing further trans-Atlantic testing over the next few weeks.
Some researchers have noted that some partitioning of the data might have occurred in the U.S., allowing for a transfer to be made at the measured speed over the Internet, and that this could have made possible a hack from the other side of the Atlantic. One of our associate investigators has found a way to achieve this kind of data partitioning and later transfer.
In theory, this would be one possible way to achieve such a large-data transfer, but we have no evidence that anything like this actually occurred. More important, in such a scenario, the National Security Agency would have chapter and verse on it, because such a hack would have to include software to execute the partitioning and subsequent data transfer. NSA gives the highest priority to collection on “execution software.”
Must Americans, apparently including President Donald Trump, remain in a Russia-did-it-or-could-have-maybe-might-have-done-it subjunctive mood on this important issue – one that has been used to inject Cold War ice into relations with Russia? The answer is absolutely not. Rather, definitive answers are at hand.
How can we be so confident? Because NSA alumni now active in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) are intimately familiar with NSA’s capabilities and practice with respect to bulk capture and storage of fiber-optic communications. Two of us actually devised the systems still in use, and Edward Snowden’s revelations filled in remaining gaps. Today’s NSA is in position to clear up any and all questions about intrusions into the DNC.
In sum, we are certain that the truth of what actually happened – or didn’t happen – can be found in the databases of NSA. We tried to explain this to President Barack Obama in a VIPS Memorandum of Jan. 17, just three days before he left office, noting that NSA’s known programs are fully capable of capturing – and together with liaison intelligence services do capture – all electronic transfers of data.
Our Jan. 17 Memorandum included this admonition: “We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks.” … “If NSA cannot give you that information – and quickly – this would probably mean it does not have any.”
We also appealed to Obama in his final days in office to order the chiefs of the NSA, FBI and CIA to the White House and have them lay all their cards on the table about “Russian hacking,” and show him what tangible evidence they might have – not simply their “assessments.” We added, “We assume you would not wish to hobble your successor with charges that cannot withstand close scrutiny.” Having said this, we already were reaching the assumption that there was no real evidence to back the “assessments” up.
FBI: Not Leaning Forward
The FBI could still redeem itself by doing what it should have done as soon as the DNC claimed to have been “hacked.” For reasons best known to former FBI Director James Comey, the Bureau failed to get whatever warrant was needed to confiscate the DNC servers and computers to properly examine them.
In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee six months ago, Comey conceded “best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves.” And yet he chose not to. And his decision came amid frenzied charges by senior U.S. officials that Russia had committed “an act of war.”
But is it not already too late for such an investigation? We hope that, at this point, it is crystal clear that the answer is: No, it is not too late. All the data the FBI needs to do a proper job is in NSA databases – including data going across the Internet to the DNC server and then included in their network logs.
If President Trump wants to know the truth, he can order the FBI to do its job and NSA to cooperate. Whether the two and the CIA would obey such orders is an open question, given how heavily invested all three agencies are in their evidence-impoverished narrative about “Russian hacking.”
Let us close with the obvious. All three agencies have been aware all along that NSA has the data. One wonders why it should require a Presidential order for them to delve into that data and come up with conclusions based on fact, as opposed to “assessing.”
William Binney (williambinney0802@comcast.net) worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA. Ray McGovern (rrmcgovern@gmail.com) was a CIA analyst for 27 years; from 1981 to 1985 he briefed the President’s Daily Brief one-on-one to President Reagan’s most senior national security officials.
paulsurovell said:
-- Yes, but there is no dissent within VIPS over the original memorandum, which dissents from the official assessment. And the two Ritter pieces posted earlier elaborate on that. Binney continues to uphold the first memorandum, and as I pointed out, his comments to Ed Shultz on RT describing what he said to Pompeo draw upon both memoranda.
The original memo boils down to this: “The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods.” A rebuttal on those merits is as straightforward as: Easy for you to say.
ETA: You may counter that an even better rebuttal would be a release of the evidence. That’s true. Short of that, however, the other rebuttal still stands.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:The original memo boils down to this: “The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods.” A rebuttal on those merits is as straightforward as: Easy for you to say.
-- Yes, but there is no dissent within VIPS over the original memorandum, which dissents from the official assessment. And the two Ritter pieces posted earlier elaborate on that. Binney continues to uphold the first memorandum, and as I pointed out, his comments to Ed Shultz on RT describing what he said to Pompeo draw upon both memoranda.
And we've learned that a "say-so" is a bad basis for foreign policy.
paulsurovell said:
-- Binney hasn't taken the position that there was "controlled demolition." He said on the video there are questions unanswered in the 911 report that should be investigated and he signed a petition to that effect. Should he be called a "911 Truther" on that basis?
There are claims in this world that can be raised with questions about certain specifics but that we, individually or collectively, nevertheless deem beyond the pale. Holocaust denialism, for example. For you, Russian collusion is one such egregious claim. For many of us, it’s the idea that controlled demolition brought down the trade centers.
I am not convinced we know the full truth about alleged Russian collusion. Call me a Russian collusion Truther. Binney is, or was, not convinced we know the full truth about how the towers imploded. That makes him a 9/11 Truther.
paulsurovell said:
And we've learned that a "say-so" is a bad basis for foreign policy.
We the people, who weigh arguments and rebuttals on the merits and hold our government accountable accordingly, are not conducting foreign policy. Those who do conduct it are not basing it on a “say-so.”
jamie said:
Here's a decent article on VIPS, Binney, The Nation and Russian propaganda:
https://toinformistoinfluence.com/2017/08/15/vips-the-nation-all-russian-propaganda/
Paul - do you have faith in anyone else that makes regular appearances on Infowars?
I tried to research Infowars' guest list, but can't get beyond archives of the last week. But in the last week, these two guests appeared:
Marc Faber, who's a regular on CNBC
Gabe Hoffman, producer of this film
And as I mentioned earlier, Noam Chomsky did a lengthy interview with Jones. I don't know the date.
I think Jones is a madman and dangerous, but it doesn't follow that anyone appearing on his show is also irrational.
Looks like the Mueller investigation can conclude - Putin has cleared himself.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
And we've learned that a "say-so" is a bad basis for foreign policy.
We the people, who weigh arguments and rebuttals on the merits and hold our government accountable accordingly, are not conducting foreign policy. Those who do conduct it are not basing it on a “say-so.”
We the people cannot hold our government accountable on the basis of "trust us:"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hacking-election-intelligence.html
What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. That is a significant omission . . .
Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to “trust us.” There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow’s propaganda machinery.
And there's nothing in the public record that suggests that those conducting foreign policy are operating on anything more than trust. And this wouldn't be the first time in our history.
The "assessors" didn't even have access to the actual evidence--the server and computers. They were made to rely upon a commercial entity's description of what (part of) the evidence looked like.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
Oh, and like Alex Jones, Mr. Binney seems to be a 9/11 "truther" as well (or maybe just pals around with them).