FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Uncovered: The Rat's Nest of 9/11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 40, 41, 42  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:


Phil and Rumple -
I'm curious to know how you feel about AJ.

Do you think he's accurate?

On some issues. Not everything.
Quote:
Is he CIA 'fake'?

Not that I can tell. What would be the giveaways?
Quote:
Is he a misguided loudmouth?

At times.
Quote:
Do you use Jones as a reference to 'wake up' friends and co-workers?

Absolutely.

Sorry for the short answers, but I'm still a little intimidated here. I see you guys character assassinating someone, and so far the reasons aren't making a lot of sense to me.

In reference to the moylan post - there is no such thing as illuminati or secret societies? Bilderberg is an illusion, as is Bohemian Grove and Skull & Bones? I've heard Fintan mention Skull & Bones.

Is anyone on the same page here?

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
moylan



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me give my opinion on the "secret society" issue, and what I think Fintan is trying to say about Jones and others whom he has fingered as CIA fakes.

One danger is to allow the issue to concentrate around mystical cabals trying to take over the world because they share a fanatical conviction that certain numbers have cosmic significance. Anything that distracts us from the point that geo-politics is what is driving the actions of the G8 (by which I mean the political and intelligence elites of the Western powers) is intended as such. What is required in this discussion is both an analysis of both the actual pattern of events and their significance, and of their setting in a historical context. What is to be observed is a pattern of long-term planning, in which the major players may have changed their relationships to each other, but not their identities and aims.

So the secret societies issue is interesting, in that it enables us to glimpse some of the shared interests of those involved. For example, we see the WTO's Peter Sutherland and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson are both Bilderbergers. But these societies are subordinate to state interests: we are not talking about well-intentioned policies being "sabotaged" by the machinations of secret influences, but the manifestation in state policy of these interests.

Thus what assumes importance in detecting who is genuine on the matter of 9-11, 7-7 and other Psy-ops - I knew 9-11 was a Psy-op on the day it happened-
is the study of propaganda. The reason that Jones and others have been fingered as CIA fakes is not that it is being asserted they are consciously working for the CIA and that some proof could be obtained for this (which is Phil Howe's demand), but that they employ propaganda techniques. Propaganda is not about lying - no one is going to credit lies for long enough, not when important objectives are at stake. It is about constructing a picture that has enough plausibility to be accepted at face value: enough facts are seeded among the disinformation so that it passes muster on a superficial examination. But the overall picture is misleading, skewing perceptions and misdirecting analysis.

I've said enough about Jones to make the point; once you see what he's at, he can be ignored. Let me say that I'm not representing myself as above being fooled: knowing, intuitively, that 9-11 was staged, that skyscrapers just don't collapse like that, I was drawn first of all to quite a good article (not Fintan's), which admittedly raised more questions than it answered about the events, but was an honest attempt to address the official story. Then I was sidetracked into the Webfairy stuff and Alex Jones (on foot of the Newstalk broadcast I mentioned), until certain things stopped making sense. Why, for instance, did he keep going on about prison camps and totalitarianism, when the success of the American dream (pleasant though it is, it's just a dream), was that it offered the appearance of free speech and freedom, just as long as those things stayed away from upsetting the two-party consensus and the corporate-politicial system? Even George Bush knows better than that. Then I understood: Alex Jones is given such prominence because he's a fall guy, the jester of the 9-11 movement, who's being set up to take a tumble and discredit the whole thing, should a crisis develop and that particular backup plan need to be triggered.

I don't advocate taking what Fintan says at face value. What is important is to think for oneself, to free oneself from the human tendency to turn to leaders. The figures that Fintan has named are precisely that: leaders, like Kennedy, Al Gore, Martin Luther King, Ed Kennedy, who are built up as the great hope embodying all the hopes and expectations of those who are appalled by the stage villains in government. And then they are disposed of, and with them all those hopes and dreams, all opposition crushed and demoralised. If the opposition had developed its own independent analysis, subjecting this analysis to scrutiny at every turn, it would be harder to beat. Which is why, everywhere we turn, there are figureheads like Micheal Moore (see the neat little trick they played with Moore?), Ruppert, Sybil Edmonds, Jones, etc etc, defusing the need to think for oneself, offering comforting confirmations of what one has been conditioned through popular culture to expect (remember The X-Files?).

That, of course, is what the entertainment industry is: a lab for the development of newer, more effective Psy-op weapons. Cultural forms are designed, whether consciously or not, to confirm what one's conditioning has left one to expect. For fifty years, the US intelligence agencies have been revising the script, assessing the reactions of preview audiences, auditioning thousands of parts for the phenomenon that has taken America and the world by storm: "9-11: The Movie".

Sorry if I've rambled a bit. Mad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I enjoy rambling as long as I'm following it, it's in English and it's making sense. You're 3 for 3 in that one.

Everything you said seems plausible. However, I get the feeling you guys are directing these attitudes towards people who need to see 9/11 Truth icons in black or white. I don't visit the Alex Jones site and dive into the flouride and "the gov't is deliberately poisoning our fetuses with gamma rays" stuff. (Okay, I made that one up.) But he says some whacky stuff, and I ignore it. Likewise, ten-fold with David Icke.

The only turn off here to me is the somewhat self-righteous attitude I seem to be perceiving (did I dance around that carefully enough for ya?) Wink Kind of like, "Excuse me, but you're not being successful in what I hope is an attempt to not stand on my toe there, sir."

Let me ask you this - has it occurred to any of you here that maybe some of the craziness people like Icke and Jones espouse in their ramblings is simply a way to keep the bulls-eye off their skulls? A way to get 90% of their message across, yet appear just loony enough that they can be brushed aside by anyone who'd otherwise view them as "removable"?

I admire the balls of people like Fintan, who pulls no punches and tells it exactly as he sees it. But he certainly can be perceived as a dangerous man to some entities in the world's governments.

I don't need to be spoon-fed my propaganda, whether genuine or fake. I can decide what I think is useable and what is not, that's all. Along with that, I simply don't agree that the time is right for squabbling about details and who's got it 99% right - this information has to start coming out, in any form, and we can deal with the depth to which it's been revealed once people begin to accept the mere possibility. I believe you guys are outside the States, correct? I get the feeling you are unaware of just how little the Truth Movement is even noticed over here. I doubt there's 1% of the populace that's even aware that there is anything wrong with the government's story. Almost every week there is a Discovery Channel (I call it the Dis-Info-Covery Channel) special on how the towers burned to the ground, or made of for TV movie about Flight 93, or Larry King tonight is doing some of his shill horseshit, etc. It's WAY below the radar. We need momentum, and to me, arguing about who has 100% of their facts straight is just an unintentional delay tactic.

Anyway, thanks for the rant, it was great. I'm keeping that one for reference.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

moylan wrote:

That, of course, is what the entertainment industry is: a lab for the development of newer, more effective Psy-op weapons. Cultural forms are designed, whether consciously or not, to confirm what one's conditioning has left one to expect. For fifty years, the US intelligence agencies have been revising the script, assessing the reactions of preview audiences, auditioning thousands of parts for the phenomenon that has taken America and the world by storm: "9-11: The Movie".

Sorry if I've rambled a bit.


Dude, ramble on. I enjoy your descriptions, especially that last paragraph. I'm always interested in other folks' views on the media and it's political 'functions'.
Rumpl4skn wrote:

Quote:

Do you use Jones as a reference to 'wake up' friends and co-workers?


Absolutely.


Well then, here's where we have a difference of experience which is better for discussion than differing opinions. Still in shock, I too found myself lured by the conspiritorial magnetism of Alex, and in my own hyperactive, 'oh my god I can't believe this is happening' kind of way used his site and materials to 'wake up' those I cared about.

Not a single one of em bought it. Once they got to Bohemian Grove and chemtrails or AJ bursting into tears over the impending armageddon, nuking iran, hanging onto our guns, and constant ranting about beating off in coffins, death cults from germany, satanic baby killin' rituals, nationwide pedophile kidnapping rings, or the owl, the owl, everywhere the owl, they smiled, patted me on the shoulder, and in their best 'tsk tsk' voice told me some folks believed the moon was made of green cheese.

When I tried to go back and say, "Hey, ok, some of this is crap, but look buildings just don't fall down...", all I got was more 'tsk tsk', and a copy of popular mechanics, or quotes from the Urban Legends website. I couldn't get through to them anymore - the more I tried, the more worried they became for my mental stability, and suggested I find some other hobbies, or stay off the computer for a while. How, they asked, could this lunatic preacher have stolen my ability to enjoy life?

Now, there's like a plane crash with no fucking plane and three completely controlled demolitions, and I'm the one who needs a reality check. How the hell did that happen?

I felt burned. I felt had. I felt stupid. I felt that I had lost the ear of people I loved. That fucking hurt.

That's my beef with AJ. His work, and the related materials he distributes had a disasterous effect on my personal 'truth movement'. Your mileage may vary - I certainly hope it does.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ozregeneration



Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Location: Big Island Down Under

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:
- the more I tried, the more worried they became for my mental stability, and suggested I find some other hobbies, or stay off the computer for a while.......Now, there's like a plane crash with no fucking plane and three completely controlled demolitions, and I'm the one who needs a reality check. How the hell did that happen?

I felt burned. I felt had. I felt stupid. I felt that I had lost the ear of people I loved. That fucking hurt.


Hey Jerry,

I would say that would be a common experience (to varying degrees) for all of us. It certainly kicked me around initially. Now life is a lot simpler, I only drop one liners of info to people whom I think may be interested/open. If they don't respond or are negative towards it I may persue it a little longer. Sometimes it gets deeper, other times not. I care not which way the conversation goes now days. Each to their own reality I say.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:

Rumpl4skn wrote:

Quote:

Do you use Jones as a reference to 'wake up' friends and co-workers?


Absolutely.


Well then, here's where we have a difference of experience which is better for discussion than differing opinions. Still in shock, I too found myself lured by the conspiritorial magnetism of Alex, and in my own hyperactive, 'oh my god I can't believe this is happening' kind of way used his site and materials to 'wake up' those I cared about.

The question wasn't "is Alex Jones your sole resource for waking people up?" Of course it isn't. There are segments of his website I'd never point to.

No, anyone who depends on AJ's complete works is as nuts as he is. But he certainly introduced me to shit I hadn't seen anywhere. I don't go for the owl, or the significance of numerical bullshit, or the stuff about chemtrails and chemicals in our water to make us sterile, or whatever it is.

But the man has guts and he's not afraid of anyone. That in itself makes him worthy of my respect. But you're right - when I see a story and the only reference is InfoWars or prisonplanet, I'll admit, I try to find another one, or at least a second one.

But are we so fragile in our belief system and arguments that one guy's slightly extreme website can bring it down faster than a steel structure on 9/11? Mine isn't.

I don't see enough damaging material there to label him useless, as I see being done here. And I can use all the sources I can find right now.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7471

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:40 pm    Post subject: 9/11 Rats Pt2: Scooter, Reggie & the Birds of a Feather Reply with quote




The Rat's Nest of 9/11: Part 2
'Scooter,' Reggie & the Birds of a Feather


In the CIA Internet Fakes, released 4th August, 2005, we outed
a host of websites --either controlled by the CIA/FBI/KGB/ETC,
or hopelessly compromised by willingly gushing out heaps of Intel-
designed 9/11 Tabloid Crud. Then, in 9/11 Rats Nest: Part 1
we identified the people trying so hard to fool you.

Now, let's see how the same crew of CIA Fakes have staged
'PlameGate,' and other pivotal CIA-managed operations.


by Fintan Dunne, BreakForNews.com 14 Feb, 2006
URL: http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=454#454

Some of this ground, I have covered before, as you will see if you follow
the key hyperlinks. But developments in the Scooter Libby's 'PlameGate'
case mean that an overview of events is going to be very informative.

It's going to show you how the CIA Fakes are singing dumb on the most
blatant piece of political engineering since... well, since WaterGate!

The CIA Fakes are careful never to clue you in to the really key 'Ops.'
God forbid you should figure out what is really going on. And it doesn't
take the wisdom of Solomon to discern it. As you will see.

Speaking of Solomon, and as a good starting point, consider this article
from Norman Solomon on the usually, rather unsurprising AlterNet.

Can you read between these lines? This is about as close as anyone
besides yours truly has come to outing Judith Miller as a CIA agent.

Here's goes Norman Solomon, sailing as close to the wind as the
mainstream allows, in this commentary on PlameGate:

Quote:
Judith Miller, the Fourth Estate and the Warfare State
By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. October 17, 2005.

During the propaganda buildup for the invasion of Iraq, Judith Miller and the New York Times served as a key asset of the warfare state.

Judith Miller is a reporter for the New York Times. After the invasion, on assignment to cover a U.S. military unit as it searches for WMDs in Iraq, she's given "clearance" by the Pentagon "to see secret information" -- which she "was not permitted to discuss" with Times editors.

"There's nothing wrong with this picture if Judith Miller is an intelligence operative for the U.S. government. But if she's supposed to be a journalist, this is a preposterous situation..."
http://alternet.org/columnists/story/26947/

Well! If that isn't dropping a big hint that Miller is one of the legion of CIA
hacks spattered across mainstream and alternative media, then Solomon
must be just exercising his writing talent to uselessly pad out sentences.

I've been saying since early Fall 2005, that the Plame affair is a contrived
scandal. Just as 'MonicaGate'' was. Just as WaterGate was.

All these are CIA/Establishment constructions to keep the masses amused
and befuddled, while arranging political earthquakes which signal planned
shifts in the landscape of the monotonous, two-in-one-party US political
monopoly. And the more it changes, the more it stays the same.

And if even Solomon can point to the tip of that iceberg, then surely that
begs the question of why we are so vocal about the rest of the iceberg --
while the CIA Fakes are buzy singing dumb.

Because this is much bigger than just Judith Miller. (Who only did jail time
because that was necessary to give legs to the PlameGate scandal. All part
of the carefull coreography of this well-managed "scandal.")


SEE NO EVIL

First they promised the Democratic heartland the head of George Bush.
It never happened. Kerry's deep roots in the D.C. establishment saw to that.

Then it was Karl Rove's head which was dangled as bait to keep the left
clinging to the delusion of real politics. But GannonGate never paid off.

Now it is Dick Cheney's head which is the latest lure. That prospect has
always been the subtext of the PlameGate issue. It won't happen.

But that must never be even hinted at by the left's disinformation crew.
To illustrate, here's some calculated spinning by Justin Raimondo, who
clearly buys all this BS - or appears to anyway:

Quote:
"Before Fitzgerald is done, we'll see the warlords of Washington hauled before a court of the people. We'll hear the whole sordid story of how a band of exiles, at least two foreign intelligence agencies, and a cabal of neoconservatives inside the Pentagon and the vice president's office bamboozled Congress and the American people into going to war."
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7681

Note the persistent "Blame it on the Neocons" angle. They "bamboozled
Congress," you see. Their tail wagged the world superpower dog.

( According to this prefabricated "fall-guys" routine, the invasion of Iraq and
the preceeding mass-murder on the 9/11, were NOT the bright idea of the
Washington Establishment and their G8 henchmen. They are peace-loving
diplomats who were simply fooled by the nasty neocons. ROTFLMAO! )

The latest Plamegate developments are being hyped by the left media, as
if the heads of both Libby and of Cheney are already on the block -
awaiting the coup-de-grace.

Forget it. Try this level-headed assesment from one mainstream reporter
who can see exactly why Libby is going to walk -despite the hype:

Quote:
Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information

By Murray Waas, National Journal, Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006
National Journal Group Inc.

...The new information indicates that Libby is likely to pursue a defense during his trial that he was broadly "authorized" by Cheney and other "superiors" to defend the Bush administration in making the case to go to war. Libby does not, however, appear to be claiming that he was acting specifically on Cheney's behalf in disclosing information about Plame to the press.

Libby's legal strategy in asserting that Cheney and other Bush administration officials authorized activities related to the underlying allegations of criminal conduct leveled against him, without approving of or encouraging him to engage in the specific misconduct, is reminiscent of the defense strategy used by Oliver North, who was a National Security Council official in the Reagan administration.....

If Libby's defense adopts strategies used by North, it might be in part because the strategies largely worked for North and in part because Libby's defense team has quietly retained John D. Cline, who was a defense attorney for North....

Among his detractors, Cline is what is known as a "graymail" specialist-an attorney who, critics say, purposely makes onerous demands on the federal government to disclose classified information in the course of defending his clients, in an effort to force the government to dismiss the charges....

In the Libby case, Cline has frustrated prosecutors by demanding, as part of pretrial discovery, more than 10 months of the President's Daily Brief, or PDBs, the president's morning intelligence briefing....

In the North case, the Iran-Contra independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh, was forced to dismiss many of the central charges against North, ..... because intelligence agencies and the Reagan administration refused to declassify documents necessary for a trial on those charges.

"It was a backdoor way of shutting us down," said one former Iran-Contra prosecutor.... "It was a cover-up by means of an administrative action, and it was an effective cover-up at that."

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm

Quote:
Stop Press: Libby Lawyer Launches "Greymail" Bid
Fri, Feb. 17, 2006 ...In arguments filed late Thursday, Fitzgerald said Libby's lawyers were trying to derail the perjury and obstruction case by pressing for nearly a year's worth of presidential daily briefs... Fitzgerald accused Libby of attempting to commit "greymail,"... On Friday, Libby attorney John Cline denied that the defense was trying to derail the case. "We are working lawfully and properly ... to obtain documents essential to Mr. Libby's defense," he said.
http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=490&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

So there you have it. Would the Bush Administration sink the Libby case
by refusing to declassify? In an instant.

Especially if they knew the judge in the case would play ball and dismiss.

And would he? Don't make me laugh more. It hurts too much.

He is sitting on the case, by arrangement, precisely so that he
can dismiss using the ol' tried and trusted 'North Gambit.'

Because that's always been the gameplan. The Libby case is a fake.
Note that Judge Reggie Walton is presiding over the Libby case.

And so, ponder the implications of this:


Walton was appointed to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by
President Reagan from 1981 to 1989. And by President George
H. W. Bush
from 1991 to 2001.

He was nominated as a United States District Judge for the District of
Columbia on October 29, 2001, by President George W. Bush Link

Grab a load of that, and get your bets down with the bookies.

And it gets worse. Far worse.


GOODNIGHT JON BOY

Reggie Walton is the judge who handled the Stephen Hatfill anthrax case.
In March, 2004, Walton granted the FBI's request to postpone Hatfill's
defamation suit, claiming that the investigation was in a sensitive phase.
Which is a bit of a sick joke, as the FBI's investigation has always
been in a "sensitive" phase. Just like all other government Ops.

And it was Walton who upheld the government's right to state secrets in
the Sibel Edmonds case! Another contrived 'scandal' which went nowhere.

Does this guy turn up in all the right places, or what? When the Establishment
run these kind of Ops, they need a judge who is a safe pair of hands.
Or to put it another way: they need a judge who is in on it.

But, now you are in on it too.

But this is not just about Walton. Not by a long shot. He's just one player.

Already, there is enough here that, even in their own terms, the CIA Fakes
should be sounding alarm bells about Walton's presence in the Libby
case --rather than blindly cheerleading the chances of Cheney's and
Libby's downfall.

The reason they are not being up front, is that you are suppposed to be
sucked into yet another fruitless substitute for effective political opposition
to the Washington elite and their international corporate buddies.

And the Fakes' job is to make sure you are.

But they are not the only ones on the job. And there are other jobs too.
Nobody is drawing out the barely hidden links. But we are.


RAT'S NEST 2

Here are the links nobody wants to highlight, because they give the game(s) away.

Patrick Fitzgerald, who is prosecuting Libby, handled the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Another, shall
we say, "sensitive" case.

And if you accept our proposition that the Neocons are programmed fall guys,
then you might deem it significant that it is Fitzgerald who spearheaded
the downfall of Lord Conrad Black from his chairmanship of the
Neocon-ridden Hollinger Group - of which Richard Perle is a director.

Like Walton, Fitzgerald pops up in all the right places.

But, again this is not just about those two political hacks. Let's plow on.

Representing Sibel Edmonds in that "State Secrets" gag order case
presided over by Walton was long-time, legal hack for disgrunled CIA
officers -Mark Zaid. If you are on the outs with the Agency, then Zaid is
your man.

On the other hand, if you are pretending to be on the outs with the CIA,
Mark is definitely your man.

In the case of such tried-and-trusted ploys for establishing some flimsy
street cred as an "opponent" of the CIA, the last thing you, or the agency
need is a lawyer who might take the whole thing too seriously and actually
expose things the Agency might not want you to think you had "found out"
anyway (-as part of the deception).

Much better to have a pet lawyer, who can huff and puff with the best of them
but blow nobody's house down in the process. And what better cover to
use to pose as a whistleblower than to be conveniently silenced by the
government -with the help of a CIA lawyer and a Bush judge.

Sibel would love to spill the beans on Mohammed Atta. Really, she would!
But unfortunately she can't. Go figure.

Here's Zaid, commenting on the gag order Walton imposed on Edmonds:

Quote:
FBI Whistleblower Edmonds Files New Lawsuit - March 17, 2005
"The FBI has done nothing but cover up its own incompetence and wrongdoing throughout its efforts to unconscionably
and unlawfully silence Ms. Edmonds through excessive secrecy," said Mark S. Zaid.
http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=5233

Zaid is getting good at those kind of comments. He gets practice, you see.

Because the exact same MO applies in another high-profile case he is handling.

Here's Zaid again:

Quote:
National Security Watch: Disquieted whistle-blowers
By Kevin Whitelaw 10/11/05

One of the biggest names of the conference never even uttered a word. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer is the military intelligence operative who recently went public with a controversial claim that a year before September 11, his top-secret task force "Able Danger" was able to identify the man who later turned out to be the lead hijacker as being connected to al Qaeda.

"Tony is not allowed to talk," Zaid said. "He is effectively gagged from talking. He is gagged from talking to Congress."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051011/11natsec.htm

Like Sibel, Tony Schaffer would love to spill the beans on Mohammed Atta.
Really, he would! But unfortunately he can't. Go figure.

How many more want to tell us all about Atta, but are gagged?

And will Mark Zaid represent then all? Maybe his yellow pages
advertizing should read "Atta Gag Orders a Speciaity."

Maybe that should read "Atta Gag Orders an Assignment."


...AND IF IT QUACKS LIKE A DUCK....

Let's step back and take another look at the way a far too cosy crew keep
popping up in these related issues.

1993 WTC Bombing
Partick Fitzgerald prosecuting Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.

Neocon Black
Partick Fitzgerald prosecuting Conrad Black.

Neocon Libby
Partick Fitzgerald prosecuting 'Scooter' Libby.
Reggie Walton as presiding judge.

9/11 Anthrax
Reggie Walton as Hatfill case presiding judge.

9/11 Mohammed Atta / FBI
Mark Zaid representing Sibel Edmonds.
Reggie Walton as presiding judge.

9/11 Mohammed Atta / Pentagon
Mark Zaid representing Tony Shaffer.

Now, let me put it to you that all these are either sensitive cases the
government wants handled the right way, or intelligence operations the
Agency wants handled the right way -or the intersection of the two.

Let me put it to you that the people involved in the intelligence operations
are run/employed by the CIA. A cozy crew, who can run a tight ship.

Let me put it to you that if PlameGate is a contrived scandal, then Valerie
Plame is not the only CIA agent involved. Outsiders do NOT get to play a
part in such high-level Ops. Who knows what a real journalist might do.
Or a real prosecutor or judge, for that matter. PlameGate is stacked with
players who each know exactly what to do, and when.

Let me put it to you that top-quality agents with good street/media cred
don't grow on trees. And so, for key moves you reuse the same personnel
and simply rely on the Fake alternative media to fail to draw attention to
the fact the same players keep coming up.

Like birds of a feather, they stick together.

Finally, let me put it to you that the failure of any other reporter to detail
these links to you is clear confirmation of our warning in August of last year
that the CIA are deeply entrenched in the alternative and 'conspiracy' media,
and they effectively run the 9/11 movement.

Enough already. I have laid the facts out clearly.
Take a leaf out of Reggie Walton's book...

Now, you be the Judge.


Quote:
See Also:
CIA Internet Fakes
9/11 Rats Nest: Part 1


References & Reading
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2775
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/02/weldon.supboena/
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/27181.htm
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/26/ldt.01.html
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:yF0pUXJD0X0J:www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/able_danger_sep05_zaid.htm+Mark+Zaid+Anthony+Shaffer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/171kvqlt.asp?pg=1
http://www.nswbc.org/members_bios.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=2641_0_1_0_C
http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=175
http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=203
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051011/11natsec.htm
http://alternet.org/columnists/story/26947/
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7681
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:D-eGxMpm-PkJ:www.dcd.uscourts.gov/walton-bio.html


Last edited by Fintan on Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:49 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
heiho1



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

General Lee wrote:

Fintan why do you say Haupt personally invented LIHOP/MIHOP? I heard everyone talking about that especially you. Why shy away from it now?


I have heard Nico say this in person a few times. I live in the NYC area and I know that Nico and many other 9/11 researchers agree that Nico created the LIHOP/MIHOP divide. The jury is still out on whether or not that divide is at all *beneficial* to the movement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
General Lee



Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 18
Location: California

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LIHOP and MIHOP = Same thing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
General Lee



Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 18
Location: California

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A real 9/11 fake?

"I don't do espionage." --Joseph Wilson

Joseph Wilson admits it was an operation to out his wife. An op for what though? Wilson talks all about 9/11, and the evils of al-Qaeda. Wilson gets more media coverage and scholarly coverage than those on the "CIA fakes list".

http://bingbong.biz/wilson-plame.mp3

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/media/cwh/ucb_wilson.mp3




Got yellow cake?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First off, Fintan - thanks more than I can say for the info and insight. I consider you an invaluable resource here.

Secondly - the only thing I take umbrage with in your rants is this seeming notion that anyone who doesn't comform exactly to your takes on 9/11 is "CIA."

If I may take an extreme example to make a silly point - there are hundreds of million here in the U.S. that don't see anything wrong with the official story. I guarantee they're not all "CIA." They're either uninformed or misinformed, or just stupid (or GOP rednecks).

I just don't see this issue as black and white as you do. There are many grays, and I'm not talking Roswell.

I do think your political analysis is right on, as I said before. I'm a life-long Democrat, but I firmly believe John Kerry kept totally silent about the vote fraud simply because he used the same Diebold machinery to remove Howard Dean from the primaries after Iowa. And yes, Hillary is as globalist as Bill, and totally tee'd up for the Oval Office. If I could find a good bookmaker in Vegas taking odds on the '08 election, I'd put everything I had on her right now.

You don't seem to answer direct questions here on the blog, but I'll ask one again anyway: how is it possible for someone who's trying to uncover the truth about the building implosions on 9/11 to be "working the other side", i.e. shilling for the G8 or the U.S. intel or the globalists or whatever? Isn't this information critical to be kept underground?

Any response will be appreciated.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 718

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:46 pm    Post subject: A different Point of View Reply with quote

OK, rumpl4skn, let me make an attempt to take on your comments. BTW your nick is crass and funny. This gives me permission to make a crude analogy in hope of allowing you some time to rephrase your main question. Let me first say that I doubt Fintan will endorse my analogy but, here it goes.

No joke, I think its great that you are a discerning listener/reader of alternative news! With that said, we are now on the scoreboard discerning listener 1, sheeple 1,000,000. Now lets look at the alternative media from the point of view of the sheeple. From their somewhat lazy point of view, this whole mess is a mixture of unsubstantiated conspiracy and goofy page 6 stories. How much fluff do you have to wade through to get some useful facts? Cant they just get that from the hypno-tube? And dont get me wrong, there are plenty of facts to be found, you just have to search for em.

Picture the alternative media as a very large pile of steaming dog shit. Somewhere buried in the pile is a Tic Tac breath mint. How many times are you willing to stick your face in the pile hoping to come out with fresh breath??

If the source of information presents his/her facts in the above manner, who is being served by that? Surely not the sheeple, so these sources might as well be part of the organized MIC subversive, disinfo process. And sadly regarding the 911 story, all we really can prove is that the governments story is another large pile of steaming dog shit (with another hidden Tic Tak, etc.).

I think Fintan has posed a VERY important question, who is in this thing for the truth, universal or individual, and who is contributing to the ever increasing pile of steaming dog shit. Your guess is as good as mine

One more point I forgot to make is, because these hacks have painted us into an information corner, with their relentless nonsense, we are forced to hold ourselves up to a much higher level of scrutiny. Forgiveness is not easily given to our past, present and future mistakes.

- Hawk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 40, 41, 42  Next
Page 13 of 42

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.